Building blocks in creative computing: modularity increases the probability of prototyping novel ideas

Abstract Design is a cyclical journey from creative ideas to concrete realizations of those ideas though prototyping. Designers today have increasing access to low-cost technology toolkits within the electronic and computational domain. However, for technical novices, including electronic components in prototypes can hamper the ability to create novel ideas by introducing technical obstacles. Electronic modules can increase the probability of prototyping success, at the cost of reduced design flexibility. This research (1) presents the results of a pilot usability evaluation of (N = 68) participants making physical light emitting diode (LED) light creations with non-modular electronics components, and (2) uses this evaluation to motivate a creative prototyping study (N = 86) exploring the question: ‘How does prototyping tool modularity influence the creative result?’ 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 novelty rating of prototypes as rated by a condition-blind panel, (ii) increased the quantity of prototypes created and the quantity of LEDs used by study participants, (iii) increased participants’ degree of perceived self-efficacy and cognitive flow, and (iv) reduced the number of errors due to LED polarity. The results highlight that novice prototyping with electronics is difficult due to the number of possible ways to fail. The findings show that modularity can reduce the chance of errors and improve the likelihood of creating novel prototypes.

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

[2]  J. Guilford,et al.  The nature of human intelligence. , 1968 .

[3]  P. Tierney,et al.  Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. , 2011, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

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

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

[7]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[8]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  d . tools : Integrated Prototyping for Physical Interaction Design , 2005 .

[9]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[10]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future , 2013, IDC.

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

[12]  E. Torrance,et al.  The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking , 2012 .

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

[14]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Volume 1 , 1999 .

[15]  Geraint A. Wiggins Searching for computational creativity , 2006, New Generation Computing.

[16]  Bengt Molander Creativity and Knowledge , 2018 .

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

[18]  A. Cardoso,et al.  Assessing Creativity : The importance of unexpected novelty , 2022 .

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

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

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

[22]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Paper Robot: A Design Activity to Increase Beginner’s Prototyping Confidence with Microcontrollers , 2015 .

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

[24]  Martin Steinert,et al.  Comparing Novice and Expert User Inputs in Early Stage Product Design , 2012 .

[25]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Participatory materials: having a reflective conversation with an artifact in the making , 2014, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[26]  Paulo Blikstein Computationally Enhanced Toolkits for Children: Historical Review and a Framework for Future Design , 2015, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  K. Hawley Creativity and knowledge , 2018 .

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