Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:36:11.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching innovative design reasoning: How concept–knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2011

Armand Hatchuel ,
Pascal Le Masson  and
Benoit Weil
Armand Hatchuel
Affiliation:
CGS Center for Management Science, MINES ParisTech, Paris, France
Pascal Le Masson
Affiliation:
CGS Center for Management Science, MINES ParisTech, Paris, France
Benoit Weil
Affiliation:
CGS Center for Management Science, MINES ParisTech, Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can we prepare engineering students to work collectively on innovative design issues, involving ill-defined, “wicked” problems? Recent works have emphasized the need for students to learn to combine divergent and convergent thinking in a collaborative, controlled manner. From this perspective, teaching must help them overcome four types of obstacles or “fixation effects” (FEs) that are found in the generation of alternatives, knowledge acquisition, collaborative creativity, and creativity processes. We begin by showing that teaching based on concept–knowledge (C-K) theory can help to manage FEs because it helps to clarify them and then to overcome them by providing means of action. We show that C-K theory can provide scaffolding to improve project-based learning (PBL), in what we call project-based critical learning (PBCL). PBCL helps students be critical and give due thought to the main issues in innovative design education: FEs. We illustrate the PBCL process with several cases and show precisely where the FEs appear and how students are able to overcome them. We conclude by discussing two main criteria of any teaching method, both of which are usually difficult to address in situations of innovative design teaching. First, can the method be evaluated? Second, is the chosen case “realistic” enough? We show that C-K-based PBCL can be rigorously evaluated by teachers, and we discuss the circumstances in which a C-K-based PBCL may or may not be realistic.

Keywords

Concept–Knowledge Design TheoryCreative Design TeachingProject-Based Learning
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 77 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational Learning II. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Boden, M. (1990). The Creative Mind. London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd.Google Scholar
Brereton, M. (1999). The role of hardware in learning engineering fundamentals: an empirical study of engineering design and product analysis activity. PhD Thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Brown, V.R., Tumeo, M., Larey, T.S., & Paulus, P.B. (1998). Modelling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research 29, 495–526.Google Scholar
Camacho, L.M., & Paulus, P.B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, 1071–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collaros, P.A., & Anderson, L.R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 53(2), 159–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal 18(3), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: towards the solution of a ridle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droste, M. (2002). Bauhaus 1919–1933. Köln, Germany: Taschen.Google Scholar
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: an interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning and Education 5(4), 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D., & Leifer, L.J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94, 103–120.Google Scholar
Edelman, J., Karanian, B., Skogstad, P., Heikkinen, M., & Repokari, L. (2008). Fuzzy versus technical prototypes in design decision making process. Center for Design Research Informatics Laboratory Working Papers, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Engelmeyer, P.K.v. (1895). Was ist eine Erfindung? Civilingenieur 41, 282–300.Google Scholar
Eris, O. (2003). Asking generative questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'03, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Eris, O. (2004). Effective Inquiry for Innovative Engineering Design. Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkens, A. (1928). Beiträge zur Konstrukteurerziehung. Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure 72(1), 17–21.Google Scholar
Finke, R.A. (1990). Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgements. Psychological Bulletin 121, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 3, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J.P. (1985). A sixty-year perspective on psychological I measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement 9, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2008). Studying creative design: the contribution of C-K theory. Proc. Conf. Studying Design Creativity: Design Science, Computer Science, Cognitive Science and Neuroscience Approaches, Aix-en-Provence, France, March 10–11.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'03, p. 14, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2007). Design as Forcing: deepening the foundations of C-K theory. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'07, p. 12, Paris.Google Scholar
Heymann, M. (2005). “Kunst” und Wissenchsaft in der Technik des 20. Jahrhunderts. Zur Geschichte der Konstruktionswissenschaft. Zürich: Chronos Verlag.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., & Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itten, J. (1975). Design and Form, the Basic Course at the Bauhaus and Later. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jansson, D.G., & Smith, S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instructon does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, W. (1998). Zwischen Verwaltungsstaat und Industriegesellschaft: Die Gründung höherer technischen Bildungsstätten in Deutschland in der ersten Jahrzehnten des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 21, 115–122.Google Scholar
König, W. (1999). Künstler und Strichezieher. Konstruktions- und Technikkulturen im deutschen, britischen, amerikanischen und französischen Maschinenbau zwischen 1850 und 1930. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2007). Creativity and design reasoning: how C-K theory can enhance creative design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'07, p. 12, Paris.Google Scholar
Linder, B.M. (1999). Understanding estimation and its relation to engineering education. PhD Thesis. Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Loch, C.L., De Meyer, A., & Pich, M.T. (2006). Managing the Unknown. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L.J. (1997). Noun phrases as surrogates for measuring early phases of the mechanical design process. Proc. 9th ASME Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, p. 6, Sacramento, CA, September 14–17.Google Scholar
Magnusson, P. (2003). Managing user involvement for service innovation, findings from end-user telecom services innovation. Journal of Service Research 6(2), 111–124.Google Scholar
McMahon, C.A., Ion, B., & Hamilton, P. (2003). Sharing experience in engineering design education: historical background and future plans. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'03, p. 10, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: a meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, N., & Hartman, M. (1996). Divided attention and indirect memory tests. Memory & Cognition 24, 453–465.Google Scholar
Osborn, A.F. (1957). Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1977). Konstruktionslehre (Engineering Design). Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2006). Engineering Design, a Systematic Approach. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Paulus, P.B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49(2), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, P.B., Brown, V.R., & Ortega, A.H. (1999). Group creativity. In Social Creativity in Organization (Purser, R.E., & Montuori, A., Eds.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
Paulus, P.B., & Dzindolet, M.T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 575–586.Google Scholar
Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S., & Dzindolet, M.T. (2000). Creativity in groups and teams. In Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research (Turner, M., Ed.), pp. 319–338. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paulus, P.B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: a basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82(1), 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plety, R., & Cremet, C. (2007). Pédagogie de l'innovation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Raïffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Redtenbacher, F. (1852). Prinzipien der Mechanik und des Maschinenbaus. Mannheim, Germany: Bassermann.Google Scholar
Reilly, R.R., Lynn, G.S., & Aronson, Z.L. (2002). The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
Rice, P. (1994). An Engineer Imagines. New York: Artemis.Google Scholar
Rittel, H.W.J., & Webber, M.M. (1972). Dilemnas in a General Theory of Planning, p. 22. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rodenacker, W.G. (1970). Methodisches Konstruieren. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L.J. (1972). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Savanovic, P., & Zeiler, W. (2007). “Integral design” workshops: improving building practice and education through methodological approach for multidisciplinary design teams. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'07, p. 12, Paris, August 28–31.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1990). The design process. In Varieties of Thinking. Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center (Howard, V.A., Ed.), pp. 110–141. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., & Smith, S.M. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies 24, 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B., & Schumacher, J.S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition 21, 837–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, S., Dong, S., & Agogino, A.M. (2003). Time variance of design “story telling” in engineering design teams. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (Paulus, P.B., & Nijstad, B.A., Eds.), pp. 85–109. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D.D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and and decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, 619–628.Google Scholar
Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(4), 685–718.Google Scholar
Torrance, E.P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In The Nature of Creativity (Sternberg, R.J., Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E. (2001). Perspective: user toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18, 247–257.Google Scholar
Ward, T.B. (1994). Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology 27, 1–40.Google Scholar
Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., & Finke, R.A. (1999). Creative cognition. In Handbook of Creativity (Sternberg, R.J., Ed.), pp. 189–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar