Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:17:07.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive heuristics in design: Instructional strategies to increase creativity in idea generation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2010

S. Yilmaz ,
C.M. Seifert  and
R. Gonzalez
S. Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Design Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
C.M. Seifert
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Design Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
R. Gonzalez
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology, Statistics, Marketing, and Design Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the use of heuristics as cognitive strategies invoked during the process of design. Heuristics are reasoning processes that do not guarantee the best solution, but often lead to potential solutions by providing a simple cognitive “shortcut.” We propose that designers use specific design heuristics to explore the problem space of potential designs, leading to the generation of creative solutions. We test whether design heuristics can be taught to novices, and suggest their use will facilitate the design process at multiple levels of instruction. In the present empirical study, we evaluate a set of six instructional heuristics and validate their effectiveness with product concepts generated by novice designers. Six hundred seventy-three drawings were created by 120 first-year college students under four instructional conditions. Drawings were coded according to their content, use of heuristics, creativity, and practicality. The most creative concepts emerged from the experimental conditions where heuristics were introduced. Heuristics appeared to help the participants “jump” to a new problem space, resulting in more varied designs, and a greater frequency of designs judged as more creative. Our findings suggest that simple demonstration of design heuristics may, at times, be sufficient to stimulate divergent thinking, perhaps because these heuristics are readily grasped and contextual application is not required. Based on these findings, a conceptual model for design education emphasizing the importance of using a variety of heuristics is proposed. This model suggests that learning can be enhanced through exposure to a variety of design heuristics, and can supplement formal education and foster personal development in design learning.

Keywords

Cognitive ProcessesCreativityDesign HeuristicsDesign PedagogyEmpirical Studies
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Design Pedagogy: Representations and Processes , August 2010 , pp. 335 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Abarca, J., Bedard, A.J., Carlson, D.W., Carlson, L.E., Hertzberg, J., Louie, B., Milford, J., Reitsma, R.F., Schwartz, T.L., & Sullivan, J.F. (2000). Introductory Engineering Design: A Project-Based Approach. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, College of Engineering and Applied Science.Google Scholar
Adams, R.S., & Atman, C.J. (1999). Cognitive processes in iterative design behavior. Proc. 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf., pp. 11a6-13–11a6-18, San Juan, Puerto Rico.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R.S., Turns, J., & Atman, C.J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice. Design Studies 24(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuller, G. (1984). Creativity as an Exact Science. New York: Gordon & Breach.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43(5), 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 89(4), 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, L.J., Ormerod, T.C., & Morley, N.J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25(5), 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M.S., Graen, G.B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1992). Identifying differences in creative problem solving style. In Creative Problem-Solving (Parnes, S.J., Ed.), Chap. 18. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Benami, O., & Jin, Y. (2002). Cognitive stimulation in conceptual design. Proc. ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computer and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 1–13, Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34023. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Chan, C. (1990). Cognitive processes in architectural design problem solving. Design Studies 11(2), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2008). “Putting blinkers on a blind man”: providing cognitive support for creative processes with environmental cues. In Tools for Innovation (Wood, K., & Markman, A., Eds.), pp. 48–74. New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Christiaans, H.H.C.M., & Dorst, K.H. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: a protocol study. Proc. 4th Int. ASME Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, pp. 131–140.Google Scholar
Chronicle, E.P., MacGregor, J.N., & Ormerod, T.C. (2004). What makes an insight problem? The roles of heuristics, goal conception and solution recoding in knowledge-lean problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(1), 14–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Clapham, M.M. (1997). Ideation skills training: a key element in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal 10(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 3rd ed.Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N., & Cross, C.A. (1998). Expertise in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 10(3), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J.W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behaviour and the originality of artistic products: a study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19(1), 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, D.W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 47, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G.A., & Scott, J.A. (1971). Training Creative Thinking. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncker, D. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs 58(No. 270).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, B. (1995). Scamper. Waco, TX: Prufrock.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R.R. (2006). Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B., & Smith, S.M. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
French, M.J. (1985). Conceptual Design for Engineers. London: Design Council/Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science 16(3), 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, W.J.J. (1961). Synectics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Harrington, D.M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality 43(3), 434–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hybs, I., & Gero, J.S. (1992). An evolutionary process model of design. Design Studies 13(3), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, D.G., & Smith, S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, Y., & Chusilp, P. (2005). Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Design Studies 27(1), 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, C., & Simon, H.A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology 22(3), 374–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2001). Modeling cognitive strategies in creative design. In Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design V (Gero, J.S., & Maher, M.L. Eds.), pp. 1–25. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Design Studies 27(5), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Laux, J., Clauss, E.F., Wood, K.L., & Markman, A.B. (2007). Effects of analogous product representation on design-by-analogy. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED, Paris.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S., Wood, K.L., & Markman, A.B. (2008). Increasing innovation: presentation and evaluation of the wordtree design-by-analogy method. Proc. ASME 2008 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2008-49317. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., & Gomez de Silva Garza, A. (1997). Case-based reasoning in design. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 12(2), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies, and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 2nd ed.London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J.A., Yilmaz, S., & Kim, Y.S. (2008). Using visual reasoning model in the analysis of sketching process. Workshop Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'08), pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
Pietersen, C. (2002). Research as a learning experience: a phenomenological explication. The Qualitative Report 7(2). Accessed at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-2/pietersen.htmlGoogle Scholar
Schank, R.C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schon, D.A. (1988). Designing: rules, types and worlds. Design Studies 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G.M., Lonergan, D.C., & Mumford, M.D. (2005). Conceptual combination: alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal 17(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Summers, J.D., & Kulkarni, S. (2001). Collaborative sketching (c-sketch): an idea generation technique for engineering design. Journal of Creative Behavior 35(3), 168–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Tynjala, P. (1998). Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning tasks: do learning outcome differ? Studies in Higher Education 23(2), 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Oech, R. (2003). Creative Whack Pack: Sixty Four Strategies to Provoke and Inspire Your Thinking. Stamford, CT: US Games Systems.Google Scholar
Warren, T.F., & Davis, G.A. (1969). Techniques for creative thinking: an empirical comparison of three models. Psychological Reports 25, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking, enlarged ed.New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., & Seifert, C.M. (2009). Cognitive heuristics employed by design experts: a case study. Proc. 3rd Int. Design Research Conf. (IASDR'09), Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar