Understanding design literacy in middle-school education: assessing students’ stances towards inquiry

  • Kasper Skov ChristensenEmail author
  • Mikkel Hjorth
  • Ole Sejer Iversen
  • Rachel Charlotte Smith


We present a comparative, quantitative assessment, focused on measuring ‘stances towards inquiry’ among middle-school students who have received design education. Our assessments are based on results of a written survey questionnaire and a statistical analysis using ‘The Design Literacy assessment tool’. Our analysis suggest that participating students have internalized basic knowledge about design, but lack adaptive aspects of design literacy, specifically the capability to take a designerly stance towards inquiry when confronted with ‘wicked problems’. We suggest that, due to societal developments, students are becoming more ‘design literate’, but that they generally develop routine expertise in these first practical encounters with design processes, whereas the more complex adaptive capabilities demand more education of both students and teachers.


Design education Design research Reflective practices Evaluation 


  1. Altman, D. G. (1999). Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  2. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD education working papers 41.
  3. Balsamo, A. (2009). Design. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(4), 1–10. Scholar
  4. Baynes, K. (1974). The RCA study ‘design in general education’. Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology, 6(2).
  5. Biesta, G. J. J. (2008). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (Formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 33–46. Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, 1–21.Google Scholar
  8. Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: Experiences, technologies, and research (p. 613). New York: ACM Press. Scholar
  9. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. Scholar
  10. Buechley, L. (2006). A construction kit for electronic textiles. In 2006 10th IEEE international symposium on wearable computers. IEEE, pp. 83–90.
  11. Burdick, A., & Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies, Interpreting Design Thinking, 32(6), 546–556. Scholar
  12. Christensen, K. S., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Towards a formal assessment of design literacy: analyzing K-12 students’ stance towards inquiry. Design Studies, 46(September), 125–151. Scholar
  13. Christensen, K. S., & Iversen, O. S. (2017). Articulations on form properties and action-function couplings of maker technologies in children’s education. Entertainment Computing, 18, 41–54. Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. Scholar
  15. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on new literacies (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17. Scholar
  17. Cross, A. (1980). Design and general education. Design Studies, 1(4), 202–206. Scholar
  18. Cross, A. (1984). Towards an understanding of the intrinsic values of design education. Design Studies, 5(1), 31–39. Scholar
  19. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, Expertise in Design, 25(5), 427–441. Scholar
  20. Cross, N. (2010). Design expertise. Design Studies, 31(2), 203–205. Scholar
  21. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Curry, T. (2014). A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies, 35(6), 632–646. Scholar
  23. Dalsgaard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 143–155.Google Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Eastman, C., & McCracken, W. M. (Eds.) (1997). Special issue of design studies on design education. Design Studies, 18(3), 319–320.
  26. El-Zanfaly, D. (2015). [I3] Imitation, iteration and improvisation: Embodied interaction in making and learning. Design Studies, Special Issue: Computational Making, 41(Part A), 79–109. Scholar
  27. FabLearn Europe 2014 Workshops. (2014). Conference workshop archive. 2014.
  28. FabLearn Europe 2016 Workshops. (2016). Conference workshop archive. 2016.
  29. FabLearn Stanford 2016 Workshops. (2016). Conference workshop archive. 2016.
  30. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  31. Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenfield, A. (2006). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Google Scholar
  33. Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.). (2013). Design anthropology: Theory and practice. Bloomsbury: London; New York.Google Scholar
  34. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 Ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 6, 27–36.Google Scholar
  37. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29. Scholar
  38. Hjorth, M., Christensen, K. S., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2017). Digital technology and design processes: Follow-up report on a Fablab@school survey among danish youth. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Aarhus University, Denmark: Aarhus University.
  39. Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., Christensen, K. S., & Blikstein, P. (2015). Digital technology and design processes: Report on a Fablab@school survey among danish youth. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Aarhus University, Denmark: Aarhus University.
  40. Hjorth, M., Smith, R. C., Loi, D., Iversen, O. S., & Christensen, K. S. (2016). Educating the reflective educator: Design processes and digital fabrication for the classroom. In FabLearn Europe.Google Scholar
  41. Ho, C.-H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22(1), 27–45. Scholar
  42. Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., Blikstein, P., Katterfeldt, E.-S., & Read, J. C. (2015). Digital fabrication in education: Expanding the research towards design and reflective practices. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5(September), 1–2. Scholar
  43. Johnson, R., Shum, V., Rogers, Y., & Marquardt, N. (2016). Make or shake: An empirical study of the value of making in learning about computing technology (pp. 440–451). New York: ACM Press. Scholar
  44. Katterfeldt, E.-S., & Schelhowe, H. (2008). A modelling tool to support children making their ideas work. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on interaction design and children. ACM, pp. 218–225.
  45. Keirl, S. (2006). Design and technology education: whose design, whose education and why? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 11(2), 20–30.Google Scholar
  46. Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for beating the devil’s advocate & driving creativity throughout your organisation. New York: Ransom House.Google Scholar
  47. Kembel, G. (2009). George Kembel: Awakening creativity. Chautauqua: Chautauqua Institution.Google Scholar
  48. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.Google Scholar
  49. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 98, 16–22.Google Scholar
  50. Kottner, J., Audige, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A., et al. (2011). Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(6), 661–671. Scholar
  51. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design (1st ed.). Boca Raton: CRC, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  52. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.) (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies 30. New York, NY: Lang.Google Scholar
  53. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Architectural Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK; Burlington, MA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  55. Lewis, W. P., & Bonollo, E. (2002). An analysis of professional skills in design: Implications for education and research. Design Studies, 23(4), 385–406. Scholar
  56. Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and implicit lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human Development, 50(1), 65–72. Scholar
  57. Lo, J., & Paulos, E. (2014). ShrinkyCircuits: Sketching, shrinking, and formgiving for electronic circuits. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST’14. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 291–299.
  58. Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2011). ‘If I Was Going to Design a Chair, the Last Thing I Would Look at Is a Chair’: Product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 71–92. Scholar
  61. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oxman, R. (2004). Think-Maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63–91. Scholar
  63. Pacione, C. (2010). Evolution of the mind: A case for design literacy. Interactions, 17(2), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Papert, S. A. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  65. Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments. Vol. 1. 2 vols. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Portillo, M. B., & Dohr, J. H. (1989). Design education: On the road towards thought development. Design Studies, 10(2), 96–102. Scholar
  67. Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. Scholar
  69. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2013). How it works: Generative tools and techniques. In: Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design (pp. 65–95). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  71. Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  72. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  73. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147. Scholar
  74. Simmonds, R. (1980). Limitations in the Decision Strategies of Design Students. Design Studies, 1(6), 358–364. Scholar
  75. Smith, R. C., Iversen, O. S., Christensen, K. S., & Hjorth, M. (2016a). Video design games: Training educators in teaching design. In FabLearn Europe. Preston, UK.
  76. Smith, R. C., Iversen, O. S., & Hjorth, M. (2015). Design thinking for digital fabrication in education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 20–28. Scholar
  77. Smith, R. C., Iversen, O. S., & Veerasawmy, R. (2016b). Impediments to digital fabrication in education: A study of teachers’ role in digital fabrication. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 7(1), 33–49. Scholar
  78. Svihla, V., Vye, N. J., Brown, M., Phillips, R., Gawel, D. J., & Bransford, J. D. (2009). Interactive Learning Assessments for the 21st Century. Education Canada, 49(3), 44–47.Google Scholar
  79. The Danish Ministry of Education. (2016). Learning goals in education. Ministry. Undervisning med udgangspunkt i læringsmål. 2016.
  80. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement. In Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
  81. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. Scholar
  82. Zegers, M., de Bruijne, M. C., Wagner, C., Groenewegen, P. P., van der Wal, G., & de Vet, Henrica C. W. (2010). The Inter-Rater Agreement of Retrospective Assessments of Adverse Events Does Not Improve with Two Reviewers per Patient Record. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(1), 94–102. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations