The Instructional Model Framework of Undergraduate Industrial Design Core Course

  • Wenzhi ChenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 529)


Design is a powerful weapon for companies, and it is important to educate excellent designers for industry. The purpose of this study was to explore instructional design and to develop an instructional model for undergraduate industrial design core (studio) courses. The study was divided into two phases. First, 18 instructors were interviewed to collect qualitative data to formulate a framework of the instructional model. Then, a survey was conducted with a questionnaire designed according the framework and references to collect quantitative data to verify the model. The questionnaire was sent to 245 industrial design instructors, and 105 were returned. Finally, an instruction model for industrial design core course was formulated. The information provided in this study can deepen the understanding of instructional planning and provide a reference for teaching in design education.


Industrial design Design education Instruction model Teaching problems 



This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under grant numbers NSC 101-2410-H-182-018 and NSC 102-2410-H-182-016. Thanks are extended to all participants and research assistants for their contributions to these projects.


  1. 1.
    Schön, D.A.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reimer, Y.J., Douglas, S.A.: Teaching HCI design with studio approach. Comput. Sci. Educ. 13(3), 191–205 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ochsner, J.K.: Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. J. Architectural Educ. 53(4), 194–206 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gustafson, K.L., Branch, R.M.: What is instructional design. In: Reiser, R., Dempsey, J.V. (eds.) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, pp. 16–25. Allyn & Bacon, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrison, G.R., et al.: Designing Effective Instruction, 6th edn. Wiley, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alzand, W.: Instruction design and educational quality. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2(2), 4074–4081 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Instructional design as design problem solving: an iterative process. Educ. Technol. 48(3), 21–26 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demirbas, O.O., Demirkan, H.: Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learn. Instr. 17(3), 345–359 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zehner, R., et al.: Optimising studio outcomes: guidelines for curriculum development from the Australian studio teaching project. In: 2nd International Conference on Design Education. Connected, Sydney (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Attoe, W., Mugerauer, R.: Excellent studio teaching in architecture. Stud. High. Edu. 16(1), 41–50 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Design, College of ManagementChang Gung UniversityTao-YuanTaiwan, R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations