Terry and colleagues,
I certainly agree with Terry's remarks below. A Theory of Design Thinking grew, in part, by correlating theories and models from different areas of knowledge ( scientific method, multiple intelligences, motivational theory, psycholinguistics, etc.) I'll give more detail
after reintroducing Terry's (slightly shortened) remarks.
On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Terence Love wrote:
>
> ... I'd commented in my experience, theories were structurally much the same in
> every discipline because people think much the same regardless of the topic.
> Tts simplest to see it as a result of humans having bounds on the way we
> think so we tend to fit the way we theorise about the world in every
> discipline into the same molds.
>
> The implication is if you learn a theory structure once, then you can then
> learn how the same theory structure is applied in many different
> disciplines with much less effort than learning from scratch in every
> discipline. In Skemp's book on the psychology of learning mathematics the first three chapters on why
> and how we think and learn in terms of concepts and schema seem to address
> the above issue well (and are very readable and with no mathematics!)
>
> Why is this useful for Design education and design research?
>
> The reason Skemp's study is potentially of significance (and more so
> than more recent writing about education) is learning in mathematics
> requires more detailed illumination of concrete vs theory issues that are
> really relevant in Design because in essence design is an abstract activity.
>
> The problems addressed by Skemp in this context suggest that only certain
> pathways of learning of concepts and schemas result in useful understanding
> that can bridge into further learning. Identifying such appropriate
> pathways of schemas and concepts for designer s that are reusable across
> Technology, Arts and Humanities would seem to offer a way forward in
> improving design education and design practices
>
> Skemp, R. R. (1975) The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Penguin:
> Harmondsworth, UK
>
Skemp's Table of Contents (I have just ordered the book) suggest domains consistent with Modes of Thought in A Theory of Design Thinking (Intention, intuitions, goals), Referential (recognition, classes, categories), Relational (schema and schema construction), Formative (imagery, interaction, communication), Procedural (actions, events), Evaluative (goals), and Reflective (reflective intelligence). I need to read the book to get a better understanding of how he construes these things, but at least they are there.
Scientific disclosure is directly correlated with the same domains of A Theory of Design Thinking: Intent and focus, prior work, conceptual approach, research design, experimental procedure, empirical results, significance of findings and future research.
Addressing the need for a common, teachable theoretical structure I have written: An effective theory is one whose purpose is clear (Intention) and defines (References) and relates its elements (Relational models) in terms of the situations it addresses. It clearly communicates (Formative expression) this structured knowledge and supports the actions (Procedures) necessary to realize goals (Evaluations) regarding the circumstances it models. It provides evidence of its own effectiveness (Evaluation) and produces useful knowledge (Reflection). Any theory should meet this model which can be easily taught as a common ground for understanding, building and analyzing theory in any field. It is only the intent, circumstances, and background of the focal subjects that are different.
Or so I still believe,
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|