Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Hsien-Hui Tang (a1), Yuying Y. Lee (a2) and Wenzhi Chen (a2)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Reprint requests to: H.H. Tang, Department of Industrial and Commercial Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. E-mail: drhhtang@mail.ntust.edu.tw

References

Hide All
Adams, R.S., Turns, J., & Atman, C.J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice. Design Studies 24(3), 275294.
Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies 16(2), 211236.
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), 325357.
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), 131152.
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), 495508.
Bilda, Z., & Demirkan, H. (2003). An insight on designers' sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Design Studies 24(1), 2750.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review 86(6), 8492.
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), 146168.
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.
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Birkhäuser.
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K.E. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: Wiley.
Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Design Studies 26(5), 445461.
Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies 16, 261274.
Eastman, C.M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design process. In Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (Moore, G., Ed.), pp. 2137. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eastman, C.M., McCracken, W.M., & Newstetter, W.C. (2001). Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. New York: Elsevier Science.
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foreman, N., & Gillett, R. (1997). Handbook of Spatial Research Paradigms and Methodologies. Hove: Psychology Press.
Gero, J.S., & Mc Neill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies 19(1), 2161.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4, 123143.
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies 16(2), 189209.
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies 26(6), 593611.
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), 305321.
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.
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), 7999.
Ho, C.-H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts. Design Studies 22(1), 2745.
Kan, J.W.T., & Gero, J.S. (2008). Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Design Studies 29(4), 315337.
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. 560567. Bangalore, India: Research Publishing Services.
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. 123134. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
Kemeny, J.G., & Snell, J.L., (1960). Finite Markov Chains. New York: Springer–Verlag.
Kavakli, M., & Gero, J.S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies 23(1), 2540.
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), 585604.
Kim, M.J., & Maher, M.L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies 29(3), 222253.
Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies 29(4), 369386.
Le Dantec, C.A., & Do, E.Y.-L. (2009). The mechanisms of value transfer in design meetings. Design Studies 30(2), 119137.
Lemons, G., Carberry, A., Swan, C., Jarvin, L., & Rogers, C. (2010). The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Design Studies 31(3), 288309.
Liikkanen, L.A., & Perttula, M. (2009). Exploring problem decomposition in conceptual design among novice designers. Design Studies 30(1), 3859.
Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies 16, 237259.
McDonnell, J. (2005). Editorial. CoDesign 1(1), 14.
McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). About Designing: Analysing Design Meetings. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McNeill, T., Gero, J.S., & Warren, J. (1998). Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Research in Engineering Design 10, 129140.
Menezes, A., & Lawson, B. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design Studies 27(5), 571585.
Michel, R. (2007). Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 8197.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Composition and construction in experts’ and novices' weaving design. Design Studies 22(1), 4766.
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communication. Design Studies 23(5), 473496.
Stanovich, K.E. (2010). How to Think Straight About Psychology, 9th ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
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), 539567.
Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design Studies 19, 455483.
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.), 439456. Berlin: Springer.
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), 129.
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), 311351.
Turner, S., & Turner, P. (2003). Telling tales: understanding the role of narrative in the design of taxonomic software. Design Studies 24(6), 537547.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies 19(3), 249271.
van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies 21(5), 505522.
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.
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), 433451.
Wu, Z., & Duffy, A.H.B. (2004). Modeling collective learning in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18(4), 289313.

Keywords

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

  • Hsien-Hui Tang (a1), Yuying Y. Lee (a2) and Wenzhi Chen (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed