skip to main content
10.1145/3290607.3313023acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Sketch or Play?: LEGO® Stimulates Divergent Thinking for Non-sketchers in HCI Conceptual Ideation

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Sketching is known to support divergent thinking during conceptual ideation. Yet, in HCI teams, non-designers are known to be reluctant to sketch. Looking for a tool that could support non-designers' divergent thinking to creatively offset familiar solutions while providing starter suggestions, we hypothesized that LEGO pieces could replace sketching. In a comparative lab experiment, 36 participants did two conceptual ideations of Web interfaces, one using paper/pen, the other LEGO, in random sequence. The 72 resulting interfaces were assessed on their fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality according to Guilford [6] and Torrance's [9] divergent thinking framework. Our main finding is that LEGO could substitute sketching for non-designers; the 3D figurative, constructive pieces provide a stimulating visual representation that supports divergent thinking by offering alternate meanings, generating a greater number of elements to react to, thus enhancing the use of analogies.

References

  1. P. Bateson. 2015. Playfulness and Creativity. Current Biology 25, 1, R12-R16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. J. W.Booth, E.A. Taborda, K. Ramani, and T. Reid. 2016. Interventions for teaching sketching skills and reducing inhibition for novice engineering designers. Design studies, 43, 1--23Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Cropley. 2006. In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal 18, 3, 391--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D. Gauntlett. 2007. Creative Exploration - New Approaches to Identities and Audiences. New York, NY: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Goldschmidt. 2017. Manual Sketching: Why Is It Still Relevant? In The Active Image. Springer, Cham, 77--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. P. Guilford. 1959. Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist 14, 8, 469--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. K. Hee Kim. 2006. Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal 18, 3, 251--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Paul J. Silva, Emily C. Nusbaum, and Roger E. Beaty. 2017. Old or new? Evaluating the old/new scoring method for divergent thinking tasks. The Journal of Creative Behavior 51, 3, 216--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. P.E. Torrance. 1974. Verbal Tests, Forms A and B "and" Figural Tests, Forms A and B. In The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms, Technical Manual Research ed. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Sketch or Play?: LEGO® Stimulates Divergent Thinking for Non-sketchers in HCI Conceptual Ideation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2019
      3673 pages
      ISBN:9781450359719
      DOI:10.1145/3290607

      Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2019

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format