A descriptive phenomenological study of the lived experience of the creative design process among students of graphic design (Kajian Fenomenologi Deskriptif Terhadap Pengalaman Rekaan Kreatif dalam Kalangan Pelajar Senireka Grafik)

Mohd hafnidzam adzmi, Zahari Ishak, Che Aleha Ladin

Abstract


The use of technologies such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) is significant and has a profound effect on the Creative Design Process. The widely studied process in Creativity research such as Divergent Thinking (DT), Convergent Thinking (CT), and Analogical Thinking (AT) can describe the Creative Design during the process of producing and the implementation of ideas. The article employs the Descriptive Phenomenological method by collecting verbalized data from seven participants who are at the time of this study are enrolled in a Design Course, specifically Graphic Design. Three design projects are designed specifically to collect verbalized data through the think-aloud and stimulated recall method. Another data source that is used to support interpretation are screen recordings of the of the participants Creative Design process. The findings include seven themes that are associated with the experience of Creative Design and are used to describe the Creative Design Process with CAD through DT, CT, and AT and their relationship through the transformations of conceptual knowledge and technical skills. The article then discusses the role of Conceptual and Technical Knowledge that went through the process of selection and mapping in AT to induce DT and CT in ideation and its expansion through the process of learning. Finally, the article will present the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.

Keywords: Creative Design Process; Divergent Thinking; Convergent Thinking; Analogical Thinking; Computer-Aided Design (CAD)

 

Abstrak

Penggunaanjenisteknologiseperti ‘Computer-Aided Design’ (CAD) adalah ketara dan memberi kesan kepada Proses Rekaan Kreatif. Proses pemikiran kreatif yang biasa dibincangkan di dalam kajian Kreativiti seperti ‘Divergent Thinking’ (DT), ‘Convergent Thinking’ (CT) dan ‘Analogical Thinking’ (AT) dapat menjelaskan Proses Rekaan Kreatif dalam menghasilkan dan melaksanakan idea. Kajian kualitatif ini menggunakan kaedah ‘Descriptive Phenomenology’ dengan mengumpulkan ‘verbalized data’ dari tujuh peserta, dimana ketika kajian ini dijalankan sedang melalui pembelajaran kursus Rekaan Grafik. Data bagi kajian ini diperoleh secara ‘verbalized’ melalui kaedah ‘think-aloud’ dan ‘stimulated recall’ melalui tiga projek rekaan yang berbeza dengan menggunakan perisian CAD tertentu. Kajian ini mengumpul juga data didalam bentuk yang lain seperti rakaman skrin. Ia digunakan sebagai sokongan untuk menginterpretasi Proses Rekaan Kreatif. Hasil dapatan kajian telah mendedahkan tujuh tema yang dialami oleh peserta kajian yang dimana ia berkai t rapat dengan Proses Rekaan Kreatif. Tema ini juga merangkumi penjelasan proses kreativiti dengan CAD melalui DT, CT dan AT yang dihubungkan melalui transformasi maklumat konsepsual dan teknikal. Dari tema tersebut, artikel ini membincangkan pula peranan maklumat Konseptual (Conceptual Knowledge) dan teknikal (Technical Knowledge) yang melalui proses ‘analogical selection’ dan ‘analogical mapping’untuk mendorong DT dan CT di dalam pembentukan idea dan pengembangannya melalui proses pembelajaran. Artikel ini diakhiri dengan penjelasan beberapa batasan kajian dan cadangan untuk kajian di masa hadapan.

Kata kunci: Creative Design Process; Divergent Thinking; Convergent Thinking; Analogical Thinking; Computer-Aided Design (CAD)


Full Text:

PDF

References


Alipour, L. 2020. Computer-Aided Design Tools and Creativity, sid.ir. https://www.sid.ir/FileServer/SE/659E20200101. Retrieved on: 20 June 2021

Alipour, L., Faizi, M., Moradi, A., & Akrami, G. 2017. The impact of designers' goals on design-by-analogy. Design Studies 51(C):1-24.

Arnheim, R. 1974. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Ayman-Nolley, S. 2010. A Piagetian perspective on the dialectic process of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 12(4): 267-275.

Bailey, J. 2020. The Tools of Generative Art, From Flash to Neural Networks, Art in America. https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/generative-art-tools-flash-processing-neural-networks-1202674657/?fbclid=IwAR0fz-BpnnrLJu0-9fpMBZ_tt8jdPoKILJGldjjZ6WY96Kn69_Q0vAmLX9M. Retrieved on: 8 January 2020

Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. 2010. The impact of technology on Creativity in Design: An enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management 19(2): 180-191.

Brown, P. 2009. CAD: Do computers aid the design process after all. Intersect, 2(1): 52-66.

Brown, T. 2008. Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking. Retrieved on: 20 June 2021

Calderhead, J. 1981. Stimulated Recall: A Method for Research on Teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51: 211-217.

Charters, E. 2003. The Use of Think-aloud Methods in Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Think-aloud Methods. Brock Education Journal 12(2): 68-82.

Cropley, A. 2006. In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal 18(3): 391-404.

Cross, N. 1982. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies 3(4): 221-227.

Cubukcu, E., & Cetintahra, G. E. 2010. Does Analogical Reasoning With Visual Clues Affect Novice and Experienced Design Student's Creativity? Creativity Research Journal 22(3): 337-344.

Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. 2002. The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1): 47-60.

Ericsson, A. K., & Simon, H. A. 1980. Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review 87(3): 215-251.

Fasko, D. 2006. Creative thinking and reasoning: Can you have one without the other. In Creativity and reason in cognitive development, edited by Kaufman, J. & Baer, J, 159-176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feenberg, A. 2017. A critical theory of technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by Felt, U., Fouche, R., Miller, C.A. & Smith-Doer, L., 635-663. Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. 1983. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15: 1-38.

Giorgi, A. 2015. The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology (6th edition ed.). Pitssburgh, Pennsylvania: Duquesne University Press.

Goldschmidt, G. 2014. Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Goldschmidt, G. 2016. Linkographic Evidence for Concurrent Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Creative Design. Creativity Research Journal 28(2): 115-122.

Guilford, J. 1956. The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin 53(4): 267-293.

Heidegger, M. 1977. The Questions Concerning Technology and Other Essays. (W. Lovitt, Trans.) New York: Harper Perennial.

Heidegger, M. 2004. What is called thinking? (J. G. Gray, Trans.) New York: Harper Perennial.

Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Jariah, M. J., Siti Zaidah, Z., Azlin Zaiti, Z., Sheena, K., & Roshidah, H. 2020. New academia learning innovations in University Malaya. Akademika 90 (Special Issue 2): 117-127.

Jiajun, G., Islam, A. Y., Teo, T., & Spector, J. M. 2019. Computer-enabled visual creativity: an empirically-based model with implications for learning and instruction. Instructional Science 47(5): 609-625.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09487-0

Kanisauskas, S. 2016. Creative technologies entrapped by instrumental mind. Filosofija sociologija 27(1): 40-50.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. 2009. Beyond big and little: The four C model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology 13(1): 1-12.

Kirkhart, M. 2010. The nature of declarative and nondeclarative knowledge for implicit and explicit learning. The Journal of General Psychology 128(4): 447-461.

Langdridge, D. 2007. Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research and Method. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Laurillard, D. 1982. Applying educational research to design education. Design Studies 3(4): 193-195.

Lawson, B. 2002. CAD and creativity: does the computer really help? Leonardo 35(3): 327-331.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 2013. The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

Long, H. 2014. An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003-2012). Creativity Research Journal 26(4): 427-438.

Lubart, T. 2005. How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the Special Issue. International Journal of Human-Computer studies 63: 365-369.

Lupton, E., & Phillips, J. C. 2015. Graphic Design: The New Basics (Second Edition, Revised and Expanded ed.). NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Magner, T. F. 2017. Technology and creativity. In Creativity & Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by Plucker, J.A, 277-294. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.

Marcuse, H. 1964. One dimensional man. London: Routledge.

McCormick, R. 1997. Conceptual and procedural knowledge.

International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 141-159.

Moore, G. E. 2015. Progress in Digital Integrated Electronics, IEEE Milestones Wiki. http://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/images/5/5e/Moore_1975_IEEE_Speech.pdf. Retrieved on: 4 January 2020,

Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Nik Narimah, N. A., Nurfaradilla, M. N., Muhammad Helmi, N., & Juritah, M. 2020. Needs analysis for the development of cross-cultural corporate identity curriculum model for graphic design programme. Akademika 90 (Special Issue 3): 189-201.

Nor Hazwani, H., & Sheerad, S. 2020. Work readiness skills, self-efficacy, enterepreneurial behavior and career exploration among graduates. Akademika 90 (Special Issue 3): 155-165.

Paul, C. 2008. Digital art : Revised and expanded edition. New York: Thames & Hudson world of art.

Plucker, J., Mcwilliams, J., & Guo, J. 2021. Smart contexts for 21st century talent development. In Conceptions of giftedness and talent edited by Sternberg, R. & Ambrose, D., 295-316. Palgrave Macmillan.

Rhodes, M. 1961. An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42(7): 305-310.

Robertson, B. F., & Radcliffe, D. F. 2009. Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design 41: 136-146.

Runco, M. A. 2008. Commentary: Divergent Thinking is Not Synonymous With Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2(2): 93-96.

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. 2012. Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creativity Research Journal 24(1): 66-75.

Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. 1995. Cognition and Creativity. Educational Psychology Review 7(3): 243-267.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24(1): 92-96

Schweitzer, F., & Robert, M. 2021. The double-edged word of intricate idea enactment in product development. Journal of Business Research 132: 392-402. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.054.

Shih, Y., & Sher, W. 2021. Exploring the role of CAD and its application in design education. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 18(6): 1410-1424. doi:https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2021.1410-1424

Spellman, B., & Holyoak, K. 1996. Pragmatics in Analogical Mapping. Cognitive Psychology 31(1): 307-346.

Williams, R., Runco, M. A., & Berlow, E. 2016. Mapping the Themes, Impact, and Cohesion of Creativity Research over the Last 25 Years. Creativity Research Journal 28(4): 385-394.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN: 0126-5008

eISSN: 0126-8694