Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
HOSTED BY
www.elsevier.com/locate/foar
RESEARCH ARTICLE
KEYWORDS
Abstract
Architectural design
studio;
Intelligence quotient
(IQ);
Design education;
Human factors;
Design thinking
Understanding the cognitive processes of the human mind is necessary to further learn about design
thinking processes. Cognitive studies are also signicant in the research about design studio. The aim
of this study is to examine the effect of designers intelligence quotient (IQ) on their designs.
The statistical population in this study consisted of all Deylaman Institute of Higher Education
architecture graduate students enrolled in 2011. Sixty of these students were selected via simple
random sampling based on the nite population sample size calculation formula. The students IQ
was measured using Ravens Progressive Matrices. The students scores in Architecture Design Studio
(ADS) courses from rst grade (ADS-1) to fth grade (ADS-5) and the mean scores of the design
courses were used in determining the students design ability. Inferential statistics, as well as
correlation analysis and mean comparison test for independent samples with SPSS, were also
employed to analyze the research data.
Results indicated that the students IQ, ADS-1 to ADS-4 scores, and the mean scores of the students
design courses were not signicantly correlated. By contrast, the students IQ and ADS-5 scores were
signicantly correlated. As the complexity of the design problem and designers experience
increased, the effect of IQ on design seemingly intensied.
& 2015 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1.
Introduction
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2015.08.002
2095-2635/& 2015 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
319
The current study reects a hypothesis of the correlation
between students intelligence quotient (IQ) and design
abilities in architectural design studio. The IQ indicator is
based on Ravens Progressive Matrices applied to the sample
of Deylaman Institute of Higher Education architecture
students enrolled in 2011. The architecture design skill
indicator is obtained according to scores during the rst
year of Architecture Design Studio (ADS-1) to the nal year
(ADS-5). This study initially considers a theoretical framework that includes six components, namely, (1) a design
studio in architecture education; (2) design thinking in
design studio; (3) a cognitive approach in design; (4) spatial
ability and design studio; (5) design, problem solving and IQ;
and (6) creativity, design, and IQ. Subsequently, hypotheses
are formed. Descriptive and inferential statistics are employed to test the hypotheses using the SPSS software.
2.
2.1.
Theoretical framework
Design studio in architecture education
320
S. Nazidizaji et al.
Figure 1
2.2.
After Rowe (1987) used the term design thinking in his 1987
book, the term has been widely used and has been a part of
the collective "consciousness of design researchers (Dorst,
2011). Design thinking has received increasing attention and popularity in the research about the cognitive
aspects of design as a base for design education (Oxman,
2004), and has been considered a new paradigm for addressing
design problems in different disciplines (Dorst, 2011).
Oxman (1995) classied different types of design thinking
studies into seven categories, namely, (l) design methodology; (2) design cognition; (3) design for problem solving;
(4) psychological aspects of mental activities in design;
(5) collaboration, which is the social and educational aspect
of design; (6) articial intelligence in design; and (7) computational methods, models, systems, and technology.
Oxman (2001) suggested that the cognitive aspect of
design thinking should be regarded as a key educational
objective in design education. The two major broad directions of this study are experimental and empirical approaches. Empirical approaches that include protocol analysis
in certain special design processes are repeatedly applied.
These studies are normally related to the clarication of
thinking processes in specic activities that formulate
problems and generate solutions (Cross, 2001).
Schn (1985) highlighted the importance of design thinking. He also emphasized the signicance of empirical
research and cognitive studies in improving design pedagogy. In investigations on design teaching, cognitive studies
2.3.
2.4.
321
measures; (c) minor gender differences exist on spatial
perception measures; and (d) gender differences that exist
can be detected across a life span. In relation to the
inuence of age on spatial ability (Salthouse, 1987), older
adults perform at lower accuracy levels than young adults
do in each experiment.
2.6.
Creativity in design has been discussed through the problemsolution co-evolution(Dorst and Cross, 2001) and
based on the topic itself (Sarkar and Chakrabarti, 2011;
Demirkan and Afacan, 2012). Creativity is vital for the
322
design of all types of artifacts. Assessing creativity can
help recognize innovative products and designers, and can
improve both design and products (Sarkar and Chakrabarti,
2011). Creativity is a natural part of the design process, which
has been frequently categorized through a creative leap that
occurs between solution and problem space (Demirkan, 2010).
Given the complex nature of creativity, consensus is lacking
regarding the denition of creativity that completely covers the
concept and recognizes creative solutions. Consequently, a
creative event cannot be guaranteed to occur within the
design process. Thus, the study on creative design seems
problematic (Dorst and Cross, 2001).
According to Demirkan (2010), In architectural design
process the interaction between person, creative process and
creative product inside a creative environment should be
considered as a total act in assessing creativity. Hasirci and
Demirkan (2003)considered the four elements of creativity
(i.e., person, process, product, and environment) while selecting two sixth-grade art rooms as the setting. The authors
concluded that three creativity elements (person, process, and
product) signicantly inuence the design process differently. In
a later study, the effects of these three creativity elements
have been analyzed by focusing on cognition phases in the creative decision making of design studio students (Hasirci and
Demirkan, 2007).
While criticizing terms such as creativity test and
measure of the creative process, Piffer (2012) indicated
that three specic dimensions of creativity (novelty, appropriateness, and impact) constitute a framework that helps
dene and measure creativity by answering if creativity can
be measured.
Squalli and Wilson (2014) argued that the terms intelligence, creativity, and innovation are initially assumed to be
well understood generally, but dening, assessing, and
measuring the inter-relationships among these terms are
controversial. The authors conducted the rst test of the
intelligenceinnovation hypothesis that contributed to the
creativityintelligence debate in the psychology literature.
Two different theories exist in terms of the relationship
between IQ and creativity in the history of psychological
research. In the rst theory, IQ and creativity belong to the
same mental processes (conjoint theory). In the second
theory, IQ and creativity represent two separate mental
processes (disjoint theory). Various researchers have recommended some evidence since the 1950s to prove the
correlation between creativity and intelligence. In these
previous studies, the correlation between these two concepts is extremely low that distinguishing the two concepts
can be justied (Batey and Furnham, 2006). Several
researchers contend that creativity and intelligence originate from the same intellectual cognitive process, and can
only be interpreted as creativity because of the outcomes of
both concepts. For example, a complete new object is
produced through the cognitive process. This approach is
called the nothing special hypothesis (OHara and
Sternberg, 1999).
The model usually adopted in this type of research is known
as the threshold hypothesis. This hypothesis indicates that
creativity requires a high IQ level. However, only having a high
IQ is insufcient (Guilford, 1967). Therefore, although a positive
correlation exists between creativity and intelligence, this
correlation would either disappear or lose meaning if an
S. Nazidizaji et al.
individuals IQ score is higher than 120, which is beyond the
threshold. This model is acceptable for many researchers, but is
also challenging in different cases (Heilman et al., 2003).
2.7.
3.
Main hypotheses
4.
Test subjects
NZ 2 pq
2
2 N 1 Z 2 pq
where
Z/2 = 1.96 is the corresponding value with 95% condence level in a standard normal distribution;
323
64
5.
Research methodology
5.1.
Ravens IQ test
Figure 2 Illustrative progressive matrices item. The respondents are asked to recognize the piece required to complete
the design based on the corresponding options.
5.2.
324
S. Nazidizaji et al.
Table 1
in Iran.
6.
Architecture Design Studio (ADS) course titles, subjects, and purposes in the architecture undergraduate program
Design subject
Land
area
(m2)
ADS-1
1500
ADS-2
ADS-3
ADS-4
ADS-5
Table 2
scores
scores
scores
scores
scores
scores
2000
3000
6002
8000
Results of the correlation between the ADS scores and the mean of these scores with the IQ scores.
Hypothesis
IQ
IQ
IQ
IQ
IQ
IQ
1000
and
and
and
and
and
and
Pearson correlation
P-value
correlation
Type of correlation
0.13
0.028
0.07
0.06
0.21
0.26
0.26
0.82
0.56
0.61
0.07
0.02
No correlation
No correlation
No correlation
No correlation
No correlation
Correlated
Positive
325
Figure 3 Matrix showing the distribution between the IQ scores and the mean of scores from architecture design studio (ADS-1 to ADS-5).
7.1.
7.
326
S. Nazidizaji et al.
Table 3
Intelligence quotient
Architecture design studio mean scores
Gender
Mean
Std. deviation
Female
Male
Female
Male
46
23
46
23
111.02
111.91
16.09
16.35
13.84
10.71
1.25
1.53
2.041
2.233
0.184
0.318
8.
Discussion
9.
Conclusion
Table 4
327
Sig. t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Std. error
difference difference
95%
Condence
interval of
the
difference
Lower Upper
Intelligence quotient
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Mean architecture design Equal variances
studio scores
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Figure 5
0.78
0.89
3.29
7.46 5.68
0.89
3.02
6.95 5.17
0.44
0.26
0.343
0.95 0.41
0.26
0.367
1.01 0.47
328
The major limitation of the research approach was the
relevance or accuracy of the evaluation methods in practical architecture courses, specically design courses. Certain doubts that emerged in students scores in design
courses accurately represented the students actual design
ability. Therefore, this study encourages further research on
this issue. New studies are currently being developed
through different assessment methods.
Other concerns that emerged were about creativity
versus intelligence tests. Meanwhile, researchers have
emphasized the role of creativity in design, in which the
broad concept of creativity induced difculties in understanding the exact role of creativity in design. Moreover, the
measurability of creativity and creativity tests is under
debate. Certain intelligence innovation tests (Squalli and
Wilson, 2014) that can be used for future studies are
available.
The present study is recommended to be repeated on
larger statistical populations and in different countries or
cities. Repeating this research in a broader context and
using the new results may help design a new questionnaire
or cognitive tests to identify future high potential designers.
Based on different effective design factors and the outcomes (mental, cognitive, social interaction, collaboration,
personality, problem-solving skills) of these factors, every
designed predictive test should consider all aspects or might
be combinations of cognitive and personality tests. In terms
of success in designing a reliable test or questionnaire,
Cross (1999) theory can validate that design is a special and
separate type of intelligence.
Acknowledgement
This research has been done by nancial support of Portugal
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Grant number 129645)
(Fundao Calouste Gulbenkian). We most sincerely thank
Mr Dariuosh Poordadashi for his cooperation in the analysis
of the statistical results and the staff of Deylaman Institute
of Higher Education for their cooperation in preparing the
research data.
References
Akin, ., 1990. Necessary conditions for design expertise and
creativity. Des. Stud. 11 (2), 107113.
Alexiou, K., Zamenopoulos, T., Johnson, J.H., Gilbert, S.J., 2009.
Exploring the neurological basis of design cognition using brain
imaging: some preliminary results. Des. Stud. 30 (6), 623647.
Allison, L.N., 2008. Designerly Ways of Knowing. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Batey, M., Furnham, A., 2006. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genet. Soc.
Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 132 (4), 355429.
Benavides, F., Dumont, H., Istance, D., 2010. The Nature of
Learning. Using Research to Inspire Practice. OECD Publishing,
Paris.
Bjrklund, T.A., 2013. Initial mental representations of design
problems: differences between experts and novices. Des. Stud.
34 (2), 135160.
Brouwers, S.A., Van de Vijver, F.J.R., Van Hemert, D.A., 2009.
Variation in Ravens progressive matrices scores across time and
place. Learn. Individ. Differ. 19 (3), 330338.
S. Nazidizaji et al.
Bucciarelli, L.L., 1984. Reective practice in engineering design.
Des. Stud. 5 (3), 185190.
Bhner, M., Krner, S., Ziegler, M., 2008. Working memory, visual
spatial-intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving.
Intelligence 36 (6), 672680.
Carmona, M., L. Sieh, 2004. Measuring Quality in Planning: Managing the Performance Process. Routledge.
Clements, D.H., 1998. Geometric and Spatial Thinking in Young
Children.
Cross, N., 1999. Natural intelligence in design. Des. Stud. 20 (1),
2539.
Cross, N., 2001. Design cognition: Results from protocol and other
empirical studies of design activity. Des. Knowing Learn.: Cogn.
Des. Educ. 79103.
Cross, N., Cross, A.C., 1995. Observations of teamwork and social
processes in design. Des. Stud. 16 (2), 143170.
Demirba, O.O., Demirkan, H., 2007. Learning styles of design
students and the relationship of academic performance and
gender in design education. Learn. Instr. 17 (3), 345359.
Demirba, O.O., Demirkan, H., 2003. Focus on architectural design
process through learning styles. Des. Stud. 24 (5), 437456.
Demirkan, H., 1998. Integration of reasoning systems in architectural modeling activities. Autom. Constr. 7 (2), 229236.
Demirkan, H., 2010. From Theory to Practice 39 Opinions.
Creativity, Design and Education. Theories Positions and Challenges. pp. 5659.
Demirkan, H., Afacan, Y., 2012. Assessing creativity in design
education: analysis of creativity factors in the rst-year design
studio. Des. Stud. 33 (3), 262278.
Dorst, K., 2011. The core of design thinking and its application.
Des. Stud. 32 (6), 521532.
Dorst, K., Cross, N., 2001. Creativity in the design process: coevolution of problemsolution. Des. Stud. 22 (5), 425437.
Eastman, C., Newstetter, W., McCracken, M., 2001. Design Knowing
and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. Elsevier.
Eastman, C.M., 1969. Cognitive Processes and Ill-dened Problems:
A Case Study from Design.
Ernst, G.W., A. Newell, 1969. GPS: A Case Study in Generality and
Problem Solving. Academic Press.
Goel, V., 1994. A comparison of design and nondesign problem
spaces. Artif. Intell. Eng. 9 (1), 5372.
Gregory, R.L., Zangwill, O.L., 1987. The Oxford Companion to the
Mind. Oxford University Press.
Guilford, J.P., 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence.
Guttman, R., 1974. Genetic analysis of analytical spatial ability:
Ravens progressive matrices. Behav. Genet. 4, 273284.
Hasirci, D., Demirkan, H., 2003. Creativity in learning environments: the case of two sixth grade art rooms. J. Creative Behav.
37 (1), 1741.
Hasirci, D., Demirkan, H., 2007. Understanding the effects of
cognition in creative decision making: a creativity model for
enhancing the design studio process. Creativity Res. J. 19 (23),
259271.
Heilman, K.M., Nadeau, S.E., Beversdorf, D.O., 2003. Creative
innovation: possible brain mechanisms. Neurocase. 9 (5),
369379.
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., 1996. Analyzing information systems
development: a comparison and analysis of eight IS development
approaches. Inf. Syst. 21 (7), 551575.
Kamphaus, R.W., M.D. Petoskey, A.W. Morgan, 1997. A History of
Intelligence Test Interpretation.
Kaplan, R.M., Saccuzzo, D.P., 2008. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Kim, M.J., Maher, M.L., 2008. The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des. Stud.
29 (3), 222253.
Krner, S., Plass, J.L., Leutner, D., 2005. Intelligence assessment
with computer simulations. Intelligence 33 (4), 347368.
329
Raven, J., 1936. Mental Tests Used in Genetic Studies: The
Performance of Related Individuals on Tests Mainly Educative
and Mainly Reproductive (Unpublished Masters thesis). University of London.
Raven, J., 2000. The Ravens progressive matrices: change and
stability over culture and time. Cogn. Psychol. 41 (1), 148.
Resnick, L.B., R. Glaser, 1975. Problem Solving and Intelligence.
Rigas, G., Carling, E., Brehmer, B., 2002. Reliability and validity of
performance measures in microworlds. Intelligence 30 (5),
463480.
Rowe, P.G., 1987. Design Thinking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Redi, K., 1996. Architectural Education and the Culture of
Simulation: history against the Grain. In: Hardy, A., Teymur,
N. (Eds.), Architectural Education and the Culture of Simulation:
history against the Grain, pp. 109125.
Salthouse, T.A., 1987. Adult age differences in integrative spatial
ability. Psychol. Aging 2 (3), 254.
Sarkar, P., Chakrabarti, A., 2011. Assessing design creativity. Des.
Stud. 32 (4), 348383.
Schn, D.A., 1983. The Reective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action, Basic Books.
Schn, D.A., 1985. The Design Studio: An Exploration of its
Traditions and Potentials. RIBA Publications for RIBA Building
Industry Trust, London.
Schweizer, K., Goldhammer, F., Rauch, W., Moosbrugger, H., 2007.
On the validity of Ravens matrices test: does spatial ability
contribute to performance? Personal. Individ. Differ. 43 (8),
19982010.
Shih, S.-G., Hu, T.-P., Chen, C.-N., 2006. A game theory-based
approach to the analysis of cooperative learning in design
studios. Des. Stud. 27 (6), 711722.
Snow, R.E., Kyllonen, P.C., Marshalek, B., 1984. The topography of
ability and learning correlations. Adv. Psychol. Hum. Intell. 2
(S47), 103.
Sorby, S.A., 2005. Assessment of a new and improved course for the
development of 3-d spatial skills. Eng. Des. Graph. J. 69 (3), 6.
Squalli, J., Wilson, K., 2014. Intelligence, creativity, and innovation. Intelligence 46, 250257.
Supreme Council for Planning, S., 2007. General characteristics
Programme and syllabus of courses B.Sc. of Architecture.
Ministry of Science Research and Technology, Tehran.
S, H.-M., 1996. Intelligenz, Wissen und Problemlsen. Gttingen:
Hogrefe.
Sutton, K., A. Williams, 2010a. Implications of Spatial Abilities on
Design Thinking. Design & Complexity. Design Research Society,
Montreal (Quebec), Canada.
Sutton, K., A. Williams, 2010b. Implications of Spatial Abilities on
Design Thinking.
Sutton, K.J., A.P. Williams, 2007. Spatial cognition and its implications for design. International Association of Societies of Design
Research, Hong Kong, China.
Tate, A., 1987. The Making of Interiors: An Introduction.
HarperCollins.
Tversky, B., 2005. Functional Signicance of Visuospatial Representations. Handbook of Higher-level Visuospatial Thinking, pp. 134.
Verma, N., 1997. Design theory education: how useful is previous
design experience? Des. Stud. 18 (1), 8999.
Vyas, D., Van der Veer, G., Nijholt, A., 2013. Creative practices in
the design studio culture: collaboration and communication.
Cogn. Technol. Work. 15 (4), 415443.
Yang, M.C., 2010. Consensus and single leader decision-making in
teams using structured design methods. Des. Stud. 31 (4),
345362.