Patterns of Interaction Emerging Creativity: A Case Study of a
Communication on SNS in the EV Design Contest
Ryota YAMAMOTO
Interfaculty Initiative inInformation Studies,
The University of Tokyoryota@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Ryohei IKEJIRIInterfaculty Initiative inInformation Studies,
The University of Tokyo
ikejiri@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Yuhei YAMAUCHIInterfaculty Initiative inInformation Studies,
The University of Tokyo
yamauchi@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract: An educational method based on interaction and cooperation among learners has been
introduced into engineering and design education, but educational practices and articles based on thismethod present insufficient result regarding evolution of creativity, a core objective of design andengineering education. This study aims to identify the patterns of evolution of creativity from the analysis
of a case study and presents the results from participants’ interactions about exchanging product designs
on a social networking service in the Association for the Promotion of Electric Vehicles EV Mobility Design
Contest for International Students 2017. We observed three patterns of interaction spurring creativity
based on the analysis: 1) creating a new artifact through interacting with the same or almost same artifact,2) confirming strong originality rather than creating a new artifact, 3) combining an artifact presented byothers to construct a new artifact. However, the result suggested 4) requiring a culture of exchanging
opinions among participants for a learning environment.
Keywords: Creativity, Interaction, Design and Engineering Education, Cultural Psychology

INTRODUCTION
An educational method based on interaction andcooperation among learners has been introduced into
engineering and design education. Coorey (2016)
conducted a case study of peer learning in higher
education. A peer-learning method aims to foster acollaborative learning community and increase
leadership skills. In this study, first-year students
taking a design course undertook one project with
their small-group members and peer reviewing
assignments with one pair learner. Based on fieldnotes, Coorey found that the students created a teammentality that emphasized cooperative learning.
Based on the post-survey results, 86% of respondents
answered, “Ask a friend or peer in class,” when they
could not figure out an answer while completing adesign assignment.
Savage, Vanasupa, and Stolk (2007) discussed theimportance of project-based learning (PBL) and
explained curriculum improvements at California
Polytechnic State University. PBL can transform acurriculum from traditional instruction to alternative
learning. In particular, PBL provides specific learning
contexts for students. These contexts encourage
students to apply their fundamental knowledge ofscience, mathematics, and technology to actual
problems.

Silva and Neves Madeira (2010) evaluated acompetitive and cooperative learning program in a
programing course of a university-level engineering
program. This case study conducted an individualized
type of competitive learning in an intergroupcompetitive setting. Results of the post-survey thatcollected data from students who participated in theindividualized type of learning indicated that thestudents feel pressure from others but were also
highly motivated. In an intergroup setting, somestudents failed to actively participate in group
activities, while others repeated the process of trial
and error without reflective thinking; however, they
finally produced outcomes.
Several educational methods are based oninteraction and cooperation among learners, which
commonly emphasize motivating students throughcooperation and competition with others andencouraging acquiring knowledge of design concepts
and skills. These examples in the literature have
limitations regarding insufficient opportunities forcreativity, a core objective of design and engineering
education. Creativity is a skill that creates something
new compared with existing artifacts or concepts. For
example, using new materials, a new use of oldmaterials, new ideas, and new combinations ofcommon ideas (Zwirn and Zande 2015). Althoughcultivating motivation and acquiring skills for design
through interactions among learners is important inengineering and design education, they must show
how interaction affects their creativity.
Next, this paper aims to identify how theseinteractions evolve learners’ creativity from a casestudy. The literature has developed theoreticalframeworks to reveal the effectiveness of interaction
for creativity (Glăveanu 2010, Zwirn, and Zande2015). The theoretical framework used in this study is
explained in the next chapter.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKTo determine what types of interactions evolve,
this study refers to the tetradic framework ofcreativity (Glăveanu 2010) as a theoretical framework.
Glăveanu (2010) discussed a historical transition of
the paradigms regarding creativity (i.e., the Heparadigm, I-paradigm, and We-paradigm) from
reviewing the literature (Table.1).
Creativity had historically been considered a
divine inspiration only possessed by lone geniuses(He-paradigm). In this paradigm, creativity is an
innate ability; therefore, it takes the strongest
individualistic stance in the conceptualization ofcreativity. The I-paradigm asserts that everyone iscapable of creativity because this characteristic is nota capacity of the few chosen by God. This paradigm
was intended to educate an average person withabilities linked to creativity (e.g., tolerance for
ambiguity of and orientation toward the future,
independence of judgment, preference for complexity,
strong desire to create, deep motivation, strong
intuitive nature, and patience). Researchers havedeveloped these concepts and indicators to measure
Table 1.

individual’s environment was not considered a
primary factor affecting their performance. Althoughthese individualistic stances take a main position in
the research regarding creativity, the We-paradigm isbased on cultural psychology and has been cited byresearchers in this field. The We-paradigm asserts that“creativity takes place within, is constituted andinfluenced by, and has consequences for, a social
context” (Westwood and Low 2003, p.236) and that it
can be developed through interaction with others who
do not share the context or in an environment thatconsistently changes.
Human development is achieved through activities
mediated by various artifacts in communities, and theuse of artifacts are affected by various culturalfeatures that are specified by each community. In
interactions between individuals who do not sharesocial contexts or cultural backgrounds, they struggle
to deconstruct the accustomed use of artifacts andconcepts and construct new uses for artifacts andconcepts to adjust to new activities. The We-paradigm
assumes that creativity is an outcome of thisinteraction process. Thus, we should include thesesocial contexts, cultural factors, and interaction
processes when developing curriculums based on
creative education.
Glăveanu (2010) presented a tetradic framework tounderstand manifesting creativity in the We-paradigm(figure 1):
the new artifact (material or conceptual) is
seen as emerging within the relation between
self (creator) and others (broadly understoodas a community), all three being immersed

Definition of the He-, I-, and We-paradigms from Glăveanu (2010)
He-paradigm

I-paradigm

We-paradigm

Definition

The few lone genius who
were chosen by God or haveinnate abilities

Everyone is capable of being
creative because it is nolonger a capacity of the few
chosen by God, biology, or
unique psychological features

Assumed that creativity is theresult of human interaction
and collaboration

Theoreticalbackground

Romanticism andenlightenment

Psychology

Cultural psychology

Relationshipwith social

Need nothing to link them tothe world of others or existingknowledge

Just a factor of a myriad
number of humandevelopment factors

Creativity occurs within, isconstituted and influenced by,
and has consequences for, asocial context

Process ofdevelopment

Excluding the role of cocreation or collaboration in
the process of reaching great
discoveries

Acquiring abilities such as
tolerance for ambiguity andorientation towards the future,
independence of judgment,
and develop curriculums to increase abilities.
into and in dialogue with an existing body ofpreference for complexity,
The He-paradigm and I-paradigm emphasize
culturalstrong desire to create,
deep artifacts, symbols and establishedcreativity as individual abilities. Therefore, an
motivation, strongnorms.
intuitive(Glăveanu 2010, p.12)
nature, patience, and so forth.

Figure 1. Tetradic framework of creativity (Glăveanu 2010, p.12)
Table. 2 Process of EVDC 2017
Period
April
2017
May
June
AugustSeptember
November

Event

RESEARCH METHODS- Entry of EVDC

Overview of the case study- SNS Exchange for brushing up the design
product- The first screening (selected 23 teams from96 teams)- Workshop 1 for brushing up the designconcept and styling- Second screening (selected 10 teams from23 teams)- Workshop 2 for brushing up the designconcept and styling- Final screening

As mentioned earlier, interactions observed during
the APEV EV Mobility Design Contest forInternational Students 2017 (EVDC) were analyzed asa case study. In this contest, participants from various
countries exchanged their design products to improvethem for the screening. The tetradic framework ofcreativity emphasizes evolution of creativity throughthe interactions among individuals with different
cultural backgrounds that use the same artifact
differently. In this theoretical assumption, creativity isdemonstrated through the interaction amongindividuals with different nationalities because eachindividual has a different cultural background.
Notably, this study observed an interaction
opportunity among participants from various
countries to clearly show the result.
The APEV, which conducted the EVDC and wasestablished in 2010 to promote the use of electricvehicles, has a stated mission: “leave the beautiful
earth for our children in the future.” (APEV n.d.)
The EVDC was held from April until November in2017 and has been held once every two years since2013. The objective of this contest is to foster
creativity in students predicted to lead the next
generation of designs for electric vehicles; thus, they
can include a broad range of possibilities (EVDC n.d.).
EVDC 2017 hosted 255 participants in 96 teams from
16 countries. Each team could have a minimum of
one member up to a maximum of six members.
The executive committee of EVDC conductedvarious events to brush up the design product during
the contest (Table 2). Each participant submitted thedesign product before each screening at the end ofMay, middle of August, and end of October. Twentythree out of the 96 teams passed the first screening,and 10 out of the 23 teams passed the second
screening. These 10 teams joined the final screening
wherein the first and other prizes were given.

Conflict comes from the interaction between the
Self (Creator) and the Other (Community), who does
not share a common culture with the Self because of
the different use of artifacts (i.e., material andconceptual). These different uses of the existing
artifacts were constructed by each cultural
background. To resolve this conflict, those that sharea cultural background sometimes struggle to create a
new artifact, find new uses of artifacts, expand
concepts of artifacts, and re-evaluate existing artifacts.
Thus, creativity is contained within the interaction byusing various artifacts structured by each culture.
Though the tetradic framework of creativity
presents a dynamic system that provides opportunities
for creativity, it does not explain how creativity
evolves through interaction and what principles of thelearning environment are required for creativity tooccur. This paper refers to this tetradic framework ofcreativity and discusses the patterns of evolution ofcreativity and the learning environment required.
Next, this study aims to identify the patterns ofevolution of creativity from an analysis of a casestudy by presenting the results from the interaction
among the participants regarding exchanging productdesigns on a social networking service (SNS) in the
Association for the Promotion of Electric Vehicles(APEV) EV Mobility Design Contest for International
Students 2017.

Table 3 List of teams for the interviews
CountryJapan

No. of members

SNS Group

QF

Team

4

#3

VolcanoUganda

1

#2

LAS
SOS
H2O

Japan
Japan
Japan

3
5
2

#1
#2
#3

Design of the interaction among theparticipants
The EVDC has an educational context compared toordinal design competitions or contests; therefore, itaims to create an opportunity for interactions among
the participants to improve their design product.
Notably, we observed difficulties during the face-toface interactions because the participants wereresidents of different areas. The EVDC introduced
SNS as a communication space for the participants.
Facebook was chosen because it is broadly usedworldwide.
The communication was mainly activated in May,
before the first screening. The executive committee
established three groups on Facebook, and each teamwas randomly divided into the groups. To guide theinteractions, the committee offered four topics.
Topic A) Upload the following things as an
icebreaker: 1) a short team-introduction movie or aphoto and text that includes a team profile (i.e.,team name, members and their Facebook accounts,
affiliate
university/college/institution,andnationality), 2) their favorite car with a simple
explanation (one car per team), and 3) a shortmessage for the group members. *One team, one
post
Topic B) Share an initial concept with otherparticipants and explain what daily life, social,
cultural, ecological, and systemic backgrounds arelinked. Post one picture or hand drawing (PDF)
and explain it in 100–200 words. We strongly
suggest uploading your concept to an SNS toenhance your products. *One team, one post
Topic C) Compare other teams’ concepts with youridea when you are inspired. Additionally, reply
how you were inspired to view or respond to othergroup members’ posts. *One person, one reply
Topic D) Enjoy casual communication such as
clicking “like” or making a “comment” to create
friendships with others.
First, the committee created a set self-introduction
to facilitate good relationships within each group(Topic A). Next, each team uploaded an initial design

Key concept
Automated bedroom mobility
3D-printed
electric
rally
vehicleHouse sharing with mobility
Automated cruise dust bin
Mobilized convenience store

Final result
Second Screening
Final Screening
Final Screening
Second Screening
Second Screening

idea and an accompanying explanation to an SNS(Topic B), and other teams compared them with theirown ideas and commented (Topic C). Lastly, casualcommunication among the participants produced
recommendations to view similar topics (Topic D).
After the first screening, the participants could accesseach SNS group, and the committee continued toencourage communication with other team memberson the web.
Ikejiri, Isshiki, and Yamauchi (2014) evaluated theeducational value of the EVDC in 2013 and observedthat participants earned design views with features ofEV from an analysis of the questionnaire.
Additionally, their discussions and interactions on the
SNS created the opportunity to promote these learning
outcomes. In other words, creativity regarding EV
design can evolve from interactions among
participants. However, they did not examine theprocess of the interactions in detail. This study
attempts to concretely identify that process from
EVDC 2017.

Data collection and analysis
Fifteen participants from five teams, which passed
the first screening and actively joined the SNS
communication, were selected as interviewees (Table3). The author conducted the interview session afterworkshop 1 in June for four teams from Japan. A
team from Uganda was interviewed in August after
the submission of their design product for the second
screening. The session comprised the following five
topics: 1) frequency of browsing the SNS and its
purpose, 2) how the interactions on the SNS affected
the design product, 3) how the interactions on the
SNS affected the process of making the design
product, 4) notable findings from the interactions, and5) requests and improvements regarding theinteractions. Two interviewers majoring in
educational technology conducted each interview
session, and the duration of each session wasapproximately 45 minutes. Japanese language wasused for the four teams from Japan, and English wasused for the team from Uganda. An IC recorder
recorded all the sessions, and the transcripts wereused for the analysis. We observed the typicallanguage regarding evolution of creativity anddescribed the episodes. Finally, the results were
presented in a tetradic framework of creativity.

RESULT
Summary of the design products
Table 4 presents the design product of five teams
before and after their interactions on the SNS. The
initial ideas for the design products were posted to the
SNS in the form of a rough sketch. The products
submitted for the first screening were seen to have
improved because the participants had to present theirdesign concept and their styling in detail for thescreening.
The participants were observed to understandvarious notions about design in the interactions on theSNS, and they expressed their design concept for the
product with modifications. These improvements canbe understood as evolution of creativity. The authors
observed three patterns of interaction that spurred theevolution of creativity and the situations andenvironments required for this process. The episodes
and their accompanying statements from theinformants are subsequently described.

Table 4 Design products and their improvements

QF→

Volcano

→

LAS

→

SOS

After (Submitted for the First screening)→

H2O

Before (Posted on SNS)→Patterns for evolution of creativity and thelearning environment for that process
Episode 1: a pattern of creating a new artifact(concept) through interacting with the same
artifact
The first pattern is creating a new artifact (concept)
through interacting with the same or almost same
artifact (concept). A member of team QR explained
this pattern.
QR introduced an EV that includes a function of
the accommodation; however, some teams alsopresented an EV with a function of theaccommodation. Team QR had to express their
originality in detail to differentiate their conception
from the others.
“Maybe to teams Z and Y, our idea looked alike ina lot of components.”“When we looked at these design concepts, we
discussed that we should go our way. This
opportunity was a trigger to deeply reflect on what
we want to produce.”
QR member A
After this interaction, they deepened their ideas of
their EV with accommodation to present a specificfeature of their conception compared with the otherteams.
“We kept developing our concept, and we should
differentiate our idea from other teams.”
QR member B
After this interaction, the design product submitted
for the first screening expressed the EV withaccommodation that emphasized relaxation. Thus, theparticipants had sharpened their idea throughinteractions on the SNS.
Episode 2: a pattern of confirming the originalityof their concept from a comparison with anartifact (concept) presented by other teams
Episode 2 describes a pattern of confirming strong
originality, rather than creating a new artifact(concept), through the interaction. LAS explained thispattern. In this pattern, LAS did not create a new
artifact or conception after the interaction with others;
however, they understood the creativeness of theirdesign product through watching others.
LAS developed confidence after comparing theirconcept with the concepts posted on the SNS. Thisphenomenon occurred because although the initialdesign products of other teams had excellent layouts,
the essential parts of the concepts were neither welldefined nor logically well structured. Therefore, LAS
kept their design concept for the first screening.

“Layout was excellent, I thought. Yes, they worked
hard, but, this is just my opinion, the designconcepts were not involved well.”
LAS member A“Some teams posted products after rendering, or
sketches, but I couldn’t understand what theywould suggest. There are types of posts: these
posts looked nice, and I thought it is reallyinteresting.”
LAS member B
Although the members in LAS found the value of
their own concept, other teams did not even mention
actively joining the interactions. Team SOS was
highly motivated to exchange initial ideas forbrushing up their design product and expected to earn
feedback from other teams regarding their initial idea,
but few comments were posted.
“We actively commented to other teams toencourage them to communicate, but almost all theteams did not follow uLASthough we posted acomment for others, the answer was not welldefined. I was not sure what they did not fix yet, ormaybe they were not motivated to interact withothers.”
SOS member A

Episode 3: a pattern of constructing a new artifact
by combining different artifacts presented byother teams
The third pattern is featured actively: combining
the artifact (concept) presented by others to construct
a new artifact (concept). The Ugandan team, Memberof Volcano, mentioned this episode.
Volcano structured an off-road EV composed ofparts fabricated by 3D printer to manage the uniquecharacteristics of Uganda; notably, this concept’s
visualization did not present well (Table 4). Next,
Member of Volcano observed the initial ideas postedon the SNS and understood that their post did not
clearly express the concept. Finally, Volcano included
the context and location of the design product andsubmitted it for the first screening.
“One of the teams that I saw, I commented on theway that they approached something and how theyvisually described it; I think it was the dust bin? I
was very amazed with their breakdown. Yeah, I
actually said, I really appreciate how clear andsimple your concept was defined in the context tothe location planned for. It has made me reanalyze
my approach to the visual presentation of myconcept. I remember that. It was pretty
impressive.”
Volcano member A

Episode 4: learning environment for evolution ofcreativity
As mentioned earlier, creativity does not
automatically evolve. Sometimes the initial ideas ofthe design products were not well defined or too
abstract to evaluate. Therefore, the participants foundit difficult to create ideas to improve their design
products.
“In most of the ideas, there were insufficientconsiderations, so I couldn’t comment. It was very
hard to comment for them.”
H2O member A
This comment expresses that even if theopportunity for interaction is organized, theinteraction expected to evolve creativity might not
automatically occur and requires the culture of
exchanging opinions among the participants.
Additionally, the participants have difficulty incommunicating when there are substantial differences
regarding the quality of the design product. The
tetradic framework of creativity does not describe thecontext or environment that encourages theinteraction. To develop an educational program thatcultivates creativity, educators should include theperspective of designing a learning environment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
We demonstrated three patterns regarding theinteractions that spur the evolution of creativity fromthe analysis of the case study. Creating a new artifact
through interacting with the same or almost same
artifact was the first pattern generated by theinteraction among the participants from the same
country. The tetradic framework of creativity
indicates that creativity occurs through encountering
new artifacts. In the design contest, the participants
were evaluated based on their creativity. We conclude
that encountering the same or almost same artifacts
can trigger the creation of a new artifact.
The second pattern explains confirming strong
originality rather than creating a new artifact. We
confirmed what is new or original by performing acomparison with other artifacts. Members of LAS had
compared their design concept with other teams andincreased their understanding of their concepts value
and originality. This interaction can be observed as
evolution of creativity.
The third pattern is featured actively: combining
the artifact presented by others to construct a new
artifact. The team from Uganda learned theimportance of the context and situation in which the
EV is used, and developed a design product involving
these notions. This is an example of creativity thatincorporates the features that others have suggested.
Although the authors found these productive
interactions from the case study, some of theparticipants did not actively join the interactions. In
addition, sometimes the quality of the interactions
was low because some of the ideas posted to SNS
were not well defined. Additionally, some of theparticipants did not achieve evolution of creativity
through the interaction. To develop an educational
program to cultivate creativity, educators should
include the perspective of designing a learning
environment.
Finally, the authors discuss and evaluate thequality of creativity for future educational practices.
Episodes 1 and 2 were observed to reflect at theconcept level and brush up their design production
from the posted considerations. For example, QF
reflected on their concept that emphasized including
an accommodation function and inspired them tofurther differentiate their concept from others. The
reflection or brushing up at the concept level was notobserved for Episode 3; in summary, the participantslearned design skills.
To invoke concept-level reflection and brushing up,
construction of the appropriate learning environmentis critical. This is one of the methods to encourage
active participation. For example, controlling thequality of initial design ideas for posting to the SNS isnecessary to involve the participants in theinteractions. In addition, instructions should be
provided regarding the best attitudes to have whenreading and posting ideas to the SNS. SOS passively
waited for comments from others, but QF and LAS
actively collected information from fewer messages
and engaged in less communication to improve theirproducts.
Therefore, educators should provide guidance on
how to assess the posts on the SNS. Moreover, theauthors suggest intentionally selecting groups withdifferent features by, for example, discussing theparticipants’ concept, styling, and skills. In this casestudy, the executive committee randomly distributed
the teams into the three groups, and each had different
challenges and emphases.
The authors observed three patterns and a learning
environment that facilitates the evolution of creativity.
Although the interaction evolves a variety ofcreativity, it is not automatically invoked. Educators
should consider the type of creativity to evolve in the
educational practice and construct learning
environments to encourage active interaction. As afuture direction, we are developing models to beembedded in the notions that this article suggested.
The author must continue to investigate other patternsof interaction evolution of creativity.

REFERENCESAPEV (n.d.). Our mission. http://apev.jp/en/aboutus/(confirmed in June. 19, 2018)
Coorey, J. (2016). Active learning methods andtechnology: strategies for design education. The

International Journal of Art & Design Education,
35(3). pp. 337-347
Glăveanu, Vlad. (2010). Pradigms in the study ofcreativity: introducing the perspective of cultural
psychology. New ideas in Psychology, 28(1). pp.
79-93
Ikejiri, R., Isshiki, Y. & Yamauchi, Y. (2014).
Formative Evaluation of a Social Networking
Platform in an Electric Vehicles Design Contest.
Proceedings of EdMedia 2014-World Conferenceon Educational Media and Technology. pp. 283288
Savage, R., Vanasupa, L., & Stolk, J. (2007).
Collaborative design of project-based learning
courses: how implement a mode of learning that
effectively builds skills for the global engineer.
Proceedings of the American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference.
Silva, B., & Neves Madeira, R. (2010). A study and a
proposal of a collaborative and competitive
learning methodology. IEEE EDUCON Education
Engineering 2010.
Zwirn, S. G., & Zande, R. V. (2015). Differences
between art and design education: or deference inconceptions of creativity? The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 51(3). pp. 193-203
Westwood, R. & Low D. (2003). The multiculturalmuse: culture, creativity and innovation.
International Management of Cross-Cultural
Management, 3(2). pp. 235-259.