More Related Content

Similar to Design Thinking in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors(20)

More from colin gray(20)

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

  1. Design Thinking in a Graduate Design Studio: Personal and Pedagogical Factors Colin M. Gray November 2, 2012
  2. Student Experience Theory/View of Practitioner of Design Praxis Pedagogy
  3. background A core studio design pedagogy has been implemented in a variety of fields (Shulman, 2005; Brandt, et al., 2008) Pedagogy moves the student toward mastery, linked to a change in their design thinking (Siegel & Stolterman, 2008; Cross, 2011) The studio as ”a coherent system of activity” (Shaffer, 2007)
  4. what is design thinking ?
  5. design thinking Constructive in nature Solution-focused Addresses ill-defined Problem solving (or “wicked”) problems orientation (Cross, 1982)
  6. research question What 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 of literature
  8. literature Social Environmental 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. context Human-Computer Interaction design (HCI/d) program in the School of Informatics First-year Master’s students HCI/d faculty
  15. data Students (6) Longitudinal collection: three one-hour semi-structured interviews Online reflection blog
  16. data Faculty (2) A one-hour semi-structured interview
  17. methods
  18. methods Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1999) Emergent themes through constant comparative analysis Themes from literature review
  19. methods Critical theory (Carspecken, 1996) Interview strategies to obtain knowledge for which the interviewee has tacit awareness Analysis of issues relating to power and identity
  20. findings
  21. findings All emergent themes from literature were identified
  22. findings New themes were identified Group Work Culture Shock Identity Critique Design Influence
  23. findings GROUP WORK Importance of informal/personal relationship in facilitating work with peers Hiding ideas from their peers Conflict 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. Just makes me feel we are more intimate than others, and just feeling makes me feel good, and makes me feel easier to discuss and critique.”
  25. findings GROUP WORK “...everybody has a great mind, great ideas, it’s just—they feel suffocated and they can’t show that...”
  26. findings GROUP WORK “Sometimes, I know I’m right, but when I insist on it—we just got a fight. I really couldn’t convince them. I don’t know why...”
  27. findings CULTURE SHOCK Hampered ability to communicate Change in personality
  28. findings CULTURE SHOCK “I don’t know why but when I worked in China, I didn’t feel there were many conflicts or quarrels between team members. I think we cooperated like happy discussion. But when I came here...maybe because everyone is so involved in it and they want to make an excellent brilliant design, and they all believe their ideas is quite often to get conflict...”
  29. findingsCULTURE SHOCK “I’m just changing. I feel like I’m another person now. Before I come here [from China]. Um, it’s changed my personality...”
  30. findings CULTURE SHOCK “I’m seeing that [diversity is] a good thing, especially for team stuff, being able to kind of specialize and uh, just get very diverse perspectives on stuff is really interesting, because I mean, I see things very differently than a lot of people in my teams do.”
  31. findings IDENTITY Shift from individual to group orientation Individual v. group identities
  32. findings IDENTITY “’s sort of dawning on me that like there is myself as an individual designer and then like how I play in a group. [...] I hope I’ll get to focus on myself a little bit, but um it’s starting to occur to me that like, I want to focus on that and I need to focus on that.”
  33. findings IDENTITY “We came up with a few concepts as a group, maybe 10-15 total, 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, the one I came up with.”
  34. findings CRITIQUE Defend or accept critique? Reticence to give critique Peer critique in the studio
  35. findings CRITIQUE “Just sort of totally different sides when it comes to mentor critique. So, we take it with a grain of salt. Almost all of it. At least I do. [...] So, when you think about things in that way, and you start to understand like how people think, then you can exploit their 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 group members or our own process, or just kind of saying pros and cons of what we’ve done are and kind of—I feel like I’m usually good at giving critique...”
  37. findings DESIGN INFLUENCE Peer’s work as a benchmark Divide between professor and peer mentors Synergy of coursework/curriculum
  38. findings DESIGN INFLUENCE “...seeing what the second years are doing [...] that’s kind of highlighted what is lacking between first year and second year work.”
  39. findings DESIGN INFLUENCE “...when [the professor] join in, we start he will get us to use the post notes to brainstorm and then to talk about this problems and to make a decision on it so we can move on to the next topics to expand explore it.”
  40. limitations of the study
  41. limitations of the study Exploratory nature of the study Small number of participants Limited context of design pedagogy Non-replicability of this signature pedagogy
  42. next steps
  43. next steps Future exploration on student perspectives in a wide range of design studio experiences needed The formation and substance of the “coherent system of activity” (Shaffer, 2007) New directions for research (new themes) and opportunities to draw from related research in other fields
  44. references Blevis, E. (2010). Design challenge based learning (DCBL) and Breslin, M., & Buchanan, R. (2008). On the case study method of sustainable 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: Morgan Blevis, 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 educational Current 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 designers Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2010). Intensive studio experience in a think and work. Oxford: Berg. non-studio masters program: Student activities and thinking across levels of design. Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference, Montréal, Canada. Retrieved Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional from notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International DRS2010/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 architectural Vernon, 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 Beginning Design Student, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http:// Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design 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. references Ledewitz, 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 design practicum. International Journal of Technology and Design Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In Foundations for Education, 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 for teaching digital design. Automation in Construction, 9(1), Shulman, L. S. (2005). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal 19-35. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An Education, 91(2), 18-26. alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal 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 society futureground 2004 conference. Melbourne, Australia: Design Walliss, J., & Greig, J. (2009). Graduate design education: The Research 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.x perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural 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.x design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99-120. Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191-205.
  46. questions?
  47. interview protocol interview protocol (faculty) STUDENT How would you define the term “design”? How has your perception of design changed 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. What frustrations 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 your design work critiqued? Tell me about that process. What factors have influenced you the most in your design process or as a designer so far this semester?
  48. interview protocol interview protocol (faculty) FACULTY How 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 effective design 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 that sequence intended to play in acculturating and/or developing first-year Master’s students? From your perspective, what internal and external factors influence your students as they 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 from known student-referenced projects, if possible.]
  49. participants participants Participant Gender Country of Origin Educational Background Greg Male USA Computer Science Jonathan Male USA Cognitive Science Jessica Female USA Anthropology Jiao Female China Engineering Zhen Female China Telecommunications Xia Female China Business

Editor's Notes

  1. \n
  2. \n
  3. \n
  4. \n
  5. \n
  6. \n
  7. \n
  8. \n
  9. \n
  10. \n
  11. \n
  12. \n
  13. \n
  14. \n
  15. \n
  16. \n
  17. \n
  18. \n
  19. \n
  20. \n
  21. \n
  22. \n
  23. \n
  24. \n
  25. \n
  26. \n
  27. \n
  28. \n
  29. \n
  30. \n
  31. \n
  32. \n
  33. \n
  34. \n
  35. \n
  36. \n
  37. \n
  38. \n
  39. \n
  40. \n
  41. \n
  42. \n
  43. \n
  44. \n
  45. \n
  46. \n
  47. \n
  48. \n
  49. \n