A visual tool for analysing teacher and student interactions in a design studio setting

References

• Adams, R., M. Chua, and D. Radcliffe. 2014. “Making Design Pedagogical Content Knowledge Visible Within Design Reviews.” Paper presented at design thinking research symposium. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
   Google Scholar
• Almendra, R. 2010. Decision Making in the Conceptual Phase of Design Processes. Lisbon: Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.
   Google Scholar
• Arnheim, R. 1993. “Sketching and the Psychology of Design.” Design Issues 9 (2): 15–19.10.2307/1511669
   Google Scholar
• Arnheim, R. 2004. Art and Visual Perception. Berkely: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bojko, S. 1980. “Vkhutemas.” In The Avant-Garde in Russia, 1910–1930: New perspectives, edited by S. Barron and M. Tuchman, 78–83. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
   Google Scholar
• Bonsiepe, G., and J. Cullars. 1995. “The Invisible Facets of the Hfg Ulm.” Design Issues 11 (2): 11–20.10.2307/1511756
   Google Scholar
• Boucharenc, C. G. 2006. “Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 16 (1): 1–30.10.1007/s10798-005-2110-8
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 2009. “Thinking about Design: An Historical Perspective.” In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by A. Meijers, 409–453. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50020-3
   Google Scholar
• Christiaans, H. 1992. Creativity in Design – The Role of Domain Knowledge in Designing. Delft: TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G. 2012. “Mediating Artefacts.” In Designing for Learning in an Open World, edited by J. M. Spector and S. LaJoie, 65–84. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2004. “Expertise in Design: An Overview.” Design Studies 25 (5):427–441.10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Dinham, S. 1989. “Teaching as Design: Theory, Research and Implications for Design Teaching.” Design Studies 10 (2): 80–88.
   Google Scholar
• Erlhoff, M., and T. Marshall. 2008. Design Dictionary. Basel: Walter de Gruyter.10.1007/978-3-7643-8140-0
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Findeli, A. 1990. “Moholy-Nagy’s Design Pedagogy in Chicago (1937–46).” Design Issues 7 (1): 4–19.10.2307/1511466
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 1991. “The Dialectics of Sketching.” Creativity Research Journal 4 (2): 123–143.10.1080/10400419109534381
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2007. “To See Eye to Eye: The Role of Visual Representations in Building Shared Mental Models in Design Teams.” CoDesign 3 (1): 43–50.10.1080/15710880601170826
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2014. “Modeling the Role of Sketching in Design Idea Generation.” In An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, edited by A. Chakrabarti and L. T. M. Blessing, 433–450. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G., H. Hochman, and I. Dafni. 2010. “The Design Studio ‘Crit’: Teacher–Student Communication.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24 (3): 285–302.10.1017/S089006041000020X
   Google Scholar
• Itten, J. 1975. Design and Form – The basic course at the Bauhaus. London: Thames and Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Kocadere, S. A., and D. Ozgen. 2012. “Assessment of Basic Design Course in Terms of Constructivist Learning Theory.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 51: 115–119.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.128
   Google Scholar
• Mcdonnell, J. 2014. “Becoming a Designer: Some Contributions of Design Reviews.” Paper presented at design thinking research symposium. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
   Google Scholar
• Neurath, O. (2010). From Hieroglyphics to Isotype: A Visual Autobiography. Edited by M. Eve and C. Burke. London: Hyphen Press.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. 2009. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, A. T., and J. S. Gero. 1998. “Drawings and the Design Process.” Design Studies 19 (4): 389–430.10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1985. The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass -A Wiley Imprint.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suwa, M., and B. Tversky. 1997. “What do Architects and Students Perceive in their Design Sketches? A Protocol Analysis” Design Studies 18 (4): 385–403.10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00008-2
   Google Scholar
• Tang, H. H., Y. Y. Lee, and J. S. Gero. 2010. “Comparing Collaborative Co-located and Distributed Design Processes in Digital and Traditional Sketching Environments: A Protocol Study using the Function-behaviour-structure Coding Scheme.” Design Studies 32 (1): 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, E., E. Boshuizen, J. Van Merriënboer, T. Asselbergs, and M. Van Dorst. 2014. “Making Explicit in Design Education: Generic Elements in the Design Process.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 24 (1): 53–71.10.1007/s10798-013-9246-8
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society. Oxford: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wallschlaeger, C., and C. Busic-Snyder. 1992. Basic Visual Concepts and Principles for Artists, Architects and Designers. Edited by M. Morgan. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar