Within the science team, Discussion of Functions both preceded or developed together with Planning of Visual Appearances, suggesting that their visualization and planning of capabilities were closely related processes. In visible artwork and combined teams, Planning of Visual Appearances was essentially the most frequent category, whereas essentially the most prevalent category for scientists was Discussion of Functions, which either preceded or developed together with different Visualization Processes. In distinction to all different teams, the humanities staff didn’t have Planning of Visual Appearances early in the method, however tended to have more planning in direction of the top, and that they had more Product Evaluations on the very beginning and fewer in the direction of the tip of their artistic course of. The blended crew shared many similarities with visible artists, both when it comes to frequency of different protocol categories and their dynamic distribution. In distinction, the teams of visible artists, scientists, as well because the combined crew had been planning visual appearances early in the process, which preceded drawing, and tended to guage and interpret the drawings after their completion. The mixed staff had the very best frequency of Organizational Processes in comparison to other groups, probably because they made an extra effort in coordination of their totally different individuals’ views throughout their artistic course of.
This indicates an important useful function of visualization in creative processes of those teams, according to Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov’s (2010) findings that visual artists and scientists used visual imagery at the very early levels of their work to guide and encourage their additional artistic process. Furthermore, whereas visible art in addition to mixed teams had extra easily and continuously distributed Visualization Processes suggesting the continuous role of visualizations at different phases of artistic course of, the crew of scientists exhibited more discrete and abrupt development of Visualization Processes, suggesting that they use visualization only throughout particular periods of the inventive course of. In contrast, the humanities crew had the other development: their evaluations began at the very starting of the process and dropped at the end. In contrast, the science staff began to discuss capabilities along with Planning of Visual Appearances from the very beginning (the dynamic distribution of these two categories was quite comparable), and eventually dropped at the tip.
The staff of humanities had a distinct frequency profile. Mental Simulations had numerous dynamic frequency fluctuations in numerous groups; however, in the visual art, mixed crew, and science teams, they had been roughly current throughout the whole drawing process, whereas in humanities they had been solely current in several rare occurrences. Discussion of Functions within the visible art, mixed and humanities teams, appeared largely within the middle and at end of their inventive process. Discussion. The results of protocol analyses revealed that each one teams differed of their categories’ frequency profiles and their dynamic distribution, though there have been some similarities between particular groups. Despite the above similarities, there were also marked variations within the categories’ frequency profiles and their dynamic distribution between the workforce of scientists and the visual artwork and blended groups. In contrast, the humanities team didn’t comply with this development, and there was a considerable proportion of Planning of Visual Appearances at the tip of the method. Time spent for planning actions. Humanities crew had nearly no preliminary activities (6% of the total time) and started to draw right after getting the instructions, in distinction to all different groups that spent appreciable amount of time for preliminary activities (visible artwork workforce-51%, science workforce-30%, and combined team-27% of the total time).
Then, using LiNKODER software program (Pourmohamadi & Gero, 2011) we constructed a Linkograph for every group. Forelink Entropy conceptually reflects the thought era alternatives in terms of new initiations that lead to the next ideas, while Backlink Entropy displays the alternatives in constructing upon earlier ideas (Kan & Gero, 2005). Thus, if an thought is completely novel, it is not going to have backlinks, and if an thought is weak and do not provide any foundation for further concept improvement, it can don’t have any forelinks. Two kinds of Entropy may very well be distinguished: Backlink Entropy and Forelink Entropy, which are measured individually in rows of forelinks and backlinks. Figure 3. Linkographs and Entropy dynamics of (a) visual art, (b) science, (c) humanities, (d) mixed teams. Overall, Visualization Processes have been continuously prevalent over non-visual processes and had been relatively equally distributed all through the strategy of drawing for the crew of visible artists in addition to for the mixed team, however less equally distributed for the science and humanities teams.