Advertisement

Making explicit in design education: generic elements in the design process

  • Elise van Dooren
  • Els Boshuizen
  • Jeroen van Merriënboer
  • Thijs Asselbergs
  • Machiel van Dorst
Article

Abstract

In general, designing is conceived as a complex, personal, creative and open-ended skill. Performing a well-developed skill is mainly an implicit activity. In teaching, however, it is essential to make explicit. Learning a complex skill like designing is a matter of doing and becoming aware how to do it. For teachers and students therefore, it will be helpful to make the design process explicit. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed to be more explicit about the design process. Based on research of the design process, on differences between novices and expert designers, and on personal experience in design education practice, five generic elements in the design process are distinguished: (1) experimenting or exploring and deciding, (2) guiding theme or qualities, (3) domains, (4) frame of reference or library, (5) laboratory or (visual) language. These elements are generic in the sense that they are main aspects and always present in the complex, personal, creative and open-ended design process.

Keywords

Design process Generic elements Design education Making explicit 

References

  1. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atman, C. J., & Turns, J. (2001). Studying engineering design learning: Four verbal protocol studies. In C. Eastman, M. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 37–60). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielefeld, B., & El Khouli, S. (2007). Design ideas. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.Google Scholar
  4. Boden, M. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London UK: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition; Results from protocol and other empirical studies on design activity. In C. Eastman, M. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–104). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cross, N. G. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine, the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eastman, C., Newstetter, M., & McCracken, M. (Eds.). (2001). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Oxford UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  11. Goldhoorn, B. (1991). Het atelier, analyse van een onderwijsmethode. Archis, 3, 49–51.Google Scholar
  12. Keysers, C. (2012). Het empathische brein. Amsterdam: uitgeverij Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
  13. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiental learning: Experience as the Source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Lawson, B. (1994). Design in mind. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think, the design process demystified. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  18. Logister, L. (2005). John Dewey, een inleiding tot zijn filosofie. Budel: Uitgeverij Damon.Google Scholar
  19. Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In C. Eastman, M. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 63–77). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oxman, R. (2001). The mind in design: A conceptual framework for cognition in design education. In C. Eastman, M. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 269–295). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The thinking hand. Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional design theories and models. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Ryle, G. (2002). The concept of mind. Chigaco: The University of Chicago Press (originally 1949, London).Google Scholar
  24. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books.Google Scholar
  25. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio, an exploration of its traditions & potential. London: RIBA publications Limited.Google Scholar
  26. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elise van Dooren
    • 1
  • Els Boshuizen
    • 2
  • Jeroen van Merriënboer
    • 3
  • Thijs Asselbergs
    • 1
  • Machiel van Dorst
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Open UniversiteitHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Educational Development and ResearchMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations