Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-27T01:04:54.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRODUCING A TOOL TO SUPPORT REFLECTION THROUGH SKETCHING AND PROTOTYPING DURING THE DESIGN PROCESS

Part of: Design Support Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

B. Jobst ,
K. Thoring  and
P. Badke-Schaub
B. Jobst*
Affiliation:
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
K. Thoring
Affiliation:
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
P. Badke-Schaub
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
*
*birgit.jobst@hs-anhalt.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sketching and prototyping are parts of a ‘reflective conversation with materials of a design situation’ (Schön, 1992). To support this conversation, we developed a reflective tool -the Reflection Canvas- that facilitates reflection activities through sketching and prototyping on the one hand and verbalisation on the other. We introduced the reflective tool to design students. Based on observation and answers from a questionnaire data reveal that guided reflection structured the process in a helpful way. It also turned out students had difficulties to switch from visualisation to verbalisation.

Keywords

decision makingdesign methodsreflectionprototypingsketching

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 207 - 214
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Arnheim, R. (2013), Kunst und Sehen: Eine Psychologie des schöpferischen Auges, Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Dörner, D. (2002), “Am Anfang war das Wort-oder doch das Bild-oder doch das Wort…”Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1989), “Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 5, p. 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, J.B. and Tang, C. (2011), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
Bloom, B.S. (1956), Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain, McKay, New York, pp. 20–24.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1933), How we think (revised edition), DC Heath, Boston.Google Scholar
Dörner, D. (2011), Die Logik Des Misslingens: Strategisches Denken in Komplexen Situationen, Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Dow, S.P. et al. (2012), “Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy”, Design Thinking Research, Springer, pp. 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K. and Meerkamm, H. (2013), Integrierte Produktentwicklung: Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit, 5., überarbeitete und erweiterte., Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, E. and Carroll, M. (2012), “The psychological experience of prototyping”, Design Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J.C. et al. (2013), Moral Maturity: Measuring the Development of Sociomoral Reflection, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1997), “Capturing indeterminism: representation in the design problem space”, Design Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2002), “The backtalk of self-generated sketches”, Design Issues, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2017), “Manual Sketching: Why Is It Still Relevant?”, In: Ammon, S. and Capdevila-Werning, R. (Eds.), The Active Image: Architecture and Engineering in the Age of Modeling, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Nixon, R. (2013), The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research, Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Kolb, D.A. (1983), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002), “A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview”, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V. (2012), 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization, 1st ed., Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1946), “Action Research and Minority Problems”, Journal of Social Issues.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, K., Gordon, J. and MacLeod, A. (2009), “Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review”, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 595–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahl, G. et al. (2007), Konstruktionslehre: Grundlagen Erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung Methoden Und Anwendung, 4th ed., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Römer, A., Leinert, S. and Sachse, P. (2000), “External support of problem analysis in design problem solving”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 144–151.Google Scholar
Sachse, P., Hacker, W. and Leinert, S. (2004), “External thought—does sketching assist problem analysis?”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass San Francisco.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1992), “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation”, Research in Engineering Design Theory, Applications, and Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 131–147.Google Scholar
Schön, D. and Wiggins, G. (1992), “Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing”, Design Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, M., Sachse, P. and Römer, A. (2003), “Support value of sketching in the design process”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoring, K., Mueller, R.M. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2019), “Exploring the Design Space of Innovation Canvases”, Research Perspectives in the Era of Transformations, presented at the Academy for Design Innovation Management Conference, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzstein, A. and Hacker, W. (2004), “Reflective Verbalization Improves Solutions—the Effects of Question-Based Reflection in Design Problem Solving”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar