Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As continuously evolving digital tools are incorporated into design education, educators and students must question the use of technology to ensure that creative processes are not diminished. This article presents a framework for questioning the relationships people form with new technology and explores the role of digital sketching in design education. The authors observed that conceptual drawing and ideational processes deteriorated in undergraduate work as design students placed greater reliance on computer aided design (CAD) techniques. Digital sketching was integrated into the existing coursework of four undergraduate interior design studios to improve conceptual drawing processes. Student reactions were collected and assessed using three key framework components: 1) Motive: What core philosophies and processes do design students value? 2) Mind: How do mindsets govern the use of technology in design education? 3) Media: How do tools empower design students to achieve their goals? Findings suggest that reflective thinking strategies should form the foundation of any technology–based design curriculum to ensure that motive, mind, and media are aligned.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barell

(1995). Teaching for thoughtfulness (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY : Longman.

Berniker

(1992). Some principles of sociotechnical systems analysis and design. Retrieved June, 2004, from http:www.plu.edubernikeSocioTech.htm.

Bilda

, & Demirkan

(2003). An Insight on Designers’ Sketching Activities in Traditional Versus Digital Media. Design Studies, 24(1), 27–50.

Cherns

(1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792.

Ching

(2003). Architectural graphics (4th ed.). New York : John Wiley and Sons.

Dickinson

J. K.

, Yu

, Zeng

, & Antunes

(2005). Pentablet as a CAD interface alternative. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21(4–5), 465–474.

Edwards

(2001). The technology paradox: Efficiency versus creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 221–228.

Flavell

(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Goldschmidt

(1999). Design. In Runco

M. A.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 525–535). New York : Academic Press.

10.

Hillier

(2002). Reflective teaching in further and adult education. New York : Continuum International Publishing Group.

11.

Hsia

, Samoylov

, McGovern

, & Bailey

(2005). Designer's Choice: Constructing a Study to Compare Display Interfaces for Early Design Sketching. Paper presented at The European Association for Computer Graphics 26th Annual Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

12.

Johnson

(1975). Meaning in complex learning. Review of Educational Research, 45, 425–460.

13.

Kellner

(2001). New technologies / New literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 67–81.

14.

Lawson

(1990). How designers think: The design process demystified (2nd ed.). London : Butterworth Architecture.

15.

Lawson

(2002). CAD and creativity: Does the computer really help? Leonardo, 35(3), 327–331.

16.

Lawson

, & Loke

S. M.

(1997). Computers, words and pictures. Design Studies, 18(2), 171–183.

17.

Livingston

(2003). Metacognition: An overview (ERIC Document 474273). Buffalo, NY : State University of New York at Buffalo.

18.

Livshits

, & Sandler

(1999). Upstairs/Downstairs in technical education: The unsettling effects of computerization. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 73–84.

19.

Meneely

(2002). Freedom and constraint in the design process: An empirical study of student profiles of creativity. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

20.

Meneely

, & Portillo

(2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2), 155–166.

21.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–31). San Francisco : Jossey–Bass.

22.

Nardi

, & O'Day

(1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

23.

Nickerson

(1999). Enhancing creativity. In Sternberg

R. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.

24.

Orr

(1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany : State University of New York Press.

25.

Papert

(1990). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http:www.papert.comarticlesACritiqueofTechnocen–trism.html.

26.

Petrina

(2003). Two cultures of technical courses and discourses: The case of computer aided design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 47–73.

27.

Pintrich

(2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

28.

Plimmer

, & Apperley

(2004). INTERACTING with sketched interface designs: an evaluation study. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1337–1340.

29.

Willis

(1999). Looking for what it's really like: Phenomenology in reflective practice. Studies in Continuing Education, 21(1), 91–112.

30.

Zimmerman

(2002). Becoming a self–regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

Motive,Mind,and Media: Digital Sketching in the Creative Culture of Design

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References