Abstract
Learning about design and learning through design have emerged in the literature and important works show heuristics and matrices for design cognition and design processes. However, few studies have been directed to the early development of design. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a study that investigated the genesis of design, by following 13 children (3.0–5.8 yrs) as they became oriented to design thinking in contexts of design and technology education in a play-based setting. Different to previous studies that examine children’s drawing of designs for the under five year olds, this study investigated both the motivating conditions and the motive orientation of the children as a process of engagement in design. Theorised from a cultural-historical perspective, the results show how play acts as both a psychological function and as a source of design cognition. The findings are shown through this psychological lens and thereby make visible how imagination in play created the conditions for the psychological development of children as design was meaningfully embodied, visualised, and resourced through expert designers and the storytelling of teachers. Rather than conceptualising design as the cognitive competence of an individual, it is argued that by studying the living actions of play that designerly thinking which is always in a process of change, can be better understood. In line with the existing literature, the study specifically reports on the dialectic between design and designerly thinking for the under fives, thus contributing to filling a gap in understandings about the beginning of the continuum of design cognition.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(2), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008824921210.
Ariff, N. S. N. A., Badke-Schaub, P., & Ozgur Eris, O. (2012). Conversations around design sketches: use of communication channels for sharing mental models during concept generation. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 27–36.
Bartholomew, S. R., Yoshikawa Ruesch, E. R., Hartell, E., & Strimel, G. J. (2020). Identifying design values across countries through adaptive comparative judgment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09506-8.
Benson, C., & Treleven, T. (2011). Designerly thinking in the foundation stage. In C. Benson & J. Lunt (Eds.), International handbook of primary technology education. (pp. 137–150). Sense Publishers.
Blank, J., & Lynch, S. (2018). The design process: Engineering practices in preschool. YC Young Children, 73(4), 89–93. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2095524312?accountid=12528.
Brooks, M. (2020). Drawing to learn. Self Published.
Cinar, S. (2019). Integration of engineering design in early education: How to achieve it. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 14(4), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v11i4.4057.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x.
Delserieys, A., Impedovo, M-A., Fragkiadaki, G., & Kampeza, M. (2017). Using drawings to explore preschool children’s ideas about shadow formation. Review of Science, Mathematics and IEC Education, 11(1), 55–69. Retrieved from https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01794664.
Dorst, K. (1995). Editorial. Analysing design activity: New directions in protocol analysis. Design Studies, 16, 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00005-X.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.
English, L. D., Adams, R., & King, D. T. (2020). Design learning in STEM education. In C. J. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education. (pp. 76–86). Routledge.
English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(14), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.
Fleer, M. (1992). Introducing technology education to young children: A design, make and appraise approach. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356888.
Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and make during technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 43–59.
Fleer, M. (2020). Studying the relations between motives and motivation—How young children develop a motive orientation for collective engineering play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi2019.100355.
Georgantopoulou, A., Fragkiadaki, G., & Ravanis, K. (2016). Clouds as natural entities in preschool children’s thought. Educational Journal of the University of Patras, 3(2), 114–128.
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Models and Modeling in Science Education. Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29039-3.
Haupt, G. (2015). Learning from experts: Fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25, 483–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9295-7.
Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 207–237. doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0.
Hay, L., Duffy, A. H. B., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L. M., Vuletic, T., & Grealy, M. (2017). A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration. Design Science, 3(10), https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.11.
Hedegaard, M. (2008). The educational experiment. In M. Hedegaard & M. Fleer (Eds.), Studying children: A cultural historical perspective. (pp. 181–201). Open University Press.
Hope, G. (2000). Beyond their capability? Drawing, designing and the young child. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(2), 106–114. Retrieved from https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JDTE/article/view/522.
Hope, G. (2005). Types of drawings that young children produce in response to design tasks. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10 (1), 43–53. Retrieved from https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/Journal_10.1_2005_RES3.
Kanga, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design expert’s participation in elementary students’ collaborative design process. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 23, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9172-6.
Kelley, T. R. (2017). Design sketching: A lost skill. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(8), 8–12. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141555.
Kelley, T. R., & Sung, E. (2017). Sketching by design: Teaching sketching to young learners. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3.
Kellogg, R. (1969). Analyzing children's art. Mayfield Pub Co.
Kiernan, L., Ledwith, A., & Lynch, R. (2020). Comparing the dialogue of experts and novices in interdisciplinary teams to inform design education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 30, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09495-8.
Leahy, K., Daly, S. R., Murray, J. K., McKilligan, S., & Seifert, C. M. (2019). Transforming earl concepts with design heuristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 759–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-9473-0.
Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and culture in preschools. Gotab.
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.2015.
Milne, L. (2013). Nurturing the designerly thinking and design capabilities of five-year-olds: Technology in the new entrant classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9182-4.
Milne, L., & Edwards, R. (2013). Young children’s views of the technology process: An exploratory study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.10007/s10798-011-9169-1.
Parker-Rees, R. (1997). Making sense and made sense: Design and technology and the playful construction of meaning in the early years. Early Years, 18(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0957514970180102.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.
Rodgers, P. A. (2013). Editorial. Articulating design thinking. Design Studies, 34, 433–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.003.
Rogers, G., & Wallace, J. (2000). The wheels of the bus: Children design in in an early years classroom. Research in Science and Technology Education, 18(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/713694960.
Strimel, G. J., Kim, E., Grubbs, M. E., & Huffman, T. J. (2020). A meta-synthesis of primary and secondary student design cognition research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 243–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09505-9.
Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 283–302.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Problems of general psychology. Vol 1, Tran. N. Minick. Editor of English Translation, R. W. Rieber, ad A. S. Carton, Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosypsikhologii, 12(6), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040505036.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. The history of the development of higher mental functions. Vol 4. Tran. M. J. Hall. Editor of English Translation, R. W. Rieber, Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, “Child Psychology.” Vol 5, trans. M. J. Hall; R. W. Rieber (Ed. English translation). Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers.
Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48–60. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ604487.pdf.
Xu, M., Williams, W. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2020). Hotspots and trends of technology education: 2000–2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6.
Zande, R. V., Warnock, L., Nikoomanesh, B., & Dexter, K. V. (2014). The design process in the art classroom: Building problem-solving skills for life and careers. Art Education, 67(6), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2014.11519294.
Acknowledgements
Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP140101131 funded the study and research assistance for data collection in this paper was provided by Sue March (field leader), Fatema Taj Johora, Junqian Ma and data organisation by Freya Fleer-Stout and Ainslie Holland. Special acknowledgment is made of the two teachers who participated in the study, Rebecca and Oriana. Funds from LF 180100161supported the analysis and write up of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Motivating conditions for design—conceptual PlayWorlds
Appendix: Motivating conditions for design—conceptual PlayWorlds
Motivating practices | Pedagogical characteristic |
---|---|
The story creates motivating and emotionally charged conditions for solving a social problem | Using an engaging story with a social problem that needs to be solved |
Teachers create an imaginary engineering situation of Sherwood forest | Designing an imaginary PlayWorld (e.g., outdoor area becomes Sherwood Forest, Fort becomes the castle) |
The teacher together with the children change the meaning of the wooden fort in the outdoor area from a climbing frame into a time machine | Planning the entry and exit into the Engineering PlayWorld (e.g., time machine) |
The teachers use the children’s interest in getting the treasure to introduce the idea of being an engineer to solve the problem situation (Maid Marion is the head engineer, and she worries about the hungry villagers) | Planning the engineering problem to be encountered and solved inside of the Engineering PlayWorld (e.g., how to get the treasure out of the castle) |
Teachers take an active role by being play partners and co-researcher with the children investigating engineering solutions | Planning teacher interactions (being an engineer, being Friar Tuck asking for help) |
Children build conceptual knowledge as part of the research process (e.g., plan view perspective, cross sections of castles) | Researching in teams |
Children evaluate the outcomes of their research and consciously consider engineering concepts in their models/prototypes/designs (e.g., using arrows to represent Force, testing prototypes—can they lift the treasure box?) | Engineering modelling in teams |
Children use their theoretical knowledge in child-initiated play during free play periods in the preschool (e.g., becoming the dragon and climbing the fort to gain a bird’s eye view for planning an escape route), | Developing the engineering play motive of the children |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fleer, M. The genesis of design: learning about design, learning through design to learning design in play. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 1441–1468 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09670-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09670-w