Bridging the gap between the individual and the group: the education of attention in design

References

• Adams, R. S., and J. A. Siddiqui, editors. 2016. Analyzing Design Review Conversations. West Lafayette, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, R. S., and J. Siddiqui 2013. Purdue DTRS – Design Review Conversations Database ( XRoads Technical Report). West Lafayette, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Badke-Schaub, P., K. Lauche, and A. Neumann. 2007. “Editorial: Team Mental Models in Design.” CoDesign 3 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1080/15710880601170743.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N., K. Dorst, and H. Christiaans. 1996. Analysing Design Activity. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K., and N. Cross. 2001. “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-evolution of Problem–solution.” Design Studies 22: 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. 2003. Understanding Design. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, J. 2018. Design Conversations: An exploratory study of teacher and student interaction in the design studio [PhD dissertation. Delft University of Technology]. doi:10.4233/uuid:483619ed-6ddd-459b-bc21-830424450f8d.
   Google Scholar
• Fleming, D. 1998. “Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations.” Design Issues 14 (2): 41–62. doi:10.2307/1511850.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H., and H. Sacks. 1970. “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, edited by McKinney, John C., and Tiryakian, Edward. New York, NY, USA: Appleton-Century-Crofts .
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. J. 1991. An Odyssey in Learning and Perception. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. 2000. Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. 2014. “Joint Commmitment: How We Make the Social World.” New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glock, F. 2009. “Aspects of Language Use in Design Conversation.” CoDesign 5 (1): 5–19. doi:10.1080/15710880802492870.
   Google Scholar
• Goel, V. 1995. Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2003. “The Backtalk of Self-generated Sketches.” Design Issues 19 (1): 72–88. doi:10.1162/074793603762667728.
   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. doi:10.1080/15710880601170826.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. 2007. “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse Society 18 (1): 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457.
   Google Scholar
• Husserl, E. 1931. Ideas. Translated by W. R. Boyce Gibson. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. 1984. “Transcript Notation.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, ix–xvi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kidwell, M., and D. H. Zimmerman. 2007. “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 592–611. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, R. 2012a. “‘Doing Designing’: On the Practical Analysis of Design in Practice.” Design Studies 33: 521–529. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.11.002.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, R. 2012b. “Kinds of Seeing and Spatial Reasoning: Examining User Participation at an Architectural Design Event.” Design Studies 33: 557–588. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.002.
   Google Scholar
• Lymer, G. 2009. “Demonstrating Professional Vision: The Work of Critique in Architectural Education.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 16 (2): 145–171. doi:10.1080/10749030802590580.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J., and P. Lloyd. 2009. “Editorial.” CoDesign 5 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/15710880802538615.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J., and P. Lloyd. 2014. “Beyond Specification: A Study of Architect and Client Interaction.” Design Studies 35: 327–352. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.01.003.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J. 2012. “Accommodating Disagreement: A Study of Effective Design Collaboration.” Design Studies 33 (1): 44–63. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.05.003.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2014. Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2011. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2016. “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. doi:10.1111/josl.1_12177.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. M., J. Ivarsson, and G. Lymer. 2012. “Embodied Reasoning in Architectural Critique.” Design Studies 33: 530–556. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. M. 2012. “Transmodality and Temporality in Design Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1966–1981. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.013.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholas, C., and A. Oak. 2018. “Building Consensus: Design Media and Multimodality in Architecture Education.” Discourse & Society 29 (4): 436–454. doi:10.1177/0957926518754415.
   Google Scholar
• Oak, A., and P. Lloyd. 2016. “‘Throw One Out That’s Problematic’: Performing Authority and Affiliation in Design Education.” CoDesign 12 (1–2): 55–72. doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1110179.
   Google Scholar
• Oak, A. 2012. “‘You Can Argue It Two Ways’: The Collaborative Management of a Design Dilemma.” Design Studies 33: 630–648. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.006.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, Y., S. Ishizaki, M. D. Gross, and E. Y.-L. Do. 2013. “A Theoretical Framework of Design Critiquing in Architecture Studios.” Design Studies 34: 302–325. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, T., and E. A. Shils, Eds. 1962. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B., and J. Lave, Eds. 1984. Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W. -M., D. Socha, and J. Tenenberg. 2018. “How Actions and Words Come to Make Sense in A Continuously Changing World of Work: A Case Study from Software Development.” Semiotica 2018 (221): 1–28. doi:10.1515/sem-2019-0002.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D., and G. Wiggins. 1992. “Kinds of Seeing and Their Function in Designing.” Design Studies 13: 135–156. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, A. 1967. Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL, USA: Northwestern 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: 385–403. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00008-2.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. 1993. “Engaged Agency and Background in Heidegger.” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, edited by C. B. Guignon, 317–336. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tenenberg, J., D. Socha, and W.-M. Roth. 2016. “Seeing Design Stances.” CoDesign 12 (1–2): 6–25.
   Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M., A. Kruger, and H. Ratner. 1993. “Cultural Learning.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 495–552. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0003123X.
   Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. 1995. “Joint Attention as Social Cognition.” In Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development, edited by C. Moore, and P. J. Dunham, 103–130. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. 2019. Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny. Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., and B. M. Hard. 2009. “Embodied and Disembodied Cognition: Spatial Perspective-taking.” Cognition 110: 124–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B. 2019. Mind in Motion. New York, NY USA: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Verstijnen, M., J. M. Hennessey, C. van Leeuwen, R. Hamel, G. Goldschmidt, I. M. Verstijnen, and C. van Leeuwen. 1998. “Sketching and Creative Discovery.” Design Studies 19 (4): 519–546. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00017-9.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. 1979. “The Development of Higher Forms of Attention in Childhood.“ Soviet Psychology 18 (1): 65–115.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. 1981. “The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions”. In The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, edited by J. Wertsch. M. E. Sharpe, 144–188.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. W. 2018. Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. 2009. Philosophical Investigations. 4th ed. edited by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Jacker, and J. Schulte. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar