Advertisement

Design Thinking: Towards the Construction of Knowledge

  • Brad HokansonEmail author
  • Jody Nyboer
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Viewed as a third way of thinking, design thinking differs from the sciences and the humanities because it involves extensive experimentation and exploration resulting from an iterative process (Cross 1982 Design studies, 3(4), 221–227). This writing presents an explanation of design thinking for instructional designers and describes a variety of skills and traits illustrating how design thinking supports the construction of knowledge. The value of design thinking can be seen from the viewpoint of the instructional or course designer and as a model for student learning processes.

Keywords

Design thinking Framing Problem finding Reflection-in-action Creativity Abductive thinking 

References

  1. Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, W. (2009). Glimmer: How design can transform your life, your business, and maybe even the world. Toronto, ON: Random House Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. K. T. Edelmann, M. Erlhoff, & S. Grand (Eds.), Design Research Now. Essays and Selected Projects. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel (Springer).Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1974). On education (Vol. 431). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of design thinking and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gero, J. S. (2002). Computational models of creative designing based on situated cognition. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on creativity & cognition (pp. 3–10). ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues, 19(1), 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho, C. H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hokanson, B. (2012). The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In L. Moller & J. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4), 63–85.Google Scholar
  16. Julier, G. (2013). The culture of design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Kolko, J. (2015). Design thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review, 93(9), 66–71.Google Scholar
  18. Kudrowitz, B., & Dippo, C. (2013). When does a paper clip become a sundial? Exploring the progression of novelty in the alternative uses test. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science: Special Issue on Applications and Theory of Computational Creativity., 17(4), 3–18.Google Scholar
  19. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  21. Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Moldoveanu, M. C., & Martin, R. L. (2008). The future of the MBA: Designing the thinker of the future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Oxman, R. (1997). Design by re-representation: A model of visual reasoning in design. Design Studies, 18, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  26. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 2(4), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schön, D. A. (1987). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.Google Scholar
  30. Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(2), 69–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Lin Lin
    • 1
  • Bernadette Sibuma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Learning Technologies, College of InformationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Learning and Teaching DivisionEducation Development CenterWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations