publications

@inproceedings{Gray2015k,

title = {"Why are they not responding to critique?": A student-centered construction of the crit},

author = {Colin M Gray and Craig D Howard},

url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2015_GrayHoward_LxD_MultimodalCritique.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-06-01},

urldate = {2015-06-01},

booktitle = {LearnxDesign: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers and PreK-16 Design Educators},

pages = {1680-1700},

publisher = {School of the Art Institute of Chicago},

address = {Chicago, IL},

abstract = {The crit is a dominant public instructional event, and has often been studied through the lens of institutional power, through the perspective of the instructor. In this study, we analyze the classroom presentations and critiques of three teams in a design-focused human-computer interaction graduate program, calling attention to other modes of student-generated critique that occur alongside the traditional formal conversation. These critiques comprise, in parallel: 1) a public oral critique led by the instructor alongside student questions; 2) a critique document collaboratively authored in Google Docs by experienced students; and 3) backchannel chat by experienced students via Google Doc messaging. Through the complex interactions between these modes of parallel critique, multiple levels of interaction and conversational behavior emerge, with experienced students shaping each type of feedback and use of technological tools. We present and analyze cases drawn from the teams through computer-mediated communication and critical pedagogy perspectives to characterize these interactions, documenting how experienced students take on different typifications—or understandings of role expectations within the conversation—which mediate the instructional qualities of the critique. We introduce three typifications: the relaxed professional in backchannel chat, poised professional in the Google Doc, and instructional tutor in the physical classroom space.},

keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Critique, Design Education, HCI Education},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inproceedings}

}

@inproceedings{Gray2015-ie,

title = {Creativity `Misrules': First Year Engineering Students' Production and Perception of Creativity in Design Ideas},

author = {Colin M Gray and Seda Yilmaz and Shanna R Daly and Colleen M Seifert and Richard Gonzalez},

url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2015_Grayetal_ASME_CreativityMisrules.pdf

http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2483438},

doi = {10.1115/DETC2015-46492},

isbn = {9780791857106},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

booktitle = {ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference},

volume = {3},

pages = {V003T04A006-V003T04A006},

publisher = {American Society of Mechanical Engineers},

abstract = {We report four cases from a larger study, focusing on participants’ self-identified “most creative” concept in relation to their other concepts. As part of an ideation session, first-year engineering students were asked to create concepts for one of two engineering design problems in an 85-minute period, and were exposed to one of two different forms of fixation. Participants worked as individuals, first using traditional brainstorming techniques and generating as many ideas as possible. Design Heuristics cards were then introduced, and students were asked to generate as many additional concepts as possible. After the activity, participants ranked all of the concepts they generated from most to least creative. Representative cases include a detailed analysis of the concept that each participant rated as “most creative,” idea generation method used, and relative location and relationship of the concept to other concepts generated by that participant. Across four cases, we identified a number of characteristic “misrules” or misconceptions, revealing that first-year students judge creativity in their concepts in ways that could inhibit their ability to produce truly novel concepts. We present Design Heuristics as a tool to encourage the exploration of creative concept pathways, empowering students to create more novel concepts by rejecting misrules about creativity.},

keywords = {Creativity, Design Education, Idea Generation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inproceedings}

}

@inproceedings{Gray2014d,

title = {Externalizing Normativity in Design Reviews: Inscribing Design Values in Designed Artifacts},

author = {Colin M Gray and Craig D Howard},

url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2014_GrayHoward_DTRS_ExternalizingNormativity.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-11-01},

booktitle = {Proceedings of the Design Thinking Research Symposium},

abstract = {The design community has discussed issues of ethics and values for decades, but less attention has been paid to the question of how an ethical sensibility might be developed or taken on by design students. In this analysis, we explore how normative concerns emerge through the process of design reviews—where a developing designer’s normative infrastructure is engaged with the artifact they are designing. We focused on the normative concerns that were foregrounded by two undergraduate and two graduate industrial design students across a series of five design reviews, addressing the possible relationship between the emergence of normative concerns and the inscription of norms in the final designed artifact. We used several critical qualitative techniques, including sequence analysis and meaning reconstruction to locate areas where normative concerns were addressed.



Normative concerns only arose in explicit form in the earliest review sessions on the graduate level, if they were going to arise at all, and end-user research appeared to be the primary mechanism for introducing norms into the design process. Neither instructor actively engaged or foregrounded the normative infrastructure of the design students, and all of the normative concerns discussed in the four cases were brought to the conversation by students. Implications for including awareness of normative concerns as part of a student’s developing design character are considered as part of a systemic approach to ethics and values in design education.},

keywords = {Critique, Design Education, Ethics and Values},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inproceedings}

}

@inproceedings{Gray2014-dl,

title = {Evolution of design competence in UX practice},

author = {Colin M Gray},

url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2014_Gray_CHI_EvolutionofDesignCompetence.pdf

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2556288.2557264},

doi = {10.1145/2556288.2557264},

isbn = {9781450324731},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

urldate = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '14},

pages = {1645-1654},

address = {Toronto, Ontario, Canada},

series = {CHI '14},

abstract = {There has been increasing interest in the adoption of UX within corporate environments, and what competencies translate into effective UX design. This paper addresses the space between pedagogy and UX practice through the lens of competence, with the goal of understanding how students are initiated into the practice community, how their perception of competence shifts over time, and what factors influence this shift. A 12-week longitudinal data collection, including surveys and interviews, documents this shift, with participants beginning internships and full-time positions in UX. Students and early professionals were asked to assess their level of competence and factors that influenced competence. A co-construction of identity between the designer and their environment is proposed, with a variety of factors relating to tool and representational knowledge, complexity, and corporate culture influencing perceptions of competence in UX over time. Opportunities for future research, particularly in building an understanding of competency in UX based on this preliminary framing of early UX practice are addressed.},

keywords = {Design Education, Design Knowledge, Expertise, HCI Education, Identity, Practice-Led Research, UX Knowledge, UX Practice},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inproceedings}

}