Problem-based learning has long been a cornerstone of higher education, particularly in scientific disciplines such as Chemistry, where analytical thinking and evidence-based decision-making are fundamental. In this context, Design Thinking emerges as a powerful and innovative methodology that allows students to approach complex scientific challenges from a creative, empathetic, and user-centered perspective.

This study presents the implementation of Design Thinking in Basic Laboratory Operations II, a first-year course in the Chemistry degree program at the University of Alicante (Spain). The primary objective was to transform traditional bibliographic assignments into real-world contextualized challenges, enabling students to actively engage in problem identification and resolution. Rather than working on predefined tasks, students were encouraged to explore open-ended scenarios inspired by industrial or environmental contexts, in which they had to determine which chemical variables to analyze and justify their relevance. This process placed students in an active, investigative role, stimulating their critical thinking, autonomy, and scientific communication skills.

The methodology followed the five phases of Design Thinking: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Evaluate. In the Empathize phase, students received realistic case scenarios instead of a specific problem to solve. In Define, they worked in teams to interpret the context, identify the analytical need, and clearly formulate the problem. In the Ideate phase, students researched suitable analytical methods to address the identified need. They then Prototyped an experimental protocol, including the selection of reagents, materials, and instrumental techniques. Finally, in the Evaluate phase, students submitted their proposals as a written report and gave oral presentations defending their methodological decisions and comparing alternatives.

The evaluation of the activity included rubrics assessing teamwork, scientific rigor, and communication effectiveness, alongside a student perception survey. The results revealed a significant improvement in students' analytical and synthesis skills, communication abilities, and overall motivation. Compared to previous cohorts using more traditional approaches, students showed greater autonomy, initiative, and deeper engagement with the learning process. Over 85% of the students reported that the methodology was useful and enriching, and 90% acknowledged developing new competencies related to critical thinking and collaborative work.

In conclusion, integrating Design Thinking into Chemistry education proved to be an effective and scalable strategy to promote active learning, student empowerment, and innovation in teaching practice. The success of this experience supports the potential for broader implementation of DT across other Chemistry courses and STEM-related disciplines, aligning university education with the demands of modern scientific and technological environments.

Keywords: Design Thinking, Chemistry, Problem Solving, Innovation, Active Learning.