FACTORS OF DESIGN PROBLEM-SOLVING AND THEIR S CONTRIBUTION TO CREATIVITY
    
    Hernan Casakin
    Abstract Design problems are unique, complex, and ambiguous. They are considered to be non-routine and ill-structured. Since these kinds of problems require the production of innovative solutions, design problem-solving involves creative thinking. Creativity is concerned with the capacity to restructure old ideas to produce novel solutions, and the ability to search for unusual design alternatives that transcend the known and familiar. In the recent years, there were attempts to gain insight in problem-solving activities that demand creativity, such as design. A question addressed in the current empirical research is how design students assess creativity in architectural design while solving housing problems. Redefining the role of housing in the contemporary city was a main concern. Major factors of design problem-solving, and their contribution to creativity are analyzed. Results revealed that restructuring of housing design problems was the most significant factor of design problemsolving, followed by search of design solutions. Retrieval of prior knowledge from memory was the weakest factor. Furthermore, innovation was the most significant factor characterizing design creativity, followed by utility and aesthetics. Additional findings showed that restructuring of housing problems was the most correlated factor, and the predictor that had a unique contribution to all creativity factors. Search of housing solutions was a predictor that contributed mainly to innovation. K e y w o r d s : Architectural Design Problem-Solving, Restructuring, Search, Creativity, Innovation, Housing.
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    INTRODUCTION In the nineteen sixties, in an attempt to formalize design problem-solving by means of fundamental processes, members of the so-called Design Methods Movement proposed prescriptive models of design. These models were based on the idea that the sequence of acts in the design process can be optimized, and as a result determined in advance (e.g., Jones, 1980). The Design Methods Movement understood design problems as routine and well-structured, and thus attempted to produce optimal rather than satisfying solutions. The design methodology approach underestimated the behavior of the designer, and put an emphasis on the actions and steps describing the design process. In the 1970s and the 1980s, scientific theories and rational design methods were developed and applied to the architectural domain (e.g., Akin, 1978; Eastman, 1970). A major concern was to model the design process as a number of actions related to problem understanding, gathering and analysis of information, synthesis, decision making, and evaluation. The modeling of design was imple46
    
    mented in computerized environments with the intention to produce optimal design solutions. However, the proposed models were ineffective to acknowledge unanticipated and ill-defined situations, characteristic of creative design processes. Since 1960s the view of design as a rational activity has changed. Contrary to the approach of the Design Methods Movement that promoted prescriptive design models rooted in rational aspects, recent studies proposed descriptive design models strongly based on the cognition of the designer (Cross, 1997). An emphasis was set to study cognitive processes that enable to learn how designers think, and behave while dealing with creative problem-solving (e.g., Cross, 2001; Goldschmidt & Tatsa, 2005). Schon (1983) maintained that perceiving design as rational problem-solving weakened the understanding of unique aspects of design problems such as creativity. In a pioneering work, he studied the interplay established between the designer's internal and external representations in the front edge design. According to Schon, design activity can be seen as a reflective conversation between the designer and his/her materials, in
    
    DESIGN PROBLEM-SOLVING In the early 70s', the study of problem-solving captured the attention of psychologists and computer scientists working in a variety of fields. Newell and Simon formulated a general theory of problemsolving within the paradigm of information-processing. In their view, solving a problem was concerned with: (i) a description of an initial state where problem-solving starts, and which represents the problem constraints; (ii) a description of the goal state to be attained; (iii) a set of operators, which are the means or instruments for moving from one state to another; and (iv) path states, which are the trajectory of the states that are traversed in moving from the initial state to the goal state. In the last decades, the view of design as a rational activity was ready for a shift. Today design is understood as a problem-solving involving productive thinking (Dominowski, 1995) and the generation of innovative solutions (e.g., Goldschmidt and Smolkov, 2006; Harfield, 2007). An example is the design of
    
    47
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    which the problem situation is reformulated from an innovative perspective. Today there is a general acceptance of a paradigm that sees design as an ill-structured problem-solving activity that demands creativity. In the present work we explore the effect of problem-solving in design creativity. A main goal is to understand the way architectural students assess design-problem-solving and creativity while dealing with a housing problem in the design studio. Factors of design problem-solving, and creativity are investigated. Relationships between both factors are analyzed to see whether creativity can be predicted. In the next two sections we discuss major characteristics of design problem-solving, and its relationship to creative thinking. Thereafter, we discuss creativity and problem solving in relation to the theory of Multiple Intelligences and related studies. Factors to assess creative design problem-solving are introduced. The last sections of the study are concerned with an empirical study achieved with architectural design students. Main results, a discussion and conclusions of the research are presented at the end.
    
    housing problems, concerned with the production of unexpected solutions that differ considerably from other prior designs (Suwa et al, 2000). For the above reasons these complex and ambiguous problems are considered as ill-structured. These features make housing design a singular, complex, and ambiguous task requiring creativity, and nonroutine thinking (Coyne, 2005; Goel, 1995; Rittel and Melving, 1984). Creative thinking and design Creativity is associated to the ability to explore unconventional alternatives (Csikszentmihalyi 1997), or the capacity to restructure old ideas to produce novel outcomes (Heap, 1989; Milgram and Davidovich, 2006). Creative thinking is concerned with the application of cognitive processes related to innovative problem-solving by means of which valuable and outstanding solutions are generated (Finke et al., 1992; Milgram, and Arad, 1981). Creativity is a fundamental aspect in design problem-solving since the development of new design solutions demands to put into practice creative skills (e.g., Cross, 1997; Hsiao and Chou, 2004; Gero, 2000; van der Lugt, 2000). Creative thinking enables to frame a problem from unconventional viewpoints. It allows gifted designers to go beyond predictable solutions, and explore innovative ideas. Casakin and Kreitler (2005b) empirically studied different attitudes and characteristics of students in regard to design creativity. Their purpose was to examine relationships between design creativity and the performance of students in their academic studies. Casakin and Kreitler (submitted) also studied motivation for creativity in design students applying the Cognitive Orientation theory (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1982; Kreitler, 2004) which defines motivation as a function of four types of believes (about goals, norms, oneself and reality). The measure of motivation anchored in the CO theory was seen to have predictive power in regard to creativity. In a recent work Casakin and Kreitler (2005a) investigated design problem-solving with a particular focus on flexibility as one of the major elements of creativity. They found that students with a higher level of flexibility arrived at more creative design solutions.
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    The theory of Multiple Intelligences, problem-solvs ing and design creativity Design is a complex activity that besides problem solving, demands the application of a large number of skills. Viewing design as a domain where different design skills can be applied, can pave the way for more comprehensive approaches of teaching, thinking, and performing. Although a detailed analysis of such skills and their associated intelligences is beyond the scope of the present investigation, they will be briefly presented in this section in the framework of Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) (1993a). In his book Frames of mind, Gardner defied the notion that intelligence is a unique and general capability that every person has. He criticized the educational system by arguing that it mainly focused on logical and verbal intelligences. According to Gardner MI is a new kind of construct based on a revolutionary definition of intelligence. MI theory supported the existence of eight forms of intelligences that conforms an individual's cognitive profile: (i) Verbal/linguistic (ability to use words efficiently for speaking, reading, describing, explaining, interpreting, and writing creatively); (ii) Musical (sensibility to tone, pitch, rhythm, melody; involves an ability for singing, playing instruments, composing a piece of music, and appreciating music); (iii) Logical-mathematical (ability to logical reasoning, numerical calculation, problem solving, recognition of patterns, understanding of abstract symbols); (iv) Spatial (capability to perceive and operate with both internally represented and external visual data. This includes imagery, drawing, sketching, working with 3D objects); (v) Bodily-kinesthetic (handling and operating with objects; use the body through expressive, and goal-directed motor actions); (vi) Intrapersonal (ability to identify individual knowledge, manage emotions, feelings, and sentiments; self-appraisal, goal setting, self-control); (vii) Interpersonal (sensibility to understand the feelings, goals, and believes of others), and (viii) Naturalistic intelligences (ability to understand the nature, needs and behavior of animals, plants, and geology). Gardner (1993a; 1993b; 1999) suggested that every person possess the eight types of intelligences, and can develop each of them at individual levels of proficiency. Gardner (1993a) did not clearly distinguish
    48
    
    between intelligence and creativity. On the contrary, he suggested that differences between both concepts are vague and to some extent complementary. In his view, problem solving and the design of creative products are activities concerned with specific abilities that can be considered as intelligences. Accordingly, intelligence is seen as a potential to process information to solve problems or products that are valued in a culture or community. In his own words, "creativity should be thought of as emerging from the interactions of…the individual with his or her own profile of competences and values; the domains available for study and mastery within a culture; and the judgments rendered by the field that is deemed competent within a culture" (Gardner, 1993, xvii) In line with Gardner's definition of intelligence, Lawson found that even in domains requiring rational thinking such as mathematics and science, subjects managed to solve problems applying creative thinking. Shearer (2004) also maintained that intelligence is not only circumscribed to the ability to solve problems using rational thinking, but also includes the ability to produce valuable outputs in a creative and unanticipated manner. He added that intelligent creativity can be applied in everyday life problem-solving in any of the eight intelligences. Moreover, Shearer distinguished between analytical (convergent) problem solving, and freely associative (divergent) problem-solving. While the former uses creativity in a step-wise and logical manner comparing each step to the desired solution, the later is open-ended and not necessarily considers a particular solution as better than others. Shearer suggested different strategies to combine convergent and divergent problem-solving through the different types of intelligences. In order to assess MI theory of Gardner empirically, Shearer (1996; 1998) designed a tool called MIDAS (Multiple Intelligence Development Assessment Scale). The purpose of MIDAS was to estimate the approximate intellectual ability of a person in each of the eight main intelligences. This was done by measuring both the creative, practical, and abstract elements of individual intellectual skills, and the social and contextual effects that have an influence in the identification, application, and development of such skills. The MIDAS was
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    RESEARCH GOALS Factors of creativity in design Current debate on design creativity centers on how the creativity of individuals, design students in particular, can be evaluated. Guilford (1981) defined four main factors to assess creativity when is put into practice. These included: originality or innovation (the statistical rarity of the responses), elaboration (amount of detail in the responses), fluency (the total number of relevant responses), and flexibility (different categories of relevant responses). In design, innovation and elaboration are considered to be two critical elements to assess the creativity of the design output. Since each design problem is unique, innovation and the search for originality are essential aspects characterizing design. Furthermore, the quality of a design product is very much concerned with the ability to develop it up to a required level of detail. On the other hand, flexibility and fluency are two essential aspects of a creative design process. Before engaging in a design The first goal of this study was to learn how students of architecture dealing with housing problems in the design studio, assessed problem-solving and creativity. The second goal was to gain insight about design problem-solving and creativity through their main component factors. In particular, we wanted to learn whether there were significant differences in the variance of each factor. The third goal was to investigate significant relationships between factors of design and creativity, and to analyze which factors of design problem-solving could serve as predictors of creativity.
    
    METHOD Sixty five students of architecture (28 men and 37 women) participated in this research. They were unpaid volunteers, who did not receive extra course
    49
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    tested in different domains, different countries, and different cultures. Applications of this tool were reported at the AERA MI Symposium (Jones, 2003), where the factor structure and construct validity of the eight intelligences proposed by Gardner were examined in ten different cultures. Identifying the eight intelligences in architectural design can be fundamental to assess individual differences, and evaluate a rich variety of aspects related to design thinking, design behavior, design performance, design creativity, and design education. D'Souza (2007) adopted the MI approach to empirically investigate what types of intelligences are more relevant to the architectural domain. Using MIDAS as an assessment tool, this researcher found that spatial and intrapersonal intelligences were most important ones. D'Souza claimed that MI theory can help to identify individual differences in the way designers think, and acts creatively. He suggested that blurring the concepts of creativity and intelligence can be considered as a configuration and combination of multiple factors that need to be studied in detail in the design domain. The current study is an attempt to gain insight in some of these factors related to design problem-solving and creativity, which will help to enhance our understanding on design thinking.
    
    solution, creative process involves the ability to define a problem from unconventional perspectives, and the search of a large number of alternative solutions that differs from familiar ones. The four factors suggested by Guildford are remarkable and frequently considered in assessments of individual creativity in a variety of fields concerned with problem-solving. Although necessary and important, these factors are insufficient to assess creativity in architectural design. One of the reasons is the complexity and singularity of design problems, which involves a large number of aspects. Therefore, in addition to Guildford's factors, seven other relevant factors considered by Casakin (submitted) and Casakin and Kreitler (2005b) to study design creativity were included in the present investigation. These factors deal with: (i) consideration of problem constraints; (ii) functionality of the design product; (iii) value of the design product; (iv) aesthetics of the design product; (v) productivity in the design process; (vi) practicality of the design product; and (vii) relation of the design to the physical context. All these aspects will be introduced in the empirical investigation presented in a following section.
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    Fig 1a. Example of a design solution for the dwellings compound organized around public courtyards connected to an elevated promenade, by Ilana Dark.
    
    Fig 1b. Example of a design solution for the dwellings compound organized around public courtyards connected to an elevated promenade, by Ilana Dark. courtyards connected to an elevated promenade, by Ilana Dark.
    
    credits for taking part in the empirical task. The problem assigned to students dealt with reviewing the role of housing in the contemporary city. Partly due to the influence of the Modern Movement, cities were structured by functional zoning separating private from public domains. Dwellings were systematically isolated from the public realm, and through time the vividness of cities and streets decayed (Jacobs, 1961). Postmodernism tried to reverse this situation by adopting an anti-zoning approach that included mixed-use functions in the city. Although this conception somehow improved urban life, in most cases dwellings remained spatially detached from the public realm till our days. In order to deal with this situation, design students were requested to redefine the role of housing in the contemporary city, by considering new spatial common shared relationships between the private and public realms. The specific problem assigned to students consisted in the design of a compound of six-to-ten dwellings, and a series of small-size public places. A main requirement was to improve the environmental quality of the area, and to strength the interaction between the dwellings and the proposed public functions. Students were asked to present a brief stating design goals, and programmatic needs. They were given freedom to decide what public functions should be included in
    50
    
    their projects, but they were encouraged to design an innovative housing compound. The design task took eighteen sessions distributed into two meetings per week, four and a half hours each session. In the first sessions, students were asked to analyze the concept of contemporary housing, and examine urban city. These help them to crystallize their own views about the current role of dwellings in the city. In the subsequent meetings they visited a physical area of Tel Aviv, where they were requested to design the dwelling compound. They analyzed the physical structure of the area by considering morphological, sociological, and functional aspects. In the following sessions students reformulated the design problem, and explored creative alternatives for the design of the housing compound. Four teachers assisted and guided students along the different stages of the design process. Figure 1 shows an example of a design solution presented by a student. The design concept was to establish a relationship between the dwellings and a natural cliff by means of an elevated and undulating promenade. Dwellings were organized around a series of courtyards, which served as main thresholds between the dwelling and the promenade. The courtyards were seen as an extension of the dwellings in the city, and served to articulate the
    
    Fig 2a. Example of a design solution for a new dwelling concept, by Mati Elshtein. The borders of the housing compound are redefined by means of places for cultural exchange that relate the private realm with the city.
    
    Fig 2b. Example of a design solution for a new dwelling concept, by Mati Elshtein. The borders of the housing compound are redefined by means of places for cultural exchange that relate the private realm with the city.
    
    housing compound with the elevated promenade. The courtyards, used by residents and visitors as meeting places, contributed to reformulate the role of housing in the city, and arrive at a creative solution. In another example, the new housing concept was associated with the idea of lodging visitors from other parts of the city, and defining spatial
    
    relationships through common shared places. Transition spaces located between the street and the dwelling compound harbored places for cultural exchange. This design approach challenged the traditional concept that sees dwelling and street as two separated urban elements. The project managed to redefine the borders of the housing com-
    
    Table 1. Listing of items in the Survey of Attitudes about Creativity 51
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    Table 2. Listing of items in the Survey of Attitudes about Design
    
    pound, and extend its limits into the public realm of the city. These borders were characterized by vertical spaces containing the lodging places, where residents and visitors were able to meet. An additional role of these vertical borders was to enter natural light to the core of the dwellings (See Figure 2). Questionnaire A survey of attitudes related to design problemsolving and creativity was presented to students after the task was ended. Students were requested to assess major aspects of the design process, as well as the creativity of their housing projects. The questionnaire included eleven representative questions for the design task, and eleven questions for design creativity (See Tables 1 and 2). An explanation of the aspect under assessment was provided in every question. A scale from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) was used to evaluate the questions.
    
    the second part. Finally, a regression analysis is performed to evaluate the contribution of design problem-solving to creativity.. Defining main factors of design creativity The creativity variables presented in the survey of attitudes were analyzed in order to establish a pattern of creativity factors characterizing the design activity. The degree of correspondence between each creativity variable presented in the questionnaire was verified through a reliability procedure (Cronbach's Alpha = .646). Factor analysis was applied to the 11 different creativity variables (See Table 3). Three valid factors were found in this procedure, as is showed by their values (>1.00) and the percents of variance for which they account (>53.07%). The first creativity factor accounted for 26.21% of the variance, with strong saturations on the variables of 'value', 'elaboration', 'innovation', ' relation to context', and 'consideration of initial problem constraints'. While 'relation of the design to its context' is an important part of problem constraints, 'elaboration, value, and innovation' relate to the creation of an original and valuable product. In consequence, the first factor of design creativity that resulted from the students' assessment was named 'Innovation and constraints in design'. The second factor accounts for 15.30% of the variance and has strong values on the variables of 'function-
    
    RESULTS This section is divided in three main parts. The assessment of design problem-solving and design creativity is presented in the first part, where major aspects of design are examined through factor analysis... Significant relationships between resulting factors of design and creativity are analyzed in
    52
    
    Table 4. Factor analysisa of students' evaluations of creativity in their design work
    
    ality', 'productivity', 'flexibility', and 'practicality', in this order. 'Functionality and productivity' has to do with 'utility'; therefore this factor was called 'Utility and adaptability in design'. The third creativity factor is the weakest one, and it accounts only for 11.55% of the variance. It has high saturations on 'fluency', and 'aesthetics', and it was named 'Fluency and beauty'. In a following step, the degree of correspondence between the variables of each creativ-
    
    ity factor was evaluated by means of a reliability procedure. The moderate to strong degree of correspondence between the variables of each creativity factor revealed that they can be considered representative of how students assess design creativity. The reliability coefficient for the first factor 'Originality and constraints in design' was Cronbach's Alpha = .685; the reliability coefficient for the second factor 'Utility and adaptability in
    53
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Table 3. Descriptive statistics of creativity and their corresponding factors
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    Table 5. Descriptive statistics of design problem-solving and their corresponding factors
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    design' was Cronbach's Alpha = .525; and for the third factor 'Fluency and beauty' was Cronbach's Alpha = .470. Descriptive statistics of major creativity factors and coefficients of variables for each factor are depicted in Tables 3 and 4. Defining main factors of design problem-solving s The design problem-solving variables presented in the survey of attitudes were factor analyzed in order to establish a major pattern characterizing the design activity. A reliability procedure showed that the correspondence between each problem-solving variable presented in the questionnaire was (Cronbach's Alpha = .693). Factor analysis was applied to the 11 variables related to design problem-solving (See Table 5). Three valid factors were found, as can be seen through their values (>1.00) and the percents of variance for which they account (>56.09%). The first design factor is the most dominant one and accounts for 27.43% of the variance. It has high saturations on the variables of 'Switch the perceived focus of the problem', 'Consider personal beliefs and intentions to characterize the design', ' Decompose the problem at hand into subproblems', and 'Use different design scales to understand the problem into depth'. A common denominator of most design variables is the characterization and re-framing of the problem to gain a new understanding of it. Therefore, the first factor was labeled 'Restructuring of design problems'. The second factor accounts for 15.82% of the variance. It has strong saturations on the variables of 'Enjoy taking risks and challenges during the design process ', 'Self-determination to explore different aspects of the design', and 'Transform information into unorthodox forms'. While these design prob54
    
    lem-solving variables can be associated with investigation of alternative solutions, the second factor was labeled 'Search of design solutions'. The third design factor is the weakest one, and only accounts for 12.84% of the variance. This factor has high saturations on the variables of 'Develop a solution based on previous experiences', ' Use ideas stored in internal world', and 'Relate the design with other problems'. Considering that most variables relate to introspection of previously acquired knowledge and former experiences, the third factor was termed 'Retrieval of prior knowledge'. The strong degree of correspondence between the variables of each design factor showed that these can be considered highly representative of how students evaluate design problem-solving. It was observed that the reliability coefficient for the first factor 'Restructuring of design problems' was Cronbach's Alpha = .716; the reliability coefficient for the second factor 'Search of design solutions' was Cronbach's Alpha = .614; and the reliability coefficient for the third factor 'Retrieval of prior knowledge' was Cronbach's Alpha = .561. Descriptive statistics of the three factors of design-problem solving can be found in table 5, and coefficients of the items for each factor in table 6. Establishing relationships between design problemsolving and creativity factors In order to gain insight on relevant associations between factors of design-problem solving and creativity, correlation analysis were carried out (See table 7). The importance of creativity in design problem-solving was supported by the finding that all three design factors were associated to at least one creativity factor; in particular 'General design
    
    Table 6. Factor analysisa of students' evaluations of design problem-solving
    
    problem-solving', and 'Restructuring of design problems', which correlated with all the creativity factors. While 'Search in design' correlated with the first two creativity factors, 'Retrieval of prior knowledge' was poorly correlated with all the factors. On the other hand, it is not surprising that 'General creativity' and 'Originality and constraints consideration' were the
    
    most significantly correlated creativity factors, since originality is the most representative factor of design creativity. 'Fluency and beauty' and 'Utility and adaptability' were found to be weaker correlated creativity factors. Data for 'General creativity' and 'General design problem-solving' were obtained by computing the mean of their respective items pre55
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    Table 7. Correlations between the factors of metaphor and creativity (N=65)
    
    sented to students in the Survey of Attitudes about Design problem-solving and Creativity. Analyzing the contribution of factors of design problem-solving to creativity s Since design is considered to be a creative activity, an important goal of this research was to study the effect of different aspects characterizing problemsolving on design creativity. For this purpose, the relative contribution of the three representative fac-
    
    tors of design problem-solving to creativity was tested by means of regression analysis. As a result, the first design factor labeled 'Restructuring of design problems' was found to have the largest contribution to creativity, since it has positive significant impact on all the three creativity factors: 'General factor of creativity' (beta=.591***), Factor 1 'Innovation and constraints in design' (beta=.498***), Factor 2 'Utility and adaptability in design'(beta=.367**), and Factor 3 'Fluency and
    
    Table 8. Results of significant regression analysis with the metaphor factors as predictors and creativity assessing variables as dependent variables 56
    
    Table 9. Results of significant regression analysis with metaphor factors as predictors and 'overall creativity in design product' as dependent variable
    
    beauty'(beta=.420**). Although to a lesser extent, the second design factor labeled 'Search in design' was also found to have significant effect on 'General factor of creativity' (beta=.324**), and on Factor 1 'Innovation and constraints in design' (beta=.383) (See Table 8). An additional regression analysis confirmed positive significant impact of Factor 1 of design 'Restructuring of design problems' on the variable dealing with 'Overall creativity in the design product' (beta=.495***) (See table 9). Supporting previous findings, Innovation was the creativity factor to which the design factors contributed most.
    
    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS A question addressed in this study is how students assess creativity in architectural design while solving housing problems. The redefinition of the role of housing in the contemporary city was a major problem requirement. Students were asked to produce innovative designs by establishing new relationships between the housing compound and the public space. Students' attitudes about major aspects of creativity and design problem-solving were identified, and evaluated through major factors. Three valid factors of design creativity were found. The first and most important one had an emphasis on 'Innovation and constraints considerations' in
    
