ENE 62000: Design Cognition and Learning: Home

Seeing design as a discipline with its own ways

• Cross, N. (2007).  Designerly Ways of Knowing. Read Chapter 1: Designerly Ways of Knowing.  Birkhäuser Architectur. [A reprint from Design Studies, 3(4), 1982.]
• Visser, W. (2009).  “Design: one, but in different forms”.  Design Studies, 30, pp. 187-223.

Resources

• Lawson, B. and Dorst, K. (2009).  Design Expertise.  Architectural Press.  Chapter 2: Understanding design. [Big picture overview]
• Lloyd, P. (2019). “You make it and you try it out: Seeds of design discipline futures.”  Design Studies, 65, pp. 167-181.

Title: Design cognition, situated knowing, professional ways of being

Read

• Ball, L.J. & Christensen, B.T. (2019).  “Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects.”  Design Studies, 65, pp. 35-59.
• Ylirisku, S. and Falin, P. (2008).  “Knowing in Situated Design Action”.  In Keinonen, T. (ed), Design Connections: Knowledge, Values, and Involvement in Design (pp. 8-17).  University of Art and Design Helsinki. 
• Adams, R.S., Daly, S., Mann, L.L., and Dall’Alba, G. (2011).  “Being a professional: Three lenses on design thinking, acting, and being.” Design Studies, 32, pp.598-607.  

Resources (theories of cognition and becoming)

• Johri, A. and Olds, B.M. (2011).  “Situated Engineering Learning: Bridging Engineering Education Research and the Learning Sciences.”  Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), pp. 151–185. 
• Svinicki, M.D. (1999).  “New Directions in Learning and Motivation.”  New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 80, Winter, pp. 5-27. 
• Dall’Alba, G. (2009).  “Learning Professional Ways of Being: Ambiguities of becoming.”  Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(1), pp.  34-45.

Read one – nature of design as a “situation”:

• Dorst, K. (2004).  “On the problem of design problems – problem solving and design expertise." Journal of Design Research, Vol. 4, Issue 2.
• Dorst, K. (2015).  Frame Innovation: Create new thinking by design (Chapter 1).  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  (Download through Purdue Libraries)
• Norman, D.A. and Stappers, P.J. (2015).  “DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems”.  She ji, 1(2), pp. 83-106.  

Read one – situational variations shape problem solving approach:

• Jonassen, D.H. (2000).  “Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving.”  Educational Technology: Research & Development, 48 (4), pp. 63-85. [Problem type taxonomy]
• Goel, V. & Pirolli, P. (1992).  “The Structure of Design Problem Spaces.”  Cognitive Science 16, pp. 395-429.  [Attributes of design problems linked to design cognition]

Title: Design as X World Café

• Sanders, L. (2006).  “An evolving map of design practice and design research.”  Interactions, November, pp. 13-17.
• Cooper, R. (2019). “Design research – It’s 50-year transformation.” Design Studies, 65, pp. 6-17. [Note – “research” refers to methods used by designers to understand problems and needs’

Resource:

• Norman, D.A. and Stappers, P.J. (2015).  “DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems”.  She ji, 1(2), pp. 83-106.  (from previous week)
• Boradkar, P. (2012). “Design as problem solving.” In Frodeman, R., Thompson Klein, J. & Mitcham, C. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Chapter 16).  London: Oxford University Press.  (Download through Purdue Libraries)

Different perspectives on “process”: Read two

• Atman, C.J. (2019). “Design timelines: Concrete and sticky representations of design process expertise.” Design Studies, 65, pp. 125-151.
• Dorst, K. (2019). “Co-evolution and emergence in design.” Design Studies, 65, pp. 60-77.
• Kan, J.W.T. and Gero J.S. (2009). “Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information in design protocol studies”. In J McDonnell and P Lloyd (eds), About: Designing.  Analysing Design Meetings, CRC Press, pp. 213-229 . 
• Lande, M. and Leifer, L. (2010). “Incubating engineers, hatching design thinkers: Mechanical engineering students learning design through ambidextrous ways of thinking.”  Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, Louisville.

