Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T20:48:50.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring designers’ cognitive abilities in the concept product design phase through traditional and digitally-mediated design environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Muhammad Tufail ,
Shahab Zaib ,
Sahr Uzma ,
Raja Mubashar Karim  and
KwanMyung Kim
Muhammad Tufail*
Affiliation:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Shahab Zaib
Affiliation:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Sahr Uzma
Affiliation:
University of Ulsan, South Korea
Raja Mubashar Karim
Affiliation:
National University of Science and Technology, Pakistan
KwanMyung Kim
Affiliation:
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea
*
tufail.tufail@polyu.edu.hk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study explores design strategies that designers adapt in different design environments and assesses cognitive load associated with acquiring, comprehending, and implementing strategies in concept product design phase. The findings from qualitative and quantitative analyses show that the traditional design environment exhibits a greater intrinsic load, thereby fostering a greater diversity of ideas, design strategies, and solutions. The digitally-mediated design environment demonstrates extraneous load, resulting in a tendency towards similarity in ideas, design strategies, and solutions.

Keywords

design educationdesign strategycognitive abilitydigital designdesign learning
Type
Human Behaviour and Design Creativity
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 1135 - 1146
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

Ateş, H. and Köroğlu, M., (2024). “Online collaborative tools for science education: Boosting learning outcomes, motivation, and engagement”. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L., (2008). “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.” British journal of educational technology, 39(5), pp.775-786. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilda, Z. and Demirkan, H., (2003). “An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media”. Design studies, 24(1), pp.27-50. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00032-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohemia, Erik & Cruickshank, Leon & Kovacevic, Ahmed & Blythe, Mark & Fain, Nusa. (2013). “Brief Encounters: Exploring Digital Technologies in New Design Practice.” https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2078.6888Google Scholar
Jorge, D. Camba, & Kimbrough, Mark & Eunsook, Kwon. (2018). “Conceptual product design in digital and traditional sketching environments: a comparative exploratory study.” Journal of Design Research. 16. 131. 10.1504/JDR.2018.10014195.Google Scholar
Cezar, da Silva, and Maçada, B.G., A.C.G., (2023). “Cognitive Overload, Anxiety, Cognitive Fatigue, Avoidance Behavior and Data Literacy in Big Data environments”. Information Processing & Management, 60(6), p.103482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, T., (2010). “Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought.” Instructional science, 38(2), pp.105-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeStefano, D. and LeFevre, J.A., (2007). “Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review”. Computers in human behavior, 23(3), pp.1616-1641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frich, J., Nouwens, M., Halskov, K. and Dalsgaard, P., (2021), May. “How digital tools impact convergent and divergent thinking in design ideation”. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-11). https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2014), “What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation”, Design Studies, Elsevier BV, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.09.001Google Scholar
Hanna, R. and Barber, T., (2001). “An inquiry into computers in design: attitudes before–attitudes after.” Design studies, 22(3), pp.255-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00029-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawlitschek, A. and Joeckel, S., (2017). “Increasing the effectiveness of digital educational games: The effects of a learning instruction on students’ learning, motivation and cognitive load.” Computers in Human Behavior, 72, pp.79-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalani, N.H. and Sern, L.C., (2015). “The example-problem-based learning model: applying cognitive load theory.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, pp.872-880. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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), pp.383-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., et al. . (2016). “Difficulties in transformable design and its causes.” DS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016Google Scholar
Maldini, I., (2016). “Attachment, durability and the environmental impact of digital DIY.” The Design Journal, 19(1), pp.141-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2016.1085213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalski, C., Cowan, M., Bohinsky, J., Dickerson, R. and Plochocki, J.H., (2023). “Evaluation of cognitive load for a mixed reality anatomy application.” Translational Research in Anatomy, 31, p.100247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tria.2023.100247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naismith, L.M., Cheung, J.J., Ringsted, C. and Cavalcanti, R.B., (2015). “Limitations of subjective cognitive load measures in simulation-based procedural training.” Medical education, 49(8), pp.805-814. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranscombe, C. and Zhang, W. (2021) “What Motivates And Discourages Designers To Use Digital Sketching? Comparing Its Use To Externalise Ideas Versus Communicating With External Stakeholders”, Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, pp. 3441–3450. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, B.F. and Radcliffe, D.F., (2009). “Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design.” Computer-aided design, 41(3), pp.136-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, M., Farrugia, P., Wodehouse, A.J., Grierson, H. and Kovacevic, A., (2015). “Influence of sketch types on distributed design team work”. CoDesign, 11(2), pp.99-118. 10.1080/15710882.2015.1054841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stones, C. and Cassidy, T., (2007). “Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools”. Design studies, 28(1), pp.59-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stones, C. and Cassidy, T., (2010). “Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during graphic design ideation?”. Design studies, 31(5), pp.439-460. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., (2010). “Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.” Educational psychology review, 22, pp.123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., (2011). “Cognitive load theory.” In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37-76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8Google Scholar
Tang, H.H., Lee, Y.Y. and Gero, J.S., (2011). “Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: A protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme”. Design Studies, 32(1), pp.1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treadaway, C., (2007). “Digital crafting and crafting the digital.” The Design Journal, 10(2), pp.35-48. https://dx.doi.org/10.2752/146069207789272668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinker, Yael, Voynov, Andrey, Cohen-Or, Daniel, and Shamir, Ariel. (2023). “Concept Decomposition for Visual Exploration and Inspiration.” ACM Trans. Graph. 42, 6, Article 241 (December 2023), 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3618315CrossRefGoogle Scholar