Your process of discovering begins with
Diagram 1 - Define and Solve:
This iterative Cycle (Generate-and-Evaluate)
is the essential foundation of Design Process.
It's used after you
Learn about the Problem-Situation(s),
Define your Objective (for what to make better),
Define your Goals (for an Optimal Problem-Solution).
While you're studying this diagram,
think about a Mystery Question by asking
“why is there an arrow on the right side
of the Cycle to Generate-and-Evaluate?”
and maybe asking two related questions.
Diagram 2 - Evaluate an Option:
Here is my broad definition for an important term:
an Experiment is any activity (Mental or Physical)
that produces Experiences and
lets you make Predictions or make Observations.
For many years this was my favorite diagram because it
blends
art with logic, integrates Design and Science.
It will be easier to understand Diagram 3 after you
first see all three diagrams simultaneously, so you can get
a “big picture overview” that shows you how they all fit together.
Below is most of Diagram 1 (its bottom part has been removed)
and all of Diagram 2
and most of Diagram 3 (the same bottom part has been removed).
Where is Diagram 2 in Diagram 1 ?
Where is Diagram 1 in Diagram 3 ?
Where is Diagram 2 in Diagram 3 ?
How do the “extra parts” of Diagram 3 (its left & right sides) answer
the Mystery Question? (by explaining why 1 has a right-side arrow)
|
|
|
re: the questions "Where is Diagram X in Diagram Y ?",
most of Diagram 2 is inside “the gray box” of Diagram 1
(you see the result of "1-plus-2" on the left side below),
and 3 is basically a combination of 1-plus-2
(below, you can compare Diagram 1+ 2 with 3)
or in the language of mathematics, 1 + 2 = 3.
But it's only "basically" (not exactly) because
3 contains many new ideas. You can search
for them (and use hints for finding 22 new ideas)
in another page that lets you simultaneously see
the 3 full-diagrams, including “bottoms” for 1 & 3.
|
|
|
| |
Diagram 3 - a model for Design Process:
In Diagrams 1 & 3, the word "Cycle" shows that
you can choose the option of using an iterative Cycle
to let you improve an Option with Guided Generation when
critical Evaluation motivates-and-guides creative Generation
by revising the Old Option so it's a closer match with GOALS.
{ using a Cycle is optional, as explained in Action-Sequences }
the flexibility of Design Process
options for actions: The next section describes Action Sequences that people often use while we are solving a problem. These sequences – that are possible because we have Options for Actions – illustrate how people use a problem-solving process that is similar for almost everything we do, but is not identical, because our Problem-Solving Actions can be combined in many different ways by different people to solve different problems. / analogies for flexibility include roadmaps & flowcharts, music theory, a carpenter's tool belt, Lego bricks, and figure skaters:
two kinds of skaters: When you coordinate your Problem-Solving Process by making Action-Decisions about “what to do next” your flexible improvising IS analogous to the flexible goal-directed improvising of a hockey skater, but IS NOT like the rigid choreography of a figure skater. When people are solving problems, we often use...
three common Action-Sequences
These occur because they're functionally useful. You know that they help you make progress toward solving a problem, so when you're deciding “what to do next” the Sequences naturally occur, and you already are using them. Therefore you don't need to learn the sequences; instead you can just recognize that "Your Actions [in the Sequences] are the Problem-Solving Actions you see in the diagrams for Design Process."
one kind of Quality Check: Below, first look at only the left-side diagram. It shows the central part of Diagram 3 (without the text at top & bottom) so the Actions begin with GENERATE Options. In the unshaded region, follow the downward flow of action-verbs — Generate, Choose, Evaluate, DO by imagining to make, compare — and you're seeing a common Action Sequence. Why is it commonly used? Think about each pair of actions, and you'll see the logical motivation: when you're making Coordination Decisions, Generate logically leads to Choose (i.e. Generate ➞ Choose), then Choose ➞ Evaluate, and so on. Notice how each Action leads to the next Action. Why? Because when a person does one Action, they often think “I can make progress (toward Solving the Problem) if I use the results of this Action to do my next Action.” / Then in the region that is lightly shaded (to show that it's optional) follow the left-side arrow upward — compare ➞ use ➞ revise ➞ Generate (to complete a Design Cycle with Guided Generation) — in a continuation that is done often, but not always.
another kind of Quality Check: Now study the right-side diagram. It shows another possibility when you reach a branch point. Your decision to Evaluate This Option is followed by another decision; you can choose to Evaluate with either kind of Quality Check, with Predictions (as in left-side diagram) or with Observations (in right-side diagram). These two Quality Checks are analogous. In both you do similar verb-Actions in similar Action Sequences (Generate ➞ Choose ➞ make ➞ compare) because you have similar logical answers when asking “how can I make progress? what should I do next?”
 |
 |
 |
This is a Design Cycle that uses a
Predictions-Based Quality Check.
|
This is a Science Cycle that uses a
Reality Check.
|
This is a Design Cycle that uses an
Observations-Based Quality Check.
|
a different kind of Check: The middle diagram shows how you “use Science-Design during General Design” when you are surprised because Predictions are not matched by Observations. When this happens, an Evaluative Comparison (of Predictions & Observations) can help you decide how closely your personal Theory about “how the world works” (and thus “what will happen”) matches “how the world really works” (and “what really does happen”) in a Reality Check. After this Sequence (make-and-make ➞ compare) you can decide whether to continue (use ➞ revise) and Generate a Revised Theory.
What is (and isn't) shown in the diagrams of Design Process, e.g. in Diagram 3? Based on your experiences with these Action Sequences, you should be able to answer this question: Why is an Actions-Diagram like a “superimposed time-lapse photo” but not a snapshot photo?
other options: Of course, you also can do other kinds of Action-Sequences. For example, instead of deciding to Evaluate An Option, as in these three Check-Sequences, you might want to Generate Multiple Options (as in a creativity-stimulating strategy of Brainstorm-then-Edit) and delay Evaluation until later. This would involve a simple decision to “continue Generating Many Options” instead of “Evaluating One Option.” / Many other kinds of Action Sequences also are possible – by making different decisions at branch points – and each of these can be useful in some problem-solving situations. But these three Action Sequences are the most common.
using a roadmap-for-process: These three Action-Sequences (and others, like Brainstorm-then-Edit) illustrate how people use creative-and-critical thinking in many different ways while we are trying to solve problems and make things better. When you use these diagrams for problem solving it's analogous to using a map for traveling (by driving, biking, walking, or riding a bus) when you move to a new city. An external map gives you an accurate “big picture overview” of the city's physical geography and your options for traveling; this helps you form your own internal map (your mental map that's a mental model, is a mental representation) for the physical geography. A physical map helps you learn your options when you're moving from one place to another. Similarly, using Diagram 3 as a “flowchart map” will help you understand your options-for-Actions at the branch points where you can choose the paths you will travel in your problem-solving journey; and it helps you develop your internal mental maps of cognitive geography. / And with both maps, usually your map-using is temporary. After awhile, with experience – especially when you use metacognition consistently & effectively – you'll KNOW the physical geography of the city (and your options-for-traveling), and with practice you'll KNOW the cognitive geography of problem solving (and your Options-for-Actions). In another metaphor, you can view your Actions as problem-solving tools — analogous to those in the toolbelt of a carpenter (or mechanic, electrician, plumber,...) — and metacognition helps you improve your tool-choosing wisdom and tool-using effectiveness.
Because you already have done a lot of problem-solving practice in your past, instead of learning new strategies-for-process you can — by doing metacognitive reflections on your “process of thinking” — be recognizing your old strategies-for-process and connecting your process-experiences (old & new) with the process-principles in Design Process.
Whether you're using a roadmap or process-map, the map is useful only if it's accurate, and Design Process is accurate.
 a basic roadmap: In a very simple model for problem solving, you choose an Objective (for what you want to improve) and understand “what is” in the NOW-State, and imagine “how it could be better” in a future GOAL-State. Then you do “problem solving” to convert The Now-State into a Desired Goal-State. / I found this Old Model – it's “public domain” (is not part of Design Process) – by searching our collective memory. Its simplicity gives it practical cognitive utility and educational value. { terms: a Current Situation & Future Situation also can be called Now-State & Goal-State. And other terms are possible. }
When you develop your own mental model for problem-solving process, you are improving your ability to...
skillfully coordinate your process: You coordinate your Problem-Solving Process when you ask “what is the best way to make progress in my process?” and decide “what to do next” and do this Action. How? To make skillfully effective Action-Decisions you combine cognitive-and-metacognitive awareness of your process (of “where you are” and “where you want to go” in your process, and when you're at a branch point) with conditional know ledge about your Options-for-Action (by knowing what the Options are, and what each Action can do, and the conditions when a particular Action can be useful).
In two of the three common Action Sequences, if you choose to use a Quality Check and you "revise Option" to complete a Design Cycle, you are using...
Guided Generation: You are motivated to ask "revise Option?" (in Diagram 3) because you want to Generate a New Option that has a closer match between its Actual Properties (in your Predictions or Observations) and the Desired Properties (that are your GOALS for an Optimal Solution). During this process of critical-and-creative Guided Generation you are using critical Evaluation to motivate-and-guide your creative Generation. How? Your Quality Check provides guiding when you notice the differences between Actual Properties (of This Option) and Desired Properties (in your GOALS) so you ask “what is unsatisfactory, and how can these deficiencies be improved?” Your answers will help guide your critical-and-creative thinking when (for example) you use a creative strategy of “trying out” multiple New Options in quick iterative Cycles of Generation-and-Evaluation in which you “Generate-Evaluate-Generate-Evaluate...”.* During these repeating Cycles of Design you typically Evaluate by using Mental Experiments — because they're quick-and-easy, compared with Physical Experiments — and this is why Predictions-Based Quality Checks are the most common kind of Action Sequence. { although Mental Experiments are more common, Physical Experiments can be more important. } {* five kinds of strategies for creatively Generating Options } / Do you see how this paragraph answers the mystery-questions by explaining why-and-how we use Guided Generation?
The Design Question: When you compare an Option's Actual Properties (either Predicted or Observed) with the Desired Properties that you have defined as Your Goals for an Optimal Solution, why is this comparison called a Quality Check? Because you're asking “how high is the Quality?” (with Quality defined by your GOALS) when you ask “how close is the match?” You can think of either question — “how high...” or “how close...” or both — as The Design Question (aka The Engineering Question) that you ask for Evaluation during General Design (aka Design).
The Science Question: You can be motivated to compare Predictions with Observations – in a Reality Check – in two ways. Maybe your Main Objective is to intentionally test a Theory, so you're doing a project for Science-Design. Or maybe you unintentionally notice the comparison during a project for General Design, and you notice a mis-match between Predictions
& Observations, so you answer “yes” when asking “am I surprised?” with The Science Question.
|
three common Action Sequences – Part 2
 This section is in a gray box to show that it's optional, is a "Part 2" that duplicates much of the information from Part 1. But it can provide “added value” if you're in the mood for learning the sequences in a new way. Or you may want to explore the educational benefits produced by the two wide scopes of Design Process with my answers for asking “what? why? so what?”
Here are three Action-Sequences (⊡ ⊡ ...) that people often use:
⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ As described above {and shown in the highlighted parts of left-side diagram below}, in one kind of Action-Sequence (⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡) after you ⊡ Generate Options you ⊡ Choose an Option {in a second ⊡-Action}; to Evaluate this Option you can {in a set of ⊡-Actions} DO a Mental Experiment to make Predictions, and {in a fourth ⊡} you compare these Predictions with Goals in a Predictions-Based Quality Check; and maybe {it's an optional fifth ⊡} you "use QC" by asking "revise Option?" in a Design Cycle.
⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ In another Design Cycle that has analogous ⊡-Actions,* you Generate & Choose, then to "Evaluate this Option" you USE a Physical Experiment {as in right-side diagram} to make Observations that you compare with Goals in an Observations-Based Quality Check; and maybe you use QC and ask "revise Option?" {* both Design Cycles have the Actions of... ⊡ Generate, ⊡ Choose, ⊡ DO/USE to make, ⊡ compare, ⊡ use revise. }
⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ People can do Science-Design in different contexts. Here I'll describe {and you can see in the center diagram} how you Test Your Theory during a project for General Design: first, you ⊡ Generate Options, and ⊡ Choose an Option that you Evaluate in two ways, when you ⊡ DO a Mental Experiment to make Predictions, and ⊡ USE a Physical Experiment to make Observations; then you ⊡ compare the Predictions and Observations in a Reality Check and ask “am I surprised?” with The Science Question; if you answer “yes” (because Predictions are not matched by Observations), maybe you will ⊡ use RC by asking "revise Theory?" and if you decide Yes you will complete a Science Cycle by using Guided Generation to revise the Old Theory and Generate a New Theory; but you may decide No because you checked the Reality Check and found errors in its Predictions or Observations, or due to the influence of Cultural-Personal Factors in your Goals for a satisfactory Theory.
|
|
|
In a complete Design Cycle with a
Predictions-Based Quality Check
the Action-Sequence is... Generate and
Choose, DO-make, compare, use.
|
In a complete Science Cycle with a
Reality Check
your Action-Sequence is to Generate &
Choose, USE-make, compare, use.
|
In a complete Design Cycle with an
Observations-Based Quality Check
your Action-Sequence is to
Choose, DO-make+USE-make, compare, use.
|
These three common Action-Sequences — when you Evaluate in a Predictions-Based Quality Check, Evaluate in a Reality Check, Evaluate in an Observations-Based Quality Check — are highlighted (in areas that are unshaded & lightly shaded) in the three isolation diagrams. { a reminder: instead of Learning you are Recognizing. }
Why are these Action-Sequences commonly used? Because in each sequence “the next step” is functionally useful in helping you solve the problem. How is it useful? Because in Action-Sequences, including these & others, typically the sequence occurs when the result of one Action is used in the next Action. For example, after you ⊡ Generate one or more Options, ⊡ you Choose an Option that you want to Evaluate; ⊡ then with an Experiment you make Information (you DO a Mental Experiment to make Predictions, or USE a Physical Experiment to make Observations, or you do both), and ⊡ you compare the Information you've made (it's the Predictions or Observations) with Goals (in two kinds of Quality Check) or with each other (in a Reality Check); ⊡ then maybe you use this Evaluative Check to "revise" and Generate a New Option. / Then you can – as one alternative – decide to begin a new Action Sequence, when "first [after Generating Options] you Choose an Option to Evaluate." |
|
learning by discovering: When you explore the main diagrams in my model for problem solving, you will discover. You will understand the Problem-Solving Actions that people (you, me, and others) typically use when we are “making things better” by solving problems. These productive Actions are logically organized — so they're easier to understand, and are more effective for helping people (teachers & students, and others) improve their problem-solving skills — in my model for Design Process, i.e. for Problem-Solving Process.
