A Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on 3D Modelling: Students’ Design Concepts in the Bottle form Design Task

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

3D modelling and rapid prototyping skills have become an essential technique in design education and cross-disciplinary educational settings provide opportunities for students to develop design expertise on 3D modelling. In the present study, we focused on 3D modelling in a product design context, and we analysed what kind of design concepts emerge in students’ work when they are taught 3D modelling in a cross-disciplinary setting. This study aims to provide design educators with new insights into novices’ design practices in cross-discipline design education. The research employed a qualitative case-study approach to analyse textual and visual representations (i.e., concept maps, sketches, 3D models, and reflective reports) to explore the students’ design concepts. The cross-disciplinary setting consisted of graphic design, interior design, and product design students who were given a product form design task. All students succeeded in creating description-based concepts that met the problem requirements. However, principle-based concepts emerged only in product design students’ processes. We argue that these kinds of principle-based concepts are related to the product’s structure and functionality, when engaged students can apply product design domain-specific knowledge. In conclusion, this kind of design task has benefits for individual learning and developing usable and aesthetically appealing products. However, there is a clear need for studies that develop workshops and tasks where students can participate in collaborative multi-disciplinary projects.

Keywords

References

Akoury, C. (2020). Apprehending the creative process through drawing in the foundation design studio. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 39(1), p. 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12223
Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education. 19(2), p. 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827646
Bailey, M. & Spencer, N. (2019). The why and how of design-led multidisciplinary innovation education: Context and Curriculum. International Journal of Design Education. 13(4), p. 89–109. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v13i04/89-109
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review. 86(6), p. 84–92.
Chamorro-Koc, M., Popovic, V., & Emmison, M. (2008). Using visual representation of concepts to explore users and designers’ concepts of everyday products. Design Studies. 29(2), p. 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.005
Chamorro-Koc, M., Scott, A. & Coombs, G. (2015). Bombs away: Visual thinking and students’ engagement in design studios contexts. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal. 20(1), p. 18–28. https://ariadneproduction.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/download/2018/2162
Crilly, N. (2011). Do users know what designers are up to? Product experience and the inference of persuasive intentions. International Journal of Design. 5(3), p.1–15.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer. London, UK.
Cupar, A., Kaljun, J., Dolšak, B. & Harih, G. (2021). 3D printed deformable product handle material for improved ergonomics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 82, 103080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103080
da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P. (2015). How people’s appreciation of products is affected by their knowledge of the designers’ intentions. International Journal of Design. 9, p. 21-33. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/253560
Dahiya, A., & Kumar, J. (2021). Effect of user information on conceptual design thinking: A linkographic study. Journal of Design Thinking. 2(2). p. 97-112. https://doi:10.22059/jdt.2021.325564.1058
Dong, Y., Zhu, S. & Li, W. (2021). Promoting sustainable creativity: An empirical study on the application of mind mapping tools in graphic design education. Sustainability. 13(10), 5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105373
Evans, M. & Al-Doy, N. (2011). A review of digital industrial and product design methods in UK higher education. The Design Journal. 14(3), p. 343-368. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630611X13046972590923
Frascara, J. (2017). Design, and design education: How can they get together? Art, design & communication in higher education. 16(1), p. 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.16.1.125_1
Goel, V. & Pirolli, P (1992). The structure of Design Problem Spaces. Cognitive Science. 16 (3), p. 395-429.
Harvey, C. & Stanton, N. A. (2013). Usability evaluation for in-vehicle systems. CRC Press.
Hsieh, Y., Chen, C. & Chen, W. (2021). Form development from 2D to 3D: The basic design courses for higher education. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 41(1), p. 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12377
Hung, W. K., & Chen, L. (2012). Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design. International Journal of Design. 6(2), p. 81-90. https://research.tue.nl/files/67643668/1146_4992_1_PB.pdf
Imbesi, S., & Scataglini, S. (2021). A user centered methodology for the design of smart apparel for older users. Sensors. 21(8), 2804. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082804
Jagtap, S. (2018). Intentions and inspiration in shaping visual appearance of products: The practice of professional industrial designers in India. The Design Journal. 21(1), p. 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2018.1396075
Kahmann, R. & Henze, L. (2002). Mapping the user-product relationship (in product design). In W. Green & P. Jordan (Eds). Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. New York: Taylor and Francis. p. 297–306.
Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: An empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies. 29(1). p. 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001
Love, T. (2021). Three categories of design thinking: Routine, simple/complicated and complex. Journal of Design Thinking. 2(2), p. 191-214. https://doi:10.22059/jdt.2022.336759.1064
Menezes, A. & Lawson, B. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design Studies. 27(5), p. 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.02.001
Nae, H. J. (2017). An interdisciplinary design education framework. The Design Journal. 20(1), p. S835– S847. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353030
Norman, D., & Klemmer S. (2014). State of design: How design education must change. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140325102438-12181762-state-of-design-how-design-education-must-change
Oxman, R. (2002). The thinking eye: Visual recognition in design emergence. Design Studies. 23(2), p. 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00026-6
Pei, E., Campbell, I. & Evans, M. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. The Design Journal. 14(1), p. 64–91. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630610X12877385838803
Rodgers, P. A. & Bremner, C. (2019). Design school: After boundaries and disciplines. Vernon Press.
Visser, W. (2011). Design as construction of representations. Art + Design & Psychology. 2, p. 29-43. https://hal.science/hal-00627470/document
Wongsriruksa, S., Howes, P., Conreen, M. & Miodownik, M. (2012). The use of physical property data to predict the touch perception of materials. Materials and Design. 42, p. 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.05.054
Yang, W., Lahti, H., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2022). Creating new 3D forms in collaborative product design. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal. 27(1), p. 9–28. Retrieved from https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1149

 
Journal of Design Thinking
Volume 3, Issue 2
December 2022
Pages 201-216

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics