Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The importance of design thinking for technologicalliteracy: a phenomenological perspective
Alastair Wells
Published online: 17 April 2012© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract “We know that progress depends on discovery, inventions, creativity and
design, but we have simply supposed that it happens anyway,” de Bono (1999 p. 43).
Technology education is ostensibly a foundation for future designers and creative thinking.
However evidence of good design or creative thinking in outcomes displayed in school
technology studios is limited. Technology is inextricably linked with applied science, but I
argue that scientific method couldn’t be further from creativity and designing as tech-
nology education based on this premise can confine problem solving to a set of prescribed
components that harness teachers to narrowly defined and deeply focused goals. This paper
attempts to analyse the nature of this phenomenom, debate the place of creativity, imag-
ination and personal sensitivities as part of designing and demonstrate that although there
are inseperable links between design and technology the structure of a technology cur-
riculum could be a barrier to opportunities for effective design thinking.
Keywords Design · Creativity · Critical thinking · Consciousness · Technology
Introduction
This paper presents a theoretical argument that debates the need for the inclusion and rec-
ognition of distinctive forms of thinking, that occur naturally in designing, as essential
elements in technological literacy and discuss factors relating to phenomenology and con-
sciousness that may contribute to the success of teaching creativity and design thinking in
technology education. The discourse is divided into four main sections; the implications of
uniformity and pragmatic structure in technology education; the relationship distinctive
forms of thinking have with qualitative forms of intelligence inherent in design; the philo-
sophical commonality between Merleau-Ponty’s theories of phenomenology consciousness
and perception, and aptitudes associated with creativity and design thinking; and what makes
A. Wells (&)University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealande-mail: [email protected]
123
Int J Technol Des Educ (2013) 23:623–636DOI 10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7
the building of aptitudes associated with creativity and design thinking so important to
Technological Literacy.
The implications of uniformity and pragmatic structure in technology education
Like all countries committed to technology education, New Zealand schools must adhere
to a national curriculum, and they are endeavouring to do so. This curriculum provides the
guidelines for preparing programmes of learning. It is the benchmark by which students are
evaluated and placed at levels of attainment, and it requires teachers to be committed and
bound by its content as this formula provides the evidence for national statistics. There are
positive and negative advantages with this system that generates two factions of educators:
(1) those teachers who need the pragmatics of the curriculum to enable them to construct
their learning programme and; (2) those teachers who use the curriculum as a guide for
developing emancipatory learning experiences. Teachers who use the curriculum as a
pragmatic/formulaic structure, for developing learning programmes, curriculum content
becomes the controlling mechanism for all learning that occurs in the classroom. Pursuing
this notion, curriculum content has the potential to either commit students to restricted
process and content driven opportunities or positively enagage creative design thinking so
essential for developing new innovative ideas.
Technological literacy in The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC 2007) is centred on three
main strands that when pragmatically followed will provide success and scholarship for
students. There is of course virtue in having such intentions and the ability to realize them.
What is concerning is the push towards pre-determined uniformity, in aims, in content, in
assessment, and expectations inherent in components of process. If pre-determined uniform
components of process is to be the patterned structure leading to scholarship from tech-
nological literacy then creativity and design thinking will be severely limited and
potentially revives an age-old debate about educational philosophies following a pathway
that place fragmented microtised assessment data, (independent of context) as the
benchmark where students who just follow process (procedural regurgitation), rather than a
demonstration of inspired new thinking, achieve scholarship. Ken Robinson (2001)
believes that “one of the legacies of the Enlightenment is the division between knowing,
feeling, intellect and emotion. A good example is the long held interpretation of the
differences between the arts and sciences. The sciences are thought to be about knowledge,
facts and objectivity: the arts about emotion, self-expression, being creative,” (p. 138). An
attempt to move away from affirming the individuals capacity to develop intuitive creative
aptitudes and direct student learning to strict, narrow technological practice pathways will
have an impact on participation, enjoyment, motivation and overall creativity and ulti-
mately innovation of outcomes. Where there is a curriculum that has a dominant process
component structure, students are forced into solving the problem ‘correctly’ not ‘crea-
tively’ (Kraft 2005, p. 31). Anecdotal information demonstrates that students in technology
classrooms in New Zealand are already asking ‘what do I have to do to pass this,’ which is
a good indication of the system not engaging or working for them.
There is a reluctance to relinquish the formula, rule or uniformity that generates rigid
forms of statistics in education however, as the system is built on this premise and for
many curricula it may well be the most appropriate position. If students are to gain skills
that allow them to make confident decisions and intuitive judgments in the absence of rule,
as often recognized important for technological innovation, then experiencing learning
opportunities and being positively rewarded in activities that support the development of
624 A. Wells
123
essential aptitudes (such as making value decisions, choices, and qualitative judgments)
should be a priority. Being able to rely on feel, to pay attention to nuance, to act and
appraise the consequences of one’s choices, and revise and then to make other choices,
energizes critical consciousness. Eisner (2004) believes students need to be able to inte-
grate feeling and thinking in ways that make them inseparable, act as designers (to see,
hear, communicate and construct), and use integrated thinking to prepare them for the
intellectual challenges of a changing world. Though design is perceived to be an important
aspect of technological literacy, the resolution of technological outcomes in technology
education, must begin to push ideas beyond what currently exists. If this is to happen,
students must feel comfortable knowing they can function in a more flexible, dynamic and
risk free environment.
In a rapidly changing world, where students (as designers) are actively connected and
involved in the creation of personalised on-line interactive environments (and in some
progressive educational situations their educational goals), the capacity to be a passive
consumer or tightly confined participant, is less likely to meet the intellectual needs of
students and often results in lack of engagement, enjoyment, participation and outlet for
creative thinking. In technology education any preoccupation with conformity to tightly
confined component structure in curriculum content can be challenged and in fact should
be. And, if nurturing qualitative forms of intelligence commonly inherent in design has the
potential to enhance aptitudes important for developing a consciousness more suited to
creative and critical thinking, then there is significant benefit considering its importance
within a curriculum that births future technological practioners.
The relationship distinctive forms of thinking have with qualitative formsof intelligence inherent in design
My investigation of this relationship forms a foundation for my discussion and reflects the
qualitative nature by which distinctive forms of thinking, more suited to technological
literacy, are apparent in designing. These distinctive forms of thinking are an enabler for an
individual to compose qualitative relationships that satisfy purpose. To succeed, the
designer needs to see, that is to experience the qualitative relationships that emerge in his
or her work and make intuitive judgements often matching process to phases of devel-
opment or whatever series of events plays out. de Bono (1999) argues that we can teach
judgment because we can teach comparison and identification, but making judgments
about how qualities are to be organized does not depend upon fealty to some formula as it
does in say mathematics, science and spelling where correctness can be proven (Eisner
2004). He believes that in the arts (including design) judgments are made in the absence of
rule, but what constitutes the right qualitative relationship for any particular work, is
idiosyncratic to the particular context. Design is a creative, dynamic, interactive and
reflective activity. Morrison and Twyford (1994) argue that the focus of attention for
designers is the formation of various propositions, from which a solution can be chosen;
there will be no correct solution, but only a selection of the best option, prompting enquiry
about the fluidity of the process and testing the very nature of closed and rigid forms of
curriculum structures.
With a closed perception of design thinking, there is a possibility that perpetuated
interpretations of design process as part of technology education, will result in future
technological developments that represent a continuation of consumerist determinism or
the production of inconsequential memorabilia, (Spendlove 2007a, b) and the creation of
The importance of design 625
123
artifacts that ply the consumerist market place with very little consideration of human
purpose or need. They will only meet the needs of small things like aesthetic, image or
fashion. Even if, only economic condition dictates this endeavour there is no reason to
forfeit good design thinking at the scholarship level of learning. Tasker (2004) agrees with
this notion and argues, “good design improves value [and] usability, innovates techno-
logically and contributes more to human purpose/need.”
In a recent article ‘Community in, commodity out’ in the Guardian, Gaynor Aaltonen
(2010) states people are becoming far less interested in “stuff” alone—products or com-
modities—and far more interested in an all-embracing experience as they interact with
product and service. This change in consumer participation and influence in product
development signals a change in technology and design application. Developing a con-
sumer experience requires sophisticated understanding of human psychology, responses,
needs and behaviours. In my view we are not teaching to improve student self-awareness,
design thinking and creative capital, and we should be. Rather I see there is significant
emphasis on achieving scholarship through accurate process and uniformity limiting cre-
ativity and risk taking so important for innovation, purposeful progress and personal
enjoyment during technological practice. Articulating these distinctive forms of thinking is
not an easy task however, and it could be argued that it is all about design, emotion,
creativity, sensitivities, imagination or technology?Spendlove (2007a, b) argues that there are “new opportunities for considering the
location of emotion within a creative, learning and product orientated design and tech-
nology experience,” (p. 7) and Eisner (2004) believes that the Arts have a lot to offer
education in general by developing individuals who have developed the ideas, sensibilities,
the skills and the imagination to inspire new visions, values and especially new practices.
Morrison and Twyford (1994) describe ‘designing’ as “an adventure using observation and
intelligence to explore new or modified possibilities and crucial to our cultural sensitivity”
(p. 10). Something that is consistent in this literature is the focus on distinctive forms of
thinking that are the result of qualitative forms of intelligence. I argue that personal
characteristics inherent in qualitative forms of intelligence such as creativity, emotions and
good design thinking will add perception and sensibilities relevant to human need and
purpose in technological literacy.
Creativity and design are strongly linked to the arts. But because of traditional cultures,
Technology and The Arts in education have tended to maintain parochial isolation making
each the poorer by compartmentalizing those essential elements that complement each
other in technological problem solving situations. In the real world current technological
developments value knowledge, skills and practices from both. The arts have no monopoly
over the need to foster/encourage attributes inherent in creative design thinking and
technology doesn’t need to feel ashamed by allowing creative design thinking to appear in
technological practice. Technological developments are inextricably influenced by crea-
tivity and design with innovation and suitability for human purpose being the result. There
are many questions that need to be raised surrounding this relationship. What constitutes
design and designing? Is there sufficient recognition in the technological literacy for
creative design thinking? Is there an understanding of difference between design and
design thinking? What part does creativity play in the practice of design, and technology?
Is current technological literacy influenced by characteristics identified in creativity and
design? Is our current technology curriculum sustainable for educating for a changing
world where qualitative forms of intelligence will support good design thinking?
The effectiveness of design in technology education has been a topic of discussion for
some time with education researchers (Anning 1997; Barlex 1999; Mawson 2003;
626 A. Wells
123
McRobbie et al. 2001) often focusing on ‘the design process’ as a means of defining
designing. The design process has been used as a fixed telos that describes a structure by
which students undertook to solve design & technology problems. A form of this still exists
for those who try to apply a formula to this highly complex and sophisticated deliberate
human act. Even though ‘the design process’ has been a useful tool for people to fall back
on when they are considered to be undertaking design, it does not accurately reflect the
nature of designing. Design process potentially arose out of a small view of design, in the
later half of the twentieth century, as it became a tool of consumerism and as Tim Brown
(2009) argues, “what passed for design in the past isn’t all that important anymore, making
things more attractive; making them a bit easier to use; making them more marketable,”
and he realized that “by focusing on a design as a single product, he was being incremental
and not having much of an impact.”
de Bono (1999,) argues that “design has two functions: to make better what is inade-
quate, and to deliver a value that has not yet been delivered. As technology advances there
is more and more need to develop value concepts. Technology will support such concepts
very well but technology alone will not develop value concepts,” (p. 46). Cross (2001)
believes that pragmatically there are fundamental elements and principles that designers
adhere to that form a foundation for ‘designerly thinking.’ If this is the case though why
can’t everyone just use these elements to create the perfect outcome? Are there other
aspects that impact good design? Perhaps an interesting analogy could be that if you just
give a person a computer, can they write a brilliant book? The production of a good book
depends on the combination of many skills that don’t merely focus on literary expertise or
typing, but also having insight (a sensitivity, perception and consciousness) into how the
reader will participate, engage, imagine, and respond to the written word.
But what forms the basis of practice associated with designing? Lawson (1980) raises
the problem of observing the designer in action and argues that ‘‘one of the difficulties is
that on the whole there is not a lot of action to be seen and what there is cannot readily be
understood,” (p. 24). I argue that design is the fusion of integrated thinking, creativity,
discipline, experience, economics, technology and an understanding of interpersonal and
intrapersonal relationships so important for critical reflection. It is the aspects of inter-
personal and intrapersonal knowledge (that forms the very essence of us as individuals)
that is important to focus on as a core element and debate the sometimes inexplicable
nature of human consciousness, perception and creativity as being the key to inspiration
and design thinking. Morrison and Twyford (1994) argue that “design represents a pow-
erful method of synthesising many forms of knowledge, understanding and experience
especially those of art and technology” (p. 10). I believe that values and aptitudes closely
linked to learning in The Arts and potentially Technology Education have something
powerful in common such as empathy, imagination, expression, narrative and creative
potential, but without the right environment, recognition within curriculum content and
understanding of human awareness, these could be severely marginalised.
As human progress depends on discovery, inventions, creativity and design, providing
opportunities for learning in and about design and creativity, and incorporating them in
technology education, will provide considerable foundation for innovative purposeful
technological development. Often the creative process of design is misrepresented in
learning in technology and this situation has prompted me to closely examine design
thinking with phenomenology as a philosophical position for attempting to explain the
potential value of teaching creativity and good design thinking. I believe that the most
effective tool we can provide for our developing technologists is the ability to ‘think
creatively like a designer.’
The importance of design 627
123
For the last 30 years, theorists and practitioners have made predictions about creativity
and design thinking in the applied arts and more specifically focused on the way the brain
interprets and processes information during creative thinking. Neuroscience is providing
evidence of our abilities as humans to sense and make sense, of the world around us, and
takes advantage of complex filtering systems (Csikszentmihalyi 1990) to utilize this
information for various purposes. Though we all occupy the same physical world, the
reality we experience (the perceptions created when our brains combine the input from our
senses with past encounters) is unique and different. Our ability to manage our sensitivities
and make decisions based on these perceptions is inherently human and dependent on
context and environment. There has been considerable literature (de Bono 1999, Edwards
2001; Goleman (1999); Gazzaniga 2008) about the way the two halves of our brain
contribute to processing information and producing subsequent respondent actions, (lefthemisphere for logical, orderly, systematic, sequential, detailed processing and righthemisphere for creative, intuitive, imaginative, spontaneous inspiration) but mystery still
surrounds exactly which complex neurological conductor orchestrates the network of
events that link the two sides of the brain providing us with the ability to get order out of
chaos within these connections. Current studies (Gazzaniga 2008) however, of how uti-
lizing the two hemispheres approach the world might help provide some clues about how a
unitary sense of consciousness emerges from furious activity of billions of brain cells.
Gazzaniga’s research centred on subjects who had lost the use of one side of their brain
due to stroke or accident and analysed the participation of the sides processing capacity
under certain types of stimulus response conditions. Interestingly enough the results of the
research revealed significantly less impact through the loss of the right side of the brain
than the left side even though the two sides are equal in mass. “The left hemisphere
remains unchanged from its preoperative capacity, yet the largely disconnected, same size
right hemisphere is seriously impoverished in cognitive tasks. Although the right hemi-
sphere remains superior to the isolated left hemisphere for some perceptual and attention
skills, and perhaps emotions, it is poor at problem solving and many other mental activ-
ities,” (Gazzaniga 2008, p. 37). A plausible explanation of this discovery of the right
hemisphere’s lack of capacity to solve problems using the attributes of the right hemi-
sphere could relate directly to the way education has focused only on the development of
the left hemisphere. Gazzaniga believes part of the answer lies in the left hemisphere
interpreter and its drive to seek explanations for why events occur and that this finding is
consistent with the hypothesis that the left-hemisphere interpreter constructs theories to
assimilate perceived information into a comprehensive whole even if that information is
received in the right hemisphere from external stimulus. The different ways in which the
two hemispheres approach the world might provide some clues about the nature of human
consciousness and encourage debate about its place in the dynamic cognitive process of
technological practice.
Techniques and modes of enquiry
An existential phenomenological analysis, was used to address the research question, the
location of emotion in design thinking and analyse personal experience in designing.
Existential phenomenology is a philosophical current inspired by Martin Heidegger’s 1927
work Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) and influenced by the existential work of Søren
Kierkegaard and the phenomenological work of Edmund Husserl. In contrast with his
former mentor Husserl, Heidegger put ontology before epistemology and thought that
628 A. Wells
123
phenomenology would have to be based on an observation and analysis of ‘Dasein’ (being-
there), human being, investigating the fundamental ontology of the Lebenswelt (Life-
world–Husserl’s term) underlying all so-called regional ontologies of the special sciences.
Discourse in this paper especially reflects on the work of Merleau-Ponty in his investi-
gation of phenomology of perception (1945) where he defines phenomonology as the study
of essences, including the essence of perception of consciousness, that I see are so
important to creative design thinking. He argues, and I concur, that both traditional
Empericism and Rationalism are inadequate to describe the phenomonology of perception
as perception is not purely sensation, nor is it purely interpretation, and consciousness is a
process that includes sensing as well as reasoning.
The literature review seeks to explain findings emerging from the analysis of a selection
of literature on phenomenology, my own experience of creativity and design thinking, and
it will explore reasons for the trends and patterns emerging from this analysis and sum-
marise the findings.
The philosophical commonality between Merleau-Ponty’s theories of phenomenologyconsciousness and perception, and aptitudes associated with creativity and designthinking
To examine consciousness an understanding of phenomenology as theoretical methodol-
ogy is essential. Phenomenology is a philosophical doctrine proposed by Edmund Husserl1
and is concerned with providing a direct description of human experience. Merleau-Ponty
(1962) defines phenomenology as the study of essences, including the essence of per-
ception and consciousness. His theory in comparison to Husserl describes the nature of
perceptual contact with the world arguing that perception is the background of experience
that guides every conscious action. His view is that the world is a field of perception, and
human consciousness assigns meaning to the world. It is difficult to separate us from our
perceptions of the world.
Merleau-Ponty (1962) argues that both traditional Empiricism and Rationalism are
inadequate to describe the phenomenology of perception. Traditional theories relate that
Empiricism maintains that experience is the primary source of knowledge and that
knowledge is derived from sensory perceptions, and, Rationalism maintains that reason is
the primary source of knowledge and that knowledge does not depend on sensory per-
ceptions. Merleau-Ponty (1962) believes that Empiricism does not explain how the nature
of consciousness determines our perceptions, and that Rationalism does not explain how
the nature of our perceptions determines consciousness.
Perception is not purely sensation, nor is it purely interpretation. Consciousness is a
process that includes sensing as well as reasoning. Perception may be structured by
associative forces, and may be focused by attention. Attention itself does not create per-
ception, but may be directed toward any aspect of a perceptual field. Attention can enable
conscious perceptions to be structured by reflecting on them. Merleau-Ponty (1962)
explains that a judgment may be defined as a perception of a relationship between objects
1 Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (German pronunciation: [ˈhʊsɛʁl]; April 8, 1859, Prostejov, Moravia,Austrian Empire—April 26, 1938, Freiburg, Germany) was a philosopher who is deemed the founder ofphenomenology. He broke with the positivist orientation of the science and philosophy of his day, believingthat experience is the source of all knowledge, while at the same time he elaborated critiques of psychologismand historicism. Wikipedia.
The importance of design 629
123
of perception. A judgment may be a logical interpretation of the signs presented by sensory
perceptions, but judgment is neither a purely logical activity, nor a purely sensory activity.
Judgments may transcend both reason and experience. de Bono (1999) believes that “we
can teach judgment because we can teach comparison and identification. Judgment is
designed to deal with the world as it is. We have always felt that creativity and design
cannot be taught. That was before we began to understand creativity as the behaviour of
information in a self-organizing system. Creativity can be taught and so can design. But
first we have to realize that these things are just as important as judgment,” (p. 46).
A connection between philosophical theories identified in Merleau-Ponty’s phenome-
nology of perception is clearly representative of how we can analyse design thinking. An
individual’s ability to perceive the world around them and make decisions based on
experiences and connect these with integrated thinking can provide some understanding of
designing. “Design and designing are important human skills, and being aware of the value
and wide-reaching effect of design is crucial to our cultural sensitivity and our built
world,” (Morrison & Twyford 1994, p. 10). Experiences may be reflective or unreflective.
Unreflective experiences may be known by subsequent reflection. Reflection may be aware
of itself as an experience. Reflection may also be a way to understand and to structure
experience. Depending on what aptitudes, values, skills and knowledge are expected to be
developed through learning in Technology Education will be the result of the way the
curriculum positions its progression indicators and I argue that unless there is more
emphasis placed on understanding and developing the individual, their perception and
understanding of the world around them and their previous experiences associated with
contextual problem solving, then design and designing will be problematic.
Designing is not the result of a set of pre-programmed events. Much depends on
conscious experience and discovery, in the moment responses, collaborative interplay,
decision-making, imagination, the “ah ha” moment, emotion, perception. These are not
things that occur because of a prescribed set of components but are clearly representative
of an individual’s capacity to think creatively. Spendlove (2007a, b) has made considerable
contribution to literature on the location of emotion and perception in the creative and
learning experience and begins the discussion on acceptance of this kind of thinking in
design and technology education. Much earlier literature has Goleman (1999) discussing
‘emotional intelligence’ and the nature of relationships and the influential nature of
Interpersonal relationships (external influences on one’s responses, Table 1) and Intra-personal relationships (internal influences on ones responses, Table 1) which I think
interrelate with interpretations of Spendlove’s triadic schema for locating emotion in
person, process and product domains.
Goleman (1999) argues that people need to learn how to motivate themselves, how to
get along with others, how to build self-control, how to negotiate, how to listen to others,
and how to work together. This is ‘emotional intelligence.’ These skills do not just develop
with age, they are learned. People need time to play and to explore. When they interact
with their peers, they are not only practicing social skills that build resolution conflict
capabilities or learn how to respect the rights of others and how to protect their own rights
in appropriate ways, but also gain sophisticated technical skills associated with problem
solving, design and outcome resolution. People become more aware of themselves in their
world, improving abilities to more likely sense and respond to human needs, build personal
aptitudes and collaborative partnerships to action design thinking more suited to pro-
gressing creative technologies.
Robinson (2001) argues that creativity is not purely an individual performance. “It
arises out of interactions with ideas and achievement of other people. It is a cultural
630 A. Wells
123
process. Creativity prospers best under particular conditions, especially where there is a
flow of ideas between people who have different expertise. It requires an atmosphere where
risk-taking and experimentation are encouraged rather than stifled. Just as individual
creativity draws from many different skills and expertise in a single mind, corporate
creativity draws from many different skills and skills across organisations. Creativity
happens where there is a systemic strategy to promote it. The cultural model should be
modeled on the dynamics of intelligence” (p. 24).
Doubt about the effectiveness of design thinking in technology education is challenged
when reflecting on the quality and standard of students’ outcomes, or ‘inconsequential
memorabilia’ Spendlove (2007b), that is being produced. It may satisfy the procedural
criteria of misguided curriculum content but prompts debate about the way design and
design thinking are valued in technology education. Design appears to have been reduced
to being mechanistic for expected uniformity in assessment. With the development of new
curriculum in technology education, I argue there are opportunities to explore and
implement more accurate interpretations of design thinking and improve the value of
students design knowledge and experience.
What makes creativity and design thinking so important to technological literacy
The Technology Curriculum is the area of education where design thinking could benefit
process, outcome, and contribute to a foundation of perceptual knowledge associated with
technology practice. However, there appears to be a deficit in the way design is understood
as an activating and influential element of human activity, that forms fundamental foun-
dations associated with the development of technological outcomes.
Many international observers and researchers (Fraser 2005; Mander 2004; Tasker 2004;
Norman 2004) have reinforced the sentiment that the technological development in
industry must improve its knowledge and use of design to become more globally com-
petitive, they argue that “sometimes the value of the end product could obviously be
improved through the appropriate application of design,” Norman (2004, p. 15). The
success of many international companies proves that they do have what it takes to be
recognized world leaders but though this sentiment is shared by many professionals, the
question has to be asked, because design has such an impact on usefulness and usability,
Table 1 Adapted from Goleman
Intrapersonal Interpersonal
1. Emotional self-awareness and control 11. Communicate effectively
2. Accurate self-assessment 12. Empathy: sensing others emotions
3. Develop thinking strategies 13. Organisational awareness
4. Self-confidence 14. Teamwork and collaboration
5. Adaptability 15. Influence
6. Initiative 16. Trust
7. Transparency 17. Professional exposure to expertise/professionals/role models
8. Optimism 18. Interdependency
9. Methods of communication
10. Independence
The importance of design 631
123
should there be more importance placed on design in education? Identifying these attri-
butes, however, can be difficult to articulate in quantitative research as “design is an ever-
changing and evolving process based upon human achievement,” Morrison and Twyford
(1994, pg 10), and the design thinking is a “balance of desirability (what humans need)
with technical feasibility with economic viability,” Brown (2009).
By looking at ‘traditional design’ in a local context. Many technological products are
brought to market simply because an inventor has an idea for a product, goes into their
garage and builds it, then sells it to other people like them and eventually produce it as a
marketable item. Richard Mander (2004) explains, in his article ‘User Centred Design—
What Exactly is it?’ that many products/systems/environments still get invented this way
“but the end user has moved from the guy next door type of consumer to a global
connoisseur who is certainly not always a guy, she is unlikely to live next door and she is
becoming far more interested in participating in the design process,” (p. 57). The point he
is making is that it is no longer acceptable to think that we as product developer/engineer,
are the same as the users/customers we are designing the products for, or even if the
product is something that will be useful. Instead of seeing its primary objective as con-
sumption, design thinking is beginning to explore the potential of participation.
Technological changes in the world, have encouraged the shift from a passive relationship
between consumer and producer, to the active engagement of everyone in experiences that
are meaningful productive and profitable. “The design of participatory systems, in which
many more forms of value beyond cash are both created and measured is going to be the
major theme for design in the future,” Brown (2009).
Knowledge traditionally associated with production and process is becoming less useful
and knowledge closely related to attributes of integrated design thinking using participa-
tory systems is becoming essential. Designers have shifted their emphasis back to what
people really need, and to do this, they have a better understanding of people and cultures,
needs and opportunities. Consumers are now more likely to determine the future direction
of business than ever before and if this is the potential of the virtual marketplace then a
change of emphasis is required in education. Curriculum that supports and actively values
the individual and their place in the design process will provide a foundation on which to
build essential aptitudes as creative thinking, intuition, risk taking, innovative problem
solving, visual literacy, effective communication, understanding of emotions in process,
design, design thinking and cultural anthropology.
As Tim Brown (2005) IDEO Design argues, “there’s definitely a certain sort of cultural
anthropology that we get to play with as designers. Because I think our job is to mediate
between the people that make things and the people that buy or use them and because of
that, we inevitably end up with perspectives on the future and society.” He defines design
thinking as “in short form, its the process of insight and synthesis and creation. In a longer
form its about understanding peoples needs, building points of view, having insights,understanding patterns, recognizing possibilities, prototyping those possibilities, validating
them, executing them and making them,” and not necessarily in that order.
This is evident in IDEO’s approach to design thinking, which begins with some basic
principles:
1. How they talk with people so they understand their latent needs, the needs they aren’t
always able to tell them about.
2. How they understand the relationship between them, and place and context.
3. Then they take those insights and build stories around them in terms of inspiring ideas.
632 A. Wells
123
4. They work collaboratively with other people to very quickly develop lots and lots of
ideas.
5. They build prototypes.
6. Then communicate those prototypes and test them so they can learn from those and
eventually go back and make their ideas stronger.
The process, by which a designer combines all critical elements in design thinking, can be
indeterminate and varied according to the context in which design is applied and relies heavily
on the previous experience including emotional/perceptive interpretation and investment of the
individual. The designer’s ability to co-ordinate the pragmatics with personal understanding of
recognized emotional responses can arm the designer with a powerful combination of attri-
butes. Spendlove’s (2007a, b) literature on the location and emotion in the creative and learning
experience, provides insight into a triadic schema for locating emotion in person, process and
product domains and argues that “creativity offers an opportunity to evolve our capacity to
override what may be a lack autonomy in our subconscious processing and emotions,” (p. 11).
His investigation of memes as central to the concept of cultural transmission reminds us of the
powerful intrapersonal influences that can impact our capacity to think independently and
reflects on the importance of a learning environment that is an enabler rather than disabler of
risk taking, questioning, cross domain linking and more flexible and sophisticated designerly
thinking attributes that are inherent in consciousness and perception. The emotional investment
in this interaction is significant and demonstrates a finely tuned personal awareness and
understanding of the affects of domain and field.
Kubie (1958) attempted to define some distinct states of consciousness involved in
creative thinking. He emphasized the pre-conscious, which falls between conscious reality
and the unconscious, and suggested this as the true source of creativity because here
thoughts are loose and vague, but interpretable. The pre-conscious is a sort of middle
ground where some of the conditions of both the conscious and unconscious exist. Kubie
also defined a two-stage process of creativity, involving primary and secondary ideation
processes. The primary processes include unstructured, illogical, subjective thoughts. The
material generated in this phase is then worked on with secondary processes; reality based,
controlled and evaluative actions. Kubie has articulated useful vocabulary and ways of
conceiving of the micro processing involved, and has offered a way to understand how the
conscious and the unconscious may be united or utilized together, a key issue in the
psychodynamic2 approach.
The psychodynamic tradition partly underlies the humanistic approach, which has also
made a contribution to understanding creativity. Humanism emphasizes holism, rather than
reductionism as an approach to knowledge and can contribute to the idea of the individual as
the focus of the study, rather than abstract components of behaviour (Overby 1997).
Humanism attempts to integrate the physiological and psychodynamic motivations of the
person (Gross 2001), and combines these in a modernist approach, affirming the power of
humans to shape and improve themselves and their environment by asserting qualitative
forms of intelligence. It assumes that people help to determine their own behaviour and are
not slaves to biology, the environment or the past. Humanism emphasizes the principles of
intuition as a source of knowledge (Overby 1997), autonomy, democracy, self-determination
and personal and social change through self and collective awareness, important for affirming
creative potential.
2 Psychodynamics is the systematized study and theory of the psychological forces that underlie humanbehavior, emphasizing the interplay between unconscious and conscious motivation.
The importance of design 633
123
Creativity isn’t necessarily something that comes naturally. In schools it is something that
may be considered to be serendipitous, but it has to be nurtured, developed, inspired, and
inherent in pedagogical approach. According to Epstein (2008), there are four ‘core com-
petencies’ of creative expression. “People need to preserve their new ideas (capturing),
surround themselves with interesting people and things (surrounding) tackle tough problems
(challenging) and expand their knowledge (broadening)”, (p. 26). Spendlove (2007a, b)
argues “creativity is informed and shaped by our emotions,” (p. 16). Csikszentmihalyi (1990)
highlights the systemic interaction of individual, domain and field and conceptualizes cre-
ativity as ‘flow’ between elements in a system. His main conclusion is that dialectic among
talented individuals, domains of expertise, and fields charged with judging the quality of
creations is dynamic characterising all creative activity. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) is therefore
one of the most prominent theorists to strongly emphasise the significance of the community
where the individual can engage in creative activity.
Design thinking and appreciation is something that should be carefully nurtured from an
early age, not dissimilar to language development and be included in all areas of education and
especially in technological literacy. This notion is exemplified by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
(2003) in his book ‘Good Business; Leadership, Flow & the Making of Meaning,’ when he
describes the way in which design must be nurtured from early beginnings. “Building design
capital is a visionary and long-term job” (p. 37). The ability to sense, be sensitive, carefully
study how people do things, respond appropriately, operate knowing the influences that affect
our perception of things around us, plan and create appropriate outcomes, are essential apti-
tudes of qualitative forms of intelligence.
Affirming the power for humans to shape and improve themselves and their environ-
ment is the very essence of technological progress. Building a learning community suitable
for developing this form of capital must surely begin with the curriculum content and
pedagogic practice most suitable for growing and recognizing qualitative forms of intel-
ligence evidenced in the analysis of design thinking.
Conclusion
It has been the objective of this article to analyse and debate the importance and place of
design thinking and creativity in technology education. The argument presented questions
the relevance of tightly bound procedural content and overly microtised pre-determined
structure of technology curricula to best prepare future technologists/designers. Teachers
who rely on the confined procedural, pre-determined process structure present in current
progression descriptors and higher learning assessment requirements to inform their
pedagogic and programme content, may strangle the creative potential, enjoyment,
co-constructed knowledge creation, and essential skills associated with qualitative forms of
intelligence inherent in design thinking. If the intention of technology education is to be the
breading ground for creative talented and dynamic problem solvers prepared for effectively
progressing technologies, then it must embrace intuition as a source of knowledge (Overby
1997), autonomy, democracy, self-determination and personal and social change through
self and collective awareness.
Technology Education has the perfect opportunity to explore new and innovative ways
of developing curriculum, expose students to learning situations that encourage and value
critical reflection, and support design thinking that enables them to identify and find
solutions to potential technological advancements through independent and interdependent
participatory systems. I argue that if Technology Education is to maintain it’s present pre-
634 A. Wells
123
determined notion of technological practice that harnesses students to set procedure
through highly structured and constricting content, then opportunities where students can
construct their own learning pathways, extending their capabilities and exploring their own
place and impact in the world, so necessary for participating in a changing intellectual
society, will be compromised.
Unless the points raised are valued as part of technological literacy and something that
is inherent in curriculum construction and assessment practices, schools and teachers will
not engage. A challenge as an educator is to find a way of breaking down the traditional
pathways (of set, or expected process) commonly linked with technology education and be
more welcoming of ambiguity and creative potential in learning more suited to developing
aptitudes important for solving problems in the technological world. The philosophical
theories of phenomenology can be used as an inspiration to find new ways of evaluating
technological literacy to replace the traditional formulaic examples, opening possibilities
for new types of practice and thinking. I argue that we need students who can be rewarded
for solving problems creatively not only correctly and that creativity and design thinking
are human aptitudes that require more recognition in curriculum content and scholarship. I
concur with Adams and Maureen (1993), “sometimes you can alter the the programmed
response by altering the conditions,”3 (p. 23).
If I was to begin to think about a way forward for achieving a sense of this I would
explore Epstein’s ideas for building creative and critical design thinking capital within a
curriculum structure that values the four dimensions (Fig. 1):
● Capturing
● Challenging
● Broadening
● Surrounding
Fig. 1 Potential technology curriculum structure
3 Hunter Campbell "Patch" Adams, M.D. (born May 28, 1945 in Washington, D.C.) is an Americanphysician, social activist, citizen diplomat, professional clown, performer, and author. He founded theGesundheit! Institute in 1972. In medical school (1970s), fun-loving Patch tried to inject comedy andcompassion into the medical profession, believing that patients need both medicine and friendship from theirdoctors. But can he face the problems and pain that come with actually caring for needy people?
The importance of design 635
123
References
Adams, P., & Mylander, M. (1993). Gesundheit!: Bringing good health to you, the medical system, andsociety through physician service, complementary therapies, humor, and joy. Rochester, Vermont:Healing Arts Press.
Anning, A. (1997). Teaching and learning how to design in schools. The Journal of Design and TechnologyEducation, 2(1), 15–30.
Barlex, D. (1999). Research into creativity, in art & design and design & technology in the NationalCurriculum. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 6(1), 29–39.
Brown, T. (2005). Getting down with Mr Brown. Pro-Design, 3, 35–36.Brown, T. (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big, TED Talks. Retrieved 10 Sept 2010
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html.Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17
(3), 49–55.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business; leadership, flow and the making of meaning. New York:
Viking.de Bono, E. (1999). New thinking for the new millennium. London: Penguin Books.Edwards, B. (2001). Drawing on the right side of the brain. London: Harper Collins.Eisner, E. W. (2004). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education. International
Journal of Education & the Arts, 5(4), 1–11.Epstein, R. (2008). Let your creativity soar. Scientific American Mind, 19, 24–31.Fraser, S. (2005). New Zealand Design: Is it globally competitive? Pro-Design, 3, 17–20.Gazzaniga, M. (2008). The science behind what makes us unique. London: Harper Collins.Goleman, D. (1999). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Gross, R. (2001). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour (4th ed.). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Kraft, U. (2005). Unleashing creativity—moments of brilliance arise from complex cognitive processes.
Scientific American Mind, 16, 45–50.Kubie, L. (1958). The neurotic distortion of the creative process. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. London: The Architectural Press Ltd.Mander, R. (2004). User Centred Design—What exactly is it? ProDesign, 5, 27–28.Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘The Design Process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education.
The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 201–207.McRobbie, C. J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I. (2001). Exploring Deszignerly thinking of students as novice
designers. The Journal of Research and Science Education, 31, 91–116.Morrison, J., & Twyford, J. (1994). Design: Capability and awareness. London: Longman.Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design. Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Overby, L. (1997). Enthusiasm versus self-possession. Creative Research Journal, 10(2/3), 215–220.Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds. London: Capstone Publishing.Spendlove, D. (2007a). Still thinking and feeling: The location of emotion in the creative and learning
experience. Design and Technology Education, 13(1), 11–18.Spendlove, D. (2007b). We feel therefore we learn: The location of emotion in the creative and learning
experience (Part 1). Design and Technology Education, 12(3), 7–16.Tasker, P. (2004). Enabling Environmentally Effective Product Design—Phase One: Drivers, Deeds and
Directions in New Zealand Industry and Tertiary Education—scoping study for Ministry for theEnvironment.
636 A. Wells
123
