TY - JOUR
T1 - Fresh in My Mind! Investigating the effects of the order of presenting opportunistic and restrictive design for additive manufacturing content on students’ creativity
AU - Prabhu, Rohan
AU - Simpson, Timothy W.
AU - Miller, Scarlett R.
AU - Meisel, Nicholas A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [grant number CMMI-1712234]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We would like to thank Dr. Stephanie Cutler for her guidance and advice. We would also like to acknowledge the help of the ME 340 instructors and TAs, and members of the britelab and Made by Design Lab for helping conduct the experiment.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - To capitalise the design freedoms enabled by additive manufacturing (AM), designers must employ opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (O- and R-DfAM respectively). The order of information presentation influences the retrieval of said information; however, there is a need to explore this effect within DfAM. We compared four variations in DfAM education: (1) O-DfAM followed by R-DfAM, (2) R-DfAM followed by O-DfAM, (3) only O-DfAM, and (4) only R-DfAM by evaluating: (1) students’ DfAM self-efficacy, (2) their self-reported DfAM use, and (3) design creativity. All students trained in DfAM demonstrated an increase in R-DfAM self-efficacy; however, only students trained in O-DfAM, with or without R-DfAM, reported an increase in O-DfAM self-efficacy. Furthermore, students trained in R-DfAM first followed by O-DfAM generated more creative ideas.
AB - To capitalise the design freedoms enabled by additive manufacturing (AM), designers must employ opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (O- and R-DfAM respectively). The order of information presentation influences the retrieval of said information; however, there is a need to explore this effect within DfAM. We compared four variations in DfAM education: (1) O-DfAM followed by R-DfAM, (2) R-DfAM followed by O-DfAM, (3) only O-DfAM, and (4) only R-DfAM by evaluating: (1) students’ DfAM self-efficacy, (2) their self-reported DfAM use, and (3) design creativity. All students trained in DfAM demonstrated an increase in R-DfAM self-efficacy; however, only students trained in O-DfAM, with or without R-DfAM, reported an increase in O-DfAM self-efficacy. Furthermore, students trained in R-DfAM first followed by O-DfAM generated more creative ideas.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100122434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100122434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09544828.2021.1876843
DO - 10.1080/09544828.2021.1876843
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85100122434
SN - 0954-4828
VL - 32
SP - 187
EP - 212
JO - Journal of Engineering Design
JF - Journal of Engineering Design
IS - 4
ER -