Exploring the diversity of creative prototyping in a global online learning environment

References

• Abdi, H. (2010). Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 573–577). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Brockhus, S., van der Kolk, T., Koeman, B., & Badke-Schaub, P. G. (2014, May). The influence of creative self-efficacy on creative performance. Proc. of the 13th international design conference (DESIGN 2014), (pp. 437–444). Dubrovnik, Croatia: Design Society.
   Google Scholar
• Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000, August). Experience prototyping. Proc. of the conference on designing interactive systems processes practices methods and techniques, (pp. 424–433). Brooklyn, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Camburn, B., Dunlap, B., Gurjar, T., Hamon, C., Green, M., Jensen, D., … Wood, K. (2015). A systematic method for design prototyping. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(8), 081102-1-12.
   Google Scholar
• Camburn, B. A., Dunlap, B. U., Kuhr, R., Viswanathan, V. K., Linsey, J. S., Jensen, D. D., … Wood, K. L. (2013, August). Methods for prototyping strategies in conceptual phases of design: Framework and experimental assessment. Proc. ASME 2013 design engineering technical conferences (pp. V005T06A033). Portland, OR: ASME.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.
   Google Scholar
• DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Seaton, D., & Breslow, L. (2013, June). Diversity in MOOC students’ backgrounds and behaviors in relationship to performance. Proc. sixth learning international networks consortium conference, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doke, E. R., & Swanson, N. E. (1995). Decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems development: A delphi study of MIS managers. Information and Management, 29(4), 173–182.
   Google Scholar
• Dow, S. P., Fortuna, J., Schwartz, D., Altringer, B., Schwartz, D. L., & Klemmer, S. R. (2012). Prototyping dynamics: Sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 47–50). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dow, S. P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., & Klemmer, S. R. (2009, September). The effect of parallel prototyping on design performance, learning, and self-efficacy. Stanford Technical Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., & Klemmer, S. R. (2009). The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. Proc. 7th ACM conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 165–174). Berkeley, CA: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dunnett, C. W. (1980). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the homogeneous variance, unequal sample size case. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(372), 789–795.
   Google Scholar
• Elton, E. J., Gruber, M. J., & Blake, C. R. (1996). Survivor bias and mutual fund performance. Review of Financial Studies, 9(4), 1097–1120.
   Google Scholar
• Games, P., & Howell, J. (1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N’s and/or variances: A monte carlo study. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(2), 113–125.
   Google Scholar
• Games, P. A., Keselman, H. J., & Rogan, J. C. (1981). Simultaneous pairwise multiple comparison procedures for means when sample sizes are unequal. Psychological Bulletin, 90(3), 594–598.
   Google Scholar
• Hartford, T. (2011). Adapt: Why success always starts with failure. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.
   Google Scholar
• Helm, K., Jablokow, K. W., Daly, S., Silk, E., Yilmaz, S., & Suero, R. (2016, June). Evaluating the impacts of different interventions on quality in concept generation. Proc. 2016 ASEE annual conference on engineering education, New Orleans, LA: ASEE.
   Google Scholar
• Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Hoy, M. B. (2014). MOOCs 101: An introduction to massive open online courses. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33(1), 85–91.
   Google Scholar
• Jablokow, K. W. (2008). Developing problem solving leadership: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(5), 936–954.
   Google Scholar
• Jablokow, K. W., Matson, J. V., & Velegol, D. (2014, June). A multidisciplinary MOOC on creativity, innovation, and change: Encouraging experimentation and experiential learning on a grand scale. Proc. ASEE 2014 annual conference on engineering education, Indianapolis, IN: ASEE.
   Google Scholar
• Jablokow, K. W., Teerlink, W., Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Silk, E., & Wehr, C. (2015, August). Ideation variety in mechanical design: Examining the effects of cognitive style and design heuristics. Proc. 2015 ASME international design engineering technical conferences, Boston, MA: ASME.
   Google Scholar
• Jablokow, K. W., Zhu, X., Matson, J. V., & Kakde, A. N. (2016, June). Stimulating creativity in online learning environments through intelligent fast failure. Proc. ASEE 2016 annual conference on engineering education, New Orleans, LA: ASEE.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2012, December). Reclaiming your creative confidence. Harvard Business Review, 90(12), 115–8.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., & Dill, J. (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 896–900.
   Google Scholar
• Kirton, M. J. (2011). Adaption-innovation in the context of diversity and change. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkarni, C., Dow, S., & Klemmer, S. R. (2014). Early and repeated exposure to examples improves creative work. In H. Plattner (Ed.), Design thinking research: Building innovation eco-systems (pp. 49–62). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified. London, UK: Architectural.
   Google Scholar
• Linsey, J. S., Clauss, E. F., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J. T., Wood, K. L., & Markman, A. B. (2011). An experimental study of group idea generation techniques: Understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(2), 031008/1-15.
   Google Scholar
• Linsey, J. S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., & Schunn, C. (2010). A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(4), 041003/1-12.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, L., & Khooshabeh, P. (2003, April). Paper or interactive? A study of prototyping techniques for ubiquitous computing environments. CHI’03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems pp. 1030–1031, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Matson, J. V. (1991). How to fail successfully: A bold approach to meeting your goals through intelligent fast failure. Oakland, CA: Dynamo Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Matson, J. V. (1992). The art of innovation: Using intelligent fast failure. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Menold, J., Jablokow, K., & Simpson, T. (2017). Prototype for X (PFX): A holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design. Design Studies, 50, 70–112.
   Google Scholar
• Menold, J., Jablokow, K., Simpson, T., & Waterman, E. (2016, June). The prototype for X (PFX) framework: Assessing its impact on students’ prototyping awareness. Proc. ASEE 2016 annual conference on engineering education, New Orleans, LA: ASEE.
   Google Scholar
• Menold, J. D. (2017). Prototype for X (PFX): A prototyping framework to support product design (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/13760jdm5407
   Google Scholar
• Nesterko, S., Dostenko, S., Hu, Q., Seaton, D., Reich, J., Chuang, I., & Ho, A. (2013). Evaluating geographic data in MOOCs. Proc. neural information processing systems workshop on data driven education, Lake Tahoe, NV: NIPS Foundation, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262.
   Google Scholar
• Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 249–265.
   Google Scholar
• Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.
   Google Scholar
• Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Seher, A., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421–432.
   Google Scholar
• Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G. P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silk, E., Daly, S., Jablokow, K. W., Yilmaz, S., Rechkemmer, A., & Wenger, M. (2016, June). Using paradigm-relatedness to measure design ideation shifts. Proc. 2016 ASEE annual conference on engineering education, New Orleans, LA: ASEE.
   Google Scholar
• Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, H., & Becker, T. (2018). Influence of work design elements on work performance and work perception – An experimental investigation. Procedia CIRP 72, 1233–1238.
   Google Scholar
• Tahirsylaj, A. S. (2012). Stimulating creativity and innovation through intelligent fast failure. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 265–270.
   Google Scholar
• Takai, S., Esterman, M., & Midha, A. (2015). An approach to study associations between design concepts and design outcomes. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(4), 041101-1-12.
   Google Scholar
• Templeton, G. F. (2011). A two-step approach for transforming continuous variables to normal: Implications and recommendations for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(4), 41–45.
   Google Scholar
• Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293.
   Google Scholar
• Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 5(2), 99–114.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development. New York: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• University of California-San Diego. (2019). User experience: Research and prototyping, massive open online course, coursera. Retrived from https://www.coursera.org/specializations/interaction-design#courses
   Google Scholar
• University of Minnesota. (2019). Prototyping and design, massive open online course, coursera. Retrived from https://www.coursera.org/specializations/user-interface-design#courses
   Google Scholar
• Velegol, D. (2013). CENTER. State College, PA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, M., Takayama, L., & Landay, J. A. (2002, September). High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. In Proceedings Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(5), 661–665.
   Google Scholar
• Welsh, D., & Dragusin, M. (2013). The new generation of massive open online course (MOOCs) and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Institute Journal, 9(1), 51–65.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. Proc. 2013 NIPS data-driven education workshop, Stateline, NV. Retrieved from http://lytics.stanford.edu.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M. C., & Cham, J. G. (2007). An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early state engineering design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(3), 476–482.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Q., Peck, K. L., Hristova, A., Jablokow, K. W., Hoffman, V., Park, E., & Bayeck, R. (2016). Exploring the communication preferences of MOOC learners and the value of preference-based groups: Is grouping enough? Educational Technology Research & Development, 64, 809–837.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, X. (2016). DataClean: R package, v.1.0. Retrived from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DataClean
   Google Scholar