Abstract
Novice design students struggle to engage with early stage design visualization tools such as sketching and prototyping. Instead students have a preference for designing with digital tools such as CAD modelling, motivated by inhibitions around sketching skill, which in turn leads to fixation and sunk cost effects. These behaviors present a barrier to engaging in typical practices of expert designers, namely idea fluency described as generating a wide range of ideas quickly and avoiding favoring one single idea. Noting the recent success of LEGO Serious Play in engaging non-designers in design activities in business and innovation contexts, we explore whether using LEGO as a visualization tool can trigger a behavior change in student designers towards idea fluency. This paper presents a study comparing student attitudes and design behavior when designing with LEGO, in comparison to sketching and cardboard modelling. Findings illustrate how LEGO’s comparative low fidelity leads to students to be more willing to change and modify initial ideas, reduces inhibitions related to visual quality, and reinterpret and iterate designs. Based on these findings we illustrate how designing with LEGO can mitigate issues of inhibition, fixation, and sunk cost design behaviors concluding that LEGO can trigger behavior change toward idea fluency. As such we see compelling evidence to integrate LEGO as an educational design activity for novice designers used early in the design process to illustrate and trigger idea fluency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Blessing, L. T., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Berlin: Springer.
Boa, D., Mathias, D., & Hicks, B. (2017). Evolving LEGO: Prototyping requirements for a customizable construction kit. In DS 87-4 proceedings of the 21st international conference on engineering design (ICED 17) Vol 4: design methods and tools, Vancouver, Canada.
Booth, J. W., Taborda, E. A., Ramani, K., & Reid, T. (2016). Interventions for teaching sketching skills and reducing inhibition for novice engineering designers. Design Studies,43, 1–23.
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., et al. (2017). Design prototyping methods: State of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10.
Camere, S., & Bordegoni, M. (2016). A lens on future products: An expanded notion of prototyping practice. In DS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th international design conference.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education,101(4), 738–797.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Berlin: Springer.
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. New York: Wiley.
de Vere, I., Kapoor, A., & Melles, G. (2011). Developing a drawing culture: new directions in engineering education. In DS 68-8: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED 11), impacting society through engineering design, Vol. 8: design education, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark.
Garde, J. A., & van der Voort, M. C. (2016). Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design? In Paper presented at the Design Research Society, Brighton.
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. London: Routledge.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity research journal,4(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies,15(2), 158–174.
Hallgrimsson, B. (2012). Prototyping and modelmaking for product design. London: Laurence King.
Hannah, R., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2012). A user study of interpretability of engineering design representations. Journal of Engineering Design,23(6), 443–468.
Hansen, P. K., Mabogunje, A., Lund, M., & Nielsen, L. M. (2013). Play and transdisciplinary understanding. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the international workshop on transdisciplinary design, Luxembourg.
Isa, S. S., Liem, A., & Steinert, M. (2015). The value of prototypes in the early design and development process. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on engineering design (ICED 15) Vol 5: design methods and tools-part 1, Milan, Italy.
Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies,26(6), 613–624.
Klassner, F., & Anderson, S. D. (2003). Lego MindStorms: Not just for K-12 anymore. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine,10(2), 12–18.
Langer, C., & Strothotte, C. (2007). The benefits of integrating LEGO mindstorms into design education: Course” media systems”. In DS 43: Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, the 9th international conference on engineering and product design education, University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK.
Lawson, B. (2002). CAD and creativity: Does the computer really help? Leonardo,35(3), 327–331. https://doi.org/10.1162/002409402760105361.
Lawson, B. (2005). Oracles, draughtsmen, and agents: the nature of knowledge and creativity in design and the role of IT. Automation in construction,14(3), 383–391.
McDonagh, A. N., & Salman, H. S. (2017). Visual thinking through model making. The virtual and the physical. In Proceedings of the 5th eCAADe Regional International Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 115–124). Cardiff University.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
Pei, E., Campbell, I., & Evans, M. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. The Design Journal,14(1), 64–91.
Ranscombe, C., & Bissett-Johnson, K. (2017). Digital sketch modelling: Integrating digital sketching as a transition between sketching and CAD in industrial design education. Design and Technology Education,22(1), 1–15.
Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, logo, and design. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.
Robertson, B., & Radcliffe, D. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design,41(3), 136–146.
Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions,3(1), 76–85.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign,10(1), 5–14.
Sauer, J., Franke, H., & Ruettinger, B. (2008). Designing interactive consumer products: Utility of paper prototypes and effectiveness of enhanced control labelling. Applied Ergonomics,39(1), 71–85.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic books.
Schulz, K. P., Geithner, S., Woelfel, C., & Krzywinski, J. (2015). Toolkit-based modelling and serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation processes. Creativity and Innovation Management,24(2), 323–340.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Laamanen, T.-K., Viitala, J., & Mäkelä, M. (2013). Materiality and emotions in making. Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 20(3), 5–19.
Self, J. A. (2013). CAD tools and creative design, grounds for divorce or match made in heaven? CAD/CAM Review,19(2), 36–43.
Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),12(2), 153–183.
Thurlow, L., & Ford, P. B. (2017). Where have all the ideas gone? An anatomy of sketch inhibition among student designers. In 2017. Design Research Society.
Tovey, M. (1997). Styling and design: Intuition and analysis in industrial design. Design Studies,18(1), 5–31.
Tovey, M., Porter, S., & Newman, R. (2003). Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies,24(2), 135–153.
Ullman, D. (2003). The mechanical design process (3rd ed.). London: McGraw Hill.
van Passel, P., & Eggink, W. (2013). Exploring the influence of self-confidence in product sketching. In 15th international conference on engineering and product design education: design education-growing our future.
Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. London: CRC Press.
Viswanathan, V., Atilola, O., Esposito, N., & Linsey, J. (2014). A study on the role of physical models in the mitigation of design fixation. Journal of Engineering Design,25(1–3), 25–43.
Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013). Role of sunk cost in engineering idea generation: An experimental investigation. Journal of Mechanical Design,135(12), 121002.
Welch, M. (1998). Students’ use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,8(3), 241–260.
Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education,10(2), 125–148.
Yang, M. C. (2009). Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design,20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0055-0.
Yang, M. C., & Cham, J. G. (2007). An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design,129(5), 476–482.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ranscombe, C., Bissett-Johnson, K., Mathias, D. et al. Designing with LEGO: exploring low fidelity visualization as a trigger for student behavior change toward idea fluency. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 367–388 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09502-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09502-y