THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS, THEATER, AND DANCE

TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACT ON CREATIVITY: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF COMPUTER MODELING AND RAPID PROTOTYPING ON PERCEIVED CREATIVITY

By ANTHONY L. CONETTA

A thesis submitted to the Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Fine Arts in Interior Design

Degree Awarded: Fall, 2012

i

Anthony Conetta defended this thesis on June 26, 2012.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Marlo Ransdell Professor Directing Thesis

Eric Wiedegreen Committee Member

Jim Dawkins Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[Type or paste your acknowledgements paragraph(s) here]

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 1 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 2 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 4 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 7 Guiding Research Questions.................................................................................................... 7 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 9 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 10 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 12 DEFINITION OF TERMS ........................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 18 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................................................... 18 Design Education ................................................................................................................... 18 The Elements and Principles of Design ................................................................................. 19 Two- and Three- Dimensional Designs ................................................................................. 21 The History of Models ........................................................................................................... 22 Models in Design ................................................................................................................... 23 Rapid Prototyping .................................................................................................................. 26 Technological Impact on Design ........................................................................................... 28 iv

Assessing Creative Performances .......................................................................................... 30 The 4 Creative “P”’s .............................................................................................................. 31 Judging Creative Products ..................................................................................................... 33 The Creative Product Analysis Matrix .................................................................................. 36 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 38 CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 39 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 39 Description of Research Design ............................................................................................ 39 Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................................ 41 Institutional Review Board Approval .................................................................................... 42 Setting .................................................................................................................................... 42 Description of Subject ........................................................................................................... 43 Description of Instruments .................................................................................................... 44 Questionnaires .................................................................................................................. 44 Observation ....................................................................................................................... 48 Product Judging ................................................................................................................ 49 Explanation of Procedures ..................................................................................................... 51 Modeling Handout ............................................................................................................ 51 Exercise 1 and 2 ................................................................................................................ 52 Introduction to SketchUp .................................................................................................. 53 Hand Modeling Project..................................................................................................... 54 Computer Modeling Project ............................................................................................. 55 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 58 CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 59 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 59 v

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 59 Establishing Validity of Dimensions Judged ......................................................................... 59 Assessing Changes in Creativity on Eight Variables ............................................................ 63 Analyzing the Degree of Change ........................................................................................... 66 Relationship between Questionnaire and Models.................................................................. 68 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 69 CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 70 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 70 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 70 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................... 70 Assessing Reliability of Judging Dimensions ................................................................... 70 Assessing Changes in Creativity ....................................................................................... 71 Significant Changes in Perceived Creativity .................................................................... 72 Dimensions of Creativity ....................................................................................................... 73 Change Attributed to Computer Modeling ............................................................................ 74 Novelty .............................................................................................................................. 74 Variation and Deviation ................................................................................................... 76 Changes Attributed to RP Machinery .................................................................................... 79 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 80 Effort ................................................................................................................................. 82 Detail and Complexity ...................................................................................................... 84 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 85 Reconsiderations .................................................................................................................... 86 Questionnaire.................................................................................................................... 86 Judging Criteria ................................................................................................................ 87 vi

Sequence of Models........................................................................................................... 87 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................. 87 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 88 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 90 LETTER OF INFORMATION (STUDENT)............................................................................... 90 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 91 LETTER OF INFORMATION (FACULTY) .............................................................................. 91 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 92 LETTER OF INFORMATION AND CONSENT (STUDENTS) ............................................... 92 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................... 94 LETTER OF INFORMATION AND CONSENT (FACULTY) ................................................. 94 APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................... 96 CREATIVE PRODUCT ANALYSIS MATRIX.......................................................................... 96 APPENDIX F................................................................................................................................ 97 QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................................................... 97 Self-Actualization Test .......................................................................................................... 97 Creativity Assessment ........................................................................................................... 98 Assessment of Past Activities and Adjective Check-list ..................................................... 100 Biographical Assessment ..................................................................................................... 104 APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................................. 105 JUDGE’S SCORE SHEET ......................................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................................. 106 IRB APPLICATION................................................................................................................... 106 APPENDIX I .............................................................................................................................. 114 APPROVED LETTER OF CONSENT (STUDENTS) .............................................................. 114 vii

APPENDIX J .............................................................................................................................. 116 APPROVED LETTER OF CONSENT (FACULTY) ................................................................ 116 APPENDIX K ............................................................................................................................. 118 DF1 (IND 1203) SYLLABUS .................................................................................................... 118 APPENDIX L ............................................................................................................................. 122 SUMMARY OF DAILY ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 122 APPENDIX M ............................................................................................................................ 123 EXERCISE 1 .............................................................................................................................. 123 APPENDIX N ............................................................................................................................. 124 EXERCISE 2 .............................................................................................................................. 124 APPENDIX O ............................................................................................................................. 125 INTRODUCTION TO SKETCHUP .......................................................................................... 125 APPENDIX P.............................................................................................................................. 126 HAND MODELING PROJECT ................................................................................................. 126 APPENDIX Q ............................................................................................................................. 127 COMPUTER MODELING PROJECT ...................................................................................... 127 APPENDIX R ............................................................................................................................. 128 DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................ 128 APPENDIX S.............................................................................................................................. 129 DATA FROM MODEL JUDGING............................................................................................ 130 APPENDIX T ............................................................................................................................. 131 CREATIVE BEHAVIOR’S INVENTORY ............................................................................... 131 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 134

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Elements of Design 1 .................................................................................................... 20 Table 2.2 Principles of Design 1 ................................................................................................... 21 Table 2.3 Judging Dimensions Associated with the CPAM 1 ...................................................... 37 Table 3.1 Age Distribution of Subjects 1...................................................................................... 44 Table 3.2 Subjects Year in School 1 ............................................................................................. 46 Table 3.3 Number of Students Who Have Simplified Design 1 ................................................... 46 Table 3.4 Distribution of Self-Actualization Scores 1 .................................................................. 47 Table 3.5 Distribution of Creativity Scores 1 ............................................................................... 48 Table 3.6 Distribution of Adjective Scores 1................................................................................ 48 Table 3.7 Dimensions of CPAM in Relation to Judging Criteria 1 .............................................. 50 Table 3.8 Summary of Daily Activities 1 ..................................................................................... 57 Table 4.1 Interrater Reliability Analysis 1.................................................................................... 60 Table 4.2 Examining Correlations between Organization and Balance 1 .................................... 62 Table 4.5 Comparison of Hand vs. Computer Modeling 1 ........................................................... 66 Table 4.6 Comparison of Creativity 1........................................................................................... 67

1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Exercise 1 ....................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 3.2 Exercise 2 ....................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 3.3 Hand Model Layout 3 ...................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3.4 ....................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 3.5 ....................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 4.6 Computer Model Layout ................................................................................................. 57 Figure 5. 1 Hand Model Produced by Subject 6 ................................................................................. 75 Figure 5. 2 Computer Model Produced by Subject 6 .......................................................................... 75 Figure 5. 3 Most novel hand model submitted.................................................................................... 76 Figure 5.4 Hand Model Produced by Subject 16

78

Figure 5.5 Computer and RP Model Produced by Subject 16 .............................................................. 78 Figure 5.6 Hand Models Produced by Subject 12 and 14 81

Figure 5.7 Computer Models Produced by Subject 12 and 14 ............................................................. 81 Figure 5.8 Hand Models Produced by Subject 21 and 23 .................................................................... 83 Figure 5.9 Computer Models Produced by Subject 21 and 23 Figure 5.10 Highly Complex Model Figure 5.11 Highly Detailed Model

83 84 85

2

ABSTRACT
This study examined the perceived creativity level of two models, one produced by hand and the other computer generated and produced using rapid prototyping technology, through seven dimensions (Novelty, Aesthetics, Effort, Variation, Deviation, Detail, and Complexity). This study considered potential changes in perceived creativity resulting from the introduction of computer modeling and rapid prototyping. It further studied those dimensions which showed a significant change in creativity, as predictors of how computer modeling software and rapid prototyping increases creative thinking. This study involved 36 students enrolled in The Florida State University Interior Design Department. Over a three week period in the Fall of 2011, these students completed exercises meant to establish model building techniques and skills, as well as produced the two models listed above (Hand and Computer). Creativity was assessed using an adaptation of the Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM) created by Bessemer and Treffinger (1980). The information obtained from models was compared individually, that is one subject’s hand model to that same subject’s computer model; as well as in whole, that is all subjects’ hand models to all subjects’ computer models. The findings showed that nearly three times as many subjects produced a model that was perceived as more creative when using computer software and rapid prototyping machinery. It also established that the dimensions termed aesthetics, effort, detail, and complexity all saw a significant increase of creativity in those models produced through rapid prototyping. From this data it can be ascertained that the availability of computer modeling software and rapid prototyping technology provided students with an opportunity for creative growth. 3

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Introduction In the design education environment, students are often given extensive training in two-dimensional design techniques, those which give the illusion of three dimensions, both hand generated (sketching, rendering, etc.) and computer generated (AutoCAD, Sketchup, etc.)(Stewart, 2006). However, when it comes to three-dimensional design techniques most programs still teach, refer, and implement strictly hand generated solutions. The problem with relying solely on hand generated solutions is that students of design may be able to visualize the perfect solution, but when it comes to constructing that solution into a model, they tend to lack the knowledge, skills, and time necessary to do so. When examining grading rubrics for models submitted as a final project in education, it becomes apparent that a majority of the grade is based solely on presentation. Presentation generally includes: craft, how well the model is built; construction, the techniques used to build as well as the sturdiness of the model; material representation, the successful execution of either textural or applied representational materials; and detail, the ability to replicate even the smallest elements that collectively constitute completeness. This emphasis on presentation ultimately leads students to simplify their design solutions in order to produce a model that will provide them with a good grade. What if these roadblocks were removed? What if the ability to construct a model did not depend on the acquisition of a separate skill set? Could the removal of hand constructed modeling provide students with a platform where 4

creativity is not only enhanced but encouraged? These possibilities foster further inspection into newly available (non-hand) modeling techniques. Recent advances in technology, specifically rapid prototyping technology, which is defined on the next page, provide the ideal opportunity to examine these negative factors. By examining these factors researchers may consider new teaching strategies to not only remove them, but to provide students with a platform in which creative thinking is fostered. Background The wide array of synthetic materials and technology now available provides designers with new approaches to the design process (Busch, 1991). Synthetic materials can be defined as a group of materials including metal and plastic polymers used in model making. “The dependence on computer technology is a feature of virtually all industries today; however, CAD (Computer Aided Design) is only one aspect of computerization that has had an impact on the way design is conducted” (Slotkis, 2006, p.166). The Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) is the governing body which establishes and validates teaching practices in design education environments. For an interior design program to be certified by CIDA it must adhere to a strict set of standards. As of 2011, these standards consisted of four sections and sixteen components (CIDA, 2011). The entire set of standards is provided in Appendix U. This research will focus on standard nine, Space and Form, which states that students must successfully apply the elements and principles of design through two- and threedimensional solutions. Although CIDA requires two- and three-dimensional solutions, they do not specify that these solutions be constructed solely by hand; they only require that students show a variety of display techniques. 5

For centuries, three-dimensional models have been proven to be an efficient way of showing layouts and presenting parts as a whole (Slotkis, 2006). Although these models are an effective way to express ideas, for many students the process and creation of a model is very stressful (Taylor, 1971). McMillian referenced model building as an experience in which the likelihood of constructing future models will rely on constructive experiences and, even if the experience is positive, the time associated with model construction usually makes students reluctant to revise, review, and improve their models once they are created (Krathwohl, Benjamin, & Masia, 2001; Sprenger, 1999). Thus, if frustration is experienced, the process of model building will likely be avoided in the future (McMillian, 2001). One way of reducing time, as well as many other negative aspects associated with three-dimensional design solutions, is through the implementation of rapid prototyping technology. Rapid prototyping (RP) can be described as a vast array of manufacturing procedures, all of which stem from the creation of a three-dimensional computer generated image (Taylor, 1971). Not only does RP drastically cut down modeling time, but, when properly used, it can accelerate the entire design process (Clay & Smith, 2000). A model which once took a number of days to construct can now be modeled, through the use of such machinery, in a number of hours. While technology provides many new opportunities to address design issues, some teacher’s attitudes and perceptions of technology prevent them from fully integrating it into their course (Teo, 2008). Boethel & Dimock (1999) proved that when teachers blend technology into constructivist learning situations—environments in which teachers focus on student engagement—the student achievement is positively impacted

6

(Hernandez-Ramos, 2005). Therefore, the goal of this research is twofold. First, this research looks to establish how computer modeling and RP impact creativity through seven dimensions. Second, it examines the impact recorded and examines what aloud for such an impact so that computer modeling and RP technology may be integrated into course curriculum in a way that promotes and enhances creative thinking. Purpose The purpose of this research was to provide qualitative and quantitative data on the use of computer modeling software and rapid prototyping technology in design education. Prior to 2011, studies conducted on RP technology have focused strictly on aspects of the physical model such as time and craft. Although these studies provide valuable data on the ways in which RP positively influences design, they do not assess the possible impact of RP on creative thinking. Furthermore, there has been no research conducted which compares RP to traditional hand modeling on multiple dimensions of creativity. This research aims at providing statistical data on the dimensions of creativity which are positively impacted through the use of computer modeling software and RP technology. Guiding Research Questions The primary question to be answered through this research was: How does the availability of computer modeling, used in conjunction with rapid prototyping technology, impact creativity? There were many secondary questions to be considered during this study that provided valuable insight into the primary question. They included the following: 7

1. When judging two models, one constructed by hand and the other computer generated and produced using rapid prototyping machinery, do trends or patterns emerge on an individual or group level? a. Is there a defined pattern when comparing changes in individuals tested, that is one subject’s hand model to that own subject’s computer model? b. Is there a defined pattern when comparing changes in the subjects as a whole, that is all subjects’ hand models to all subjects’ computer models? c. Does a pattern or trend appear when judging students who began at the same levels of creativity? d. Does a pattern or trend appear when judging students who exhibit similar traits and/or backgrounds? 2. When judging models, on eight dimensions of creativity, are there apparent trends revealed in the strongest components of hand modeling and the strongest components of computer modeling? These components include: 1. Novelty: The degree to which the design itself is original or striking especially in concept or style. 2. Aesthetic Appeal: The degree to which the design is pleasing in appearance as a whole. 3. Effort: The degree to which the design shows effort, the placement and design seems to have been done to achieve a particular end. 4. Variation of Shapes: The degree to which the design shows a wide usage of various shapes available, how many different shapes were incorporated in the design.

8

5. Deviation from Original Plan: The degree to which the final product deviates from the original plan layout. 6. Detail: The small elements that collectively constitute completeness. 7. Complexity: The level of intricacy exhibited by the design. 8. Overall Creativity: Judge the model on its overall creative appearance using your own personal definition of creativity. 3. Why do certain dimensions of creativity show a significant impact while others do not? a. Can an explanation, as to why certain dimensions were significantly impacted by computer modeling and RP technology, be ascertained from data collected? b. Can an explanation, as to why certain dimensions were not significantly impacted by computer modeling and RP technology, be ascertained from data collected? Objectives The objectives of this study are: 1. To understand the opportunities provided to students through the use of computer modeling and rapid prototyping technology. 2. To note how the use of computer modeling, in conjunction with rapid prototyping, affects students’ perceived creativity level. 3. To ascertain which dimensions of creativity judged are significantly impacted by the availability of rapid prototyping technology. 4. To examine the ways in which those dimensions and levels of creativity were impacted by the technology. 9

5. To establish how rapid prototyping technology can be integrated into learning environments successfully. Methodology In order to address the identified research questions, data was gathered through two different methods. First, the researcher distributed a questionnaire. The questionnaire gathered information regarding the subject’s biographical history and current creativity level. Creativity levels were assessed using three different tests, a selfactualization test, a creativity assessment, and an adjective checklist. The data was then compared to the models overall creativity scores, attained from the combination of dimensions 1-7, in order to determine whether correlations could be established between those students who excel in either hand or computer modeling. Secondly, the researcher had the subjects produce two models, one built by hand and the other computer generated and produced using RP technology. These models were then judged by three industry professionals through an adaptation of the Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM) by Bessemer & Treffinger (1980). The first statistical analysis performed on this data compared each judge’s score to the other judges’ scores in order to establish reliability in the dimensions of creativity judged. Reliability was established through the use of Cronbach’s Alpha. Those dimensions established as reliable were then reanalyzed using the Wilcoxin Signed Rank’s Test (two-tailed), which establishes the exact degree to which each dimensions exhibited change. This degree was used to determine those dimensions which exhibited a significant change as well as those which did not. Finally, the researcher examined why specific dimensions

10

showed a significant change and others did not through an examination of terminology and data associated with that dimension. Limitations This study had certain limitations that should be acknowledged. These limitations are introduced here and expanded upon in chapters 3 & 4. Limitations associated with this study include: 1. The truthful completion of the questionnaire by the subjects. 2. The high number of females tested to the limited number of males. 3. Personal and unforeseen biographical traits which may not match those of other students. 4. Personal teaching style of researcher conducting research. 5. Predetermined content of class. 6. Inconsistencies between individual judge’s score of creative dimensions. It is easy to see the value RP technology provides to designers from all disciplines; however, it is important to note--as Kirton & Lavoie did in their 2005 article titled Utilizing Rapid Prototyping for Architectural Modeling--that each of the traditional model building techniques has its own value, and whether hand or computer generated, the main purpose of design is to communicate something effectively (Slotkis, 2006). Moreover, the students of design must still understand the essential elements and principles of manual drawing, because the fundamentals behind composing something on paper or the computer are the same (Slotkis, 2006).

11

Conclusion This study examined the impact of RP on creative thinking through the judging and comparison of 72 models, 36 created by hand and 36 created using RP. The study explored relationships among subjects’ biographical history, past creative activities, current creativity level, and the two models they created. The availability of RP technology not only allowed students to produce models judged as more creative, but enhanced their perception of model building through the removal of negative aspects associated with model construction (i.e. time, money, etc.). The availability of RP technology provided countless opportunities to the students and faculty of this design education program. Moreover, the inclusion of RP allowed this design education program to fully prepare their graduates in various technological design approaches used throughout the industry today (Flowers & Moniz, 2002).

12

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Bauhaus: The first established school of design, founded in 1919 by Walter Groupius, the school is regarded as the single most influential school of art, architecture, and design. Basic Design: describes the teaching and learning of the design fundamentals commonly referred to as the Principles of Two- and Three-dimensional Design. Computer Aided Design (CAD): involves the use of computer software to assist in the creation, modification, analysis, and optimization of a design. Computer-aided design describes the process of creating drawings through computer software. Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM): the use of a computer as a tool for the manufacture or assembly of products. Computer Graphics: the graphical representation possibilities of the computer, both on a two-dimensional flat surface and in three-dimensional space. Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT): compares products against one another, through the independent review of each product, and relies highly on domain experts being those who judge. Constructivist Teachers: focuses on student engagement in the learning process; and pattern their instruction after the old Chinese saying: "Tell me and I will forget; show me, and I may remember; involve me and I will understand.” Constructivist Learning Environments: an environment where the teacher becomes an advocate rather than a dictator in the learning process

13

Creativity: the production of something which is both novel (i.e. original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. useful, or adaptive) Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM): a three-dimensional model aimed at judging the creative level of products. The CPAM evaluates products as being creative through three dimensions, and nine facets. The CPAM is provided in Appendix E Elements of Design: the individual components of a design, the elements act as building blocks of an effective design composition and include Line, Color, Shape, Form, Texture, and Pattern. Line: An extension of a point into space, a line is identified as an edge, although it has no width itself, only length Color: The quality of an object with respect to light reflected by that object, and usually measured by hue, saturation, and brightness Shape: An enclosed space created through the use of other design elements Form: A defining shape that is given the sense of volume Texture: The tactile nature of an object usually exhibited through an actual texture or applied texture. Pattern: Can be described as any decorative arrangement, however, it usually involves the repetition of one or more elements Four Creative P’s: focus on the creative person, creative process, creative product, and creative press (i.e. environment) Person: someone who does creative things with some degree of regularity Process: any thinking process which solves a problem in an original and useful way Environment: the location and stimuli present while creating

14

Product: The end production of something which can be presented as a tangible or intangible indicator of a creative performance Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM): an industry test used to judge the creativity of products Model: any three-dimensional object constructed to serve one of two purposes: either investigative or demonstrative Demonstrative Models: also known as presentation modes, often exhibit a final idea or solution with a high attention to detail. Presentation models convey information such as appearance, use, and structure; in a ways which a graphic representation cannot. Investigative Models: are used for feedback and serve as an essential part of the creative process. Investigative models tend to be constructed quickly with little emphasis on details Study Models: serve as an exploration of form and the relationship of space Finished Study Models: usually show some indication, either in part or whole, as to the material choices that will be used in the final design Finished Models: shows a true scale representation of materials, colors, and details Working Models: show all parts of the structure which have a mechanical component Naturalistic Observation: the observing of individuals in their natural setting Principles of Design: the rules or guidelines that govern the use of design elements, and include Scale, Proportion, Balance, Symmetry, Rhythm, and Harmony Scale: The relative dimensions of parts to a whole Proportion: The relationship of one part to another or to the whole, in terms of size, amount, or degree

15

Balance: The visual weight of components that creates a sense of equilibrium Symmetry: The perceived sense of proportionality and balance that, for many people, represents a pleasing arraignment Rhythm: A composition technique that offers a sense of coherence through the addition or division of design elements Harmony: The accord between different elements of a design to produce a unity of as a whole Qualitative Data: Describe items in terms of some quality or categorization that in some cases may be informal Quantitative Data: Describes items in terms of quantity and in which a range of numerical values are used without implying that a particular numerical value refers to a particular distinct category Rapid prototyping (RP): a vast array of manufacturing procedures, all of which stem from the creation of a three-dimensional computer generated image Additive RP: also known as three-dimensional printers, use a layering method that builds the model from the ground up in one of two ways. The first method applies a thin layer of powder and then a liquid binder over and over again, while the second method uses a molten material, usually plastic that hardens, which is printed one bead at a time. Subtractive RP: also known as CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machinery it produces models by removing material from a block of substrate such as wood, foam, or plastic

16

Two-Dimensional Design: the creation of a two-dimensional world that replicates a three-dimensional one through a conscious effort of the organization of various elements Three-Dimensional Design: the creation of a three-dimensional object Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test: presents changes in data through a Z score and pvalue

17

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE
“The dependence on computer technology is a feature of virtually all industries today; however, CAD (Computer Aided Design) is only one aspect of computerization that has had an impact on the way business is conducted” (Slotkis, 2006, p.166). With the wide array of synthetic materials and technology, available today, designers are provided with new approaches to the design process (Busch, 1991). The following review will provide an overview of material pertinent to this research including: design education, elements and principles of design, modeling history, types of models, and rapid prototyping. Lastly, the review will examine creativity, specifically common traits of creative people, the dimensions of creative products, and proven strategies and methods for judging creative products. Design Education The history of formal design education can be dated to the establishment of the Bauhaus, which is regarded as the single most influential school of art, architecture, and design (Merriman & Winter (Eds.), 2006). Walter Groupius established the school in 1919, with hopes of furthering the role of the artist in industrial mass production (Keylor (Eds.), 2007). Before the Bauhaus, design was considered a craft; a tradition which was passed on from teacher to apprentice over time (Boucharenc, 2006). By gathering the best designers from each respective discipline at one location, the Bauhaus revolutionized the teaching of such crafts (Merriman & Winter (Eds.), 2006). The school

18

was known to work hand in hand with industrial firms, and its furniture, textile, and lighting fixture designs were all mass produced successfully (Keylor (Eds.), 2007). In the 2006 article “Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey” by C.G. Boucharenc, he stated the Bauhaus revolutionized the institutionalization of “basic design”; a term which describes the teaching and learning of design fundamentals that are commonly referred to as the Principles of Two- and Threedimensional Design (Boucharenc, 2006, p.1). He follows this definition by saying: “the pedagogy of Basic Design promotes a holistic, creative, and experimental methodology; in order to develop the learning style and cognitive abilities of students with respect to the fundamental principles of design” (p.1). By providing students with the “basic” fundamentals of design (i.e. an understanding of the elements and principles of design) educators establish building blocks from which the students can grow (Slotkis, 2006). The Elements and Principles of Design The field of design is often judged as subjective. However, since the field institutes a set of guidelines which govern its success this perception is not valid (Steffany, 2010). These guidelines, the Elements and Principles of Design, make up the foundation of the discipline. The elements of design can be described as the building blocks which make up designs, while the principles act as a guideline for the proper use of those elements (Nielson & Taylor, 2007). This partnership allows the elements of design to be judged as right or wrong, through an evaluation of the principles of design (Nielson & Taylor, 2007). The elements of design consist of line, color, shape, form, texture, and pattern; a definition of each element if provided on the next page in Table 2.1.

19

Table 2.1 Elements of Design 1 Line An extension of a point into space, a line is identified as an edge, although it has no width itself, only length Color The quality of an object with respect to light reflected by that object, and usually measured by hue, saturation, and brightness Shape Form Texture An enclosed space created through the use of other design elements A defining shape that is given the sense of volume The tactile nature of an object usually exhibited through an actual texture or applied texture. Pattern Any decorative arrangement, however, it usually involves the repetition of one or more elements *All definitions obtained from Interior Design: a critical exam (2011) by Clive Edwards* Nissen, Faulkner, & Faulkner (1994) stated, "these basic elements or tools, along with the principles which guide their application, comprise the visual vocabulary of design" (p. 67). Furthermore, once the elements are understood, the designer may combine and manipulate multiple elements, according to rules set forth by the principles, to create an end product (Steffany, 2010). The principles of design, are "thought of as more complex, than the elements, and whereas elements are singular components of design, principles are the rules or guidelines that govern the use of those elements" (Slotkis, 2006, p. 32). Establishing a working knowledge of these principles allows designers to communicate both two- and three-dimensional design solutions successfully (Nissen et aI., 1994). The principles of design consist of scale, proportion, balance, symmetry, rhythm, and harmony (variety and unity), and are defined in Table 2.2.

20

Table 2.2 Principles of Design 1 Scale Proportion The relative dimensions of parts to a whole The relationship of one part to another or to the whole, in terms of size, amount, or degree Balance Symmetry The visual weight of components that creates a sense of equilibrium The perceived sense of proportionality and balance that, for many people, represents a pleasing arraignment Rhythm A composition technique that offers a sense of coherence through the addition or division of design elements Harmony The accord between different elements of a design to produce a unity of as a whole *All definitions obtained from Interior Design: a critical exam (2011) by Clive Edwards* Two- and Three- Dimensional Designs Two-dimensional design can be defined as “the creation of a two-dimensional world that replicates a three-dimensional one. This is accomplished through a conscious effort of the organization of various elements, while establishing visual harmony or generating visual excitement” (Wong, p. 6, 1977). The design elements used in the composition of a two-dimensional design are classified as line, shape, texture, color, and value (Stewart, 2006). Although three-dimensional designs have the same objective as a twodimensional design, i.e. establishing visual harmony and generating visual excitement; it does so by adding the design elements of form, mass (Stewart, 2006). Unlike the observing and processing of information that goes with examining a twodimensional design, when a client is presented with a three-dimensional design “model,” there is a sense of instant communication and interaction with it (Alley, 1961). Taylor (1971) stated although the model is no more than a three-dimensional representation of 21

a design, by providing the ability to view from all sides and change the perspective as desired, the client feels more connected with it (Taylor, 1971). The History of Models Models have been constructed and used as representational objects and figures for centuries (Alley, 1961). Whether the object is a children’s toy or a learning tool, the importance of these models is unassailable. Kings and generals are said to have learned their first military lessons with the aid of toy soldiers. The French inventor, Denis Papin (1647 – 1714), who pioneered the steam engine, conducted all of his experiments by means of models (Payne, 1996). From this it is easy to see why model-making has long been an element of the design process. Models serve as a bridge between ideas and the physical world, especially when ideas are being presented to individuals not trained in the profession of design (Greenhalgh, 2009). They were traditionally built by hand and constructed from various materials such as wood, clay, paper, and foam (Slotkis, 2006). Models range from simple blocked form layouts, used to understand spatial relations and form, all the way to detailed and working prototyped models, used in product development to examine fine parts and details (Taylor, 1971). As a device that critically influences every aspect of design, the model possesses a value which far exceeds its miniature scale (Busch, 1991).The shipping and aircraft industries produced the first scale models in order to test buoyancy and aerodynamics of proposed designs (Taylor, 1971). While these two industries used scale models, due to size restrictions, the automobile industry has used full-size scale models for decades. By using full scale models, automobile designers are able to manipulate even the finest of details more exactly (Taylor, 1971). One of the most important aspects of a model is 22

scale; since the model is a replica of something else, it needs to have a specific scale to be built (Payne, 1996, p.26). Although models were traditionally used by industrial designers, product designers, and architects to expand concepts and develop prototypes, with the growing responsibilities of interior designers today, models are becoming a valuable tool (Slotkis, 2006). Models in Design When examining models created in the industry of design, there are many interchangeable terms. Due to this, the following section will examine terminology associated with models, as well as indicate which terms will be used in correlation with future text. The word model, as a broad term, can be described as any threedimensional object constructed to serve one of two purposes: either investigative or demonstrative (Alley, 1961) Used primarily for feedback, investigative models, serve as an essential part of the creative process (Starkey, 2006). Investigative models tend to be constructed quickly with little emphasis on details (Greenhalgh, 2009). Demonstrative models, also known as presentation models--the term which is used in association with this research--most often exhibit a final idea or solution with a high attention to detail (Slotkis, 2006). Presentation models are used to convey information such as appearance, use, and structure; in a ways which a graphic representation cannot (Frampton & Kobolski, 1981). Within the broad term of investigative and demonstrative models, there are four specific modeling styles: study models, finished study models, finished models, and

23

working models. A brief description of each specific style and type of model is provided below. Study models serve as more than a mere three-dimensional representation of a project. They allow for an overall examination of a project through the understanding of relationships within that space (Busch, 1991). A study model generally serves as an exploration of form and the relationship of space (Slotkis, 2006). The overall time and cost associated with the construction of a study model is minimal, since they are usually composed of block forms, and show little representation of colors or textures. A finished study model takes the previously explained study model and refines it one step further. Finished study models usually show some indication, either in part or whole, as to the materials being used in the final design (Slotkis, 2006). Although these models are viewed as more detailed than study models, they still seem to place little emphasis on intricacy, and instead focus on conveying form and size appropriately (Taylor, 1971). A finished model takes the previous finished study model and brings it to the next level. Finished models tend to show a true scale representation of materials, colors, and details (Taylor, 1971). Finished models are the final step before presenting the model to a client or class (Busch, 1991). A working model is meant to show all parts of the structure which have a mechanical component (Busch, 1991). This type of model is said to be a step above finished models since all parts must be represented correctly to gauge whether the action will work or not (Taylor, 1971).

24

Although models are regarded as a proficient way of portraying ideas, for many students the process and creation of a model is very stressful (Taylor, 1971). McMillian referenced model building as an experience in which the likelihood of constructing future models will rely on constructive experiences, and even if the experience is positive, the time associated with model construction usually makes students reluctant to revise, review, and improve their models once they are created (Krathwohl, Benjamin, & Masia, 2001; Sprenger, 1999). Thus, if frustration is experienced, the process of model building will likely be avoided in the future (McMillian, 2001). It is important to note, that even though models prove to be an excellent learning and presentation tools, the builder should be clear on the purpose of the model before proceeding with construction. As Susan Slotkis mentioned in her book Foundations of Interior Design (2006): “The amount of time, money, and effort expended for a model which goes beyond its scope is wasteful for students, teachers, and industry professionals alike” (p. 165). Technology has had a significant impacting on design for more than twenty years. In his 1991 book, The Art of the Architectural Model, Akiko Busch stated: “As models play and increasingly important role in the design and planning of our environments, the technology of their materials and construction continues to develop” (p. 58). The wide array of synthetic materials and technology available to designers today yield new standards in precision and speed (Busch, 1991). A model which once took a number of days to construct can now be modeled, through the use of rapid prototyping machinery, in a number of hours. Not only does rapid prototyping drastically cut down modeling

25

time, but, when properly used, it can accelerate the entire design process (Clay & Smith, 2000). Rapid Prototyping Rapid prototyping (RP) can be described as a vast array of manufacturing procedures, all of which stem from the creation of a three-dimensional computer generated image (Taylor, 1971). RP is largely based on Progressive Refinement— “putting a first version of a design into the world’ and then revising that design until all the bugs are worked out” (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004, p. 18). Revising implies a detailed and systematic process; it is this structured nature that makes rapid prototyping a successful design approach (Jones & Richey, 2000). Prototyping and model building are integral parts of the design process. They are used to depict and assist in the removal of design errors (Taylor, 1971). However, for prototyping to be successful, there must be an understanding of new and emerging technologies, access to these technologies, available time, and sufficient funds (Greengalgh, 2009). Research has shown that the introduction of rapid prototyping machinery into educational environments need not be expensive, as long as the environment already employs computer-aided design (Greengalgh, 2009). There are hundreds of companies manufacturing rapid prototyping machinery. However, despite the manufacturer, the process of RP is conducted only one of two ways: either though the addition of materials or the subtraction of materials (DeBeer, Barnard, & Booysen, 2004). Additive RP machinery, also known as three-dimensional printers, uses a layering method that builds the model from the ground up in one of two ways (Greengalgh, 26

2009). The first method applies a thin layer of powder and then a liquid binder over and over again, while the second method uses a molten material, usually plastic that hardens, which is printed one bead at a time (Dimitrov, Schreve, & DeBeer, 2006). These additive rapid prototyping machines allow for the most complex of designs to be modeled, but with their precision comes higher costs associated with the machinery itself as well as the materials for construction (Wohlers, 2011). The first type of additive rapid prototyping machinery, the stereo lithography, works by using a laser to solidify consecutive layers of a photo curable, liquid polymer; by doing so the machine can produce miniature parts with intricate details (Greengalgh, 2009). The second machine, a fused deposition modeler, distributes a layer of powder and then a layer of binder, over and over again until the model is completed (Greengalgh, 2009). Fused deposition modelers are known to be the most reliable RP machines on the market in 2012, and since they do not use a heating element, they can be left unmonitored while modeling over nights and weekends (Wohlers, 2011). The last additive machine, a solid object printer, sprays small drops of wax (essentially like an inkjet printer) to build up a model (Ryder, Ion, Green, Harrison, & Wood, 2002). Subtractive RP machinery, also known as CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machinery, produces models by removing material from a block of substrate such as wood, foam, or plastic (Greengalgh, 2009). However, due to size and milling restrictions, some of these machines require that the model be made in parts and then assembled; resulting in more time when compared to additive methods (Ryder, et al, 2002). Although subtractive machines may require the user to do some constructing of

27

the model, after the machine is done milling; they still have the ability to replicate fine details in the same way as additive machines do. Rapid Prototyping (RP) can lend design students a unique opportunity to bring their ideas to reality (Hogan, 2006). It has been proven through research that design students not only learn by constructing and manipulating, but they feel empowered and usually find enjoyment through these activities (Flowers & Moniz, 2002). Although the hardware is typically expensive, there are low cost options available which can provide all education facilities the experience of rapid prototyping (Wohlers, 2011). Technological Impact on Design While technology provides many new opportunities to address design issues, some teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of technology prevent them from fully integrating it into their course (Teo, 2008). This leads to technology which is used as a substitute, rather than a new approach, in the instruction and teaching of elements and principles of design (Judson, 2006). According to researchers, Muniandy, Mohammad & Fong (2007) technology use should be embedded within a learning theory to support the methodology. Presentations used to consist of boards or folders containing hand drawn sketches and floor plans which took years of practice and hours of dedication to perfect (Eissen, 1990). However, in the technological society we live in today, presentations are usually given through computer projections (such as PowerPoint, Prezi, Sliderocket, etc.) (Judson, 2006). Although the time associated with inputting the data into a program (such as AutoCAD, Sketchup, 3Dmax, etc.) takes just as long if not longer than hand rendering, the ability to change views, materials, and elements within the design right in front of the client is immeasurable (Eissen, 1990). Students of design are given 28

extensive training in two-dimensional design techniques, those which give the illusion of three dimensions, both hand generated (sketching, rendering, etc.) and computer generated (AutoCAD, Sketchup, etc.) (Stewart, 2006). However, when it comes to three-dimensional designs most programs still teach, refer, and implement strictly hand produced models. In a literature review produced by Boethel & Dimock (1999), they prove that when teachers blend technology into constructivist learning situations, student achievement is positively impacted (Hernandez-Ramos, 2005). Furthermore, when used in correlation with a constructivist theory, technology seems to change many aspects of design education (Rakes, Fields & Cox, 2006). Constructivist teachers, who focus on student engagement in the learning process, pattern their instruction after the old Chinese saying: "Tell me and I will forget; show me, and I may remember; involve me and I will understand" (Hernandez-Ramos, 2005, p. 47). In constructivist type learning environments, the teacher becomes an advocate rather than a dictator in the learning process (Elliott, 2010). David Atwood, an instructor at Exeter High School, one of the country’s leading STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education programs, stated: “the student population today does not learn from reading anymore, they learn from watching and doing. In learning the method and process of rapid prototyping, students begin to think more in three-dimensions” (Lacey, 2010, p.18). There are many studies and reports conducted on the implementation of rapid prototyping in design education. All data collected on rapid prototyping until this point has focused strictly on the machinery itself and relates to justifiable cost, time, and quality. What has not been discussed is how rapid prototyping machinery, in an

29

educational environment, can spur more creativity in those who use it. “It is important to help student’s metacognitively understand the topic of creativity. In turn, this increased understanding of creativity would increase creativity consciousness, demystify creativity, and increase creative ideas and products” (Davis, 1991, p.30).Some publications like, 3D Printing Brings Designs to Life by Gary Lacey, discus how rapid prototyping machinery has affected students, but provides no quantitative data to support their allegations. Assessing Creative Performances The Evaluation of creativity serves two main purposes—“First, and most important, is to further learning through feedback on the current level of understanding or development in a particular area; Secondly, it establishes the steps necessary to attain the next level” (Boyale & Radocy, 1987, p.9). Creativity has a variety of definitions; however, they all revolve around the production of something which is “both novel (i.e. original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. useful, or adaptive)” (Sternburg & Lubart, 1999, p.3). In 2004, Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow reviewed 90 articles, which were published in peer-reviewed journals and had the word “creativity” in the title. Of these articles, only 38 percent were found to clearly define what creativity was, in relation to their research (Plucker, et. al, 2004). Due to this fact, the term creativity, as relates to this research, will be defined as Plucker et. al proposed in 2004: Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which the individual or group produces a perceptible product which is both novel and useful as defined within a social context (p.90)

30

Creativity has been examined starting with Guilford 1950 and 1977, Mckinnon 1978, and Torrance 1972a, 1972b, 1974, up through current research. There are several tests and assessments aimed at gauging an individual’s creativity level, such as: personalitybased creativity tests, biographical inventories, and adjective checklists (Rimm, 1977). However, one major challenge when conducting research that revolves around the assessment of creativity is the general question: How is creativity measured or what is creativity? (Amabile, 1996) Even though a number of studies have been conducted and formal methods of measuring creativity have been created, none can claim to fully capture the many aspects relating to creativity. Thus, according to Puccio & Murdock (1999) “the challenge is not finding an instrument or method for measuring creativity, but selecting the measure that best suits the desired goals” (p.7). The 4 Creative “P”’s When creativity is being assessed for research, it usually focuses on one or more facets of the four creative P’s (Rhodes, 1961). The four Creative P’s, as they are referred to in literature, focus on the creative person, creative process, creative product, and creative press (i.e. environment). A creative person can be classified as someone who does creative things (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008). Although there is an environment where a person uses a process to create a product; when examining the creative person, research tends to look into how often that individual produces creative products and the level of creativity associated with each product (Perkins, 1991). An individual may have a creative idea; however, if that is the individual’s only idea, then that individual cannot be classified as a creative person (Kaufman, et. al, 2008). It is like someone saying “I am a 31

skydiver”, but has only gone skydiving once. This person is undoubtedly not a skydiver; however, they have gone skydiving. This analogy translates directly to creativity: someone may have a creative idea, but to be deemed a creative person those ideas must come to fruition with some regularity. As Perkins (1991) said: “a creative person, by definition,… more or less regularly produces outcomes in one or more fields that appear both original and appropriate” (p.37). Assessments aimed at gauging an individual’s creativity level often look into characteristics possessed by that individual, such as: personality, motivation, intelligence, thinking styles, or knowledge (Sternburg & Lubart, 1995). The assessment will relate to a person’s thinking capacity or knowledge possessed (Perkins, 1991). The second creative P, the creative process, can be more broadly defined as Fabun (1968) said “the creative process includes any thinking process which solves a problem in an original and useful way” (p.35); this allows the creative process to be studied with greater ease. Torrance (1988, 1995) expanded on this definition and established four steps to the creative process, which are as follows: 1. Sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, or missing elements 2. Making guesses or formulating hypothesis about these deficiencies 3. Testing these guesses and possibly revising and retesting them 4. Communicating the results. (p.72) Donald Treffinger, in his book Creativity and Giftedness, talks about the third Creative P, press (i.e. environment), and suggested that there is a correlation between personality prerequisites and the manifestation of creativity. Someone may have all the cognitive prerequisites, but may never exploit creative performances due to an unwillingness to take risks or to an absence of creative environment (Treffinger, 2004). 32

He goes on to say, “[e]ducators need to create an environment in which a child can take risks, challenge instructors, and have time to reflect without punishment. Personality traits are not immutable: rather, educators can shape the environment to favor various traits” (Treffinger, 2004, p. 151). From this statement, it can be seen that press (the environment) is the only element of the four P’s which can and does affect all the other elements (Fabun, 1968). Treffinger (2004) states that if a person grew up in an environment which did not promote creativity, then that person will more than likely not be creative. Furthermore, if a creative person is trying to solve a problem in an environment which hinders thinking ability, or is unfamiliar, then the solution will more than likely lack creativity (Treffinger, 2004) In other words, if the environment does not promote creativity or creative thinking, then the last of the four P’s, creative products, will more often than not be lacking in creativity as well. Creative products can be presented as tangible or intangible objects (Amabile, 1983). However, for the purpose of this research, the term “product” will be seen as something which is tangible (i.e. a model). Creative products are used to provide tangible indicators of creativity; therefore, numerous methods have been developed to identify creative products and examine their level of creativity (Puccio & Murdock, 1999). Judging Creative Products Since creative products are often seen as tangible indicators of creativity, numerous methods have been developed to identify and examine their level of creativity (Puccio & Murdock, 1999). One of these, Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT),

33

has been proven to effectively judge creative products. The Consensual Assessment Technique is grounded in Amabile’s consensual definition of creativity, which states: A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree it is creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the domain in which the product was created. Thus, creativity can be regarded as the quality of products or responses judged to be creative by appropriate observers, and it can also be regarded as the process by which something so judged is produced (Amabile, 1996, p.33). She goes on to say that the consensual definition, like most current definitions of creativity, is based on the creative product rather than creative process or person. Developed to solve the challenge of distinguishing the level of creativity a product exhibits; the CAT compares products against one another, through the independent review of each product, and relies highly on domain experts being those who judge. Amabile (1996) states that for a product to be judged using the Consensual Assessment Technique, it must adhere to three requirements. First, of course, the task must be one that leads to some product or clearly observable response that can be made available to appropriate judges for assessment. Second, the task should be open-ended enough to permit considerable flexibility and novelty in responses. Third, since it is desirable for social psychology research that there not be large individual differences in baseline performance on the task, it should be one that does not depend heavily on certain special skills (p.41).

34

One obvious difference between Amabile’s Consensual Assessment and standard creativity assessments—where typically a participant would self rate through a paperand-pencil measure—lies in the use of external judges to rate the creativity of products. To ensure that the researcher is not influencing the judges as to his or her personal view on creativity, Amabile states: “all judges should make assessments independently and should be left alone with little explanation of judging dimensions. However, one instruction that should be given to the judges is that they are not to judge the product against the best work they have ever seen, but to judge as it relates to criteria” (p. 208). Given the consensual definition of creativity, it is clear that the most important criterion for the results of this assessment procedure rely on the judges ratings be reliable with each other. “By definition, if interjudge reliability in this method is equivalent to construct validity; if appropriate judges independently agree that a given product is highly creative, then it can and must be accepted as such” (p. 208-209). Although Amabile’s CAT focuses on the creativity of a product, when judged against others in a group, it is still important to deem what components of creativity will be assessed. Due to this, this research study will use the Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM) created by Bessemer and Treffinger (1980) to judge models on independent variable that collectively constitute creativity. The CPAM focuses on three dimensions of creative products: novelty (original and surprising), resolution (valuable, useful, and solves a need or problem), and elaboration and synthesis (well crafted, attractive, and elegant).

35

The Creative Product Analysis Matrix The CPAM (Creative Product Analysis Matrix) is an assessment aimed at judging a products perceived creativity level (Bessemer & Treffinger, 1980). The CPAM evaluates products as being creative through three dimensions, and within these three dimensions are nine facets. The first dimension of the CPAM, Novelty, includes the facets of originality and surprise: it considers newness in materials, processes, concepts, and methods of making the product (Bessemer & O’Quin, 1999). The second dimension, Resolution, assesses how well a product works or functions. Resolution aims at assessing if the product is valuable, logical, useful, and understandable (Bessemer, 2010). The third and final dimension is defined as Elaboration and Synthesis which looks into the stylistic components of the product through three facets: organic, wellcrafted, and elegant (Bessemer & O’Quin, 1999) Provided on the next page in Table 2.3 as well as in Appendix E is a table showing each of the three dimensions along with their respected facets

36

Table 2.3 Judging Dimensions Associated with the CPAM 1 Dimension Novelty Originality Surprise Definition Relates to a product’s usefulness or functionality. Surprise can be looked at as good or bad; it can evoke the positive feeling of surprise through delight, or through the feeling of shock or dismay. It is important to note that some products may be regarded as shocking, and subsequently looked at as non creative. However, most products that evoke a feeling of shock are usually industry specific. That is why it is important to have industry specific professionals examine the products. Refers to the “rules of the game” in a specific discipline. The product must not deviate to far from its expectation. Shows that the product has a clear and practical application. The usefulness of a product must be easily seen or it faces the chance of rejection There are many aspects of value. It could be a monetary value or worth, a physical value, or the product can save time or make a job easier. As with the other facets of resolution the value must be easily seen. The product must be easily explained through a brief owners manual. Products that require a lot of training tend to be less popular Looks at how a products elements work harmoniously together. Looks at craftsmanship and implies an attention to detail which goes beyond the ordinary Shows that a product is simplified and refined to its ultimate essence.

Resolution

Logical Useful

Valuable

Understandable

Style

Organic Well-crafted Elegant

*Facets and definitions obtained from Bessemer & O’Quin article “Confirming the ThreeFactor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample” (1999).

37

Conclusion The Literature reviewed for this study included elements and principles of design, two- and three-dimensional designs, and the production of such designs in the design industry. It then described the production of three-dimensional designs (models) indepth through the history of modeling, modeling in the design industry, and rapid prototyping along with other new technologies. A number of studies have been conducted, which related toward the application of RP machinery into design education; however, the research to date has not explored how RP can influence creativity. Due to this, more research in the field is needed.

38

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this research study was to assess how computer modeling, used in conjunction with rapid prototyping (RP) machinery, effects creativity. This study was intended to add to the body of knowledge relating to design education, and provide insight into the effective implementation of computer modeling techniques in conjunction with RP machinery. Faculty members of the Florida State University Interior Design program used the data gathered in this study to effectively introduce first year design students to computer modeling techniques. Description of Research Design The Principle Investigator (PI) reviewed supporting literature on: the history and uses of computer modeling in conjunction with rapid prototyping machinery, previous research studies involving RP machinery, previous research involving computer modeling, the assessment of creative products, and the four creative P’s (person, process, product, and press). The literature reviewed influenced the foundations behind the creativity assessment tests, final product judging criteria, and a student survey and questionnaire. This study produced both qualitative and quantitative data related to model building and creativity. Student’s constructed two models; the first model was created by hand while the second model was computer generated, and created with a rapid prototyping machine. These models were judged by trained design educators and assessed for creativity through eight variables, which will be discussed later in the chapter. In an

39

effort to better understand the influence computer modeling and rapid prototyping has on students, the researcher also relied on qualitative data obtained through a questionnaire. The questionnaire aims at establishing the students’ current creativity level. This questionnaire is discussed further in the instruments section of this chapter and can be found in Appendix F. A naturalistic observation study was conducted in order to learn how students interacted with the newly available technology. Naturalistic observation involves observing individuals in their natural setting (Frankel & Wallen, 2000, p. 536-537). Observational research findings are considered strong in validity because the researcher is able to collect in-depth information about a particular behavior or site. Observational studies can also “reveal descriptions of behaviors in context by stepping outside the group [to] allow qualitative researchers to identify recurring patterns of behavior that participants may be unable to recognize” (The Writing Center at Colorado State University, 1997, para. 3). It is important to note that the PI does not intend for computer modeling or RP machinery to do away with hand generated modeling, but to allow for more efficient model building options. Hand modeling is essential in learning subjects where the student must physically understand how something is put together and works (Lacey, 2010). Some of the benefits noted by previous research conducted include: the allowance of more time in preliminary stages of design, the ability to revisit a project multiple times, and, most importantly, the ability to create and construct models that the student could not have modeled by hand.

40

The procedure for research will include 1) reviewing literature, 2) creation of curriculum, judging criteria, and questionnaires, 3) Institutional Review Board approval, 4) data collection via observations, questionnaires, and products produced by students, 5) data analysis, 6) reporting the data, and 7) discussion of the findings and recommendations. Assumptions and Limitations In performing this study, the assumption was made that the students’ individual creativity levels were consistent with other students enrolled in design education programs nationwide. It was also assumed that all questionnaires were completed accurately and honestly. In order to meet these assumptions, the students must take the questionnaire seriously (Suskie, 1996). This was addressed by making the students aware that this research may directly affect their future course of study. Moreover, when conducting research, which may directly affect a participant, the researcher must understand that responses given may be inaccurate if student believes their response is not anonymous. To resolve this problem, the students will be given a disclosure of the data usage in a letter of information prior to participation. The letter of information is provided in Appendix A. The confidentiality of students was and will be maintained by not releasing students’ names in association with any data. The students were coded to a responding number; that number was used in all data analysis, and the students names were and will not be reported to teachers or departments. This was made clear when the research was introduced and the letter of consent was distributed. The letter of consent is provided in Appendix C. 41

One factor, associated with research, which is uncontrollable, is the individual students’ biographical history. The experimental population was enrolled in the Florida State University Interior Design Department, and consisted of 4 males and 38 females. Although this population was mostly female; it is assumed that enrollment statistics are congruent with other interior design programs nationwide. However, this information may limit the adaptation of findings to other design disciplines, including engineering or industrial design. Institutional Review Board Approval The researcher obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Florida State University prior to any data collection. The questionnaire along with judging criteria were submitted for approval. The IRB application is provided in Appendix H, along with approved student consent letter in Appendix I and approved faculty/judges consent letter in Appendix J. Setting In 2011, The Florida State University Department of Interior Design completed a major renovation. Part of this renovation included the construction of a full woodworking shop, spray booth, etching machine, and, most importantly, the availability of a rapid prototyping machine. The RP machinery works through subtractive methods and was obtained from 2BOT. Due to this newly acquired technology, the program is looking into effective ways of introducing rapid prototyping into the curriculum. In traditional studio classes, all models were constructed by hand; however, in an effort to streamline designs, computer modeling and rapid prototyping will be introduced to forty first-year 42

design students. This introduction is meant to allow for more design time, the ability to revisit projects, the ability for more projects in less time, and provide an environment where creativity is not stifled by personal model building ability. All students will be taught in the same studio classroom, providing an identical testing environment. The subjects will also be given an identical instructional video and exercise to prepare them for both hand and computer modeling. Finally, all subjects will be monitored and granted equal access to help. Description of Subject The subjects involved in this study were all first year students, enrolled in IND1203, Design Fundamentals 1 (DF1), through the Florida State University Interior Design Department. The syllabus for DF1 is provided in Appendix K. All participants were given a questionnaire, biographical assessment, and were judged on two models which they produced. The subjects ranged in age from 18-46 and included 4 males and 38 females. Table 3.1 shows the age distribution of subjects tested. It is important to note that the class consisted of 42 students; however, two students dropped the course and four other students worked in the design field prior to returning to school. Due to this, these students were removed from the research, which left the PI with 36 test subjects.

43

Table 3.1 Age Distribution of Subjects 1 Age Range Total Enrolled 18-22 23-27 28-32 33-37 43-47 27 3 3 1 1

Description of Instruments The researcher obtained qualitative and quantitative data through questionnaires, observation, biographical history, and product judgment. The following section will explain how these elements were executed. Questionnaires The questionnaire and informed consent letter were administered on site in the classroom. Permission from instructors was granted and part of class time was used for answering the questionnaires. The survey questionnaires were coded to assure anonymity. The cover letter was attached with the questionnaire in order to: introduce the research to the subjects, emphasize the significance of the study, and express gratitude for their participation. For those who were absent, the researcher first asked the instructor to take attendance. From this attendance sheet, a checklist was created to make sure that all subjects had responded to the questionnaire and to avoid any possible duplicate responses.

44

Upon receiving approval from the Florida State University Institutional Review Board, the researcher distributed a questionnaire to students enrolled in test classes. Once again the questionnaire is provided in Appendix F. These questions provided insight into the students’ biographical history, and focuses on intrinsic factors of each individual. Although biographical assessments help provide insight into the individual; it does not provide quantitative data, which can be used in research. To help fully assess the students, as well as provide quantitative data, the questionnaire includes three different types of creativity assessments. These assessments included a selfactualization test, a creativity test, and an adjective checklist. These three variables, combined, helped the researcher validity in the tests. The students were not told that this was a creativity assessment, they were only asked to complete the questionnaire as it related to the research. The questionnaire was distributed in two parts. Part one focused on the student’s biographical history. This included age, gender, year in school, and whether or not the individual had ever simplified a design, in order to construct a model. From this information it can be seen that the majority (91%) of the students participating in the study were female. Participants ranged in age from 18-47; however 76% of those enrolled were 22 or younger. Due to this information, it is not surprising that 50% of the participants are classified as freshman. A breakdown of class levels is presented in Table 3.2.

45

Table 3.2 Subjects Year in School 1 Year in School Total Freshman Sophomore Junior First Professionals 18 5 5 7

Since this is a fundamental design class, all incoming students take it, which includes incoming graduate students. This accounts for the fairly even distribution of students classified as sophomores, juniors, and first professionals. The main question to be answered in this section was whether or not the individual had ever been forced to simplify a design, in order to construct a model. By establishing whether or not the subjects had ever simplified a design provides data that can be compared to data attained from models. Table 3.3 shows how the participants responded. It is important to note, that those which were classified as unsure either did not answer the question or replied that they had never constructed a model. Table 3.3 Number of Students Who Have Simplified Design 1 Simplify Design Total Unsure Yes No 7 14 14 Part two of the questionnaire included a self-actualization test, a creativity assessment, and an activity checklist. These three types of assessments were used in conjunction with one another in an effort to triangulate the creativity level of each student, prior to computer modeling. The first assessment, which can be located in appendix F, is classified as a “Self-Actualization Test”. It asks the subject to indicate the 46

degree to which each statement applies to them, or the degree to which they agree with the statement; by using a scale of 1-5. Once the questionnaires were collected the numbers were added up to reveal each subjects ranking. The results of this assessment are provided in table 3.4 as well as explained below. Table 3.4 Distribution of Self-Actualization Scores 1 Self-Actualization Ranges Classification 41-53 54-69 70-83 84-100 Below Average Average Above Average High Self-Actualization

Total 0 2 17 18

The data shows that there is an extremely high amount (94%) of those surveyed who ranked as above average or highly above average in self-actualization. These results were compared to results obtained from this sections creativity assessment and adjective check-list to validity scoring. Both the creativity assessment and adjective checklist can be found in appendix F. Presented in table 3.5 are the results of the creativity assessment. These results show a significant difference from those obtained from the self-actualization test, with only 59% of the participants ranking as above or highly above average. This is attributed to the assessment styles and is why the researcher setup for a triangulation of data. Individuals are more likely to rate themselves as more creative than they usually are when given the opportunity.

47

Table 3.5 Distribution of Creativity Scores 1 Creativity Test Ranges Classification 56-79 80-102 103-126 127-150 Below Average Average Above Average Highly Creative

Total 1 13 17 4

The third assessment included an adjective checklist, which asked participants to mark adjectives which applied to them. In this list were positive and negative adjectives which describe creative, as well as, non creative people. A tally of creative adjectives whether positive or negative, was obtained; from this the adjectives that do not describe creativity were subtracted. Table 3.6, located below, shows that once again a significant amount (67%) of participants were ranked as above average or highly above average. Table 3.6 Distribution of Adjective Scores 1 Adjective check-list Classification 0-24 25-39 40-54 55-70 Observation The researcher also observed the students over the course of this research study. The purpose of this observation was not to obtain any specific data, but to note any major influences and provide equal help to all students. This observation and constant availability helped ensure that both classes and all students receive the same information, as relates to project parameters. Below Average Average Above Average Highly Above Average

Total 2 9 21 3

48

Product Judging After receiving both final products, a team of design educators judged each product individually using the Creative Product Analysis Model (CPAM). The judges score sheet is provided in Appendix G. As described in chapter two, the CPAM is an assessment aimed at judging a products perceived creativity level. The CPAM is grouped into three main dimensions that are broken down into nine facets. The first dimension of the CPAM is Novelty which includes originality and surprise: it considers newness in materials, processes, concepts, and methods of making the product. The second dimension is Resolution, which assesses how well a product works or functions. Resolution aims at assessing if the product is valuable, logical, useful, and understandable. The third dimension, Elaboration and Synthesis, looks into the stylistic components of the product through three facets: organic, well-crafted, and elegant. Due to terminology confusion the researcher changed the names of the facets to industry specific terms. This helped ensure that the researcher had as little influence as possible on the judging. Provided on the next page in Table 3.7 as well as in Appendix E is a table showing the relation and definition of each facet, as well as how it relates to the terminology and definitions provided to the judges.

49

Table 3.7 Dimensions of CPAM in Relation to Judging Criteria 1 Creative Product Analysis Model Originality Something New Novelty Judges Criteria The degree to which the design itself is original or striking especially in concept or style. The degree to which the design shows a wide usage of various shapes available, how many different shapes were incorporated The degree to which the final product deviates from the original plan layout The overall intricacy of the design The degree to which a design shows effort, the placement and design seems to have been done to achieve a particular end The small elements the collectively constitute completeness The degree to which the design shows a coherent unity and functions as a whole. the degree to which the design shows good balance, symmetrical or asymmetrical The degree to which a design is pleasing as a whole

Surprise

Can be described two ways: first, through a positive surprise or delight, and secondly through shock or dismay How well the product works, functions, or does what it is supposed to do. Craftsmanship with an attention to detail The product’s elements come together as a whole

Variation of shapes

Deviation from original plan Complexity Evident Effort

Valuable. Logical

Well-crafted

Detail

Organic

Organization

Balance

Elegant

Simplified and refined to its ultimate essence

Aesthetic Appeal

*It is important to note that the original judging criteria included overall creativity as an aspect. However, since overall creativity is a subjective topic and creativity as a whole is what was being judged the responses to that criterion were excluded.

50

Explanation of Procedures The following research took place over a three week period. Subjects involved in the research were enrolled in IND1203, Design Fundamentals 1 (DF1), through the Interior Design Department at The Florida State University. The DF1 class syllabus is provided in Appendix K. The weeks which research took place are labeled as session 16-20. Week one focused on preparing students for projects through exercises. Week two involved collecting data on hand models and the introduction of SketchUp. Week three focused on collecting data related to computer modeling as well as assisting students with any problems they had with the software. The following section outlines all activities, exercises, and projects supplied to students. Please refer to Table 3.8, which is located at the end of this procedures section, or Appendix L for a summary of the activities which took place each day. Modeling Handout The modeling handout focused on specific materials used in model construction, such as: wood, clay, Styrofoam, cardboard, as well as others. It described how each material can be used and successful implementation of each. After introduction, the students were shown techniques used in model construction, as well as demonstrations on how each material can be manipulated to achieve the effect desired. Some techniques included: how to cut materials, how to make straight edges, how to cut clean edges, and how to make a straight material bend. Once the introduction was given the students completed two exercises. Both exercises were meant to allow students to use the skills they had just learned as well as provide feedback on ways in which the model could be more successful. These exercises are outlined in the following section. 51

Exercise 1-

Figure 3.1 Exercise 1

Exercise 1 presented the students with two copies of a church façade. It asked the students to use one as a base and the other for embellishment. They were asked to cut away from the base and either build up or take away to make the façade appear three dimensional. It was apparent from observations that many students only built the façade up; they do not think to subtract from it. Out of the 36 students involved in this research only one student subtracted from and added to the base, all of the other students only built up from the base. This student’s model was used as the example of what was expected. This is important to point out so the students understand exactly what they did that was good and what could be done to improve designs. After feedback was 52

provided the students moved on to exercise 2, which is outlined in the following passage. Exercise 1 is provided in Appendix M.

Exercise 2

Figure 3.2 Exercise 2

Exercise 2 presented students with a church floor plan. It asked the students to build up from the base using the skills and experience received from exercise 1. There were two main differences between exercise 1 and 2. First, in exercise 2 the students are asked to only build up from the base, unlike exercise 1 where the students could build up or remove from the base. Second, the students were asked to design the build

53

up as if you were looking at the model from a specific view, and to make that view dynamic. The students were told that this may be accomplished through a variation of shapes and plane changes. This exercise is meant to force the students to think in unconventional ways. Just because something appears on a floor plan as a square, circle, or triangle; it does not need to take that shape when extended from the base. An awning in a floor plan may look like a 10 x 20 rectangle, but that rectangle may be eight feet off the ground. Underneath the rectangle there may only be two four by four posts; so although it appears as if the space is taken up, it may not be. These models were not supposed to be based in reality since the removal of reality may allow the students to think in more whimsical and unconventional ways. Exercise 2 is provided in Appendix N. Hand Modeling Project

Figure 3.3 Hand Model Layout 3

54

The hand modeling project asked students to build up from the base, by hand, and make as many changes as possible. Just as in exercise two the students were encouraged to manipulate the floor plan to appear in plan view as the same, but when looked at from any other view; the model should be intricate and deviate from the generic shapes that appear on the base. The hand modeling projects handouts are provided in Appendix P. As can be seen on the next page in Figures 3.4 and 3.5 the students were beginning to think in unconventional ways, however, the models submitted seemed to lack a high level of variation and/or deviation from the original plan layout. Furthermore, the biggest issue with the majority of hand models was a lack of attention and detail when cutting and constructing the model. As referenced in Chapter 2, the ability to construct a model that will be viewed as successful depends not only on the ability to construct, but the ability to replicate fine details successfully (i.e. craft & detail). Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 3.4 the models that showed a higher level of variation and/or deviation tended to show a lower level of craft and/or detail. Whereas, those models which showed a higher level of craft/or detail tended to show a lower level of variation and/or deviation as seen in Figure 3.5.

55

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5

Introduction to SketchUp Following the completion of the hand model students were given an introduction to Google SketchUp. SketchUp is a very user friendly three-dimensional computer modeling program. The students were provided with a list of keyboard shortcuts and given instruction on how to use the program. The list of keyboard shortcuts is provided in Appendix O. The students were given instruction into creating a straight line, a curved line, a box, as well as how to manipulating a figure in three dimensions.

56

Computer Modeling Project

Figure 4.6 Computer Model Layout 6

The computer modeling project also involves the students constructing a model that is built up from a base. However, this model was conceptualized through the use of Google SketchUp. The models created in SketchUp were then constructed using a 2BOT rapid prototyping machine. The computer modeling project handouts are provided in Appendix Q.

57

Table 3.8 Summary of Daily Activities 1 Session 15  Handout on materials used in model making  Handout on how to manipulate materials  Exercise 1 Session 16  Exercise 2  Introduce project 8a Session 17  Introduce Sketchup  Handout on SketchUp  Help with questions related to 8a Session 18  Project 8a due  Introduce project 8b Session 19  Classroom exercise: serial planes (this does not apply to research  Help with questions related to 8b Session 20  Turn in project 8b

Summary As described above, this study was conducted to map changes in the perceived creativity level of two models. The research design for this study was discussed and included: questionnaires, observations, and judging criteria were conducted to collect pertinent data. Thirty-six students enrolled in the Florida State University Department of Interior Design formed the sample of the study. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the collected data. This research study is intended to add to the body of knowledge relating to design education and provide insight into the use of rapid prototyping in such settings. Moreover, the researcher hopes that this study will spark further research into rapid prototyping and the introduction of such technology into design curricula. Finally, the current study, along with potential future studies, will hopefully enable the introduction of RP machinery in a way that promotes creative performances. 58

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
Introduction

This chapter will present the findings obtained from this research study. It will summarize the data as well as provide tables and figures in order to clearly present the information. The goal of this research was to examine the perceived creativity level of two models constructed by first year design students; one modeled by hand the other computer generated and modeled with RP machinery. Furthermore, the research examines the creativity level of each student, prior to any model construction; in order to assess whether associations can be made between students who excel in one modeling type but not the other, and vice versa. These findings were obtained through the judging of two models, one produced by hand and the other computer generated and produced via RP machine. Establishing Validity of Dimensions Judged First, this study must establish that the scores obtained from models judged are similar to one another, and, most importantly, are deemed reliable. This question examined each variable judged and whether the scores produced by each judge were consistent with the scores of the other judges.  When examining the score given by three independent judges on each of the 10 variables of creative products how often are the judges in agreement?

59

The judging criteria, adapted from the creative product analysis matrix (CPAM) (Besemer & Treffinger, 1980), originally consisted of the 10 variables: Novelty, Aesthetic Appeal, Organization, Effort, Balance, Variation of Shapes, Deviation from Original Plan, Detail, Complexity, and Overall Creativity. Since there were multiple judges, the researcher used Cronbach’s Alpha to assess interrater reliability. As noted in Table 4.1 the reliability level must exceed a rating of .7 or 70%; due to this, the variables Organization and Balance were deemed unreliable. Even though it was proven reliable, through testing, the researcher also removed the variable Overall Creativity; since the individual variables of creativity should be compiled to determine a models overall creativity level. A table showing the relationship between the variables of the CPAM and the 10 variables used in this research study can be found in Appendix E. Table 4.1 Interrater Reliability Analysis 1 Dimension Hand Model Novelty .867* Aesthetic Appeal .828* Organization .855* Effort .883* Balance .786* Variation of Shapes .871* Deviation from Original Plan .901* Detail .903* Complexity .903* Overall Creativity .903* *Above 0.70 agreement

Computer Model .827* .804* .614 .811* .624 .766* .825* .751* .866* .808*

This data shows that 8 out of the 10 variables judged were established as reliable through interrater reliability analysis. Those variables, which were established to be reliable include: Novelty, Aesthetic Appeal, Effort, Variation of Shapes, Deviation from Original Plan, Detail, Complexity, and Overall Creativity. Establishing reliability between the judge’s scores provides the researcher with statistical data that affirms which

60

variables should, and can, be analyzed further. In retrospect, since one’s perception of organization and balance is subjective, it makes sense that these variables would not be agreed upon between individual judges. For example, an individual may prefer either symmetrically or asymmetrically balanced designs. In turn, their preference of either type of balance will influence their decision as to whether or not a design evokes organization. This can be seen in the data obtained from judges. Table 4.2 presents each judges’ individual rating of balance and organization in relation to the other judges. From this data, it is apparent that even though the judges were not in agreement as to whether or not a model evoked organization or balance, they did show a correlation between their own ratings of the two dimensions. When comparing one judge’s score of organization to that same judge’s score of balance, they were only in disagreement 3 out of the 210 times tested (.01%). Moreover, the judges scored the dimensions identically the same 97 out of the 210 times (46.1%). Agreement was established as the comparison of organization and balance which deviates by only one number, positive or negative, on the scale judged. When looking at this data the associations outlined earlier become more apparent. Subject number one’s hand model is the perfect example of this disagreement between judges. When looking at judge one and two’s rating of subject one’s hand model, not only do the judges agree between their own ratings, but with each other. However, judge three scored the model completely different than judge one or two. This can only be due to personal preferences which affect the judge’s perception of what constitutes organization and balance.

61

Table 4.2 Examining Correlations between Organization and Balance 1 Hand Model # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 J1O 6 5 3 4 3 3 5 6 4 2 5 5 4 3 6 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 2 1 6 3 5 4 5 5 2 4 J1B 6 6 3 5 4 4 6 6 4 1 5 6 4 1 6 5 2 4 5 6 3 4 4 4 5 3 2 5 3 6 5 6 5 1 5 J2O 5 5 2 3 2 3 3 5 3 2 4 6 5 4 5 3 2 3 2 6 3 3 3 2 5 2 2 5 2 5 4 2 4 2 4 J2B 5 5 3 3 2 3 4 5 3 2 4 5 6 4 4 3 3 3 2 6 2 4 3 3 6 3 2 4 2 5 3 2 4 2 4 J3O 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 4 5 1 2 5 2 1 4 3 5 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 5 3 5 4 3 5 2 4 J3B 1 3 2 3 1 2 4 3 3 1 4 5 1 1 5 1 1 3 3 5 3 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 3 5 3 3 5 1 3 J1O 3 3 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 5 3 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 6 Computer Model J1B 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 5 3 4 3 5 2 6 5 5 6 5 3 3 5 6 6 3 4 4 6 J2O 2 3 4 3 5 3 6 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 6 6 4 4 5 6 4 6 6 3 5 3 6 3 5 3 4 5 4 J2B 2 3 4 3 5 4 6 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 4 5 5 5 4 6 6 4 5 3 6 3 5 3 6 6 5 J3O 1 4 4 4 3 5 6 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 6 5 6 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 J3B 2 4 4 4 3 6 5 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 6 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 5

*Red shows scores which were identical, Green shows major disagreements. *J1O = Judge 1 Organization, J1B = Judge 1 Balance, J2O =Judge 2 Organization…and so on.

62

Assessing Changes in Creativity on Eight Variables Next, this study was interested with assessing whether the perceived creativity level of students models was higher when judging models produced by hand or models produced via computer. This question examined the difference seen in the two models, through the eight variables previously established as reliable.  When judging two final products, one model constructed by hand and the other computer generated and produced using a rapid prototyping machine, do those which are computer generated score as being more creative? The data from all judging sheets were collapsed for analysis; this data can be located in Appendix S as well as on the next page in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. First, a table was created which included each individual variable and the three judge’s scores. The scores for each variable were then calculated to produce a mean value, which ranged from 0 to 6. Although there were no drastic across the board changes seen from hand to computer models, it is important to note that the overall number of models who evoked lower creativity levels was cut in half. When examining models through each dimension judged there are 252 occurrences where a model could be judged as low, average, or high in creativity. In the hand models there were 34 high, 113 average, and 105 low. The computer models on the other hand had 51 high, 146 average, and 55 low. Although the number of dimensions judged as highly creative only rose by 17, the number of dimensions judged as average rose by 32, and the number of dimensions judged as low dropped by 50. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show this distribution.

63

Table 4.3 Mean Value Scores of Hand Model 1 Table 4.4 Mean Value Scores of Computer Model 1 Computer Model Hand Model # q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 # q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3.33 3.66 3.66 2.66 4 3.66 2 3.66 3.66 4.33 5 5 4.66 3.66 2 4.66 3.66 4 4 4.33 3.33 4 3 3 3.33 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.33 3 2.33 2 2 2 2 2 1.66 4 4.33 3.66 4.33 4.66 3.33 3.66 4.66 4 3.33 2.33 3 3.33 3.33 3 3.33 5 3 3.33 2.66 1.66 2 2.33 2 5 3 2.33 2 3.33 3.33 2 2.66 6 4.33 4.33 5 4 3.66 4.33 4.33 6 2.66 1.66 2.66 2 2.33 1.66 2 7 5.33 5 5.33 4.33 3.33 6 6 7 4.66 3.66 3.66 5 5 4.33 4.66 8 2.33 2 2.66 2 1.66 2.33 1.66 8 4.66 3 4 3.66 4.33 4 4 9 2.66 2.66 3.66 3.33 2.33 3.66 4 9 4.33 3 3.66 4.33 4 3.33 3.66 10 3.33 3.33 3.66 4.33 3.33 2.33 2.66 10 1 1.66 1.33 3 1 1.33 1 3 3 3.33 4.33 3.33 4 3.33 11 3.66 4 5.33 4 4.33 5 3.33 11 2 1.66 2 1.66 1.66 2.33 1.66 12 5.66 5.66 6 5 5 5.33 4.66 12 3 3 4.33 3 3 3.33 3 13 2.33 2.33 3 1.33 1.66 1.33 1.66 13 14 3.66 4.33 4.33 4.66 4.33 4 5 14 2 2 3.66 1.33 1 2.33 2 15 3.66 3.33 3 3.33 3 3 3 15 5.33 5 5.33 6 5 5.33 5.33 5 4.66 5 4.66 4.66 4.66 16 2.66 2.66 2.66 2.33 2 2.66 2.33 16 4.33 17 3 3.33 3 2 2.33 2.33 2.66 17 1.66 1.66 2 1.33 1.66 1.66 1 4 4.66 4.66 3.66 3.66 4.66 4.66 18 4 3.66 3.66 3.33 3 3 2.66 18 4 4.66 4.66 4 4.33 4.66 19 4.33 2.66 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.66 19 4.33 20 5.33 4.66 5.66 5.33 5.66 5.66 6 20 5 5.33 5 4.33 5.33 4.66 5 21 2.33 2.33 2.66 2.33 2.33 3.66 2.66 21 3 3 3 3 3.66 3.33 3 22 4.66 5 5 4 4 4.66 5.33 22 2.33 3 2.66 2.33 2.33 2.33 2 23 5.33 5 5.33 5.66 5.33 4 4.33 23 2.33 1.66 1.66 2.66 2 1.66 2 24 2.33 1.66 2.66 2.66 2.66 2 2.33 24 4.66 4.66 5.33 4.33 4.33 4.66 5.33 26 5.66 5.66 5.33 5 5.66 4.66 5.66 26 3.66 2 3.66 4.33 4.33 3 4 27 1.66 1.33 1.33 1.66 1.66 1.33 2.66 27 4.66 4.66 5.33 4.66 4.66 5.33 5.33 28 3 3.33 2.66 2.33 2.33 2 2 28 1.33 1.66 1 1 1 1 1 4 3.33 4.66 4.33 4 4.66 4.66 29 5 5 5.33 4.66 3.66 5.66 4.66 29 30 2.66 2 2.33 2.66 3 1.66 2.66 30 4.33 4.66 4.33 3.66 4.33 3.33 3.66 31 5 4.33 5.33 5 4.66 4.66 5 31 5 4 5 5 5.33 4.66 5 32 5.33 5.66 5 3.66 4.33 4.66 5 32 4 3.66 3.66 3.66 4.33 3.33 3.66 33 4 3.66 4.33 4.66 4 4.66 5 33 3.66 2 3 3.66 4.33 3.33 4 3 3.33 3 2.66 3.33 3 34 4.66 3.66 5 5.33 5.33 4.66 4.66 34 2.66 3 3.66 3 2.33 2.33 3.33 3 35 1.66 1 2.33 1.33 1 1.33 1.33 35 5 5 5 5 5.33 4.66 5 36 4 2.66 3.66 2.667 3.33 3.66 3.66 36

64

Once the mean value of each variable was obtained, the mean value of each model created by hand was subtracted from the mean value of each model created via computer. This produced a number ranging from -6 to 6. From this number, it could be ascertained that if the final sum remained positive, then the student’s computer model was judged as being more creative. Adversely, if the sum became negative, then the student’s hand model was judged as more creative. The data in Table 4.5 presents the number of positive sums (Computer > Hand), negative sums (Computer < Hand), as well as those which saw no change (Computer = Hand). From this analysis, it can be observed that a majority of the students embraced the newly available technology and subsequently saw an increase in perceived creativity level when comparing hand and computer modeling. The lowest number of models judged, in each variable, as more creative when using the computer was 18, or 51%. This can be misleading if it is the only number looked at, because although it is barely over 50%, there is not one but two other categories (Computer < Hand & Computer = Hand) that still factor in to the equation. When analyzing the two other categories, it can be seen that although the lowest number of models representing no change is 3, a mere 8.5%, the highest number in any variable rated as better through hand modeling was only 10, which represents only 28.5% of models produced. To get a better idea of the overall change each category saw, the columns were added up and divided to attain their mean value. When this was done, it became evident that models produced via the computer were judged as much more creative, with a mean value of 21.125 or 60.5%. The mean value of models produced by hand was a mere 8.125 or 23.1%, and those models which saw no change had a mean value

65

of 5.75 or 16.4%. Although these values do not show the exact degree to which each student’s model was more or less creative, it is still shows that a majority of those tested saw an increase in perceived creativity when modeling thru the computer. Table 4.5 Comparison of Hand vs. Computer Modeling 1 Dimension Hand > Computer Hand < Computer Novelty 10 18 Aesthetic 8 23 Effort 6 23 Variation 10 22 Deviation 10 18 Detail 7 24 Complexity 6 21 Overall Creativity 8 20

Hand = Computer 7 4 6 3 7 4 8 7

These comparisons show that the perceived creativity level of individual models is higher in models produced via computer. Also, when comparing hand and computer models, on the eight variables deemed reliable, the variables termed aesthetic, effort, variation, and detail were significantly better in models produced using the computer. Establishing which variables report a significant change in perceived creativity helps the researcher answer the main question associated with this study. This information was used in the remainder of data analysis to further understand why some variables show significant change while others show little to none. Analyzing the Degree of Change Next, the study was interested in seeing whether the differences in perceived creativity levels of the two models were significant or not. This question measured the degree to which creativity changed and whether or not the change was deemed significant. 66



When judging products on eight independent variables, are there apparent trends seen between strong components of hand modeling versus the strongest components of computer modeling?

To help answer this question the data collected from the judges was analyzed using a non-parametric t test, the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test presents changes through a Z score and p-value. A significant change is classified as any value which falls within p