Advertisement

Planning to Enhance Student Learning Outcomes on Innovation Design Projects

  • Yi Teng Shih
  • Willy D. Sher
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)

Abstract

Design studio is the central learning environment for students in design schools. For the major design project, various topic selections can lead to dissimilar design journeys. This module was taught for the first time at one of the international universities in China campus in the 2015 spring semester. After completing the teaching, students suggested that more critiques help them to acquire design knowledge and manage their time more effectively. We adopted their suggestions. However, the learning outcomes in 2016 were not as good as those of the preceding year. To address this issue, we proposed Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as a framework to develop assessment strategies for various design stages, and we argued that assessment strategies designed based on this framework enhance student learning outcomes. We illustrated how the stages of Kolb’s model can be incorporated into the major design project and results presented in the paper.

Keywords

Design education Major design project Design critique Experiential learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Anthony, K.H.: Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ochsner, J.K.: Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. J. Architect. Ed. 53(4), 194–206 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experimental Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Enlewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunlap, J., Dobrovolny, J., Young, D.: Preparing eLearning designers using Kolb’s model of experiential learning. Innovate: J. Online Ed. 4(4), n4 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, D., Kolb, D.: User’s guide for Learning Style-Inventory: A Manual for Teachers and Trainers. McBer & Company, Boston (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forrest, C.: Kolb’s learning cycle. In: Fenman’s Train the Trainer Series (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall, S. (eds.): A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, 2nd edn. Kogan Page, Glasgow (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Romer, A., Pache, M., Weißhahn, G., Lindemann, U., Hacker, W.: Effort-saving product representations in design-results of a questionnaire survey. Des. Stud. 22(6), 473–491 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibrahim, R., Rahimian, F.P.: Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design. Autom. Construct. 19(8), 978–987 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sobek II, D.K., Jain, V.K.: Two instruments for assessing design outcomes of capstone projects. In: Proceeding of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buhl, H.: Creative Engineering Design. Iowa State University, Iowa (1960)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Isaksen, S.G., Dorval, K.B., Treffinger, D.J.: Creative Approaches to Problem Solving. Kendall Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maher, M. L. Poon, J. & Boulanger, S. Formalizing design exploration as co-evolution: a combine general approach. In: Gero, J.S., Sudweeks, F. (ed.), Advances in Formal Design Method for CAD, London, England (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simon, H.A.: Search and reasoning in problem solving. Artif. Intell. 21, 7–29 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schunn, C.D., Trafton, J.G.: The psychology of uncertainty in scientific data analysis. In: Feist, G., Gorman, M. (eds.) Handbook of the Psychology of Science, pp. 461–483. Springer Publishing, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paletz, S.B.F., Peng, K.: Problem finding and contradiction: examining the relationship between naïve dialectical thinking, ethnicity, and creativity. Creat. Res. J. 21, 139–151 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorst, K., Cross, N.: Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des. Stud. 22(5), 425–437 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of NottinghamNingboChina
  2. 2.School of Architecture and Built EnvironmentUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations