Viewpoint

A theoretical basis for recommending the

use of design methodologies as teaching
strategies in the design studio
Terrence Curry, SJ, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, School of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
Netherlands

T
he aim of this article is to provide a theo-
retical basis to encourage the strategic
use of design methodologies1 as teaching
strategies in the design studio. Learning to design
is a developmental process where effective
methods for approaching design problems evolve
with increased knowledge and experience. Many
design tutors, functioning as experts, make use of
design methodologies that are developmentally
mismatched with the way that students approach
design problems at different stages. I propose
that by understanding the cognitive theory and
principles behind the acquisition of design exper-
tise as a cumulative developmental/cognitive pro-
cess, design education can be greatly enhanced
(made more effective) by the introduction of
developmentally appropriate design methodolo-
gies as a teaching strategy at incremental stages
of development.
Corresponding author:
Terrence Curry
currysj@mac.com
1
In this article design methodology is understood as
the overall process leading to a design solution, whereas
design methods are specific strategies used during the
various stages of the design process.
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 35 (2014) 632e646
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.003
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
It is the goal of design education, among other
things (including socializing, passing on standards
of professional practice, technical knowledge, crit-
ical thinking, civic responsibility, etc.), to facilitate
the effective acquisition of design expertise. There
are many contributing factors that influence how
students learn to design. These include a student’s
predisposition (aptitude) to design both as a disci-
pline of study and as a specialized set of skills, the
structure and quality of the design curriculum, the
quality of the learning environment, level of moti-
vation (resolve), teaching method/strategies, the
ability and expertise of design instructors, and
others. In this paper I am concerned with teaching
method/strategies.
My experience, after 25 years of teaching design
at architecture schools in North America, Europe
and Northeast Asia, is that architecture design tu-
tors typically resist and often reject the value of
introducing specific models of design methods
as teaching strategies in the design studio. I
believe that this resistance is well-intentioned, be-
ing based on their years of experience and per-
sonal reflection on how they approach design
problems. Many argue that design cannot be
codified, that there is no specific methodology
that accurately describes how they design. They
argue that design is not a step-by-step process
632
and that following a prescribed methodology in
no way guarantees a successful design solution.
These objections all have merit, but miss the
point: the way novice designers design is not the
same as how expert designers design. Rather
than make use of the valuable insights gained
through design research into design methodology
as a teaching strategy, they use their own model
of expert design performance as the norm for
teaching design at all levels. The problem with
this approach is that they are basing their teach-
ing strategy on a description of how they design
(as expert designers) as the normative model
while teaching novice designers who lack the
domain expertise, procedural knowledge or inter-
nalized experience to perform at that level.
1 Expert performance as a model
for teaching
Design tutors, generally speaking, are expert de-
signers. Expert designers typically take a
solution-driven approach to design problems,
calling upon years of experience, making use of
tacit knowledge, often unaware of exactly how
they do it (see Cross, 2004). That’s the goal of
design education. What expert designers often
forget, however, is that they did not always
perform at this level; that it took intensive study,
a good deal of trial and error, and years of
focused deliberate practice to acquire this level
of performance. It did not happen all at once.
Project-based studio methodology continues to
be the primary means for teaching architecture
design at university-based schools of architecture.
This methodology has proven to be an effective
means for introducing students to design princi-
ples, problem solving, planning, form-making,
tectonics, buildings types and for developing
esthetic judgment as well as analytical and repre-
sentational skills. One of the noted strengths of
project-based studio learning is that it promotes
situated active problem solving and solution
exploration under the guidance of an experienced
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
practitioner (Sch€on, 1984). In most schools, proj-
ect types and scope increase in complexity as the
student moves through the studio curriculum.
Learning objectives and expectations for perfor-
mance are both explicit and implicit, and vary
from school to school. At the first year, architec-
ture design students are expected to be able to
perform at a basic level, at the second year at
the next level, at the third year at still a more
improved level, etc. The level of performance in
the studio presupposes mastery of specific skills,
competencies and domain knowledge at certain
stages of their development, with the expectation
that at the end of the program students have ac-
quired a sufficient level of design expertise that
will enable them to function effectively as entry-
level professionals.
Though it is not without criticism (see Salama &
Wilkenson, 2007; van Dooren, Boshuizen,
Merri€enboer, Asselbergs, & Dorst, 2013;
Dutton, 1987; Glasser, 2001), the studio system
works more-or-less well. But the system is flawed.
The problem is related to the somewhat counter-
intuitive observation that elite performers (artists,
athletes and musicians) typically do not make the
best teachers/coaches (see Beilock, 2010). Like
expert performers in other fields, design tutors,
as expert designers, tend to rely on a tacit (im-
plicit) understanding of how they design as their
operative model for teaching design. Observing
that design tutors, as expert designers, often find
it difficult to make explicit what they do and
how they do it, van Dooren et al. (2013) argue
that the ability to ‘make explicit’ is necessary for
effective design education. They explain that for
experienced designers the design process ‘is not
split up into separate steps and actions but the
process is an undivided whole with automatic
steps, actions based on common practice or
routine, and moments of reflection and explora-
tion’. They typically cannot tell you how they do
it; they just do it, and expect that the student
can do the same. In addition, the way an expert
designs presumes in-depth knowledge of
633
information related to the field (declarative/con-
ceptual knowledge as well as standard heuris-
tics/rules of thumb), standard methods for
solving typical problems (procedural knowledge)
and years of experience solving an array of
different types of problems in different situations
(strategic knowledge), as well as a highly devel-
oped sense of esthetic judgment (though I will
not deal with that here). To expect beginning
design students to possess these as a precondition
for learning to design is unreasonable and results
in less than effective teaching strategies.
Design is an acquired skill. Counter to the com-
mon belief held by many design tutors, learning
to design involves more than developing innate
abilities and capacities in a studio setting, solving
incrementally more complex design problems
over a set period of time under the guidance of
an experienced tutor. Learning to design involves
a complex transformation in the way one thinks
about a problem. It involves the accumulation
of a complex, interdisciplinary domain of declar-
ative/conceptual knowledge, the mastery of pro-
cedural knowledge and experience that leads to
the appropriation of strategic knowledge.
Learning to design follows a developmental pro-
cess where novice designers tend to rely heavily
on declarative knowledge and simple heuristics
to solve design problems, to expert designers
who tend to rely on procedural knowledge and
the ability to adapt to novel situations.
Throughout this process significant changes take
place, from the development of one’s preferred
problem solving method, to physiological changes
in brain structure (see Hill & Schneider, 2006).
Design tutors’ teaching strategies rarely take these
considerations into account. I propose that the
introduction of specific design methodologies
that complement how a (student) designer ap-
proaches a design problem at the various stages
of development as a teaching tool is one such
strategy.
634
Below, I will present research that supports an un-
derstanding of design as a cumulative develop-
mental process to provide a theoretical basis for
the introduction of specific design methodologies
as teaching strategies at different stages of devel-
opment. First I will present a general overview
of what is meant by design methodology and three
general categories of design methodology as pro-
posed by Lawson and Dorst (2009). Then I will
introduce some principles and concepts related
to the acquisition of expert performance (declara-
tive/conceptual/procedural knowledge, cognitive
load theory, cognitive scaffolding, deliberate prac-
tice, etc.) based on research by Ericcson, van Mer-
ri€enboer, and others. This will lead to a brief
description of a developmental model proposed
by Dreyfus (2004) that incorporates the preceding
research. Finally, I will describe how the charac-
teristics of the three general categories of design
methodology correlate with the developmental
stages of the Dreyfus model and provide a useful
structure (cognitive scaffolding) to more effec-
tively facilitate the acquisition of design expertise.
2 Design is a kind of expert
practice
Over the past 50 years there is a growing body of
research related to the performance of experts
and beginners as well as the acquisition of expert
skills (see Ericsson, 2009). Expert performance is
described as high performance, multi-
dimensional, complex cognitive skill that involves
several component skills. Architecture design is
such a skill. Schneider (as quoted by van
Merrienboer, Jelsma, & Paas, 1992) defines
expert skill as possessing at least the following
three characteristics: (1.) Students will be required
to expend considerable time and effort to acquire
an acceptable mastery level; (2.) A substantial
number of students will fail to develop profi-
ciency; (3.) There will be qualitative differences
in performance between novices and experts.
When considering the time involved in finishing
an accredited professional degree (B.Arch/
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014
M.Arch), professional internship (3e4 years),
licensure (passing state exams); the high attrition
rate at most architecture schools; and that most
architects do not reach their prime before 40 years
old; it is reasonable to describe architecture
design as such a skill.
van Merrienboer, Kirschner, and Kester (2003)
offer some helpful insights to be considered when
teaching complex cognitive skills. They propose
that as the goal of training programs for this type
of learning typically seeks to exceed the require-
ments for basic functional expertise, they need to
aim at reflective expertise as their goal. That is, a
kind of expertise that ‘entails the ability to perform
familiar aspects of a task highly automatically, so
that processing resources become available that
may be used to interpret new, unfamiliar aspects
of the problem situation in terms of generalized
knowledge about the task.’ (van Merrienboer
et al., 2003). This is similar to the insight proposed
by Donald Sch€ on from his research into how de-
signers work as a model for professional education
(Sch€on, 1984). van Merrienboer et al., go on to say
‘Within any training system for teaching a complex
cognitive skill, a distinction can be made between
the design of practice (procedural instruction) and
the presentation of information (declarative in-
struction)’ (2003).
In their view, procedural instruction (the how to)
should be the central part of each training strat-
egy because it relates to the instructional design
for actually performing the skill, that is, to the
design of the problem(s) or situation(s) that will
confront the learner. Declarative instruction, in
this model, should build on or scaffold the perfor-
mance of the skill by the introducing of informa-
tion that is relevant to its acquisition. They go on
to propose a four component system for teaching
complex skills (such as architecture design): (1.)
Selecting tactics that promote ‘compilative’ pro-
cessing; (2.) Selecting tactics that promote induc-
tive processing; (3.) Selecting tactics that promote
restricted encoding; (4.) Selecting tactics that
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
promote elaborative encoding. It is within this
system of ‘selecting tactics’ (developing domain
specific procedural and strategic knowledge)
where the introduction of design methodology is
beneficial. Design methodology, as a tactic or
teaching strategy, can function to provide the
scaffolding upon which to structure declarative/
conceptual knowledge, thus facilitating the acqui-
sition of complex cognitive skills required for
expert performance in architecture design.
3 Design methodology
Design methodology, a sub-category of Design
Research, seeks to understand how designers go
about solving design problems by proposing
descriptive frameworks or procedural models
(methodologies). Over the past 40 years or so,
multiple models for how designers work have
been proposed (Bayazit, 2004), emphasizing
various aspects of design cognition. Lawson and
Dorst (2009) have proposed that these descriptive
frameworks can fit in several categories. Three of
which are: design as problem solving, design as
learning, and design as evolution, among others.
Much of the early research approached design
as a problem-solving process, leading to multiple
phase models. Phase models generally identify
five or six phases of solving a design problem,
organized in a lineal, recursive or iterative pro-
cess. Different theories use different names.
Most follow the classic pattern proposed by
Polya (1957): 1.) Understanding the
problem / 2.) Devising a plan / 3.) Carrying
out the plan / 4.) Looking back.
Lawson and Dorst offer a general description of
the phase model approach to design process as
one in which ‘you first define the problem, analyse
it to formulate requirements and then generate
solutions.’ (2009: p. 32). The American Institute
of Architects (AIA) follows a similar model in
their contracts when describing phases for profes-
sional services: Pre-Design (research/analysis),
Preliminary Design (conceptualization), Design
Development (testing/developing the design
635
concept), Construction Documents (finalizing the
design solution), Contract Negotiation, Adminis-
tration of the Contract, Post Occupancy Evalua-
tion (implementation), etc. The hope was that by
breaking down the design process into identifi-
able phases and procedures that a prescriptive
model might emerge that if followed step-by-
step might lead to a more efficient and effective
means of generating high quality design solutions
(Figure 1).
These early models relied heavily on systems the-
ory, scientific method, and work in artificial intel-
ligence (AI). Ultimately this prescriptive
approach to design methods was rejected by
some of the founding members of the discipline
(Alexander, 1971; Broadbent, 1973; Jones,
1977), arguing that the emphasis on procedures
and process had devalued the role of the designer.
In addition, the observation by Rittel (1973), that
design problems by nature are wicked problems
(described below), makes the application of sys-
tems theory and scientific method ill-suited for
understanding the design process, and posed a
significant problem to AI (see Dreyfus, 1992).
Nonetheless the results of the design as problem
solving approach to design methodology did pro-
duce many valuable frameworks/models and in-
sights into how designers think that can be
useful in teaching design, especially for novice de-
signers (see the description of the Dreyfus devel-
opmental model below for a description of what
is meant by novice, advanced beginner, compe-
tent, proficient, and expert).
The design as learning model suggests that as the
designer explores various ways of thinking about
the problem and explores alternative paths toward
arriving at a solution, the designer develops a
deeper understanding of the problem and the
best way to arrive at a design solution. The model
follows the pattern observed by Sch€ on (1984),
where he describes design as a process of framing
a problem, performing moves toward a solution,
and the evaluation of these moves, that leads to a
deeper understanding or new ways of seeing of
the problem, leading to new frames and new
moves. It is an iterative, cumulative process that
builds on the presupposition that design problems
are by nature wicked problems. Wicked problems
are design problems that are only understood dur-
ing the process of trying to solve them. The idea
being that each time the designer frames the prob-
lem, and try to solve it, s/he gains a deeper under-
standing (learning) of the true nature of the
problem, which leads to new insights, which leads
to revising how the designer thinks about the prob-
lem. It is a recursive process where the true nature
of the design problem is only finally defined in the
design solution. The limitations of this approach
are that it presumes a functional understanding
of problem solving methodology, and a founda-
tional mastery of domain related declarative/con-
ceptual knowledge, in order to engage in this
‘reflective’ process. This approach is more suited
to the advanced beginner / proficient designers
and those who have gained a discernable level of
competency, especially in the area of domain spe-
cific declarative knowledge. (This will be explained
further below.)
The third method I will introduce is described by
Lawson and Dorst as the design as evolution
approach. This approach is distinguished by ‘a

Figure 1 George Polya’s

classic model of problem
solving

636 Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014

point in the design process at which the key
concept began to emerge.’ (2009: p. 36). Other
terms for this ‘emergent key concept’ that might
be familiar to designers is the ‘generative idea,’
‘parti,’ or ‘Aha’ moment. Theories related to crea-
tivity are often used to describe this approach.
The process is described as such: occupation
with the subject / incubation phase / insight/
aha experience / evaluation / elaboration,
& and back to the beginning, until the solution
has reached the desired level of development
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The foundational
insight behind this approach, the idea of the ‘pri-
mary generator,’ comes from research by Darke
(1979). In this approach, the design process is a
kind of symbiotic process of seeking an idea
that provides a bridge between an on-going/
deepening understanding of the nature of the
design problem and the generative idea (possible
solution). The creative insight or ‘aha’ occurs ‘at
the moment of insight which a problemesolution
pair comes together’ (Lawson & Dorst, 2009: p.
36). This immersive, dialectic approach to
arriving at the creative insight which then func-
tions to organize in an almost organic, self-
generating way is most familiar to expert de-
signers, who have mastered fundamentals, and
have transitioned to a greater dependence on pro-
cedural knowledge. Due to a lack of practice,
limited domain and procedural knowledge, and
too few imbedded solution strategies, this
approach rarely describes how novice designers
work, though it is the operative model on which
I believe many design tutors base their teaching
strategy. I believe this to be the fundamental
problem for expert designers when faced with
teaching design.
4 Declarative/conceptual
knowledge / procedural knowl-
edge: a road map to reduce being
overwhelmed
That there is a significant difference between the
way novice designers approach a design problem
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
versus how expert designers approach a design
problem is a well-established, cross-disciplinary
principle. ‘Novice behavior is usually associated
with a “depth-first” approach to problem solving,
i.e. sequentially identifying and exploring sub-
solutions in depth, whereas the strategies of ex-
perts are usually regarded as being predominantly
top-down and breadth-first approaches’ (Cross,
2004: p. 14; see also Eastman, 2001). Novice de-
signers tend to focus on understanding the prob-
lem through analysis and research or domain
specific information: declarative/conceptual
knowledge. While expert designers tend to prior-
itize criteria and explore multiple generative con-
cepts to focus in on an approach to the problem:
procedural knowledge. Providing students with a
structure/framework that takes this preference
into account enhances the learning experience
by providing a kind of road map of the design
process (Figure 2).
4.1 Deliberate practice: break it into
bite-size pieces
Design follows the pattern of expert performance
acquisition found in other domains. Ericsson,
Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) describes supe-
rior expert performance as being a primarily ac-
quired skill, where ‘many thousands of hours of
deliberate practice and training are necessary to
reach the highest levels of performance’. One of
the distinctive characteristics of deliberate practice
is that it is not fun (Ericsson, 2008). Design skills
acquisition occurs over time, incrementally, with
practice, reflection and commitment. But mastery
of the skill is not just a matter of repeating the pro-
cess over and over again at an increased level of
complexity; rather, mastery of the skill requires
two basic tasks: mastery of the domain informa-
tion and the development of procedural knowl-
edge (see McCormick, 1997 for a description of
declarative/conceptual, procedural and strategic
knowledge).
Mastery of domain knowledge and procedural
knowledge does not occur simultaneously, it
637
Figure 2 Novice designers
emphasize declarative/con-
ceptual knowledge, while ex-
perts emphasize procedural
knowledge
occurs incrementally in a symbiotic, inter-
dependent, cumulative manner. As domain
knowledge increases, the need and opportunity
to apply this knowledge to complex design prob-
lems increases. An awareness of the limitations of
analysis and data collection have for generating
insight that leads to generative concepts emerges,
providing the motivation to discover more effec-
tive methods for approaching the design problem
(procedural knowledge). The process can be over-
whelming and stressful (see Cognitive load theory
below). Sch€ on observes that design students are
typically faced with having to begin solving a
problem before they actually know how to do
it. He writes that the student, ‘is expected to
plunge into the studio, trying from the very outset
to do what he does not yet know how to do, in or-
der to get the sort of experience that will help him
learn what designing means’ (Sch€ on, 1984: p. 57).
One way tutors can greatly reduce the stress of
this plunge is by breaking the design process
into constituent parts, phases and skills (offer a
design methodology), for example: programming,
analysis, space-use diagramming, making a plan,
elevation, section, generating a volume, exploring
structural systems, considering materials and
methods of construction, presentation tech-
niques, etc. Like all prescriptive design methodol-
ogies, it’s an artificial construct. Expert designers
638
typically do not break the design process into
pieces, solving each one-by-one. Rather, expert
designers typically work in a more symbiotic
manner more like the design as evolution
approach described above. But by offering a
way to approach the design problem (methodol-
ogy), the problem becomes more manageable.
Special exercises can be devised to increase skills
or learn fundamental concepts. The tutor acts as
a guide, leading the student through the process.
This kind of exercise, that requires focus on
discrete isolated tasks, is typical of what is meant
by deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is not
so much about repeating a complete design pro-
cess from analysis to final presentation over and
over again. It’s more about the refinement of
skills and competencies by focused repetition,
not unlike the piano student practicing scales.
Focused repetition leads to highly automated ac-
tivity that is a distinctive attribute of expert per-
formance. Automated or embodied activity
involves a shift from declarative memory repre-
sentations that are easy to articulate to proce-
dural knowledge that is difficult to put into
words (Anderson, 1982). A loss of self-
conscious effort, leads to a loss of an ability to
articulate what is being done. ‘You see the situa-
tion and you just know what to do.’ Subsequently,
expert designers often prefer to describe the
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014
design process in mystical terms, preferring the
‘black box’ theory of design, emphasizing mo-
ments of insight and spontaneous emerging logic,
discounting the value of process and methodol-
ogy. Unfortunately what they fail to mention is
that their design expertise is the result of rigorous
training and years of deliberate and focused prac-
tice. Like the accomplished athlete or musician,
the accomplished designer’s performance lacks
the self-conscious attention to the mechanics of
a good swing, proper phrasing or what the factors
were that lead to the generative insight, typical of
a novice.
