Advertisement

Give us something to react to and make it rich: designers reflecting-in-action with external representations

Article

Abstract

Designers give themselves something to react to and they make it rich. During design, what they react to can take many forms: a homepage wireframe, an Excel spreadsheet, building drawings, and a Tweet prototype. Using a phenomenological research design using an interactive methodology and multiple data collection methods, the researchers looked at designers reflecting-in-action. A research question was: What is the impact of reflection-in-action on evaluation processes while a design is in progress and not yet complete? Focusing specifically on a theme that emerged from this research question, this manuscript explores eight designers, who while reflecting-in-action, took stock in and reacted to external representations, which were rich in context, information, and constraints. It delves into the experiences that these multidisciplinary designers had in their respective design spaces reacting to and evaluating external representations. The researchers looked at how rich external representations intertwined in context, information, and constraints helped designers move to partial solutions that moved the design forward. The researchers discuss implications for students and teachers, and share a design experience where inexperienced designers (as university students) can practice taking stock in and reacting to external representations.

Keywords

External representations Multidisciplinary Reflection-in-action Reflective conversations Frame experiments Design thinking Designing 

References

  1. Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00059-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atman, C. J., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., & Adams, R. (2005). Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: An in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies, 26(4), 325–357. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baaki, J. (2014). Effects of interdisciplinary designers reflecting-in-action during design (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest/UMI.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, L. J., Onarheim, B., & Christensen, B. T. (2010). Design requirements, epistemic uncertainty and solution development strategies in software design. Design Studies, 31(6), 567–589. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal, S., Gaffar, A., & Dalrymple O. (2015). Building faculty experts in outcome-based education curriculum design. In Frontiers in education conference (FIE), 2015.32614.2015. IEEE (pp. 1–8). IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. London: Berg Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorst, K. (2012). How design can improve public spaces [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPsmww461pI.
  10. Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, E., & Carroll, M. (2012). The psychological experience of prototyping. Design Studies, 33(1), 64–84. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (2000). Role of the right prefrontal cortex in ill-structured planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(5), 415–436. doi: 10.1080/026432900410775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2/3), 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S., & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting in design research education. In D. Boutsen (Ed.), Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education, creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Brussels: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.Google Scholar
  16. Keenan, D. S. (2013). Experiential learning and outcome-based education: A bridge too far within the current education and training paradigm. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 3(2), 13–18.Google Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawing and the design process. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Boston: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scott, B., Shurville, S., Maclean, P., & Cong, C. (2007). Cybernetic principles for learning design. Kybernetes, 26(9/10), 1497–1514. doi: 10.1108/0368-4920710827445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Snider, C. M., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2013). Analysing creative behavior in the later design process. Design Studies, 34(5), 543–574. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2013.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stables, K. (2008). Designing matters, designing minds: The importance of nurturing the designerly in young people. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 8–18.Google Scholar
  26. Strimel, G. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from: Dissertation Abstract International.Google Scholar
  27. The Design Thinking Process (2012). Retrieved from http://dschool.stanford.edu/redesigningtheater/the-design-thinking-process/.
  28. Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 885–907. doi: 10.1007/s1423-011-9211-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Baaki
    • 1
  • Monica W. Tracey
    • 2
  • Alisa Hutchinson
    • 2
  1. 1.Darden College of EducationOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations