溯因推理:一个设计思维实验

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 0 ART International Journal of Art & Design Education Pub Date : 2022-06-30 DOI:10.1111/jade.12424
Neal Dreamson, Phyo Htet Htet Khine
{"title":"溯因推理:一个设计思维实验","authors":"Neal Dreamson,&nbsp;Phyo Htet Htet Khine","doi":"10.1111/jade.12424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Design thinking fundamentally relies on abductive reasoning. Diverse thinking types such as divergent thinking, systems thinking, and empathetic thinking have been adopted in design thinking education. Yet, it is very rare to address abductive reasoning to be integrated in a design thinking course because of deductive validity and inductive strength. In practice, the quality of design thinking is judged from design outcomes in terms of creativity and innovation rather than the application of abductive reasoning in thinking that is necessary for educators to develop diverse instructional strategies for design thinking. Through a design thinking experiment where abductive reasoning was structured for groups of students to modify their chosen fairy stories by challenging identified lessons/values/beliefs, we articulated relevant strategies from case analysis. As a result, we discovered the following six strategies for abductive reasoning: questioning on socially given identity; restructuring a hierarchy of values; de- and re-contextualisation; perspective-taking; being intersubjective through body swapping; and developing imaginative empathy for compassion. The six strategies support pedagogical aspects of design thinking such as collaborative problem-solving and analytic and empathetic engagement; and thus, design educators can use them in developing instructional strategies to facilitate abductive reasoning in design thinking.</p>","PeriodicalId":45973,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Art & Design Education","volume":"41 3","pages":"403-413"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abductive Reasoning: A Design Thinking Experiment\",\"authors\":\"Neal Dreamson,&nbsp;Phyo Htet Htet Khine\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jade.12424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Design thinking fundamentally relies on abductive reasoning. Diverse thinking types such as divergent thinking, systems thinking, and empathetic thinking have been adopted in design thinking education. Yet, it is very rare to address abductive reasoning to be integrated in a design thinking course because of deductive validity and inductive strength. In practice, the quality of design thinking is judged from design outcomes in terms of creativity and innovation rather than the application of abductive reasoning in thinking that is necessary for educators to develop diverse instructional strategies for design thinking. Through a design thinking experiment where abductive reasoning was structured for groups of students to modify their chosen fairy stories by challenging identified lessons/values/beliefs, we articulated relevant strategies from case analysis. As a result, we discovered the following six strategies for abductive reasoning: questioning on socially given identity; restructuring a hierarchy of values; de- and re-contextualisation; perspective-taking; being intersubjective through body swapping; and developing imaginative empathy for compassion. The six strategies support pedagogical aspects of design thinking such as collaborative problem-solving and analytic and empathetic engagement; and thus, design educators can use them in developing instructional strategies to facilitate abductive reasoning in design thinking.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Art & Design Education\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"403-413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Art & Design Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12424\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Art & Design Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12424","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计思维从根本上依赖于溯因推理。设计思维教育采用了发散思维、系统思维、移情思维等多种思维方式。然而,由于演绎的有效性和归纳的强度,将溯因推理整合到设计思维课程中是非常罕见的。在实践中,设计思维的质量是根据创造性和创新的设计结果来判断的,而不是根据思维中溯因推理的应用来判断的,而溯因推理是教育工作者为设计思维制定多样化教学策略所必需的。通过设计思维实验,我们为学生群体构建了溯因推理,通过挑战已确定的课程/价值观/信仰来修改他们选择的童话故事,我们从案例分析中阐述了相关策略。因此,我们发现了以下六种溯因推理策略:对社会给定身份的质疑;重新构建价值层次结构;去语境化和重新语境化;换位思考;通过身体交换实现主体间性;并培养富有想象力的同情心。这六种策略支持设计思维的教学方面,如协作解决问题、分析和移情参与;因此,设计教育者可以使用它们来制定教学策略,以促进设计思维中的溯因推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Abductive Reasoning: A Design Thinking Experiment

Design thinking fundamentally relies on abductive reasoning. Diverse thinking types such as divergent thinking, systems thinking, and empathetic thinking have been adopted in design thinking education. Yet, it is very rare to address abductive reasoning to be integrated in a design thinking course because of deductive validity and inductive strength. In practice, the quality of design thinking is judged from design outcomes in terms of creativity and innovation rather than the application of abductive reasoning in thinking that is necessary for educators to develop diverse instructional strategies for design thinking. Through a design thinking experiment where abductive reasoning was structured for groups of students to modify their chosen fairy stories by challenging identified lessons/values/beliefs, we articulated relevant strategies from case analysis. As a result, we discovered the following six strategies for abductive reasoning: questioning on socially given identity; restructuring a hierarchy of values; de- and re-contextualisation; perspective-taking; being intersubjective through body swapping; and developing imaginative empathy for compassion. The six strategies support pedagogical aspects of design thinking such as collaborative problem-solving and analytic and empathetic engagement; and thus, design educators can use them in developing instructional strategies to facilitate abductive reasoning in design thinking.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Art & Design Education (iJADE) provides an international forum for research in the field of the art and creative education. It is the primary source for the dissemination of independently refereed articles about the visual arts, creativity, crafts, design, and art history, in all aspects, phases and types of education contexts and learning situations. The journal welcomes articles from a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches to research, and encourages submissions from the broader fields of education and the arts that are concerned with learning through art and creative education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Revisiting Art's Education Trying to Undo the Colonialities of Arts Education: The Construction of a Workbook as Curriculum-(Un)Making Creative Pedagogies: School Without Walls and Forest of Imagination Intersectional and Decolonial Perspectives on an Incorporeal Materialism: Towards an Elemental Philosophy of Art Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1