2023
Gray, Colin M; Boling, Elizabeth
Learning Experience Design in the light of design knowledge and philosophy Journal Article
In: The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, vol. 12, iss. 3, pp. 217–226, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Knowledge, Design Theory, Instructional Design, Learning Experience (LX) Design
@article{Gray2023-cv,
title = {Learning Experience Design in the light of design knowledge and philosophy},
author = {Colin M Gray and Elizabeth Boling},
url = {https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_12_3/LXD_design_knowledge_and_philosophy},
doi = {10.59668/515.12901},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-09-23},
urldate = {2023-01-01},
journal = {The Journal of Applied Instructional Design},
volume = {12},
issue = {3},
pages = {217–226},
publisher = {EdTech Books},
abstract = {Instructional design has been dominated by a philosophy focused
on efficiency, effectiveness, and appeal. Learning Experience
Design (LXD), emerging recently, offers a different set of
values with the potential to enhance and evolve the practice of
design for teaching and learning. Using the concepts of
knowledge and philosophy from the literature on design theory,
we challenge the notion that LXD is a discrete new field
separate from instructional design and instead identify LXD as
an alternate philosophy of design. We conclude with the
opportunity to recognize additional philosophies in the field
and consider the impacts of philosophy on knowledge-building
practices.},
keywords = {Design Knowledge, Design Theory, Instructional Design, Learning Experience (LX) Design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Instructional design has been dominated by a philosophy focused
on efficiency, effectiveness, and appeal. Learning Experience
Design (LXD), emerging recently, offers a different set of
values with the potential to enhance and evolve the practice of
design for teaching and learning. Using the concepts of
knowledge and philosophy from the literature on design theory,
we challenge the notion that LXD is a discrete new field
separate from instructional design and instead identify LXD as
an alternate philosophy of design. We conclude with the
opportunity to recognize additional philosophies in the field
and consider the impacts of philosophy on knowledge-building
practices.
on efficiency, effectiveness, and appeal. Learning Experience
Design (LXD), emerging recently, offers a different set of
values with the potential to enhance and evolve the practice of
design for teaching and learning. Using the concepts of
knowledge and philosophy from the literature on design theory,
we challenge the notion that LXD is a discrete new field
separate from instructional design and instead identify LXD as
an alternate philosophy of design. We conclude with the
opportunity to recognize additional philosophies in the field
and consider the impacts of philosophy on knowledge-building
practices.
Parsons, Paul C; Shukla, Prakash; Baigelenov, Ali; Gray, Colin M
Developing Framing Judgment Ability: Student Perceptions from a Graduate UX Design Program Proceedings Article
In: EduCHI 2023: 5th Annual Symposium on HCI Education (EduCHI '23), Hamburg, Germany, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Education, Design Judgment, Design Theory, HCI Education, Studio Pedagogy
@inproceedings{Parsons2023-op,
title = {Developing Framing Judgment Ability: Student Perceptions from a Graduate UX Design Program},
author = {Paul C Parsons and Prakash Shukla and Ali Baigelenov and Colin M Gray},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3587399.3587401
https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023_Parsonsetal_EduCHI_FramingJudgmentAbility.pdf},
doi = {10.1145/3587399.3587401},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-28},
urldate = {2023-04-28},
booktitle = {EduCHI 2023: 5th Annual Symposium on HCI Education (EduCHI
'23)},
address = {Hamburg, Germany},
abstract = {Making framing judgments is at the heart of design. When faced
with complex, open-ended situations, designers need to exercise
good judgment to identify the core of the problem at hand and
set the boundaries of the conceptual space through which the
design process will unfold. While framing ability is broadly
recognized as important, the factors that contribute to its
development in educational settings are not well understood,
particularly in the context of HCI education. In this study, we
collected data from master's students in a UX design program at
several points in time across their program journey. We
interviewed 11 of these students in their final semester, having
them reflect on how their ability to make framing judgments has
evolved over time. We highlight pedagogical factors relevant for
the development of their framing ability as indicated by the
students. Our findings also highlight the impact of framing
ability on other design activities and personal design
philosophy.},
keywords = {Design Education, Design Judgment, Design Theory, HCI Education, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Making framing judgments is at the heart of design. When faced
with complex, open-ended situations, designers need to exercise
good judgment to identify the core of the problem at hand and
set the boundaries of the conceptual space through which the
design process will unfold. While framing ability is broadly
recognized as important, the factors that contribute to its
development in educational settings are not well understood,
particularly in the context of HCI education. In this study, we
collected data from master's students in a UX design program at
several points in time across their program journey. We
interviewed 11 of these students in their final semester, having
them reflect on how their ability to make framing judgments has
evolved over time. We highlight pedagogical factors relevant for
the development of their framing ability as indicated by the
students. Our findings also highlight the impact of framing
ability on other design activities and personal design
philosophy.
with complex, open-ended situations, designers need to exercise
good judgment to identify the core of the problem at hand and
set the boundaries of the conceptual space through which the
design process will unfold. While framing ability is broadly
recognized as important, the factors that contribute to its
development in educational settings are not well understood,
particularly in the context of HCI education. In this study, we
collected data from master's students in a UX design program at
several points in time across their program journey. We
interviewed 11 of these students in their final semester, having
them reflect on how their ability to make framing judgments has
evolved over time. We highlight pedagogical factors relevant for
the development of their framing ability as indicated by the
students. Our findings also highlight the impact of framing
ability on other design activities and personal design
philosophy.
2022
Gray, Colin M; Liu, Wei; Xin, Xin; Chin, Daniel; Marks, Jacqueline; Bunting, Sadie; Anglin, Jerry; Hutzel, Becky; Kokate, Samruddhi; Yang, Yushu
Defamiliarization and Intercultural Learning in Cross-Cultural HCI Education Proceedings Article
In: EduCHI'22: 4th Annual Symposium on HCI Education, 2022.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Cross-Cultural Education, Design Education, Design Knowledge, Design Methods, Design Theory, HCI Education, UX Knowledge
@inproceedings{Gray2022-es,
title = {Defamiliarization and Intercultural Learning in Cross-Cultural HCI Education},
author = {Colin M Gray and Wei Liu and Xin Xin and Daniel Chin and Jacqueline Marks and Sadie Bunting and Jerry Anglin and Becky Hutzel and Samruddhi Kokate and Yushu Yang},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022_Grayetal_EduCHI_DefamiliarizationInterculturalLearning.pdf},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-01},
urldate = {2022-04-01},
booktitle = {EduCHI'22: 4th Annual Symposium on HCI Education},
abstract = {HCI and UX work is increasingly global, and students have the
potential to benefit from building their globalization
competence. However, little research has described the unique
opportunities and challenges of intercultural project work in
the context of HCI education, including the ways in which design
knowledge is leveraged in a cross-cultural setting. In this
research paper, we describe the experiences of a Collaborative
Online International Learning (COIL) project team with
participants from China and the United States as they worked to
identify design opportunities to create ``charmful''
semi-autonomous driving experiences for the Chinese market.
Through our analysis of focus groups, synchronous group
meetings, and artifacts created over one academic semester, we
describe how students engaged design knowledge through the lens
of culture and identify strategies that the teams used to
constructively defamiliarize their understanding of the design
context and potential outcomes. We conclude with opportunities
and challenges in coordinating cross-cultural design work and
describe new ways in which defamiliarization might be a
productive lens to acknowledge and build upon cultural
knowledge.},
keywords = {Cross-Cultural Education, Design Education, Design Knowledge, Design Methods, Design Theory, HCI Education, UX Knowledge},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
HCI and UX work is increasingly global, and students have the
potential to benefit from building their globalization
competence. However, little research has described the unique
opportunities and challenges of intercultural project work in
the context of HCI education, including the ways in which design
knowledge is leveraged in a cross-cultural setting. In this
research paper, we describe the experiences of a Collaborative
Online International Learning (COIL) project team with
participants from China and the United States as they worked to
identify design opportunities to create ``charmful''
semi-autonomous driving experiences for the Chinese market.
Through our analysis of focus groups, synchronous group
meetings, and artifacts created over one academic semester, we
describe how students engaged design knowledge through the lens
of culture and identify strategies that the teams used to
constructively defamiliarize their understanding of the design
context and potential outcomes. We conclude with opportunities
and challenges in coordinating cross-cultural design work and
describe new ways in which defamiliarization might be a
productive lens to acknowledge and build upon cultural
knowledge.
potential to benefit from building their globalization
competence. However, little research has described the unique
opportunities and challenges of intercultural project work in
the context of HCI education, including the ways in which design
knowledge is leveraged in a cross-cultural setting. In this
research paper, we describe the experiences of a Collaborative
Online International Learning (COIL) project team with
participants from China and the United States as they worked to
identify design opportunities to create ``charmful''
semi-autonomous driving experiences for the Chinese market.
Through our analysis of focus groups, synchronous group
meetings, and artifacts created over one academic semester, we
describe how students engaged design knowledge through the lens
of culture and identify strategies that the teams used to
constructively defamiliarize their understanding of the design
context and potential outcomes. We conclude with opportunities
and challenges in coordinating cross-cultural design work and
describe new ways in which defamiliarization might be a
productive lens to acknowledge and build upon cultural
knowledge.
Parsons, Paul C; Gray, Colin M
Separating Grading and Feedback in UX Design Studios Proceedings Article
In: EduCHI'22: 4th Annual Symposium on HCI Education, 2022.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Education, Design Theory, HCI Education, Instructional Design, Reflection, Studio Pedagogy, UX Knowledge
@inproceedings{Parsons2022-ow,
title = {Separating Grading and Feedback in UX Design Studios},
author = {Paul C Parsons and Colin M Gray},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022_ParsonsGray_EduCHI_SeparatingGradingandFeedback.pdf},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-01},
urldate = {2022-04-01},
booktitle = {EduCHI'22: 4th Annual Symposium on HCI Education},
abstract = {Assessment and feedback are central tasks in most instructional
settings, and the reception of feedback by students is generally
regarded as an essential part of the learning process [18, 22].
Despite the centrality and importance of feedback, there is
increasing evidence that traditional feedback practices are not
effective [6, 37]. Among several known challenges to
implementing effective feedback is the entanglement of feedback
with assessment (i.e., grading), which has become so strong in
many instances that they are effectively conjoined [37]. This
integration is routine and often assumed uncritically, and it
can lead to several problems for the student experience. While
both assessment and feedback have important functions, they are
distinct, and their conflation can obscure the important role
that each has for the teacher and student. In this `teachable
moment' paper, we describe some known problems with assessment
and feedback, the value of disentangling them, and several
strategies we have taken to improve the feedback process across
a series of UX design courses at a large research university."},
keywords = {Design Education, Design Theory, HCI Education, Instructional Design, Reflection, Studio Pedagogy, UX Knowledge},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Assessment and feedback are central tasks in most instructional
settings, and the reception of feedback by students is generally
regarded as an essential part of the learning process [18, 22].
Despite the centrality and importance of feedback, there is
increasing evidence that traditional feedback practices are not
effective [6, 37]. Among several known challenges to
implementing effective feedback is the entanglement of feedback
with assessment (i.e., grading), which has become so strong in
many instances that they are effectively conjoined [37]. This
integration is routine and often assumed uncritically, and it
can lead to several problems for the student experience. While
both assessment and feedback have important functions, they are
distinct, and their conflation can obscure the important role
that each has for the teacher and student. In this `teachable
moment' paper, we describe some known problems with assessment
and feedback, the value of disentangling them, and several
strategies we have taken to improve the feedback process across
a series of UX design courses at a large research university."
settings, and the reception of feedback by students is generally
regarded as an essential part of the learning process [18, 22].
Despite the centrality and importance of feedback, there is
increasing evidence that traditional feedback practices are not
effective [6, 37]. Among several known challenges to
implementing effective feedback is the entanglement of feedback
with assessment (i.e., grading), which has become so strong in
many instances that they are effectively conjoined [37]. This
integration is routine and often assumed uncritically, and it
can lead to several problems for the student experience. While
both assessment and feedback have important functions, they are
distinct, and their conflation can obscure the important role
that each has for the teacher and student. In this `teachable
moment' paper, we describe some known problems with assessment
and feedback, the value of disentangling them, and several
strategies we have taken to improve the feedback process across
a series of UX design courses at a large research university."
Boling, Elizabeth; Gray, Colin M; Lachheb, Ahmed
Inscribing a Designer Mindset to Instructional Design Students Book Section
In: The Instructional Design Trainer's Guide, pp. 18–28, Routledge, 2022, ISBN: 9781003109938, 9781003109938.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Education, Design Theory, Ethics and Values, Instructional Design
@incollection{Boling2022-kg,
title = {Inscribing a Designer Mindset to Instructional Design Students},
author = {Elizabeth Boling and Colin M Gray and Ahmed Lachheb},
url = {https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003109938-3/inscribing-designer-mindset-instructional-design-students-elizabeth-boling-colin-gray-ahmed-lachheb},
doi = {10.4324/9781003109938-3},
isbn = {9781003109938, 9781003109938},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-01},
urldate = {2022-03-01},
booktitle = {The Instructional Design Trainer's Guide},
pages = {18--28},
publisher = {Routledge},
abstract = {In this chapter, we focus on building a designer's mindset among
instructional design (ID) students by using frame experiments as
an instructional method. We provide the theoretical foundation
of frame experiments with a sample scenario of their use and
conclude by sharing specific instructional activities that
instructors may use to build design judgment.},
keywords = {Design Education, Design Theory, Ethics and Values, Instructional Design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
In this chapter, we focus on building a designer's mindset among
instructional design (ID) students by using frame experiments as
an instructional method. We provide the theoretical foundation
of frame experiments with a sample scenario of their use and
conclude by sharing specific instructional activities that
instructors may use to build design judgment.
instructional design (ID) students by using frame experiments as
an instructional method. We provide the theoretical foundation
of frame experiments with a sample scenario of their use and
conclude by sharing specific instructional activities that
instructors may use to build design judgment.
Gray, Colin M; Huston, Davin; Wolford, Christopher
Iterating Overnight: Using Cardboard to Teach Audio During a Pandemic Journal Article
In: International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1704–1711, 2022.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Design Theory, Prototyping
@article{Gray2022-mc,
title = {Iterating Overnight: Using Cardboard to Teach Audio During a Pandemic},
author = {Colin M Gray and Davin Huston and Christopher Wolford},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-01},
urldate = {2022-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education},
volume = {38},
number = {6},
pages = {1704--1711},
abstract = {Prototyping is a core element of engineering and technology
activity, giving form to design concepts and facilitating
iteration and testing. With the rise of the ``maker movement,''
higher fidelity forms of prototyping have often been privileged,
without deep investigation into prototyping activities that
support materially-focused exploration across different levels of
fidelity. In this paper, we describe how students in an
interdisciplinary undergraduate audio engineering course adapted
to a loss of fabrication equipment and the COVID-19 pandemic,
relying more heavily on cardboard prototypes as they ``iterated
overnight'' at home to realize the design of their loudspeaker.
We analyzed a range of iterative prototypes using a prototyping
framework we operationalized from Lim, Tenenberg, and Stolterman,
describing the filtering and manifestation dimensions across a
range of student projects. We reflect upon the trajectories of
prototyping, considering strengths and weaknesses of different
types of materials in supporting student exploration and the
pedagogical supports that may be needed to encourage this
exploration.},
keywords = {Design Theory, Prototyping},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Prototyping is a core element of engineering and technology
activity, giving form to design concepts and facilitating
iteration and testing. With the rise of the ``maker movement,''
higher fidelity forms of prototyping have often been privileged,
without deep investigation into prototyping activities that
support materially-focused exploration across different levels of
fidelity. In this paper, we describe how students in an
interdisciplinary undergraduate audio engineering course adapted
to a loss of fabrication equipment and the COVID-19 pandemic,
relying more heavily on cardboard prototypes as they ``iterated
overnight'' at home to realize the design of their loudspeaker.
We analyzed a range of iterative prototypes using a prototyping
framework we operationalized from Lim, Tenenberg, and Stolterman,
describing the filtering and manifestation dimensions across a
range of student projects. We reflect upon the trajectories of
prototyping, considering strengths and weaknesses of different
types of materials in supporting student exploration and the
pedagogical supports that may be needed to encourage this
exploration.
activity, giving form to design concepts and facilitating
iteration and testing. With the rise of the ``maker movement,''
higher fidelity forms of prototyping have often been privileged,
without deep investigation into prototyping activities that
support materially-focused exploration across different levels of
fidelity. In this paper, we describe how students in an
interdisciplinary undergraduate audio engineering course adapted
to a loss of fabrication equipment and the COVID-19 pandemic,
relying more heavily on cardboard prototypes as they ``iterated
overnight'' at home to realize the design of their loudspeaker.
We analyzed a range of iterative prototypes using a prototyping
framework we operationalized from Lim, Tenenberg, and Stolterman,
describing the filtering and manifestation dimensions across a
range of student projects. We reflect upon the trajectories of
prototyping, considering strengths and weaknesses of different
types of materials in supporting student exploration and the
pedagogical supports that may be needed to encourage this
exploration.
2021
Gray, Colin M; Wolford, Christopher; Huston, Davin
Iterating Overnight: Using Cardboard to Teach Audio During a Pandemic Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Mudd Design Workshop XII: Designing Through Making: 2-D and 3-D Representations of Designs In Campus Facilities and Remotely, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, 2021.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Design Education, Design Methods, Design Theory, Prototyping
@inproceedings{Gray2021-so,
title = {Iterating Overnight: Using Cardboard to Teach Audio During a Pandemic},
author = {Colin M Gray and Christopher Wolford and Davin Huston},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Mudd Design Workshop XII: Designing Through Making: 2-D and 3-D Representations of Designs In Campus Facilities and Remotely},
publisher = {Harvey Mudd College},
address = {Claremont, CA},
abstract = {Prototyping is a key competency in engineering and technology
disciplines, bridging abstract and often-technical design
requirements and the realization of these requirements in the
physical world. While many approaches have historically been
used to encourage the development of prototyping competence in
engineering education, rapid fabrication techniques are
increasingly available both to students and the general public
as part of the ``maker movement.`` However, the development of
prototyping competence has been considered to be understudied,
particularly with regard to the appropriate levels of fidelity
through which a prototype might be most beneficial to
problematize the design situation, allow exploration of the
problem space, and facilitate iteration. In this paper, we
describe the tensions among technologically and pragmatically
different approaches to prototyping. We focus our inquiry on a
traditionally in-person multidisciplinary engineering/technology
lab course which was confronted with two difficulties: a
building construction project that caused the lab to be
relocated off of the main campus with limited fabrication
equipment availability and a mid-semester shift to online-only
instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of
these two instructional tensions, we describe the outcomes of a
student project to design and fabricate a functioning
loudspeaker in cardboard, providing a detailed account of the
design outcomes and process moves that resulted from this shift
in fabrication approach.},
keywords = {Design Education, Design Methods, Design Theory, Prototyping},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Prototyping is a key competency in engineering and technology
disciplines, bridging abstract and often-technical design
requirements and the realization of these requirements in the
physical world. While many approaches have historically been
used to encourage the development of prototyping competence in
engineering education, rapid fabrication techniques are
increasingly available both to students and the general public
as part of the ``maker movement.`` However, the development of
prototyping competence has been considered to be understudied,
particularly with regard to the appropriate levels of fidelity
through which a prototype might be most beneficial to
problematize the design situation, allow exploration of the
problem space, and facilitate iteration. In this paper, we
describe the tensions among technologically and pragmatically
different approaches to prototyping. We focus our inquiry on a
traditionally in-person multidisciplinary engineering/technology
lab course which was confronted with two difficulties: a
building construction project that caused the lab to be
relocated off of the main campus with limited fabrication
equipment availability and a mid-semester shift to online-only
instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of
these two instructional tensions, we describe the outcomes of a
student project to design and fabricate a functioning
loudspeaker in cardboard, providing a detailed account of the
design outcomes and process moves that resulted from this shift
in fabrication approach.
disciplines, bridging abstract and often-technical design
requirements and the realization of these requirements in the
physical world. While many approaches have historically been
used to encourage the development of prototyping competence in
engineering education, rapid fabrication techniques are
increasingly available both to students and the general public
as part of the ``maker movement.`` However, the development of
prototyping competence has been considered to be understudied,
particularly with regard to the appropriate levels of fidelity
through which a prototype might be most beneficial to
problematize the design situation, allow exploration of the
problem space, and facilitate iteration. In this paper, we
describe the tensions among technologically and pragmatically
different approaches to prototyping. We focus our inquiry on a
traditionally in-person multidisciplinary engineering/technology
lab course which was confronted with two difficulties: a
building construction project that caused the lab to be
relocated off of the main campus with limited fabrication
equipment availability and a mid-semester shift to online-only
instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of
these two instructional tensions, we describe the outcomes of a
student project to design and fabricate a functioning
loudspeaker in cardboard, providing a detailed account of the
design outcomes and process moves that resulted from this shift
in fabrication approach.
2020
Parsons, Paul; Gray, Colin M; Baigelenov, Ali; Carr, Ian
Design Judgment in Data Visualization Practice Proceedings Article
In: 2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), pp. 176-180, 2020.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Theory
@inproceedings{Parsons2020-hz,
title = {Design Judgment in Data Visualization Practice},
author = {Paul Parsons and Colin M Gray and Ali Baigelenov and Ian Carr},
url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02628
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00042},
doi = {10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00042},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-01},
booktitle = {2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS)},
pages = {176-180},
abstract = {Data visualization is becoming an increasingly popular field of design practice. Although many studies have highlighted the knowledge required for effective data visualization design, their focus has largely been on formal knowledge and logical decision-making processes that can be abstracted and codified. Less attention has been paid to the more situated and personal ways of knowing that are prevalent in all design activity. In this study, we conducted semistructured interviews with data visualization practitioners during which they were asked to describe the practical and situated aspects of their design processes. Using a philosophical framework of design judgment from Nelson and Stolterman [23], we analyzed the transcripts to describe the volume and complex layering of design judgments that are used by data visualization practitioners as they describe and interrogate their work. We identify aspects of data visualization practice that require further investigation beyond notions of rational, model- or principle-directed decision-making processes.},
keywords = {Design Theory},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Data visualization is becoming an increasingly popular field of design practice. Although many studies have highlighted the knowledge required for effective data visualization design, their focus has largely been on formal knowledge and logical decision-making processes that can be abstracted and codified. Less attention has been paid to the more situated and personal ways of knowing that are prevalent in all design activity. In this study, we conducted semistructured interviews with data visualization practitioners during which they were asked to describe the practical and situated aspects of their design processes. Using a philosophical framework of design judgment from Nelson and Stolterman [23], we analyzed the transcripts to describe the volume and complex layering of design judgments that are used by data visualization practitioners as they describe and interrogate their work. We identify aspects of data visualization practice that require further investigation beyond notions of rational, model- or principle-directed decision-making processes.
Chivukula, Shruthi Sai; Gray, Colin M
Co-Evolving Towards Evil Design Outcomes: Mapping Problem and Solution Process Moves Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society, Design Research Society, Brisbane, Australia, 2020.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Dark Patterns, Design Theory, Ethics and Values
@inproceedings{Chivukula2020-ai,
title = {Co-Evolving Towards Evil Design Outcomes: Mapping Problem and Solution Process Moves},
author = {Shruthi Sai Chivukula and Colin M Gray},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020_ChivukulaGray_DRS_CoEvolutionTowardsEvilDesign.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.107},
doi = {10.21606/drs.2020.107},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Design Research Society},
publisher = {Design Research Society},
address = {Brisbane, Australia},
abstract = {Creative outcomes require designers to continuously frame the
problem space and generate solutions, resulting in the
co-evolution of problem and solution. Little work has addressed
the value dimensions of design activity with regard to this co-
evolutionary process and the role of the designer in acting upon
specific and value- laden framings and/or solutions. In this
paper, we identify how triads of student designers from user
experience (UX) and industrial engineering (IE) disciplines
frame the problem space and generate solutions, foregrounding
the ethical character of their judgments in response to an
ethically-nuanced design task. Using sequence analysis to
analyze the lab protocol data, we describe the frequency and
interconnectedness of process moves that lead the design team
towards unethical outcomes. Based on our findings, we call for
additional attention to ethical dimensions of problem-solution
co- evolution, and identify key interaction patterns among
designers that lead towards unethical outcomes.},
keywords = {Dark Patterns, Design Theory, Ethics and Values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Creative outcomes require designers to continuously frame the
problem space and generate solutions, resulting in the
co-evolution of problem and solution. Little work has addressed
the value dimensions of design activity with regard to this co-
evolutionary process and the role of the designer in acting upon
specific and value- laden framings and/or solutions. In this
paper, we identify how triads of student designers from user
experience (UX) and industrial engineering (IE) disciplines
frame the problem space and generate solutions, foregrounding
the ethical character of their judgments in response to an
ethically-nuanced design task. Using sequence analysis to
analyze the lab protocol data, we describe the frequency and
interconnectedness of process moves that lead the design team
towards unethical outcomes. Based on our findings, we call for
additional attention to ethical dimensions of problem-solution
co- evolution, and identify key interaction patterns among
designers that lead towards unethical outcomes.
problem space and generate solutions, resulting in the
co-evolution of problem and solution. Little work has addressed
the value dimensions of design activity with regard to this co-
evolutionary process and the role of the designer in acting upon
specific and value- laden framings and/or solutions. In this
paper, we identify how triads of student designers from user
experience (UX) and industrial engineering (IE) disciplines
frame the problem space and generate solutions, foregrounding
the ethical character of their judgments in response to an
ethically-nuanced design task. Using sequence analysis to
analyze the lab protocol data, we describe the frequency and
interconnectedness of process moves that lead the design team
towards unethical outcomes. Based on our findings, we call for
additional attention to ethical dimensions of problem-solution
co- evolution, and identify key interaction patterns among
designers that lead towards unethical outcomes.
2019
Exter, Marisa E; Gray, Colin M; Fernandez, Todd M
Conceptions of design by transdisciplinary educators: Disciplinary background and pedagogical engagement Journal Article
In: International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 30, pp. 777-798, 2019, ISSN: 1573-1804.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Education, Design Theory, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education
@article{Exter2019-uc,
title = {Conceptions of design by transdisciplinary educators: Disciplinary background and pedagogical engagement},
author = {Marisa E Exter and Colin M Gray and Todd M Fernandez},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/inpress_ExterGrayFernandez_IJTDE_ConceptionsOfDesign.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09520-w},
doi = {10.1007/s10798-019-09520-w},
issn = {1573-1804},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Technology and Design Education},
volume = {30},
pages = {777-798},
abstract = {In this study, we describe similarities and differences in how
faculty members from across disciplinary backgrounds
conceptualize design. The study is situated in an innovative
transdisciplinary undergraduate degree program centered on a
studio-based learning experience co-taught by multi-disciplinary
faculty. While faculty celebrated the opportunity to integrate
multiple disciplinary perspectives, they showed a lack of
awareness about differences in how they conceptualized design and
design pedagogy, especially early on. In-depth interviews and
sketches of eight faculty members provided insights on alignment
around core concepts of design, design process, and design
instruction. Common themes in design definitions included
creation of something new, human-centered design, and focus on
problem framing over solution development. There was disagreement
on the relationship between design and other ways of knowing,
such as problem solving and scientific reasoning. Most used
process models incorporating non-linearity, iteration,
prototyping, and balance between research and design ideation.
While there were many similarities in teaching approach, the
rationale given for decisions varied, highlighting underlying
differences in how participants thought about teaching design.
Instructional alignment is an important consideration in
designing a transdisciplinary learning experience, but may be
hard to achieve due to cultural and institutional disciplinary
boundaries. Collaborative teaching efforts benefit when faculty
engage in self-reflection, discussion, and engagement in
meaningful synthesis work related to understanding what design is
and how it can be taught. Such work will enable a team to create
purposeful learning experiences which leverages the benefits of
exposure to a range of design problems, contexts, users, and
design ``flavors.''},
keywords = {Design Education, Design Theory, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In this study, we describe similarities and differences in how
faculty members from across disciplinary backgrounds
conceptualize design. The study is situated in an innovative
transdisciplinary undergraduate degree program centered on a
studio-based learning experience co-taught by multi-disciplinary
faculty. While faculty celebrated the opportunity to integrate
multiple disciplinary perspectives, they showed a lack of
awareness about differences in how they conceptualized design and
design pedagogy, especially early on. In-depth interviews and
sketches of eight faculty members provided insights on alignment
around core concepts of design, design process, and design
instruction. Common themes in design definitions included
creation of something new, human-centered design, and focus on
problem framing over solution development. There was disagreement
on the relationship between design and other ways of knowing,
such as problem solving and scientific reasoning. Most used
process models incorporating non-linearity, iteration,
prototyping, and balance between research and design ideation.
While there were many similarities in teaching approach, the
rationale given for decisions varied, highlighting underlying
differences in how participants thought about teaching design.
Instructional alignment is an important consideration in
designing a transdisciplinary learning experience, but may be
hard to achieve due to cultural and institutional disciplinary
boundaries. Collaborative teaching efforts benefit when faculty
engage in self-reflection, discussion, and engagement in
meaningful synthesis work related to understanding what design is
and how it can be taught. Such work will enable a team to create
purposeful learning experiences which leverages the benefits of
exposure to a range of design problems, contexts, users, and
design ``flavors.''
faculty members from across disciplinary backgrounds
conceptualize design. The study is situated in an innovative
transdisciplinary undergraduate degree program centered on a
studio-based learning experience co-taught by multi-disciplinary
faculty. While faculty celebrated the opportunity to integrate
multiple disciplinary perspectives, they showed a lack of
awareness about differences in how they conceptualized design and
design pedagogy, especially early on. In-depth interviews and
sketches of eight faculty members provided insights on alignment
around core concepts of design, design process, and design
instruction. Common themes in design definitions included
creation of something new, human-centered design, and focus on
problem framing over solution development. There was disagreement
on the relationship between design and other ways of knowing,
such as problem solving and scientific reasoning. Most used
process models incorporating non-linearity, iteration,
prototyping, and balance between research and design ideation.
While there were many similarities in teaching approach, the
rationale given for decisions varied, highlighting underlying
differences in how participants thought about teaching design.
Instructional alignment is an important consideration in
designing a transdisciplinary learning experience, but may be
hard to achieve due to cultural and institutional disciplinary
boundaries. Collaborative teaching efforts benefit when faculty
engage in self-reflection, discussion, and engagement in
meaningful synthesis work related to understanding what design is
and how it can be taught. Such work will enable a team to create
purposeful learning experiences which leverages the benefits of
exposure to a range of design problems, contexts, users, and
design ``flavors.''
2017
Gray, Colin M; Kou, Yubo
UX Practitioners' Engagement with Intermediate-Level Knowledge Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 13–17, ACM, New York, New York, USA, 2017, ISBN: 9781450349918.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Knowledge, Design Theory, Practice-Led Research, UX Knowledge
@inproceedings{Gray2017-rk,
title = {UX Practitioners' Engagement with Intermediate-Level Knowledge},
author = {Colin M Gray and Yubo Kou},
url = {http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3064857.3079110},
doi = {10.1145/3064857.3079110},
isbn = {9781450349918},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-06-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems},
pages = {13--17},
publisher = {ACM},
address = {New York, New York, USA},
abstract = {Scholars have repeatedly called for the knowledge production efforts of the HCI research community to have resonance with the needs of practitioners. These efforts, reified in approaches such as “implications for design,” annotated portfolios, and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge have begun to take hold within the research community, yet it is unclear if and how these forms of knowledge are used to actually support user experience (UX) practice. In this study, we analyzed resources shared via URLs that pointed to articles on external websites within a practitioner- focused Reddit community. Using Löwgren’s taxonomy of intermediate-level knowledge, we identified the forms of knowledge these resources represent, and use this analysis as a provocation for future exploration into the types of knowledge practitioners desire and use to support their practice.},
keywords = {Design Knowledge, Design Theory, Practice-Led Research, UX Knowledge},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Scholars have repeatedly called for the knowledge production efforts of the HCI research community to have resonance with the needs of practitioners. These efforts, reified in approaches such as “implications for design,” annotated portfolios, and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge have begun to take hold within the research community, yet it is unclear if and how these forms of knowledge are used to actually support user experience (UX) practice. In this study, we analyzed resources shared via URLs that pointed to articles on external websites within a practitioner- focused Reddit community. Using Löwgren’s taxonomy of intermediate-level knowledge, we identified the forms of knowledge these resources represent, and use this analysis as a provocation for future exploration into the types of knowledge practitioners desire and use to support their practice.
Exter, Marisa; Gray, Colin M; Fernandez, Todd M
Transdisciplinary design education: Do differing disciplinary backgrounds divide or unify? Proceedings Article
In: Mudd Design Workshop X: Design and the Future of the Engineer of 2020, Claremont, CA, 2017.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Education, Design Theory, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education
@inproceedings{Exter2017-rr,
title = {Transdisciplinary design education: Do differing disciplinary backgrounds divide or unify?},
author = {Marisa Exter and Colin M Gray and Todd M Fernandez},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2017_ExterGrayFernandez_MUDD_ConceptionsofDesign.pdf},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
booktitle = {Mudd Design Workshop X: Design and the Future of the Engineer of 2020},
address = {Claremont, CA},
abstract = {The purpose of this study is to explore the similarities and differences in understandings of design among faculty with differing backgrounds. By understanding how faculty conceptualize design, we can assess the impact of potential misalignment on a design-dependent educational environment. Faculty interviewed for this paper are involved in an innovative transdisciplinary program, in which students are encouraged to understand and activate both technical and humanistic skills and knowledge to address “wicked” design problems. The program relies on design philosophies (e.g., human-centered design) and pedagogical emphasis (i.e., studio). The faculty have spent significant time co-designing the program-level experience, and generally assumed that the group has a common understanding of concepts related to design and how those concepts may be operationalized in the classroom. This assumption was challenged as teaching practices evolved based on student responses and changing membership of the faculty group. An apparent lack of alignment among faculty inspired us to study the range of beliefs across the faculty group about design, conceptions and operationalization of design terminology, and processes. The following research questions are addressed in this study: 1) How do faculty members characterize design and the design process?; and 2) How consistent are the faculty in the way that they characterize design and the design process?},
keywords = {Design Education, Design Theory, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
The purpose of this study is to explore the similarities and differences in understandings of design among faculty with differing backgrounds. By understanding how faculty conceptualize design, we can assess the impact of potential misalignment on a design-dependent educational environment. Faculty interviewed for this paper are involved in an innovative transdisciplinary program, in which students are encouraged to understand and activate both technical and humanistic skills and knowledge to address “wicked” design problems. The program relies on design philosophies (e.g., human-centered design) and pedagogical emphasis (i.e., studio). The faculty have spent significant time co-designing the program-level experience, and generally assumed that the group has a common understanding of concepts related to design and how those concepts may be operationalized in the classroom. This assumption was challenged as teaching practices evolved based on student responses and changing membership of the faculty group. An apparent lack of alignment among faculty inspired us to study the range of beliefs across the faculty group about design, conceptions and operationalization of design terminology, and processes. The following research questions are addressed in this study: 1) How do faculty members characterize design and the design process?; and 2) How consistent are the faculty in the way that they characterize design and the design process?
2016
Gray, Colin M; Seifert, Colleen M; Yilmaz, Seda; Daly, Shanna R; Gonzalez, Richard
What is the Content of ''Design Thinking''? Design Heuristics as Conceptual Repertoire Journal Article
In: International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 32, no. 3B, pp. 1349-1355, 2016.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Knowledge, Design Methods, Design Theory, Idea Generation
@article{Gray2016-lq,
title = {What is the Content of ''Design Thinking''? Design Heuristics as Conceptual Repertoire},
author = {Colin M Gray and Colleen M Seifert and Seda Yilmaz and Shanna R Daly and Richard Gonzalez},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2016_Grayetal_IJEE_DesignHeuristicsConceptualRepertoire.pdf
http://www.ijee.ie/latestissues/Vol32-3B/05_ijee3220ns.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education},
volume = {32},
number = {3B},
pages = {1349-1355},
abstract = {When engaged in design activity, what does a designer think about? And how does she draw on disciplinary knowledge, precedent, and other strategies in her design process in order to imagine new possible futures? In this paper, we explore Design Heuristics as a form of intermediate-level knowledge that may explain how designers build on existing knowledge of ‘‘design moves’’—non-deterministic, generative strategies or heuristics—during conceptual design activity. We describe a set of relationships between disciplinary training and the acquisition of such heuristics, and postulate how design students might accelerate their development of expertise. We conclude with implications for future research on the development of expertise, and the ways in which methods such as Design Heuristics can enhance this developmental process.},
keywords = {Design Knowledge, Design Methods, Design Theory, Idea Generation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
When engaged in design activity, what does a designer think about? And how does she draw on disciplinary knowledge, precedent, and other strategies in her design process in order to imagine new possible futures? In this paper, we explore Design Heuristics as a form of intermediate-level knowledge that may explain how designers build on existing knowledge of ‘‘design moves’’—non-deterministic, generative strategies or heuristics—during conceptual design activity. We describe a set of relationships between disciplinary training and the acquisition of such heuristics, and postulate how design students might accelerate their development of expertise. We conclude with implications for future research on the development of expertise, and the ways in which methods such as Design Heuristics can enhance this developmental process.
Gray, Colin M
What is the Nature and Intended Use of Design Methods? Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society, pp. 14 pp., Design Research Society, Brighton, United Kingdom, 2016.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design Methods, Design Theory, Translational Science
@inproceedings{Gray2016-yv,
title = {What is the Nature and Intended Use of Design Methods?},
author = {Colin M Gray},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2016_Gray_DRS_NatureUseofDesignMethods.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Design Research Society},
pages = {14 pp.},
publisher = {Design Research Society},
address = {Brighton, United Kingdom},
abstract = {Interest in the codification and application of design methods is rapidly growing as businesses increasingly utilize “design thinking” approaches. However, in this uptake of design methods that encourage designerly action, the ontological status of design methods is often diffuse, with contradictory messages from practitioners and academics about the purpose and desired use of methods within a designer’s process. In this paper, I explore the paradoxical nature of design methods, arguing for a nuanced view that includes the (often) conflicting qualities of prescription and performance. A prescriptive view of methods is drawn from the specification of methods and their “proper” use in the academic literature, while a performative view focuses on in situ use in practice, describing how practitioners use methods to support their everyday work. The ontological characteristics and practical outcomes of each view of design methods are considered, concluding with productive tensions that juxtapose academia and practice.},
keywords = {Design Methods, Design Theory, Translational Science},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Interest in the codification and application of design methods is rapidly growing as businesses increasingly utilize “design thinking” approaches. However, in this uptake of design methods that encourage designerly action, the ontological status of design methods is often diffuse, with contradictory messages from practitioners and academics about the purpose and desired use of methods within a designer’s process. In this paper, I explore the paradoxical nature of design methods, arguing for a nuanced view that includes the (often) conflicting qualities of prescription and performance. A prescriptive view of methods is drawn from the specification of methods and their “proper” use in the academic literature, while a performative view focuses on in situ use in practice, describing how practitioners use methods to support their everyday work. The ontological characteristics and practical outcomes of each view of design methods are considered, concluding with productive tensions that juxtapose academia and practice.