    57
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    design. The second factor had a stress on 'Utility and adaptability' in design. The third and weakest factor, had saturation on 'Fluency and aesthetic aspects'. Results confirmed that when students are asked to assess the creativity of their housing projects, their attention is directed to the originality of the design. In this case, the innovative relationship between the dwellings and the public functions. Prioritizing originality is noteworthy from a theoretical perspective since in the research domain of creativity, innovation and utility are the two main aspects considered to ground the definition of creativity. Three major factors were found in the analysis of the eleven variables belonging to design problemsolving. The first factor had a strong impact on the 'Restructuring of design problems'. It is remarkable that students viewed design first of all as restructuring, and then as search. Restructuring is regarded as a wide-ranging change of the problem-solver's perspective, requiring a reformulation of the problem at hand. Restructuring involves a modification in the representation of the problem, bringing forth new relationships among different problem components (Dominowski, 1995; Kohler, 1969; Wertheimer, 1959/1982). Understanding these new relationships demands insight, and non-routine thinking (Margaret & Tim, 2003). Rather than considering familiar dwelling solutions, the reformulation of the role of housing in the contemporary city enabled students to arrive at creative solutions. The second factor had an important contribution to the 'Search of design solutions'. Through the search of design alternatives, designers decompose problems into sub-problems and prioritize different aspects of them. While looking for alternative solutions, it is probable that students increased their knowledge about the housing problem, and this conducted to a reformulation of it. In this interactive and dynamic process, new insights into the problem were gained, while problem and candidate solutions were continuously restructured until a successful solution was reached (Logan and Smithers 1993; Simon, 1981). The third and weakest factor was 'Retrieval of prior knowledge'. Anderson (1983) referred to this cognitive procedure as memory activation, where the act of linking chunks of information within memory was defined as spreading acti-
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    vation. He maintained the development of expertise facilitates retrieval of information from memory. It is possible that design students who lack expert knowledge in the housing domain had difficulties to retrieve information acquired in the past, and apply it to the problem. In order to gain a better understanding between factors of design problem-solving and creativity, correlations were analyzed. 'Restructuring of design problems' was the most correlated factor of design problem-solving, followed by 'Search in design'. 'Retrieval from memory' was poorly correlated with the creativity assessing factors. On the other hand, 'Originality and constraints consideration' was the most significantly correlated creativity factor, followed by 'Fluency and beauty'. These findings support the view that the problem-solving process was mainly characterized by redefinition of the housing problem, and search for original solutions, rather than focusing on practical aspects of the design. These results were reconfirmed in the regression analysis. The regression equations that predicted 'Restructuring of design problems' had the largest and unique contribution to all the creativity factors and to 'Overall creativity in the design product'.. 'Search in design' resulted in a significant contribution to 'General factor of creativity', and 'Originality'. It is interesting noting that when performing search, students disregarded utility and aesthetic aspects of the housing project, which confirms the importance of originality over the other creativity factors. It is concluded that an interaction between a redefinition of the design problem and a search for alternative solutions can enhance design creativity in housing. That 'Retrieval of prior knowledge' had no contribution to creativity is not surprising. It supports previous findings, and the argument that the poor expertise of students did not help to retrieve previously acquired knowledge from existing dwelling examples. However, the contribution of prior knowledge to creativity is a matter of current debate. Dominowski (1995) claimed that an important issue about creativity is not whether people can be instructed in how to retrieve old solutions from memory to solve a specific problem, but rather whether they can develop enough expertise to creatively solve a larger range of problems.
    58
    
    The present work was limited to study the contribution of factors of design problem-solving to creativity. In a future research we will investigate the effect of multiple intelligences on architectural design creativity, by considering housing as a domain study. We will explore what types of intelligences support design problem-solving and design creativity.
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The aid provided by Arch. Edna Langenthal, and Arch. Ilan Coren in the supervision of architectural design students during the design task is gratefully acknowledged.
    
    References
    Akin O. 1978, How Do Architects Design?, in J. C. Latombe (Ed.), AI and Pattern Recognition in CAD, 65–104, North Holland, New York. Anderson J. 1983, A spreading activation theory of memory, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 261-295. Casakin H. & Kreitler S. 2005a, The determinants of creativity: flexibility in design, Proceedings of the 3rd Engineering & Product Design Education International Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland. Casakin H. & Kreitler S. 2005b, The nature of creativity in design: factors for assessing individual creativity, Studying Designers International Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France. Casakin H. & Kreitler S. Submitted, Motivation for Creativity in Design Students. Coyne R. 2005, Wicked problems revisited, Design Studies, 26, 1, 5-17. Cross N. 1997, Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example, Design Studies, 18, 427–455. Cross N. 2001, Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science, Design Issues, 17, 3, 49-55.
    
    chology of discovery and Invention, Harper Perennial, New York. Dominowski R. 1995, Productive Problem Solving, in R. Finke, T. Ward, and S. Smith (Eds.), The creative cognition approach, 73-95, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    
    differences in designed outcomes Design Studies, 28, 2, 159-173. Heap J. 1989, The management of innovation and design, Cassell, London. Hsiao S. & Chou J. 2004, A creativity-based design
    
    D’Souza N. 2007, Design intelligences: a case for multiple intelligences in architectural design, Archnet-IJAR, 1, 2, 15-34.
    
    process for innovative product design, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 34, 421–443. Jacobs, J. 1961, The death and life of great American
    
    Eastman C. M. 1970, On the Analysis of Intuitive Design Processes, in R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning, 21–37, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Finke R.A., WARD T.B. & SMITH S. M. 1992, Creative cognition: theory, research and applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gardner H. 1993a, Frames of mind (rev. ed.). Basic Books, New York. Gardner H. 1993b, Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. Basic Books, New York. Gardner, H. 1999, Intelligence reframed. Basic Books, New York. Gero J. 2000, Creativity, emergence, and evolution in design, Knowledge based systems, 9, 7, 435-448. Goel V. 1995, Sketches of thought, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Goldschmidt, G. & Tatsa, D. (2005) How good are good ideas: correlates of design creativity, Design Studies 26, 6, 593-611. Goldschmidt G. & Smolkov M. 2006, Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance, Design Studies, 27, 5, 549-569. Guilford J. P 1981, Potentiality for creativity, in J. C. . Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P Torance (Eds.), Creativity: its . educational implications (2nd ed.), 1-5, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
    
    cities, New York: Vintage Books. Jones C. 1980, Design methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Jones J. 2003, Multi-cultural investigations into the factorial validity of the Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS). Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Kohler W. 1969, The task of Gestalt psychology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Kreitler H. & Kreitler S. 1982, The theory of cognitive orientation: Widening the scope of behavior prediction, Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 11, 101169. Kreitler S. 2004, The cognitive guidance of behavior, in J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaji, & P A. Prentice (Eds.), Perspectivism in . social psychology: The Yin and Yang of scientific progress, 113-126, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Logan B. & Smithers T. 1993, Creativity and design as exploration, in Gero, J. and M. Maher (Eds.), Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design, 139-173, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey. Margaret A. & Tim, P 2003, Acquiring an understanding of . design:evidence from children’s insight problem solving, Cognition, 89, 133–155. Milgram R. & Arad R. 1981, Ideational fluency as a predictor of original problem-solving, Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 568-572. open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    59
    
    Hernan Casakin
    
    Csikszentmihalyi M. 1997, Creativity - flow and the psy-
    
    Harfield S. 2007, On design ‘problematization’: Theorising
    
    Hernan Casakin open house international Vol 33, No.1, March 2008 Factors of Design Problem-solving and their Contribution to Creativity
    
    Milgram R. & Davidovich N. 2006, Creative thinking as a predictor of teacher effectiveness at three levels: elementary, secondary, and higher education, Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece. Rittel H. & Melving W. 1984, Planning Problems are Wicked Problems, in Cross, N. (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 123143. Schön D. 1983, Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. London, Temple Smith.
    
    Shearer C. B. 1996, The MIDAS: a professional manual, MI Research and Consulting, Inc., Kent, OH. Shearer C. B. 1998, The MIDAS Handbook of Multiple Intelligences in the classroom, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Shearer B. 2004, Multiple Intelligences theory after 20 years, Teachers College Record, 106, 1, 2–16. Simon H. 1981, The sciences of the artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Suwa M. Gero J. & Purcell T. 2000, Unexpected discoveries and S-inventions of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process, Design Studies, 21, 6, 539567. Van Der Lugt, R. 2000, Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups, Design Studies, 21, 5, 505-522. Wertheimer M. 1959/1982, Productive thinking, Harper & Row, New York.
    
    Author’s Address: Hernan Casakin Ariel University Center of Samaria, Department of Architecture, P Box 3, .O. 44837, Ariel, Israel. casakin@bezeqint.net
    
    60

Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)