No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
USING LIKELIHOOD RATIO TABLE AND NAÏVE BAYES CLASSIFIER METHOD TO HOLISTICALLY ASSESS CODESIGN PROGRAMMES AND METHODS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
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 concept of inclusivity involved an understanding of people, programmes and places, embedded with complex issues. 21 student designers took part in a first-of-its-kind five-day codesign programme to develop solutions for inclusive and engaged communities with residents. This quasi-experimental study aimed to develop a value-based approach using likelihood ratio table and a Naïve Bayes classifier method to assess the success of a codesign programme, in comparison to past programmes with different design challenges. Methodology proposed a systematic investigation to evaluate this programme holistically. Students discussed with stakeholders to uncover the complexities of human and environmental factors in design at early stage of ideation, and semi-structured participants’ observation tasks were considered instead of researcher's observations in the method of assessment. Selected teams were introduced to two new design methods to empathise better with seniors, i.e., Care Circle and See and Shoot. Findings revealed that these teams showed greater levels of critical inquiry when overcoming three key challenges, i.e., (1) identifying key personas, (2) examining potential use environment, and (3) access to market.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
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), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Arruda, H., & Silva, É. R. (2021). “Assessment and Evaluation in Active Learning Implementations: Introducing the Engineering Education Active Learning Maturity Model”, Education Science, Vol. 11, pp.690. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkley, E. F. (2010). “Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty”, 1st ed. The Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Bayes, T, & Price, R (1763). “An Essay Towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, MA. and F.R.S.”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 53, pp.370–418.Google Scholar
Bhandari, P. (2022). “Inductive Reasoning: Types, Examples, Explanation”, Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/inductive-reasoning.Google Scholar
Blessing, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). “DRM, a Design Research Methodology”, Springer, London. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1.Google Scholar
Chambers, A. (2013). “Statistical models for text classification and clustering: Applications and analysis”, PhD Thesis, University of California Irvine. http://mathcs.pugetsound.edu/∼alchambers/papers/thesis_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Dam, R. F., & Teo, Y. S. (2022). “How to map the stakeholders in your design project”, Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/map-the-stakeholders.Google Scholar
De Paula, D., Dobrigkeit, F., & Cormican, K. (2018). “Design thinking capability model (DTCM): A framework to map out design thinking capacity in business organisations”, International design conference – Design 2018. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). “A participatory inquiry paradigm”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 3, pp.274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karhapää, P., Behutiye, W., Rodríguez, P., Oivo, M., Costal, D., Franch, X., … & Abherve, A. (2021). “Strategies to manage quality requirements in agile software development: a multiple case study”, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 26, pp.28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09903-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, T. (2003). “Design as a social process: Bodies, brains and social aspects of designing”, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp.45–54. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2003.009827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). “Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes?” Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp.417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhauser, L., Rothschild, B., Graham, C., Ivey, S. L., & Konishi, S. (2009). “Participatory design of mass health communication in three languages for seniors and people with disabilities on Medicaid”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99 No. 12, pp.2188–2195. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.155648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, N. L., Pereira, C. A., Diniz, M. A., & Polpo, A. (2017). “The Likelihood Ratio Test and Full Bayesian Significance Test under small sample sizes for contingency tables”. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.08862.pdf.Google Scholar
Sebastian, K. (2019). “Distinguishing between the strains grounded theory: Classical, interpretive and constructivist”, Journal for Social Thought, Vol. 3 No. 1. https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/article/view/4116/6633.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. & Libre, N. I. (2020). “Implementation and evaluation of active learning techniques adaptable activities for a variety of engineering courses”, Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference and Exposition. https://monolith.asee.org/public/conferences/172/papers/30515/view.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1992). “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, B. (2009). “Active learning literature survey”, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/60660.Google Scholar
Siew, W., Rai, B., Stone, B. R., Ho, D. (2022). “Designing for inclusive and engaged communities”, Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, Vol. 5 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2022.5.2.10.Google Scholar
Siew, W., Silva, A. & Rai, B. (2023). “Innovation by design: Key challenges faced by budding designers developing solutions for dementia”, Design in the Era of Industry 4.0 – 9th International Conference on Research into Design (ICoRD). IDC School of Design, Indian Institute of Science, Bombay, India.Google Scholar
Speed, C. & Maxwell, D. (2015). “Designing through value constellations”, Interactions, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp.38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stengel, D., Bauwens, K., Sehouli, J., Ekkernkamp, A., & Porzsolt, F. (2003). “A likelihood ratio approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies”, Journal of medical screening, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.47–51. https://doi.org/10.1258/096914103321610806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thitithamawat, S., Chertchom, P., Prathuangsit, P., & Mruetusatorn, S. (2018). “Understanding stakeholders' perspective of human factors in system development project in Thailand”, Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Project Management.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., & Schuster, T. (2021). “A methodological review protocol of the use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care”, Systematic Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01565-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have
Access
Open access