Artifacts as Tools in the Design Process - CiteSeerX

51 Artifacts as Tools in the Design Process Elizabeth Boling and Kennon M. Smith Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

CONTENTS Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................685 Artifacts as Tools.............................................................................................................................................................686 Visual Process Artifacts as Cognitive Tools .........................................................................................................686 Use of Product Artifacts ........................................................................................................................................687 Collecting and Disseminating Precedent in ISD ............................................................................................................689 Implications for ISD........................................................................................................................................................689 References .......................................................................................................................................................................690

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Both process and product artifacts are collected and disseminated in many fields of design as a source of design knowledge in the form of precedent, which includes both the artifacts themselves and the memories, or schema, retained as a result of interaction with or examination of the artifacts. The emergence of serious study into the practice of design in our field will extend beyond the study of process models and may be productively informed by understanding how artifacts are used as tools by designers.

In recent years, there has been much discussion in the instructional design and technology literature regarding the ways we practice and teach design. Although the field has a significant history of developing process models to guide and structure design activities (such as those reviewed by Andrews and Goodson, 1980), recent criticisms of these sorts of models (Gordon and Zemke, 2000; Zemke and Rossett, 2002) have encouraged reconsideration of basic assumptions underlying practice in the field and have emphasized the need for more flexible approaches to complex design problems (Nelson and Stolterman, 2003). Authors have emphasized the importance of defining the field’s value-added proposition in the face of rapidly changing academic and corporate settings (Hill et al., 2004), and for some years authors have openly wondered if the field could be strengthened by looking at processes and habits of thought in allied design fields (Bichelmeyer et al., 2006; Johnson, 2005; Murphy, 1992; Rowland et al., 1994).

KEYWORDS Artifacts: Designed objects or systems, including those created in the process of design and those resulting from the act of design. Precedent: Artifacts and/or memory of designing them or examining them.

685

Elizabeth Boling and Kennon M. Smith In this environment of reflection, we anticipate the need for increased attention to research in the area of design science (Cross, 2001), with a view toward expanding what Bichelmeyer (2003) termed instructional design theory, which she said was required to systematically study the work of instructional design and the impact of such designs. We propose to begin, in part, by examining the ways in which other design fields (such as art, architecture, and engineering) teach and practice design. We do not suggest that instructional design is entirely the same as other design fields, or that it should be; however, we do suggest that considering practices from related fields, both successful and unsuccessful, and pursuing the research questions generated by comparisons between their practices and those of instructional systems design (ISD) is a potentially fruitful avenue for expanding our own design science. This chapter examines one aspect of design practice in fields that share characteristics with ISD: the use of artifacts as tools for carrying out and teaching design.

ARTIFACTS AS TOOLS A striking feature of many design fields is the widespread use of, and attention given to, artifacts as tools in the design process. These artifacts fall into two primary categories: process artifacts and product artifacts. Process artifacts include sketches of several kinds (conceptual sketches, decision diagrams, formal or visualizing sketches, and so on) as well as documentation, generally written reports created at virtually any stage of the design process. Product artifacts are comprised of design work already completed, including instructional materials, final and end-user documentation, presentation materials, and episodic memories of reviewing or experiencing designed products. These two categories overlap, as the type of an artifact can depend on how it is being used by designers at a given time. Some process artifacts and product artifacts are propositional; that is, they are largely verbal and largely abstract. Even when a design report describes the plans for an instructional experience, for example, such a description does not tend to be a concrete, or tangible, representation of that experience. It may be very detailed but does not as often take the form of a narrative, a symbolic/diagrammatic representation, or a spatial/verbal diagram—forms currently being explored by Parrish (2006), Appelman (2005), and Botturi (2006). In some of the related design fields under discussion, artifacts are more often descriptive and concrete, visual or constructed. They include sketches, concept dia686

grams, prototypes, and, to a greater degree than is publicly practiced in our field, finished artifacts (products) or published representations of such artifacts.

Visual Process Artifacts as Cognitive Tools One of the most ubiquitous forms taken by process artifacts in many fields of design is sketching. Fish and Scrivener (1990) detailed the visual cognition process involved in sketching. They described the interplay between the two modes of mental representation— propositional (largely symbolic) and analog (“quasipictorial, spatially depictive”)—required for sketching (p. 121). As individuals sketch, the percept (what they are seeing) always undergoes mental manipulation before it is represented as marks; in turn, the marks “generate mental images that may in turn influence the sketch” (p. 120). Although they address sketching directly from life for the most part, they also state “there is objective evidence that spatially depictive images generated from memory have many of the properties needed to explain the ability of artists and designers to generate, manipulate, combine and inspect in imagination non-existent visual objects” (p. 122). Goldschmidt (1991) built on the work of Fish and Scrivener to study the use of sketching in the design process, finding what she calls an oscillation between propositional thinking and descriptive thinking. She observed designers using two types of argumentation, based on these two types of thinking, during the process of design. The first is seeing as argumentation, which is depictive and sketch based. The second is seeing that argumentation, which is nonfigural. The use of these two types of argumentation oscillates, particularly in skilled designers, over many iterations. Goldschmidt stated that “the order in which arguments switch modalities is not important. What is significant is the fact that the shift occurs both ways. …[It] helps translate the particulars of form into generic qualities, and generic rules into specific appearances” (pp. 138–139). In nonsketching protocols, Goldschmidt reported that “‘seeing as’ arguments are by far in the minority” (p. 140). Fish and Scrivener examined direct sketching from reality, while Goldschmidt turned her attention to sketching from the internal eye during the process of architectural design. Laseau (1986) did not conduct formal studies but brought decades of observational and professional experience to bear on his discussions of visual artifacts that represent nonformal properties of a design space. His work makes it clear that visual artifacts are not produced solely for the sake of picturing an essentially visual product. Suwa and Tversky

Artifacts as Tools in the Design Process (1996), in their study of sketching among architecture students and professionals, underscored Laseau’s experiential insights. They concluded that study participants were able to use their sketches to explore not only visual relationships among parts but also to explore functional relationships (such as lighting or circulation). They noted that: “This analysis has revealed that sketches make apparent not only perceptual relations but also inherently non-visual functional relations to both advanced design students and practicing architects” (p. 192). Goel (1995) offered an explanation for the mechanism whereby sketching supports cognition during the design process. He explained that sketches support design cognition by leaving options open because the elements of the symbol system used in sketching are non-notational. He drew on Goodman’s (1976) taxonomy of symbol systems in which nonnotational systems are defined as ambiguous with respect to what a given mark may stand for. As an example, a circle in a sketch may represent a sun, a wheel, a plate, or anything round. This ambiguity allows the designer to defer specific interpretation of the sketch (or diagram, as described by Laseau, 1986) and entertain or realize alternatives within the image that may not have been intended at the time of its creation. Fish and Scrivener (1990) labeled this same quality as indeterminacy and speculated, based on the visual theories of Kosslyn, a key proponent of the neurophysiologic view of representations in the brain as quasi-pictorial and manipulable, that “sketch indeterminacy may trigger innate recognition search mechanisms into generating a stream of imagery useful to invention” (pp. 121–123). In his exhaustive discussion of the types of knowledge required for design engineers, Vincenti (1990, p. 220) pointed out that nonverbal thinking in the form of sketching, drawings, graphs, and models is a critical way of thinking that falls under the knowledge category design instrumentalities. In his discussion of how knowledge builds in the field of engineering, Vincenti also discussed visible sketching and doodling, which serve as vicarious overt trials. These trials are mechanisms for selecting variation in a larger model that includes generating blind variations of design solutions or components of solutions (blind in the sense that their outcomes cannot be known until they are actually built and tried), employing consistent processes for selecting variations, and preserving or propagating the variations that are selected. When discussing his hypothesis that “instruments, on a par with theory, bear knowledge,” Baird (2004, p. xvii) criticized Vincenti for not going further in his exploration of engineering knowledge to accord artifacts them-

selves (including, presumably, sketches) the status of knowledge. Baird’s work, however, focused primarily on scientific instruments, and more exploration of this area is needed to establish solid links between his detailed analysis and process artifacts.

Use of Product Artifacts In his discussion of the design knowledge used by architects, Lawson (1980) stressed designers’ reliance on episodic memory rather than general principles or problem-solving algorithms (i.e., process models) to generate design solutions. Episodic memory includes direct experience with designed artifacts (designing them or experiencing the designs of others) and vicarious experience with descriptions and representations of designed artifacts. In more recent writing, Lawson (2004b, p. 443) explained that “precedent stored in the form of episodic memory,” either of one’s own design or of the designed artifacts of others, “is used by experts to recognize design situations for which gambits are available,” where gambits are defined as “patterns known to have certain properties and to offer certain capabilities” (p. 449). In his widely cited analysis of design science, or the study of design, Cross (2001, p. 54) listed experience in designing and manufacturing artifacts as two sources of design knowledge and the “knowledge inherent in the artifacts of the artificial world” as the third. Vincenti (1990, pp. 208) pointed to “fundamental design concepts” as the first category of design knowledge for engineers. These concepts include the operational principles underlying a device (how the device works) and “normal configuration” or the “general shape and arrangement that are commonly agreed to best embody the operational principle.” These fundamental concepts are learned through experience even before students begin to study design and are also “learned deliberately by the design community.” Episodic memory, knowledge inherent in artifacts, and fundamental design concepts are all derived in one way or another from the conscious examination of product artifacts. “Designers appear to be able to browse freely and associatively between multiple precedents [and] browsing enables the discovery of new, often unanticipated, concepts in precedents” (Oxman, 1994). In much of design education, the use of product artifacts is considered to be critical. The authors conducted a simple analysis of published design class syllabi in graphic design and illustration (Heller, 1998; Heller and Arisman, 2000). Each syllabus was examined to determine whether or not there were explicit references to the use of artifacts in any one of three ways listed below: 687

Elizabeth Boling and Kennon M. Smith

TABLE 51.1 Instances of Syllabi Explicitly Calling for Use of Artifacts in Graphic Design and Illustration Courses Surveyed Number of Syllabi Explicitly Calling for Use of Artifacts

Type of Syllabus

Number of Syllabi Surveyed

Artifacts Created by Others

Artifacts Created by Students

Student Memory of Artifacts or Experiences

Illustration courses Design courses

21 8

13/21 (62%) 3/8 (38%)

14/21 (67%) 1/8 (13%)

2/21 (10%) 0

• Students are instructed to use artifacts that have been created by others. • Students participate in critiques of their own designs in process as represented by presentation artifacts. • Students are expected to draw upon memories of artifacts or experiences. Our findings are summarized in Table 51.1. In each collection of syllabi, courses covering professional issues (e.g., business skills for designers) and theoretical or philosophical issues (e.g., Green Design) appeared together with the studio courses focused on design practice; the former typically did not include the use of artifacts. Many other courses did, including over half the courses in the sample of syllabi from illustration programs that required students to use their own artifacts or those created by others as part of their design education. In the smaller sample of graphic design syllabi, almost 40% required the use by students of artifacts created by others. It may not be surprising to see few requirements for using memories of artifacts in design courses given the emphasis on hands-on experience in such courses and the possibility that instructors assume students will use episodic memory while designing as a matter of course. Anthony’s (1999) extended criticism of the design jury (a public form of critique often incorporating external reviewers or panels of reviewers to comment on students’ work) in architecture education, which questions the forms that this pedagogical practice takes, also makes clear that explaining one’s own artifacts and experiencing criticism of them is considered an integral, essential part of design education in her discipline. The most compelling evidence of her belief in the use of artifacts for design education is that the alternatives to the classic design jury that she proposes all include the consideration and critique of designed artifacts. One of the most visible aspects of most design fields is their production of formal precedent: publications, juried competitions, design collections, case studies, and so on. Precedent in the sense we are using 688

it here does not carry the connotation of restriction on future decision-making as it does when used as a legal term. It does include any and every designed artifact from which a designer might draw understanding of solutions in specific contexts or inspiration for seeing as argumentation that might apply to a current design situation. Episodic memory is a form of precedent individual to each designer, and it is informal in the sense that it is idiosyncratic to the experiences and focus of each designer. Episodic memory is greatly extended by the production of formal precedent which allows individual designers to examine the artifacts of many more peers than would be available in the absence of published and collected representations of design products. Vincenti (1990) took the existence of both formal and informal precedent and its role in disseminating design knowledge so much for granted that he said, “The methods of propagating and preservation of engineering knowledge (journals, handbooks, textbooks, engineering school teaching, design traditions, word of mouth, and so forth) are obvious in our cases and do not require elaboration” (p. 242). A lot of time and money goes into disseminating precedent and maintaining adequate access to precedent for designers and design students in most fields of design. A brief search for design publications in well-stocked bookstores or online and a survey of these publications can make this point evident. To explore a fraction of the publications and competitions in one field of design, the reader may visit the website of the American Institute of Graphic Artists (AIGA; http://www.aiga.org/). Rowe et al. (2005) reported on their visits to practicing designers from three fields (sculpture, editorial illustration, and graphic design) in their work spaces to observe the forms of precedent that they collect and used. These included annual publications featuring the works of designers who pay to be included; specialty journals featuring representations of product artifacts and process artifacts with commentary; books in which multiple samples of specific product types are collected, often with descriptions of the design situations and decisions made; collections of illustrated books

Artifacts as Tools in the Design Process and individual images from all kinds of sources; online image collections; and catalogs from competitive shows of work. Many of these sources of precedent clearly require widespread financial and logistical support for collecting, publishing, and distributing the materials as well as a strong commitment on the part of individual designers to contribute examples of their work and participate in competitions and shows of work. The designers in this small study reported using precedent materials specifically as sources of technical and conceptual learning, springboards for design inspiration, and vehicles for building fundamental skills.

COLLECTING AND DISSEMINATING PRECEDENT IN ISD Several noteworthy efforts at collecting and disseminating precedent exist in the field of instructional design. The St. Louis Educational Museum, founded in 1905 (eventually the Audiovisual Department of the St. Louis Public Schools and subsumed into other departments) was an early such effort. Allen (2005) reported that the museum first housed key educational exhibits from the St. Louis World’s Fair of 1904 and subsequently collections of visuals, realia, and, in time, audio-visual materials and educational radio shows. Much of this material was donated in about 2003 to the Missouri Historical Society and the Academic Film Archive of North America. In 1946, Ole Larson at Indiana University started an instructional film library by purchasing materials from Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources. These were rented to schools and, in turn, funded the production of new audio-visual educational materials (Instructional Systems Technology Department, 2007). Although both of these collections still exist in archive form, neither was originally intended to serve as precedent material for designers, and neither is now readily available as such. Hooper et al. (2002), of the University of Minnesota Curriculum and Instruction and Design, Housing, and Apparel programs, developed and coordinated the University of Minnesota Learning Software Design Competition, which ran from 2000 to 2002, the goals of which were to “promote innovative educational software design [and] developing resources for instructional design students and practitioners” (p. 5). Pacificorp and the Design and Development Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) have collaborated on the Pacificorp Design and Development Award competition since 2004. The goals of this competition are to promote and recognize innovative design in adult instruction and to promote collaboration and mentoring between students, faculty and

practitioners of instructional design (AECT, 2007). There is not an explicit commitment to collection and dissemination of material from the competitions to serve as precedent in the field. Since the May/June 2004 issue, TechTrends (the membership journal of AECT) has published articles under the section heading “The Instructional Design Portfolio.” The stated purposes of this feature are to “offer practitioners in the field of ID a chance to see the work of other designers” and to “provide for the sharing of design knowledge that is not always available in other formats” (AECT, 2004). Apart from these efforts (not all of them yielding published precedent and some industry efforts not being available to designers outside the companies or design groups involved), the authors are not aware of a volume of relevant precedent materials, or disciplinewide efforts at disseminating such precedent, in the instructional design field comparable to those evidenced in the work spaces of the designers visited during our pilot study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ISD We are a design field. Murphy (1992) came to this conclusion in reviewing Lawson’s (1980) work on the thinking and knowledge of designers. Goel (1995), in studying the cognition of design, made the case that instructional design is a prototypical design activity, because its core activity—the design of instruction— shares high-level characteristics with other prototypical design endeavors. His analysis of prototypical design fields holds strong face validity for those who have practiced instructional design. He enumerated 12 characteristics of design-task environments and explained that the degree to which an environment exhibits these characteristics is the degree to which it resembles a prototypical design environment. These characteristics are (1) a lack of information exists about the start state, the goal state, and the transformation required to go from one to another; (2) constraints on the task, either natural or manmade, do not constitute or define the task; (3) problems are large and complex; (4) problems do not decompose into distinct units except as the designer or as custom dictate; (5) components of the problem are only connected by contingent interdependency; (6) there are no right and wrong answers; (7) informational inputs to and outputs from the problem conform to certain categories; (8) feedback loops need to be simulated before the designed artifact exists; (9) errors carry costs; (10) the artifact will have to function independent of the designer; (11) specification and delivery are distinct from each other; and (12) specification and delivery are separated in time (pp. 85–87). Using these characteristics, 689

Elizabeth Boling and Kennon M. Smith most instructional design problem spaces can be seen to be close to the prototypical design case, which places instructional design close to architecture, design engineering, graphic design, and other fields of design and allows us to ask whether their practices may have relevance for us. If they do, much research lies ahead in multiple areas. In the area of artifacts as tools for design, research is needed to: • Examine further how the use of sketching and precedent might be incorporated effectively into instructional design activities. • Determine what might constitute rigor and applicability in representations of instructional designs for use as precedent. • Explore the barriers and facilitating factors present in the field for investing in the production and use of precedent. • Establish pedagogical guidelines for incorporating “designerly ways of knowing” (Cross, 2001) into ISD education.

REFERENCES Allen, J. (2005). St. Louis Educational Museum: a centennial commemoration. TechTrends, 49(2), 22–26, 65. Andrews, D. H. and Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. J. Instruct. Dev., 3(4), 2–16.* Anthony, K. (1999). Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. Appelman, R. (2005). Designing experiential modes: a key focus for immersive learning environments. TechTrends, 49(3), 64–74.* Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2004). Call for proposals: TechTrends instructional design portfolio. TechTrends, 48(3), 71. Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2007). PacifiCorp Design and Development Award website, from http://www.aect.org/Pacificorp/. Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: a philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bichelmeyer, B. (2003). Instructional theory and instructional design theory: what’s the difference and why should we care? IDT Rec., http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eidt/articles/ documents/ID_theory.Bichelmeyer.html. Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., and Gibbons, A. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, Vol. 29, edited by M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, and R. M. Branch, pp. 23–43. Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.* Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML: a visual language for the design of instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 54(3), 265–293.* Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline vs. design science. Design Issues, 77(3), 49–55.* Fish, J. and Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23, 177–126. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

690

Goldschmidt, B. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity J., 4(2), 123–143. Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Gordon, J. and Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53. Heller, S., Ed. (1998). Education of a Graphic Designer. New York: Allworth Press. Heller, S. and Arisman, M., Eds. (2000). Education of an Illustrator. New York: Allworth Press. Hill, J. R., Bichelmeyer, B. A., Boling, E., Gibbons, A. S., Grabowski, B. L., Osguthorpe, R. T., Schwier, R. A., and Wager, W. (2004). Perspectives on significant issues facing instructional design and technology. In Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, Vol. 29, edited by M. Orey et al., pp. 23–43. Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited. Hooper, S., Hokansen, B., Bernhardt, P., and Johnson, M. (2002). A learning software design competition. Educ. Technol., 42(5), 5–7. Instructional Systems Technology Department. (2007). The Larson to Sputnik Years: 1940–1957, Bloomington: Indiana University, http://education.indiana.edu/~ist/students/history/ larson.html. Johnson, C. (2005). Pedagogical Patterns in Required Masters Level Instructional Design Courses with Reference to the IBSTPI Competencies of 1999. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington: Indiana University. Laseau, P. (1986). Graphic Problem Solving for Architects and Designers, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. London: The Architectural Press, Ltd.* Lawson, B. (2004a). Schemata, gambits and precedents: some factors in design expertise. Design Stud., 25(5), 443–457. Lawson, B. (2004b). What Designers Know. Amsterdam: Elsevier.* Murphy, D. (1992). Is instructional design truly a design activity? Educ. Train. Technol. Int., 29(4), 279–282. Nelson, H. G. and Stolterman, E. (2003). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.* Oxman, R. E. (1994). Precedents in design: a computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Stud., 12(2), 141–157. Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.* Rowe, D., Smith, K. M., and Boling, E. (2005). In Defense of Picture Books: Design Artifacts as Sources of Knowledge for Instructional Designers. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Meeting, October 18–22, Orlando, FL. Rowland, R., Parra, M., and Basnet, K. (1994). Educating instructional designers: different methods for different outcomes. Educ. Technol., 34(6), 5–11. Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. (1996). What architects see in their sketches: implications for design tools. In Proceedings of CHI’96: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 191–192. New York: ACM Press. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Zemke, R. and Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 37(2), 27–35.* * Indicates a core reference.