Abstract
Human–computer interaction (HCI) design generally involves collaboration from professionals in different disciplines. Trained in different design education systems, these professionals can have different conceptual understandings about design. Recognizing and identifying these differences are key issues for establishing shared design practices within the educational community. Contributing to this understanding, we examined whether and how two different populations of students have different knowledge structures with respect to HCI design. We adopted the romantic, conservative and pragmatic dimensions, previously investigated in the related research, to elucidate those differences. This paper compares one specific type of design artefact—conceptual frameworks—created by groups of students with different educational backgrounds: Arts and Engineering. It was based on a set of 22 criteria divided by two main domains: scheme (addressing form) and realm (focusing on contents). The obtained results show that students with background in Engineering (1) focus more on the product of design; (2) rely less on conceptual frameworks to guide the design process; and (3) produce artefacts that are more constrained in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, definition of a symbolic system, and information organization and shaping. We suggest that conceptual frameworks serve to communicate and understand design practice. We note that Engineering students seem to be more susceptible to fixation than Arts students and suggest that an emphasis of reflection-in-action could help compensating this problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
This might indicate that the spatial relations are being used more for problem decomposition than problem solving (Purcell and Gero 1998).
References
Adams, R., Turns, J., & Atman, C. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24, 275–294.
Atman, C.J., Adams, R.S., Cardella, M.E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.
Bansiya, J., & Davis, C. (2002). A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(1), 4–17.
Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design: A review of forty years of design research. Design Issues, 20(1), 16–29.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Bodker, S. (1998). Understanding representation in design. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 107–125.
Cardella, M., Atman, C., & Adams, R. (2006). Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers. Design Studies, 27, 5–24.
Chamorro-Koc, M., & Popovic, V. (2008). Using visual representation of concepts to explore users and designers’ concepts of everyday products. Design Studies, 29, 142–159.
Charyton, C., & Merrill, J. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 145–156.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441.
Ding, N., Bosker, R., & Harskamp, E. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 56(2), 325–336.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2007). Visual representations as ‘artefacts of knowing’. Building Research & Information, 35(1), 81–89.
Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 225–232). Ft. Lauderdale, FL: ACM Press.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MS: The MIT Press.
Goldschmidt, G. (1997). Capturing indeterminism: Representation in the design problem space. Design Studies, 18, 441–445.
Haynes, S., Carroll, J., Kannampallil, T., Xiao, L., & Bach, P. (2009). Design research as explanation: Perceptions in the field. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘09) (pp. 1121–1130). Boston, MA: ACM.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2003). Universal principles of design. Beverly, MS: Rockport Publishers.
Meenakshi, N., & Sikka, S. (2012). Survey of object-oriented metrics: Focusing on validation and formal specification. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 37(6), 1–5.
Purcell, A., & Gero, J. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363–383.
Purcell, A., & Gero, J. (1998). Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19, 389–430.
Regli, W., Hu, X., Atwood, M., & Sun, W. (2000). A survey of design rationale systems: Approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Engineering with Computers, 16, 209–235.
Rosson, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Scenario-based design. In A. Sears & J. Jacko (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Development process. CRC Press.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Whitmire, S. (1997). Object oriented design measurement. New York: Wiley.
Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., & Mead, N. (2006). Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: A proposal and a discussion. Requirements Engineering, 11, 102–107.
Yu, J., & Agogino, A. (2008). Design team framing: Paths and principles. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on design theory and methodology. New York City, NY.
Zitter, I., Kinkhorst, G., Simons, R., & Cate, O. (2009). In search of common ground: A task conceptualization to facilitate the design of (e)learning environments with design patterns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 999–1009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Antunes, P., Xiao, L. & Pino, J.A. Assessing the impact of educational differences in HCI design practice. Int J Technol Des Educ 24, 317–335 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9254-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9254-8