Advertisement

Comparing the dialogue of experts and novices in interdisciplinary teams to inform design education

  • Louise KiernanEmail author
  • Ann Ledwith
  • Ray Lynch
Article

Abstract

Design education has moved towards a collaborative practice where designers work in teams and with other disciplines to solve unstructured problems. Along with the cognitive skills involved in the execution of the design process, designers also need skills to work in teams, share information, negotiate common ground and reach consensus. Conversation is core to establishing successful collaborations and learning for students. In order to assess and facilitate collaboration skills, it will become necessary to understand what constitutes constructive and effective dialogue amongst students. The aim of this research is to compare expert versus novice interdisciplinary teams to understand how to better support teams to engage in constructive dialogue during educational design projects. Two cases were studied across different design domains during the problem definition, ideation and concept development phases of the design process. The cases involved a bio-medical fellowship project and an undergraduate product design project. The teams’ conversations were recorded and qualitative content analysis was applied to reveal the cognitive processing and conversation activity that enabled the teams to progress during team collaborations. The findings show that during team interactions design teams alternate between four main cognitive processes, supported by a further six conversation activities to execute the design task. Experts were found to use these cognitive processes and conversation activities more effectively than novices. Recommendations are proposed that can guide design educators to support students during team interactions when solving design problems. The findings have implications for how team work is facilitated and assessed in education.

Keywords

Experts versus novices Educating design teams Interdisciplinary teams Cognitive processes Dialogue of teams 

References

  1. Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  2. Andres, H. P. (2013). Team cognition using collaborative technology: A behavioral analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(1), 38–54.Google Scholar
  3. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.Google Scholar
  4. Badke Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer, M. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in design teams support the development of creative ideas? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 119–133.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. M. M. A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Ed.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Björklund, T. A. (2013). Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices. Design Studies, 34(2), 135–160.Google Scholar
  7. Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A “just-in-time” approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23(3), 233–250.Google Scholar
  8. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 487–508.Google Scholar
  9. Bublitz, W. (1988). Supportive fellow speakers and cooperative conversations. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Budd, R. W., Thorp, R. K., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communications. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Casakin, H., Davidovitch, N., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking as a predictor of creative problem solving in architectural design students. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(1), 31.Google Scholar
  12. Chiu, M.-L. (2002). An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design Studies, 23(2), 187–210.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 99–129.Google Scholar
  14. Chou, W. H., & Wong, J. J. (2015). From a disciplinary to an interdisciplinary design research: Developing an integrative approach for design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 34(2), 206–223.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2016). Creative analogy use in a heterogeneous design team: The pervasive role of background domain knowledge. Design Studies, 46, 38–58.Google Scholar
  16. Christiaans, H. (1992). Creativity in design. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3), 127–140.Google Scholar
  18. Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In M. M. W. N. C. Eastman (Ed.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.Google Scholar
  20. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. De Vere, I., Melles, G., & Kapoor, A. (2010). Product design engineering—A global education trend in multidisciplinary training for creative product design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  22. Defazio, J. (2008). The identification of design experts. Journal of Design Research, 7(1), 84–96.Google Scholar
  23. Deken, F., Kleinsmann, M., Aurisicchio, M., Lauche, K., & Bracewell, R. (2012). Tapping into past design experiences: Knowledge sharing and creation during novice–expert design consultations. Research in Engineering Design, 23(3), 203–218.Google Scholar
  24. Détienne, F., Baker, M., & Burkhardt, J.-M. (2012). Quality of collaboration in design meetings: Methodological reflexions. CoDesign, 8(4), 247–261.Google Scholar
  25. Dong, A. (2007). The enactment of design through language. Design Studies, 28(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  26. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.Google Scholar
  27. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.Google Scholar
  28. Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ferreira, D. J., & Lacerda dos Santos, G. (2009). Scaffolding online discourse in collaborative ill-structured problem-solving for innovation. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 8_2, 173–190.Google Scholar
  30. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.Google Scholar
  31. Fredrick, T. A. (2008). Facilitating better teamwork: Analyzing the challenges and strategies of classroom-based collaboration. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 439–455.Google Scholar
  32. Garbuio, M., Dong, A., Lin, N., Tschang, T., & Lovallo, D. (2018). Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 41–61.Google Scholar
  33. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information-processing theory: The design problem space. AI Magazine, 10(1), 19.Google Scholar
  34. Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122.Google Scholar
  35. Goldschmidt, G., & Rodgers, P. A. (2013). The design thinking approaches of three different groups of designers based on self-reports. Design Studies, 34(4), 454–471.Google Scholar
  36. Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593–611.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: A conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710.Google Scholar
  39. Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In J Gv J M Spector, M. D. Merrill, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 485–506). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Jain, V. K., & Sobek, D. K., II. (2006). Linking design process to customer satisfaction through virtual design of experiments. Research in Engineering Design, 17(2), 59–71.Google Scholar
  41. Jakobsson, A. (2006). Students’ self-confidence and learning through dialogues in a net-based environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 387.Google Scholar
  42. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
  43. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.Google Scholar
  44. Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.Google Scholar
  45. Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 4.Google Scholar
  46. Jones, J. (1992). Design methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Kiernan, L., & Ledwith, A. (2014). Is design education preparing product designers for the real world? A study of product design graduates in Ireland. The Design Journal, 17(2), 218–237.Google Scholar
  48. Kim, K., Kim, N., Jung, S., Kim, D.-Y., Kwak, Y., & Kyung, G. (2012). A radically assembled design-engineering education program with a selection and combination of multiple disciplines. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(4), 904–919.Google Scholar
  49. Kleinsmann, M., Deken, F., Dong, A., & Lauche, K. (2012). Development of design collaboration skills. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(7), 485–506.Google Scholar
  50. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise (2nd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lee, J. (2014). The integrated design process from the facilitator’s perspective. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(1), 141–156.Google Scholar
  52. Lynch, R., & Hennessy, J. (2017). Learning to earn? The role of performance grades in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1750–1763.Google Scholar
  53. Mansilla, V. B., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237.Google Scholar
  54. McTavish, D. G., & Pirro, E. B. (1990). Contextual content analysis. Quality & Quantity, 24(3), 245–265.Google Scholar
  55. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Mol, E., Khapova, S. N., & Elfring, T. (2015). Entrepreneurial team cognition: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 232–255.Google Scholar
  57. Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189.Google Scholar
  58. Nae, H.-J. (2017). An interdisciplinary design education framework. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S835–S847.Google Scholar
  59. Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587.Google Scholar
  60. Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.Google Scholar
  61. Popovic, V. (2003). General strategic knowledge models connections and expertise development in product design. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Eds.), Expertise in design: Proceedings of DTRS'6 (pp. 251–270). Sydney: Creativity and Cognition Studios.Google Scholar
  62. Riebe, L., Girardi, A., & Whitsed, C. (2016). A systematic literature review of teamwork pedagogy in higher education. Small Group Research, 47(6), 619–664.Google Scholar
  63. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75.Google Scholar
  64. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.Google Scholar
  65. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  66. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
  67. Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  68. Self, J. A., & Baek, J. S. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in design education: Understanding the undergraduate student experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 459–480.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, K. M. (2015). Conditions influencing the development of design expertise: As identified in interior design student accounts. Design Studies, 36, 77–98.Google Scholar
  70. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496.Google Scholar
  71. van Ginkel, W., Tindale, R. S., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group decision making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(4), 265.Google Scholar
  72. van Ginkel, W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
  73. Xun, G., & Land, S. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.Google Scholar
  74. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Yule, G., & Brown, G. R. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of DesignUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.Enterprise Research CentreUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations