Involvement of users in the design process is generally viewed favourably, both within academia and industry. Their involvement can be seen as a strategy for designers to clarify their design task and reduce uncertainties in the design process. Simultaneously, there is a lack of understanding about the impact that user involvement has on students and how they experience doing so. This paper reports on a study where students were asked to self-report their motivation and self-confidence throughout a design exercise, stretching 11 days, with surveys repeating daily. Additionally, students were asked to indicate which—if any—strategies of user involvement they used every day. We find that students self-reported motivation did not change statistically significantly, while self-confidence did change. However, in neither case did student’s involvement of end-users impact how motivated or self-confident they were. We discuss our results in relation to existing research on method use in general and user involvement in particular and conclude with some suggestions for future work.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-centered design. In W. Bainbridge (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human–computer interaction (Vol. 37, pp. 445–456). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359.
Andreasen, M. M. (2011). 45 Years with design methodology. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(5), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2010.538040.
Araujo, C. S., Benedetto-Neto, H., Campello, A. C., Segre, F. M., & Wright, I. C. (1996). The utilization of product development methods: A survey of UK industry. Journal of Engineering Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544829608907940.
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x.
Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Applying ethnography in the analysis and support of expertise in engineering design. Design Studies, 21(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00009-0.
Bano, M., & Zowghi, D. (2014). A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Information and Software Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.011.
Barnett, S. G., Gallimore, C. E., Pitterle, M., & Morrill, J. (2016). Impact of a paper vs virtual simulated patient case on student-perceived confidence and engagement. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80116.
Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1145/5666.5669.
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415.
Button, G. (2000). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies, 21(4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00005-3.
Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering. Design Theory and Methodology, 42(August), 131–140.
Conradie, P., De Marez, L., & Saldien, J. (2017). User consultation during the fuzzy front end: Evaluating student’s design outcomes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9361-4.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Design (3rd ed., Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Daalhuizen, J., Person, O., & Gattol, V. (2014). A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method. Design Studies, 35(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.10.004.
De Waal, G. A., & Knott, P. (2016). Patterns and drivers of NPD tool adoption in small high-technology firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2016.2603160.
Denton, H., & McDonagh, D. (2003). Using focus group methods to improve students’ design project research in schools: Drawing parallels from action research at undergraduate level. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024149703800.
Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001.
Dubberly, H., & Evenson, S. (2011). Design as learning—or “knowledge creation”—the SECI model. Interactions, 18(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1145/1897239.1897256.
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R (Vol. 58). Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12011_21.
Gerber, E. (2009). Prototyping: facing uncertainty through small wins. In International conference on engineering design (pp. 333–342). Stanford.
Gerber, E., & Carroll, M. (2012). The psychological experience of prototyping. Design Studies, 33(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.005.
Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design? Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186.
Günther, J., & Ehrlenspiel, K. (1999). Comparing designers from practice and designers with systematic design education. Design Studies, 20(5), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00019-8.
Hanington, B. (2003). Methods in the making: A perspective on the state of human research in design. Design Issues, 19(4), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793603322545019.
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems. Develop Innovative Ideas: Rockport Publishers.
IDEO. (2018). Design kit: The human-centered design toolkit. Retrieved June 12, 2018, from https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit
ISO. (2002). ISO/TR 16982:2002: Ergonomics of human–system interaction—usability methods supporting human-centred design. Geneva: Switzerland.
ISO. (2015). International standard for human-centred design of interactive systems - ISO 9241-210:2010. Geneva: Switzerland.
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984). User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. Management Science, 30(5), 586–603. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586.
Karat, C. M. (1994). A comparison of user interface evaluation methods. In Usability inspection methods (pp. 203–233). Wiley.
Karat, J. (1997). Evolving the scope of user-centered design. Communications of the ACM, 40(7), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/256175.256181.
Kaulio, M. A. (1998). Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9(1), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412989333.
Klapwijk, R., & Van Doorn, F. (2015). Contextmapping in primary design and technology education: A fruitful method to develop empathy for and insight in user needs. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9279-7.
Klemmer, S., & Coursera. (2019). Human-centered design: An introduction. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/learn/human-computer-interaction
Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929021000055530.
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, 10, 10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529876.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. London: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Design-Expertise-Bryan-Lawson/dp/1856176703
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597.
Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2005). The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047671.1047677.
Morgan, A., & Jones, D. (2009). Perceptions of service user and carer involvement in healthcare education and impact on students’ knowledge and practice: A literature review. Medical Teacher, 31(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802526946.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10, 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20127.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London, UK: Springer.
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148783.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12102.
Sanders E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2013). Convivial design toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. London: British Interplanetary Society. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=a8miuAAACAAJ&pgis=1
Tarling, R. (2008). Statistical modelling for social researchers: Principles and practice. Routledge.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
Tolkamp, J., Huijben, J. C. C. M., Mourik, R. M., Verbong, G. P. J., & Bouwknegt, R. (2018). User-centred sustainable business model design: The case of energy efficiency services in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.032.
Trischler, J., Pervan, S. J., Kelly, S. J., & Scott, D. R. (2018). The value of codesign: the effect of customer involvement in service design teams. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517714060.
Wood, J., & Wilson-Barnett, J. (1999). The influence of user involvement on the learning of mental health nursing students. NT Research, 4(4), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/136140969900400403.
Wormald, P. W. (2011). Positioning industrial design students to operate at the “fuzzy front end”: Investigating a new arena of university design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9133-5.
Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00040.x.
The authors would like to thank all the participating students for taking the time to complete the daily surveys. We would also like to thank Wouter Durnez for the assistance in statistical modelling.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Scales and measures
Appendix: Scales and measures
All items were 7-point Likert scales: Strongly agree (1), Agree (2), Somewhat agree (3), Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5), Disagree (6), Strongly disagree (7).
Survey A (performed at the start of the study)
Interest (αc = 0.87), scores reversed.
The topic of the design brief triggers my interest.
The design challenge posed in the design brief is interesting to me.
I find the design brief inspiring.
Survey B (repeated six times)
Self-confidence (αc = 0.63, αc = 0.66 with reversed item removed).
I feel confident that I will be able to solve the design problem. (Reversed) (Removed).
I sometimes feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the assignment.
I doubt myself a lot when working on the assignment.
Motivation (αc = 0.79), scores reversed.
I feel highly motivated to do this assignment.
I want to do well in this assignment.
I am working enthusiastically on this assignment.
About this article
Cite this article
Conradie, P.D., Van Acker, B.B., De Vos, E. et al. Impact of user involvement on design students’ motivation and self-confidence. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 183–197 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09531-7
- User involvement
- Design education
- Design methods