Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:19:37.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reexamining the relationship between design performance and the design process using reflection in action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2012

Hsien-Hui Tang ,
Yuying Y. Lee  and
Wenzhi Chen
Hsien-Hui Tang*
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Commercial Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Yuying Y. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Design, Chang Gung University, Taiwan
Wenzhi Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Design, Chang Gung University, Taiwan
*
Reprint requests to: H.H. Tang, Department of Industrial and Commercial Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reflective actions in collaborative design can potentially improve design performance and results. This paper quantitatively reexamines the relationships between reflective activities and design performance during the collaborative design process in terms of reflection in action. Twenty sets of protocol data were encoded by a modified version of Valkenburg and Dorst's coding scheme. Using statistical testing, the relationship between the design performance and the number of activities plus the transitions was examined. A significant statistical correlation was found between the percentage of mature framing (setting up of a desired goal with sufficient follow-ups) and the overall performance. These quantitative results verify the qualitative findings of the previous study.

Keywords

Collaborative DesignFramingProtocol AnalysisReflection in Action
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 26 , Issue 2: Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'10) , May 2012 , pp. 205 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies 16(2), 211–236.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, L.J., Ormerod, T.C., & Morley, N.J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25(5), 495–508.Google Scholar
Bilda, Z., & Demirkan, H. (2003). An insight on designers' sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Design Studies 24(1), 27–50.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review 86(6), 84–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Cai, H., Do, E.Y.-L., & Zimring, C.M. (2010). Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design. Design Studies 31(2), 146–168.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (Eastman, C.M., Newstetter, W.C., & McCracken, W.M., Eds.). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K.E. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Design Studies 26(5), 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies 16, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, C.M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design process. In Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (Moore, G., Ed.), pp. 21–37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eastman, C.M., McCracken, W.M., & Newstetter, W.C. (2001). Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman, N., & Gillett, R. (1997). Handbook of Spatial Research Paradigms and Methodologies. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Mc Neill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies 19(1), 21–61.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4, 123–143.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies 16(2), 189–209.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies 26(6), 593–611.Google Scholar
Hellström, T. (2007). The individual vs. the group? Individualization and collectivity among students in collaborative design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 17(3), 305–321.Google Scholar
Hey, J., Yu, J., & Agogino, A.M. (2009). Design team framing: paths and principles. Proc. 20th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, Paper No. DETC2008-49383. ASME: New York.Google Scholar
Hey, J.H.G., Joyce, C.K., & Beckman, S.L. (2007). Framing innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases. Journal of Design Research 6(1–2), 79–99.Google Scholar
Ho, C.-H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts. Design Studies 22(1), 27–45.Google Scholar
Kan, J.W.T., & Gero, J.S. (2008). Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Design Studies 29(4), 315–337.Google Scholar
Kan, J.W.T., & Gero, J.S. (2009 a). Learning to collaborate during team designing: some preliminary results from measurement-based tools. In Research Into Design (Chakrabarti, A., Ed.), pp. 560–567. Bangalore, India: Research Publishing Services.Google Scholar
Kan, J.W.T., & Gero, J.S. (2009 b). A generic tool to study human design activity. In Human Behavior in Design (Noell, R., Bergendahl, M., Grimheden, M., Leifer, L., Skogstad, P., & Badke-Schaub, P., Eds.), pp. 123–134. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kan, J.W.T., Gero, J.S., & Tang, H.H. (2010). Measuring cognitive design activity changes during an industry team brainstorming session. Proc. Design Computing & Cognition DCC ‘10 (Gero, J.S., Ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J.G., & Snell, J.L., (1960). Finite Markov Chains. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Kavakli, M., & Gero, J.S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies 23(1), 25–40.Google Scholar
Kim, M.H., Kim, Y.S., Lee, H.S., & Park, J.A. (2007). An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity: limited commitment mode control strategy. Design Studies 28(6), 585–604.Google Scholar
Kim, M.J., & Maher, M.L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies 29(3), 222–253.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies 29(4), 369–386.Google Scholar
Le Dantec, C.A., & Do, E.Y.-L. (2009). The mechanisms of value transfer in design meetings. Design Studies 30(2), 119–137.Google Scholar
Lemons, G., Carberry, A., Swan, C., Jarvin, L., & Rogers, C. (2010). The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Design Studies 31(3), 288–309.Google Scholar
Liikkanen, L.A., & Perttula, M. (2009). Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Design Studies 30(1), 38–59.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies 16, 237–259.Google Scholar
McDonnell, J. (2005). Editorial. CoDesign 1(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). About Designing: Analysing Design Meetings. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, T., Gero, J.S., & Warren, J. (1998). Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Research in Engineering Design 10, 129–140.Google Scholar
Menezes, A., & Lawson, B. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design Studies 27(5), 571–585.Google Scholar
Michel, R. (2007). Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Composition and construction in experts’ and novices' weaving design. Design Studies 22(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communication. Design Studies 23(5), 473–496.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (2010). How to Think Straight About Psychology, 9th ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies 21(6), 539–567.Google Scholar
Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design Studies 19, 455–483.Google Scholar
Tang, H.-H., & Lee, Y.-Y. (2008). Using design paradigms to evaluate the collaborative design process of traditional and digital media. Proc. Design Computing & Cognition '08 (Gero, J., Ed.), 439–456. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Tang, H.H., Lee, Y.Y., & Gero, J.S. (2011). Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: a protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme. Design Studies 32(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Tory, M., Staub-French, S., Po, B.A., & Wu, F. (2008). Physical and digital artifact-mediated coordination in building design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 17(4), 311–351.Google Scholar
Turner, S., & Turner, P. (2003). Telling tales: understanding the role of narrative in the design of taxonomic software. Design Studies 24(6), 537–547.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies 19(3), 249–271.Google Scholar
van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies 21(5), 505–522.Google Scholar
van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F., & Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press Limited.Google Scholar
Wang, W.L., Shih, S.G., & Chien, S.F. (2009). A “Knowledge Trading Game” for collaborative design learning in an architectural design studio. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 20(4), 433–451.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., & Duffy, A.H.B. (2004). Modeling collective learning in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18(4), 289–313.Google Scholar