Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Design Thinking  in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Design Thinking in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors

455

Published on

A wide range of design literature discusses the role of the studio and its related pedagogy in the development of designerly thinking. Potential factors that affect this development process are posed …

A wide range of design literature discusses the role of the studio and its related pedagogy in the development of designerly thinking. Potential factors that affect this development process are posed by scholars in a variety of design disciplines, but a full understanding of these factors as experienced from the student perspective is lacking. In this study, I examined the experiences of first-year design students as they develop patterns of thinking, including reported factors that affected the student’s development, both internal and external. Preliminary analysis of the data suggests that interpersonal relationships within the design program, along with cultural and experiential differences in team composition, are additional shaping factors that are not currently present in the design literature. Results of this study are expected to indicate further areas of research in design education, as well as a richer explanation of the student’s perspective in the context of developing design thinking.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
455
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Transcript

    • 1. Design Thinkingin a GraduateDesign Studio:Personal andPedagogicalFactors Colin M. Gray November 2, 2012
    • 2. Student Experience Theory/View ofPractitioner of Design Praxis Pedagogy
    • 3. backgroundA core studio design pedagogy hasbeen implemented in a variety of fields(Shulman, 2005; Brandt, et al., 2008)Pedagogy moves the student towardmastery, linked to a change in theirdesign thinking (Siegel & Stolterman, 2008; Cross, 2011)The studio as ”a coherent system ofactivity” (Shaffer, 2007)
    • 4. what is designthinking ?
    • 5. design thinkingConstructive in nature Solution-focusedAddresses ill-defined Problem solving(or “wicked”) problems orientation (Cross, 1982)
    • 6. research questionWhat factors appear to affect the ability of first year design students in their development of designerly thinking in a one semester introductory HCI design course?
    • 7. review ofliterature
    • 8. literature SocialEnvironmental Formative Evaluative
    • 9. literature Social Willingness to give critique (Logan, 2008; Wang, 2010)Environmental Willingness to receive critique (Danvers, 2003; Siegel & Stolterman, Formative 2008) Evaluative
    • 10. literature Social Private & Public Space (Blevis, et al., 2004; Reimer &Environmental Douglas, 2003) Contrast to traditional classroom Formative space (Demirba & Demirkan, 2003) Evaluative Unfamiliar tools and norms (Buxton, 2007; Cross, 2007; Mawson, 2003) Complexity of technological tools (Kvan, 2001; Marx, 2000; Oxman, 2008)
    • 11. literature Social Personal design knowledge (Cross, 2011; Ledewitz, 1985)Environmental Personal process Formative (Boling & Smith, 2010; Blevis & Siegel, 2005; Notess & Blevis, 2004) Evaluative Problem solving behaviors (Breslin & Buchanan, 2008; Cross, 2007)
    • 12. literature Social Public critique & feedback (Blevis, 2010; Walliss & Greig, 2009)Environmental Self-reflection Formative (Dorst, 2006; Schön, 1983) Evaluative Peer and mentor support (Ochsner, 2000; Wang, 2010)
    • 13. context
    • 14. contextHuman-Computer Interactiondesign (HCI/d) program in theSchool of InformaticsFirst-year Master’s studentsHCI/d faculty
    • 15. dataStudents (6)Longitudinal collection: threeone-hour semi-structuredinterviewsOnline reflection blog
    • 16. dataFaculty (2)A one-hour semi-structuredinterview
    • 17. methods
    • 18. methodsGrounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1999)Emergent themes through constant comparative analysisThemes from literature review
    • 19. methodsCritical theory (Carspecken, 1996)Interview strategies to obtain knowledge for which theinterviewee has tacit awarenessAnalysis of issues relating to power and identity
    • 20. findings
    • 21. findingsAll emergent themes from literature were identified
    • 22. findingsNew themes were identifiedGroup WorkCulture ShockIdentityCritiqueDesign Influence
    • 23. findings GROUP WORKImportance of informal/personal relationship in facilitatingwork with peersHiding ideas from their peersConflict in group work
    • 24. findings GROUP WORK“...not only meetings and just when we meet in hallways or yeah,we will talk and we will go to bar and talk more than others. Justmakes me feel we are more intimate than others, and just feelingmakes me feel good, and makes me feel easier to discuss andcritique.”
    • 25. findings GROUP WORK“...everybody has a great mind, great ideas, it’s just—they feelsuffocated and they can’t show that...”
    • 26. findings GROUP WORK“Sometimes, I know I’m right, but when I insist on it—we just gota fight. I really couldn’t convince them. I don’t know why...”
    • 27. findings CULTURE SHOCKHampered ability to communicateChange in personality
    • 28. findings CULTURE SHOCK“I don’t know why but when I worked in China, I didn’t feel therewere many conflicts or quarrels between team members. I thinkwe cooperated like happy discussion. But when I camehere...maybe because everyone is so involved in it and they wantto make an excellent brilliant design, and they all believe theirideas is quite often to get conflict...”
    • 29. findingsCULTURE SHOCK“I’m just changing. I feel like I’m another person now. Before Icome here [from China]. Um, it’s changed my personality...”
    • 30. findings CULTURE SHOCK“I’m seeing that [diversity is] a good thing, especially for teamstuff, being able to kind of specialize and uh, just get very diverseperspectives on stuff is really interesting, because I mean, I seethings very differently than a lot of people in my teams do.”
    • 31. findings IDENTITYShift from individual to group orientationIndividual v. group identities
    • 32. findings IDENTITY“...it’s sort of dawning on me that like there is myself as anindividual designer and then like how I play in a group. [...] I hopeI’ll get to focus on myself a little bit, but um it’s starting to occurto me that like, I want to focus on that and I need to focus onthat.”
    • 33. findings IDENTITY“We came up with a few concepts as a group, maybe 10-15total, like we were told for project four as a deliverable. And uh,the one the won, or the one that we all liked was the [...] one, theone I came up with.”
    • 34. findings CRITIQUEDefend or accept critique?Reticence to give critiquePeer critique in the studio
    • 35. findings CRITIQUE“Just sort of totally different sides when it comes to mentorcritique. So, we take it with a grain of salt. Almost all of it. At leastI do. [...] So, when you think about things in that way, and youstart to understand like how people think, then you can exploittheir opinion to help you work best. I think that’s a big message.”
    • 36. findings CRITIQUE“I think it comes up a lot in terms of like critiquing other groupmembers or our own process, or just kind of saying pros andcons of what we’ve done are and kind of—I feel like I’m usuallygood at giving critique...”
    • 37. findings DESIGN INFLUENCEPeer’s work as a benchmarkDivide between professor and peer mentorsSynergy of coursework/curriculum
    • 38. findings DESIGN INFLUENCE“...seeing what the second years are doing [...] that’s kind ofhighlighted what is lacking between first year and second yearwork.”
    • 39. findings DESIGN INFLUENCE“...when [the professor] join in, we start he will get us to use thepost notes to brainstorm and then to talk about this problemsand to make a decision on it so we can move on to the nexttopics to expand it...to explore it.”
    • 40. limitationsof the study
    • 41. limitations of the studyExploratory nature of the studySmall number of participantsLimited context of design pedagogyNon-replicability of this signature pedagogy
    • 42. next steps
    • 43. next stepsFuture exploration on student perspectives in a wide range ofdesign studio experiences neededThe formation and substance of the “coherent system ofactivity” (Shaffer, 2007)New directions for research (new themes) and opportunities todraw from related research in other fields
    • 44. referencesBlevis, E. (2010). Design challenge based learning (DCBL) and Breslin, M., & Buchanan, R. (2008). On the case study method ofsustainable pedagogical practice. Interactions, 17(3), 64-69. doi: research and teaching in design. Design Issues, 24(1),10.1145/1744161.1744176 36-40.Buxton, Bill (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. San Francisco: MorganBlevis, E., & Siegel, M. (2005). The explanation for design Kaufmann.explanations. In 11th international conference on human-computer interaction: Interaction design education and research: Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educationalCurrent and future trends. research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.Blevis, E., Rogers, Y., Siegel, M., Hazlewood, W., & Stephano, A. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies,(2004). Integrating HCI and design: HCI/d at IUB, a design 3(4), 221-227.education case story. In Zimmerman, J., Evenson, S., Baumann,K., & Purgathofer, P. Workshop on the relationship between Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel,design and HCI. ACM CHI 2004 conference on human factors Switzerland: Birkhäuser.and computing systems. Vienna, Austria. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designersBoling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2010). Intensive studio experience in a think and work. Oxford: Berg.non-studio masters program: Student activities and thinkingacross levels of design. Proceedings of the Design ResearchSociety International Conference, Montréal, Canada. Retrieved Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisionalfrom http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/ notes on learning and teaching in art & design. InternationalDRS2010/PDF/015.pdf Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57.Brandt, C., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., & Demirba, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architecturalVernon, M. (2008, March). (De) coding the studio method to design process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24(5),teach the design of human-computer interaction. Paper 437-456.presented at the 24th National Conference on the BeginningDesign Student, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http:// Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Designsmartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/29133/22-243-1- Issues, 22(3), 4-17.PB.pdf?sequence=2. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 345-353.
    • 45. referencesLedewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2-8. Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Logan, C. (2008). Metaphor and pedagogy in the designpracticum. International Journal of Technology and Design Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In Foundations forEducation, 18(1), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s10798-006-9009-x the future in mathematics education. (pp. 99-125). Lawrence Erlbaum.Marx, J. (2000). A proposal for alternative methods forteaching digital design. Automation in Construction, 9(1), Shulman, L. S. (2005). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal19-35. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An Education, 91(2), 18-26.alternative pedagogy for technology education. InternationalJournal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117-128. Siegel, M. A., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Metamorphosis: Transforming non-designers into designers. In Undisciplined!Notess, M., & Blevis, E. (2004). Integrating human-centered Proceedings of the design research society conference 2008.design methods from different disciplines: Contextual design (pp. 378:1-13). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.and principles. In Proceedings of the design research societyfutureground 2004 conference. Melbourne, Australia: Design Walliss, J., & Greig, J. (2009). Graduate design education: TheResearch Society. case for an accretive model. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(3), 287-295. doi:10.1111/j.Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic 1476-8070.2009.01624.xperspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal ofArchitectural Education, 53(4), 194-206. Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2),Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for 173-183. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01647.xdesign pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium.Design Studies, 29(2), 99-120.Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI designwith the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3),191-205.
    • 46. questions?
    • 47. interview protocol interview protocol (faculty) STUDENTHow would you define the term “design”? How has your perception of designchanged since our last interview?What external or internal factors affect the design process for you?Tell me about a design project you have worked on so far this semester. Whatfrustrations and/or successes can you recall?What role has teamwork played in your design education this semester, if any?How did the team affect the design process?Have you had the opportunity to participate in critique, or have you had yourdesign work critiqued? Tell me about that process.What factors have influenced you the most in your design process or as adesigner so far this semester?
    • 48. interview protocol interview protocol (faculty) FACULTYHow would you define the term “design” in a general sense? In your specific discipline?What elements of your Master’s program contribute the most to educating effectivedesign practitioners? Why?What specific things do you do in educating design students in your discipline,compared to the broader view of design education, if any?Is there an intended course sequence for first-year students? And if so, what role it thatsequence intended to play in acculturating and/or developing first-year Master’sstudents?From your perspective, what internal and external factors influence your students asthey develop as a design practitioner in the context of your Master’s program?Tell me about a project that you have used for first-year Master’s students in the past,and the planned role it plays in developing student design thinking. [Prompt fromknown student-referenced projects, if possible.]
    • 49. participants participants Participant Gender Country of Origin Educational Background Greg Male USA Computer ScienceJonathan Male USA Cognitive ScienceJessica Female USA Anthropology Jiao Female China Engineering Zhen Female China Telecommunications Xia Female China Business

    ×