Designing with LEGO: exploring low fidelity visualization as a trigger for student behavior change toward idea fluency

  • Charlie RanscombeEmail author
  • Katherine Bissett-Johnson
  • David Mathias
  • Boris Eisenbart
  • Ben Hicks


Novice design students struggle to engage with early stage design visualization tools such as sketching and prototyping. Instead students have a preference for designing with digital tools such as CAD modelling, motivated by inhibitions around sketching skill, which in turn leads to fixation and sunk cost effects. These behaviors present a barrier to engaging in typical practices of expert designers, namely idea fluency described as generating a wide range of ideas quickly and avoiding favoring one single idea. Noting the recent success of LEGO Serious Play in engaging non-designers in design activities in business and innovation contexts, we explore whether using LEGO as a visualization tool can trigger a behavior change in student designers towards idea fluency. This paper presents a study comparing student attitudes and design behavior when designing with LEGO, in comparison to sketching and cardboard modelling. Findings illustrate how LEGO’s comparative low fidelity leads to students to be more willing to change and modify initial ideas, reduces inhibitions related to visual quality, and reinterpret and iterate designs. Based on these findings we illustrate how designing with LEGO can mitigate issues of inhibition, fixation, and sunk cost design behaviors concluding that LEGO can trigger behavior change toward idea fluency. As such we see compelling evidence to integrate LEGO as an educational design activity for novice designers used early in the design process to illustrate and trigger idea fluency.


Design Engineering Prototype LEGO Ideation Sketch 



  1. Blessing, L. T., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Boa, D., Mathias, D., & Hicks, B. (2017). Evolving LEGO: Prototyping requirements for a customizable construction kit. In DS 87-4 proceedings of the 21st international conference on engineering design (ICED 17) Vol 4: design methods and tools, Vancouver, Canada. Google Scholar
  3. Booth, J. W., Taborda, E. A., Ramani, K., & Reid, T. (2016). Interventions for teaching sketching skills and reducing inhibition for novice engineering designers. Design Studies, 43, 1–23.Google Scholar
  4. Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., et al. (2017). Design prototyping methods: State of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design Science. Scholar
  5. Camere, S., & Bordegoni, M. (2016). A lens on future products: An expanded notion of prototyping practice. In DS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th international design conference. Google Scholar
  6. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.Google Scholar
  7. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. de Vere, I., Kapoor, A., & Melles, G. (2011). Developing a drawing culture: new directions in engineering education. In DS 68-8: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED 11), impacting society through engineering design, Vol. 8: design education, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark. Google Scholar
  10. Garde, J. A., & van der Voort, M. C. (2016). Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design? In Paper presented at the Design Research Society, Brighton.Google Scholar
  11. Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity research journal, 4(2), 123–143. Scholar
  13. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158–174.Google Scholar
  14. Hallgrimsson, B. (2012). Prototyping and modelmaking for product design. London: Laurence King.Google Scholar
  15. Hannah, R., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2012). A user study of interpretability of engineering design representations. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(6), 443–468.Google Scholar
  16. Hansen, P. K., Mabogunje, A., Lund, M., & Nielsen, L. M. (2013). Play and transdisciplinary understanding. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the international workshop on transdisciplinary design, Luxembourg. Google Scholar
  17. Isa, S. S., Liem, A., & Steinert, M. (2015). The value of prototypes in the early design and development process. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on engineering design (ICED 15) Vol 5: design methods and tools-part 1, Milan, Italy. Google Scholar
  18. Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624.Google Scholar
  19. Klassner, F., & Anderson, S. D. (2003). Lego MindStorms: Not just for K-12 anymore. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 10(2), 12–18.Google Scholar
  20. Langer, C., & Strothotte, C. (2007). The benefits of integrating LEGO mindstorms into design education: Course” media systems”. In DS 43: Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, the 9th international conference on engineering and product design education, University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK. Google Scholar
  21. Lawson, B. (2002). CAD and creativity: Does the computer really help? Leonardo, 35(3), 327–331. Scholar
  22. Lawson, B. (2005). Oracles, draughtsmen, and agents: the nature of knowledge and creativity in design and the role of IT. Automation in construction, 14(3), 383–391.Google Scholar
  23. McDonagh, A. N., & Salman, H. S. (2017). Visual thinking through model making. The virtual and the physical. In Proceedings of the 5th eCAADe Regional International Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 115–124). Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Pei, E., Campbell, I., & Evans, M. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. The Design Journal, 14(1), 64–91.Google Scholar
  26. Ranscombe, C., & Bissett-Johnson, K. (2017). Digital sketch modelling: Integrating digital sketching as a transition between sketching and CAD in industrial design education. Design and Technology Education, 22(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, logo, and design. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.Google Scholar
  28. Robertson, B., & Radcliffe, D. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136–146.Google Scholar
  29. Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85.Google Scholar
  30. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  31. Sauer, J., Franke, H., & Ruettinger, B. (2008). Designing interactive consumer products: Utility of paper prototypes and effectiveness of enhanced control labelling. Applied Ergonomics, 39(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
  32. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  33. Schulz, K. P., Geithner, S., Woelfel, C., & Krzywinski, J. (2015). Toolkit-based modelling and serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 323–340.Google Scholar
  34. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Laamanen, T.-K., Viitala, J., & Mäkelä, M. (2013). Materiality and emotions in making. Techne Series-Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 20(3), 5–19.Google Scholar
  35. Self, J. A. (2013). CAD tools and creative design, grounds for divorce or match made in heaven? CAD/CAM Review, 19(2), 36–43.Google Scholar
  36. Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(2), 153–183.Google Scholar
  37. Thurlow, L., & Ford, P. B. (2017). Where have all the ideas gone? An anatomy of sketch inhibition among student designers. In 2017. Design Research Society.Google Scholar
  38. Tovey, M. (1997). Styling and design: Intuition and analysis in industrial design. Design Studies, 18(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
  39. Tovey, M., Porter, S., & Newman, R. (2003). Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies, 24(2), 135–153.Google Scholar
  40. Ullman, D. (2003). The mechanical design process (3rd ed.). London: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  41. van Passel, P., & Eggink, W. (2013). Exploring the influence of self-confidence in product sketching. In 15th international conference on engineering and product design education: design education-growing our future. Google Scholar
  42. Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  43. Viswanathan, V., Atilola, O., Esposito, N., & Linsey, J. (2014). A study on the role of physical models in the mitigation of design fixation. Journal of Engineering Design, 25(1–3), 25–43.Google Scholar
  44. Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013). Role of sunk cost in engineering idea generation: An experimental investigation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(12), 121002.Google Scholar
  45. Welch, M. (1998). Students’ use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 241–260.Google Scholar
  46. Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 125–148.Google Scholar
  47. Yang, M. C. (2009). Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 1–11. Scholar
  48. Yang, M. C., & Cham, J. G. (2007). An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(5), 476–482.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of DesignSwinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations