Teaching Design Interdisciplinarly - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 501 – 505

2nd World Conference on Educational Technology Researches – WCETR2012

Teaching Design Interdisciplinarly Wen Huei Chou a *, Chung-Wen Hung b, Teng-wen Chang c, Ya-Ling Kao d, Chorng-Sii Hwange a

National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, Douliou, Yunlin 64002, Taiwan, R.O.C.

abcde

Abstract This research addresses the specific innovate quality of design thinking, stretches the identification of the ‘designerly way of thinking’ implements this into a project-base course and discusses how C-K theory helps to develop techniques and facilitation to better harness the potential of innovation across disciplines, and practically addresses these design characters and processes that are intertwined in a reflective practicum. We investigated that synthesizing methods can successfully harness both creative and rational activities in our context, with proper facilitating engineering students, and solve their problems in an innovative way. The discussion also had the chance to demonstrate that the potential contributions of incorporating humanities and interdisciplinary design research within both engineering and design schools are considerable. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey Keywords: Concept–Knowledge Design Theory, problem-solving, Design Thinking, Creative Design Teaching, reflection-in-action, interdisciplinary

1. Introduction Many researchers have urged that creativity is of paramount importance in engineering for it endows one with insight and discipline to seek out and address problems from the boundaries of different engineering disciplines (Ghosh, 1993; Pappas, 2002). The design engineer is an ill-defined design problem, and requires co-evolution of problem framing and solving, a creative, divergent and adaptable approach, and less fixation on prior solutions (Cross, 2006). Schön viewed the problem-solving element of design research as that which qualifies as ‘situated activity’, and viewed design in terms of ‘reflective activity’ and related notions, including especially ‘reflective practice’, ‘reflection-in-action’, and ‘knowing-in-action’ (Schön, 1983, 280). Facilitating the engineering design students to explore and develop abilities in problem framing, divergent thinking, critical reflection, and foster creativity are the innovative and appropriate solutions. These problems are usually characterized as “ill-defined”

* Corresponding Author:Wen Huei Chou. Tel.: +886-933-977-457 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.097

502

Wen Huei Chou et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 501 – 505

(Simon, 1969) or “wicked” problems (Rittel & Webber, 1972; Dunne&Martin, 2006) with “figural complexity” (Schön, 1990). Traditional engineers’ methods of reasoning are not enough as the situation is radically different from classical optimization and modeling (Hatchuel and Weil, 2011).This is a similar situation in design, as the direction of contemporary design research has already transformed from one based on production of artefact to one focused on the integration of varied knowledge and fields at different stages. But the predicament is the problems and knowledge domains designers encounter each time are multifarious. As designers are impossible to be omniscient, they have to figure a systematic model to give consideration to both rational and innovative, for co-working with experts from diverse fields from time to time. This research employs C-K theory to investigate an interdisciplinary project, which is a project-base course called “Design and Application of Intelligent Electronic Systems” in the Electrical Engineering department, and the participatory students are third years from Electrical Engineering department and Digital Media Design department. The purpose of this course program is to employ the integrations and cooperation for two domains, and the aim of this research is to explore the operation modes for engineers to acquire this capacity for innovative design reasoning (McMahon et al., 2003), for designers to obtain the rational reasoning knowledge (Eris, 2003, 2004), help students be critical and give due thought to the main issues in innovative design education. Moreover, to investigate the characteristic of a reflection-in-action reflective model in C-K two spaces on behalf of addressing a teaching reference for cross disciplinary course, especially for Engineering and Design domains, to help teach creative design in project-based learning (PBL) activities. The reason to have these students from two departments is because students from the Digital Media Design department have little programming background in a design school, and for Electrical Engineering students as they used to have a project-based course, and more or less with the experience of innovation. 2. Concept-Knowledge Theory Concept-Knowledge (C-K) theory is both a design theory and a theory of rational reasoning in design, it seeks to describe some kinds of design activities rationally (Hatchuel and Weil, 2003; Kazakci and Tsoukias, 2004). Design is defined then as the interaction of concept and knowledge spaces. C-K theory is a unified design theory and was first introduced by Hatchuel and Weil (2003). The name “C-K theory” reflects the assumption that design can be modelled as the interplay between two interdependent spaces: the space C of concepts and the space K of knowledge (Hatchuel and Weil, 2003; 2009). C-K theory is a research field and a teaching area (Hatchuel and Weil, 2009), as design is a dynamic mapping process between required functions and selected structures. The concepts from Schön about ‘reflective practice’, ‘reflection-in-action’, and ‘knowing-in-action’ (Schön, 1983, 280), are semblantly presented in the dynamic mapping process between C-K interdependent spaces. As Hatchuel and Weil manifested, design is actually the combination process of C-C, C-K, K-C, K-K operators. C-K: Search attributes in K which can be used to partition C, and the newly generated C must be confirmed whether it’s a concept or knowledge. K-C: Generate tentative concepts by adding new attributes to partition an existing concept. C-C: Graph operator in space C, and K-K: The reasoning of a knowledge to another knowledge (Hatchuel and Weil, 2002; 2009). The C-K theory gives a consistent and formal account of creativity and learning during design and differs from the analysis of the reflected decision between divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Kruger and Cross (2006) observed that the designers focus closely on the problem at hand and only use information and knowledge which is strictly needed to solve the problem. The emphasis in the interdisciplinary approach lies on defining the problem and finding a solution as soon as possible. Hence, as Dym et al. urged, teaching innovative design in PBL requires a better understanding of design thinking (Dym et al., 2005). A theory of design thinking is extremely useful for design teaching, because it can be taught and learned in a relatively short time, in controllable processes, with evaluation and exercises to improve creative efficiency. However, with the variety of cross disciplines, how to develop a design based project to harness various knowledge and integrate the divergent and convergent design thinking process to fulfill the education goal still remains unclear.


503

3. Project-Based Case Study The “Design and Application of Intelligent Electronic Systems” is a course for both Electrical Engineering department and Digital Media Design department students, and co-teaching by four professors, two from Electrical Engineering and two from the Media Design field. Twenty one students from design school and twenty five Engineering students are enrolled in this course. The purpose of the course’s new amendment is to establish an interdisciplinary and integrative aura for both sets of students to learn specific knowledge and design processes. All students are taught together, and they are asked to make a team up of two persons from different departments. But due to the shortfall of four from the design school, four teams have one more member from the Electrical Engineering department. The project analyzed in this study is the first project this semester, and its’ duration is six weeks. The teaching goal set up for students for technique is to learn Micro controls and the system design, and for design is to create ample and interesting interaction from their own old toys through Micro controls technology. Ten phases are designed for this project: 1. visual thinking warming-up exercise; 2. mind map for toys; 3. group sharing; 4. build a working team; 5.introduction of Micro controls; 6. concept developing and converging; 7. comments and discussion; 8. project executing; 9. design-technical suggestion and instruction; 10. final presentation and demonstration. More description is given below, and the time distribution is listed: 1. Warming-up exercise: This activity is designed for inspiring students to think visually, and for them to shake off the conventional associate thinking, also it is important for students to think and draw spontaneously. 2. Mind map for toys: Students are asked to bring one or two of their own old toys to class. Everyone has to draw an individual mind map from emotional, sensational, interactive, reminiscent, and materiality aspects to describe the toy(s). They are also encouraged to develop their own categories to draw their mind maps. 3. Group sharing: As this is big class, students are divided into eight groups, therefore everyone has enough time to share and discuss their toy and mind map in their groups. 4. Build a working team and project explanation: Students are asked to find a partner from another department. But due to the shortage of students from design school, four teams have one more member from the Electrical Engineering department. They were also given guidance about how to develop their project from both a technical and design side, and what to bring up for their final achievements. 5. Introduction of Micro controls: This is a phase taught by one Engineering professor alone. During the first week, the Arduino hardware platform and its software development environment are introduced 6. Concept developing and converging: Students have three weeks to develop and retrieve their design, whilst at the same time having Micro controls lessons. At the end, they were asked to put their concept into three 2K pages. 7. Comments and discussion: All students are divided into A and B two groups, each of them have one week for comments and discussion. 8. Project executing: Students are encouraged to develop their project under the consideration of design concept and technique implementation all through the phases. 9. Design-technical suggestion and instruction: All students and professors have joined a private group through FaceBook; we use this space as a virtual class space to exchange ideas and discussion. 10. Final presentation and demonstration: At week-6, students demonstrate their projects. 4. Case Analysis and Conclusion After this project the concept–knowledge (C-K) structure is applied to analyse the reflection-in-action cognitions reflected between C-K spaces. The concept–knowledge (C-K) with the combination process of C-C, CK, K-C, K-K operator diagram extracted from this case is illustrated in Figure 1. When compared with the original C-K dynamics diagram from Hatchuel and his colleagues (Hatchuel & Weil, 1999; 2004); it was found that

504


Figure 1. The concept–knowledge dynamics

there are several points of concern both under the cross-disciplinary circumstances, and for the design thinking teaching process. The realistic situation of this cross-discipline learning process appears to be a more complicated C-K working structure than solo discipline and initiate C-K theory. 1. Both the design and engineering fields have their own path for concept and knowledge space, and for their reflective action. Moreover, when the project is managed as a cross-discipline concern, their concept and knowledge paths are intertwined as students from both sides have to solve phasic problems together before moving on to the next action.


505

2. The concept and knowledge status can or may be planned in project-based learning projects to ensure some specifications and knowledge are experienced by students; otherwise the reflection-in-action cognitions reflected between C-K spaces are spontaneously contingent on the dynamic exporting processes. 3. The reflection-in-action cognitions reflected between C-K spaces aren’t linear. Therefore four interdependent operators of concept–knowledge ‘C-C, C-K, K-C, K-K’ could happen simultaneously, and these four reflective paths are not fixed, they are dependent on different action and reflections from both fields. 4. As this is a two-disciplinary project, learning processes need to be well planned and full discussion integrality for both solo disciplinary and interdisciplinary, to make sure learning objectives are reached in various statuses. But there is also a need to leave some flexibility for irregular innovation and inspiration. 5. For the aim of this project-based case study, it is hoped that this project be in possession of both innovative and knowledgeable in two expert fields, and through operative implementation to forge the capability of knowledge practice. Teaching a project-based learning project is providing a procedural knowledge for students to learn through procedure (Koedinger, & Corbett, 2006), and have particular contextual tasks planned for students. For teaching design thinking in interdisciplinary projects not only requires clear tasks for several learning stages, it also needs instructive self-reflection and steps of action research to intensify the spirited interaction between concept and knowledge. References Aspers, Patrik. (2006). Contextual Knowledge, Current Sociology, 54(5), 745-763. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer: London. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. The Academy of Management Learning and Education ARCHIVE, 5(4), 512–523. Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, 103-119. Eris, O. (2003). Asking generative design questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. International Conference on Engineering Design. Stockholm. Eris, O. (2004). Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Ghosh, S. (1993). An exercise in inducing creativity in undergraduate engineering students through challenging examinations and open-ended design problems. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 36(1), 113–119. Hatchuel A. & Weil B. (1999). Design-Oriented organizations : Towards a Unified Theory of Design Activities. 6th International Product Management Conference, Cambridge, UK. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2002). CK theory. Proceedings of the Herbert Simon International Conference on «Design Sciences vol. 15, p. 16 Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory. Proceedings of the, International Conference on Engineering Design. Citeseer. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). CK design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19(4), 181–192. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2011). Teaching innovative design reasoning: How concept–knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25(01), 77–92. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2004). CK theory in practice: lessons from industrial applications. Dubrovnik. Kazakci A, Tsoukias A., (2005). Extending the C-K design theory: A theoretical background for personal design assistants. Journal of Engineering Design, 16(4), 399-411 Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T. (2006) : Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27(5), 527–548. McMahon, C., Ion, B., & Hamilton, P. (2003). Sharing experience in engineering design education: historical background and future plans. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED’03 , p. 10 Pappas, E. (2002). Creative problem solving in engineering design. ASEE Southeastern. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic books. Schön, D. A. (1990). The design process. Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard’s philosophy of education research center, 111–141. Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.