1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1474-273X
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0896

Abstract

Cognitive psychologists have identified that introducing manageable challenges into the learning environment, coined as ‘desirable difficulties’ by Robert Bjork, helps students retain knowledge more deeply over time. Handling small, workable obstacles in the learning process slows down the learner and can have positive effects on retention and application. The more effort learners must apply to retrieve knowledge for a concept or skill, the more this process of retrieval enriches learning. While there is established literature on desirable difficulty in the field of cognitive psychology, the theory has not been applied to design education. The characteristics of the signature pedagogy of design naturally contain many of the key markers of desirable difficulty that drive learning retention. This article summarizes the major scholarship around the concept of desirable difficulty and explores applications for the teaching and learning of design, specifically around the signature pedagogy elements of critique, the design process and project-based learning.

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00014_1
2020-04-01
2023-03-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atman, C., and Turns, J.. ( 2001;), ‘ Studying engineering design learning: Four verbal protocol studies. ’, in C. Eastman,, M. Newstetter, and W. McCracken. (eds), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Oxford:: Elsevier Science;, pp. 37–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baddeley, A., and Longman, D.. ( 1978;), ‘ The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. ’, Ergonomics, 21:8, pp. 627–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baird, L.. ( 1985;), ‘ Do grades and tests predict adult accomplishment?. ’, Research in Higher Education, 23:1, pp. 3–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barkley, E., and Major, C.. ( 2016), Learning Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, San Francisco, CA:: Jossey-Bass;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Battig, W.. ( 1979;), ‘ The flexibility of human memory. ’, in L. Cermak, and F. Craik. (eds), Levels of Processing in Human Memory, Hillsdale, NJ:: Erlbaum;, pp. 23–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bjork, E., and Bjork, R.. ( 2011;), ‘ Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. ’, in M. Gernsbacher,, R. Pew,, L. Hough, and J. Pomerantz. (eds), Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society, New York:: Worth Publishers;, pp. 56–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bjork, R.. ( 1994;), ‘ Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. ’, in J. Metcalfe, and A. Shimamura. (eds), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing, Cambridge, MA:: The MIT Press;, pp. 185–205.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bjork, R.. ( 1999;), ‘ Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. ’, in D. Gopher, and A. Koriat. (eds), Attention and Performance XVII: Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application, Cambridge, MA:: The MIT Press;, pp. 435–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bjork, R., and Bjork, E.. ( 2006;), ‘ Optimizing treatment and instruction: Implications of a new theory of disuse. ’, in L. Nilsson, and N. Ohta. (eds), Memory and Society: Psychological Perspectives, New York:: Psychology Press;, pp. 116–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Blair, B.. ( 2006;), ‘ At the end of a huge crit in the summer, it was “crap”–I’d worked really hard but all she said was “fine” and I was gutted. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5:2, pp. 83–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Boling, E.,, Siegel, M.,, Smith, K., and Parrish, P.. ( 2013;), ‘ Student goes on a journey; stranger rides into the classroom: Narratives and the instructor in the design studio. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 12:2, pp. 179–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Carpenter, S.. ( 2014;), ‘ Spacing and interleaving of study and practice. ’, in V. Benassi,, C. Overson, and C. Hakala. (eds), Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum, Washington, DC:: Society for the Teaching of Psychology;, pp. 131–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Carpenter, S.,, Lund, T.,, Coffman, C.,, Armstrong, P.,, Lamm, M., and Reason, R.. ( 2016;), ‘ A classroom study on the relationship between student achievement and retrieval-enhanced learning. ’, Educational Psychology Review, 28:2, pp. 353–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cennamo, K.. ( 2016;), ‘ What is studio?. ’, in E. Boling,, R. Schwier,, C. Gray,, K. Smith, and K. Campbell. (eds), Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases, New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Christina, R., and Bjork, R.. ( 1991;), ‘ Optimizing long-term retention and transfer. ’, in D. Druckman, and R. A. Bjork. (eds), In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance, Washington, DC:: National Academy Press;, pp. 23–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, C., and Bjork, R.. ( 2014;), ‘ When and why introducing difficulties and errors can enhance instruction. ’, in V. Benassi,, C. Overson, and C. Hakala. (eds), Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum, Washington, DC:: Society for the Teaching of Psychology;, pp. 20–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cross, N.. ( 2007), Designerly Ways of Knowing, Basel:: Birkhäuser;.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. d.school, Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford Website ( 2019;), ‘ 8 core abilities. ’, https://dschool.stanford.edu/about/. Accessed 10 April 2019.
  19. d.school, Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford Website ( 2018), The Design Thinking Bootleg, Stanford:: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design;, https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg. Accessed 26 July 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dannels, D.. ( 2005;), ‘ Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. ’, Communication Education, 54:2, pp. 136–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Davis, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ “Normal science” and the changing practices of design and design education. ’, Visible Language, 50:1, pp. 6–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Davis, M.. ( 2017), Teaching Design: A Guide to Curriculum and Pedagogy for College Design Faculty and Teachers Who Use design in Their Classroom, New York:: Allworth Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dempster, F.. ( 1989;), ‘ Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice. ’, Educational Psychology Review, 43:8, pp. 309–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dempster, F.. ( 1996;), ‘ Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and practice. ’, in E. Bjork, and R. Bjork. (eds), Memory, San Diego, CA:: Academic Press;, pp. 317–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dutton, T.. ( 1987;), ‘ Design and studio pedagogy. ’, Experiment with a Transformative Pedagogy, 41:1, pp. 16–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ehrlinger, J., and Shain, E.. ( 2014;), ‘ How accuracy in students’ self perceptions relates to success in learning. ’, in V. Benassi,, C. Overson, and C. Hakala. (eds), Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum, Washington, DC:: Society for the Teaching of Psychology;, pp. 142–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Glenberg, A.. ( 1992;), ‘ Distributed practice effects. ’, in L. Squire. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Learning and Memory, New York:: Macmillan;, pp. 138–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gray, W.. ( 2016), Unforgettable: Enabling Deep and Durable Learning, Eugene, OR: : Resource Publications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Haimovitz, K., and Dweck, C.. ( 2017;), ‘ The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal. ’, Child Development, 88:6, pp. 1849–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Halamish, V., and Bjork, R.. ( 2011;), ‘ When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. ’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37:4, pp. 801–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hattie, J., and Timperley, H.. ( 2007;), ‘ The power of feedback. ’, Review of Educational Research, 77:1, pp. 81–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Heyman, G.. ( 2008;), ‘ Talking about success: Implications for achievement motivation. ’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29:5, pp. 361–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaplan, M.,, Sliver, N.,, LaVaque-Manty, D., and Meizlish, D.. ( 2013), Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy, Sterling, VA:: Stylus;.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Karpicke, J.. ( 2017;), ‘ Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. ’, in J. Karpicke. (ed.), Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology, Cambridge:: Elvesier;, n.pag.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kerr, R., and Booth, B.. ( 1978;), ‘ Specific and varied practice of motor skill. ’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46:2, pp. 395–401.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Klebesadel, H., and Kornetsky, L.. ( 2009;), ‘ Critique as signature pedagogy in the arts. ’, in R. Gurung,, N. Chick, and A. Haynie. (eds), Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind, Sterling, VA:: Stylus Publishing;, pp. 99–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kornell, N.,, Hays, M., and Bjork, R.. ( 2009;), ‘ Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. ’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35:4, pp. 989–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kornell, N., and Metcalfe, J.. ( 2014;), ‘ The effects of memory retrieval, errors and feedback on learning. ’, in V. Benassi,, C. Overson, and C. Hakala. (eds), Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum, Washington, DC:: Society for the Teaching of Psychology;, pp. 225–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kornell, N., and Vaughn, K. E.. ( 2016;), ‘ How retrieval attempts affect learning: A review and synthesis. ’, in B. H. Ross. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, San Diego, CA:: Elsevier Academic Press;, pp. 183–215.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Land, R.,, Meyer, J., and Smith, J.. ( 2008), Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines, Rotterdam:: Sense Publishers;.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lang, J.. ( 2016), Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning, San Francisco, CA:: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer;.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Langley, D., and Zelaznik, H.. ( 1984;), ‘ The acquisition of time properties associated with a sequential motor skill. ’, Journal of Motor Behavior, 16:3, pp. 275–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lawson, B.. ( 2006), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, , 4th ed.., Oxford and Burlington, MA:: Elsevier and Architectural Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lawson, B., and Dorst, K.. ( 2009), Design Expertise, Oxford:: Architectural Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lerner, F.. ( 2012;), ‘ Liberating foundations of art and design. ’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31:2, pp. 140–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Mannes, S., and Kintsch, W.. ( 1987;), ‘ Knowledge organization and text organization. ’, Cognition & Instruction, 4:2, pp. 91–115.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Motley, P.. ( 2017;), ‘ Critique and process: Signature pedagogies in the graphic design classroom. ’, Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 16:3, pp. 229–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mueller, C., and Dweck, C.. ( 1998;), ‘ Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75:1, pp. 33–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Newstetter, W., and McCracken, W.. ( 2001;), ‘ Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. ’, in C. Eastman,, M. Newstetter, and W. McCracken. (eds), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Oxford:: Elsevier Science;, pp. 63–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Ogan, A.,, Aleven, V., and Jones, C.. ( 2009;), ‘ Advancing development of intercultural competence through supporting predictions in narrative video. ’, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19:3, pp. 267–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Orr, S., and Shreeve, A.. ( 2018), Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum, Abingdon and New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Osmond, J., and Tovey, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ The threshold of uncertainty in teaching design. ’, Design and Technology Education, 20:2, pp. 50–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Percy, C.. ( 2004;), ‘ Critical absence versus critical engagement. Problematics of the crit in design learning and teaching. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2:3, pp. 143–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rittel, H., and Webber, M.. ( 1973;), ‘ Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. ’, Policy Sciences, 4:2, pp. 155–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Roediger, H., and Karpicke, J.. ( 2006;), ‘ Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. ’, Psychological Science, 17:3, pp. 249–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Salomon, G., and Perkins, D.. ( 1989;), ‘ Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. ’, Educational Psychologist, 24:2, pp. 113–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Schmidt, R.. ( 1991;), ‘ Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. ’, in J. Requin, and G. Stelmach. (eds), Tutorials in Motor Neuroscience, Boston:: Kluwer Academic Publishers;, pp. 59–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Schmidt, R., and Bjork, R.. ( 1992;), ‘ New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. ’, Psychological Science, 3:4, pp. 207–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schmidt, R.,, Young, D.,, Swinnen, S., and Shapiro, D.. ( 1989;), ‘ Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis. ’, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15:2, pp. 352–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schooler, L., and Anderson, J.. ( 1990;), ‘ The disruptive potential of immediate feedback. ’, in L. Schooler, and J. Anderson. (eds), Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ:: Erlbaum;, n.pag.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Schrand, T., and Eliason, J.. ( 2012;), ‘ Feedback practice and signature pedagogies: What can the liberal arts learn from the design critique?. ’, Teaching in Higher Education, 17:1, pp. 51–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Shea, J., and Morgan, R.. ( 1979;), ‘ Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. ’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5:2, pp. 179–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Shreeve, A., and Batchelor, R.. ( 2012;), ‘ Designing relations in the studio: Ambiguity and uncertainty in one to one exchanges. ’, Design and Technology Education, 17:3, pp. 20–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Shulman, L.. ( 2005;), ‘ Signature pedagogies in the professions. ’, Daedalus, 134:3, pp. 52–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Simon, D., and Bjork, R.. ( 2001;), ‘ Metacognition in motor learning. ’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27:4, pp. 907–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Simpson, A.. ( 2012;), ‘ Design structures: Improving the quality of in-class design critiques. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11:1, pp. 63–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Smith, S.,, Glenberg, A., and Bjork, R.. ( 1978;), ‘ Environmental context and human memory. ’, Memory & Cognition, 6:4, pp. 342–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Soderstrom, N., and Bjork, R.. ( 2015;), ‘ Learning versus performance: An integrative review. ’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10:2, pp. 176–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. van Dooren, E.,, Boshuizen, E.,, Merriënboer, J.,, Asselbergs, T., and Dorst, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Making explicit in design education: Generic elements in the design process. ’, International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24:1, pp. 53–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Wagner, L.,, Schindler, S., and Reinhard, M.. ( 2017;), ‘ The positive facet of self-compassion predicts self-reported use of and attitudes toward desirable difficulties in learning. ’, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, n.pag.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Winker, D.. ( 1997;), ‘ Design practice and education: Moving beyond the Bauhaus model. ’, in J. Frascara. (ed.), User-Centered Graphic Design: Mass Communications and Social Change, London:: Taylor & Francis;, pp. 129–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Winstein, C., and Schmidt, R.. ( 1990;), ‘ Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. ’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16:4, pp. 677–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Rutherford, Sarah. ( 2020;), ‘ Using desirable difficulty concepts to enhance durable learning in design education. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 19:1, pp. 65–79, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00014_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00014_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): cognitive psychology; design; design education; desirable difficulty; learning; retention; signature pedagogy

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error