Drawing and ideation process in design education: A systematic literature review

References

• Archer, B. (2004). Designerly Activity and Higher Degree. The Design and Technology Association, Loughborough University.
   Google Scholar
• Barbarash, D. (2016). Representation stigma: Perceptions of tools and processes for design graphics. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(4), 477–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Bar Eli, S. (2013). Sketching profiles: Awareness to individual differences in sketching as a means of enhancing design solution development. Design Studies, 34(4), 472–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, G, & MacLachlan, R. (2019). The Relationship between the choice of sketching tool and student designer’s flow. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 1383), Strathclyde. https://doi.org/10.35199/epde2019.92
   Google Scholar
• Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1
   Google Scholar
• Burls, A. (2014). What is Critical Appraisal?. International Journal of Evidence-Based Practice for the Dental Hygienist. https://www.whatisseries.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce_uploads/2020/04/What-is-critical-appraisal.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Camba, J. D., Kimbrough, M., & Kwon, E. (2018). Conceptual product design in digital and traditional sketching environments: A comparative exploratory study. Journal of Design Research, 16(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2018.092810
   Google Scholar
• Cassim, F. (2013). Hands on, hearts on, minds on: Design thinking within an education context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2009). Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (3rd Edition ed.). CRD, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Chammoro-Koc, M., Scott, A., & Coombs, G. (2015). Bombs Away: Visual Thinking and Students’ Engagement in Design Studios Contexts. Design and Technology Education, 20(1), 18–28. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2018
   Google Scholar
• Choi, H. H., & Kim, M. J. (2017). The effects of analogical and metaphorical reasoning in design thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP (Qualitative) Checklist. Retrieved December 22, 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Qualitative-Studies-Checklist/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1999). Natural Intelligence in Design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00026-X
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2008). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2018). Developing design as a discipline. Journal of Engineering Design, 29(12), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2018.1537481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darlington, M. F. (2011). What is the Role of Observational Drawing in Contemporary Art & Design Curricula?. Graphicacy & Modeling.
   Google Scholar
• Day, J. K., & Orthel, B. D. (2016). Processing Beyond Drawing: A Case Study Exploring Ideation for Teaching Design. SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016663285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dazkir, S. S., Mower, J. M., Reddy-Best, K. L., & Pedersen, E. L. (2013). An exploration of design students’ inspiration process. College Student Journal, 47(2), 394–404. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/prin/csj/2013/00000047/00000002/art00016
   Google Scholar
• Dinar, M., Shah, J. J., Cagan, J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S. M., & Hernandez, N. V. (2015). Empirical studies of designer thinking: Past, present, and future. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(2). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dooren, E. V., Boshuizen, E., Merriënboer, J. V., Asselbergs, T., & Dorst, M. V. (2020). Making the design process in design education explicit: Two exploratory case studies. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(1), 13–34. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/issue/view/212
   Google Scholar
• Eissen, K., & Steur, R. (2009). Sketching: Drawing Techniques for Product Designers (2nd Edition ed.). Page One Publishing Pte Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, M., & Aldoy, N. (2016). Digital design sketching using the tablet PC. Design Journal, 19(5), 763–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2016.1196091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, M., Pei, E., Cheshire, D., & Graham, I. (2015). Digital sketching and haptic sketch modelling during product design and development. International Journal of Producr Development, 20(3), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2015.069323
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9455.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Hamat, B., Badke-Schaub, P., & Eris, O. (2015). Design learning mind-sets. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15) (pp. 1–10), Milan, Italy. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/38020/DESIGN+LEARNING+MIND-SETS
   Google Scholar
• Hamat, B., Eisenbart, B., Badke-Schaub, P., & Schoormans, J. (2020). The influence of a designers’ mind-set on their design process and design outcomes. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 30(4), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09522-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamat, B., Eisenbart, B., Schoormans, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2017). Differences between the discerning and opportunistic mind-sets in design learning. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17) (pp. 235–244), Vancouver, Canada. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/39905/Differences+between+the+discerning+and+opportunistic+mind-sets+in+design+learning
   Google Scholar
• 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), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.11
   Google Scholar
• Houtilainen, M., Rankanen, M., Groth, C., Seitama-Hakkarainen, P., & Mäkelä, M. (2018). Why our brains love arts and crafts: Implications of creative practices on psychophysical well-being. Make It NOW! - Learning, Exploring, and Understanding, 11(2), 11(2. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1908
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, C.-Y. (2018). Developing design through a creative problem-solving process: A group community art project. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karaata, E. (2016). Significance of sketch in creativity process related to graphic design education. Global Journal on Humanities & Social Sciences, 3(1), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjhss.v2i1.337
   Google Scholar
• Kim, T., McKay, A., & Thomas, B. (2019). A systematic brainstorming ideation method for novice designers based on SECI Theory. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.28
   Google Scholar
• Kosonen, K., & Mäkelä, M. A. (2012). Designing platform for exploring and reflecting on creative process. Procedia - Social & Behavioral Sciences, 45, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.559
   Google Scholar
• Laing, S., & Masoodian, M. (2016). A study of the influence of visual imagery on graphic design ideation. Design Studies, 45, 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lame, G. (2019). Systematic Literature Reviews: An Introduction. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), 1633–1642. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.169
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (4th Edition). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979
   Google Scholar
• Long, H. A., French, D. P., & Brooks, J. M. (2020). Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Research Methods in Medicine, Health & Sciences, 1(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320947559
   Google Scholar
• Milton, G. (2008). Drawing is Thinking. Duckworth & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Moreira da Silva, A. (2022). Drawing as a strategy on design education. In D. Raposo, J. Neves, & J. Silva (Eds.), Perspective on Design II (Vol. 16, pp. 105–115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79879-6_8
   Google Scholar
• Nadelson, S., & Nadelson, L. S. (2014). Evidence-based practice article reviews using CASP tools: A method for teaching EBP. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing / Sigma Theta Tau International, Honor Society of Nursing, 11(5), 344–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orbey, B., & Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, G. P. (2020). Design process re-visited in the first year design studio: Between intuition and reasoning. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 31(4), 771–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09573-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, T. (2019). A comparison of haptic sketching and digital sketching. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(2), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2019040109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S. … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan, R., Kuo, S.-P., & Stroble, J. (2012). Interplay of computer and paper based sketching in graphic design. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 23(3), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9216-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, E. J., & Kim, M. J. (2021). Visual communication for students’ creative thinking in the design studio: Translating filmic spaces into spatial design. Buildings, 11(3), 91. 11(3. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11030091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavel, N. (2005). The Industrial Designer’s Guide to Sketching. Tapir Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process: a review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5
   Google Scholar
• Ranscombe, C., Bissett-Johnson, K., & Kuys, B. (2017). Dropping concept bombs: Arguing for a knowledge-focused intervention in sketching to stimulate student engagement with visual thinking. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vancouver, Canada. https://theory.designsociety.org/publication/39893/Dropping+concept+bombs%3A+Arguing+for+a+knowledge-focused+intervention+in+sketching+to+stimulate+student+engagement+with+visual+thinking
   Google Scholar
• Rincon-Gómez, A. M., Garcia-Flórez, J. A., Suescum, M. F., Sierra, L. F., & Maya, J. (2016). Assessing Line, Proportion Precision and Perspective in Traditional Drawing Method and Digital Pen Based Technology for Familiarized Subjects. Proceedings of ICERI2016 Conference, Seville, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2016.0768
   Google Scholar
• Schenk, P. (1998). Drawing for design: The impact of computer-assisted design on the role of drawing for communication designers in commercial practice. Design Journal, 1(3), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069298790718715
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in design. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F
   Google Scholar
• Self, J. (2014). Reflecting on design sketching. Archives of Design Research, 27(3), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2014.08.111.3.65
   Google Scholar
• Self, J. (2017). Resolving wicked problems: Appositional reasoning and sketch representation. Design Journal, 20(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1301070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Self, J., Evans, M., & Kim, E. J. (2016). A comparison of digital and conventional sketching: Implications for conceptual design ideation. Journal of Design Research, 14(2), 171–202. https://doi.org/10.1504/jdr.2016.077028
   Google Scholar
• Şener, B. (2014). Investigating the feasibility of digitally created industrial design sketchbooks. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.4305/metu.Jfa.2014.1.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tedjosaputro, M. A., Shih, Y.-T., Niblock, C., & Pradel, P. (2017). Interplay of sketches and mental imagery in the design ideation stage of novice designers. Design Journal, 21(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2018.1395655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurlow, L., Ford, P., & Hudson, G. (2018). Skirting the sketch: An analysis of sketch inhibition within contemporary design higher education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 38(2), 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar