Design protocol data and novel design decisions

Akın, Ömer; Lin, Chengtah

doi:10.1016/0142-694x(94)00010-b

Cited by 137 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Protocol analysis has been accepted as a prevailing research technique allowing elucidation of design processes in designing (Cross et al 1996). While earlier studies dealt mainly with protocols' verbal aspects (Akın 1986), later studies acknowledge the importance of design drawing (Akın and Lin 1995), associating it with design thinking which can be interpreted through verbal descriptions (Suwa and Tversky 1997;Suwa et al 1998;Stempfle and Schaub 2002). By gathering information on how designers talk about and represent their design ideas during collaborative design while using different environments, we can understand how the characteristics of the different environments impact their focus during the design session.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Collaborative Virtual Environments on Design Behaviour

Maher

Bilda

Gül

Design Computing and Cognition ’06

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A collaborative design environment makes assumptions about how the designers communicate and represent their design ideas. These assumptions, including the availability of sketching, 3D modelling, and walking around virtual worlds with avatars, effectively make some actions easier and others more difficult. An analysis of design behaviour in different virtual environments can highlight the impact and benefits of the different tools/environments and their assumptions. This paper reports on a study of three pairs of designers collaborating on design tasks of similar complexity using a different design environment for each task: face to face sketching, remote sketching, and 3D virtual world. Comparing the behaviour patterns and design actions we conclude that characteristics of the design process are quite different in sketching and 3D world environments. While sketching, the architects more frequently moved between the problem and solution spaces, dealing with analysis and synthesis of ideas. The same architects focused on synthesis of the objects, visually analysing the representation, and managing the tasks to model the design when they were in the 3D virtual world.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Collaborative Virtual Environments on Design Behaviour

Maher

Bilda

Gül

Design Computing and Cognition ’06

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Novice engineering designers spend less time on problem scoping and tend to immediately engage in solution development activities (Atman et al 2007). In contrast, expert designers tend to delay design decisions to understand (Akin and Lin 1995) and frame the problem (Atman et al 2007); this can include doing research and gathering information (Bursic and Atman 1997). However, simply spending ample time gathering information is not sufficient; information must be integrated into an understanding of the problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, it is imperative that engineering students develop design skills to be prepared for professional practice (Sheppard et al 2006). In order to identify the skills that engineering students might develop during their undergraduate engineering education, many researchers have conducted studies to characterise expert-novice differences in engineering design processes and practices (Akin and Lin 1995;Atman et al 2005Atman et al , 2007. Some patterns have emerged from these studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Written feedback provided by first-year engineering students, undergraduate teaching assistants, and educators on design project work

Marbouti

Mendoza-Garcia

Diefes‐Dux

et al. 2017

European Journal of Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback is an important part of design education. To better understand how feedback is provided to students on their engineering design work, we characterised and compared first-year engineering students', undergraduate teaching assistants', and educators' written feedback on sample student design work. We created a coding scheme including two domains: Substance and Focus of feedback. Educators made more and longer comments than undergraduate teaching assistants, and undergraduate teaching assistants made more and longer comments than first-year students. The first-year students focused on giving specific directions in their feedback while educators and undergraduate teaching assistants asked thought-provoking questions. Students tended to make more comments about the ways that their peers had communicated their design work while educators and undergraduate teaching assistants made more comments about the design ideas presented in the sample work. This study offers implications for practice for supporting educators, undergraduate teaching assistants, and firstyear engineering students to be able to provide feedback on design work. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…Researchers use methods such as think-aloud protocols (Akin 1978;Akin 1986;Akin and Lin 1995;Cross, Christiaans et al 1996), retrospective analysis of design behaviour (Suwa and Tversky 1996), introspection (Galle and Kovács 1992) and analysis of design products (Schön 1983;Porter 1988) to study the role of drawing in design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%