Bombs Away: Visual thinking and students’ engagement in design … · 2017-02-27 · it’s a...

AbstractIn design studio, sketching or visual thinking is part ofprocesses that assist students to achieve final designsolutions. At QUT’s First and Third Year industrial designstudio classes we engage in a variety of teachingpedagogies from which we identify ‘Concept Bombs’ asinstrumental in the development of students’ visualthinking and reflective design process, and also as avehicle to foster positive student engagement. In First yearstudios our Concept Bombs’ consist of 20 minuteindividual design tasks focusing on rapid development ofinitial concept designs and free-hand sketching. In ThirdYear studios we adopt a variety of formats and differenttiming, combining individual and team based tasks. Ourexperience and surveys tell us that students valueintensive studio activities especially when combined withtimely assessment and feedback. While conventionallonger-duration design projects are essential for allowingstudents to engage with the full depth and complexity ofthe design process, short and intensive design activitiesintroduce variety to the learning experience and enhancestudent engagement. This paper presents a comparativeanalysis of First and Third Year students’ Concept Bombsketches to describe the types of design knowledgeembedded in them, a discussion of limitations andopportunities of this pedagogical technique, as well asconsiderations for future development of studio basedtasks of this kind as design pedagogies in the midst ofcurrent university education trends.

Key wordsvisual thinking, design sketches, design studio, studentengagement, thematic coding of visuals, industrial design

IntroductionIn any design studio on any given day, someone willalways be working with pens, pencils and paper. Whetherit’s a mock-up, mood board or concept, sketching is thequickest way to explore product ideas. Sketchingconstitutes a natural thinking process in design. It isthrough the iterative practice of sketching that designstudents learn about design visual thinking; that is, theprocess by which visual elements – codes, symbols, andother representational forms – are integrated into thetangible forms (whether drawings, prototypes, etc.). Final

design drawings are approached through a series ofdrawings (sketches); it is the designer’s dialogue withhis/her ideas, and contributes to design studio pedagogiesin traditional design education (Cross 1999).

In this paper we introduce “Concept Bombs” as one of theapproaches employed in design studio pedagogies at theIndustrial Design discipline of the Queensland Universityof Technology (QUT). Concept Bombs are design studiotasks that require students to engage in a rapid visualthinking process to generate a conceptual solution to asupplied design problem in a very short time. The contextis the design studio and thus this paper reviews keyliterature on design studio pedagogies and visual thinking.Through the analysis and comparison of First and ThirdYear students’ Concept Bomb sketches, this paperdescribes the types of design knowledge embedded instudents’ sketches; benefits, limitations and opportunitiesof this pedagogical technique.

Finally, the paper presents a discussion of how this kind ofstudio activity promotes reflective design process andconsideration for future development as design pedagogyin the midst of current university education trends.Amongst other challenges for educators, current highereducation trends promote an ‘outcome focused’ approachwhere students, instead of being deeply immersed in theprocess of learning are eager to complete tasks, finishassessments, graduate and become employed. While thisis understandable in light of economic trends, processedbased learning task become more crucial for a student’seducation and development as good designers (Taboada& Coombs 2013).

Design studio pedagogies, design sketches and visualthinkingDesign studios are the traditional educational models indesign education and it has also been seen as producer ofknowledge and social practices in design (Dutton 1987,p.17). The design studio pedagogical approach is widelyknown as foundational for design education and is animportant part of the educational curriculum. The primaryaim of studio-based teaching is not only focused on howto design but on what design is through a creative andanalytical way of thinking. The design studio is the firstplace where a design student will experience the designprocess. This view is firmly supported on the Architecture

18

RESEARCH

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 20.1

Bombs Away: Visual thinking and students’ engagement indesign studios contextsDr Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Mr Andrew Scott, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Dr Gretchen Coombs, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

studio tradition where the act of designing – generating,evaluating, and developing alternatives – is learned andpracticed (Gross et al. 1997). The literature refers to avariety of well-established pedagogies that are employedin design studios where the student’s individual designingprocess during the studio is the central activity. Some ofthese pedagogies are: field trips, expert lectures and paneldiscussions, pin up sessions, desk critique sessions, formaljuries, consultation during class work time, and a propose-critique-iterate stance (Broccato 2009).

Traditionally, the design studio provides the physical settingthat enables a pedagogical basis focused on the ‘designproblem’ and on ‘learning by doing’ (Broadfoot & Bennett1991). Studios are usually organised upon replication ofprofessional task performance; this means, through theuse of client design briefs that present ill-defined designproblems. This problem-based context prompts studentsto experience ‘designing’, through the exploration andredefinition of the problem as part of the design problem-solving process. Schön (1992) described this experienceas ‘reflection-in-action’ and identified it as the basis of anydesign process. He furthered described that there aretypes of ‘know-how revealed in our intelligent action:knowing in action (tacit knowledge), reflection in action(questioning and challenging taking place whiledesigning), and reflection-on-action (questioning emergingafter design solution has been reached). One of themanifestations of this process is evident in thedevelopment of conceptual design sketches.

Design sketches are commonly employed by designers todevelop ideas. Schön defined the sketching process as aconversation between the designer and the drawing(1983), a process in which designers do not only recordan idea but generate it. Along this idea, Menezes andLawson (2006) state that conceptual sketches are at thecore of emergence and reinterpretation during the designprocess. As new ideas emerge and are drawn(emergence), drawings become visual clues that triggerand help developed and transform new images duringsketching. In earlier design studies, drawings have beenseen as communication aid but also as part of a cognitiveprocess of thinking and reasoning. According to Do(1996) design reasoning is embedded in the act ofdrawing, as it supports rapid exploration, and incrementaldefinition of ideas.

Studies about sketching in design as a cognitive reflectivethinking process (Schön 1992); have found differentstages of visual thinking. The dialectics of sketchingdiscovered by Goldschmidt (1991) refers to: ‘seeing that’(reflective criticism) and ‘seeing as’ (analogical reasoning

and reinterpretation that provokes creativity). Theimportance of design thinking activity has been eloquentlydescribed by Cross (1999, p. 36).

Without writing, it can be difficult to explore and resolveour own thoughts’; without drawing it is difficult fordesigners to explore and resolve their thoughts. Likewriting, drawing is more than simply an externalmemory aid; it enables and promotes the kinds ofthinking that are relevant to the particular cognitive tasksof design thinking.

In design research, drawings have been employed in thestudy of design knowledge and as a source to analysevisual thinking and the design activity (Dahl et al. 2001;Rosch 2002; Tang 2002). These studies assert the notionthat there is a relationship between drawing andexperience, and that drawing is an iterative act thatinvolves seeing and thinking. According to Kosslyn (2003)visual mental imagery is seeing in the absence of animmediate sensory input, and it is related to humanexperience where memory not only comprises an imageor an event, but also information about its sensorialcontext. Therefore, it can be said that knowledge in visualthinking is associated with contextualised humanexperience. For example, a study conducted by(Chamorro-Koc et al 2008) in which design sketches fromnovice and expert designers were compared, identifiedfour types of knowledge embedded in visualrepresentation of concepts: familiarity (experience fromseeing), individual experience within context (experiencefrom doing), principle based concept (knowledge ofproduct from experience of using it), descriptive basedconcept (knowledge of product from seeing it). Theiranalysis of those four types of knowledge embedded insketches led to discover references to: individualexperience, knowledge to a product’s use, and its contextof use and revealed that particular areas of humanexperience that trigger people’s understandings ofproducts. Figure 1 illustrates it by comparing sketches of anovice (left) and expert designer (right) done as part ofsuch study. Drawings were produced during acollaborative design task where both novice and expertdesigner were asked to discuss while designing inresponse to a given design brief (Chamorro-Koc et al.2009).

One conclusion emerging from the analysis of thesedrawings established that novice’s visual thinkingdemonstrate an emphasis on features, functions andmechanisms of the product being designed, while theexpert’s visual thinking demonstrate understanding ofprinciples of use and of the functionality of the product.

Bombs Away: Visual thinking and students’ engagement in designstudios contexts

19

RESEARCH


This type of analysis mostly focuses on the action ofsketching and visual thinking and not the specific type ofknowledge embedded in the sketches themselves. It addsto the extant theory postulating that drawing and re-interpretation support different kinds of cognitive activitiesin design. So we ask: could this approach be instrumentalin design pedagogy to understand students’ learning?What types of knowledge/thinking processes aremanifested in design sketching during Concept Bombstasks? And why is this important to understand in theshifting context of educational delivery systems (blendedlearning environments) and an outcome-focusedapproach to education

Concept Bombs: a visual thinking technique as part ofdesign studio pedagogyA pedagogy that utilises visual thinking through rapidsketching in our Industrial Design studio sessions is the‘Concept Bomb”. This format consists of a short designtask undertaken in class followed by immediate staff andpeer feedback. In First Year, students are given a five-minute briefing and asked to generate one or more designconcepts for a simple product. In Third Year design studiowe adopt various formats which include: five-minutebriefing or thirty-minute expert briefing, individual or teambased task, single task or a consecutive series of tasks,twenty-minute or three-hour design work in class. Thebrief could be focused on: a ‘blue sky’ and conceptualchallenge, or on elaborating on particular aspects of alarger project. In each case the task is achievable in a shortspace of time. The session concludes with immediatetutor-guided peer-assisted formative assessment duringthe same session. In this paper we compare First andThird Year Concept Bombs.

In First Year, Concept Bombs are 30 minute design tasks.The design brief is usually comprised of a single designchallenge with two or three factors for students toconsider. Each tutor presents the design brief to theirstudio group and responds to questions before the designphase commences. Students produce one or more

20

RESEARCH



Figure 1. Segments from a novice (left) and expert (right) designer sketches

Figure 2. A First Year student’s Concept Bomb (left) and the Concept Bomb design brief (right)

21

RESEARCH


conceptual sketches in marker on A3 paper brieflyannotated to facilitate explanation of the design ideas. Atthe end of the session students pin up their sketches andreview each other’s work. Sometimes time is provided toreview the work of other studio groups who have beenworking in parallel. Teaching staff review the worksimultaneously and the group reassembles for a briefpublic critique of noteworthy work. Figure 2 shows anexample of a First Year design Concept Bomb and thedesign brief.

Concept Bombs in First Year design studios are employedfor two different purposes: (a) to ‘pace’ tasks and projectswithin the semester; and (b) to give students theopportunity to refine their understanding of sketching forrapid ideation in a supervised setting. Therefore, theseconcept bombs follow four characteristics:

Pace and focus: Three to four Concepts Bombs in asemester help punctuate the semester experience withinor in between larger projects (Figure 3). As some First Yearstudents experience difficulty maintaining engagementand motivation throughout long design projects, ConceptBombs provide a change of pace. The briefs are ‘object’oriented with topics based on familiar daily experiencethat don’t require research. Students apply thefoundational design knowledge and methods they havebeen learning in class.

Rapid feedback: Concept Bombs enhance learning byclosing the feedback loop. As there is little pause betweendoing the sketches and getting feedback and assessmentthey provide ‘instant gratification' to students. Staffmoderated peer feedback also encourages studentengagement with assessment criteria and promotes peerlearning.

Ideation technique: Concept Bombs are about usingsketching as a rapid ideation tool. Given the same projectbrief as homework students would likely spend four or fivetimes as long on it. Left to their own devices novice

designers tend to draw slowly and carefully investing toomuch time on too-few sketches without necessarilyengaging in deep ideation. Forcing students to practicerapid sketching forces them to streamline their techniqueand see the value of sketching without the formality offormal project presentation. Doing this within a supportivestudio context and with an imminent deadline encouragesuseful engagement with relevant skills. Students learn thatfast sketching is a means to become more efficient andexplore more ideas in a shorter time (Figure 4).

Repetition: Repetition is a key part of Concept Bombsboth in the development of sketching skills and inmanaging performance pressure for students. SinceConcept Bombs are effectively an examination of sorts,students might be forgiven for feeling considerablepressure to perform. This is managed in two ways. Firstlythe assessment weighting for Concept Bomb assessmentwithin the unit is quite low—rarely more than 20%.Secondly this mark is derived from the best three out offour (or best two out of three) Concept Bomb


Figure 3. Concept bombs punctuate the First Year semester and provide a change of pace from long projects.

Figure 4: First Year students during concept bombactivity

submissions. The consequences of poor performance inany single Concept Bomb is thus quite low and theaddition of a ‘spare’ gives students a safety margin thatmoderates the pressure they feel on any single exercise.The outcome is that students report high levels ofengagement and enjoyment with Concept Bomb activities.

Third Year Concept Bombs present different formats whichdiffer in level of complexity and could be an individual orteam based task, a single task or a consecutive series oftasks towards one common objective. Complexity in thiscontext is defined by the type of previous knowledge(from previous design units) that students are promptedto refer to, or to integrate from, for the resolution of theconcept bomb task. Depending on the level of complexityconcept bombs could require five-minute briefing or athirty-minute briefing led by an industry expert; and couldtake twenty-minute or three-hour design work in class.Third Year concept bombs requiring low level ofcomplexity are often short 20 minute individual design

tasks but they form part of a larger project and promptstudents to explore particular aspects of the mainsemester project. Three design briefs take place one afterthe other during a single intensive design studio sessionwith minimum time allowed in between for pin-up of thework. This experience is repeated at key stages of thesemester project. Design briefs are delivered to studentsby including a user scenario to help contextualiseparticular design problems. The expected outcome is blue-sky design propositions which form the basis for laterin-depth exploration. At the end of the third task, studentsreview each other’s work and indicate, on a feedback labelthat accompanies each submission, the best of the threedesigns from each student. In some projects it has beenpossible to engage industry collaborators in the feedbackphase which gives students ‘real world’ input via informalconversation on the merits and limitations of their ideas.Figures 5 and 6 show examples of Third Year students’concept bomb sketches and the associated design brief.


22

RESEARCH


Figure 5. A Third Year design student’s Concept Bomb sketch (left) and the design brief

Figure 6. A Third Year design student’s Concept Bomb sketch provided by industry collaborator

More complex Third Year concept bombs involve three-hour design tasks requiring both individual and team work,and comprising a series of consecutive design tasks. Theyare often industry-led and focused on a specific aspect ofa project. We have introduced this approach in our firstsemester 2014 as a ‘walk through’ process to assiststudents in understanding the rationale behind a particular‘design for manufacturing’ process. The industry expertpresents a case and an exemplar, followed by a structureddesign task. Each step is timed (twenty to thirty minutes)and treated as a single concept bomb task with its ownintroductory briefing and conclusion. These conceptbombs mainly focused on the ‘how’ rather than on the‘what’. The session ends with students’ presentation oftheir work as a team, and with a ‘Master Class’ from theexpert, highlighting the achievements, gaps and issues thatneed further revisions. The expected result of this activityis to expedite students learning process of design

techniques they need to employ in the development of alarger project. Figure 7 describes the segments a three-hour session format.

Concept Bombs in third year design studios are employedfor two different purposes: (a) to encourage focus onparticular areas of the project that are of pedagogicalinterest, and (b) to give students the opportunity toenhance their sketching techniques and visual thinkingskills. The application of Concept Bombs in Third Yearshows four characteristics:

Pace and focus: Concept Bomb briefs focus on particularaspects of a project that otherwise students would notexplore at first. Such areas are usually related to newtheory being presented to them. In order to bring allelements together in a concise format for students,Concept Bomb tasks use scenarios (or case study) to


23

RESEARCH


Figure 7. A Third Year industry-led session format

Figure 8. Third Year concept bombs stimulate the early phases of larger design projects.

introduce a design problem, illustrate a user situation andthe context of use (Figure 8). Design requirements arepresented as a set of problem boundaries.

Rapid Feedback: The tight loop between the sketchingactivity and feedback allows students to quickly learn fromthe experience and bring their learning into the semesterdesign project. Peer feedback plays a more important rolewith these students as there is no formal assessmentattached to the task. Peer feedback becomes a vehicle forstudents to expose their ideas and be competitive, beaware of how effective they are at communicating theirdesign ideas, appreciate differences between what theythink is their best concept design versus what otherpeople perceive is the best, push themselves out of theircomfort zone and think about design aspects they wouldnot consider otherwise. In higher complexity conceptbomb tasks, expert feedback in the form of a Master Classat conclusion of the task, provide students with real-worldindustry input, which is highly appreciated.

Ideation technique: As in First Year, Third Year ConceptBombs cultivate student sketching as a rapid ideation toolhowever here there is a higher expectation of designresolution and effective visual communication.

Repetition: Repetition of Concept Bomb activity withinsame studio session allows students to quickly gainconfidence from Concept Bomb task one to task three.Usually by Concept Bomb three students are working atthat most confident and effective level.

There are evident differences between outcomes from thetwo students cohorts. It is interesting to observe thatbeyond the quality and detail of the design developmentobserved in the sketches, there are different types ofexperiential knowledge embedded in the visuals. Inputfrom a Second Year unit, Culture and Design, seems to

contribute to Third Year students design thinking whenaddressing the Concept Bomb briefs, as in this unitstudents explore how culture influences product designand how people interact and use products in everyday life.The following section presents an overview of acomparative analysis that aim to uncover characteristicsdescribed in this section.

Understanding visual thinking behind Concept Bombs:an initial analysisAn initial exploration of sketches produced by First andThird Year design students was conducted to find out whataspects of the learning experience of designing and visualthinking can be evidenced through Concept Bomb tasks.This analysis is based on Chamorro-Koc et al (2009)study in which design sketches were categorized to revealtypes of individual knowledge.

Analysis of students’ Concept Bomb sketchesThe analysis of sketches was assisted with ATLAS.ti, asoftware-based qualitative analysis package. A system ofcategories was employed that focus on identifyingelements in sketches that reveal students’ individualexperience, knowledge of the product, and of theproduct’s context-of-use.

Drawings were analysed and interpreted to identifyreferences made to students’ knowledge of the productdesign, their individual experience with similar products,and references to context of use employed in their designconcepts. The following table shows the coding system.

The coding system reveals different types of knowledgedue to individual experiences: individual experience withsimilar products (tacit knowledge), reference to a particularexperience situated in a particular context (individual orepisodic experience). The coding system was applied tothe appropriate segments of drawing. For example Figure 9shows how the coding was applied to a student’s ConceptBomb sketch. It uses images and written notation todescribe a design concept for a product with threecomponents, a bracelet, an earpiece and a screen, and thegesture-based interface of the device. It can be seen thatthe drawing does not provide detailed design featureshowever, arrows, annotations and images provide a senseof the principles behind the functionality of the design.Thus PBC – Principled based concept – is the code appliedto the segment of the drawing where it clearly indicateshow bracelet, screen and earpiece interact. The segmentshowing a detail of the earpiece placed on the earindicates IU – intended use. The segment showing theearpiece with an annotation (‘capture a photo’) is codedDBC – Descriptive based concept – as it only represents


24

RESEARCH


Table 1: Coding system

what it is, but does not provide more references as to thepurpose or context of use.

A comparison between First and Third Year students’sketches As expected differences in the quality and detail inConcept Bomb drawings of First and Third Year designstudents are evident. Additionally the thematic codingidentifies differences in design knowledge prompted by

Concept Bomb pedagogical objectives. The following tablepresents a comparison:

The literature indicates that the notion of students’engagement is one with many meanings (Bryson 2007),usually referring to: behaviours in the classroom, staff-student interaction, cooperation among students, and adynamic relationship between learner and environment(Chamorro-Koc & Scott 2012). In our experience student

engagement tends to be viewed as areflection of learning processes and it isa crucial means of an educationalprocess that establishes thefoundations for successful later yearstudies (Krausse & Coates 2008). As apedagogical tool to support forstudents engagement, Table 2 showsdifferences between First and ThirdYear students in each of the fouridentified Concept Bombcharacteristics. Pace grows in intensity,focus changes from object to context,feedback shifts from individualgratification to peer pressure throughformative assessment, ideation movesfrom the facilitation of fast explorationof ideas to the facilitation of fastexchange of ideas.


25

RESEARCH


Figure 9: Exemplar of a coded Concept Bomb

Table 2: Comparison of characteristics of Concept Bombs in First and Third Year design studios

As a pedagogical tool to understand ‘how’ design studentsconceptualise their design propositions, the analysis ofstudents’ Concept Bomb sketches reveal that their workmoves from basic descriptions of features or functions todescriptions of context and practices. This could be areflection of students’ enhanced understanding of socialissues learned through the Second Year Design andCulture unit. For example, hand gestures showed in Figure5 indicate a Gen Y form of gestural communication. In thiscase, this Concept Bomb reveals the learning from sociocultural issues previously learned from case studies, andshows how a student might design an object with socialconsiderations in mind.

Discussion: concept bombs, digital media and studioteaching Design studio is the context were learning emergesthrough action; it is distinguished by emphasis on project-based work, learning through praxis, learning throughworkshop, and learning through first hand observation(ALTC 2011). In this paper we have described ourapproach to the use concept bombs in First and Third yearindustrial design studios. Through a comparison andcoding of the experiential knowledge embedded instudents’ sketches we have gained an initial understandingthe type of experiential knowledge embedded in students’design work at different stages of their education. This hashelped inform our design studio pedagogies and to devisestrategies to foster positive students’ engagement. In themidst of current educational trends and the increaseddemand for use of digital media in all aspects ofeducation, we enquire about the possibilities of this kindof design studio approaches and its benefits to bedelivered via online studio formats.

It is well known that universities are currently facing arange of challenges, from diminishing governmentfunding, institutional amalgamations, internal restructures,changing expectations among students, as well aschallenges around the appropriate adoption andadaptation of digital technologies (Zehner 2008; Carey etal. 2013; Lockett 2008). Today’s generation of studentshave grown up immersed in digital technology, digitalmedia is deeply embedded in all aspects of their life, andthey expect this technology to be a part of not only theirsocial lives but also their academic lives (Brown 2001).Studies have found that digital media, wireless broadbandand mobile communication have provided remarkableopportunities to incorporate blended learning models intostudio teaching (Fisher 2010; Hill and Hannafin 2001).For example, the incorporation of digital media into studioteaching can be used to: enhance resource-based learningthat involves the reuse of available information assets to

support varied needs (Beswick 1990), cultivate students’capacity to employ independent learning, facilitatestudents’ access to resources at any time or location thatsuits them and not solely on campus (Hill and Hannafin2001; Fisher 2010). However, despite all theseadvantages and the promise of digital media to enhanceboth teaching and learning of the creative disciplines,there is still a lack of consensus on the best ways thesetechnologies can be incorporated into studio pedagogies(Hill and Hannafin 2001; Harris, Mishra and Koehler2009; Brown 2001).

In Australia, one of the forms in which digital media hasbeen employed in design studios is the online or virtualdesign studios (VDS). Developed since the 1990s, VDS isdefined as networked design studio accessed online(Shao, Daley and Vaughan 2007). A first large VDS projectwas run in 1999 by the University of New South Waleswith fifty students from different countries participating(Benntt 2001). The VDS teaching model instead offocussing on a final product or design, emphasises thedesign process encouraging students to review andevaluate their learning progress, and focuses oncommunication and collaboration between not onlystudents but also the teacher (Shao, Daley and Vaughan2007). There are evident benefits to the use of VDSbased on participation and collaboration aspects relevantto studio teaching and learning processes, which wouldalso address issues about students’ engagement.However, it remains unexplored the ways in which VDScould be employed to produce the type of learningexperiences prompted by face-to-face concept bombactivities, where aspects such as: immediacy, intensity,timing and complexity, dictates the teaching and learningexperience. Further research into this aspect and students’design processes; require involving observational studiesand retrospective interviews to further understand theexperiential and conceptual considerations informingstudent’s design decisions during Concept Bombsactivities and the possibilities to transfer similar type ofexperiences to an online environment.

Conclusion This paper has described Concept Bomb approaches indesign studio that promote students engagement andvisual thinking skills. Deploying this approach in both Firstand Second Year classes, both as independent exercisesand integrated within larger projects, demonstrates thatthe formula is flexible and adapts readily to pedagogicalrequirements. The intensity of the experience is engagingfor students and builds their confidence in their own skillsthrough via immediate feedback and peer learning. Thisimproves the quality of the studio experience, something


26

RESEARCH


perceived as under threat in the current academicenvironment (ALTC 2011). These outcomes suggest thatthe Concept Bomb approach is robust, flexible and worthyof more widespread adoption within our Industrial Designprogram.

Exploration of the differences between novice designstudents and their more experienced later-year colleaguesmay reveal useful insights into their learning processes.One approach for this may be to conduct identicalConcept Bomb design briefs with both the First and ThirdYear cohorts to afford more direct comparisons of theoutcomes.

In the shifting context of educational delivery systems wewonder how this type of experience could take place inemerging educational contexts such as virtual designstudios. In a virtual studio, the dynamic of Concept Bombswould certainly change but benefits may remain if theimmediacy of the experience can be duplicated. This isone possible avenue for further research.

ReferencesAustralian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) 2011,‘The Studio Teaching Project report’, University of NewSouth Wales, University of Queensland, RMIT University,University of Tasmania, viewed October 12 2013,http://www.studioteaching.org/index.php

Benntt, R 2001, ‘Omnium: A research initiative proposingstrategies fo quality, callaborative on-line teaching andlearning’. The ECI E-papers, vol. 1, no.1.

Beswick, N 1990, Resource-base learning, HeinemannEducational Books, London.

Breslin, M & Buchanan, R 2008 ’On the Case StudyMethod of Research and Teaching in Design’. DesignIssues, vol 24 no.1. pp. 36-40.

Brocato K 2009, ’Studio Based Learning: Proposing,Critiquing, Iterating Our Way to Person-Centeredness forBetter Classroom Management’, Theory into Practice, vol.48, no.2, pp. 138-146.

Broadfoot, O & Bennett, R 2003, ‘Design Studios: Online?Comparing traditional face-to-face Design Studioeducation with modern internet-based design studios’,viewed October 12 2013 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.124.3548

Brown, J S 2001, Learning in the Digital Age, The Internetand the University: Forum, pp. 71-72.

Carey, G, Bridgstock, R, Taylor, P, McWilliam, E & Grant, C2013, Characterising one-to-one conservatoire teaching:some implications of a quantitative analysis. MusicEducation Research, vol.15 no.3, pp. 375-368.

Cartier, P 2011 ‘Most valuable aspects of educationalexpectations of the students in design education’.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15, pp.2187-2191.

Chamorro-Koc, M, Popovic, V & Emmison, M 2008, ’Usingvisual representation of concepts to explore users anddesigners' concepts of everyday products’. Design Studies,vol. 29 no. 2, pp. 142-159.

Chamorro-Koc, M & Popovic, V 2009, ’ExperientialKnowledge representation and the design of productusability’, in Proceedings of EKSIG 2009: ExperientialKnowledge, Method & Methodology, eds. K Niedderer, LReilly, S Roworth-Stokes & C Smith, London, UK: LondonMetropolitan University, pp. 41-55.

Chamorro-Koc, M & Scott A 2012, ’First year ID studio-based teaching pedagogies and students’ engagement’ IDEducators Network (IDEN) Journal, issue 1.

Cross, N 1982, ’Designerly way of knowing’ DesignStudies, vol. 3 no. 4, pp. 221–227.

Cross, N 1998, ’Natural intelligence in design’ DesignStudies, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 25–39.

Do, EYL & Gross, MD 1996, ‘Drawing as a means todesign reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘96Workshop on Visual Representation, Reasoning andInteraction in Design, viewed 30 September 2013,http://depts.washington.edu/dmgftp/publications/pdfs/aid96-mdg.pdf

Dorta, T, Perez, E, & Lesage, A 2008, ‘The ideation gap:hybrid tools, design flow and practice’, Design Studies, vol.29, no.2. pp. 121-141.

Dutton, T A 1987, ’Design and Studio Pedagogy’, Journalof Architectural Education vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 16-25.

Fisher, K 2010, ‘Technology-enabled active learningenvironments, an appraisal’, CELW Exchange. Centre forEffective Learning Environments, pp. 6-10.


27

RESEARCH


28

RESEARCH


Goldschmidt, G. (1991) The dialectics of sketching.Creativity research journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 123-143.

Gross M & Do YL 1997, ’The Design Studio Approach:Learning Design in Architecture Education’ in Proceedingsfrom Design Education Workshop, eds. J Kolodner & MGuzdial, viewed 30 September 2013http://depts.washington.edu/dmgftp/publications/pdfs/edutech97-eyd.pdf

Hill, JR & Hannafin, MJ 2001, Teaching and learning indigital environments: The resurgence of resource-basedlearning, Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, vol. 49 no. 3, pp. 37-52.

Krause, K & Coates, H 2008, ‘Students’ engagement infirst-year university’ Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, vol. 33 no. 5, pp. 493–505.

Kvan, T 2001, ’The pedagogy of virtual design studios’Automation in Construction, vol. 10 no.3, pp. 345-353.

Lockett, DR 2008, The scholar/performer: a newdimension in music research, Paper presented atAustralasian Piano Pedagogy Conference,Canberra, viewed30 September 2013 http://www.appca.com.au/2007proceedings.php

Menezes, A & Lawson, B 2006, How designers perceivesketches. Design Studies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 571-585.

Oxman, R 2004. ’Think-maps: teaching design thinking indesign education’ Design Studies, vol. 25, no.1, pp. 63–91.

Oxman, R 1999, ’Educating the designerly thinker’ DesignStudies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 105–122.

Shao, YJ, Daley, L & Vaughan, L 2007, Exploring Web 2.0for virtual design studio teaching, in eds. Roger Atkinson,Clare McBeath, Elvin Chua Chee Peng, Alan Soong SweeKit, Chris Cheers, ICT: Providing Choices for Learners andLearning, Singapore, 2-5 December 2007, pp. 918-922.

Schön, DA 1983, ‘The reflective practitioner howprofessionals think in action’, Basic Books, New York.

Schön, DA & Wiggins, G 1992, ‘Kinds of seeing and theirfunctions in designing’ Design studies, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.135-156.

Taboada, M & Coombs, G 2013, ‘Liminal moments:designing, thinking and learning’ in DRS Cumulus 2013:Design Learning for Tomorrow – Design Education fromKindergarten to PhD, in eds. Reitan, JB, Digranes, I &Nielsen, LM, Oslo.

Zehner, R 2008, ‘Studio teaching in Australia, from artand architecture to urban design and planning’, Paperprepared for presentation at the ACSP – AESOP JointCongress Chicago, Illinois


Bombs Away: Visual thinking and students’ engagement in design … · 2017-02-27 · it’s a...

Documents

Transcript of Bombs Away: Visual thinking and students’ engagement in design … · 2017-02-27 · it’s a...