Design Thinking
in a Graduate
Design Studio:
Personal and
Pedagogical
Factors Colin M. Gray
November 2, 2012

Student
Experience Theory/View of
Practitioner
of Design Praxis
Pedagogy

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)

what is
design
thinking ?

design
thinking
Constructive in nature Solution-focused
Addresses ill-defined Problem solving
(or “wicked”) problems orientation
(Cross, 1982)

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?

review of
literature

literature
Social
Environmental
Formative
Evaluative

literature
Social Willingness to give critique
(Logan, 2008; Wang, 2010)
Environmental Willingness to receive critique
(Danvers, 2003; Siegel & Stolterman,
Formative 2008)
Evaluative

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)

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)

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)

context

context
Human-Computer Interaction
design (HCI/d) program in the
School of Informatics
First-year Master’s students
HCI/d faculty

data
Students (6)
Longitudinal collection: three
one-hour semi-structured
interviews
Online reflection blog

data
Faculty (2)
A one-hour semi-structured
interview

methods

methods
Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1999)
Emergent themes through constant comparative analysis
Themes from literature review

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

findings

findings
All emergent themes from literature were identified

findings
New themes were identified
Group Work
Culture Shock
Identity
Critique
Design Influence

findings GROUP WORK
Importance of informal/personal relationship in facilitating
work with peers
Hiding ideas from their peers
Conflict in group work

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.”

findings GROUP WORK
“...everybody has a great mind, great ideas, it’s just—they feel
suffocated and they can’t show that...”

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...”

findings
CULTURE SHOCK
Hampered ability to communicate
Change in personality

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...”

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...”

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.”

findings IDENTITY
Shift from individual to group orientation
Individual v. group identities

findings IDENTITY
“...it’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.”

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.”

findings CRITIQUE
Defend or accept critique?
Reticence to give critique
Peer critique in the studio

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.”

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...”

findings
DESIGN INFLUENCE
Peer’s work as a benchmark
Divide between professor and peer mentors
Synergy of coursework/curriculum

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.”

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 it...to explore it.”

limitations
of the study

limitations
of the study
Exploratory nature of the study
Small number of participants
Limited context of design pedagogy
Non-replicability of this signature pedagogy

next steps

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

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 http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/ 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
smartech.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.

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.

questions?

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?

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.]

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