[Re] Construction of the student's journey map between the research and ideation stages in the design processes.
Keywords:
Design-Methodology, Design-ResearchAbstract
One of the principal breakdowns in the learning and implementation of design methods in undergraduate university teaching is the obscure process at the moment when the diverse information obtained via research is translated into the ideation phase (for the document, creativity). This lack of assertiveness produces in the students a series of adverse reactions that materialize in the limited application of the design methodologies, causing very poor and inadequate processes in the analysis experience. With time, this transforms into apathetic attitudes towards the discovery and implementation of new methods, and impedes the students’ migration to situations with a greater degree of complexity. Articles related to this topic suggest that there is still not suffcient information that studies how one can optimize the collection of research in view of the generation of new ideas applied to design (Tsenn, Atilola, McAdams & Linsey, 2014; Gonçalves, Cardoso & Badke-Schaub, 2014), which could contribute to the teaching processes, a better understanding of the benefts, limits and prerequisites necessary for the application of design methodologies within a learning environment (Daalhuizen, Person y Gattol, 2014). This investigation revolves around trying to identify the diffculties that students exhibit when incorporating the analysis of information collected into tangible and intangible design products. The process of observation and analysis leverages the Design Methodology class dynamics to identify and register a user journey map that the students follow within the phases of the design process for the academic project, and takes advantage of the same to identify opportunities for impact which, in the future, will make the learning model more understandable and allow for construction of methodologies applicable to different projects.
ECMH ABIERTA_AT_N10-2016-27-44.
References
Belmonte, M. V., Millán, E., Ruiz-Montiel, M., Badillo, R., Boned, J., Mandow, L. y Pérez J. L. (2014). Randomness and control in design process: An empirical study with architecture students. Design Studies, 35(4), 392-411. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.01.002
Conley, C. (2004). Where are the Design Methodologists? Visible Lang, 196-215.
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering Design Methods, Strategies for Product Design (Fourth Edition ed.). (J. W. Ltd, Ed.) Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Daalhuizen, J., Person, O. y Gattol, V. (2014). A personal matter? An investigation of strudents’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method. Design Issues, 35(2), 133-159.
Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: a revolution-waiting-tohappen. (E. Ltd., Ed.) Design Studies, 4-11. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001
Finger, S. y Dixon, J. R. (1989). A Review of Research in Mechanical Engineering Design. Part I: Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Computer Based Models of Design Processes. Research in Engineering Design, 1, 51-67. Obtenido de https://www.researchgate.net/profle/Susan_Finger/publication/226463974_A_review_of_research_in_mechanical_engineering_design._Part_I_Descriptive_prescriptive_and_computer-based_models_of_design_processes/links/0912f51054e0015569000000.pdf
Gigerenzer, G. y Gaissmaier, W. (Enero de 2011). Heuristic Decision Making. (A. Reviews, Ed.) Annual Review of Phsicology, 62, 451-482. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. y Badke-Schaub, P. (Enero de 2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Issues, 35(1), 29-53.
Jones, C. (1978). Métodos de diseño. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, S. A.
Kolb, A. Y. y Kolb, D. A. (2011). Experiencial Learning Theory: A Dynamic Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. Research Gate, 42-68. doi:10.4135/9780857021038.n3
Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think, The Design Process Demystifed. Burlington, MA, Estados Unidos: Architectural Press.
Munari, B. (1981). ¿Cómo nacen los objetos? Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, S. A.
Rittel, H. W. (1987). The Reasoning of Designers. Arbeitspapier zum International Congress on Planning and Design Theory, (págs. 1-9). Boston MA. Obtenido de http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/ellendo/rittel/rittel-reasoning.pdf
Tezel, E. y Casakin, H. (2010). Learning Styles and Students’ Performance in Design Problem Solving. ArchNet-IJAR, 4(2-3), 262-277. Obtenido de https://www.researchgate.net/profle/Hernan_Casakin/publication/45492030_Learning_Styles_and_Students%27_Performance_in_Design_Problem_Solving/links/0fcfd50feaf2e33cb2000000.pdf
Tschimel, K. (s. f.). Let’s students think about thier thinking indesign in a constructivist approach. Conceptual Papers, 669-682.
Tsenn, J.; Atilola, O.; Mc. Adams, D. A.; y Linsey, J. S.(Septiembre de 2014). The effects of time and incubation on design concept generation. Design Studies, 35(5), 500-526.
Van Boeijen, A.; Daalhuizen, J.; Zijlstra, J.; y van der Schoor, R. (2013). Delft Design Guide. Amsterdam: BIS Pubishers.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All texts published in Revista Abierta Anuario de Investigación, without exception, are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 International) license, which allows third parties to use what is published as long as they mention the authorship of the work to the journal as the first medium in which it was published.
