Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Hacker, M. (2011). Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (Vol. 6). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsford, D., Brown, A., & Cocking, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (Expanded ed.). Washington: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clancey, W. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representation Cambridge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.

  • Coolican, R. (1999). Research methods and statistics in psychology (3rd ed.). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1997). Creativity in design: Analyzing and modelling the creative leap. Leonardo, 30(4), 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology. An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. (Vol. 27). Dordrecth: Springer.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data (Revised edition ed.). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knoweldge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. (1999). Constructive Memory in Design Thinking. Paper presented at the design thinking research symposium: Design representation, Cambridge. MA.

  • Gero, J. S., & McNeill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 21(3), 21–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to perception. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Haupt, G. (2013). The cognitive dynamics of socio-technological thinking in the early phases of expert designers’ design process. (PhD), University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

  • Ho, C.-H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liikkanen, L. A. (2009). Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Design Studies, 30(1), 38–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 168–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, L., & Drayson, Z. (2010). Extended cognition and the metaphysics of mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman, R. (2002). The thinking eye: Visual re-cognition in design emergence. Design Studies, 23(2), 135–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. London: Information Science Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popovic, V. (2004). Expertise development in product design—strategic and domain-specific knowledge connections. Design Studies, 25, 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani, I. (2012). Making it mental: In search for the golden mean of the extended cognition controversy. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, September 26.

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25, 278–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Terzidis, K. (2007). The etymology of design: Pre-socratic perspective. Design Issues, 23(4), 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, University of Pretoria, Hillcrest, 2000, South Africa

    Grietjie Haupt

Authors
  1. Grietjie Haupt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grietjie Haupt.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Structuring data

See Figs. 12 and 13.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Coding tree for structuring analysis of verbal data

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Coding tree for structuring analysis of visual data

Full size image

Appendix 2: Multi-directional maps of co-occurences and sources of information

See Table 3.

figure a
figure b
figure c
Table 3 Key to multi-directional maps
Full size table

Appendix 3: Statistical tables for all participants’ cognitive phases

See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Table 4 Knowledge types applied by participants P–A in their problem structuring phase
Full size table
Table 5 Knowledge types applied by participants P–A in their problem solving phase
Full size table
Table 6 Knowledge types applied by participants P–E in their problem structuring phase
Full size table
Table 7 Knowledge types applied by participants P–E in their problem solving phase
Full size table
Table 8 Knowledge types applied by participants P–I in their problem solving phase
Full size table
Table 9 Knowledge types applied by participants P–I in their problem solving phase
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haupt, G. Learning from experts: fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. Int J Technol Des Educ 25, 483–520 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9295-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9295-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation