Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expertise comparison among product design students: a cross-sectional analysis

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Product design expertise has mostly been studied in relation to problem-solving and the act of designing. In this paper, we approach the topic from another perspective and explore the differences in product perception of students from different education levels. We conceptualize product perception as a representation of critical thinking towards designed objects and professional assessment/understanding of artifacts. Our aim is to evaluate how students’ product perception change over the years of undergraduate product design education. Data was collected through students’ written product evaluations of a ball-point pen. 41 first-year, 29 second-year, 33 third-year, and 26 fourth-year undergraduate product design students participated in the study. We analyzed students’ product evaluations through initial and focused coding. Our findings indicate a shift from ordinary to professional sense-making between the second- and third-year students. There are three main points that define the professional sense-making of students: a dependence on subjectivity, the significance attributed to users, and better synthetic capabilities that are built around form, material, manufacturing, and detailing relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies, 16(2), 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartram, D. (1982). The perception of semantic quality in type: Differences between designers and non-designers. Information Design Journal, 3(1), 38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2016). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, T. A. (2013). initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices. Design Studies, 34(2), 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blijlevens, J., Crusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2009). How consumers perceive product appearance: The identification of three product appearance attributes. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P. (2015). Sofware review: FLAME (version 1.1). Field Methods, 27(2), 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (2004). On the long way from novice to expert and how travelling changes the traveller. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 3–8). Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2001). The problem of character in design education: Liberal arts and professional specialization. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casakin, H. (2010). Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: The effect of expertise. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design, 37(1), 170–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casakin, H. (2011). Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education. Journal of Learning Design, 4, 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical Guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

  • Cila, N., Hekkert, P., & Visch, V. (2014). “Digging for meaning”: the effect of a designer’s expertise and intention on depth of product metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(4), 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2009). Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2018). Expertise in professional design. In A. M. Williams, A. Kozbelt, K. A. Ericsson, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed., pp. 372–388). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1994). Design expertise amongst student designers. Journal of Art & Design Education, 13(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th international conference on engineering and product design education (pp. 159–166). Delft

  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyal, G. (2019). The crisis of expertise. Polity Press.

  • Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, R., Stoltenberg, E., & Jennings, T. (2016). Using an outdoor learning space to teach sustainability and material processes in HE product design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(3), 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria: Approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M. (2019). Revealing students’ ethical awareness during problem framing. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 38(2), 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. N., & Bonollo, E. (2004). The importance of design methods to student industrial designers. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 8(2), 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heufler, G. (2004). Design basics: From ideas to products. Niggli Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, T. (2015). Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: An empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, 29(1), 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things).” Design Issues, 5(2), 9–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27(5), 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1990). How designers think (2nd ed.). Butterworth Architecture.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C.-C. (2017). Interactive effects of environmental experience and innovative cognitive style on student creativity in product design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 577–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, E. (2019). Politics of the Everyday. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.

  • McDonagh, D., Thomas, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2011). Empathic design research: Moving towards a new mode of industrial design education. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 5(4), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (2002). The design of everyday things. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (2010). Why Design Education Must Change. Core77. Retrieved from 18 June 2015 http://www.core77.com//posts/17993/Why-Design-Education-Must-Change

  • Popovic, V. (2004). Expertise development in product design—Strategic and domain-specific knowledge connections. Design Studies, 25(5), 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrauf, R. W., & Sanchez, J. (2008). Using freelisting to identify, assess, and characterize age differences in shared cultural domains. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 63(6), S385–S393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S. (2021). Towards an integrative approach to researching design expertise. Design Studies, 74, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. C., & Juan, Z. (2006). Comparative cultural salience: Measures using free-list data. Field Methods, 18(4), 398–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(5), 357–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C.-Y. (2020). Differences in perception, understanding, and responsiveness of product design between experts and students: An early event-related potentials study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09592-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, J.-J., Chen, P.-Y., & Chen, C.-D. (2016). The metamorphosis of industrial designers from novices to experts. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 140–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, H., & Shen, J. (2013). Reusing design knowledge based on design cases and knowledge map. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 1063–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Architecture and Design, Özyeğin University, Nişantepe Mah. Orman Sk. No: 13, Çekmeköy, 34794, İstanbul, Turkey

    Işıl Oygür

  2. Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Art and Design, Yaşar University, Üniversite Cad. No: 37-39, Ağaçlı Yol. Bornova, İzmir, Turkey

    Selen Devrim Ülkebaş

Authors
  1. Işıl Oygür
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selen Devrim Ülkebaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Işıl Oygür.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oygür, I., Ülkebaş, S.D. Expertise comparison among product design students: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 2279–2296 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09684-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09684-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation