Architectural education is one of the most complex forms of education, as it does not rely on predetermined answers; instead, students are expected to propose unique and appropriate solutions through their own creativity. Adopting an appropriate design methodology to clarify the design process is among the most critical factors that enhance students’ design quality in architectural studios. Various techniques have emerged worldwide to foster creativity, and their application as design approaches can significantly contribute to the effectiveness of architectural education studios. Among these, the TRIZ theory and the critical thinking approach have proven to be effective architectural design methodologies in the context of architectural education. This study examines and compares these two perspectives, analyzing the results of architectural education through the lens of each. The research employs a descriptive–analytical approach, with data collected through library studies using relevant books, scholarly articles, and documentary data, complemented by the Delphi technique. To this end, in-depth interviews were conducted with professors and experts. Sampling was conducted using the snowball technique, and the study reached a total of 20 interviews, determined by theoretical saturation. Findings indicate that the design process differs significantly depending on which of these two approaches is applied. From the 17 criteria extracted through document analysis and the Delphi study, several similarities and differences emerged. Among the most prominent differences are the approaches to problem definition, assessment methods, and evaluation criteria. A noteworthy point is the substantial influence of the student’s personality in determining which method they can engage with most effectively.
