Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:19:35.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW THE CO-CREATIVE PROCESS AFFECTS CONCEPT FORMATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Akane Matsumae ,
Ferdi Trihadi Raharja ,
Quentin Ehkirch  and
Yukari Nagai
Akane Matsumae*
Affiliation:
Kyushu University
Ferdi Trihadi Raharja
Affiliation:
Kyushu University
Quentin Ehkirch
Affiliation:
University of Technology of Belfort-Montbéliard
Yukari Nagai
Affiliation:
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
*
Matsumae, Akane, Kyushu University, Faculty of Design, Japan, matsumae@design.kyushu-u.ac.jp

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The importance of forming concepts in one's mind has been argued from various perspectives in design studies. This experimental study examines how the co-creative process affects concept formation considering its depth.

The authors conducted a learning experiment applying three processes; non-interactive (NI), interactive but non-co-creative (NC), and interactive and co-creative processes (C). To evaluate whether and how deep the concept is formed in the examinee's mind, mimetic Japanese words, which contain several different explicit concepts underlying a certain integrated implicit concept, were chosen as learning materials. The examinees without any knowledge about mimetic Japanese words were gathered globally and the experiment was conducted fully online using English. Examinees were tested several times to measure how they had formed these concepts for comparing the processes.

The findings suggest that the co-creative process enhances the depth of concept formation: involvement load and willingness to participate in the co-creative process lead to deeper concept formation.

Keywords

Concept FormationCreativityParticipatory designDesign for interfacesLearning design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1775 - 1786
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Casakin, H. P. (2007). Factors of metaphors in design problem-solving: Implications for design creativity. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 21–33.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Vocabulary Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01159.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication, Design Studies, 26(5), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasiha, M. Y. N., Sakayama, Y., Yamamoto, E., Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2010). Understanding the nature of deep impression by analyzing the structure of virtual impression networks, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, 1827–1836.Google Scholar
Hirschel, R., & Fritz, E. (2013). Learning vocabulary: CALL program versus vocabulary notebook. System, 41(3), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettanurak, V. (Nui), Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. D. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 541–583. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumae, A., & Nagai, Y. (2018). The function of co-creation in dynamic mechanism of intersubjectivity formation among individuals. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, 4, 1925–1936. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumae, A., Matsumae, S., & Nagai, Y. (2020). Dynamic Relationship Design of Knowledge Co-Creating Cluster: Traditional Japanese Architectural Industry. SN Applied Sciences, Systems and Technologies, 2(443). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2209-2Google Scholar
McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents, and systems. In Lievrouw, L., & Livingston, S. (Eds.), Handbook of New Media (pp. 162–182). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive Load and Learning Effects of Having Students Organize Pictures and Words in Multimedia Environments: The Role of Student Interactivity and Feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35–45.10.1007/BF02504796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, S., Matsumae, A., & Nagai, Y. (2021). Knowledge sharing structure of agricultural products: Case of kokuzoyuzu (citrus). Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 198 SIST, 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55374-6_33Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. In Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K., & Senoo, D. (1996). From information processing to knowledge creation: A paradigm shift in business management. Technology in Society, 18(2 SPEC. ISS.), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791X(96)00001-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. (2017). Vocabulary Learning Through Computer Assisted Language Learning. Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences, 58(1), 67–72. www.memrise.comGoogle Scholar
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00015-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V.S., & Hubbard, E.M. (2001). Synaesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8 (12), 3–34.Google Scholar
Smeets, D. J. H., & Bus, A. G. (2012). Interactive electronic storybooks for kindergartners to promote vocabulary growth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.12.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taura, T., Yamamoto, E., Fasiha, M.Y.N, Goka, M., Mukai, F., Nagai, Y., & Nakashima, H. (2012) Constructive simulation of creative concept generation process in design: a research method for difficult-to-observe design-thinking processes, Journal of Engineering Design, 23:4, 297–321, https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.637191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 6–2910.1080/08923649409526852CrossRefGoogle Scholar