The Effect of Parallel Prototyping on Design Performance, Learning, and Self-Efficacy

Designs often improve with iteration. Does creating and receiving feedback on multiple prototypes in parallel — as opposed to serially — affect outcome, learning, and selfefficacy? Two experiments manipulated whether participants designed prototypes and received feedback in parallel or serial. In the first, participants designed Web advertisements and received descriptive critique on each prototype. As measured by click-through rate and expert ratings, ads created in the Parallel condition significantly outperformed those in the Serial condition. Independent raters found Parallel prototypes to be significantly more divergent. Parallel participants reported a larger increase in task-specific selfconfidence. In post-task interviews, several Serial participants reported negative reactions to critique; no Parallel participants reported this. The second study manipulated Parallel versus Serial for a simple mechanical design task. This study found no significant performance difference between conditions. We discuss differences between the tasks and the implications for understanding when and how parallel prototyping is beneficial.

[1]  Carol S. Dweck,et al.  Motivational Effects on Attention, Cognition, and Performance , 2004 .

[2]  W. Quin Yow,et al.  Intrinsic motivation in education , 2008 .

[3]  M. Scheerer,et al.  Problem Solving , 1967, Nature.

[4]  Max Jacobson,et al.  A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction , 1981 .

[5]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[6]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Getting the right design and the design right , 2006, CHI.

[7]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Design as exploration: creating interface alternatives through parallel authoring and runtime tuning , 2008, UIST '08.

[8]  Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller.  Design of studies , 2001 .

[9]  Ian Dennis,et al.  Cognitive processes in engineering design: a longitudinal study , 1994 .

[10]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Powers of observation in creative design , 1996 .

[11]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[12]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Sketches for Design and Design of Sketches , 2003 .

[13]  Michael Schrage,et al.  Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate , 1999 .

[14]  B. Fredrickson.  The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[15]  Donald A. Schön.  Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions , 1987 .

[16]  Jordan B. Peterson,et al.  Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire , 2005 .

[17]  Bill Buxton,et al.  Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design , 2007 .

[18]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[20]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Teaching engineering design: Can reading a textbook make a difference? , 1996 .

[21]  A. Gopnik,et al.  The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind , 2000 .

[22]  Alfred R. Mele,et al.  Motivation and Agency , 2003 .

[23]  Vinod Goel,et al.  The Structure of Design Problem Spaces , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  N. Cross.  Designerly ways of knowing , 2006 .

[25]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Learning abstract principles through principle-case comparison , 2008 .

[26]  Nina Mazar,et al.  Large stakes and big mistakes , 2009 .

[27]  Patrick Little,et al.  Engineering Design: A Project Based Introduction , 1999 .

[28]  J. V. Wood,et al.  Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weaknesses after failure. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[30]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  Comparison and the development of knowledge , 2007, Cognition.

[31]  Philip H. Mirvis.  Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience , 1991 .

[32]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[33]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints , 2009, C&C '09.

[34]  H. Arkes,et al.  The Psychology of Sunk Cost , 1985 .

[35]  Paul Laseau,et al.  Graphic thinking for architects and designers , 1980 .

[36]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  Introduction to Optimum Design , 1988 .

[37]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[38]  D. Gentner,et al.  Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training , 2000 .

[39]  J. Piaget.  The Psychology Of Intelligence , 1951 .

[40]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience , 1990 .

[41]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test, and analysis , 2006, UIST.

[42]  T. Simin Hall,et al.  Improving Self-Efficacy in Problem Solving: Learning from Errors and Feedback , 2008 .

[43]  M. Einhorn.  Art as Innovation , 2002 .

[44]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[45]  Francis J. DeMatteo,et al.  Human Learning , 2020, Delivering Psycho-educational Evaluation Results to Parents.

[46]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[47]  Jerri L. Ledford,et al.  Google Analytics , 2006 .