4.2 Cognitive load theory: cognitive
scaffolding
As mentioned above, novice designers are often
overwhelmed by the amount of declarative/con-
ceptual knowledge and heuristics they need to
master before they are able to produce successful
design solutions. Cognitive load theory, which
grew out of research related to the acquisition
of expert performance, provides a framework
and some strategies for understanding and re-
sponding to this situation.
Mastering architecture design, requires what is
generally referred to, in education circles, as
competency-based learning, that is: ‘the ability
to operate in ill-defined and ever-changing envi-
ronments, to deal with non-routine and abstract
work processes, to handle decisions and responsi-
bilities, to work in groups, to understand dynamic
systems, and to operate within expanding
geographical and time horizons’ (Keen, 1992).
The acquisition of complex skills occurs within
a specific domain of expertise and presumes the
mastery of the foundational declarative/concep-
tual knowledge related to the field. Architecture
design as a specific domain of expertise assumes
familiarity with a sometimes overwhelming
amount of cross-disciplinary information (declar-
ative knowledge). The mind has a way of dealing
with this.
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988; Sweller,
van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998; van
Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005) proposes that there
is a direct connection between the limitations of
how memory works and the ability to learn effec-
tively. The theory builds on the understanding
that the mind has two types of memory: working
memory, which is limited; and long-term memory
which is practically limitless. General-purpose
working memory has a limited capacity of about
seven chunks of information (Miller, 1956) when
just holding information, and not more than two
or three chunks when processing information.
Long-term memory has a virtually unlimited ca-
pacity, and holds information stored in schemas.
Schemas can reduce working memory load,
because once they have been acquired and auto-
mated, they can be handled in working memory
with very little conscious effort. In addition, no
matter how extensive a schema is, it will be
treated as one chunk of information, thereby
increasing the amount of information that can
be held and processed in working memory
without requiring more conscious effort. This en-
sures that there is enough cognitive capacity
available to solve very complex problems.
However, when schemas have not yet been ac-
quired, all information elements (chunks) of the
problem have to be kept in working memory as
separate items, which can lead to a high or exces-
sive demand on working memory capacity.
Consequently, there would not be enough capac-
ity left for the formation of a problem schema,
and learning would be hampered (Gog,
Ericsson, Rikers, & Paas, 2005). Cognitive load
(for novices) can be greatly reduced by the intro-
duction of procedural frameworks (such as those
offered by the prescriptive design methodology),
offering a more effective way of learning complex
cognitive tasks than conventional problem solv-
ing (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2004). The key point
here is that the mind has a cognitive architecture
that has a significant influence on how we acquire
639
complex skills. Developing teaching techniques
that build upon this cognitive architecture, recog-
nizing its strengths and limitations, greatly facili-
tates the acquisition of expert performance in
design.
A common mistake, made by well-intentioned
design instructors, is to overload the students’
working memory before they have had a chance
to develop chunks that lead to the emergence of
schemata essential for complex problem solving,
thus limiting their ability to discover generative
concepts upon which to develop a design solu-
tion. This overload impedes learning. This is
not intentional. The design competency of design
instructors is typically quite high. They are usu-
ally actively engaged in professional practice per-
forming at the level of expertise, and highly
motivated teachers. However, most design in-
structors are not consciously aware of how
they arrived at such a high level of competency
and what factors where critical in their
development.
5 Deliberate practice
A strong connection has been made between
research related to developmental acquisition of
expert performance and the acquisition of expert
ability in design (Cross, 2004; Dorst & Lawson,
2009). Simon and Chase (quoted by Ericsson,
Whyte, & Ward, 2007), in their seminal theory
of expertise, observed that ‘extended experience
led experts to acquire a gradually increasing num-
ber of more complex patterns.’ By extended expe-
rience Simon and Chase meant more than
longevity. They meant deliberate, focused experi-
ence (deliberate practice) that was immersed in the
domain. Even so, the difference between a novice
and expert is more than extensive practice and
accumulated knowledge (Ericsson, 2008). It’s a
hard earned process of moving from data driven,
fact based, heuristically programmed problem
solving to an intuitive, effortless ability to know
what to do without recourse to rules.
640
The effortlessness of expert performance is more
than the result of the acquisition of knowledge
and the appropriation of schemata, it is the result
of the internalization and embodiment of knowl-
edge and action. Long years of study, deliberate
practice and on-going experience (training) re-
sults in physiological changes in brain structure.
Research has shown that ‘as one progresses on
the long road from beginner to expert performer,
many fundamental changes in the structure of the
mechanisms mediating performance as well as the
conditions of learning and practice take place, as
well as biological changes in brain structure’ (Hill
& Schneider, 2006). The structure of the brain is
not fixed as previously thought. The repetitive ac-
tions associated with deliberate practice reinforce
synaptic connections across different regions of
the brain results in a literal restructuring of the
brain. This restructuring occurs incrementally,
over time and is highly adaptive (see Seung,
2013). The acquisition of expert design ability is
not simply about working in a studio environ-
ment practicing solving incrementally more com-
plex design problems over a specified number of
years under the guidance of an expert designer/
tutor. It involves an actual restructuring of the
brain.
Given the often overwhelming amount of diverse
and interdisciplinary information that a novice
design student needs to master early on in a
design education; and given the tendency of
novice designers to prefer a ‘depth first’ approach
to design over the more ‘breadth first’ approach
of expert designers; and given the limited process-
ing and representational skills novice students
have for synthesizing information; providing
novices with a prescriptive methodology, or
even a descriptive model, for approaching design
problems in their early stages of development
helps to reduce the likelihood of information
overload and provides a strategy that allows
them to find their way to the discovery of genera-
tive concepts more likely.
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014
In consideration of the above, it can be seen that
the acquisition of expert design ability involves
deliberate practice under the guidance of an
expert designer/tutor, a transition from a depen-
dence on declarative/conceptual knowledge to
procedural knowledge, an awareness of the na-
ture and limitations of neuro-cognitive structures,
and the use of procedural (cognitive) scaffolding.
The above also explains that this transition
from novice to expert is a cumulative, develop-
mental process. What we need now is a process
that will describe how this all happens.
6 Dreyfus model
Over the past 30 years Hubert and Stewart Drey-
fus have been developing a developmental model
of skills acquisition that describes such a process.
Their thinking is based on the insight that anyone
seeking to acquire a new skill has two options: he
can try the less efficient (and perhaps more
dangerous) method of learning it on his own by
trial-and-error; or the more efficient method of
seeking out an instructor or instruction manual.
By observing how experts acquire skill in several
disciplines they have developed a model that pro-
vides a framework for increasing the efficiency of
the learning process.
Their model of skill acquisition, based on cogni-
tive psychology, ‘consists in analysing and sys-
tematizing descriptions of changes in the
perception of the task environment in the course
of acquiring complex skills’ (Dreyfus & Dreyfus,
1986). They claim that rather than simply
extended experience, the acquisition of expert
performance occurs in stages and that the nature
of the problem being considered (how it is
framed) is dependent on the level of expertise of
the problem solver. ‘The tradition has given an
accurate description of the beginner and of the
expert facing an unfamiliar situation, but nor-
mally an expert does not calculate. He or she
does not solve problems. He or she does not
even think. He or she just does what normally
works and, of course, it normally works’
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
(Dreyfus, 2004). Over the years the number of
and the names given to each phase has changed.
The phases I will use here are: novice, advanced
beginner, competent, proficient, and expert
(Dreyfus, 2004).
Dreyfus (2004) describes how one learns to drive
a car to illustrate his model: A novice student
driver learns to recognize and understand domain
independent variables such as speed, rules for
shifting, braking and accelerating, rules of the
road, safety precautions, etc. He begins by at-
tempting to follow all the rules. But this results
in poor performance in the real world. As an
advanced beginner, the student driver gains expe-
rience with real situations and begins to make
connections, master basic tasks, learns to make
situational decisions, such as ‘shift-up when the
motor sounds like its racing.’ At the level of
competence, the student benefits from more expe-
rience, and begins to be aware of the potentially
overwhelming number of variables. It can be ex-
hausting. To deal with this possible overload, he
becomes more selective about which variables to
attend to. For example, when leaving the freeway
off ramp he learns to be attentive to the speed of
the car and not to whether to shift gears. He be-
comes emotionally involved in choosing what to
do rather than being driven by rules. At the level
of proficiency the student is becoming more
emotionally involved in the task. He is developing
a ‘feel’ for what to do. At this level, the student
might, approaching a curve on a rainy day, feel
that he is going too fast and decide to either apply
the breaks or to down shift or to ease off the accel-
erator. His experience of different types of situa-
tions and the various possible, viable responses
have increased and he has developed some reli-
able strategies for how to choose the right option
in this particular situation. At the expert level, the
student is completely immersed in the situation.
He sees the situation and knows how to respond
in a seemingly intuitive manner. He no longer
needs to consider all the options, he just sees the
641
curve, feels the gravitational pull and knows what
to do.
Below I propose a version of the Dreyfus model
(Dreyfus, 2004) adapted for learning to design,
based on and in consideration of the principles
and insights described above:
6.1 Stage 1: novice
6.1.1 Acquisition of(non-situated)
domain specific factual knowledge
and heuristics
Novices are generally presented with decomposed
tasks in context-free environments that require
minimal skill to complete. Performance tends to
be rule based and data/research driven with little
need to interpret the situation [abstract, disem-
bodied form and space exercises: emphasis on
plan form and functional considerations].
6.2 Stage 2: advanced beginner
6.2.1 Appropriation frameworks for
understanding/interpreting the situation
As novices gain experience, acquire increased
domain specific conceptual/declarative knowl-
edge and begin applying new skills in real situa-
tions, they begin to adapt to the relevant
contexts and recognize aspects of new situations.
Maxims or heuristics for dealing with varying
situational contexts emerge [emphasis on plan,
section, elevation, form and site: minimal concern
for technical issues such as structure, materials
and systems: relatively simple program
requirements].
6.3 Stage 3: competence
6.3.1 Assimilated ability to ‘see’
(read) the situation
With increasing skill and this new awareness of
the increasing number of potentially relevant ele-
ments and procedures can be overwhelming. To
deal with this students seek means and methods
to limit relevant variables for consideration and
to identify opportunities that speak to his or her
642
interests. Accountability for strategic choices
and emotional involvement emerge. Here the stu-
dent is beginning to be able to see the problem
and test new skills and strategies to solve it.
Design solutions tend to be ‘concept’ driven
[complex program requirements and use types,
consideration of structure, systems and materials:
producing a whole idea for a building].
6.4 Stage 4: proficiency
6.4.1 Appropriation of strategies for
responding to the situation (scenarios)
This stage is distinguished by emotional involve-
ment with the problem-solving activity that re-
duces the ability to apply detached, rule-based
strategies. A seemingly intuitive, ‘feeling’ driven,
tacit sensibility begins to emerge. Successful ap-
proaches produce positive emotional responses
(‘Yes, that’s right’) and unsuccessful approaches
produce negative emotional reactions (‘Hmm,
that doesn’t feel right’), resulting in the embodi-
ment and assimilation of successful strategies.
‘At this stage, the involved, experienced
performer sees goals and salient aspects but not
[necessarily] what to do to achieve these goals.’
[highly complex building types/program require-
ments, integrating structure, systems, materials,
environmental, and other issues]
6.5 Stage 5: expertise
6.5.1 Assimilated ability to respond
to the situation
What distinguishes expertise is the ability to,
seemingly without effort, see the situation and
to see (among a large repertoire) a way to solve
it that is most likely to produce the desired
outcome, and then to choose the solution that
feels right (and usually is). The expert relies heavi-
ly on a broad based, domain specific tacit knowl-
edge, and experience with diverse situations and
strategies, to solve the design problem. The expert
sees ‘immediately how to achieve this goal.’ [self-
directed learning: exploring architectural ideas]
(Figure 3).
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014
Figure 3 Overview of the Dreyfus five-stage model of adult skill acquisition
7 Synthesis
Given the above brief overview of the Dreyfus
developmental model (novice, advanced
beginner, competency, proficiency, expertise),
and the three approaches to design methodology
proposed by Lawson and Dorst (problem solving,
learning, evolution), I propose that there is a way
of integrating these insights into a comprehensive
model to facilitate the acquisition of design exper-
tise that provides a procedural framework, a
teaching tactic (strategy) for structuring declara-
tive/conceptual knowledge and minimizes cogni-
tive load by providing a cognitive scaffold as
various levels of development.
Novices, while preferring to emphasize domain/
conceptual knowledge when approaching design
problems, have not yet mastered the requisite
domain specific domain/conceptual knowledge
to either see the problem or to find a solution.
Novices could benefit from the introduction of a
design methodology that provides phases of prob-
lem solving as both a map and a procedural frame-
work. Advanced beginners, having acquired a
functional level of conceptual/declarative knowl-
edge begin to be able to see the problem and
discover research based, heuristic dependent solu-
tions. They too could benefit from a prescriptive
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
problem solving oriented design methodology.
By the time students reach the level of competency
they are able to see the problem and engage in the
see, frame, move, reframe process described by
Sch€on. These students could benefit from the
design as learning methodology. As the design stu-
dent acquires the skills, domain/conceptual
knowledge and procedures necessary to function
at a level of proficiency, the design as evolution
methodology can provide both a helpful model
and more accurate description of how they actu-
ally work. Experts with their dependency on tacit
knowledge (declarative/conceptual/procedural)
and an embodied sense of ‘knowing what to do’
prefer to use the ‘black box’ approach to describe
what they do (Figure 4).
8 Conclusion
Design tutors normally function from the
perspective of expertise. This is the normative
model they use in teaching design. Novice de-
signers are not able to effectively make use of
this model for many reasons described above.
Teaching strategies are needed to bridge this gap.
Research in design methodology has resulted in
numerous theories, frameworks and paradigms,
both prescriptive and descriptive, that can
643
Figure 4 Synthesis of the Dreyfus model, stage appropriate design methods and preferred approaches to design problems
function as useful teaching strategies for helping
design students at progressive stages as they
struggle to become familiar with and master the
complex and interdisciplinary scope of informa-
tion that makes up the domain of architecture
design. I have mentioned only a few. The key is
to identify the right design methodology for a stu-
dent at the right stage. Further research could be
done in this area to identify developmentally
appropriate methodologies that will enhance the
acquisition of design skills. By introducing a spe-
cific model, methodology or methodologies to
design students at progressive stages, as a teach-
ing strategy, it provides them with a developmen-
tally appropriate conceptual framework
(cognitive scaffolding) within which they can
organize their research and analysis, and offers
them a procedure that can guide them through
the uncharted, indeterminate and undulating ter-
ritory that is the design process.
As a design student gains mastery of the domain,
and experience with how to interpret and apply
information, the student will begin to critique
model methodologies, gradually adapting them
and developing his/her own methodology for ap-
proaching design problems. Success in doing so
644
will engender a kind of excitement, and failure
will lead to a kind of frustration. These emotional
experiences, especially the experience of discovery
and insight (creativity theory) will provide moti-
vation for the student to test, adapt and explore
alternative methodologies that promise to result
in more effective generative concepts. Mastery
of the domain information will lead to mastery
of established procedures. Mastery of established
procedures will lead to discovering their limita-
tions. Discovering their limitations and a desire
to improve design performance will lead to
exploring alternative methodologies as well as
developing new insights, methods and proce-
dures, leading to expertise: when they ultimately
discover and internalize their own methodology
for solving design problems.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible by funding from
the New York Province of the Society of Jesus;
Tsinghua University, School of Architecture;
and Delft University, School of Architecture. I
would like to thank Henco Bekkering and Petra
Badke-Schaub for their encouragement and
input.
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014
References
Alexander, C. (1971). The state of the art in design
methods. DMG Newsletter, 5(3), 3e7.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of a cognitive
skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369e406.
Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design: a review of
forty years of design research. Design Issues,
20(1), 16e29.
Beilock, S. (2010). Choke: What the secrets of the
brain reveal about getting it right when you have
to. New York: Free Press.
Broadbent, G. (1973). Design in architecture: Archi-
tecture and the human sciences. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview.
Design Studies, 25(5), 427e441.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology
of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
Row.
Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the
design process. Design Studies, 1(1).
van Dooren, E., Boshuizen, E., Merri€enboer, J. J. G.,
Asselbergs, T., & Dorst, M. (2013). Making
explicit in design education: generic elements in
the design process. International Journal of Tech-
nology and Design Education, 24(1), 53e71, Pub-
lished on line: Springer.
Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A
critique of artificial reason. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over ma-
chine: The power of human intuition and expertise
in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.
Dreyfus, S. (2004). The five-stage model of adult
skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science and Technol-
ogy, 24(3), 177e181.
Dutton, T. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy.
Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16e25.
Eastman, C. (2001). New directions in design cogni-
tion: studies of representation and recall. In
C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter
(Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition
in design education. Oxford: Elsevier Science,
Ltd.
Ericsson, K. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisi-
tion of expert performance: a general overview.
Academic Emergency Medicine, 15, 988e994.
Ericsson, K. (2009). Development of professional
expertise. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C.
(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
Design methodology as a teaching strategy
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological
Review, 100, 363e406.
Ericsson, K., Whyte, J., & Ward, P. (2007). Expert
performance in nursing: reviewing research on
expertise in nursing within the framework of
the expert-performance approach. Advances in
Nursing Science, 30(1), E58eE71.
Glasser, D. (2001). Reflections on architectural ed-
ucation. Journal of Architectural Education,
53(4), 250e252.
Gog, T., Ericsson, K., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2005).
Instructional design for advanced learners: es-
tablishing connections between the theoretical
frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate
practice. ETR&D, 53(3), 73e81.
Hill, N., & Schneider, W. (2006). Brain changes in
the development of expertise: neuroanatomical
and neurophysiological evidence about skill-
based adaptations. In K. Ericsson, N. Charness,
P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Handbook
of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge
University Press.
Jones, J. C. (1977). How my thoughts about design
methods have changed during the years. Design
Methods and Theories, 11(1), 48e62.
Keen, K. (1992). Competence: what is it and how it
can be developed? In J. Lowyck, P. de Potter, &
J. Elen (Eds.), Instructional design: Implementa-
tion issues Brussels: IBM International Educa-
tion Center.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise.
London: Architectural Press.
McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural
knowledge. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 7, 141e159.
van Merrienboer, J., Jelsma, O., & Paas, F.
(1992). Training for reflective expertise: a
four-component instructional design model
for complex cognitive skills. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 40(2),
23e43.
van Merrienboer, J., Kirschner, P., & Kester, L.
(2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind:
instructional design for complex learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5e13.
van Merrienboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive
load theory and complex learning: recent devel-
opments and future directions. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 17(2), 147e177.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus
or minus two: some limits on our capacity for
processing information. The Psychological Re-
view, 63, 81e97.
645
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive
load theory: instructional implications of the
interaction between information structures and
cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32,
1e8.
P
olya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City:
Doubleday.
Rittel, H. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155e169.
Salama, A., & Wilkenson, N. (Eds.). (2007). Design
studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future. Gates-
head: The Urban International Press.
646
Sch€on, D. (1984). Reflective practitioner. London:
Temple Smith.
Seung, S. (2013). Connectome: How the brain’s wir-
ing makes us who we are. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-
solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science,
12, 257e285.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998).
Cognitive architecture and instructional design.
Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251e296.
Design Studies Vol 35 No. 6 Month 2014