Advertisement

In Education We All Want to Be Nice: Lessons Learned from a Multidisciplinary Design Studio

  • Katherine CennamoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to identify factors that might foster and sustain innovative design thinking through a qualitative examination of a multidisciplinary student team charged with the design of an immersive museum experience. Survey, focus group, and observational data were collected from students of industrial design, architecture, computer science, mechanical engineering, and education. Using the factors identified in the literature on group creativity as a guide to data analysis, the analyses revealed how multidisciplinary design projects can foster innovation. In addition, the data revealed differences in the cultures through which the various design disciplines are educated. Whether the goal is to develop an aesthetically pleasing product or to solve a challenging problem, the development of creative design solutions is an iterative process, involving idea refinement as well as idea generation. The results suggest ways to create a classroom culture that supports both the creativity needed to generate innovative ideas and the resilience that is needed to refine them.

Keywords

Creativity Innovation Multidisciplinary Transdisciplinary Studio Studio-based learning Collaboration Design disciplines Design Design culture Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Grant No. ESI-0442469 from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the entire research team. Other project team members were Margarita McGrath, Associate Professor of architecture in the School of Architecture + Design at Virginia Tech, and Mitzi Vernon, Professor in the Industrial Design Program in the School of Architecture + Design at Virginia Tech team members who contributed to the data collection and analysis include Leigh Lalley and Phyllis Newbill.

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, S. (2005). Teaching students to think critically. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70(6), 42.Google Scholar
  4. Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2011). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348.Google Scholar
  5. Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), Article 5. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol5/iss2/5
  6. Chirumbolo, A., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. (2004). Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton, G., & Reiber, L. P. (2010). The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 755–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Combs, L. B., Cennamo, K. S., & Newbill, P. L. (2009). Developing critical and creative thinkers: Toward a conceptual model of creative and critical thinking processes. Educational Technology, 49(5), 3–14.Google Scholar
  10. Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hennessey, B. A. (2003). Is the social psychology of creativity really social? Moving beyond a focus on the individual. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 181–201). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Hokanson, B. (2012). The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hooker, C., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The group as mentor: Social capital and the systems model of creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 225–244). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architecture Students.Google Scholar
  16. Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larson, J. R., Jr., Chrisietnesen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202–224). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  20. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Michinov, N., & Pimois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32–62). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Nemeth, C., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  24. Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nickerson, R. S. (1984). Kinds of thinking taught in current programs. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 26.Google Scholar
  26. Nijstad, B. A., & Paulus, P. B. (2003). Group creativity: Common themes and future directions. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 326–339). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). Critical thinking and the art of close reading (Part III). Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 36–37.Google Scholar
  28. Raths, L. E., Wasserman, S., Jonas, A., & Rothstein, A. (1986). Teaching for thinking: Theory, strategies, & activities for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Whan Park, C. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85–109). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Sternberg, R. J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tjosvold, D. (1998). Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. West, M. A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 245–277). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations