<p>The Strategic Thinking of Novice Designers: Discontinuity Between Theory and Practice</p>

Abstract

IntroductionIn two studies we conducted, untutored Grade 7 students produced solutions to a design-and-make task in ways significantly different than ones prescribed by many textbooks and theories about learning to design. We found that novice designers (a) sequence the subprocesses of designing quite differently than the prescribed models, (b) do not generate several possible solutions and choose the most effective, (c) make greater use of three-dimensional modeling, (d) use less two-dimensional modeling than suggested by textbooks, and (e) constantly evaluate their design proposal from the earliest moments of the design-and-make process.The first study addressed the question: What design processes do Grade 7 students who have received no prior instruction use to produce a solution to a design-and-make task? Since the strategies used by these students may have been a function of the particular task and the way it was presented, a follow-up study addressed the question: Is the design process used by novices dependent on the task? This second study provided an opportunity to further investigate protocol analysis as a method for understanding novice designers' strategies. It also resulted in the refinement of a coding scheme to describe design process skills.This article first describes the theoretical framework used for the two studies and reviews related literature. Next, the methods used to collect and analyze the data are described. This is followed by a discussion of the strategies used by students and how the strategies differ from those in theoretical models of the design process. The implications of these findings for the teaching of design and technology complete the article.

STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace

“…Although research studies addressing children's engagement with design technology (e.g., MacDonald and Gustafson 2004) provide some insights into their abilities, the findings have been mixed. For example, some studies have questioned whether children should even be engaged in design drawing as they would rather experiment with materials instead (e.g., Welch and Lim 2000). Other research (e.g., MacDonald and Gustafson 2004) has even suggested that it is unnatural for young students to develop designs until their drawing skills are more developed.…”

A Quasi-Linear Model Of Design Cognition

“…The diversity of available learning models, and the variances and congruencies among them, suggest that there are probably many different kinds of learning, between and within individuals, as there are many different teaching-learning strategies (Phillips and Soltis, 2004). Welch and Lim (2000) found in their study that significant differences existed between the strategies used by novice designers and the theoretical models contained in many textbooks and curriculum documents, suggesting that teachers must think carefully about the way in which students are expected to explore, develop, and communicate their design proposals, and that teaching any form of linear design process may be counter-productive to students' success in developing a solution to a design-and-make task. Engagements with the real world, Griffiths (2003), have been used by some vocational institutions, and include pre-post and post-only competency tests.…”

Cognitive Research: Transferring Theories and Findings to K-12 Engineering Educational Practice

“…Two of the coding schemes (Welch & Lim, 2000;Wilson, Smith, & Householder, 2013) adopt what is referred to in this study as a general engineering design process (GEDP) model to document the amount of time students perform each of the steps. Though both coding schemes were identified by their authors as being grounded in research related to engineering design, both were also crafted with the intent of being used by teachers as a scaffolding tool for students.…”

“…In addition to the number of codes, Table 2 illustrates there are differences in the nature of codes attempting to illustrate students cognitive activity. Whereas one coding scheme applies codes to describe students reasoning around the three domains of function, structure, and behavior (Wells et al, 2014), other coding schemes (Welch & Lim, 2000;Wilson et al, 2013) use codes illustrating more of a linear model of designing (e.g. such as identify a need or a problem, research a need or problem, and model a possible solution).…”

“…Such coding suggests universal problem solving steps, which directly challenges current beliefs that design thinking is a distinct form of problem solving. Additional categories used to describe students design cognition, identified as cognitive processes, include communication (Mentzer, 2012;Kelley, 2008;Wilson et al, 2013) and skill sets such as computing, measuring, and prototyping (Kelley, 2008;Welch & Lim, 2000). To that end, as Granularity.…”