Abstract
Designers give themselves something to react to and they make it rich. During design, what they react to can take many forms: a homepage wireframe, an Excel spreadsheet, building drawings, and a Tweet prototype. Using a phenomenological research design using an interactive methodology and multiple data collection methods, the researchers looked at designers reflecting-in-action. A research question was: What is the impact of reflection-in-action on evaluation processes while a design is in progress and not yet complete? Focusing specifically on a theme that emerged from this research question, this manuscript explores eight designers, who while reflecting-in-action, took stock in and reacted to external representations, which were rich in context, information, and constraints. It delves into the experiences that these multidisciplinary designers had in their respective design spaces reacting to and evaluating external representations. The researchers looked at how rich external representations intertwined in context, information, and constraints helped designers move to partial solutions that moved the design forward. The researchers discuss implications for students and teachers, and share a design experience where inexperienced designers (as university students) can practice taking stock in and reacting to external representations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00059-X.
Atman, C. J., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., & Adams, R. (2005). Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: An in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies, 26(4), 325–357. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005.
Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.
Baaki, J. (2014). Effects of interdisciplinary designers reflecting-in-action during design (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest/UMI.
Ball, L. J., Onarheim, B., & Christensen, B. T. (2010). Design requirements, epistemic uncertainty and solution development strategies in software design. Design Studies, 31(6), 567–589. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.003.
Bansal, S., Gaffar, A., & Dalrymple O. (2015). Building faculty experts in outcome-based education curriculum design. In Frontiers in education conference (FIE), 2015.32614.2015. IEEE (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: Harper Business.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. London: Berg Publishers.
Dorst, K. (2012). How design can improve public spaces [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPsmww461pI.
Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.
Gerber, E., & Carroll, M. (2012). The psychological experience of prototy**. Design Studies, 33(1), 64–84. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.005.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (2000). Role of the right prefrontal cortex in ill-structured planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(5), 415–436. doi:10.1080/026432900410775.
Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2/3), 305–344.
Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S., & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting in design research education. In D. Boutsen (Ed.), Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education, creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Brussels: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.
Keenan, D. S. (2013). Experiential learning and outcome-based education: A bridge too far within the current education and training paradigm. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 3(2), 13–18.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawing and the design process. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Boston: Basic Books Inc.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.
Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–155.
Scott, B., Shurville, S., Maclean, P., & Cong, C. (2007). Cybernetic principles for learning design. Kybernetes, 26(9/10), 1497–1514. doi:10.1108/0368-4920710827445.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Snider, C. M., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2013). Analysing creative behavior in the later design process. Design Studies, 34(5), 543–574. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2013.03.001.
Stables, K. (2008). Designing matters, designing minds: The importance of nurturing the designerly in young people. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 8–18.
Strimel, G. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from: Dissertation Abstract International.
The Design Thinking Process (2012). Retrieved from http://dschool.stanford.edu/redesigningtheater/the-design-thinking-process/.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271.
van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003.
Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 125–148.
Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 885–907. doi:10.1007/s1423-011-9211-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baaki, J., Tracey, M.W. & Hutchinson, A. Give us something to react to and make it rich: designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. Int J Technol Des Educ 27, 667–682 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9371-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9371-2