Differences between beginning and advanced design students in analogical reasoning during idea generation: evidence from eye movements

Original Research Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

In existing studies about analogical reasoning during idea generation in design, there is lack in quantitative and objective evidences showing the relationship between expertise and the analogy distance. To advance such a state, in this study 43 participants (beginning and advanced students) took part in a design task and their eye movements such as fixation time and saccades were compared. Besides, quantitative analysis of sketches and retrospective interviews were conducted to further explore the relationship between the analogy distance, the fixation level and expertise. The results showed that: (1) compared to advanced students who equally distributed their attention among the three analogy domains, beginning students fixed significantly more on distant domain, although they both used more near and medium analogies in their solutions; (2) beginning students markedly outperformed advanced students in both between-domain and within-domain saccades; (3) beginning students create more ideas and get into high-level design fixation, contrary to advanced students who create a small number of alternative ideas and perform a low level of design fixation. The results clearly offer more accurate and objective evidences showing significant relationships between the cognitive activities of analogical reasoning and expertise and analogy distance, which will bring greater clarity in using analogy in design and teaching analogical reasoning in design education.

Keywords

Analogical reasoning Analogy distance Design education Eye movements Idea generation Design fixation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by The National Natural Science Research Foundation of China (No. 51435011, 51205262) and by Sichuan Science and Technology Program (No. 2016JY0237, 18ZDYF3189).

References

  1. Agogué M, Kazakçi A, Hatchuel A, Masson PL, Weil B, Poirel N et al (2014) The impact of type of examples on originality: explaining fixation and stimulation effects. J Creat Behav 48(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed S, Christensen BT (2009) An in situ study of analogical reasoning in novice and experienced design engineers. J Mech Des 131(11):111004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed S, Wallace KM, Blessing LT (2003) Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Res Eng Des 14(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bearman CR, Ball LJ, Ormerod TC (2002) An exploration of real-world analogical problem solving in novices. In: Gray WD, Schunn CD (eds) Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 101–106Google Scholar
  5. Bilalić M, Mcleod P (2014) Why good thoughts block better ones. Sci Am 310(3):74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardoso C, Badke-Schaub P (2011) The influence of different pictorial representations during idea generation. J Creat Behav 45(2):130–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casakin H (2004) Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process. Expert versus novice performance. J Des Res 4(2):197–217Google Scholar
  8. Casakin H (2010) Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise. Environ Plan 37(1):170–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casakin HP, Goldschmidt G (2000) Reasoning by visual analogy in design problem-solving: the role of guidance. Environ Plan 27(1):105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chai C, Cen F, Ruan W, Yang C, Li H (2015) Behavioral analysis of analogical reasoning in design: differences among designers with different expertise levels. Des Stud 36:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan J, Fu K, Schunn C, Cagan J, Wood K, Kotovsky K (2011a) On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. J Mech Des 133(8):602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan J, Fu K, Schunn C, Cagan J, Wood K, Kotovsky K (2011) On the effective use of design-by-analogy: the influences of analogical distance and commonness of analogous designs on ideation performance. In: International conference on engineering design, ICED, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen C, Chan C-S (2008) Design cognition. China Architecture & Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen BT, Schunn CD (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Mem Cognit 35(1):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross N (2007) Designerly ways of knowing. Des Stud 3(4):221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cross N (2011) Understanding how designers think and work. Berg Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Cubukcu E, Cetintahra GE (2010) Does analogical reasoning with visual clues affect novice and experienced design students’ creativity? Creat Res J 22(3):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Çubukçu E, Dündar ŞG (2007) Can creativity be taught? an empirical study on benefits of visual analogy in basic design education. ITU J Faculty Arch 4(2):67–80Google Scholar
  19. Dahl DW, Moreau P (2002) The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. J Mark Res 39(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duchowski AT (2007) Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Springer, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Findlay JM, Gilchrist ID (2003) Active vision: the psychology of looking and seeing. J Neuroophthalmol 26(1):69–70Google Scholar
  22. Gero JS (1994) Computational models of creative design processes. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gero JS, Maher ML (1993) Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldschmidt G (2001) Visual analogy—a strategy for design reasoning and learning. In: Eastman CM, McCracken WM, Newstetter WC (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, New York, pp 199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldschmidt G (2015) Ubiquitous serendipity: potential visual design stimuli are everywhere. Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldschmidt G, Smolkov M (2006) Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Des Stud 27(5):549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gonçalves M (2017) Design finds a way: creative strategies to cope with barriers to creativity. In: International conference on engineering designGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon PC, Moser S (2007) Insight into analogies: evidence from eye movements. Vis Cognit 15(1):20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grant ER, Spivey MJ (2003) Eye movements and problem solving. Psychol Sci 14(5):462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Han HC, Mi JK (2017) The effects of analogical and metaphorical reasoning on design thinking. Think Skills Creat 23:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holyoak KJ, Morrison RGJ (2013) The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalogerakis K, Lüthje C, Herstatt C (2010) Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. J Prod Innov Manag 27(3):418–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kavakli M, Gero JS (2002) The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers. Des Stud 23(1):25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kowler E (2011) Eye movements: the past 25 years. Vis Res 51(13):1457–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liang C, Lin CT, Yao SN, Chang WS, Liu YC, Chen SA (2017) Visual attention and association: an electroencephalography study in expert designers. Des Stud 48:76–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linsey JS, Laux JP, Clauss E, Wood KL, Markman AB (2007) Increasing innovation: a trilogy of experiments towards a design-by-analogy method. Am Soc Mech Eng 4:145–159Google Scholar
  37. Linsey JS, Tseng I, Fu K, Cagan J, Wood KL, Schunn CD (2010) A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. J Mech Des 132(4):041003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luke T, Brook-Carter N, Parkes AM, Grimes E, Mills A (2006) An investigation of train driver visual strategies. Cogn Technol Work 8(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nuthmann A, Smith TJ, Engbert R, Henderson JM (2010) Crisp: a computational model of fixation durations in scene viewing. Psychol Rev 117(2):382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Orquin JL, Mueller LS (2013) Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 144(1):190–206Google Scholar
  41. Ozkan O, Dogan F (2013) Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: differences between expert and novice designers. Des Stud 34(2):161–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Restrepo J, Christiaans H (2001) Problem structuring and information access in design. J Des Res 4(2):218–236Google Scholar
  43. Rosch JL, Vogel-Walcutt JJ (2013) A review of eye-tracking applications as tools for training. Cogn Technol Work 15(3):313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwert PM (2007) Using sentence and picture clues to solve verbal insight problems. Creat Res J 19(2–3):293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sun L, Xiang W, Chai C, Yang Z, Zhang K (2014a) Designers’ perception during sketching: an examination of creative segment theory using eye movements. Des Stud 35(6):593–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun L, Xiang W, Chai C, Wang C, Huang Q (2014b) Creative segment: a descriptive theory applied to computer-aided sketching. Des Stud 35(1):54–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Syer CA, Jad-Moussa R, Pelletier S, Shore BM (2003) Adaptive-creative versus routine-reproductive expertise in hypermedia design: an exploratory study. Cogn Technol Work 5(2):94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thibaut JP, French RM (2016) Analogical reasoning, control and executive functions: a developmental investigation with eye-tracking. Cogn Dev 38:10–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vasconcelos LA, Cardoso CC, Sääksjärvi MC, Chen CC, Crilly N (2016) Inspiration and fixation: the influences of example designs and system properties in idea generation. J Mech Des 139(3):031101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Viswanathan VK, Linsey JS (2013) Design fixation and its mitigation: a study on the role of expertise. J Mech Des 135(5):051008-1-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vyas D, Veer GVD, Nijholt A (2013) Creative practices in the design studio culture: collaboration and communication. Cogn Technol Work 15(4):415–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ward TB (1994) Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cogn Psychol 27(1):1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xiang W, Sun L, Chen S, Yang Z, Liu Z (2015) The role of mental models in collaborative sketching. Int J Technol Des Educ 25(1):121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Youmans RJ, Arciszewski T (2014) Design fixation: a cloak of many colors. design computing and cognition ‘12. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Cao
    • 1
  • Yan Xiong
    • 1
  • Yan Li
    • 1
  • Longfan Liu
    • 1
  • Mei Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations