Design is one of the most complex activities students encounter during their post primary education (high school). However because of its complexity it is not wholly recognised and accredited. This results in ad hoc approaches to design activity. These ad hoc approaches are thus stifling students’ cognitive development in achieving higher order cognition necessary for design activities. The activity of design involves the ability to gain knowledge, understand knowledge, apply it, analyse it, link it, and evaluate it, to improve the world around us. The output of design activity is artefacts or systems, which all vary in degrees of creativity due to ones ability to identify and progress through a design issue. Pre-designed or pre-solved projects may hinder the development of students’ thinking process and thinking skills from the aspect of developing creativity. However, during design activity the application of a range of skills is vital and necessary. Thus in the context of pedagogical approaches, the development of a design taxonomy for design activities is desirable. In the context of this research project, the qualitative observations and informal interviews findings have provided evidence that thinking skills are necessary for the promotion and development of design activity. The two test groups; control and experimental, displayed negative and positive results respectively, in terms of thinking skills due to the lack or presence, of a strategic approach to design activity. As a result of a design taxonomy approach, students and teachers became more aware of the skills and structure necessary for designing. This paper sets out to report the methodology for building awareness and relevance of students’ design cognition and ability. This is achieved through application of a ‘design taxonomy’ with reference to the principles and practices of design activity through a design skill-set portfolio and viewpoints in reference to the process of design activity towards the completion of a design project.
[1]
T. Meressi,et al.
Assessing design by design: progress report 1
,
2003,
33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003..
[2]
K. Smith,et al.
Looking Beyond Content: Skill Development for Engineers
,
2008,
0802.2950.
[3]
Bryan Lawson,et al.
Intentions, practices and aspirations: Understanding learning in design
,
2003
.
[4]
P. Fortier,et al.
Assessing Students’ Knowledge of Design Process in a Design Task
,
2005,
Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference.
[5]
Arley Tamir,et al.
Shaping Concepts of Technology: What Concepts and How to Shape Them
,
1997
.
[6]
J. Nodelman.
Success through Failure: The Paradox of Design
,
2007
.
[7]
E. Stephanie Atkinson,et al.
Key factors which affect pupils performance in technology project work
,
1994
.
[8]
Bauhaus,et al.
Design and form: The basic course at the Bauhaus
,
1999
.
[9]
P. John Williams,et al.
Design: The Only Methodology of Technology?
,
2000
.
[10]
D. Oxley.
Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering
,
1997
.
[11]
John Chris Jones,et al.
Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures
,
1981
.
[12]
Sharon Bailin.
CREATIVITY IN CONTEXT
,
2002
.
[13]
E. Bono.
Lateral thinking: Creativity Step by Step
,
1970
.
[14]
Ann F. McKenna,et al.
Characterizing Design Learning: A Mixed‐Methods Study of Engineering Designers' Use of Language
,
2008
.
[15]
Anita Cross,et al.
The educational background to the Bauhaus
,
1983
.
[16]
R. A. Kimbell.
Design education : the foundation years
,
1982
.
[17]
Eric Schatzberg.
Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing
,
1999
.
[18]
John Sweller,et al.
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
,
1988,
Cogn. Sci..
[19]
Ai-Girl Tan,et al.
Creativity: a handbook for teachers
,
2007
.