Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert



The present study focuses on the relationship between the acquisition of design knowledge by novice design students and the quality of their designs. Design learning is typically based on action and reflection. Knowledge of solution processes, being part of this reflection, is found to be crucial in monitoring and controlling the design process and in reaching an optimal, creative result. The studies described in this article suggest a close relationship between the amount of process knowledge – knowledge of managing and monitoring the solution finding process – reported by novice designers, and the creativity of the designed product.


design learning design thinking creativity and cognition students’ learning experiences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akin, Ö. 1986Psychology of Architectural DesignPion LimitedLondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., Judy, J. E. 1988‘The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance’Review of Educational Research58375404Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., Hare, V.C. 1991‘Coming to Terms: How Researchers in Learning and Literacy Talk about Knowledge’Review of Educational Research61315343Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.L., Kulikowich, J.M. 1996‘Interrelationship of Knowledge, Interest and Recall: Assessing a Model of Domain Learning’Journal of Educational Psychology87559575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amabile, T. M. 1983The Social Psychology of CreativitySpringer-VerlagNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Amabile, T. A. 2001‘Beyond Talent: John Irving and the Passionate Craft of Creativity’American Psychologist56333336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer B. (1963) ‘Systematic Method for Designers’, Design4Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, J.R. 1987‘Skill Acquisition: Compilation of Weak-method Problem Solutions’Psychological Review94192210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anderson, J. R. 1996‘ACT: A Simple Theory of Complex Cognition’American Psychologist51355365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anzai Y. (1991) ‘Learning and Use of Representations for Physics Expertise’. In: Ericsson K.A., Smith J. (ed). Toward a General Theory of Expertise, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 64–92Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., Rieser, J. 1986‘Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving’American psychologist4110781089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, M.T., Feltovitch, P.J, Glaser, R. 1981‘Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices’Cognitive Science5121152Google Scholar
  13. Christiaans, H. H. C. M.: 1992, Creativity in Design. The Role of Domain Knowledge in Designing, Lemma B.V., UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Christiaans, H. H. C. M. 2002b‘Creativity as a Design Criterion’Creativity Research Journal144154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christiaans H.H.C.M. (2002a), Book Review of C. Eastman, M. McCracken,, W. Newstetter (eds.), (2001). Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. Elsevier, Oxford. Design Studies23(4) 2002, 433–434Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. 1960‘A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales’Educational and Psychological Measurement203746Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, G., Sweller, J. 1987‘The Effects of Schema Acquisition and Rule Automation on Mathematical Problem-solving Transfer’Journal of Educational Psychology79347362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eastman C. M. (1969) ‘On the Analysis of Intuitive Design Processes’. In: Moore G.T. (ed). Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning. The MIT Press, Cambridge,MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  19. Eastman, C.McCracken, M.Newstetter, W. eds. 2001Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design EducationElsevierOxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Elio, R., Scharf, P. B. 1990‘Modelling Novice-to-expert Shifts in Problem Solving Strategy and Knowledge Organization’Cognitive Science14579639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ericsson, K.A., Smith, J. 1991Toward a General Theory of ExpertiseCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Eyk, G. H. A. van.: 1982, ‘The Writing of Learning Experiences as a Teaching Tool’, in R. Langdon, K. Baynes, P. Roberts (eds.), Design Education: Vol.5. Proceedings of the Design Policy Conference,London, 1982, Design Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Gagné, R.M. 1970The Conditions of Learning Holt2RinehartWinstonGoogle Scholar
  24. Greeno, J. G. 1980‘Trends in the Theory of Knowledge for Problem Solving’Tuma, D. T.Reif, F. eds. Problem Solving and EducationErlbaumIllsdale, NJ925Google Scholar
  25. Groot, A. D. de: 1974, ‘To What Purpose, to What Effect? Some Problems of Method and Theory in the Evaluation of Higher Education’, in W. A. Verreck (ed.), Methodological Problems in Research and Development, Swets, Zeitlinger, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Halpern, D.F. 1998‘Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Dispositions, Skills, Structure Training and Metacognitive Monitoring’American Psychologist53449455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hedge, A., Lawson, B.R. 1979‘Creative Thinking’Singleton, W.T. eds. Compliance and Excellence. The Study of Real Skills.MTP press ltdLancaster280305Google Scholar
  28. Jong,, Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. 1986‘Cognitive Structures of Good and Poor Novice Problem Solvers in Physics’Journal of Educational Psychology78279288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P., Van Vilstercn, P., Hummel, H., Wigman, M. 1997‘The Design of a Study Environment for Acquiring Academic and Professional Competence’Studies in Higher Education22151171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw, G.L., Zytkow, J.M. 1987Scientific Discovery Computational Explorations of the Creative ProcessesThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., Simon, H. 1980‘Models of Competence in Solving Physics Problems’Cognitive Science4317348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayer, R.E. 1987Educational Psychology: A Cognitive ApproachLittleBrown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Pietersen, C.: 2002, ‘Research as a Learning Experience: A Phenomenological Explication’, The Qualitative Report7(2). Scholar
  34. Schön, D. A. 1983The Reflective PractitionerBasic BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon, H. A. 1973‘Structure of Ill Structured Problems’Artificial Intelligence4181201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simonton, D. K. 2000‘Creativity: Cognitive, Personal, Developmental and Social Aspects’American Psychologist55151158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sternberg R. J., Lubart T. I. (1996) ‘Investing in Creativity’. American psychologist 677–688Google Scholar
  38. Sweller, J. 1989‘Cognitive Technology: Some Procedures for Facilitating Learning and Problem Solving in Mathematics and Science’Journal of Educational Psychology81457466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tynjala, P. 1998‘Traditional Studying for Examination Versus Constructivist Learning Tasks: Do Learning Outcome Differ?’Studies in Higher Education23173189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Venselaar K., Gerritsen van de Hoop W., Drunen P. van (1987) ‘The Knowledge Base of the Designer’, in P. R. J. Simons, G. Beukhof (eds.), Regulation of learning,pp. 121–135, SVO, The Hague.Google Scholar
  41. Weisberg, R. W. 1986Creativity. Genius and Other MythsFreemanNew YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Design EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.VRCUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations