Advertisement

Learning from experts: fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process

  • Grietjie Haupt
Article

Abstract

Empirical evidence on the way in which expert designers from different domains cognitively connect their internal processes with external resources is presented in the context of an extended cognition model. The article focuses briefly on the main trends in the extended design cognition theory and in particular on recent trends in information processing and embodiment theory. The aim of the paper is to reflect on the implications of an understanding of expert design cognition as an extended system, which can account for complexity and non-linearity in design thinking and problem-solving, for technology and design education. This is achieved by showing the relevance of the cross-correlations and the dynamics involved at the intersection of cognitive phases, intention-driven decision making and embodiment principles of experts for novice education in technology and design. It is argued that twentieth century one-sided approaches to design education no longer adequately serve the needs of the twenty first century. It is further argued that a combined information-processing + embodiment approach may be the answer. The article presents salient results of a case study using think-aloud-protocol studies in a quasi-experimental format that was used as it has proven to be a central instrument yielding scientific data in the cognitive science paradigm. Results suggested extended design environments may be particularly well-suited to the mediation of design thinking. Finally, based on these results, the article examines how educators can exploit the combined approach to advance the making of connections between the inner and outer world in design education.

Keywords

Design cognition Expert Extended cognition Early phases Information processes Embodiment 

References

  1. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barak, M., & Hacker, M. (2011). Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (Vol. 6). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickhard, M. H. (2008). Is embodiment necessary? In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  4. Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandsford, D., Brown, A., & Cocking, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (Expanded ed.). Washington: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clancey, W. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representation Cambridge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Coolican, R. (1999). Research methods and statistics in psychology (3rd ed.). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  11. Cross, N. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modelling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30(4), 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.Google Scholar
  14. de Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology. An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. (Vol. 27). Dordrecth: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. de Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Pelgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  16. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The search for general abilities and basic capacities: Theoretical implications from the modifiability and complexity of mechanisms mediating expert performances. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies and expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In K. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data (Revised edition ed.). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knoweldge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gero, J. S. (1999). Constructive Memory in Design Thinking. Paper presented at the design thinking research symposium: Design representation, Cambridge. MA.Google Scholar
  21. Gero, J. S., & McNeill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 21(3), 21–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibbs, J. R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to perception. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information-processing theory: The design problem space. AI Magazine, 10(1), 18–36.Google Scholar
  26. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Golonka, S., & Wilson, A. (2012). Gibson’s ecological approach—a model for the benefits of a theory driven psychology. AVANT, 3(2), 40–53.Google Scholar
  28. Haupt, G. (2013). The cognitive dynamics of socio-technological thinking in the early phases of expert designers’ design process. (PhD), University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  29. Ho, C.-H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kearsley, G. (1998). Explorations in learning & instruction: The theory into practice database: Gestalt theory. Retrieved January 2004, 2004, from http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/wertheim.html
  31. Kilgour, A. M. (2006). The creative process: The effects of domain specific knowledge and creative thinking techniques on creativity. Waikato: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Lee, H. S., & Park, J. A. (2007). An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity: Limited commitment mode control strategy. Design Studies, 28(6), 585–604.Google Scholar
  33. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kirsh, D. (2009). Problem solving and situation cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  36. Liikkanen, L. A. (2009). Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Design Studies, 30(1), 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 168–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marsh, L., & Drayson, Z. (2010). Extended cognition and the metaphysics of mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Natarajan, C. (2007). Culture and technology education. In M. De Vries, R. L. Custer, J. R. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), Analyzing best practices in technology education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Oxman, R. (2002). The thinking eye: Visual re-cognition in design emergence. Design Studies, 23(2), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. London: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petrina, S., Feng, F., & Kim, J. (2008). Researching cognition and technology: How we learn across the lifespan. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(4), 376–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Popovic, V. (2004). Expertise development in product design—strategic and domain-specific knowledge connections. Design Studies, 25, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgements and optimality. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Richardson, M. H., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2008). Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied–embedded approach to behavior. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  48. Savin-Baden, M. (2007). Challenging PBL models and perspectives. In E. de Graaf & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Management of change: Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Shani, I. (2012). Making it mental: In search for the golden mean of the extended cognition controversy. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, September 26.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Expertise, competence, and creative ability: The perplexing complexities. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25, 278–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (2013). Cognitive flexibility, constructivistm and hypertext: Rondom access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. S. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction. Lawrence Earlbaum: Hillside, N.J.Google Scholar
  56. Stables, K. (1997). Critical Issues to Consider When Introducing Technology Education into the Curriculum of Young Learners. Journal of Technology Education. Retrieved 2, 8, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v8n2/stables.jte-v8n2.html.
  57. Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19(4), 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). how do designers shift their focus of attention in their own sketches?, 8. www.psych.stanford.edu/~bt/…/SuwaTversky.DRII.Word.doc1.pdf
  59. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Terzidis, K. (2007). The etymology of design: Pre-socratic perspective. Design Issues, 23(4), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  62. Visser, W. (2004). Dynamic aspects of design cognition: Elements for a cognitive model of design (pp. 1–116). Rocquencourt: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique en Automatique.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology EducationUniversity of PretoriaHillcrestSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations