1

Renessa Ciampa Brewer 14 Dec. 2010

 

The Growth of a Graphic Designer’s Concept Development Approach:

A Metacognitive and Self-Evaluative Action Plan

I. The Situation and the Motivation behind the Intervention

As an independent, self-reflective and self-evaluative action plan design, the overarching goal is

to monitor my own growth in my approach to developing graphic design concepts in my

personal and professional practice. My desire to improve my approach and my process stems

from my own dissatisfaction with my undergraduate curriculum’s overall lack of emphasis on

thinking and concept development skills. I have since aimed to strengthen my thinking skills and

concept development approaches in my professional design practices to help achieve my goals of

becoming a more creative and effective designer, creative director, and hopeful future instructor

of undergraduate design and concept development courses.

Last semester, my research in the CrCrTh-692 course (Processes of Research and Engagement)

only affirmed for me that strong thinking and concept development skills are more vital today to

employers of graphic designers than ever. In considering my long-term professional goals, I am

inspired to utilize this action proposal as a plan for developing a synthesis project that reflects

how the CCT program has been and will be part of my growth in regards to my career goals. As I

have made many connections from CCT to graphic design over the last year, I now want to

develop my thinking into a CCT “toolkit” for the purpose of: a) my own design process and

growth as a practicing designer, and b) a reflective culmination of how I can and will apply what

I’ve gained in the CCT program.

Initially, my goals for this project were two-fold: 1) to develop this toolkit for my personal

practice, and 2) to develop this toolkit for others (designers, educators, and students) to be able to

use. As I developed in my thinking about what is most important in regard to my personal and

professional goals, I have started to steer the focus of the actions more toward myself, my own

transformation and growth and my own benefit. Thinking of how others could benefit from it

consequently became a secondary goal. The action research plan involves reflecting on my

  2

approach to my concept development process to date, reflecting on the CCT “tools” I have

gathered both within the program and from external research. I’ve also included experimenting

and reflecting on the concept development process with these tools applied to real design

projects, and evaluating the outcomes and my growth over time. These methods are explained

further in Section V. The cyclical approach of action research is very familiar to designers

because it bears a strong resemblance to the design process of problem/research-analysis-

synthesis-evaluation (plan-act-observe-reflect) (Swann, 2002, p. 55). Swann suggests “that

action research and the action of design are so close that it would require only a few words to be

substituted for theoretical frameworks of action research to make it applicable to design.” (p. 56).

This view resonated with me and further inspired my project development this semester. The

following documented reflections on the cycles and epicycles of action research this semester are

by no means in a linear order. Oscillation, revisiting, and reframing were all involved in the

semester-long design of this plan.

II. Inquiry to Illuminate the Background

Creativity, and the self-assessment of creativity, can be very subjective. Hence, the biggest

challenge in the early development of this project was conceptualizing a way to communicate my

subjective evaluation and growth to readers objectively. So the biggest questions I had to

explore were: “How will I evaluate my current approach to concept development, how will I go

about developing this toolkit, and how will I measure my own growth in a way that I can share it

with others in a synthesis, book, or even a course? Who might my constituents be in my quest for

growth? How do I go about building them? Who else has done something like this?” and,

because I intend to implement this plan for the actual production of my synthesis next semester, I

had to consider a realistic timeline.

These questions sparked some suggestions from Professor Taylor in dialogue. He referred me to

the synthesis projects of two alumni, from which I extracted two relevant tools for self-

evaluation: metacognitive diagrams (Lindholm, 2004), which I will refer to as metacognitive

maps in my own project, and the assessment rubrics used by Freeman (1999), which I modified

  3

to be self-evaluative rubrics. These methods for reflection and evaluation became central to my

plan, and I will discuss their implementation in further detail in Section V.

Another question I struggled with in my inquiry was that of who my constituents might be. I

naturally looked to my design mentors, but was still unsure of exactly how they would play a

role in my plan. As Swann (2002) suggests, it could be argued that collaborative participation in

the design process is more difficult to attain because designers often are operating as sole

practitioners, for individual clients (p. 57). The goal of incorporating constituency building into

my plan gave me something to chew on during the semester, and I reflect on this in more detail

in section III.

Referring back to the KAQF framework we used early in the semester, an area that warrants

further inquiry in preparation for carrying out my plan involves deciding which CCT tools to

experiment with (during the course of this plan specifically). This preparatory step became step 3

in my plan (Section VI).

III. Reflection, Dialogue, & Constituency Building

Throughout the development of my action plan this semester, I was forced to reflect on my goals

and values in order to see more clearly what it was I was trying to accomplish with this plan and

how I would accomplish it. Writing in the reflective journal throughout this course helped me

realize these goals, values, and thoughts on action by letting my stream of consciousness flow.

Inspired by the journal as a reflection tool, I decided to also integrate it into my action plan as

one of my methods for reflection leading to evaluation. And because my plan is self-evaluative, I

knew that the reflection epicycles would be a key, if not the principal, element of my action plan

itself.

As I continued to work with the Evaluation Clock and write in my journal each week, the theme

of becoming a reflective practitioner kept resurfacing for me. I began to think about what it

really meant to be a reflective practitioner and what that would mean for me as a professional

designer, and I sought research that would help bring this to light for me. Schön (1983)

highlights reflection as a critical element of professional design activity and articulates two types

  4

of reflection; reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action takes place when

the design professional is ‘surprised’ by, or experiences a unique situation during the

development of the design solution where as reflection-on-action involves the review of actions

from the recent past (Ellmers, 2006). Eraut (1994) interprets Schön’s reflection-on-action as the

‘process of making sense of an action after it has occurred and possibly learning something from

the experience which extends one’s knowledge base’ (as cited in Ellmers, 2006). As the driving

goal of my action plan is to improve my concept development process as a designer by being

reflecting on and evaluating it, these ideas of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action really

resonated with me.

Now that I had established how important the act of reflection would be in my plan for growth as

a creative designer, I needed to think about gaining more applicable reflective skills. McIntosh

(2010) presents the idea of the reflective conversation:

Questions such as “What is my practice like? Why is it like this? How has it come to be

this way? What are the effects of my practice on service users? How can I improve what I

do?” enable a critical distance to practice and the context in which it takes place…These

conversations may initially be with the self, but at some point are shared with others.

(MacIntosh, p. 47)

It was that shift of moving from the private to the public (MacIntosh, p. 47) that I found myself

being hesitant to embark upon. Perhaps this was because this self-reflective process is so

personal. Through dialogue with Professor Taylor and feedback from my peers during the work-

in-progress presentations, I was able to see more clearly the importance of getting the input and

support of others as I work toward becoming a reflective practitioner. At the suggestion of the

professor, I might consider writing to those mentors I would hope to have as my constituents,

inviting them to be coaches as I move through my action plan and beyond. In addition, it would

be beneficial for me to invite my design mentors to get involved in periodically evaluating my

design work to get outside, professional feedback.

An example of initiated correspondence:

  5

Dear (Reflective Practitioner and/or Design Mentor),

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing because I am embarking on my final

semester in the Critical & Creative Thinking program at Umass, and wonder if you

might consider being a mentor to me in my developmental process of becoming a

reflective practitioner/designer. This semester I developed an action research plan in

which I mapped out my goals for my self-reflective capstone synthesis project. I would

be grateful to have the opportunity to check in with you via bi-weekly (or at your

convenience) telephone calls to discuss my progress and get your expert feedback, if

you would be available over the next few months. You have been such an inspirational

mentor, and I would be honored to have your support!

I would love to discuss my project in further detail with you. Thank you______!

Warmest regards,

Renessa

Planning to have these focused and reflective conversations with myself and also with others

became increasingly important to me as this action plan design progressed. The people who I

already consider mentors have always been happy to give me feedback and support in the past,

so I am confident in asking them. This person might also end up being my synthesis reader.

IV. Systematic Research on Effects of Past Actions

As illuminated in the inquiry cycle, through working with and re-working the Evaluation Clock,

through dialogue with the professor and with my peers, and through my continual reflection

epicycles, I was able to flesh most of my questions out to the point where I could embark on

some relevant background research. But because it took me some time to develop the

observables, measurables, and methods for my self-evaluation, I did not dedicate a lot of time

early in the semester to researching the pertinent effects of the past actions of others. I was

unclear of what I needed to look for, but started my research by looking for other designer’s

“toolkits.”

  6

Books such as Hotwiring Your Creative Process: Strategies for Print and New Media Designers

(Cloninger, 2007) and Managing the Design Process: Concept Development (Stone, 2010),

while great resources for tools that I will experiment with and potentially add to my toolkit, were

more focused on the overall design process (including client relations and business aspects) as

opposed to the preliminary concept development thought process that I am interested in

specifically focusing on for my synthesis. As Professor Taylor suggested in a mid-semester

meeting, I should try seeking research on others who have developed their own “toolkits” and

evaluated their own processes with the goal of improving them, as opposed to research on

suggested “tools” themselves. This was great advice because as I know, there are countless

books out there written by designers and design educators on the design process as a sort of

textbook set of steps. I knew that this self-reflective process would be a time for me to explore

my own unique approach, gather and experiment with my own set of tools, and improve my own

unique process. What was challenging for me was finding research done by other designers who

have reflected on or documented their own unique development as practitioners. The library of

CCT syntheses served as a great resource for others (not necessarily designers) who have also

been through this transformative process.

From the abstract of Doodles to Drawings: The Creative Process of Drawing and Thinking for

Cartooning:

The author guides the audience through his cartooning process by presenting work from

his sketchbook which includes illustrations, sketches, various notes, and final drawings.

Diagrams graphically organize the key thinking strategies of the drawings as they

progress.

Lindholm (2004)

I was able to relate to Lindholm’s desire to explore his own thinking strategies and dispositions

(p. 3) in his idea generation phase for cartooning, documenting his process in the form of a

synthesis project, and drawing from his own collected CCT toolkit. His use of metacognitive

diagrams as a visual model of his evolution of ideas throughout the creative process quickly

resonated with me and inspired the implementation of metacognitive maps in my own plan.

  7

Freeman (1999) designed an assessment tool for her synthesis project, with a goal of allowing

teachers to reflect on their strengths and inclination, and to continually monitor their progress

using eight guiding principles (para. p. 52). For each principle, criteria are provided (p. 52) in a

rubric with a “well done” or “needs development” assessment. This plus/delta assessment

influenced the self-evaluative rubrics I will use in my plan (see sample rubric in Section V,

Diagram B).

My research needs to be further pursued and digested in preparation for my synthesis next

semester, so I decided to make this the first step in the action plan itself.

V. Measures and Methods for Evaluation

A recurring theme for me throughout my time in the CCT program has been that of slowing

down to stop and reflect on my actions. As a practicing designer, it is important to me at this

pivotal point in my career to stop and reflect on my approach and my process to developing

design concepts so that I may learn from my reflections and make improvements. The two

methods I decided to implement for reflecting in-action and on-action are the metacognitive

maps (Diagram A) and the reflective journal. The metacognitive map is a way for me to “think

out-loud” during my process and in reflection on my process, and document that thinking in a

non-linear, free form sketch. The reflective journal will also be critical to my documentation of

the outcomes of the application of CCT tools in this action plan. By writing reflectively about

my creative processes, I can begin to understand them more deeply and begin to improve upon

them.

In Diagram A below, Lindholm (2004) takes the reader through his idea development phase in

creating a political cartoon. I will use mine in a similar way during specific concept development

phases of design projects.

  8

Diagram A: Metacognitive diagram

Lindholm (2004)

  9

Still thinking about question of exactly how I would measure my own creative growth, I fleshed

out some of the specific observable variables through refining my Evaluation Clock. Inspired by,

but not limiting myself to, some of the well-known literature on creativity criteria, I decided

some of the growth variables I could observe that would be relevant for me are:

From Torrance (as cited in Kim, 2006):

o Fluency (the number of relevant ideas)

o Elaboration (the number of added ideas and detail)

o Resistance to Premature Closure: (the degree of psychological openness; based on

the belief that creative behavior requires a person to consider a variety of

information when processing information and to keep an “open mind”)

From Jackson & Messick (as cited in Besemer & Treffinger, 1981):

o Novelty (unusualness)

o Appropriateness of the solution (to both the problem and the solution’s various

parts)

o Transformation (the ability of the product to actually create new forms rather than

to merely improve upon pre-existent ones)

As a business, graphic design concepts must also be useful, not simply novel, to the design

problem I am hired to solve, so the observable variable of usefulness of the generated ideas is as

important to me, if not more so, as the novelty of ideas. It is also important for me to observe my

levels of confidence in using each tool. Lastly, I am interested in observing the reactions of my

existing clients as a way to measure change. This might seem like a difficult, or unclear,

measurement, because my returning clients are already satisfied with the work I produce for

them. But because I know the history of their feedback on projects, I have something to compare

new reactions to.

To measure these variables, the self-evaluative rubrics will be used. The rubrics themselves are

reflective tools, and would involve plus/delta self-evaluations of each variable observed through

the application of each CCT tool. (or, “for each CCT tool applied to my concept development

  10

approach and process, the growth variables will be observed and a plus/delta evaluation will be

charted for each variable.”) This is illustrated in Diagram B.

Diagram B: Sample self-evaluative rubric

Tool implemented: (Name of CCT tool here)

Reflect on progress using +/  Δ Growth observed Needs work

Fluency of concept ideas

Novelty of concept ideas

Usefulness of concept ideas

Positive feedback from client and others on presented concepts

Confidence in using the tool

In thinking about how I would convey to readers the transformation of my concept development

process through the application of CCT tools over time, Professor Taylor also suggested the use

of a diagram (Diagram C) to chart any growth.

Diagram C: Sample Growth Tracker

Taylor (personal comm. October 2010)

  11

VI. Action Plan Steps

Phase A. Preparation for synthesis project:

1) Continued research on effects of past actions of others.

It will be helpful for me to spend some time at the end of this semester following through

on some additional resources as preliminary research for the synthesis course.

2) Continued self-reflection on effects of my own past actions.

Over the winter break, I will take stock of “What is my practice like? How has it come

to be this way?” I will think more about the variables for my measurement of growth,

and think more about what my goals are for i) this synthesis, and ii) the future.

Elaborate or modify the variables based on reflection of my goals.

3) Gathering of the relevant CCT tools for toolkit.

My synthesis will be a reflective culmination of what I have gained throughout the course

of my CCT experience and my goals for carrying and growing with those skills in the

future. As preparation for the synthesis, I will take some time to reflect on the CCT

program and gather any relevant tools for my toolkit. These “tools” are not limited to

ones I have gained in the CCT program, but could also include relevant tools I have

gathered in outside research.

Phase B. Production and writing of synthesis project (documenting in writing throughout):

4) Creation of the evaluative rubric with specific goals for growth.

Now that I will have gathered my tools and thought more about the variables for

observing my growth, I will create the rubrics.

5) Experimentation with the tools; Metacognition in the process using the metacognitive

maps and reflective journaling.

The application and experimentation with the tools involves real design projects. Another

aspect of what I need to think more about over the winter break is which design projects I

  12

will choose to use (client projects? independent projects? a created project such as

branding the CCT program?). Whatever I choose as my project(s), I will be intentionally

applying these new tools to my process of developing a design concept, while being

metacognitive and reflecting on my process throughout. The metacognitive maps and

journal will allow me to reveal and reflect on what thinking patterns are taking place in

the process.

6) Evaluation of my growth and outcomes using the rubric criteria and growth tracker.

7) Any needed refinement of the application of the tools, followed by synthesized

documentation of my project and progress.

Some CCT tools may need to be modified to be optimally useful in the designer’s

concept development process. Since this is my project and my toolkit, I can modify and

even create my own tools.

Finally, my process and semester-long documentation will be synthesized and I will

focus on the editing of my capstone report.

VII. Timeline

Knowing that the timeframe for my plan is the end of December 2010 through mid May 2011, I

realized that it would be beneficial to create a realistic timeline of milestones for the steps in my

plan, allowing time for reflection and simultaneously writing and editing my synthesis report.

This would also bring to light any areas that might be unrealistic within the timeframe and any

need to narrow down my project even more. The initial timeline illustrated below is subject to

revisions over the winter semester break.

  13

Diagram D: Action Plan Timeline

  14

VIII. Evaluation & Looking Ahead

To quickly review my methods for evaluation now, the rubric will be implemented after each

CCT tool experiment, and the growth tracker chart will be used to evaluate growth over time.

While I am confident in using these methods of evaluation for my project, I still had to ask

myself, “What implications will the results have?” I decided to produce some focused

evaluation questions to reflect on in my journal after using the self-evaluative rubrics.

o If the results are poor using this particular tool, is there a different way to

apply it, or a modification I can make to it?

o What were the strengths and weaknesses of using this tool?

o Was I forcing this tool too much?

o If this tool does not seem to be useful to my concept development process,

perhaps I can simply put the tool back in the toolkit for possible future use

on a different type of design project.

If I continue to use a tool over time and my growth variables improve, this tool will be put in the

“top shelf” of my toolkit—meaning this will most likely be a tool I will use frequently in my

design practice.

In the preparation phase prior to beginning the synthesis course next semester, I believe that

some deeper research on creativity self-assessment is warranted for this project. Kaufman,

Plucker and Baer (2008) feature a chapter on Self-Assessment (pp. 101-125) in their Essentials

of Creativity Assessment, which I will review in addition to other relevant resources in action

plan step one. One of the more beginners’ textbook-like design resource books I found was

Visual Workout: Creativity Workbook (Landa & Gonnella, 2001). It provided some important

ideas on “what constitutes a creative graphic design solution?” (p. 7). This is a subjective

question that warrants more consideration in preparation for my synthesis. In addition, with all of

the literature out there on creativity criteria and assessment, it is important for me not to “buy-in”

to all of it to form my self-evaluation; but rather to think critically about how it applies

existentially, and to be inspired by, borrow from, and tailor what I find most relevant.

  15

After the action plan is carried out, and my synthesis is completed, the self-reflection and

evaluation does not end. As part of my synthesis, I would like to include a CCT manifesto for

continued growth as a lifelong learner and reflective practitioner. I see the development of my

toolkit as a lifelong journey in which I aim to be flexible with my tools and as a designer in

general. So I will need an open-ended plan for continual reflection and active improvement. I

think that the of the methods and measurables I have chosen is that they are able to be modified

and expanded upon. Their effectiveness can also be used for long-term self-reflective evaluation.

It is important for me to continue to journal beyond this course about my design approaches,

processes, inspirations - even my doubts.

Conclusion

Whether or not the application of various CCT tools will have a positive affect on my concept

development process is to be discovered. I am confident, however, that this action process of

deliberately reflecting on my design practice and experimenting with these CCT tools will be a

learning experience for me. In my opinion, part of becoming a reflective practitioner is becoming

intentional in my learning, design process, and in reflection. While acknowledging that reflection

does take place at an unconscious level, Boud et. al. holds integrous the role of conscious

thought in the reflective process as a means of formalizing an intentional learning from

experience. (Ellmer’s, 2006, p. 4). Professor Taylor encouraged me in this course to not just

select a set of tools from my CCT experience, but to really take action with myself in the growth

and development of my toolkit.

Design is something that I do almost every day, whether it is for a client or personal. It was not

until the CCT program and this Action Research plan in particular that I had a chance to take the

time to really plan what it is I want to change in my practice. Through this plan, I will come out

being more reflective and more intentional in what I do almost every day. And because I have

been working as a freelance designer for the last year, I have gotten somewhat comfortable

working in solitude when I create. The importance of building a constituency, even though it

might not be in the traditional sense of the term, became clear to me this semester. I now realize

that a support system is indeed important to my plan. I am confident in my willpower to grow in

  16

my concept development process by integrating the CCT tools I have gained, becoming a

reflective practitioner, and beginning to reach out to others to build a supportive community.

  17

References

Works Cited:

Cloninger, C. (2006). Hot-wiring your creative process: Strategies for print and new media

designers. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press.

Ellmers, G. (2006). Reflection and graphic design pedagogy: Developing a reflective framework

to enhance learning in a graphic design tertiary environment. Paper presented at the 2006

ACUADS Conference: Thinking the Future: Art, Design and Creativity. Melbourne, AU.

Freeman, K. (1999). Inviting critical and creative thinking into the classroom. (Master of Arts

synthesis project). University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Kim, K.H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance tests of creative

thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 3-14.

Lindholm, K. (2004). Doodles to drawings: The creative process of drawing and thinking for

cartooning. (Master of Arts synthesis project). University of Massachusetts, Boston.

McIntosh, P. (2010). Action research and reflective practice: Creative and visual methods to

facilitate reflection and learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Stone, T. (2010). Managing the design process - Concept development: An essential manual

for the working designer. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.

Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. MIT Press Journals-Design

Issues, 18(1), 49-61.

Other References and Possible Sources for Future Research and Synthesis:

Adams, J.L. (1986). Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas (3rd ed.). Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

  18

De Bono, E. (1967). New think: the use of lateral thinking in the generation of new ideas. New

York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

DeBono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books.

Dorst, K. (2006). Understanding design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Ghilesin, B. (1985). The creative process: Reflections on the invention in the arts and sciences.

University of California Press.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Landa, R. (1998). Thinking creatively: New ways to unlock your visual imagination. Cincinnati,

OH: How Design Books.

Landa, R. & Gonnella, R. (2001). Visual workout: Creativity workbook. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking techniques (2nd ed.).

Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press

Quayle, M. and Paterson, D. (1989). Techniques for Encouraging Reflection in Design. Journal

of Architectural Education, 42(2), 30-42.

Von Oech, R. (1998). A whack on the side of the head: How you can be more creative (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: Warner Books.

Waks, L. (1999). Reflective practice in the design studio and teacher education. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 303-316.