Making the design process in design education

explicit: two exploratory case studies

Elise van Dooren, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Els Boshuizen, Open University, The Netherlands & University of Turku, Finland
Jeroen van Merriënboer, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
Thijs Asselbergs, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Machiel van Dorst, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Abstract
The aim of design education is that students learn to think and act like designers. However,
the focus in the design studio is mainly on the design product, whereas the ‘why and how’ of
the design process are barely addressed. A risk of learning by performing real-life tasks
without addressing the skills involved, that is, without receiving appropriate support and
guidance, is that learners are overwhelmed by the complexity of the tasks.

To make the design process explicit, a conceptual framework is developed in earlier research.
This paper reports a first evaluation how articulation of basic designerly1 skills with the help
of a conceptual tool is perceived by students and teachers and whether it changes students’
conceptions of the design process and their self-efficacy. In two exploratory case studies,
questionnaires give insight. The first is a short intervention in which student’s perception is
measured. In the second case study the design process was addressed in the design studio. It
measured changes in student’s conceptions and self-efficacy. Also, insight is provided in
teacher’s perception of working with the framework.

The results of these exploratory studies indicate a positive effect. The teachers involved
perceived the framework as a structuring factor during the tutoring sessions, for both teacher
and students. Students did perceive explanation of the design process as being helpful. A
change in students’ design conceptions and an increase in self-efficacy is seen.

Key words
Design process, generic elements, framework, design education, architectural design.

Introduction
The aim of design education is that students learn to think and act like designers; they have to
acquire the reasoning processes of professionals (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991; Van
Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2018). For experienced professionals reasoning processes are not
split up in separate steps. They constitute an undivided unity of automatic, unconscious
actions based on common practice and routine, interspersed with conscious moments of
reflection and exploration. For learners the complex, interwoven set of skills is (largely)
unknown and unobservable. It has to be acquired by practicing while frequently doing ‘whole’

1
Cross, N.G. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhauser.
tasks (Van Merrienboer & Kester, 2008). To guide students in this ‘journey in the unknown’, it
is helpful to address the design process explicitly.

However, in the architectural design studio 2 students seem to learn mostly by practicing
design tasks without explicit articulation of the actions and skills involved. Research in
architectural design education (Van Dooren et al., 2019) has shown that tutoring appears to
be primarily a matter of discussion on the level of the design product at hand. Teachers talk
with students about all kinds of aspects involved in the design product in relatively detailed
terms: such as the position of rooms, the form of the building, the view and the composition
of the facade, and all other kind of aspects. If they refer to the design process, they do so
almost solely as a kind of side remarks or footnotes. The ‘how and why’ of the basic design
process are barely addressed.

A risk of learning by performing real-life tasks without addressing the skills involved, that is,
without giving appropriate support and guidance, is that learners are overwhelmed by the
complexity of the tasks (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2018, Sweller, Van Merrienboer &
Paas, 2019). Students are asked to perform skills, that are still unknown to them. In the
context of a working memory with limited capacity and a lack of adequate cognitive schemas
and conceptions in their long-term memory, students tend to focus mainly on the specific
design project at hand without a learning process taking place. Articulation and instruction of
the professional reasoning processes, more in specifically the design process, will help
students to develop effective conceptions.

Reasons for barely addressing the design process in the design studio, may be the lack of a
commonly shared vocabulary and lay person conceptions on design education (Van Dooren et
al., 2019). Teachers, being experts performing their skills for a large part implicit, talk with
students in the same way they talk with colleagues in the design office and in the way they
remember from their own education as a student. They are not used to talk about the design
process and if they refer to it, they use their personal notions. Not being trained as teachers,
they also seem to think that students (only) learn by discovering the designerly skills
themselves (Van Dooren et al., 2019). Guidance in the form of leading questions and well-
designed learning tasks regarding the skills that students are supposed to develop does not
seem desirable in this view.

To be able to make the design process explicit and to have a common base for
communication, a generic framework has been developed (Van Dooren et al., 2014). Five
elements have been distinguished to explain the design process in relation to all kinds of
design situations at hand, and to guide and train students in the development of design skills.
These two main goals may include other goals, such as the comparison of personal design
approaches and the articulation of the design processes in the context of teamwork.

This paper presents the results of two exploratory case studies, in which the framework is
used to make the design process explicit and to guide and train students in specific essential

2
The research in this paper focuses on architectural design, but for reasons of readability, regularly the shorter
notions ‘designing’ and ‘design process’ are used. At the same time, the results of focusing more on the design
process in design education and the generic elements may be recognizable for other design disciplines as well
(Van Dooren et al., 2014).
design skills. The aim of the first case study is to investigate how first and third year Bachelor
students perceived the articulation of the design process. The second case study gives insight
in the results of working with the framework in two Master design studios. How did the
teachers perceive the use of the framework in the tutorials and did students’ conceptions of
the design process and their self-efficacy change as a result of using the framework?

In the remainder of this introductory section, information about (the relation between)
students’ self-efficacy, their design conceptions and the way teachers articulate the design
process will be given. Then, the framework is briefly introduced. The section ends with the
main research question, the sub-questions and an introduction on the research method. The
following two sections each present and discuss an exploratory case study. Finally, overall
conclusions are drawn and discussed.

Self-efficacy and design-process conceptions

Students’ self-efficacy, their design process conceptions and the way in which teachers make
the design reasoning processes explicit and help students to acquire adequate design skills
are related to each other.

The design process conceptions are the mental models and cognitive strategies, which
describe how to perform tasks and how to reason. There may be large differences between
effective sophisticated conceptions of professional designers and intuitive or lay person
conceptions used by novices (Van Merriënboer and Kirschner, 2018). Students and lay
persons tend to consider designing as a process of solving ‘the problem’, posed by conditions
and criteria, presented by the client, site and program analysis. Observing the typical
behaviour of novice design students and comparing it with their conceptual drawings of the
design process, made by these students, Newstetter and McCracken (2001) concluded that
the drawings were prophetic for the design behaviour of students. The design process was
mainly represented in two ways: in linear flow charts and as a creative process, with an
emphasis on brainstorming, intuition and imagination. These conceptions could be recognised
in the behaviour characteristics they observed: (1) coming up with good ideas without
evaluation, (2) coming up with solely one idea without considering alternatives, (3) working in
a linear, serial process without iteration, (4) working on the idea and the component level
without moving between these levels, and (5) ignoring constraints and context (environment
and user). The sophisticated conceptions of professional designers include designing as an ill-
defined, open-ended, complex, personal and culturally influenced process. The process
unfolds in a process of experimentation. Conditions and criteria are discovered during the
process of exploring and reflection. Designing is a matter of coming up with inferences and
profound testing of possible solutions (Cross, 2007; Lawson, 2006; Lawson & Dorst, 2009;
Schön, 1983, 1985, 1987). If teachers show and articulate their sophisticated design-process
conceptions, students’ ability to perform the design process may increase and their self-
efficacy may rise.

Self-efficacy, the perceived belief in the personal ability to perform, is caused by and affects
different cognitive, motivational and affective processes. Sources of self-efficacy are mastery
experiences, experiences provided by social models, social persuasion and the reduction of
stress reactions (Bandura, 1994). In principle, if students are able to master challenging tasks,
not too easy, but still realistic in relation to their prior knowledge and experience, their self-
efficacy will increase. Their ability to perform challenging tasks will increase and their stress
level may decrease. Main teaching issues to increase the ability to master challenging tasks
are the behaviour and articulated way of thinking of the teachers and the way in which they
help students acquire skills that enable them to deal with new tasks.

A framework for design education

In the past decades, research has been conducted on the reasoning processes of design
experts. Researchers have used different terms to describe the different basic skills, such as
conjecture and analysis (Hillier, Musgrove & O’Sullivan, 1972); primary generator (Darke,
1979); imposition of an order, naming and framing, reflection-in-action, conducting
experiments, and a web of moves (Schön, 1983, 1985, 1987); a co-evolution of solution and
problem spaces (Lawson, 2006; Cross, 2007; Lawson & Dorst, 2009), and ideation and
evaluation (Goldschmidt, 2014). These terms are regularly overlapping each other.

To help teachers and students discuss the design process, an overview is needed which is
relatively simple to remember and easily to use. Therefore, the body of knowledge is brought
back to as few elements as possible, five basic design skills present in any design process. The
elements are interwoven with each other. There is no fixed step-by-step sequence; the
emphasis on the elements depends upon the kind of project, the designer and the design
discipline. The five elements are certainly not meant as a prescription or recipe for design,
they are only meant to articulate the ‘designerly’ reasoning processes and to help in designing
adequate design courses, to guide and train students in the main design skills.

For each of the elements (see Figure1) a short description is given:

1. Experimenting is a process of exploring and reflecting. Exploring refers to a process of

being open and alert, coming up with alternative options in a rational and associative manner.
Reflection refers to the process of testing, of analysing and evaluating the possible solutions,
looking for (un)intended consequences of the provisional solutions and looking for the option
that best fits the design situation at hand. Experimentation is studying different options, in a
fractal-like process of diverging and converging.

2. Guiding theme or quality stands for the ‘emergence’ or imposition of a focus, an inspiring
direction, something to hold on to in an almost endless field of possibilities and to help in
creating coherence and significance in the design result. The guiding theme is the personal
‘answer’ of the designer, influenced by culture and profession. The qualities develop during
the design process, from vague and abstract to a concrete elaborated solution fitting the
situation at hand.

3. Domains consist of all aspects and scale levels designers have to address in the design
result, such as space, material, function, the direct context of the site, and a broader socio-
cultural context. Designers have to make statements and choices and they have to deal with a
lot of knowledge and information - such as criteria, rules, preferences and cultural habits - in
and across the domains. Aspects influence each other, choices in one domain can be made
with knowledge about other domains.
4. The frame of references is the common professional and personal library of knowledge and
experience in the minds of designers, consisting of ideas and qualities and abstract and
proven rules of thumb, principles and patterns. In these ‘knowledge chunks’ different
domains come together (for example in a spatial type structural or circulation aspects are
already embedded). Consciously or unconsciously, designers explore and test these
‘knowledge chunks’; they use, reject and transform them in the situation at hand.

5. Laboratory is the (visual) language designers use to experiment. The most important
physical “designerly language” is sketching and modelling. The visual functions as an extended
working memory, complementary to the language of words and notions. With the help of
different visual means, the process of “designerly” thinking, of exploring and reflecting on
options and discovering new insights, unfolds.

Figure 1. The five generic elements in the design process: (1) experimenting, (2) guiding
theme, (3) domains, (4) frame of reference and (5) laboratory (van Dooren et al., 2014)

Questions and method

In the research presented here, the main question is how articulation of basic designerly 3
skills with the help of a conceptual tool is perceived by students and teachers and if it changes
students’ conceptions of the design process and their self-efficacy.

To answer the main question, four sub questions will be answered in two case studies
(Harland, 2014; Burke Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). The first case study explored
the perception of students: (1) how did first and third year Bachelor students perceive the
value of the framework as a conceptual instrument to gain understanding of the design
process? The second case study focused on students and teachers in two master design
studios. This study explored the change in students’ conceptions and self-efficacy: (2) Did first

3
Cross, N.G. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhauser.
year Master students acquire more sophisticated conceptions? and (3) Did addressing the
design process increase their self-efficacy? Finally, the teachers involved were questioned
about their perceptions: (4) Do teachers perceive the framework as a supportive tool to make
the design process explicit, for themselves and for their students?

Both case studies include each an intervention, a questionnaire and statistical analysis. An
overview is given in Fig. 2.

In the first case study the perception of Bachelor students was measured. It is expected that
students’ conceptions and self-efficacy may change if teachers address the design process
intensively, more specific during a longer period in direct relation to the design process at
hand. Therefore, the second case study included a more profound test of the framework in
the design studio. Two relatively small groups of students were involved in the intervention:
almost without and with a few years design experience. Also the teachers involved were
asked whether the framework was perceived as useful. In addition to the research, informal
anecdotal information is given from students involved in the master studios.

first case study: Bachelor

content lecture, text and reflection

participants 380 first year + 240 third year BSc students
perception survey + analysis
value of making design process explicit and
reflection on personal design process

second case study: Master design studios

content lectures, text and reflection + tutorials and training

participants 7 academy, 8 university MSc students, respectively
without and with design experience + 3 teachers
perception teachers survey:
value framework for tutoring and for students
conceptions students survey + analysis:
five notions, a visual representation and imagine a
house
self-efficacy students survey + analysis:
statements concerning understanding, trust,…

Figure 2. Overview of the two case studies.

Case study 1: students’ perception (first sub question)

Participants and setting

All architectural students involved participated in a first or a third year ‘academic skill’ course
in the Spring semester of 2017. The students followed a BSc Architecture study at a Dutch
university. Almost all of them came directly from high school in the Netherlands.

The first-year students (N=380) fulfilled a ‘one-day’ assignment, a short reflection written on
the day of the lecture without further guidance. The third-year students (N=240) worked on a
‘two-weeks’ assignment; they were guided by 20 teachers, selected to teach research and
writing and having different teaching experience in general and in these courses specifically.

The information for students and teachers consisted of an English text about the five generic
elements (Van Dooren et al., 2014) and one lecture, which provided a short overview of the
generic elements (by the first author). On the basis of the framework, students were asked to
write a reflection on their personal design process in a parallel running design project.

The first year students’ response rate was 29%, the third year students' response rate was
30%.

Material, procedure and analysis

Questionnaires concerning the first sub question were distributed in September 2017. Figure
3 shows the questions which focused on reflection on the personal design process (1.1), and
more specifically with the help of the framework (1.2 and 1.3), the value of making the design
process explicit in a text and lecture (1.5), and having knowledge of the design process (1.6).
The main goal was to get information on students’ perception. But because there seemed to
be a relative large difference between the assessments given by the first and third year
students, it was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test for two independent samples.

Figure 3. students’ perception of making the design process explicit and Mann-Whitney U
test for differences in assessment by the first / third year students
Results
Figure 2 shows the results. Five out of the six statements have been assessed significantly
different by the first year and third year students (p < .001). Addressing the design process (in
text, lecture and reflection) is perceived neutral by first year students and significantly more
positive by third year students. Both groups are equally positive on ‘knowledge makes the
design process easier’.

Discussion
Making the design process explicit with the framework of the five generic elements as a
conceptual tool (first sub-question) has been perceived neutral to positive.

There may be several causes for the distinction in outcomes between the first year and third
year students. The most obvious reasons may be the difference in duration of the assignment
(one day versus two weeks) and the difference in design experience. Third year students may
be more in need of getting to grips with the design process and they had more time to study
than first year students.

The first case study investigated the perceptions of making the design process explicit by a
relatively short ‘study and reflection’ task in a separate course, parallel to the design studio.
However, designing is learned in the design studio, during the whole design project.
Therefore, the data collection for the second case study takes place in the design studio: the
design process is made explicit in direct relation to the successive preliminary design products
of the students.

Case study 2: teacher perceptions and students’ change in conceptions and

self-efficacy (second, third and fourth sub question)

Participants
All students involved studied architecture and participated in one of two Master design
studios in the Fall semester of 2017. The studios were given in two different Dutch design
schools, an academy and a university. The Academy Project is a mandatory MSc 1 studio.
Eight students had started their Master with no or relative little design experience. They had
different backgrounds: primarily building sciences and in a few cases civil engineering or art.
This MSc 1 is the first studio in a four year part time study, in which students always work in
design offices parallel to the design studios. The University Project is an elective MSc 2 studio,
part of a two year full time MSc Architecture. Six out of seven students already completed a
full time three year architectural design BSc at the same university, one student completed a
building engineering BSc background. This elective MSc 2 included a ten week long
apprenticeship as assistant-teacher in a first year design studio for Bachelor students. The
language spoken in both the academy and university project was Dutch.
The teaching staff consisted of four teachers, including the first author. The other three were
selected because they had a more than average interest in being more explicit about the
design process. The teachers worked partly individually, partly in couples in the design
studios. They differed in experience in teaching in general and specifically in supervising these
projects.

Setting
In the Academy Project the students had to do one design assignment and in the University
Project students had to do three relatively short design tasks. Goal of both design studios was
to learn to (1) experiment by sketching and modelling as the basic ‘designerly’ skill, (2) work
with a guiding theme or qualities, (3) see the relations between the different architectural
aspects or domains, and (4) recognize (spatial) patterns in reference projects and explore
them in a project at hand (frame of references).

The framework was addressed in several ways. First, information on the generic elements was
given in a text (Van Dooren et al., 2014) and in lectures, given by the first author in the first
weeks of the projects. After an overview lecture, the elements were discussed more in depth
in three other lectures. Secondly, during the design tutorials the teachers referred to and
explained the basic ‘designerly’ skills as best as possible in relation to the design situation at
hand. Table 1 shows examples of how the design process was addressed in the tutorial
dialogues. Both, leading questions and learning tasks, were used during the individual
dialogues and during group tutorials. Thirdly, all students had to present their design process
on a poster and write a reflection about it, in the order of the elements.

Table 1. Examples of leading questions and learning tasks referring to generic elements,
referred to in direct relation to the design at hand.

generic examples of leading questions, examples of learning tasks,

element asked by teachers instructions given by teachers
Experiment what happens if….? / which come up with few different
experiments did you have done? / options / looking for the
what implications did you similarities and differences /
discover? / which one do you testing an experiment in other
prefer? / which experiments domains
should be done next?
Guiding what kind of identity or quality do come up with different qualities
theme you want to achieve? / is this […] for this particular design situation
the meaning you want to give the / come up with alternative
design? / which means are related options and architectural means
to the chosen quality? to express the chosen quality’
Domains what does this decision (e.g. a look for implications of a choice
spatial order) mean for other in one domain in other domains /
aspects (e.g. the structure)? / in study the architectural means in
which domains(s) do you have or the different domains to express
wish to do experiments as a next the chosen theme
step? / what does the theme or
identity mean for this aspect?’
 Frame of what happens if you do it like […] ? come up with the patterns in
reference / which projects do you like and these projects / experiment in
which values or qualities do they the design situation at hand with
express, in specific for your design? these patterns
/ what does this [... e.g. spatial]
pattern mean for the other
aspects?
Laboratory how do you test these possible make an abstraction / study the
solutions, in a sketch, model,…? / possible options by making
which visual mean do you need? / different sketches and models /
what did you discover by making a explore this option in plan,
model? section and perspective

Material and procedure

Table 2 shows the questions concerning the change in students’ conceptions (second sub
question), the change in students’ self-efficacy (third sub question) and the teachers’
perceptions (fourth sub question). To gain insight in the change in students’ conceptions and
self-efficacy, a questionnaire was handed out before, directly after, and 2-4 months after the
project (pre, post and delayed post). The change in conception of the design process, was
measured in three questions. The change in self-efficacy was measured with a set of 8
statements that had to be scored on a 4-point scale (completely false / barely true /
somewhat true / completely true). To gain insight into the experiences of the three teachers
involved (apart from the first author), they answered three open questions after the design
studio.

Table 2. questionnaires in reference to addressing the design process in the design studio:
teachers’ perception and students’ change in conceptions and self-efficacy (pre, post and
delayed post).

Subject Questions
students’ Q 1 What are the first five notions you think of regarding
conceptions (third the design project?
sub question)
Q 2 Make a visual representation of the design process with
the help of the words from the previous question.
Q 3 Imagine, you get the assignment to design a free
standing house. Explain in short how you would
approach this task (max. 100 words).
 students’ self- To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
efficacy (fourth following statements at this moment:
sub question) s1 I have enough understanding of the design process to
be able to design.
s2 I trust myself that to effectively approach unexpected
events while designing.
s3 I have enough insight and skills to integrate different
aspects in a design.
s4 While designing, I always see multiple solutions.
s5 When I get stuck in the design process, I know in most
cases what to do.
s6 I know I’m able to apply generic design principles and
s7 basic skills.
s8 I know that I’m able to become an excellent designer.
Although it can be difficult, I have fun in designing.
teachers’ q 1 Does the framework help in tutoring students? If so,
perceptions how / why?
(second sub
q 2 Do you have the impression that it helps students? If so,
question)
how? (if possible with examples of students)
q 3 Other remarks?

Analysis
The process of coding, counting and analysis of students’ conceptions is done by two
researchers. The codes were defined, based on the five elements and study of the data. The
final decisions were taken by the main researcher (first author).

Regarding the first five notions you think of regarding the design project (student’s perception
Q 1) eight codes were distinguished. Two codes for separate aspects and actions (D1, space,
form, function, and E1, exploring, deciding) and five codes for the elements as comprehensive
notion: (D2, domains; E2, experimentation; G, guiding theme; R, frame of reference; L,
laboratory) and one code for all other notions, regularly more personal perceptions (P; stress,
complex). The differences between the codes were tested with the Cochran Q test for k-
related samples with a binary variable. Before the test the scores were transformed into
binary variables (0 - 1 / item named or not named).

In reference to the visual representations of the design process (students’ perception Q 2),
five codes were distinguished, gradually increasing in complexity: (1) linear steps, (2) linear
steps with one feedback loop or parallel lines in one step, (3) steps with several loops or
parallel lines, (4) zigzag, parallel lines, network like, and (5) complex combinations of zigzag,
parallel lines, including guiding theme lines.
With respect to the descriptions given imagining a real situation (students’ perception Q 3),
the stories were analysed in idea units. Three codes were distinguished: (a) the number of
elements mentioned in combination in one idea-unit, (b) the process as elaboration or
experimentation, and (c) the emphasis on preconditions, including client, site analysis and
program.

The internal consistency of the eight self-efficacy statements (s1-s8) is tested with Cronbach’s
Alpha coefficient. A reliable scale is shown for the second and third measurement (Cronbach’s
Alpha > 0.8); it was relatively low but still acceptable for the first measurement (Cronbach’s
Alpha = 0.67).

Results
Change in students’ conceptions (second sub question)
The data collected from the questionnaires provide insight into the change in students’
conceptions of the design process, seen from three different perspectives: the first five
notions you think of regarding the design project (Q1), visualisation of the design process
(Q2), and the imagination of a real situation (Q3).
In Table 3 the notions named (Q1) are presented in relation to the elements of the
framework. Specifically, four groups of notions show a significantly different distribution of
the measurements pre and post the project (p< .05): a decrease in separate aspects, such as
space, function, site (D1) and separate actions such as exploring and investigation (E2), and an
increase in the more comprehensive notions domains (D2) and frame of references (R).

Table 3. Numbers of notions named by students per measurement reflecting their

conceptions on the design process and significant results on Cochran’s Q tests.

Delaye
CODE NOTIONS Pre Post Q df p-value
d post
partial notions,
separate aspects, such
D1 as space, user, 24 8 14 8 2 .02
material, context, site,
DOMAINS form,…
comprehensive
D2 description, such as 0 7 7 9,8 2 .01
domains or aspects
partial notions, specific
actions, such as
develop, investigate,
discover, (connecting)
EXPERIMENT E1 ideas, study, analyzing, 15 7 6 3,5 2 .27
di/converging,
reflection, iterate,
compare,
(dis)advantages,
 comprehensive
E2 notions, such as 1 13 9 18,67 2 .00
experimenting.
comprehensive
notions, such as
GUIDING
G concept, vision, 6 9 12 4,91 2 .10
THEME
direction, (guiding)
theme
comprehensive
notions, such as
REFERENCES R 2 9 10 11,4 2 .00
(frame of) references,
case studies,
comprehensive
notions, such as
LABORATORY L 9 9 6 0,75 2 ,90
sketching, modelling,
drawing, laboratory
observing, input,
collaboration, creative,
logic, design, learning,
PERSONAL
presentation, flexible,
GENERAL, P 18 12 11 1,56 2 .59
divers, creative,
PERCEPTION
designing, fail, critical
and honest, keep
positive, stress

Table 4 shows the change in the visualisation of the design process (Q2). A shift can be seen
in the number of students from naming more simple, step-by-step visualisations before the
project towards criss-cross and complex visualisations after the project. The Chi-square test
shows a significantly different distribution of the measurements of how students visualise the
design process (chi-square=15,85, df=8, p < .05).

Table 4. Visualisations of the design process: a shift in the number of students from naming
more simple towards more complex visualisations.

abstractio
n of
patterns
1. Linear 2. Steps / 3. Steps / 4. zigzag/ 5. zigzag/
steps feedback more loops parallel parallel
loop / +/parallel lines/ lines/
parallel lines lines network like network
like/ incl.
 guiding lines
| complex

pre 2 5 4 2 2
post 0 2 2 5 6
delayed 0 0 3 3 9
post

Figure 4 shows some examples of student visualisations. All four selected students start with
a more linear sequence. The academy students A2 and A3 show in their visualisations ‘having
ideas’ as parallel actions in one step, which then are worked out in the next steps. The
visualisation of university student U6 is the most linear one, U5 is the most complex one. Post
and delayed post the project almost all visualisations show higher complexity. The
visualisation of student A2 shows delayed post a more criss-cross symbol. In the visualisations
of student A3 the linear sequence is still there but now in an iterative loop. The visualisations
of U5 and U6 are more complex and criss-cross and show more resemblance to the
framework: student U6 refers almost literally and student U5 comes up with a personal
interpretation of the framework.

Pre Post Delayed post

A2

A3

U5

U6

Figure 4. Examples of visualisations of the design process of four students, measured pre,
post, and delayed post (Q2).
In reference to the imagination of a real situation pre, post and delayed post design studio
(Q3), the stories seem to change in conception from simple towards more complex, ‘from
problem solving towards designing’. Table 5 shows examples of the same students as in
Figure 3 (Q2). Before the project the design seems to be directed by client / program and site
analysis. After the project client / program and site analysis are still important, but other
actions are also mentioned such as essence, experimenting and alternatives (student A2). A
second parallel tendency concerns the notion elaboration. Before the project the design
process seems to be mostly a matter of elaboration (of one or more ideas), after the project
refining is still mentioned but more in combination with developing a theme and testing on
domains (student A3). And finally, directly after the project the idea units include more
actions and skills in direct relation to each other. Student U5, for example, says: “At the hand
of references and personal ideas slowly a ‘guiding theme’ will emerge, or at least the start of
it”. And U6: “Also I should look into houses of buildings in reference to my guiding theme.
These might be inspiration to experiment further in the different domains.”

Table 5. Examples of descriptions imagining a real situation (question 3).

Student Pre Post Delayed post

A2 “Firstly discussing “Discussion with client “Discussion with the

with the client, based to achieve ‘true client, to get to know
on the ‘right’ wishes’. //Coming up him (personality,
questions, to collect with the essence. character, interests,
starting points. Then Followed by a frame preferences).//
looking over site, to direct the From here trying to
context, orientation process.// come up with a
and so on. // Then Experimenting with guiding theme, with
discussion about the aspects such as form, conditions connected
design with the client site, material and to it. // Next all
for remarks. When context. // Then information trying out
needed modify.” showing alternatives in different sketches
to client to reflect and and models. //
develop.” Reflection together
with the client.”
A3 “Check my “Investigate the site. “Visit the site. What
limitations: budget, What are the values. kind of experience I
environment, size. How can I use them? want? //
Think about primary // Experimenting. //
goal(s) and list them. Start sketching Some elaborate,
Think about designs. See what reflect on domains
secondary goal(s) and works with your site and elements. //
list them. // and “ambition”. // Repeating this until
Sketch a number of Develop a guiding time ends or project is
designs. Ponder theme.// finished.”
which feels to fit the
 goals the best (could Find references which
be multiple). // work for your design.
Refine the design to //
make it practical Start testing your
while maintaining the design on the domains
essence. Finished.” and reflect. //
Refine your design or
alter your design
accordingly. //
Repeat till finished/
out of time.”
B5 “I should start with an “I should start with “I would start with
investigation of the exploring qualities in looking into the
site […] requirements the site and task to domains: what spatial
users, looking at their come up with a area is needed. // At
living style […] From guiding theme. // the hand of references
this investigation you Then experimenting and personal ideas
achieve the most by sketching. Firstly, slowly a ‘guiding
important design testing functionality theme’ will emerge, or
themes or and spatiality, e.g. in at least the start of it.
improvements, different plans. // The // Next experimenting
together the starting choice is made with will provide
points. // With these the guiding theme at alternatives in the five
starting points, you hand: does it fit? domains. // The
sketch and model. // //References may experiments fitting
First on larger scale, help in generating the theme,
but also ideas on a new ideas, to atmosphere and the
smaller scale can be experiment further. // requirements are
imported. // In Working in different feasible to do further
between you look if scales, making experiments. // This
the provisional design variants, making proceeds until the
fits the user. // provisional choices point that design and
Probably you have to working in a different theme are a whole.”
make more versions. domain. Coming back
Iteration till a fitting on previous decisions.
design.” // Through the whole
process the guiding
theme serves as a kind
of test frame, to come
up with a coherent
whole.”
 B6 “Starting with “I would start with “First I should
investigation of the coming up with the investigate the
site, what kind of kind of house I want environment and the
existing materials, to make: atmosphere, context of the site. //
culture, and so on. impact,… next to that I From here a guiding
For whom, what are should look for theme may rise; or a
the requirements or references, which fascination could be
interests. // Next to direction I want to go for me the guiding
that searching for (guiding theme). // theme, which I will
other references for Then I would start use to experiment. //
inspiration. /Then, with sketching and Also I should look into
mostly the first making a lot of houses of buildings in
sketches will unfold. alternatives, look if reference to my
// If I get stuck, I often they fit in the guiding guiding theme. These
make a small model theme. // Then might be inspiration
or repeat elaborating through to experiment further
investigation. The the different domains, in the different
sketch or model I until a consistent, domains. // Finally,
reflect to the self- good elaborated testing in reference to
imposed design is developed.” the theme a final
requirements or design is worked out.”
starting points.”

This last effect, the combinations of design elements, is also presented in Table 6. The overall
Chi-square test over the three measurement moments shows a significant difference in
combined elements just after the studio (chi-square= 16.77, df=3, p < .01). Also the decrease
in combined elements from the second to the third measurement moment is significant (chi-
square=9,25, df=3, p < .05). So the increase in the combined elements is only present just
after the studio and does not last.

Table 6. Number of idea units with a combination of elements mentioned imagining a real
situation per measurement (Q3).

Pre Post Delayed

post
1 element 42 25 41
2 element 13 30 16
3 element 0 5 4
4 element 0 1 0

Changes in students’ self-efficacy (third sub question)

After the project the self-efficacy of the students (see Figure 5) has significantly increased and
the effect remains till at least 2-4 months after the project. ANOVA with Repeated Measures
shows significant differences between the average self-efficacy scores (F = 21.54; df = 2.13; p
< .01). Paired t-tests showed significant differences between the first and the second
measurement (t=-4.79, df=14, p<.01) and between the first and the third measurement (t=-
6.72, df=14, p < .01). It is interesting to see that self-efficacy did not drop after 2-4 months
(see Figure 4).

Figure 5. Increase in self-efficacy students pre, post and delayed post project

Teachers’ perceptions of using the framework (fourth sub question)

Each three teachers involved (apart from the first author) perceived the framework elements
as a structuring factor during the tutoring sessions, both for teachers and students. Teacher 2
compared the framework with a map: the discussion with the student improves if you have
an overview of all areas and know which area is the discussion topic at a particular moment.

Teacher 1 mentions that it is almost a list you have in mind, with the kind of things which may
be discussed with the student. When a student gets stuck, he literally goes over the list
together with the student to show how you may act in situations like these. Teacher 3 asserts
that it helps in formulating concrete tasks for students, such as experimentation. When a
student gets stuck, he is more able to see possible reasons, such as not enough references, no
clear theme, or no experimentation.
The teachers had the impression that the framework directly helped the students to decrease
anxiety and uncertainty and to get to grips with the design process. Students’ pleasure and
understanding seemed to increase and they felt that they were allowed to make mistakes.

As extra remark teacher 1 mentioned that it helped when working with a student on a design
you do not like as a teacher. He continues: “I’m used to teachers with a judging attitude, from
their opinion about right or wrong, attractive or unattractive. This method gets around this.
That is clever, because as a human being you tend to the ‘right or wrong’ attitude very easily.”
Teacher 3 mentioned that his personal fun in designing and design tutoring has increased.

Spontaneous student’ remarks

Not only the results of the questionnaires, also spontaneous remarks made by the students
confirm the assumption of teachers that the framework may be helpful for students. In the
University project, some of the students used a representation of the generic framework
more or less literally. Questioned why, they concluded that the scheme was very helpful,
therefore they worked with it the whole studio period. And one of the students participating
in the Academy Project reported similarly in an email. He wrote that he started with the wish
to be an architect, but almost without understanding of what designing meant. His first
design studio in the Academy project was a struggle, also with the scheme and text. After the
first design studio during the next two design studios, he related most of his actions to the
scheme to understand the process. In the fourth project the scheme was solely implicit
somewhere at the back of his mind and his understanding of the design process had
increased, which was also illustrated by his grades (from sufficient to good).

Discussion
The second case study indicates positive results. Regarding the conceptions of students
(second sub-question) we see to a certain extent a move from layperson conceptions towards
sophisticated conceptions of the design process. The layperson conceptions consist of (1) a
linear design process, frequently with a feedback loop, (2) having ideas (without testing) or
having one idea and elaboration, (3) the client as a source of feedback, and preconditions in
general such as brief and site analysis as source for solutions, and (4) a relatively high number
of separate aspects, such as space, site, form, and partial notions such as investigation.
Students may see the design process as coming up with ideas as a kind of solutions, as
‘logical’ implications of the design task and its conditions, more specific of ‘what the client
wants’. In this conception the designer seems to solve the problem, put forward by the client.
The more sophisticated conceptions consist of (1) a zigzagging, criss-cross, and parallel
process, (2) more comprehensive and inclusive terms, such as experimentation, guiding
theme (concept, vision), and frame of reference, and (3) naming the design actions and skills
more often in relation to each other. The discussion with the client is still there, but students
may see designing more as exploring and testing alternatives, working parallel and across in
the diverse domains, and working with overall qualities or guiding themes.

Regarding students’ self-efficacy (third sub-question), on average an increase is shown after

the design studio. Studying the design process and having more sophisticated conceptions of
the design process may be related to the believe in being able to design.

Finally, the teachers involved in the design studios perceived working with the framework
(fourth sub-question) as a structuring factor, which helps teacher and students to gain an
overview and helps in cases of getting stuck. It may help in making the tutoring less
dependent on personal preferences of the teacher. The teachers' perception that the
framework may be helpful for students seems to run parallel with the changes in students’
conceptions and self-efficacy.
General Discussion
The results of the two case studies indicate positive effects of making the design process
explicit. At least a part of the students did perceive articulation of the design process as being
helpful. For the teachers involved the framework works as a structuring tool. Their perception
that it helps students, seems to be confirmed by the change in students’ design conceptions
and their increase in self-efficacy.

However, the positive results presented here should be taken with caution.
Obviously, there is no guarantee that using the framework terms more often after than
before the project will lead to better understanding and improvement of design skills.
Secondly, solely based on the second case study, it cannot be concluded that the moves in
conceptions are more different than they might have been in a ‘normal’ product-oriented
educational approach. Even though the fact that more or less the same kind of lay person
conceptions were seen at the start of both the Academy and the University Project, indicates
that there was no difference in conceptions between less and more experienced design
students. Thirdly, the increase in self-efficacy may also have other causes, such as a positive
encouraging studio environment. And finally, conclusions can be solely tentative because of
the limited scale of the case studies.

Only a full experiment with a larger number of students, with control groups and during a
longer period of time may provide more robust evidence for the effects of making the design
process explicit. In a large-scale experiment, especially during a longer period, it is not only
expected that students’ self-efficacy increases and student’s conceptions of the design
process become more sophisticated, but also students’ skills may increase and become more
adequate and effective.

Yet, the positive results run parallel with the positive informal reactions of participating
students and they are in line with other research. Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006)
conclude that controlled studies support strong instructional guidance for the learning of
complex skills. The results of the second case-study show the same kind of lay person
conceptions of novice design students, as Newstetter and McCracken (2001) exposed. With
only one exception: students do not seem to ignore the constraints and context, they seem to
expect that (profound) knowledge of preconditions (site, brief, client) will lead ‘automatically’
to a design solution.

Framework
Making the design process explicit with the framework did work well in practice. In principle,
the choice for the five elements may to a certain extent always remain a matter of discussion.
However, the elements seem to be ‘resilient’. They fulfil the requirements of being (1)
generic, basic skills of the design process, (2) the main skills to be learned by novices, and (3)
relatively clear and easy to remember (Van Dooren et al., 2014). They are key items in the
design process, distinguishable and providing an overview for teacher and student.

The elements also include a ‘world’ of notions and mutual relations, related to the nuanced
and rich reality of designing, which still has to be discovered, developed and worked out. In
the second case study, we experienced on a small scale that structuring learning tasks
accordingly to the elements, may lead to learning to design in a ‘natural’ way. Especially in the
first year(s) of the design study, providing experience in the form of adequate, specified
learning tasks may help students to overcome the paradox formulated by Schön (1987):
although students do not and cannot understand what designing means, neither can
recognise what they see, they have to learn by doing it. Developing the framework more in
detail may help in the set-up of the curriculum and the design studios. It should provide
learning tasks that are interwoven with the design process. It may also help to ‘translate’
more general notions such as investigation and creativity in more concrete and specified
actions and put all kind of notions such as analysis in a broader perspective.

To conclude: design education, in which the design process is made explicit with the
framework may have positive results. A richer understanding of the design process and a
better specified training of the students may help students to learn ‘the unknown’. Students
may experiment more often, taking informed decisions and working with professional
patterns. They may articulate, develop and explore qualities more consciously and they their
ability to distinguish and compare different design methods and approaches may increase.
Students may become more independent when working on a design, also when they get
stuck. Their stress level may decrease and their pleasure to design may increase.

Acknowledgement
A lot of thanks to the teachers and students involved, being so kind to fill in the
questionnaires, to Veerle de Vries, for helping in elaboration of the data, and to Gust Marien,
for the statistical analysis.

References

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S.Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Burke Johnson R., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed
Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research Volume 1 Number 2 April 2007 p.
112-133.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.
American Educator, 6(11), 38-46

Cross, N.G. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhauser.

Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design studies, 1 (1) pp 36-44

Goldschmidt (2014). Linkography. Unfolding the design process. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

the MIT Press.
Harland, T. (2014). Learning about case study methodology to research higher education.
Higher Education Research and Development, 33(6), 1113-1122.

Hillier, B., Musgrove, J. & O’Sullivan, P. (1972). Knowledge and design. In Environmental
design: research and practice EDRA 3. University of California.

Kirschner P.A., Sweller J. & Clark R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does
Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential,
and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41:2, 75-86. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think, the design process demystified. Amsterdam:
Architectural Press.

Lawson, B., & Dorst K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Newstetter W. & McCracken M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: implications for the
design of learning environments. In C. Eastman, M. Newstetter & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design
Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp 63-77). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (vol. 5126).
Basic books.

Schön, D.A. (1985). The design studio, an exploration of its traditions & potential. London:
RIBA publications Limited.

Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching
and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.

Van Dooren, E. & Asselbergs, T. & Boshuizen, E. & Van Merrienboer J. & Van Dorst M. (2014).
Making explicit in design education: generic elements in the design process. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education.

Van Dooren, E. & Boshuizen, H.P.A. & Merrienboer J. van & Asselbergs, T. & Dorst M. van
(2019). The tacit design process in architectural design education. Design and Technology
Education: an International Journal.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kester, L. (2008). Whole-task models in education. In J. M.

Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research
on educational communications and technology (Third Ed.) (pp. 441-456). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum/Routledge.

Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Kirschner, P.A. (2018). Ten steps to Complex learning. A systematic
approach to four-component instructional design. (3rd. Rev. Ed.) New York: Routledge.