[RE] CONSTRUCTION OF THE STUDENT'S JOURNEY MAP BETWEEN THE RESEARCH AND IDEATION STAGES IN THE DESIGN PROCESSES

Authors

  • Ivette Chacón Escuela de Comunicación Mónica Herrera

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5377/aai.v1i10.20986

Keywords:

Design-Methodology, Design-Research

Abstract

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.

ECMH ABIERTA_IC_N10-2016-26-43.

Abstract
36
PDF (Español (España)) 16
HTML (Español (España)) 2

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-ased_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

2016-12-31

How to Cite

Chacón, I. (2016). [RE] CONSTRUCTION OF THE STUDENT’S JOURNEY MAP BETWEEN THE RESEARCH AND IDEATION STAGES IN THE DESIGN PROCESSES. Abierta. Anuario De investigación, 1(10), p. 26–43. https://doi.org/10.5377/aai.v1i10.20986

Issue

Section

Chair's research