Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Design in Educational Technology

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Key to data notation:

    • #8, Q, W, 6 refers to the response of participant 8, on the questionnaire to the whole group, question number 6.

    • #10, Q, S, 7 refers to the response of participant 10, on the questionnaire to the students, question number 7.

    • Lynn, FGT, p. 30 refers to Lynn’s (pseudonyms used) comment, found in the focus group transcript on page 30.

    • AIA, p. 16 refers to page 16 of a project summary prepared by the student project manager for the American Institute of Architects case study competition.

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, S. (2005). Teaching students to think critically. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70(6), 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2011). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), Article 5. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol5/iss2/5

  • Chirumbolo, A., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. (2004). Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18, 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Reiber, L. P. (2010). The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 755–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Combs, L. B., Cennamo, K. S., & Newbill, P. L. (2009). Developing critical and creative thinkers: Toward a conceptual model of creative and critical thinking processes. Educational Technology, 49(5), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A. (2003). Is the social psychology of creativity really social? Moving beyond a focus on the individual. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 181–201). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B. (2012). The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9-5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, C., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The group as mentor: Social capital and the systems model of creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 225–244). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architecture Students.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. R., Jr., Chrisietnesen, C., Abbott, A. S., & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202–224). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michinov, N., & Pimois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32–62). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1984). Kinds of thinking taught in current programs. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., & Paulus, P. B. (2003). Group creativity: Common themes and future directions. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 326–339). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). Critical thinking and the art of close reading (Part III). Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raths, L. E., Wasserman, S., Jonas, A., & Rothstein, A. (1986). Teaching for thinking: Theory, strategies, & activities for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Whan Park, C. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85–109). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1998). Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 245–277). New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Katherine Cennamo

Authors
  1. Katherine Cennamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Cennamo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Design, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

    Brad Hokanson

  2. Provo, Utah, USA

    Andrew Gibbons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cennamo, K. (2014). In Education We All Want to Be Nice: Lessons Learned from a Multidisciplinary Design Studio. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation