Advertisement

Estimator Socialization in Design Thinking: The Dynamic Process of Learning How to Judge Creative Work

  • Julia P. A. von ThienenEmail author
  • Steven Ney
  • Christoph Meinel
Chapter
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 4)

Abstract

The assessment of ideas is a central activity in creative processes. Since teachers and coaches guide the learning of students, their assessment styles are particularly consequential. We report a longitudinal study, comparing the idea evaluation style of coaches before and after they are trained in the innovation paradigm design thinking. Initially, the coaches display a static idea assessment style. They attribute value primarily based on the requirement that ideas should be immediately effective, regardless of whether students are in the middle or in a late stage of their creative process. After being trained, the coaches have developed a dynamic, process-oriented evaluation style. They also assess ideas in line with design thinking values, with one exception. Contrary to design thinking teachings, the coaches do not come to value idea originality. The chapter closes with considerations how to facilitate the acceptance of original ideas.

Keywords

Assessment style Creativity education Design thinking Effectiveness Estimation ability Evaluation style Idea assessment Idea evaluation Longitudinal study Originality Value estimation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ronald Beghetto and Giovanni Emanuele Corazza for inviting this research to be part of their comprehensive project on dynamic perspectives in creativity education and helpful feedback on our first draft. We thank the participants of the Certification Program for Design Thinking Coaches in the summer semester of 2017 at the HPI Potsdam for taking part in our survey and for their openness to subsequent individual discussions of study results. We thank Toni Mattis for the permission to print his picture.

References

  1. Agnoli, S., Mastria, S., Kirsch, C., & Corazza G. E. (under review). Creativity in the advertisement domain: The mediating role of experience on creative achievement.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, J. E. (2016). Creative engineering. In W. J. Clancey (Ed.) Creative engineering: Promoting innovation by thinking differently (pp. 59–150). Stanford : Stanford Digital Repository. Original manuscript 1959. http://purl.stanford.edu/jb100vs5745. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  3. Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaney, M. (2005). Imagination and creativity. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  5. Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Nurturing creativity in the micro-moments of the classroom. In K. H. Kim, J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students. Advances in creativity and giftedness (Vol. 5). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Learning as a creative act. In T. Kettler (Ed.), Modern curriculum for gifted and advanced learners (pp. 111–127). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Blair, C. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  11. Carleton, T., & Leifer, L. (2009). Stanford’s ME310 course as an evolution of engineering design. In R. Roy & E. Shehab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th CIRP design conference – Competitive design (pp. 547–554). Cranfield: Cranfield University.Google Scholar
  12. Cojuharenco, I., Cornelissen, G., & Karelaia, N. (2016). Yes, I can: Feeling connected to others increases perceived effectiveness and socially responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corazza, G. E. (2015). Impresa e creatività. Online lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR8qJWtpfs. Accessed 14 Sept 2017.
  14. Corazza, G. E. (2016a). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corazza, G. E. (2016b). Creativity: A dynamic definition. Keynote speech at the MIC Conference 2016: From creative brains to creative societies, Università di Bologna, Bologna, 14–16 September 2016.Google Scholar
  16. Corazza, G. E. (2017). Creativity in education: a recursive exercise in estimation ability. Keynote speech at the Utrecht platform for creativity in education, Ut-recht University, Utrecht, 30–31 March 2017. https://platformcreativity.sites.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/2017/04/2017-UPCE-Giovanni-E.-Corazza.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2017.
  17. d.school. (2010). Bootcamp bootleg. http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar 2017.
  18. Dow, S. P., & Klemmer, S. R. (2011). The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research. Understand – improve – apply (pp. 111–128). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Gaut, B. (2010). The philosophy of creativity. Philosophy Compass, 5(12), 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenberg, R. (2003). The role of neophobia and neophilia in the development of innovative behaviour of birds. In S. M. Reader & K. N. Laland (Eds.), Animal innovation (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hasso Plattner Institute for Digital Engineering. (2017). This is design thinking: A collection of case stories. http://thisisdesignthinking.net. Accessed 29 Oct 2017.
  22. Kaufman, A. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Applying theoretical models on human creativity to animal studies. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(1), 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  24. McKim, R. H. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. McKim, R. H. (2016). Designing for the whole man. In W. J. Clancey (Ed.) Creative engineering: Promoting innovation by thinking differently (pp. 198–217). Stanford: Stanford Digital Repository. Original manuscript 1959. http://purl.stanford.edu/jb100vs5745. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  26. Ney, S. (2016). Manual for design thinking coaches. Potsdam: HPI School of Design Thinking.Google Scholar
  27. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roth, B. (2015). The achievement habit. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  29. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2013). How to overcome pro-change bias: Incorporating passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 894–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Thienen, J. P. A., Noweski, C., Meinel, C., & Rauth, I. (2011). The co-evolution of theory and practice in design thinking – or – “mind the oddness trap!”. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research. Understand – improve – apply (pp. 81–99). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. von Thienen, J. P. A., Royalty, A., & Meinel, C. (2016). Design thinking in higher education: How students become dedicated creative problem solvers. In C. Zhou (Ed.), Handbook of research on creative problem-solving skill development in higher education (pp. 306–328). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  33. von Thienen, J. P. A., Clancey, W. J., Corazza, G. E., & Meinel, C. (2017a). Theoretical foundations of design thinking. Part I: John E. Arnold’s creative thinking theories. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research. Making distinctions: Collaboration versus cooperation (pp. 13–40). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. von Thienen, J. P. A., Paladini, C., & Meinel, C. (2017b). Do creative ideas give rise to unique private-mind or private-language problems? Paper presented at the 25th annual conference of the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, 14–17August 2017.Google Scholar
  35. von Thienen, J. P. A., Clancey, W. J., & Meinel, C. (forthcoming-a). Theoretical foundations of design thinking. Part II: Robert McKim’s need based design theory. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. von Thienen, J. P. A, Ney S., Meinel C. (forthcoming-b). Idea Assessment Probes. Questionnaires to measure the idea assessment style of estimators in creative projects. Electronic Colloquium on Design Thinking Research.Google Scholar
  37. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia P. A. von Thienen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steven Ney
    • 2
  • Christoph Meinel
    • 3
  1. 1.Digital Engineering FacultyUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.HPI AcademyPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations