Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: a conceptual model

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Design tasks are omnipresent in our everyday lives. Previous research shows that reflective thinking is one of the critical factors in solving design problems. Related research has attempted to capture designers’ reflective thinking process. Yet a close inspection of designers’ reflective thinking taking place during their design process demands further effort. To understand designer’s reflective practice and to find better ways to promote novices’ reflective thinking in solving real-world design problems, a comprehensive model was developed. This model identified three dimensions to guide the understanding of designers’ reflective thinking during a design process: (1) the timing of reflection, indicating the points in the process where reflective thinking occurs, (2) the objects of reflection, showing the different types of objects that designers may reflect upon, and (3) the levels of reflection, referring to the different levels of designers’ reflection. This model provides for meaningful aspects of reflective thinking to be situated in a design process, which can guide educators and instructional designers in developing appropriate learning environments for facilitating novice and practicing designers’ reflective thinking. Moreover, the model can serve as a stepping stone for further research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2007). Engineering criteria 2000: Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore: Engineering Accreditation Commission, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R. S. (2001). Cognitive processes in iterative design behavior. Seattle: University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. M. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. (2010). Investigating strategies for using related cases to support design problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 459–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection turning experience into learning. New York: Nichols Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Nitsch, K. E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J. F. Kavanaugh & W. Strange (Eds.), Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic (pp. 267–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confucius. (500 BC). The analects.

  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, New York, D.C.: Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, C. M. (1970). On the analysis of the intuitive design process. Paper presented at the Design Methods Group, Cambridge, MA.

  • Eide, A. R., Jenison, R. D., Mashaw, L. H., & Northup, L. L. (2002). Introduction to engineering design and problem solving (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, M., & Liker, J. K. (1992). The hidden professionals: Product designers and their impact on design quality. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(3), 254–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Diversity management: Triple loop learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fynes, B., & Burca, S. D. (2005). The effects of design quality on quality performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 96, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Korpi, M., Jackson, D., & Michalchik, V. (1990). Ill-structured problem solving in instructional design. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

  • Gregory, S. A., & Design and Innovation Group at University of Aston in Birmingham. (1966). The design method. Longdon: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, K. Hakuta, & Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford Calif.) (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J. (2005). Design. In J. Heywood (Ed.), Engineering education: Research and development in curriculum and instruction (pp. 283–314). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. C., & Choi, I. (2010). Discovering instructional designers’ reflection in performing instructional design tasks. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

  • Hybs, I., & Gero, J. S. (1992). An evolutionary process model of design. Design Studies, 13(3), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, J. R. (1991). An investigation of systematic design methods in craft, design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1(3), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1781). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: Macmillan.

  • Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., et al. (1999). Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(1), 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K., et al. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., & Wills, L. M. (1996). Powers of observation in creative design. Design Studies, 17(4), 385–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krick, E. V. (1969). An introduction to engineering and engineering design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Oxford, Boston: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, D. Y. (1996). The wisdom and philosophy of Confucius. SiZuan, China: Educational Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. D., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. D., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of promoting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Schwartz, D. L. (2003). Reflection at the crossroads of cultures. Mind, Culture & Activity, 10(1), 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, U., & Tan, P. L. (2006). Assessing levels of reflective thinking: The evaluation of an instrument for use within accounting and business education. Paper presented at the Higher Education Conference.

  • Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective action instructional design (RAID): A designers’ aid. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. M. (2009). Affordance based design: A relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J. R. (1997). The capture and utilization of experience in engineering design. UK: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, H. (2008). Levels of learning. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://www.evolutionarynexus.org/category/free_tags/single_loop_learning

  • Maver, T. W. (1970). Appraisal in the building design process. In G. T. Moore (Ed.), Engineering methods in environmental design and planning. Cambridge, MA.: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, J., Lloyd, P., & Valkenburg, R. C. (2004). Developing design expertise through the construction of video stories. Design Studies, 25(5), 509–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moallem, M. (1998). Reflection as a means of developing expertise in problem solving, decision making, and complex thinking of designers. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology.

  • Mostow, J. (1985). Toward better models of the design process. AI Magazine, 6(1), 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 63–78). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1996). Design as practiced. In T. Winograd (Ed.), Brining design to software (pp. 233–247). New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prudhomme, G., Boujut, J. F., & Brissaud, D. (2003). Toward reflective practice in engineering design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(2), 328–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and thought: An information processing approach. Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, New York: Eric Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. W. (1986). Design as exploration. Design Studies, 7(2), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross, N. G. (1991). Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12(4), 215–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., Fixl, A., & Yung, J. (1992). Educating the reflective designer. Educational Technology, 32, 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, N., & Magliaro, S. (2001). A reflexive model for teaching instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, S. (500 BC). The great learning.

  • Ullman, D. G., Dietterich, T. G., & Stauffer, L. A. (1988). A model of the mechanical design process: Based on empirical data. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 2(1), 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, R., & Bryant, I. (1989). Adult education as theory, practice and research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Procee, H. (2007). Teaching systematic reflection to novice educational designers. In Proceedings of the international convention of association for educational communications and technology, pp. 344–358.

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, V. C. X., & King, K. P. (2006). Understanding Mezirow’s theory of reflectivity from Confucian perspectives: A model and perspective. Radical Pedagogy, 8(1).

  • Wetzstein, A., & Hacker, H. (2004). Reflective verbalization improves solutions—The effects of question-based reflection in design problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, W. Z. (1992). Confucius and traditional Chinese education: In R. Hayhoe (Ed.). Education and modernization: The Chinese experience (pp. 3–22). New York: Pergamon Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This manuscript constitutes part of a manuscript style (multiple related journal articles) dissertation the first author is submitting at the University of Georgia’s Learning, Design, and Technology Program. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA (April, 2009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, The University of Georgia, 604 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA, 30602-7144, USA

    Yi-Chun Hong & Ikseon Choi

Authors
  1. Yi-Chun Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ikseon Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Chun Hong.

Appendices

 

Appendix A Strategies for designing reflective learning environments
Full size table

 

Appendix B Guidelines for engaging instructional designers in reflection
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hong, YC., Choi, I. Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: a conceptual model. Education Tech Research Dev 59, 687–710 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9202-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9202-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation