Building Blocks of the Maker Movement: Modularity Enhances Creative Confidence During Prototyping

Can we enable anyone to create anything? The prototyping tools of a rising Maker Movement are enabling the next generation of artists, designers, educators, and engineers to bootstrap from napkin sketch to functional prototype. However for technical novices, the process of including electronic components in prototypes can hamper the creative process with technical details. Software and electronic modules can reduce the amount of work a designer must perform in order to express an idea, by condensing the number of choices into a physical and cognitive “chunk.” What are the core building blocks that might make up electronics toolkits of the future, and what are the key affordances? We present the idea that modularity, the ability to freely recombine elements, is a key affordance for novice prototyping with electronics. We present the results of a creative prototyping experiment (N = 86) that explores how tool modularity influences the creative design process. Using a browser-based crowd platform (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk), participants created electric “creature circuits” with LEDs in a virtual prototyping environment. We found that increasing the modularity of LED components (i) increased the quantity of prototypes created by study participants; and (ii) increased participants’ degree of perceived self-efficacy, self-reported creative feeling, and cognitive flow. The results highlight the importance of tool modularity in creative prototyping.

[1]  Chris Anderson,et al.  Makers: The New Industrial Revolution , 2012 .

[2]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[3]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Bloctopus: A Novice Modular Sensor System for Playful Prototyping , 2015, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[4]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Creative Chunking: Modularity Increases Prototyping Quantity, Creative Self-Efficacy and Cognitive Flow , 2015 .

[5]  R. Marsh,et al.  How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy , 2010, TCHI.

[7]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[8]  S. Engeser,et al.  Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance , 2008 .

[9]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Hacking, Mashing, Gluing: Understanding Opportunistic Design , 2008, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[10]  A. Bandura Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

[11]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Integration analysis of product decompositions , 1994 .

[12]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example From Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[13]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. , 1988 .

[14]  P. Tierney,et al.  Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance , 2002 .

[15]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Early and Repeated Exposure to Examples Improves Creative Work , 2012, CogSci.