Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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, prototyping, 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.”
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. CrossRef
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, CH: Birkhäuser.
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. CrossRef
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.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. CrossRef
Dubberly, H. (2004). How do you design: A compendium of models. San Francisco, CA: Dubberly Design Office.
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. CrossRef
Dym, C. L., & Little, P. (1994). Engineering design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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. CrossRef
Krippendorf, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. CrossRef
Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2–8. CrossRef
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossRef
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). London: Springer. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross, N. G. (1991). Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12(4), 215–220. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., & Colby, A. (2008). Education engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
- Conceptions of design by transdisciplinary educators: disciplinary background and pedagogical engagement
Marisa E. Exter
Colin M. Gray
Todd M. Fernandez
- Springer Netherlands
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
Neuer Inhalt, AVL List GmbH/© AVL List GmbH, dSpace, BorgWarner, Smalley, Valeo Logo/© Valeo, FEV, TE Connectivity Corporation/© TE Connectivity Corporation