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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91–130.
Anthony, W. S. (1973). Learning to discover rules by discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 325–328.
Basden, A. (2000). The aspectual framework of meaning. Retrieved from The Dooyeweerd Pages website. http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/contact.html.
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.
Buzan, T. (2005). Mind map handbook. London: Thorsons.
Cascetta, E. (2001). Transportation systems engineering: Theory and methods. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Conlan, T. (2006). Formative assessment of classroom concept maps: The reasonable fallible analyser. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(1), 15–36.
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.
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.
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.
De Vries, M., Custer, R. L., Dakers, J. R., & Martin, G. (2007). Analyzing best practices in technology educatiion. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
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.
Eder, W. E. (2012). Comparisons of several design theories and methods with the legacy of Vladimir Hubka.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318.
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.
Fox, J., Cooper, R. P., & Glasspool, D. W. (2013). A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(150), 1–19.
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.
Gero, J. S., & Kannengieser, U. (2004). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies, 25, 373–391.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to perception. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Schaal, B. (1998). Metacognition in action: The importance of implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 124–136.
Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review Psychology, 52, 653–683.
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.
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.
Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 1–44.
Hofweber, T. (2014). Logic and ontology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. Fall 2014 ed.). Stanford: Standford University.
Johnson, S. D., & Daugherty, J. (2008). Quality and characteristics of recent research in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 16–31.
Jonassen, D. (1998). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design models and strategies (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
Kroes, P. A. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23, 287–302.
Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. (2002). The dual nature of technical artifacts. Techné, 6(2), 4–8.
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Boston: Elsevier.
Mitcham, C. (2002). Do artifacts have dual natures? Two points of commentary on the delft project. Techné, 6(2), 93–95.
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.
Oxman, R. (2002). The thinking eye: Visual re-cognition in design emergence. Design Studies, 23(2), 135–164.
Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63–91.
Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. London: Information Science Publishing.
Robbins, P. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Schön, D. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 135–156.
Seram, N. (2013). Decision making in product development—a review of the literature. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2(4), 1–11.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
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.
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.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.
Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.
Verkerk, M. J., Hoogland, J., van der Stoep, J., & de Vries, M. J. (2007). Denken Ontwerpen Maken. Basisboek Techniekfolosofie. Amsterdam: Boom.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Haupt, G. Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. Int J Technol Des Educ 28, 207–237 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0
- Design cognition
- Decision making
- Hierarchical thinking
- 4-Level decision making tool
- Problem solving
- Multi-directional transformation