Log in

Conceptions of design by transdisciplinary educators: disciplinary background and pedagogical engagement

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we describe similarities and differences in how faculty members from across disciplinary backgrounds conceptualize design. The study is situated in an innovative transdisciplinary undergraduate degree program centered on a studio-based learning experience co-taught by multi-disciplinary faculty. While faculty celebrated the opportunity to integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives, they showed a lack of awareness about differences in how they conceptualized design and design pedagogy, especially early on. In-depth interviews and sketches of eight faculty members provided insights on alignment around core concepts of design, design process, and design instruction. Common themes in design definitions included creation of something new, human-centered design, and focus on problem framing over solution development. There was disagreement on the relationship between design and other ways of knowing, such as problem solving and scientific reasoning. Most used process models incorporating non-linearity, iteration, prototy**, and balance between research and design ideation. While there were many similarities in teaching approach, the rationale given for decisions varied, highlighting underlying differences in how participants thought about teaching design. Instructional alignment is an important consideration in designing a transdisciplinary learning experience, but may be hard to achieve due to cultural and institutional disciplinary boundaries. Collaborative teaching efforts benefit when faculty engage in self-reflection, discussion, and engagement in meaningful synthesis work related to understanding what design is and how it can be taught. Such work will enable a team to create purposeful learning experiences which leverages the benefits of exposure to a range of design problems, contexts, users, and design “flavors.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M., & Dall’Alba, G. (2011). Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32(6), 588–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, I., & Exter, M. (2019). Designing for interdisciplinarity in higher education: Considerations for instructional designers. Techtrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Siegel, M. A., Smith, K. M., & Parrish, P. (2013). Student goes on a journey; stranger rides into the classroom: Narratives and the instructor in the design studio. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 12(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.179_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making: Design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji: the Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2015.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, CH: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1998). Expertise in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 10(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0160715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, S. R., Adams, R. S., & Bodner, A. M. (2012). What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals’ experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 187–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Figueiredo, A. D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of engineering. In D. Goldberg & N. McCarthy (Eds.), Workshop on philosophy & engineering (WPE 2008) (pp. 94–95). London: Royal Engineering Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubberly, H. (2004). How do you design: A compendium of models. San Francisco, CA: Dubberly Design Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., & Little, P. (1994). Engineering design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exter, M., Dionne, R., & Lukasik, C. (2015). Design of a learner-centered seminar-/studio-based polytechnic institute. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton & M. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: The future of educational technology. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exter, M., Ashby, I., Gray, C. M., Wilder, D. M., & Krause, T. S. (2017). Systematically integrating liberal education in a transdisciplinary design studio environment. In Paper presented at 2017 ASEE annual conference & exposition, Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/28901.

  • Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human–computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 225–232). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642652.

  • Gray, C. M. (2014). Living in two worlds: A critical ethnography of academic and proto-professional interactions in a human-computer interaction design studio. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/18772.

  • Gray, C. M. (2016). Emergent views of studio. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith & K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 271–281). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., & Siegel, M. A. (2014). Sketching design thinking: Representations of design in education and practice. Design and Technology Education, 19(1), 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, M., & Swenson, J. (2013). The humanistic side of engineering: Considering social science and humanities dimensions of engineering in education and research. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(2), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolko, J. (2018). The divisiveness of design thinking. Interactions, 25(3), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorf, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘The Design Process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024186814591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain, M. (2017). Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9425-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01029.x.

    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 

  • Russell, A. W., Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Context, contradictions and capacity. Futures, 40(5), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., & Colby, A. (2008). Education engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varner, D., Gray, C., & Exter, M. (in press). Transdisciplinary studies in technology: Towards a content agnostic praxis for solving problems. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, M. Schmidt, A. Grincewicz & A. Tawfik (Eds.), A new focus for learning: Educational technology beyond content. New York: Springer.

  • Yazdani, B. (1999). Four models of design definition: Sequential, design centered, concurrent and dynamic. Journal of Engineering Design, 10(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/095448299261407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marisa E. Exter.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Exter, M.E., Gray, C.M. & Fernandez, T.M. Conceptions of design by transdisciplinary educators: disciplinary background and pedagogical engagement. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 777–798 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09520-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09520-w

Keywords

Navigation