Kamarul Research Proposal - 270611

7/31/2019 Kamarul Research Proposal - 270611

1/33


2/33

innovatively than architecture; hence, a comparative analysis of the application of digital

technology in two visual arts fields could be useful. However, as I got closer the

complementary disciplines (industrial design and architecture), my perception of the situation

seemed to change. A review of literature on the subject suggests a similarity between the two

fields; it seems some tools or strategies used are limiting students' creativity and innovation.

Despite the increasing use of digital technologies in design today, many researchers (Al-Doy& Evans, 2010; Dorta, Perez, & Lesage, 2008; Ibrahim & Pour Rahimian, 2010; Jonson,

2005) hold view that digital tools and processes have been restricting creativity. A July 2008

survey of entirely digital industrial design process, administered to one hundred graduates

from twenty-two universities in the United Kingdom, suggest a negative attitude towards

such an approach. The outcome of a questionnaire accompanied by three A4 cards of visual

aids, suggest participants resistance to the complete eradication of manual industrial design

process. It was argued by the participants that the proposed complete digital design strategy

limits creative thinking (Al-Doy & Evans, 2010).

The lack of creativity in digital design process may stem from being short of systematic

concept generation, development and specification phases of design from inception. Dorta

(2008) explains that mostly during the representation task, a concept has already been

identified. A study done by Ibrahim (2010) found that although current conventional

Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools are advantageous for detailed engineering design

articulation, they hinder novice designers' creativity due to their intuitive ideation limitation

(Ibrahim & Pour Rahimian, 2010). Ben Jonson (2005) also argues that CAD systems are not

tools for ideation (creative process). Commercial CAD systems tend to be driven by

production needs that focus on automating routine tasks and on increasing drawing

productivity (Jonson, 2005). Tomas Dorta (2008) agrees with this, stating that the CAD

systems just serve representation but not ideation. Even with the use of generative parametric

solutions, designers still cannot express their actual intentions (Dorta, et al., 2008).

Interestingly in business, Shneiderman (2007) claims that many available creativity software

tools today focus on serving professionals such as business decision makers to stimulate the

decision making process. Shneiderman (2007) adds that the advantage of applying the

creativity techniques through software is that it helps business decision makers to track their

design decisions or revert to earlier stages when needed. Steven and Burley (1997) argue that

to be successful in this globalised economy, businesses must grow based on the speed at

which they can discover, develop and implement ides for new products and services; thus to

have these kinds of support tool to encourage creativity to emerge is important for any

businesses.

This has led me to look the whole current issue of creativity and innovation in design and

other emerging digital technologies that might have potential to enhance the first year design

teaching and learning.

2.3 Study Background2.3.1 Creativity and Innovation

At the beginning of the 21st century, leaders and visionaries in the business and

education communities jointly recommended that the current generations success

depends on its innovative and creative skills (A.C.O.T., 2008; Casner-Lotto & Board,

2006). Creativity is an important topic of broad scope at both the individual and

societal levels due to its wide range of task domains. At an individual level, creativityis relevant to solving problems on the job and in daily life. At a societal level, it leads

to new scientific findings, fresh movements in arts, novel inventions, and the latest


3/33

social developments. The importance of creativity on the economic front is clear due

to the creation of new products or services that cumulatively generate more jobs (R.

Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).

Traditional descriptions of creativity often emphasise creative personalities such as

Picasso and Einstein, whose special talents are said to come along once in a

generation to change the world. Therefore, many people excuse themselves frombeing creative because they say that creativity is a natural talent possessed only by a

few. Such highly creative talent is born, and therefore creativity cannot be learned.

Furthermore, many people also often consider creativity to be most obvious in the

work of artists, and others of artistic persuasion such as architects and musicians.

However, the modern belief of many teachers and researchers is that creativity can be

taught, and that everyone can be creative (Grube & Schmid, 2008; Richardson, Hupp,

& Seethaler, 2003; Shneiderman, 2007), especially if guided by creativity techniques

(Grube & Schmid, 2008).

Creativity itself is a big topic (R. J. Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). It can be studied in

many ways. This ranges from capabilities of the person (the designer), through to theprocess (of designing), to the outcome (the product) and to the press (environment) (P.

Badke-Schaub, 2005; Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). Creativity and innovation

is also studied across several disciplines such as education, computer science and

economic. As a result, there are a multitude of definitions and approaches (R.

Sternberg, 2006). However, in general, the term creativity and innovation are

etymologically unrelated (Pahl, Newnes, & McMahon, 2007). There are differences

between creativity and innovation; each process, risks, starting point, and climates and

consequences are wide and varied (Herrmann, 1999). Therefore understanding the

differences between these two can lead to the optimisation of both, because we need

both (Herrmann, 1999).

Creativity and innovation were traditionally two adjacent, yet separate, research

fields. The first was mostly dealt with by psychologists, the second mainly by

economists (Legrenzi, 2005). That is why these days, it is hard to surf through a

journal, academic or popular, without coming across a psychology or business related

article that dwells on the subject of creativity and innovation. Pahl et al. (2007),

explanation for this trend stems from such disciplines researchers experience in the

identification of creativity and innovation.

2.3.2 Design Education and Pedagogy

The significance of creativity and innovation to uphold our societys presenteconomic status is apparent. Creativity is the key to achieving a better standard of

living; this makes creativity an important pedagogic element education (Robinson,

2010).

Lawson (1997) and Loke (1997) claim that architecture and industrial design are often

considered as the middle of the spectrum of all the design professions. Time and

again, these fields are associated with creativity and innovation (Dorst & Cross,

2001). Terms such as creativity and innovation are frequently used when referring

to the design process (Warr & O'Neill, 2005). Certainly, today's students need to

develop the products of tomorrow; and one way of encouraging and promoting

creativity and innovation is through designing and making (Morley, 2009).The design studio socially, physically, and pedagogically occupies the premier

position in design education (Bailey, 2008). It is a problem-based setting as design


4/33

itself is a knowledge rich activity tied to design process. Here, designers seek to

bridge the gap between technology and the user. Furthermore, Bailey (2008) added

that a broad variety of design issues and modes of thought expose students in the early

design studio education. It is crucial to prepare them for future academic challenges.

Motorola (2001) holds the view that a creative and innovative student has the

potential to develop richer design ideas, and in the longer term, makes a valuable

contribution to society at large.

Studio teaching is achieved though project based learning techniques, where a varietyof real or hypothetical situations enables students take unexpected decisions. This

develops them to become critically aware, and subsequently express their intentions

or choices in visual form. These problems or projects are diverse situations with

different approaches, themes, focuses, and contexts requiring the student to rely on the

conversations that come out of a series of events which individually and collectively,

contributeto meeting these objectives (Bailey, 2008).

In the early 1990s, Kwan (2001) realised the emergence of one particular form of

design studio that investigates various possibilities of digital media to learning andexploring of architectural design. It moves the design education beyond conventional

boundaries and curricula, and engages participants socially from diverse backgrounds,

locations and fields (Ham & Schnabel, 2011). Web-enhanced design studio research is

one of the branches. Web-enhanced design studio research has evolved over a period

of 10 years. As online technologies have evolved, this research has focused on the use

of Web2.0 technologies to enhance learning (Ham & Schnabel, 2011).

2.3.3 Creativity Techniques

According to Senguttuvan and Sambanthan (2004), there are many creativity

techniques available that can help in stimulating creativity. Some have very specificfunctions and others use words, associations, or pictures to prompt the user to take

new, unexplored directions in their thought patterns. This activity can help users break

cyclic patterns, get past mental blocks, or overcome procrastination.

Nemiro (2008) claims that, in general, creativity techniques have been classified into

two major categories: linear and intuitive approaches. With linear techniques, an

individual or team consciously decides to creatively attack a problem using one or

more techniques to clarify the problem and produce ideas for solving it. Linear

approaches for idea generation give a structure within which to seek and find other

solutions. Solutions are arrived at using a logical pattern or sequence of steps.

Intuitive techniques assist individuals or teams in achieving an inner state ofcalmness, out of which unpredictable inspirations or insights may appear. There is

little or no sense of a structured path through which a solution emerges, as there is in

linear approaches. Consequently, solutions spring forth, often leaving an individual

feeling surprised as to the origin of those creative thoughts. Nemiro (2008) argues that

in the pursuit of optimal creativity, both linear and intuitive approaches are necessary.

Therefore, architects and designers in the making usually apply both systems

simultaneously.

A key feature of any creativity technique is bombarding the user with many ideas.

This is critical because it helps him to move away from an analytic mode into a

creative mode. Psychological research indicates that people tend to anchor theirthoughts early on, using their first idea as springboard for other ideas. Therefore

subsequent ideas may not be significantly new, but simply minor variations of the


5/33

original idea (Senguttuvan & Sambanthan, 2004). Tuttle (1995) explains that a

creativity technique is to create linkages from the problem statement through example

some trigger words (or trigger visual images) to a new idea (Tuttle, 1995).

Shneiderman (2007) added that creativity techniques enable users to create visual

representations of relationships among words or concepts, which allows users to

create relationships among information easily, by identifying relationships between

items or branches (Shneiderman 2007). The user can overcome routine thinking andstimulate creative thought by using specific creativity techniques that will help both

stimulate and constrain their mind so that it can solve problems more effectively and

generate more ideas (Senguttuvan & Sambanthan, 2004).

However, although creativity can be learnt, it needs exercising; it is like learning to

ride a bicycle. It can sometimes be painful, frustrating (Welch, 2006) and

uncomfortable, but it is the only way to make something happen (Clegg & Birch,

2002). Like tools, creativity techniques work only if an individual has been trained in

the proper procedures of applying them, and selection of the appropriate one/s to fit

the task at hand (Tuttle, 1995). Generally, creativity techniques are used to unblock

the mind, hence, the more exercises a designer completes, the greater the chances ofproducing qualitative ideas. Bashir (2011) claims that the more exercises the user

performs, the more unblocked and confident they become, and the more fun and

radical will be the ideas generated (Bashir, 2011).

2.3.4 Lateral Thinking

The idea of adopting creativity systems during the design process is to push the user

away from the well-trodden path in order to obtain a different viewpoint; this is

generated by forcing the user to do something beyond his normal capacity (Clegg &

Birch, 2002). To think differently or to think out-of-the-box has always been

associated with the concept of lateral thinking. Lateral thinking is closely related to

creativity, but whereas creativity is too often only the description of the result, lateral

thinking is the description of the process (Howieson & Fiaella, 2002).The definition

of lateral thinking found in a number of dictionaries is seeking to solve problems by

unorthodox or apparently illogical methods (Howieson & Fiaella, 2002). The term

lateral thinking may previously have been used informally, but nowadays it is almost

universally associated with the body of work written by de Bono over many decades

(Dingli, 2008).

de Bono devised various techniques to support lateral thinking using descriptive

names such as: The Six Thinking hats, Challenge, The Creative Pause,

Alternatives, Concepts, The Random Input, The Simple Focus, The

Concept Fan, The Escape Provocation, The Stepping-Stone Provocation.

Movement, The Stratals and The Filament Techniques (Rosenbaum, 2001).

Gray (2010) claims that thinking creatively with Random Input (words or pictures) is

suitable for most age groups kindergarten through graduate school (Gray, 2010)

and it is simple yet powerful (Richardson, et al., 2003). Random words or pictures are

triggered or introduced during the design process. The application of random

technique involves first the definition of the problem; second, the introduction of a

random element for example, a word selected from the dictionary or a magazine;

third, an association between the word and the problem is established.

According to Dingli (2008), the idea in the use of lateral thinking contradicts thetheory of creativity as an ascribed status and not an achievement. Moreover, it implies

the chance of utilising simple methods for a wide of range or individuals to generate


6/33

ideas on demand within a short timeframe. Dingli adds that lateral thinking is also

based on the assumption that the human brain is a self-organising information-

processor with output that depends on both internal and external environments and on

previous experience. Through the use of lateral thinking, established cognitive

patterns are deliberately disrupted and information is processed differently, increasing

the chances of individuals arriving at novel perspectives (Dingli, 2008).

Edward de Bono coined the term Lateral Thinking in the book New Think: The Use

of Lateral Thinking published in 1967. It primarily refers to solving problems

through an indirect and creative approach. It is about reasoning that is not

immediately obvious and ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional

step-by-step logic or critical thinking (Alexander, 2010).

"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to

irrigate deserts." (C.S. Lewis, British Scholar and Novelist 1898-

1963)

By quoting C.S Lewis above, Alexander (2010) further explains that whereas critical

thinking is primarily concerned with judging the true value of statements and seekingerrors much like cutting down jungles, lateral thinking is more concerned with the

movement value of statements and ideas, which is much in line with irrigating

deserts (Alexander, 2010).

Dingli (2008) views that, as opposed to other methods of idea generation, lateral

thinking may be used not only for problem solving but also for design purposes and

for constructive thinking. Opportunities may be created or exploited in various areas,

including science, technology, management, education, economics and policy making.

Sutcliffe (1997) summarises the benefits and limitations of lateral thinking, and states

that the potential is clearly to create many, if not wholly new ways of thinking, aboutall sort of things (not only practical or material problems); the limitation is quite

simply that not every idea is a good one.

2.3.5 The 2nd

Digital Revolution and Todays Students

Digital is a term that is often used when referring to electronic media in the 1990s. In

a broad sense, digital refers to media which provide for users a high level of choice

and interactivity, because the bits and bytes can be rearranged and transmitted so

easily. Bainbridge (2009) says that today's digital age has its roots in the 1950s,when

television entered the homes of most Americans. Technological advancements and

communication are an integral part of a progressive culture and society. Specificforms of entertainment and communication, such as television, telephone and talking

movies were once viewed as entertaining and innovative; now serve a fundamental

role within communities and the majority of public life. According to Dresang (2008),

the years between 1960 and 1990 can be thought of as the formative stage of the

digital age. Barnatt (2001) quotes:

This first digital revolution has ended, the twenty-first century has witnessedthe dawn of a Second Digital Revolution. As a result of the Second Digital

Revolution, computers have become more commonplace and the Internet has

become a locale where children can learn and play(Barnatt, 2001).

For most of history children grew up in a situation of intellectual darkness until they

heard about the outside world in their classroom surroundings, thus the beginning of

intellectual enlightenment (M. Prensky, 2008). Blanchard (2011), in contrasts, views


7/33

that todays children begin their journey with an understanding of the outside world at

a much younger age with the help of technological advancements like the Internet and

the use of social media.

The Net Generation (Tapscott, 2009) or the Digital Natives (M Prensky, 2001), are

first of their kind and are defined by their upbringing filled with the use of new

technologies from an early age (M Prensky, 2001). Blanchard (2011) says that for thisgeneration growing up with technological evolution, the time needed to find

information has diminished tremendously; they demand answers immediately

(Blanchard, 2011). This generation is also known for its multitasking ability; Oser

(2005) explains that students often do their homework while listening to music,

chatting with their friends on instant messaging programmes like MSN, and browsing

through the Internet.

Kane (2005) claims that it is only recently that the architectural profession has

become aware of a subtle but important change taking place within design studios in

recent years. We have begun to see for the first time an emerging generation of young

architects who are true children of the digital age. Their immersion since childhood in

the world of computer hardware and software has given them a natural ease with

digital technology. And unlike the generation before them who have had to live

through a period of adjustment, perceiving technology as interference to their work,

the new generation has an expectation of ubiquitous technology. This age band views

technology as an enabler, rather than a disabler, helping the creation, realisation, and

communication of their ideas (Kane, 2005).

2.3.6 Social Network Systems (SNSs)

The term "Web 2.0" was coined in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci (DiNucci, 2009;

Ritzel, 2011). According to Click (2010), the term Web 2.0 is associated with web

applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-

centred design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows

users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as

creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to

websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that

was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites (SNSs),

blogs, wikis, video-sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and

folksonomies (Click & Petit, 2010).

According to Bainbridge (2009), the social networking Web site is one type of this

Web 2.0 innovation that has been popularly embraced among college students and

young adults. The number of people using them have grown considerably in the new

millennium (Huberman, Romero, & Wu, 2009). The evolution of the social

networking systems like Facebook and MySpacehave given a new perspective to the

aspect of creativity and innovation (Sielis, Tzanavari, & Papadopoulos, 2009). Read

(2005) and Bugeja (2006) claim that Facebook has proven to be one of the fastest

growing communication modes adopted by campus communities.

Blanchard (2011) defines social media as content created by people using highly

accessible and scalable publishing technologies. He adds that the medium is part of a

new movement in technological advancements brought on by the use of Web2.0, such

as wikis, blogs, virtual communities, and websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and

YouTube, which maintain online communities essentially for learning and

socialisation.


8/33

On a positive note, these technologies provide new opportunities for personal

academic development. Griffin (2010) claims that the success of the Facebook

website and its peers has led the university to explore how they might use social

networking sites to engage with their students. If used well, these technologies canenhance students learning by facilitating collaboration, innovation and creativity

individually and collectively (Griffin, 2010). However, Moyle (2010) maintains that

the benefits offered by Web 2.0 social networking technologies for learning dependsupon the teaching and learning approaches used.

2.4 Problem Statement

Design studio education has a long history. Design studio promotes learning outcomes that

focus on process (Grant & Manuel, 1995). Casalegno and Sass (2006) traced the beginnings

of design studio education to French Architecture Schools in 1823. The MIT Boston

architecture school adopted this model in 1860. The design studio is characterised as an open-

plan collaborative environment where students pursue the work of their peers through formal

presentations and casual conversations (Casalegno & Sass, 2006). Ashton and Durling (2000)

speak of appraisal situations that allow students to check whether they are on the right track

and doing the right things (Ashton & Durling, 2000). Such reflection-in-action has been

recognised as one of the most important learning strategies in design studio education (Schn,

1987).

There are also growing demands from different sources threatening the studio culture around

the world. Major shifts in tertiary education and professional practice are taking place that

pose significant threats for the future of the studio (Higgins, Aitken-Rose, & Dixon, 2009).

Higgins et al. (2009) add that these shifts both challenge the role of the studio as traditionally

used for teaching, and enhance its purpose as a key tool for preparing planning students for a

very different professional future.

Higgins et al. (2009) also reports that there are some tensions in the teaching studio. Issuesidentified by the staff of this resource can be broken down to the staff, space and material.

Studios are typically timetabled for eight hours a week in the first two years of the four-year

undergraduate programme; this reduces in the third year to four hours a week, and in the

fourth to three hours a week (Higgins, et al., 2009). Timing can pose problems for both staff

and students. For staff, the longer student contact times carry obvious demands, particularly

in a culture with increasing research and administrative pressures and rising student numbers.

Higgins et al. (2009) also point out that there are institutional pressures for further efficient

use of space and resources, as student numbers have risen and not been met by equal

increases in budgets. Internal budgeting practices can make it hard for faculties to retain largeteaching spaces for the use of particular groups of students (Higgins, et al., 2009). In addition,

students are becoming more demanding that their individual circumstances should be

accommodated (Duggan, 2004). These trends can challenge traditional approaches to

classroom-based forms of instruction and intensive studios.

Furthermore, developing lateral thinking skills also has already become a pedagogical

challenge to many educators (Waks, 1997). As for the beginner design student, the design

process in the first years of design education is intricate and not always understood. Casakin

(2007) explains that the application of knowledge transmitted by the design teacher to solve a

design problem demands some level of expertise and skill that novice student do not always

have. In the same view, Siong and Basuki (2010) argue that the ability to generate ideas does

depend on the individual knowledge and experiences. Ferrari (2009) claims that the processes

of creativity and innovation in education cannot just depend on the unexpected incidental

number of individuals with determination and insight; it needs a support mechanism or

models that allow and facilitate creativity to emerge.


9/33

Casakin (2007) views that design tools are considered as a major aid for helping beginner

students overcome their lack of knowledge and experience. Creativity techniques have been

incorporated in design methodology from the early days (Van der Lugt, 2000) and have

traditionally been used to generate new product ideas (Plucker & Stamp, 1999). Shneiderman

(2002) maintains that creativity support tools empower more people to be more creative more

often. Such tools, if systematically applied, could maximise the teaching and learning process

(Van Tassel-Baska, 2004). The exploratory study (Kowaltowski, Bianchi, & de Paiva, 2009)on the application of creativity techniques, as found in literature, that may enhance creativity

with design faculty of architecture courses around the world shows how these techniques

really help users to stimulate the decision-making process. The results of this inquiry also

indicate that design instructors apply methods that may stimulate creativity mostly

informally, with some positive results.

However, despite various creativity methods and tools being developed over the past four

decades to empower more people to be more creative more often, the little empirical evidence

of their effectiveness is generally weak. More in-depth surveys on the potential application of

these specific methods and techniques is needed. Shah (2003) and Kowaltowski et al. (2009)

propose that the effectiveness of these creativity techniques needs to be objectively studied(Shah, Smith, Vargas-Hernandez, Gerkens, & Wulan, 2003) and should be tested in the

design studio in relation to their effective and productive support of the design processes of

students (Kowaltowski, et al., 2009).

Furthermore, exploring how to enhance and the assist creative process with new digital

innovation is also a growing field of research. As Prensky (2001; 2005) notes, the tools of the

20th

Century are analogue while tools of the 21st

century are digital. Just as Galileo and

Jefferson employed the telescope and pantograph, contemporary inventors use computer-

based software tools (Shneiderman, 2007). According to Duggan (2004), the use of

technology opens up previously unimagined possibilities, as learning through use of the

internet (Duggan, 2004). Schnabel (2011) maintains that digital technologies moves designeducation beyond conventional boundaries and curricula, and engages participants socially

from diverse backgrounds, locations, and fields. Researchers such as Bainbridge (2009) and

Roblyer (2010) view that the spectrum of possibilities of these emerging technologies for the

academy need to be fully considered or scientifically researched (Bainbridge, 2009). Fisher

(2000) sees the future for studio as more electronic, flexible, tolerant, and permeable and

argues that disciplines need to move to the next stage of existence and delivery.

New models are now emerging in response to changing trends (Fisher, 2000). In the early

1990s, academics became fascinated within Virtual Design Studios (VDS) (Kvan, 2001;

McCullough, Mitchell, & Purcell, 1990; Shelden, Bharwani, Mitchell, & Williams, 1995).

While at the beginning technological experiments were of prime concern, pedagogicalprinciples in VDS settings were examined shortly thereafter (Kvan, 2001). Kvan argues that

in VDS, the tutor has to consider diverse settings and new media and conventions of

communication in order to achieve the desired learning effect of reflection-in-action.

The SNS trend is a relatively new one and little research has been reported on its acceptance

and use in education (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010). Neale and Rusell-

Bennett (2009) state that Social Networking Systems (SNSs) such as Facebook are one of the

new emerging trends and the newest examples of communication technologies that have been

widely adopted as the communications method of the student, yet research on these emerging

social networking systems is rare (Neale & Russell-Bennett, 2009).

Despite the fact that Facebook has become one of the fastest growing communication

methods in campus communities (Bugeja, 2006; Read, 2005), much current popular press


10/33

coverage is primarily focused on negative aspects of Facebook (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe,

2007). A recent study (Roblyer, et al., 2010) of Facebook that was published in the Internet

and Higher Education Journal involved 182 people (62 faculty members and 120 students) in

a mid-sized southern university in USA being surveyed on their use of Facebook and email

technologies. The survey has pointed out that faculty members have a track record of

prohibiting classroom use of these technologies because they perceive role of this tool as

social rather than educational. However, the findings concluded that students seem muchmore open to the idea of using Facebook instructionally, while faculty is likely to adopt a

technology if they perceive it as a way to assist contact with students and classroom support

tool. Roblyer (2010) believes that the growing popularity of SNSs indicates that by providing

additional possibilities and purposes for interactions among students and faculty, social

communication can become a contributor to successful teaching and learning.

There are two recent studies on Web2.0 technologies and SNSs that focuses on design studio

education. Schadewitz and Zamenopoulos (2009) have conducted research to explore the

possible role of Facebook to support distance design education involving second level part-

time students at the Open University, UK, while Ham and Schnabel (2011) have trailed the

significant potential of Web2.0 technologies such as Skype, Ning.com and YouTube inenhancing architectural design studio learning outcomes. The study by Ham and Schnabel

(2011) involved third year students at the Deakin University and the Chinese University of

Hong Kong. Both studies have reported interesting findings. Schadewitz and Zamenopoulos

(2009) found that the main role of Facebook group for distance design learning was that it

created an ambient awareness, where students knew what others were feeling, thinking, and

doing locally. In the other study, Ham and Schnabel (2011) conclude that the Web2.0

technologies create learning environments that relate to, and respond to the needs of the net

generation.

Shao et al. (2007) recently argued that the level of social engagement in Social Network Sites

(SNS) mirrors the practices and patterns of traditional design studios. In both settings,dialogue among peers and with tutors takes a prominent role (Shao, Daley, & Vaughan,

2007). Boyd et al. (2008) define SNSs as web-based services that allow individuals to (1)

construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other

users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connectionsand those made by others within the system. In SNS, dialogue between groups of friends or

peers is the central activity. Discourse and communication are key aspects in building online

communities. For example, one of Facebooks prominent features is the newsfeeds, which

are automatic notifications of changes in a friends life online. These updates create ambient

awareness where one can sense the mood, interests and views of a friend.

For example, Mazer et al. (2007) report that participants who accessed the Facebook websiteof a teacher high in self-disclosure anticipated higher levels of motivation and affective

learning and a more positive classroom climate (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007).

Although many of the social relationships that are developed in SNS are weak-ties, it has

been found that weak-ties may significantly expand a persons ability to solve problems

(Thompson, 2008). In VDS settings, weak-ties might offer creativity beyond the known

world of ideas among intimate friends. Gaining ambient awareness of activities of weak-tie

peers allows for building trust, which is a prerequisite for collaborative design learning

(Kvan, 2001). It is important, because distributed design students will not share their learning

through practical experiences with co-students if they do not trust them. Literature suggests

that a strong reason for participating in SNS is to strengthen their relation to existing, even

though weak-tie friends and their affiliation to university or even a specific university course(Boyd & Ellison, 2008). In his presentation of statistical data on the use of social media,


11/33

Scholz (2007) notes that reasons for using these media were, among others, to spark ones

creativity to archive and distribute artwork and find like minded people (Scholz, 2007).

In the illumination of these findings, a strong argument can be made for using social network

sites, such as Facebook in design education. Web2.0 technologies and SNSs have been

explored in diverse learning settings, however we know little about the application of

Facebook and its potential role to facilitate lateral thinking processes in first-year designeducation. This study looks at Facebook as the most popular SNS which could be employed

in the first-year design education, and explores its potential role.

2.5 Research Question

The central question for this research is:-

Given the significance of creativity techniques to stimulate creative thinking in the design

process and the potential of current digital Social Networking Systems (SNSs) to enhance

teaching and learning, how can Social Network Systems (SNSs) be effectively used as a

design studio in supporting the process of lateral thinking in the first-year students of design

education?

2.6 Research Purpose

In this study I will examined the potential of Web2.0 and Social Networking Sites (SNSs)

such as Facebook in first-year design education. The study will be conducted at the School of

Architecture and Design at the Victoria University of Wellington (VUW), New Zealand. The

study involves two pilot studies and two case studies. Both first-year architectural and

industrial design students who are taking part in SARC111, SARC112 and DSDN104 studio

are chosen as potential participants in this study.

There will be two studies involved. The purpose of the first study is to investigate student

attitudes towards, perception and interaction of using the SNSs such as Facebook as

facilitating tools in a first-year design education. The interactions will be analysed using

qualitative content analysis and social network analysis. As for the second study, the aim is to

examine the effectiveness of the lateral thinking approach used through the Facebook group

created. The outcomes of study two will be evaluated using Torrances Test of Creative

Thinking (TTCT) which consists of fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration of ideas

generated.

Both studies also help to identify the differences between first-year architectural and

industrial design studio education. The experience of the individual student participant taking

the first-year architectural course is contrasted with that of the individual student participant

taking the first-year industrial design course enrolled in a full time programme.

2.7 Significance of the Research

This study focuses only on the learners perceptions and is intended to provide information

for design educators who are interested in introducing these technologies into design courses.

It is anticipated that these findings might increase the possibility for educators, study

administrators and trainers to use Facebook and other SNSs and Web2.0 technologies to

support the activities of the existing studio or contribute towards the designing of a social

networked design studio.


12/33

2.8 Definition of Terms

The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these terms

throughout the research.

Creativity: Dundon (2002) defines creativity as the discovery of a new connection, and

everyone has the ability to be creative. Dundon (2002) summits that 98% of ideas already

exist somewhere in the universe, but, one has to locate the appropriate idea(s) for his/herproblem, and connecting them in a new way. Creative thinkers must be aware of the objects

or ideas around them and look for new connections through combining diverse ideas in the

environment. The mixing and matching of different ideas could lead to the generation of

finding new ways of doing something. The goal of creativity is the generation of ideas (Wong

& Paynter, 2001) and invention (Richards, 2003) and hence involves exploration (March,

1991). Exploration is variation-seeking, risk-taking and experimentation oriented (Li,

Vanhaverbeke et al. 2008).

Koslow et al. (2003), in an article published in the Journal of Advertising Research, states

that some consensus in developing a definition of creativity has been achieved recently

(Koslow, Sasser, & Riordan, 2003). Creativity is defined as the ability to generate ideas thatare both novel and appropriate (TM Amabile, 1983). As for novel, one only needs to

recognise it is different, original, and something that is unexpected; but for appropriateness,

the judgments are regarded as more subjective (Koslow, et al., 2003). A number of

researchers have explored differences in what is appropriate. Other researchers express

similar concerns over the lack of consistency in what is considered appropriate (Koslow, et

al., 2003). More than 60 different definitions of creativity can be found in the psychological

literature (Taylor, 1988) and it is beyond the scope of this study to list them all.

For this research, the definition suggested by MacCrimmon and Wagner (2002) will be used.

Their definition of creativity is the ability to produce ideas that are both novel and valid.

Valid ideas are those that are relevant and workable. Relevant ideas achieves the goals set forthe problem while a workable idea is one that can be implemented, which does not violate

laws, principles, constraints, or regulations which make it impossible or infeasible

(MacCrimmon & Wagner, 2002).

Innovation: Richards (2003) maintains creativity is an aspect of innovation without creative

idea we have nothing to innovate. However the process of creativity does not required

innovation. Richards (2003) adds that creativity refers to all activities that involve the

generation of ideas; innovation refers to the transformation of those ideas into something

useful where the goals of innovation are transformation and implementation. In the same

vein, Van Bavel (2010) describes innovation as the successful exploitation of new ideas and

of new technology.

Lateral thinking: To think differently, or thinking out-of-the-box, has always been

associated with the concept of lateral thinking. Edward de Bono coined the term Lateral

Thinking in the book New Think: The Use of Lateral Thinking published in 1967

(Alexander, 2010). Lateral thinking primarily refers to solving problems through an indirect

and creative approach.

Alexander (2010) adds that lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately

obvious and also about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step

logic or critical thinking. According to Howieson (2002), lateral thinking is closely related to

creativity, but whereas creativity is often only about the description of the result, lateralthinking is the description of the process.


13/33

2.9 Limitation of the Research

According to Baxter and Jack (2008), one of the common pitfalls associated with case study

is that there is a tendency for researchers to attempt to answer a question that is too broad or a

topic that has too many objectives for one study. Several authors including Stake (2005) and

Yin (2009), have suggested that placing boundaries on a case can prevent this explosion from

occurring. Furthermore, bounding the case will ensure that the study remains reasonable inscope. Suggestions on how to bound a case include: (a) by time and place (Creswell, 2009);

(b) time and activity (Stake, 2005); and (c) by definition and context (Miles & Huberman,

1999).

Therefore, due to time limitations, it is impossible to assess other factors, such as influences

on studio work in the long term, in grouping and the effects of different levels of constraint

on creativity. Furthermore, a complete series of discussion of creativity, innovation, creativity

techniques and technique differences are also beyond the scope of this study.

3.0 SECTION C

3.1 Design of the Study

This section describes the setting, research perspective, research design and procedures to be

followed.

3.1.1 Setting

The study will be conducted at the School of Architecture and Design at Victoria

University of Wellington (VUW), New Zealand over a period of two to four weeks

(according to their respective final studio project schedule). The reason for performing

the pilot and case studies after the mid-trimester break is to allow tutors to observe

and rate each students creative level before the case study. This will also help student

rate what they think their creative level is. This will allow me to analyse student

performance before and after the task and analyse if the research approach has had

any effect on the lateral thinking process.

There will be two pilot case studies and two major data case studies, one each in

architecture and industrial design. The two pilot case studies will take place in 2nd

trimester 2011 after the mid-trimester break. The date is from 5 September to 10

October 2011. Pilot 1 involves the first-year architectural students who are taking the

SARC112 courseDesign Process. In general the course has two 50 minute lectures

and two 110 minute studios each week. Dr Peter Wood will be the course coordinator

and there are about 200 to 300 full-time students taking this course. Pilot 2 involves

the first-year industrial design students who are taking the DSDN104 Digital

Creation. Jeongbin Ok is the course instructor and there about 100 to 150 full-time

students taking this course. The studio has one x 50 minute lecture and two x 110

minute studios each week. Both pilot studies will be run at their own respective studio

at about the same time.

The major data case studies are scheduled to take place after the mid-trimester break

of 1st

trimester 2012. The proposed date is from 23 April to 28 May 2012. Case study

1 involves the first-year architectural students who taking the SARC111 course

Introduction to Design Process. In general the course has one 50 minute lectures and

tree 110 minute studios each week. Shenuka De Sylva will be the course coordinator

and there are about 200 to 300 full-time students taking this course. Case study 2

involves the first-year industrial design students who are taking the DSDN104

Digital Creation. Jeongbin Ok is the course instructor and there about 100 to 150 full-


14/33

time students taking this course. The studio has one x 50 min lecture and two x 110

minute studios each week. Both case studies will be run at their own respective studio

at about the same time.

A sample of no more than 10 students for pilot studies and 30 students for major data

case studies will be obtained by placing an advertisement in the SARC111,

SARC112, and DSDN104 (1

st

and 2

nd

trimester) studios describing the research andrequesting people to participate. Participant in this research will be compensated for

taking part. An incentive of NZD10 will be given in the form of student photocopy

credit to each participant who agrees to take part in this study from the beginning to

the end. To fund this study, the Faculty Research Grant will be applied. Each person

who agrees to participate and be interviewed will be asked to read and sign an

informed consent form prior to participating and will be promised their complete

anonymity.

3.1.2 Research Perspective

The overall study follows an action research (AR) approach and both qualitative and

quantitative research methods will be used to answer the research questions.

According to Schadewitz and Zamenopoulos (2009), AR has a long history in the

context of pedagogical research. The aim of using AR is to achieve practical

enhancements and changes in current practice of teaching and learning. AR is used to

understand the effects of implementing a new initiative or technology where one is

uncertain how effective it might be (Schadewitz & Zamenopoulos, 2009). The

Action of implementing new technologies, such as Facebook, is thus used as a

research tool for better understanding practice in design teaching and learning.

OBrien (2001) explains that the tools for action research, are generally common to

the qualitative research method and, include: keeping a research journal, document

collection and analysis, participant observation recordings, questionnaire surveys,structured and unstructured interviews, and case studies.

Case study research is considered one of the best ways to generate new theoretical

insights that are not anticipated by literature (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Case

study research (Ross & Staw, 1986) is an in-depth exploration of a particular instance

of a complex phenomenon, embedded in its own real-world context. By focusing on a

small sample, researchers can give special attention to cross-level interactions and

contextual factorssuch as institutionalisation, temporal processes, and structural

determinantsthat large scale deductive studies often must ignore or control.

According to Yin (2009) a case study design should be considered when: (a) the focusof the study is to answer how and why questions; (b) you cannot manipulate the

behaviour of those involved in the study; (c) the researcher wants to cover contextual

conditions because they believe they are relevant to the phenomenon under study; or

(d) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context.

Case study research methodology is defined by Perry (1998) as a research

methodology based on interviews that are used in a postgraduate thesis involving a

body of knowledge. The methodology usually investigates a contemporary

phenomenon within its real-life context when the boundaries between phenomenon

and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2009).

As for sample size in qualitative research Patton (1990) claims that there are no

rules and he does not provide an exact number or range of cases that could serve as


15/33

guidelines for researchers. In similar claims, Romano (1989) says that the decision on

how many cases should be developed is left to the researcher. However, according to

Perry (1998), the views of these writers ignore the real constraints of time and funding

in postgraduate research; that is, postgraduate students need some guidelines to plan

their programme around.

Fortunately, other authorities on case study design have used their experience torecommend a range within which the number of cases for any research should fall.

For example, Eisenhardt (1989) suggests between four and ten cases. However, there

are rather different views. Some believe a minimum of two, but the usual view is that

in practice four to six groups probably form a reasonable minimum for a serious

project (Hedges, 1985). Hedges (1985) sets an upper maximum of 12 because of the

high costs involved in qualitative interviews and the quantity of qualitative data which

can be effectively digested. In the same view, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest

that more than 15 cases make a study unwieldy. In brief, the widest accepted scope

seems to fall between two and four as the minimum and ten, 12 or 15 as the

maximum.

Turning from the number of cases to the number of interviews, Perry (1998) suggests

that for a PhD thesis, about 35 to 50 interviews are required. Rosenbaum and

Lavrakas (1995) view that the strength of the interview/survey approach is that it can

provide up-to-date information about human perceptions, beliefs, opinions, attitudes,

behavioural intentions, and self-reported behaviours of the thing under study.

In general, samples for qualitative studies are much smaller than those used in

qualitative studies. The main reason, as Ritchie, Lewis and Elam (2003) explain, is

that qualitative research is very labour intensive and analysing a large sample can be

time consuming, impracticable and costly.

Mason (2010) has conducted a study on issues related to sample size in the context ofPhD studies. Five hundred and sixty theses were collected from theses.com and

examined. A wide range of samples sizes was observed in the PhD studies used for

this analysis. In relation to qualitative studies, 80% of the total proportion of

qualitative studies met Bertauxs guideline. Bertaux (1981) suggests 15 being the

smallest number of participants for qualitative study no matter what the methodology.

45% met Charmazs (2006) guidelines where up to 25 participants is regarded as

being adequate. Finally 85% met Ritchies (2003) claim that samples should lie

under 50. In general the study shows that the most common sample sizes were 20

and 30 (Mason, 2010). In his conclusion Mason (2010) suggests the reason why manyPhD researchers submit theses based on larger samples than are needed is because it

easier to just to be on the safe side and therefore they feel more confident when it

comes to their examination.

3.1.3 Research Design and Procedures

The goal of this project will be to study these full-time, first-year students

perceptions of using the Social Networking Sites (SNSs) such as Facebook as a

facilitating tool in a first-year design education and also to examine the effectiveness

of the lateral thinking approach used through the Facebook group created. The will be

two studiesFacebook and Lateral Thinking studies which will run at the same time.

In general, three main types of data will be collected: interviews and observations,

surveys, and archival documents.


16/33

At the beginning of each pilot and case study period, the course coordinator will

introduce me to the class and I will briefly explain the research. The course

coordinator will then continue briefing the design project. I will distribute the self-

evaluation pre-task check-in survey to all the participants involved. It will take no

more than 15 minutes to complete this survey. An A3 size template of lateral thinking

process will be given to the class representative a day before and each student will

have to make their own personal copy of the template (at least three copies perperson). A mini lecture on the concept of creativity techniques will be given to all

students (participants and non-participants) by their respective tutors. Student is

encouraged to use the template to record their design process. Students are also

allowed to use their own personal journal together with the template. Both template

and journal is part of the submission requirement at the end of the project. All

students (participants or not) will have the same opportunity with the lateral thinking

exercise initiated by the course instructors. Only the student participants will be asked

to join a Facebook group which will be set up for this study. While I will set up the

Facebook group, the tutors will act as facilitators to initiate the creativity techniques

that are meant to support the lateral thinking process. Here the tutors and students are

anticipated to continue their studio discussion related to the design task and also thelateral thinking exercises. More jumbled images and texts will be uploaded by the

tutors or me from time to time. I will observe the participant students through this

Facebook group. All interactions on the Facebook group will be observed and

recorded (print screen) from time to time.

In general, Facebook offers several functionalities, such as forum discussions, wall

posts, video or link posts, and picture upload and commenting. Unlike MySpace

which does not gives users much control over who can and cannot view their profile,

Facebook gives users different levels of control for their profile. By default anyone in

the Facebook can view someones profile; however users have the option to restrict

information on their profile so that it may be viewed only specific group of people(Kwong, 2007). The tutors will use this group to post several jumbled images or texts

on the groups page as a trigger to encourage the lateral thinking process. Students can

access this page anytime and anywhere by using computer or mobile phone and

participate in the discussion under the post. Students will have to note down which of

the jumbled images or texts they find stimulating on the task template given during

the briefing (see Appendix D).

The creativity techniques to be used in this study are inspired by de Bonos lateral

thinking techniquesRandom Input. The most popular way to use Random Input is to

choose random images from magazines or words from the dictionary and then force

an association between the word/picture and the problem. Random Input technique issimple yet powerful (Richardson, et al., 2003) and is suitable for most age groups

(Gray, 2010). Instead of triggering the normal image or text that students know

immediately what is it when they see it, creativity techniques in the form of jumbled

image or text will be used. This is to force the students to guess what was there.

According to Balkin (1985), guessing is the essence of discovery learning and has

been most successful in science education. Guessing is not an end in itself, but a

simple first stage process to initiate creative problem solving. It is a springboard for

taking chances, exercising options, and making creative choices-leading, through trial

and error, to worthy, if not necessarily "correct," solutions.

After submitting the final project, student participants will then be interviewed face-to-face, and an interview protocol will be used containing a set of predetermined

open-ended questions to ensure consistency across all interviews. This interview is to


17/33

seek students view and experience about the role and potential value of the created

Facebook group and the lateral thinking technique used.

A. Data CollectionIn general there will be two sources of information.

Secondary information Sources

Throughout the research, secondary information sources (literature review) will be

used to formulate research questions. This includes sources on creativity (T Amabile,

1996; T. M. Amabile, 1982; Asojo, 2007; Azzam, 2009; Dorst & Cross, 2001;

Kreitler & Casakin, 2009; R. Sternberg, 2006; Vidal, 2006) and innovation (P Badke-

Schaub, 2007; Bashir, 2011; Bonnardel, 2000; Legrenzi, 2005; Warr, 2007); design

education (Bailey, 2008; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2007; Kowaltowski, et al., 2009;

Lau, Ng, & Lee, 2009; Rosa, 2009; Salbacak, 2008); design pedagogy (Salama &

Wilkinson, 2007); creativity techniques (Hewett, Terry, Nunamaker, Candy, & Kules,

2005; Kreitler & Casakin, 2009; Nakakoji, 2005; B. Shneiderman, 2005); social

networking systems (SNSs) (Bainbridge, 2009; Diggins & Risquez, 2010; Ellison, etal., 2007; Griffin, 2010; McCarthy, 2009; Roblyer, et al., 2010); lateral thinking (De

Bono, 1992; Dingli, 2008; Richardson, et al., 2003; Waks, 1997) and research

methodology (Baker, 2000; Baxter & Jack, 2008; Chaiklin, 1991; Eisenhardt, 1989;

Groat & Wang, 2002; Lloyd-Jones, 2008; Rowley, 2002; Simmons, Crookston, &

Stanford, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Yin, 2009).

Primary information sources

For the Facebook study, three types of data will be collected. The first set of data will

come from a questionnaire that will be sent to the participants before the project

begins. The second set of data will come from the interview after the project issubmitted. The interview involves open-ended questions seeking students views and

experience about the role and potential value of the created Facebook Group. The

third set of data will be collected from the postings and discussions on the Group Wall

and the Group Forums.

For the lateral thinking study, there will be two types of data. The first set of data will

come from the interview after the project is submitted. It involves open-ended

questions seeking students views about the lateral thinking process. The second set of

data will be collected from the student journal and lateral thinking template given

prior to the project beginning. Even though a lateral thinking process template (refer

to Appendix E) will be given to all student with hope that theyll use the template torecord their process, still each student participant will need to turn in their personal

project sketchbook which has an on-going and intimate record of his or her ideas,

observations, and experiences. The sketchbook is a requirement in the design studio.

Students are normally will continue working on their project after the class and

treasured their sketchbooks; for these students, with their consent, I will make a

photocopy and they will get back the original. Three tutors will rate the final ideas

based on Torrances Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) which consists of fluency,

flexibility, originality and elaboration of ideas generated (refer to Appendix B for the

marking template).

An outline of the data planning matrix is illustrated in figure 1.1


18/33

What do I need to

know?

Why do I need to

know this?

What kind of data

will answer the

questions?

Where can I find

the data?

Whom do I contact

for access?

Timelines for

acquisition

How can Social

Network Systems

(SNSs) be

effectively used as

a design studio insupporting the

process of lateral

thinking in the first-

year students of

design education?

To evaluate the

effectiveness of

Facebook as

facilitating tool in

design education

Formal and informal

participating student

interviews; post-

survey

Design studio;

meeting with

individual students

Studio coordinator Pilot case study, 2nd

Trimester 2011;

actual case study,

1st trimester 2012;

To evaluate the

effectiveness of the

selected creativity

techniques used

Formal and informal

participating student

interviews; post-

survey

Design studio;

meeting with

individual students

Studio coordinator; Pilot case study, 2nd

Trimester 2011;

actual case study,

1st trimester 2012;

To assess individual

students uses of

Facebook (how

much and for what

purposes they

currently used it; will

they be open to using

it in the future as

studio support tool?)

participating

students pre-survey

Design studio;

meeting with

individual students


Trimester 2011;

actual case study,

1st trimester 2012;

To access individual

students attitude

about the course,

creativity, innovation

and ICT

participating

students pre-survey

Design studio;

meeting with

individual students


Trimester 2011;

actual case study,

1st trimester 2012;

To assess individual

students perception

and experience with

the whole project

participating

students post-survey

Design studio;

meeting with

individual students


Trimester 2011;

actual case study,

1st trimester 2012;

Figure 1.1 Data planning matrix

There will be two different sets of questionnaires (pre-task and post-task) designed to

help gather feedback and data.

Pre-task Questionnaire

This survey will provide responses to open-ended questions throughout the pilot andcase studies. It is a short check-in survey. The self-evaluation survey focuses on

whether or not each student participant has a Facebook account and, if so, to what

extent the student actively engages in Facebook activities; how much amount time is

spent on Facebook in a typical day; for what purposes they currently used it and

whether or not they would be open to using it in the future as a design support tool.

Furthermore, this survey will also gather some basic information of the participants

general current understanding of creativity and innovation. The questionnaire will

allow the participants to come up with their own definitions of creativity and

innovation, rather than supplying a definition from the literature or the researchers

point of view, and to explore their own ideas about creativity and innovation incurrent context (Refer to Appendix A for list of the questions).


19/33

Post-Task Questionnaire

This survey will involve a series of in-depth, open-ended interviews that focuses on

allowing each student participant to fully describe their experience. The interviews

will be informal, and carried out in a conversational style. Creswell (1994) and

Merriam (1998) explain that semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions

during data collection are used to capture the experiences of the study participants intheir own words (Refer to Appendix C for list of the questions). To maintain an

unbiased perspective and allow team-level dynamics to be observed without

preconceptions based on individuals private reports, I will not read survey responses

until after conducting all of the interviews.

B. Data Analysis

For the Facebook study, the data collected will be analysed inductively using the

method of constant comparison known from the grounded theory analysis approach.

In constant comparison, tentative themes will be developed. These themes will be

combined and compared to existing theories. A new hypothesis will be formed on

how Facebook plays a role in supporting the design process. The emerging hypothesis

will be explored using two methodssocial network analysis and qualitative content

analysis. In this stage the data will be analysed deductively.

Social Network analysis focuses on the structure of relationships, ranging from casual

acquaintance to close bonds, and measures formal or informal relationships to

understand the connection and structure of numerous nodes (Garton, Haythornthwaite,

& Wellman, 1997). With the emergence of Web 2.0, Internet is playing an

increasingly important role in mediating social participation, communication, and

collaboration. The analysis of web users behaviour has attracted much attention in

recent years. Therefore, Zhao (2011) suggests that SNA is an effective method in

studying the longitudinal studies such as the formation, evolution, and knowledge

sharing of online communities.

Qualitative content analysis is a comprehensive approach of data analysis, which

seems to be especially suitable for case study research. It can certainly contribute to

adding and enhancing rigor, validity, and reliability of case study research

(Kohlbacher, 2006). Therefore Kohlbacher (2006) strongly recommends all

researchers who are conducting case studies to use and apply qualitative content

analysis in their research endeavours.

For the Lateral Thinking study, it will be assessed using a design task. According to

Aurum (1999), obtaining a valid assessment of the creativeness of a person or aproduct is a continuous research topic. There is no universally accepted set of lateral

thinking or creative thinking criteria. Researchers propose several requirements to be

used when assessing a creative product. Commonly the criterion includes novelty,

nonobviousness, workability, relevance and thoroughness. The novelty and

nonobviousness refer to the originality of the product. The workability, relevance and

thoroughness refer to usability and feasibility aspects (Aurum, 1999).

Many authors (J. C. Kelly, 1987; S. R. Kelly, Mazzone, Horton, & Read, 2006; Silva

& Read, 2010) agree that the evaluation of design methods and of differences within

design methods is complex and when researching the literature for methodologies to

evaluate methods, these are limited and often do little more than report on thedifficulty of proposing one. Kelly (1987) suggests a framework for comparing

methods; however this framework mainly consists of a tabular synthesis of


20/33

information with the main characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of the

compared methods. Attempts to assess design methodologies are generally far from

agreeable, as there are too many variables, too much variety, and too little confidence

in the results (S. R. Kelly, et al., 2006). However, there are some measures that can be

considered, such as the number of ideas generated, the quality of the ideas generated,

the engagement of participants, the learning of the facilitator, and the learning of the

participants.

In various studies (Baruah & Paulus, 2008; Kramer, Fleming, & Mannis, 2001; Oxley,

Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996), it is usual to count the number of ideas generated, or to

derive a ratio measure for ideas created when evaluating a method. This is a

reasonable statistic for making comparisons of a single method across different

instances of use and to determine how easy the method is to use across several groups

of individuals. This is a quantitative measure, but this is not the norm in this domain.

Christiaans (2002) argues that the enormous amount of research done in the last

decennia highlights the lack of objective methods of assessment of creativity in

product design, a fact that Christiaans explains with the features of creativity, which

are difficult to rate and therefore difficult to formalise into an objective instrument(Christiaans, 2002).

A number of authors have proposed metrics to measure ideation effectiveness. Vance

(2001) proposes three distinct but cumulative sets of measures: novelty,

appropriateness, and appeal (Vance, 2001). O'Quinn and Besemer (1989) propose the

Creative Product Semantic Scale (O Quin & Besemer, 1989) and Amabiles the

Consensual Assessment Technique (T. M. Amabile, 1982). Christiaans (2002)

suggests seven metrics: creativity, prototypical value, attractiveness, interest,

technical quality, expressiveness and integrating capacity; Shah, Smith and Vargas-

Hernandez (2003) propose four metrics: novelty, variety, quality and quantity (Shah,

Smith, & Vargas-Hernandez, 2003). Despite the apparent difference of these variousmethods when analysing the metrics each proposes, they are not so dissimilar. In most

cases there is an aggregation of the concepts, that define creativity (Martindale, 1999;

Perkins, 1988): novelty, which refers to unusualness and the capacity of causing ones

surprise, and appropriateness, which refers to suitability and the capacity of

distinguishing between the bizarre and the normal. For instance, in Christiaanss set of

metrics, creativity, attractiveness, interest and expressiveness would represent

novelty, while prototypical value, technical quality and integrating capacity would

represent appropriateness.

According to Kerr and Gagliardi (2003) the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking

(TTCT) (Torrance, 1968) is the best knownstandardized creativity test and the onethat is supportedby more evidence of validity (Kerr & Gagliardi, 2003). The TTCT

assesses four creative abilities:

Fluency the total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant

ideas generated;

Flexibility the number of different categories;

Originality the statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects;

and

Elaboration the amount of detail in the responses.

In each run, the fluency, flexibility, originality and elaborateof ideas generated needs

to be computed. Each response will be analyzed using the statistically based Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA) method. All analysis will be conducted by me.


21/33

3.2 Ethical ConsiderationsBecause action research is carried out in real-world circumstances, and involves close and

open communication among the people involved, the researchers must pay close attention to

ethical considerations in the conduct of their work. Winter (1996) suggests that researchers

make sure that the relevant persons, committees and authorities have been consulted, and that

the principles guiding the work are accepted in advance by all. Winter added that allparticipants must be allowed to influence the work, and the wishes of those who do not wish

to participate must be respected. The development of the work must remain visible and open

to suggestions from others. Permission must be obtained before making observations or

examining documents produced for other purposes. Descriptions of others' work and points of

view must be negotiated with those concerned before being published. The researcher must

accept responsibility for maintaining confidentiality (Winter, 1996).

3.2.1 Meetings with First-Year Programme Manager and Course Instructors

While planning and conducting the research, I will meet frequently with the primary

course instructor of the respective programmes, who designed the courses and havetaught them for several times. I already had discussion with the First-year manager

from both architecture and industrial design programmes and the course coordinators.

We will meet and discuss through e-mail from time to time to discuss the research

question and plan the approach in relation to the courses typical activities. I will work

with the course coordinator existing syllabus to design the data collection protocol

and materials, and consult them on how best to observe the phenomena under study. I

will also be asking permission to distribute my own survey questions.

3.2.2 Consent of Participants

Students are asked to take part in a research study conducted by Kamarul Ariffin

Abdul Kadir at the School of Architecture and Design at Victoria University of

Wellington (VUW). The study will be performed together with the course instructor

and tutors involved in SARC111, SARC112, and DSDN104 (1st

and 2nd

trimester).

The results of this study will be incorporated in the PhD thesis of Kamarul Ariffin

Abdul Kadir. Students are chosen as potential participants in this study because they

are taking part in one of the classes above. Students should read all the information

and ask questions about anything they do not understand, before deciding whether or

not to take part.

A. Participation and withdrawalA sample of no more than 10 students for pilot studies and 30 students for major datacase studies will be obtained by placing an advertisement in the SARC111,SARC112, and DSDN104 (1

stand 2

ndtrimester) studios describing the research and

requesting people to participate. Each person who agrees to participate and be

interviewed will be asked to read and sign an informed consent form prior to

participating and promised their complete anonymity.

Students who volunteer to take part in this study are required to do the following

things: participate in two surveys (pre and post survey) lasting about 10 60 minutes

each. The post survey is an interview and with student permission, the interview will

be video or audio taped. The first survey will take place towards the end of the lecture

period. The second interview will take place after the task at a time and placeconvenient to participants. Finally, as part of the research I would like to supplement


22/33

my understanding with student design project deliverables, which may include

presentations and design journals, as data for analysis.

Students involvement in this study is completely voluntary. If they choose to be in

this study, they may consequently withdraw from it at any time without consequences

of any kind. The investigator may also withdraw any student from this research if

circumstances arise which indicate this is required.B. Potential risks and benefitsIt is anticipated that there are no risks or discomforts and no direct benefits to student

from taking part in this research. Students decision to participate will not affect their

grade in this class, nor will the results of this research. It is hoped that the research

will benefit others through an enhanced understanding of employing a similar

approach in first-year design education.

C. Payment for participationParticipants in this research will be compensated for taking part. An incentive ofNZD10 will be given in the form of student photocopy credit to each participant who

agrees to take part in the study from beginning to the end. To fund this study, the

Faculty Research Grant will be applied.

D. ConfidentialityAny information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be

identified with students will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with their

permission or as required by law. I may take some audio or video records of

interviews. Student may specify on the attached records release form whether they

consent to the capture and use of this information in different contexts.

While there is a small chance that the confidentiality of information collected could be

compromised, I will take care to prevent this from happening. I will store photo, audio

and video recordings and notes about them in a locked file and on a password

protected computer. Student names and other identifying information will only be

used in this research with participant permission. After the research is completed, I

may save the photos, audio and video recordings and notes for use in future research

by other researchers or by me. However, the same confidentiality guarantees given

here will apply to future storage and use of the materials.

3.3 Phases

There will be four main phases in this study.

Phase 1Research Proposal

The research methodology begins with conducting a literature search on the theories relating

to creativity, innovation, creativity techniques, design education, design pedagogy, lateral

thinking and research methodology. The area of study will be defined; prior knowledge will

be identified; research methods will be selected.

Phase 2Pilot Studies

The specific purpose of the pilot test is three-fold. The first is to test whether or not the

procedures designed appropriated for the plan. This includes recruitment of participants,

interview and observation, how the design outcomes being assess and store, the setup of the


23/33

Facebook group and the jumbled images and texts used and other matter related to the study.

The second is to test if the questions asked during the case studies are answering the study

research question and it is important also to observe if the participants and assessors (tutors)

really understand all the questions designed. The third relates to the data analysis procedures

itself. All feedback gathered from participants and tutors during the pilot case study will be

reviewed and necessary adjustments will be made.

The first part of phase 2 begins with designing the questionnaires. The questionnaires will be

used during a pilot study with goals of testing and adjusting, improving understanding, and

working out any procedural problems. The edited questionnaires will be submitted for

Human Ethics Committee approval. At this stage, a request for a research grant will also be

sent.

Next is the pilot study. Both case studies will be conducted within the School of Architecture

and Design, Victoria University of Wellington. According to Maxwell (1998), pilot studies

serve some of the same functions as prior research, but they can be focused more precisely on

the researchers own concerns and theories. Researchers can design pilot studies specifically

to test their ideas or methods and explore their implications, or to inductively develop

grounded theory. One particular use that pilot studies have in qualitative research is to

generate an understanding of the concepts and theories held by the people they are

studyingwhat Maxwell have called interpretation (Maxwell, 1998).

Maxwell (1998) adds that this is not simply a source of additional concepts for researcher

theory; instead, it provides them with an understanding of the meaning that these phenomena

and events have for the actors who are involved in them, and the perspectives that inform

their actions. In a qualitative study, these meanings and perspectives should constitute an

important focus of their theory; as discussed earlier, they are one of the things researcher

theory is about, not simply a source of theoretical insights and building blocks for the latter.

An outline of the pilot study is illustrated in figure 1.2July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 20114 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26

Refine

questionnaire andresearch design

Ethic approval

Grant approval

Pilot preparation

Pilot execution

Gather feedback

and refine

procedure foractual case study.

Analyse and

report the pilottest results.

Writing and

completing

chapter 2,3 and 4

Figure 1.2 Phase 2 Pilot Study Timeline

Phase 3Case Studies

The first case study is the first-year architectural programme. Student participants involved in

the case studies will be asked to complete an introductory survey prior to the project. This is

to assess their attitudes toward the course, uses of Facebook and digital tools in general, and

also to gather factual data about the students experiences with computing and ICT.


24/33

The task is an individual studio-based project. In general, participants will have the sameamount of time to complete the task. During the task, several creative techniques will be

triggered on the Facebooks group site.

After submitting the final project, student participants will then be interviewed face-to-face,

and an interview protocol will be used containing a set of predetermined open-ended

questions to ensure consistency across all interviews. Combining multiple sources of data through secondary and primary documents (observation and interviews, surveys and final

projects) will enable a richer understanding of the relationship between creativity

techniques, SNSs, students and lateral thinking. The next step is to analysing the data

collected, refine the proposed definitions, and draw conclusions from it.

This case study 2 (Industrial Design) will go through the same procedure as above. An

outline of the pilot study is illustrated in figure 1.3

January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012

2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25

Case study

preparationCase studyexecution

Analyse and

report the casestudy results

Writing and

completing

chapter 5, 6 and 7

Figure 1.3 Phase 3 - Case Study Timeline

Phase 4Writing, Conclusions, and Future Work

Finally, with the questions adequately supported, the stage is set for writing. Reworking ofthe writing from time to time will be necessary to ensure consistency across the study. The

introduction and conclusion of the study will be written. In addition to this, careful attention

will be paid to editing, formatting, and layout of the submission. An outline of the research

phases involved in this study is illustrated in figure 1.4 and overall research schedule is

illustrated in figure 1.5.

PHASE 1 Research Proposal

Literature Review

Define domain and problems

Formulating question to test

- Creativity- Innovation- Creativity

Techniques

- Lateral Thinking

- Design Education- Design Pedagogy- Social Networking

Systems (SNSs)

- MethodologyPHASE 2 Pilot Test

Design Questionnaires

Human Ethic Approval

Pilot 1 and 2

Refinement

PHASE 3.1

PHASE 3.2

Case Study 1First Year Architectural DesignCase Study 2First Year Industrial DesignPre-Task Questionnaire (Self-evaluation)

Studio Design Project

Post-Task Questionnaire (Interview)

Abstracting into data

Analysing

Conclusion

PHASE 4 Writing Conclusions and Future Work

Completing Introduction and Conclusion ChaptersWriting and Editing all Chapters

Figure 1.4 Research Phases Summary


25/33

2010 2011 2012

JAN - JUNE JULY - DEC JAN - JUNE JULY - DEC JAN - JUNE JULY - DEC

Phase 1

Literature review

Phase 2Pilot

Phase 3Case

Study

Phase 4 - Writingall chapters

Figure 1.5 Four-Phase Research Schedule

3.4 Thesis Chapters

C

Kamarul Research Proposal - 270611

Documents

Transcript of Kamarul Research Proposal - 270611