Comparing the creativity of children's design solutions based on expert assessment

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a study in which the outcome of early design sessions with eight-to-twelve-year old children is assessed through expert judgment. Experts compare the outcomes of two early design methods: brainstorming and prototyping. The design case was to come up with a solution for incapacitated children that need to attend class from home. The hypothesis is that children will generate more creative design solutions when prototyping than when brainstorming, because we reason that prototyping requires a wider range of intelligences according to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. The outcome of the sessions is assessed on creativity and five explanatory criteria. The results show that a brainstorming method generates design solutions that are more creative. However, both methods produce creative design solutions; the brainstorming sessions generate more surprising and novel design solutions, the prototyping results are considered more relevant and workable.

REFERENCES

• 1: Amabile, T. M. (1982), Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997--1013.
• 2: Anderson, J. (2000), Cognitive Psychology and its Implications, New York: Worth Publishers
• 3: Auh, M. & Johnston, R. (2001), A comparison of the Consensual Assessment Technique and expert judges evaluations using criteria for assessing creativity in musical compositions and invented stories by children. The 2001 University of Technology, Change and Education research Group (CERG) conference. Retrieved October, 9, 2007, from www.tld.uts.edu.au/publications/papers/auhjohnston.doc
• 4: Barendregt, W., Bekker, M. M. Developing a coding scheme for detecting usability and fun problems in computer games for young children. In: Proceedings of Measuring Behaviour 2005, (2005)
• 5: Bekker, M., Beusmans, J., Keyson, D and Lloyd, P (2003) KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children, Interacting with Computers, 15(3), 187--202.
• 6: Besemer, S. P. (1998), Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the Model Structure and a Comparison Among Products -- Three Novel Chairs. Creativity Research Journal 11(4), 333--346.
• 7: Besemer, S. P. & O'Quinn, K. (2006), Using the Creative Product Semantic Scale as a Metric for Results-Oriented Business. Creativity and Innovation Management 15(1), 34--44.
• 8: Besemer, S. P. & O'Quinn, K. (1999), Confirming the Three-Factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample. Creativity Research Journal 12(4), 287--296.
• 9: Christiaans, H. H. C. M. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity research journal, 14(1), 41--54.
• 10: Allison Druin , Ben Bederson , Angela Boltman , Adrian Miura , Debby Knotts-Callahan , Mark Platt, Children as our technology design partners, The design of children's technology, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1998
• 11: Gerrard, L. E.; Poteat, G. M. & Ironsmith, M. (1996), Promoting Children's Creativity: Effects of Competition, Self-Esteem, and Immunization. Creativity Research Journal 9(4), 339--346.
• 12: Hickey, M. (2001), An Application of Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children's Musical Compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education 49(3), 234--244. Retrieved October, 9, 2007, from EBSCOhost Web.
• 13: Diana Horn , Gavriel Salvendy, Consumer-based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal: Research Articles, Human Factors in Ergonomics & Manufacturing, v.16 n.2, p.155-175, January 2006 [doi>10.1002/hfm.v16:2]
• 14: Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic, (1983).
• 15: S Rebecca Kelly , Emanuela Mazzone , Matthew Horton , Janet C Read, Bluebells: a design method for child-centred product development, Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles, p.361-368, October 14-18, 2006, Oslo, Norway [doi>10.1145/1182475.1182513]
• 16: Kenneth R. MacCrimmon , Christian Wagner, Stimulating ideas through creativity software, Management Science, v.40 n.11, p.1514-1532, Nov. 1994 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.40.11.1514]
• 17: Kurt Yanchenko Michael , E. Allen Bame, A comparison of students' product creativity using a computer simulation activity versus a hands-on activity in technology education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2000
• 18: Mike Scaife , Yvonne Rogers, Kids as informants: telling us what we didn't know or confirming what we knew already?, The design of children's technology, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1998
• 19: Wouter Sluis-Thiescheffer , Tilde Bekker , Berry Eggen, Comparing early design methods for children, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and children, June 06-08, 2007, Aalborg, Denmark [doi>10.1145/1297277.1297281]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: User-centered design

Additional Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

Keywords:
children, creativity assessment, methods, user-centred design