Skim (bring a representation that surprised you or resonated with you):

• Dubberly, H. (2004).  How do you design? A Compendium of Models.  Dubberly Design Office, San Francisco CA.   [URL accessed August 26, 2014 - http://www.diametrics.io/how-do-you-design-a-compendium-of-models-by-hugh-dubberly.html]  

Resource

• Atman, C.J., Adams, R.S., Mosborg, S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J. and J. Saleem (2008).  “Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners.”  Journal of Engineering Education, October, pp. 359-379. [Same study design as above]
• Dorst, K. & Cross, N. (2001).  “Creativity in the design process:  Co-evolution of problem-solution.”  Design Studies, 22 (5), pp. 425-437.
• Mehalik, M.M. & C. Schunn (2006).  “What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes.”  International Journal of Engineering Education, 22 (3), Special Issue on Learning and Engineering Design.

Pick one (overview)

• Wynn, D.C. & Eckert, C.M. (2016). “Perspectives on iteration in design and development.” Research on Engineering Design, 32 pages.
• Sharp, J. and Macklin, C. (2019).  Iterate: Ten Lessons in Design and Failure (Preface and Section 1).  MIT Press. [Available as pdf via Purdue Libraries: https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/book/8709245]

Pick one (empirical study)

• Adams, R. (2002). “Understanding Design Iteration: Representations from an Empirical Study.” Proceedings of the International Conference of the Design Research Society, September, UK. 
• Jin, Y. & Chusilp. P. (2006).  “Study of mental iteration in different design situations.” Design Studies, 27, pp. 25-55.
• Chan, J. & Schunn, C.D. (2015). “The importance of iteration in creative conceptual combination.” Cognition,145, pp. 104–115.

Pick one of the “perspectives” in Sharp & Macklin, Section II, Chapters 4-14:

• Sharp, J. and Macklin, C. (2019).  Iterate: Ten Lessons in Design and Failure (Section II).  MIT Press. [Available as pdf via Purdue Libraries: https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/book/8709245]

Pick one - worked examples (translations):

• Haase, L.M., and Laursen, L.N. (2019). “Meaning Frames: The Structure of Problem Frames and Solution Frames.” Design Issues, 35(3).
• Van der Biji-Brouwer, M. (2019). “Problem Framing Expertise in Public and Social Innovation.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(1). [Cases – useful to see practices]

Read one set (Dorst or Kolko) – each includes a framework and an translation to practice:

• Dorst, K. (2011).  “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application.” Design Studies 32, pp. 521-532.  [The framework]
  • Alternative version: Dorst (2015). Frame Innovation.  MIT Press: Cambridge.  (Chp 3: Lessons from design).  [Digital copy through Purdue Libraries]
• Dorst (2015). Frame Innovation.  MIT Press: Cambridge.  (Chp 4: The Frame Creation Model).  [Digital copy through Purdue Libraries] ] [The translation to practice]

-or-

• Kolko, J. (2010). “Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis”.  Design Issues, 26(1), pp. 15-28. [The framework]
  • Alternative version: Kolko, J. (2015).  Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner's Guide to the Methods and Theory of Synthesis.  Oxford University Press.  (Chp 1 – Synthesis; Chp 3 – Abduction)  [Available through Purdue Libraries
• Kolko, J. (2015).  Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner's Guide to the Methods and Theory of Synthesis.  Oxford University Press.  (Chp 6-8)  [Available through Purdue Libraries] [The translation to practice]

Resource (methods):

• Kumar, V. (2012).  101 Design Methods (Mode 4: Frame Insights).  

Read:

• Daugherty, J. and Mentzer, N. (2008).  “Analogical reasoning in the engineering design process and technology education applications.”  Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), pp. 7-21. 
• Yilmaz, S., Daly, S.R., Seifert, C.D., & Gonzalez, R. (2016).  “Evidence-based design heuristics for idea generation,” Design Studies, 46, pp. 95-124.

Read one (one study focuses at the individual level, the other at the team level)

• Ball, L.J., and Christensen, B.T. (2009).  “Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: Two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution.”  Design Studies, 30, pp. 169-186.  
• Paletz, S., Schunn, C.D., and Kim, K.H. (2013).  “The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams.”  Cognition, 126, pp. 1–19.

Read:

• Jonassen, D. H. (2012). “Designing for decision making.”  Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359.
• Horst, W.J. & Rittel, J. (1987). “The Reasoning of Designers.” Presented at the International Congress on Planning and Design Theory, Boston, August. 

Read one:

• Christensen, B.T., and Ball, L., (2006).  “Dimensions of creative evaluation: Distinct design and reasoning strategies for aesthetic, functional, and originality judgments.”  Design Studies, 45, pp. 116-136.
• Otto, K. N., & Antonsson, E. K. (1991). “Trade-off strategies in engineering design.”  Research in Engineering Design, 3(2), 87–103. 
• Papadouris, N. (2012). “Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socio-scientific decision‐making situations.” Science Education, 96(4), 600–630. 

Resource (synthesis of decision-making tools in engineering design)

• National Research Council. (2001). Theoretical foundations for decision making in engineering design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
• Klein, G. (1999). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press.

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., and Feldman, M.S. (2008).  “Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the Role of Doubt in the Research Process.”  Organization Science, 19(6), pp. 907-918.

Pick 2

• [Play] Mabogunje, A., Eris, O., Hansen, P.K., & Leifer, L. (2008). “Product Design and Intentional Emergence facilitated by Serious Play.” Proceedings of NordDesign, Estonia, August.
• [Improv] Felsman, P., Gunawardena, S. and Seifert, C.M. (2020).  Improv experience promotes divergent thinking, uncertainty tolerance, and affective well-being. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35.
• [Conflict] Vanasupa, L., Sochacka, N., & Streveler, R. (2018). “Dynamic interactions of neurological states: Reflections on implications for learning engineering.” Murmurations, 1(1).
• [Tension] Baker, R., & Abdel Kawi, A. (2019). “Tension of push and pull in design coaching.” Proceedings of the DRS Learning Design Conference, Ankara.
• [Fixation] Crilly, N. (2015). “Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers”, Design Studies, 38, pp. 54-91.

Read:

• [Framework and example] Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996).  Designing engineers.  Cambridge: MIT Press.  Chapter 1-2 (framework and overview of study design) and Chapter 6 (case study).  

Read one – perspectives on the experience of design as a social process in professional settings:

• Feast, L., (2012).  “Professional perspectives on collaborative design work.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 8(4), pp. 215-230.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.734828
• Kleinsmann, M., and Valkenburg, R. (2008).  "Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects."  Design Studies, 29, 269-386.

Read one – perspectives on co-design as a process, social aspects of analogical reasoning:

• Brereton, M. F., Cannon, D. M., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. J. (1996).  “Collaboration in design teams:  How social interaction shapes the product.”  In H. C. N. Cross, K. Dorst (Ed.), Analysing design activity.  Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• Cahill, C. (2007).  “Including excluded perspectives in participatory action research.”  Design Studies, 28, pp. 325-340.​
• Wiltschnig, S. Christensen, B.T., and Ball, L. (2013).  “Collaborative problem-solution co-evolution in creative design”.  Design Studies, 34, pp. 515-542. [Social aspects of analogical reasoning, dealing with uncertainty, co-evolution]

Read (visual cognition -> sketching):

• Tversky, B. and Suwa, M. (2009).  “Thinking with Sketches”.  In A. Markman and K. Wood (eds), Tools for Innovation (Chapter 4, pp. 75-84).  London: Oxford Scholarship Online.
• Goldschmidt, G. (1991).  “The Dialectics of Sketching.”  Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), pp 123-143. 

Read one (objects as “cognitive artifacts” -> interaction, discourse, boundary objects):

• [Artifacts shape interactions] Groen, C., McNair, L.D. and Paretti, M.C. (2016).  “Prototypes and the politics of the artifact: Visual explorations of design interactions in teaching spaces.”  CoDesign, 12(1), pp. 39-54.
• [Artifacts as mediators in collaborative work] Blanco, E. (2003).  “Rough drafts: Revealing and mediating design.”  In D. Vinck (ed), Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation.  Cambridge: MIT Press.  [In the pdf, this is the second chapter.]
• [Gestures as artifacts] Wardak, D. (2016).  “Gestures orchestrating the multimodal development of ideas in educational design team meetings.”  Design Studies, 47, pp. 1-22.
• [Artifacts as boundary objects] Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4), 448-473. 

Resources:

• Fish, J and Scrivener, S. A. (1990).  Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23, 117-126.   [Visual cognition framework]
• Star, S. L (2010). “This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35 (5), 601-617. [Boundary objects framework]

Read (framework):

• Schön, D. A. (2016).  The Reflective Practitioner:  How Professionals Think in Action Basic Books, New York.  Chapter 1 (pp. 49-69), Chapter 3 (Structure of reflection-in-action), Chapter 5 (Reflective conversation)

Read one (unpacking the structure and nature of reflective practice):

• [Individuals] Adams, R. S., Turns, J. and Atman, C. J. (2003). “Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice”.  Design Studies, Special Issue on Designing in Context, 24(3), pp. 275-294. 
• [Teams] Stompff, G., Henze, L., Smulders, F. (2016).  “Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams.” Design Studies (November)

Read one (supporting reflective practice):

• Stumpf, S.C. & McDonnell, J.T. (2001).  Talking about team framing: Using argumentation to analyse and support experimental learning in early design.  Design Studies, 23 (1), pp. 5-23. 
• Tracey, M.W. and Hutchinson, A. (2015).  “Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development.”  Design Studies, 42, pp. 86-109.
• Pavlovich, K., Collins, E., and Jones, G. (2009).  “Developing Students’ Skills in Reflective Practice.”  Journal of Management Education, 33(1), pp. 37-58

Read (what students should know or be able to do):

• Dannels, D., Gaffney, A.H., and Martin, K.N. (2008).  “Beyond Content, Deeper than Delivery: What Critique Feedback Reveals about Communication Expectations in Design Education .”  International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2).
• Revisit:  Design as X, Friedman (2012), Norman & Stappers (2015),Whitney (2015)...

Pick one (understanding learners):

• Downey, G. & Lucena, J. (2003).  “When students resist: Ethnography of a senior design experience in engineering education.”  International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), pp. 168-176.
• Newstetter, W., and McCracken, W.M. (2001).  “Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments.”  In, W.M. McCracken & W. Newstetter (eds.), Design Learning and Knowing: Cognition in Design Education (Chapter 4).  New York: Elsevier Press.
• Sachs, A. (1999). “’Stuckness’ in the design studio.” Design Studies, 20(2), pp. 195–209.
• Carmel-Gilfilen, C., and Portillo, M. (2010).  “Developmental trajectories in design thinking: an examination of criteria.”  Design Studies, 31, pp. 74-91.
• Revisit: Week 4 (Design Cognition) and Week 5 (Multiple Trajectories of Being/Becoming)
• Resource:  Adams, R.S., Turns, J., and Atman, C.J. (2005).  “What could learning look like?”  DTRS6.

Pick one (teaching approaches and teacher reflections):

• Adams, R.S., Forin, T., Chua, M., and Radcliffe, D. (2017).  “Approaches for coaching students in design reviews.”  Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, Ohio.
• Kolko, J. (2018).  How I Teach: Reflecting on Fifteen Years of Design Education.  Brown Bear Publishing: Austin, TX.  (Chapters: Foundational Skills, Design Studio, Class Interactions, etc.).
• Kolko, J. (2012).  “Transformative Learning in the Design Studio”, Interactions, November + December, pg. 82-83.
• Paretti, M., Layton, R., Laguette, S., and Speegle, G. (2011).  “Managing and Mentoring Capstone Design Teams:  Considerations and Practices for Faculty.”  International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(6), pp. 1–14.
• Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D. and Leifer, L.J. (2005).  “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning.”  Journal of Engineering Education, Jan, pp. 103-120.
• Revisit: Week 13 (Reflective Practice), Crismond & Adams (2012), Dorst (2015), Kolko (2015), Papidouris (2012), Yilmaz et al (2016), NRC (2001). 

Pick one to see other approaches to the same dataset (DTRS10) and gain insights into understanding students, teaching approaches, and kinds of design knowledge:

• Adams, R.S., Forin, T., Chua, M., and Radcliffe, D. (2016).  “Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews.”  Design Studies, 45, pp. 30-67. [Mechanical engineering, industrial design, choreography]
• Cummings, A., Tolbert, D., Zoltowski, C.B., Cardella, M.E., and Buzzanell, P.M. (2016).  “A Quantitative Exploration of Student-Instructor Interactions Amidst Ambiguity.”  In R.S. Adams and J. Siddiqui (eds), Analyzing Design Review Conversations (pp. 395-412).  West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.  [Mechanical engineering, industrial design]
• Dong, A., Garbuio, M., and Lovallo, D. (2016).  “Generative sensing in design evaluation.”  Design Studies, 45, pp. 68-91. [Industrial design, entrepreneurship]
• McDonnell, J. (2016).  “Scaffolding practices: A study of design practitioner engagement in design education.”  Design Studies, 45, pp. 9-29.  [Industrial design, choreography]
• Yilmaz, S., and Daly, S. (2016).  “Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines.”  Design Studies, 45, pp. 137-158. [Mechanical engineering, industrial design, choreography]
• Wolmarans, N. (2016).  “Inferential reasoning in design: Relations between materials product and specialized disciplinary knowledge.”  Design Studies, 45, pp. 92-115 . [Mechanical engineering]