Advertisement

Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving

  • Grietjie HauptEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper builds on two concepts, the first of which is the extended information processing model of expert design cognition. This proposes twelve internal psychological characteristics interacting with the external world of expert designers during the early phases of the design process. Here, I explore one of the characteristics, hierarchical abstraction, and adapt it into an alternative ontological model of decision making. The model serves as an in-depth descriptor of how designers from different domains transform their mental states using judgment and decision making through hierarchical abstraction. The second concept entails an expansion of the idea of synergistic vertical transformation as a framework for mapping expert designers’ design process. Here, I focus on hierarchical decision making as multi-directional, and inter-relating the internal and external world of designers. In doing so, I provide a coding tool for researchers interested in exploring designers’ complex decision making processes. Concurrently, the model serves as decision making tool in design and technology education classrooms. As such, the paper focuses on the ontology of conceptual structures that support the early phases of the design process. This was based on empirical research.

Keywords

Design cognition Decision making Hierarchical thinking 4-Level decision making tool Problem solving Intentions Multi-directional transformation 

References

  1. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, W. S. (1973). Learning to discover rules by discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basden, A. (2000). The aspectual framework of meaning. Retrieved from The Dooyeweerd Pages website. http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/contact.html.
  4. Brandstatter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J. T., & Frese, M. (2003). Goals need implementation intentions: The model of action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buzan, T. (2005). Mind map handbook. London: Thorsons.Google Scholar
  6. Cascetta, E. (2001). Transportation systems engineering: Theory and methods. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  8. Conlan, T. (2006). Formative assessment of classroom concept maps: The reasonable fallible analyser. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 15–36.Google Scholar
  9. Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. de Miranda, M. A. (2004). The grounding of a discipline: Cognition and instruction in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. De Vries, M., Custer, R. L., Dakers, J. R., & Martin, G. (2007). Analyzing best practices in technology educatiion. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eder, W. E. (2012). Comparisons of several design theories and methods with the legacy of Vladimir Hubka.Google Scholar
  15. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, J., Cooper, R. P., & Glasspool, D. W. (2013). A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(150), 1–19.Google Scholar
  18. Gavrilova, T., Leshcheva, I., & Strakhovich, E. (2015). Gestalt principles of creating learning business ontologies for knowledge codification. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(4), 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gero, J. S., & Kannengieser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies, 25, 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to perception. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (1997). Judgment and decision research: Some historical context. In W. M. Goldstein & R. M. Hogarth (Eds.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections and controversies (pp. 3–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Schaal, B. (1998). Metacognition in action: The importance of implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review Psychology, 52, 653–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haupt, G. (2013). The cognitive dynamics of socio-technological thinking in the early phases of expert designers’ design process. Unpublished PhD, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  27. Haupt, G. (2015). Learning from experts: Fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 483–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofweber, T. (2014). Logic and ontology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. Fall 2014 ed.). Stanford: Standford University.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, S. D., & Daugherty, J. (2008). Quality and characteristics of recent research in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonassen, D. (1998). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design models and strategies (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2009). Coherence and correspondence in engineering design: Informing the conversation and connecting with judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(2), 147–153.Google Scholar
  33. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discover, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kluge, P., & Malan, D. F. (2011). The application of the analytical hierarchical process in complex mining engineering design problems. The Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 111(December), 847–855.Google Scholar
  35. Kroes, P. A. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. (2002). The dual nature of technical artifacts. Techné, 6(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  37. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Mitcham, C. (2002). Do artifacts have dual natures? Two points of commentary on the delft project. Techné, 6(2), 93–95.Google Scholar
  39. Mitcham, C., & Holbrook, J. B. (2006). Understanding technological design. In J. S. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  40. Oxman, R. (2002). The thinking eye: Visual re-cognition in design emergence. Design Studies, 23(2), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. London: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robbins, P. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Schön, D. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 135–156.Google Scholar
  46. Seram, N. (2013). Decision making in product development—a review of the literature. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2(4), 1–11.Google Scholar
  47. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996). What architects see in their design sketches: Implications for design tools. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verkerk, M. J., Hoogland, J., van der Stoep, J., & de Vries, M. J. (2007). Denken Ontwerpen Maken. Basisboek Techniekfolosofie. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  55. Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovv, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & van der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception 1. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organisation. Psychology Bulletin, 138(6), 1172–1217.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations