Textile teacher students’ collaborative design processes in a design studio setting

The purpose of the present article was to analyse textile teacher students’ collaborative designing of a functional 3D textile puzzle for visually impaired children. The data collection took place across three sessions of collaborative designing: defining design constraints, visualisation and building a mock-up. Twelve first-year university-level students training to become textile teachers participated in the study, and they worked in four teams with three students in each team. We were interested in the nature of their design process and how kernel design ideas were created and transformed during the collaborative design process. The analysis focused on the teams’ design activities and content logs of the video data. The video-recorded data were segmented in 2-minute intervals using INTERACT video analysis program. Each segments were classified according to 7 observable design activities. This provided a macro level analysis for all design activities during each design session and data for further analysis of different orientations of teams. The results indicated that all teams engaged in progressive design processes and were able to create unique and practical design solutions. The design processes turned out to be a problem driven in nature for two teams whereas the others engaged in a solution-driven design process.

[1]  David Barlex,et al.  Sketching: Friend or Foe to the Novice Designer? , 2000 .

[2]  Mao-Lin Chiu,et al.  An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration , 2002 .

[3]  Holly Kihm,et al.  Constructing Blank Cloth Dolls to Assess Sewing Skills: A Service Learning Project , 2010 .

[4]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Observations of teamwork and social processes in design , 1995 .

[5]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How designers perceive sketches , 2006 .

[6]  Marianella Chamorro-Koc,et al.  Bombs Away: visual thinking and students' engagement in design studios contexts , 2014 .

[7]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[8]  Sara Hennessy,et al.  The Potential for Collaborative Problem Solving in Design and Technology , 1999 .

[9]  Halime Demirkan,et al.  On-line critiques in collaborative design studio , 2009 .

[10]  Andy Dong,et al.  The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication , 2005 .

[11]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[12]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[13]  Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,et al.  Design Thinking in Elementary Students’ Collaborative Lamp Designing Process , 2013 .

[14]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  Collaboration patterns in computer supported collaborative designing , 2004 .

[15]  Ricki Goldman,et al.  Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics , 2010 .

[16]  Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,et al.  Constraining an open-ended design task by interpreting sources of inspiration , 2014 .

[17]  V. Clark,et al.  Computer-aided multivariate analysis , 1991 .

[18]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified , 1990 .

[19]  Nicolette Lee,et al.  Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: a typology , 2009 .

[20]  Martyn Evans,et al.  Physicality in Design: An Exploration , 2010 .

[21]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication , 2002 .

[22]  R. Keith Sawyer,et al.  Learning How to Create: Toward A Learning Sciences of Art and Design , 2012, ICLS.

[23]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes , 2006 .

[24]  J. Hindmarch Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life , 2012, QMiP Bulletin.

[25]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Rolling with the punches: An examination of team performance in a design task subject to drastic changes , 2015 .