Frontiers of Architectural Research (2018) 7, 100–106

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Frontiers of Architectural Research

www.keaipublishing.com/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Factors affecting creativity in the

architectural education process based
on computer-aided design
Abdollah Baghaei Daemein, Hossein Safari

Department of Architecture, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

Received 28 December 2016; received in revised form 7 September 2017; accepted 8 September 2017

KEYWORDS Abstract
Creativity; One of the most influential factors in architectural design is creativity. The enhancement of
Design process; student creativity is a universally sought objective. This research hypothesized that computer-
Architectural educa- aided design, experience, sketching, physical modeling, learning environment, and images and
tion; visual references can serve as powerful tools to stimulate creativity in the architectural design
Computer-aided
process. It sought to investigate which of these components has the greatest impact on
design;
increasing student creativity. A total of 114 bachelor students and 347 master students of
CAD
Architecture were surveyed using a questionnaire. Data were then analyzed using SPSS and one
sample t-test and Friedman test for ranking. Results showed that experience can significantly
increase the creativity of students in the architectural design process compared to the other
components.
& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on
behalf of KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction been proposed during the same period (Alexander, 1979;

In recent decades, many developments have been achieved
in the field of architectural design, and numerous acade-
mies have contributed to the creative design and variety of
design procedures. Several design process theories have also
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: baghaei@iaurasht.ac.ir (A. Baghaei Daemei).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.
Darke, 1979). In a publication on design methodology,
Sydney Gregory (1966) argued that every design problem
can be approached from infinite angles. Likewise,
Broadbent (1973) stated that a design problem can be
approached seven general ways (Davey, 2008: 4). However,
Dorst and Cross (2001) suggested that creativity remains one
of the fundamental factors in the architectural design
process. In the middle decades of the 20th century, many
studies on the effect of creativity on architectural design
and its associated factors have been conducted

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.09.001
2095-2635/& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Factors affecting creativity in the architectural education process
(Cross, 1997; Howard et al., 2008; Dorst, 2011; Bashier,
2014; Tzonis, 2014; Baghaei Daemei et al. 2017).
The factors that may influence student creativity (Crilly
and Cardoso, 2017; Lu, 2016; Augello Infantino et al., 2015;
Cybulski et al., 2015; Chang, 2013; Casakin and Kreitler,
2010; Kowaltowski et al., 2010; Christiaans and Venselaar,
2005) can be divided into several general categories,
including group activities (Farhang et al., 2008; Eslami
et al., 2009; Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2007), learning envir-
onment (Azemati et al., 2016; Karimi Azeri et al., 2015a;
Nazidizaji et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; Amabile and Conti,
1999; Cho, 2017), teachers (Chambers, 1973), technology
(Bertol, 1997; Snyder, 1998; John, 2015; Robertson and
Radcliffe, 2009; Kazanjian et al., 2000; Lawson, 1999;
Kalay, 2006: 376; Mozaffar and Khakzand, 2009), and sketch
images and visual references (Khakzand, 2009; Tian, Masry
et al., 2009; Yavuz and Yildirim, 2012).
Other researchers also cited the systematic approach
named TRIZ as one of the factors that boost creativity
(Chang et al., 2016; Pokhrel et al., 2015; Nazidizaji et al.,
2015a, 2015b, 2015c; Li et al., 2007; Ogot and Okudan,
2006; Totobesola-Barbier, Marouzé et al., 2002; Low et al.,
2000). Factors associated with creativity are generally
outlined in research literature, and thus, determining which
factors play an effective role in boosting student creativity
in architectural design is important. The purpose of the
present study is to assess the six factors that affect the
creativity of students, including computer-aided design
(CAD), experience, sketch, images and visual reference,
learning environment, and physical modeling. Ranking these
components will show which of them has the greatest
impact on the creativity of architecture students. CAD is
also associated with the extent of architectural creativity
among students.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Architectural design process
Creativity is the cornerstone of architecture (Danaci, 2015).
It is one of the captivating and stimulating aspects of the
human mind and is defined as the ability to change old ideas
to produce unique inventions (Heap, 1989). According to
(Mozaffar and Khakzand, 2009), the design process has two
main features: first, it is an essentially creative effort, and
second, it is closely associated with drawing. Christopher
Alexander believes that the design process consists of two
primary stages, namely, analysis and synthesis (Laseau,
1980). Lawson believes that the creative process has five
stages, namely, first insight, preparation, incubation, illu-
mination, and verification (Schon and Wiggins, 1992). In
Jones’ model, the relationship between the three stages of
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation is defined within a
circular diagram that represents the evolution of a raw
and abstract idea to a decision and, ultimately, to a final
solid idea (Gross, 1996). Meyer describes the design process
as a problem-solving process in which creativity plays a
central role. The process proposed by Meyer consists of four
stages: preparation, incubation, illumination, and proof/
negation.
101
Rzevsti characterizes the design process as an investiga-
tive, creative, rational, and decision-oriented procedure
(Laseau, 1980). Goel describes the design process in stages
of initial design, refinement (improvement), and detailed
design. According to Riba (1973), the design process
includes the three stages of analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation.
Another approach is the intellectual–ideological approach
to the design process, which refers to the procedure
designers use to deal with any design problem. These
approaches to the design process can be divided into three
groups, namely, logical rational model, creative intuitive
model, and participation collective model. Archer (1969)
proposed eight stages for the design process as follows:
briefing, programing, data collection, analysis, synthesis,
development, communication, and solution. Table 1 shows
the details of the design process from the view of other
researchers.
The architectural design process can be described as the
procedure of drawing ideas from one's unconsciousness. It
originates, as an abstract idea, from the thought and
experience of a person and gradually develops into a
tangible novel subject through a process of conversion of
subjectivity to objectivity, which is mediated by creativity
(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 shows the process through which a designer creates
an architectural space. As can be seen, creativity is one of
the primary requirements for the creation of architectural
space. This study aims to investigate the factors associated
with this particular feature.
2.2. Aspects of creativity
Louis Sullivan stated that imagination and creativity are
innate, not learned, but they seem to be inherent talents
that can also be acquired and reinforced with appropriate
training (Antoniades, 1990). Einstein stated, “Imagination is
more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited,
whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating
progress, giving birth to evolution” (Russo and Montecchi,
2011). According to Antoniades (1990), imagination is a
catalyst for visualization, and visualization serves as a filter
through which imagination must pass before achieving
realization. Guilford (1968) provided an alternative defini-
tion, stating that creativity is the novel product of the
useful and beneficial work of an individual or a group (Stein,
1974).
Therefore, creativity is a combination of several functions,
including innovation, flexibility, and sensitivity to other views.
It enables the learner to transcend irrational thinking and
reach new heights of productivity and satisfaction. Runco
noted that creativity is a convenient yet powerful tool to
solve problems through innovative solutions. Robins believed
that creativity involves identifying new qualities in old
concepts, meanings and ideas, or coming up with new ways
of organization.
Chen et al. (2012) suggested that designer problems in
producing creative conceptual designs often stem from the
lack of sufficient multi-disciplinary knowledge. A research
by Loxton (1969) on design education in schools concluded
that “experience” is one of the most important factors in
102 A. Baghaei Daemei, H. Safari

Table 1 Review of opinions of some famous architects about the design process (Abo et al., 2016).

Strategic Frank Gehry Zaha Hadid Toyo Ito Peter Zumthor

thinking

Knowledge Canadian American Iraqi–British architect Japanese Architecture Swiss architect

background architect American Architecture schools Le corbusier's
schools five points of architecture
Modern architecture Le Corbusier Oscar Neimeyer conservation architecture
Schools Frank Lloyd Wright Le Corbusier
Inspiration Conscious Conscious Natural forms Lifting building PILOTIS to
sources and structures allow a sequence of green
Inspiration Inspiration Islamic patterns areas and free movement
Sculptors Nature Organic design of pedestrians
Painters Sculpture artwork Tree structure
Developing Scribbling a sketch Digital techniques Digital Physical model to represent
tools New floor plan Strategies Sculptural techniques techniques Sculptural the initial phase of the project
(Codex rules) techniques and models
Product Morphological forms in Sculpted buildings Branching design Raised horizontal beam, up on
a wonderful composition appear to be mystical Tree Building pilotis
objects
Express fluidity, Façade as structure Very large amorphous surface
velocity, and lightness that directly expresses
the flow of force

Fig. 1 Proposed model of the architectural design process.

the creative process (Lawson, 2013). In a publication by
Gordon (1961) on creativity empowerment, he character-
ized creativity using four analogies, namely, symbolic,
direct, personal, and fantasy analogies. Boden (1990) stated
that creativity is an unconventional ability to capture the
ideas provided by different sources and use them to address
problems and explore and evaluate solutions. Unlike
invention, creativity does not indicate creating something
absolutely new, given that it mostly relies on prior
achievements.
3. Research methodology
41% were male; all participants were 18 years and older.
Moreover, 35% of participants were master students, and
the remaining 65% were bachelor students. In the data
analysis, the demographic variables were first studied, and
then the validity of the questionnaires was assessed using
the test of Cronbach's alpha. Then, primary statistical
parameters, including mean, median, mode, and standard
deviation (one sample T-Test), were obtained and com-
pared. The type of analytical test (parametric or non-
parametric) was determined by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
(K–S test). Data were then analyzed by one-sample t-test,
and then Friedman test was used for ranking

The present descriptive-analytic and quantitative research 4. Research findings

was conducted based on the information collected through
questionnaires and from existing quantitative records. The
collected data were analyzed by SPSS. The sample size of
210 people was computed by using the Cochran formula.
The population comprised 461 individuals, consisting of 114
master students and 347 bachelor students of architecture
at the Islamic Azad University of Rasht in the fall semester
of 2014. A total 59% of the participants were female and
4.1. Close-ended questionnaire data analysis
To evaluate the validity and reliability of the questionnaire,
30 questionnaires were distributed among a sample group.
The resulting Cronbach's alpha was 5%, indicating the
reliability and validity of the questionnaire. In general,
the students were asked about their opinion on the extent
Factors affecting creativity in the architectural education process 103

Fig. 2 Study of the distribution of normality of the research data.

of the effect of CAD utilities, experience, sketch & rando,

Table 2 Descriptive characteristics of variables.
visual images and references, learning environment, and
physical modeling on creativity, and also whether they were One-sample t-test
interested in learning and utilizing CAD utilities for archi-
tectural design. All the participants showed positive views Frequency Mean Standard
about the use of CAD utilities for design. Interestingly, only deviation
7% of the participants agreed with the statement that
sketch & rando stimulate creativity in architectural design. CAD utilities 210 3.1143 .77106
The questionnaire contained 27 questions organized into Experience 210 3.9893 .56741
6 subscales dedicated to CAD utilities, experience, sketch Sketch & rando 210 3.7179 .74450
& rando, visual images and references, learning environ- Images and visual 210 3.4095 .92661
ment, and physical modeling. All questions were devised references
based on a five-item Likert scale with answers ranging Learning 210 3.4095 .92661
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Results of environment
the exploratory factor analysis showed that the question- Physical modeling 210 3.6167 .66713
naire was saturated with six factors, and every question
had a significant factor loading in its respective factors.
Confirmatory factor analysis also confirmed these findings. As shown in Fig. 2, the distribution of the research data
The test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was eval- with respect to mean and standard deviation for CAD
uated and confirmed at seven-day intervals. Correlation utilities was .771, .567 for experience, .927 for images
coefficients of individual subscales in this test-retest were and visual references, .736 for learning education, .667 for
.66 for CAD, .65 for experience, .65 for sketch, .57 for physical modeling, and .745 for sketch and rando. These
images and visual references, .64 for learning environ- results indicated that the data were normal.
ment, and .72 for physical modeling. Cronbach's alpha for
these subscales were .89 for experience, .85 for sketch, 4.2. One sample t-test
.88 for images and visual references, .81 for learning
environment, and .87 for physical modeling. To check the Data analysis was conducted using descriptive and inferen-
normality of the data, Kolmogorov and histogram diagram tial statistical tools. One-sample t-test was carried out to
were used (Fig. 2). identify significant differences between the means of test
104 A. Baghaei Daemei, H. Safari

and reference values. Descriptive characteristics of the
study variables, including mean, standard deviation, and
frequency, are presented in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the mean value of the component
CAD utilities is slightly higher than the reference mean (3)
(Figs. 3 and 4).
The descriptive statistics in Table 3 suggests the follow-
ing: the mean value (M = 3.11, SD = .77) and the reference
value (T value = 3) (t (209) = 2.14, p = .033) of CAD
utilities, the mean value (M = 3.11, SD = .77) and the
reference value (t (209) = 25.26, p = .001) (T value = 3)
(t (209) = 2.14, p = .033) of experience, the significant
difference between the mean value (M = 3.11, SD = .77)
and the reference value (t (209) = 13.97, p = .001) of
sketch and rando, the significant difference between the
mean value (M = 3.11, SD = .77) and the reference value
(t (209) = 6.4, p = .033) of images and visual references,
the significant difference between the mean value (M =
3.11, SD = .77) and the reference value (t (209) = 13.75, p
= .033) of the learning environment, and the significant
difference between the mean value (M = 3.11, SD = .77)
and the reference value (t (209) = 13.39, p = .033) of
physical modeling.
The results of Friedman test (Table 4) showed a statistical
significance (χ2 (5) = 210, p o.001). Friedman test was then
used to rank the variables. Table 5 shows the ranking of
variables in terms of their mean values.
According to the results of Friedman test and the ranking
in Table 5, the variables that hold the first to sixth place in
terms of magnitude of effect are experience, sketch,
physical modeling, learning education, images and visual
references, and CAD utilities, respectively.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This study attempted to determine which parameter from
among the six effective parameters on creativity had the
most impact on students. Kolmogorov test and histogram
chart were used to determine whether the distribution of
data represented a community selected from the sample

Table 4 Results of Friedman test.

N 210
Square root of a chi-square 170.432
Degrees of freedom 5
Significance level .000
Fig. 3 Descriptive characteristics chart of the variables.

Table 5 Ranking of variables.

Ranking

No. Variable Mean value

1 Experience 4.54
2 Sketch & rando 3.81
3 Physical modeling 3.51
4 Learning education 3.7
5 Images and visual references 3.09
6 CAD utilities 2.34
Fig. 4 Descriptive characteristic chart of the variables.

Table 3 Results of one-sample t-test on the research variables.

Reference value = 3

t Degrees of freedom Significance level Mean difference 95% confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

CAD utilities 2.148 209 .033 .11429 .0094 .2192

Experience 25.266 209 .000 .98929 .9121 1.0665
Sketch & rando 13.973 209 .000 .71786 .6166 .8191
Images and visual references 6.405 209 .000 .40952 .2835 .5356
Learning environment 13.756 209 .000 .69881 .5987 .7990
Physical modeling 13.395 209 .000 .61667 .5259 .7074
Factors affecting creativity in the architectural education process
and whether it could generalize the results of the study. A
large bell-shape chart indicated that more data were in the
middle, while few were on the right and left portions; thus,
the sample accurately represented the research population.
The means of the sample group were then compared with
the default mean of each component (the default value, the
boundary of number 3, which is according to the Likert
scale). The results of the single-sample t-test suggested
that all the components were above average (CAD utilities:
3.1143; experience: 3.9893; sketch & rando: 3.7179; images
and visual references: 3.4095; learning environment:
3.4095; physical modeling: 3.6167). Statistically, the value
that increases from three was meaningful. Finally, Friedman
test was used to determine the components with the highest
and lowest mean values. The Friedman test result and the
acquired mean of components showed that experience
(4.54), sketch & rando (3.81), learning education (3.7),
physical modeling (3.51), images and visual references
(3.09), and CAD utilities (2.34) have the greatest impact
on creativity.
One-sample t-test was used to compare the means of the
test values with the mean reference value (3). The results
showed that in the study variables, the sample group
acquired a higher mean value than the mean reference
(population) value (3). Thus, the variables CAD utilities and
sketch were included in the equation. Friedman test was
used to rank the variable in terms of their mean values.
Results showed a significant difference between the mean
values of the variables. The variables experience, sketch
physical modeling, learning environment, images and visual
references, and CAD utilities, held the first to sixth place in
ranking. The results of this study showed that experience
can enhance student creativity. However, this concept faces
significant challenges that should be further investigated in
future studies.
References
Abo W., Eman Sabry, A., Osama Khalil, M., 2016. Design Process &
Strategic Thinking in Architecture, In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Architecture, Structure and Civil
Engineering (ICASCE'16), London (UK). pp. 26–27.
Alexander, C., 1979. The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, H., 1999. Changes in the work environment
for creativity during downsizing. Acad. Manag. J. 42, 630–640.
Antoniades, A.C., 1990. Poetics of Architecture: Theory of Design.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Archer, L.B., 1969. Structure of the design process. In: Broadbent,
Gefforey, Ward, Anthony (Eds.), Design Methods of Architecture.
Architectural Association Lund Humphries Publishers LTD., London.
Augello, A., Infantino, I., Pilato, G., Rizzo, R., Vella, F., 2015.
Creativity evaluation in a cognitive architecture. Biol. Inspired
Cogn. Archit. 11, 29–37.
Azemati, H.R., Parvizi, R., Karimi Azeri, A.R., Aghabeigi, M., 2016.
Principles of effective design for promotion of students' crea-
tivity in educational spaces (case study: Lahijan high schools).
Q. J. Creat. Humanit. 2, 121–142.
Baghaei Daemei, A., Ayoubi Mobarhan, S., Safari, H., 2017. Informa-
tion technology, the new paradigm in architecture education
(Islamic Azad University Branch of Rasht: a case study) In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Civil Engineer-
ing, Architecture & Crisis Management, 7 July, Tehran, Iran.
105
Bashier, F., 2014. Reflections on architectural design education: the
return of rationalism in the studio. Front. Archit. Res. 3 (4),
424–430.
Bertol, D., 1997. Designing Digital Source, an Architect Guide to
Virtual Reality. Hohn Wiley & Sons, 95–100.
Boden, M.A., 1990. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, Georgia.
Broadbent, G., 1973. Design in architecture. Drexler, The Archi-
tecture of the Ecole des Beaux-arts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
London: Wiley & Sons.
Casakin, H., Kreitler, S., 2010. Motivation for creativity in
architectural design and engineering design students: implica-
tions for design education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 20 (4),
477–493.
Chambers, Jack A., 1973. College teachers: their effect on crea-
tivity of students. J. Educ. Psychol. 65 (3), 326–334.
Chang, Y.S., 2013. Student technological creativity using online pro-
blem-solving activities. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 23 (3), 803–816.
Chang, Y.S., Chien, Y.H., Yu, K.C., Chu, Y.H., Chen, M.Y.C., 2016.
Effect of TRIZ on the creativity of engineering students. Think.
Skills Creat. 19, 112–122.
Chen, Y., Liu, Z.L., Xie, Y.B., 2012. A knowledge-based framework
for creative conceptual design of multi-disciplinary systems.
Comput.-Aided Des. 44 (2), 146–153.
Cho, J.Y., 2017. An investigation of design studio performance in
relation to creativity, spatial ability, and visual cognitive style.
Think. Skills Creat. 23, 67–78.
Christiaans, H., Venselaar, K., 2005. Creativity in design engineer-
ing and the role of knowledge: modelling the expert. Int. J.
Technol. Des. Educ. 15 (3), 217–236.
Crilly, N., Cardoso, C., 2017. Where next for research on fixation,
inspiration and creativity in design? Des. Stud. 50, 1–38.
Cross, N., 1997. Descriptive models of creative design: application
to an example. Des. Stud. 18 (4), 427–440.
Cybulski, J.L., Keller, S., Nguyen, L., Saundage, D., 2015. Creative
problem solving in digital space using visual analytics. Comput.
Human. Behav. 42, 20–35.
Danaci, H.M., 2015. Creativity and knowledge in architectural
education. Procedia-Social. Behav. Sci. 174, 1309–1312.
Darke, J., 1979. The primary generator and the design process. Des.
Stud. 1 (1), 36–44.
Davey, J., 2008. Educating design intuition: a survey of problem
solving methods used in architecture and interior design studios.
Online J. Workforce Educ. Dev. 3 (1), 1–11 Springer.
Dorst, K., Cross, N., 2001. Creativity in the design process: co-
evolution of problem–solution. Des. Stud. 22 (5), 425–437.
Dorst, K., 2011. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application.
Des. Stud. 32 (6), 521–532.
Eslami, G.R., Hanachi, P., Kamelnia, H., 2009. Analysis and
comparative study of community, social, and participatory
architecture. J. Archit. Urban Plan. (Fine Arts). 39, 47–60.
Farhang, M., Khakzand, M., Changiz, F., Farshadfar, L., 2008. Group
architecture, a missing link in architectural education. J. Educ.
Technol. 3 (4), 337–349.
Gordon, W.J.J., 1961. Synectics, the Development of Creative
Capacity. Harper & Row, New York.
Gregory, S.A., 1966. The Design Method. Butterworth, London.
Gross, M.D., 1996. The Electronic Cocktail Napkin—a computational
environment for working with design diagrams. Des. Stud. 17
(1), 53–69.
Guilford, J.P., 1968. Intelligence, Creativity, and Their Education
Implications. Robert R. Knapp, California.
Heap, J., 1989. The Management of Innovation and Design. Cassell,
London.
Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K.P., 2007. Creativity in innovative projects:
how teamwork matters. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 24 (1–2),
148–166.
106
Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J., Dekoninck, E., 2008. Describing the
creative design process by the integration of engineering
design and cognitive psychology literature. Des. Stud. 29 (2),
160–180.
John, S.P., 2015. The integration of information technology in
higher education: a study of faculty's attitude towards IT
adoption in the teaching process. Contad. Adm. 1, 230–252.
Kalay, Y.E., 2006. The impact of information technology on design
methods, products and practices. Matter Des. Stud. 27, 357–380.
Karimi Azeri, A., Parvizi, R., Khalegi, J., Hosseini, B., 2015a.
Effective design principles in promotion of children's creativity
in residential spaces. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 202, 31–46.
Kazanjian, R.K., Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A., 2000. Creativity and techno-
logical learning: the roles of organization architecture and crisis in
large-scale projects. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 17 (3–4), 273–298.
Khakzand, M., Mozaffar, F., Feizi, M., Azimi, M., 2009. Visual
analogy and its role in creative architectural design education.
J. Educ. Technol. 4 (2), 153–162.
Kowaltowski Doris, C.C.K., Bianchi, G., Teixeira de Paiva, V., 2010.
Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural
design education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 20 (4), 453–476.
Laseau, P., 1980. Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Lawson, B., 1999. Fake and Real creativity using computer aided
design: some lessons from Herman Hertzberger. In: Proceedings
of the 3rd conference on Creativity & cognition. Loughborough,
United Kingdom, ACM. pp. 174–179.
Lawson, B., 2013. How Designers Think: The Design Process
Demystified. (Nadimi H., Trans.), Tehran, Publication & Printing
Center of Shahid Beheshti University, Iran.
Li, Y., Wang, J., Li, X., Z, W., 2007. Design creativity in product
innovation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 33 (3), 213–222.
Low, M.K., Lamvik, T., Walsh, K., Myklebust, O., 2000. Product to
service eco-innovation: the TRIZ model of creativity explored.
In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electro-
nics and the Environment, 2000.
Loxton, M., 1969. Design education in practice. In: Attitudes in
Design Education. Lund Humphries, London.
Lu, C.C., 2016. Interactive effects of environmental experience and
innovative cognitive style on student creativity in product
design. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., 1–18.
A. Baghaei Daemei, H. Safari
Mozaffar, F., Khakzand, M., 2009. Architectural design process in
technology age. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Prod. Manag. 19 (6), 53–72.
Nazidizaji, S., Tomé, A., Regateiro, F., 2015a. Does the smartest
designer design better? Effect of intelligence quotient on
students' design skills in architectural design studio. Front.
Archit. Res. 4 (4), 318–329.
Nazidizaji, S., Tomé, A., Regateiro, F., 2015b. Towards a TRIZ based
and C-K validated creative approach in architectural design. In:
Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on design theory,
Paris.
Nazidizaji, S., Toméa, A., Regateiro, F., 2015c. Narrative Ways of
Architecture Education: A Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 7th
World Conference on Educational Sciences. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 197, pp. 1640–1646.
Ogot, M., Okudan, G.L.E., 2006. Integrating systematic creativity
into first year engineering design curriculum. Int. J. Eng. Ed. 22
(1), 109–115.
Pokhrel, C., Cruz, C., Ramirez, Y., Kraslawski, A., 2015. Adaptation
of TRIZ contradiction matrix for solving problems in process
engineering. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 103, 3–10.
Robertson, B.F., Radcliffe, D.F., 2009. Impact of CAD tools on
creative problem solving in engineering design. Comput.-Aided
Des. 41 (3), 136–146.
RIBA, Hand Book of Architecture, 1973, theThe RIBA Publication
London.
Schon, D.A., Wiggins, G., 1992. Kinds of seeing and their functions
in designing. Des. Stud. 13 (2), 135–156.
Snyder, J.C., 1998. Architectural Construction Drawings with Auto-
CAD R14. Wiley, New York.
Stein, M., 1974. Stimulating Creativity, Individual Procedures.
Academic Press, New York.
Tian, C., Masry, M., Lipson, H., 2009. Physical sketching: recon-
struction and analysis of 3D objects from freehand sketches.
Comput.-Aided Des. 41 (3), 147–158.
Tzonis, A., 2014. Creativity real and imagined in architectural
education. Front. Archit. Res. 3 (3), 331–333.
Yavuz, A.O., Yildirim, M.T., 2012. Study on defining utilization steps
of traditional and digital tools in architectural design education.
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 51, 239–243.