Skip to main content

Teaching Without a Net: Mindful Design Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Design Education Today

Abstract

Teaching engineering design can be an inexact art. Textbooks, tools, and methods do exist, but translation of this knowledge to design practice in the classroom setting may flounder for many reasons. There is often no script for the instructor to follow because design itself is a process that is amorphous, iterative, and coevolutionary. In this chapter, we seek to inform design instruction for engineering students that also can be generalized to many design-infused disciplines. A significant feature of teaching design involves practiced anticipation and listening to students’ doing and learning to design. Sometimes, students confront unfamiliar concepts and need to be guided toward a new approach that may conflict with their prior educational experiences. For instance, students experience “threshold concepts” requiring a shift in thinking from one of engineering problem-solving to design problem-finding. Additionally, ambiguity in design can create discomfort and uncertainty, slowing students from moving forward. This chapter draws on the experiences of three reflective design educators (also design researchers) resulting in a multiple perspective approach capturing insights into how teachers teach design. Using collaborative inquiry and reflective practice, we look for patterns as a way of making visible the instructional moves of design educators. We examine design instructional experiences through three theoretical and empirically grounded lenses: (1) Cognitive apprenticeship: mastering requisite skills through mindful and practiced expertise, (2) Teaching as improvisation: understanding teachers as adaptive and skilled improvisers responding to unpredictable demands in the moment (“prepared not planned”), and (3) Pedagogical content knowledge: means for capturing and reflecting on what we know about design in the classroom. The resulting framework offers an integrative perspective on understanding: design students as learners, effective approaches for their needs, and principles of design thinking. We present suggestions for developing instructional moves to engage with your own learners at various points throughout a design project through a “playbook” for design educators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams RS, Siddiqui JA (2015) Analyzing design review conversations. Purdue University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=_ClrDQAAQBAJ

  • Adams RS, Turns J, Atman CJ (2003) Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice. Des Stud 24(3):275–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams R, Forin T, Chua M, Radcliffe D (2015) Making visible the “how” and “what” of design teaching. In: Adams R, Siddiqui JA (eds) Analyzing design review conversations. Purdue University Press, pp 431–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams RS, Forin T, Chua, M, Radcliffe D (2016) Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. Des Stud  45:30–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams RS, Aleong RJ, Goldstein M, Solis F (2017a) Problem structuring as co-inquiry. In: Christensen BT, Ball LJ, Halskov K (eds) Analysing design thinking: studies of cross-cultural co-creation. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams RS, Forin T, Chua M, Radcliffe D (2017b) Approaches for coaching students in design reviews. ASEE Conference, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed S, Wallace KM, Blessing LTM (2003) Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Res Eng Design 14:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alliance for Justice (2015) Philanthropy advocacy playbook: leveraging your dollars. https://www.bolderadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AFJ-Advocacy-Playbook-web.pdf

  • Ball DL, Thames MH, Phelps G (2008) Content knowledge for teaching. J Teach Educ 59(5):389–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron B (2004) Learning ecologies for technological fluency: gender and experience differences. J Educ Comput Res 31(1):1–36

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt C, Cennamo K, Douglas S, Vernon M, McGrath M, Reimer Y (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. Int J Tech Des Educ 23(2):329–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray JN (2002) Uniting teacher learning: collaborative inquiry for professional development. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 94

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray JN, Lee J, Smith LL, Yorks, L (2000) Collaborative inquiry in practice: action, reflection, and making meaning. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan KA (2013). Best of both worlds: issues of structure and agency in computational creation, in and out of school. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardella ME, Buzzanell PM, Cummings A, Tolbert D, Zoltowski CB (2014) A tale of two design contexts: quantitative and qualitative explorations of student-instructor interactions amidst ambiguity. In: Design Thinking Research Symposium. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson T, Cockayne W, Tahvanainen A (2013) Playbook for strategic foresight and innovation. https://www.thegeniusworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Playbook-for-Strategic-Foresight-and-Innovation-A4.pdf

  • Cennamo K, Brandt C, Scott B, Douglas S, McGrath M, Reimer Y, Vernon M (2011) Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based Learning. Interdisc J Prob-Based Learn 5(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A, Brown JS, Holum A (1991) Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. Am Educ 6:38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Coso AE (2014) Preparing students to incorporate stakeholder requirements in aerospace vehicle design. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

    Google Scholar 

  • Coso Strong A, Lande M, Adams RS (2018) Special session: put me in coach! Developing a design playbook for instructors to help engineering students do design. Frontiers in education conference, San Jose, CA. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658648

  • Crismond DP, Adams RS (2012) The informed design teaching and learning matrix. J Eng Educ 101(4):738–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Des Stud 3(4):221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan MM (1998) Improvisation in action. Organ Sci 9(5):593–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels DP (2003) Teaching and learning design presentations in engineering: contradictions between academic and workplace activity systems. J Bus Tech Commun 17(2):139–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651902250946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels DP, Martin KN (2008) Critiquing critiques. J Bus Tech Commun 22(2):135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickens M, Jordan SS, Lande M (2016) Parents and roles in informal making education: informing and implications for making in museums. American Society for Engineering Education annual conference, New Orleans, LA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25854

  • Donohoo J (2013) Collaborative inquiry for educators: a facilitator’s guide to school improvement. Corwin A SAGE Company, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey G, Lucena J (2003) When students resist: ethnography of a senior design experience in engineering education. Int J Eng Educ 19(1):168–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer LJ (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ 103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eris O (2004) Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design, vol. 10. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon J, Verwayen H (2017) Introducing: impact playbook for museums, libraries, and archives. Europeana. https://pro.europeana.eu/post/introducing-the-impact-playbook-the-cultural-heritage-professionals-guide-to-assessing-your-impact

  • Feland J, Cockayne W, Leifer LJ (2004) Comprehensive design engineering: designers taking responsibility. Int J Eng Educ 20(3):416–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincher S, Finlay J, Sharp H, Falconer I, Richards Board (2012) Change stories: a white paper from the share project. http://www.sharingpractice.ac.uk

  • Gess-Newsome J (1999) Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In: J. Gess-Newsome (ed) Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt G (2006) Expert knowledge or creative spark? predicaments in design education. In: Proceedings of the 6th DTRS symposium, Sydney, AU

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt G, Hochman H, Dafni I (2010) The design studio crit: teacher student communication. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24(3):285–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt G, Casakin H, Avidan Y, Ronen O (2014) Three studio critiquing cultures: fun follows function or function follows fun? In: Design thinking research symposium. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Goncher A, Johri A (2015) Contextual constraining of student design practices. J Eng Educ 104(3):252–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20079

  • Hargadon AB (2002) Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Res Organ Behav 24:41–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlubinka M, Dougherty D, Thomas P, Chang S, Hoefer S, Alexander I, McGuire D (2013) Makerspace playbook: school edition. https://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Makerspace-Playbook-Feb-2013.pdf

  • Huet G, Culley SJ, McMahon CA, Fortin C (2007) Making sense of engineering design review activities. AI EDAM 21(03):243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs-Sodeye O, Lande M (2013) Teaching with unfamiliar pedagogy for engineering design instructors. Frontiers in Education conference, Oklahoma City, OK, pp 1447–1449. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6685071

  • Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasl E, Yorks L (2002) Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 94(94):112

    Google Scholar 

  • King KB, West JR (2018) Futures thinking playbook: what might the future be like and what can we do to shape it? CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform

    Google Scholar 

  • Koen BV (1994) Toward a strategy for teaching engineering design. J Eng Educ 83(3):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1994.tb01104.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande M (2012) Ambidextrous mindsets for innovation: designing and engineering. PhD thesis, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande M (2016) Catalysts for design thinking & engineering thinking: fostering ambidextrous mindsets for innovation. Int J Eng Educ 32:1356–1363

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande M, Leifer L (2010) Difficulties student engineers face designing the future. Int J Eng Educ 26:271–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande M, Jordan S, Weiner S (2017) Making people and projects: implications for making-based learning. In: American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest conference. Tempe, AZ

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer LJ, Steinert M (2011) Dancing with ambiguity: causality behavior, design thinking, and triple-loop-learning. Inf Knowl Syst Manag 10(1–4):151–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewrick M, Link P, Leifer L (2018) Design thinking playbook. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Limbert T (2012) Dad’s playbook: wisdom for fathers from the greatest coaches of all time. Chronicle Books LLC

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson S, Krajcik, Borko H (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In: Gess-Newsome J & Lederman N (eds) Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Kluwer Publishing, Boston, p 95–128

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell J (2016) Scaffolding practices: a study of design practitioner engagement in design education. Des Stud 45:9–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Learning (n.d.) Repertoire of practice. http://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/glossary/repertoire-of-practice

  • Newstetter WC (1998) Of green monkeys and failed affordances: a case study of a mechanical engineering design course. Res Eng Design 10(2):118–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oak A,  Lloyd P (2014) Throw one out that’s problematic: performing authority and affiliation in design education. CoDesign (1–2):55–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen D (2015) The lean product playbook: how to innovate with minimum viable products and rapid customer feedback. Wiley Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Oplinger J, Lande M (2014). Disciplinary discourse in design reviews: industrial design and mechanical engineering courses. In: Proceedings of DTRS 10, Purdue University, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Oplinger J, Lande M, Jordan S, Camarena L (2016) Making leaders: leadership characteristics of makers and engineers in the maker community. Am J Eng Educ 7(2):65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman R (1999) Educating the designerly thinker. Des Stud 20(2):105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paretti MC (2008) Teaching communication in capstone design: the role of the instructor in situated learning. Journal of Engineering Education 97(4):491–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00995.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard C, Sanders P (2002) Weaving our stories as they weave us. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 94

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y, Ullmann G, Van der Loos M, Leifer L (2009) Coaching product development teams: a conceptual foundation for empirical studies. Res Eng Des 19(4):205–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer RK (2004) Improvised lessons: collaborative discussion in the constructivist classroom. Teach Educ 15 (2):189–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer RK (2008) Learning music from collaboration. International Journal of Educational Research 47 (1):50-59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer K (ed) (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon DA (1984) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=ceJIWay4-jgC

  • Schön DA (1993) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action basic books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard M, Jordan S, Lande M, McKenna A (2018) Exploring making-based pedagogy in undergraduate mezzanine-level engineering courses. In: American Society for Engineering Education. Education and research methods division. Salt Lake City, UT

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman L (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1):1–23

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Solis F, Coso Strong A, Adams R, Turns J, Crismond D (2016) Towards a scholarship of integration: lessons from four cases. In: 2016 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonalkar N, Mabogunje A, Pai G, Krishnan A, Roth B (2016) Diagnostics for design thinking teams. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking research. Understanding innovation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickfaden M, Heylighen A (2007) Exploring the ‘cultural capital’ of design. In: International conference on engineering design, pp. 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickfaden M, Heylighen A (2010) Scrutinizing design educators’ perceptions of the design process. Artif Intell Eng Des, Anal Manuf: AIEDAM 24(3):357–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060410000247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sypolt G (2017) Building an agile process playbook for software testing. Sauce Labs. https://saucelabs.com/blog/building-an-agile-process-playbook-for-software-testing

  • Turns J, Cardella M, Atman CJ, Martin J, Adams RS (2006a) Tackling the research-to-teaching challenge in engineering design education: making the invisible visible 22(3):598–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Turns J, Adams RS, Martin J, Cardella M, Mosborg S, Atman CJ (2006b) Tackling the research-to-practice challenge in engineering design education: insights from a user-centered design perspective. Int J of Eng Educ

    Google Scholar 

  • Turns JA, Sattler B, Thomas LD, Atman CJ, Bankhead RB, Carberry AR, Csavina KR, Cunningham P, Faust DK, Harding TS, Yasuhara K (2015) Reflecting on reflection: how educators experience the opportunity to talk about supporting student reflection. In: 2016 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition

    Google Scholar 

  • Uluoǧlu B (2000) Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Des Stud 21(1):33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg R (2001) Schön revised: describing team designing with reflection-in-action. In: Proceedings of design thinking research symposium, vol 5, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg R, Dorst K (1998) The reflective practice of design teams. Des Stud 19(3):249–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther J, Pawley A, Sochacka N (2015) Exploring ethical validation as a key consideration in interpretive research quality. In: American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition. Seattle, WA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24063

  • Walther J, Sochacka NW, Benson LC, Bumbaco AE, Kellam N, Pawley AL, Phillips C ML (2017) Qualitative research quality: a collaborative inquiry across multiple methodological perspectives. J Eng Educ 106(3):398–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolmarans N (2016) Inferential reasoning in design: relations between material product and specialised disciplinary knowledge. Des Stud 45:92–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz S, Daly SR (2016) Feedback in concept development: comparing design disciplines. Des Stud 45:137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Coso Strong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Coso Strong, A., Lande, M., Adams, R. (2019). Teaching Without a Net: Mindful Design Education. In: Schaefer, D., Coates, G., Eckert, C. (eds) Design Education Today. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17134-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17134-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17133-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17134-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics