A sweet new way to make some noise
Play it. Share it. Make a beat.
A pair of percussion sticks made entirely from marshmallows.
Meet the clapsticks ↘
our first sketch!01 / EXPLORE
Meet the clapsticks, explore the design and discover who they are for.
PRODUCT / OVERVIEW & FEATURES
Marshmallow Clapsticks turn a familiar rhythm activity into a playful rhythm experience. Tap the sticks, explore the sound and share the moment.
PRODUCT / HOW IT WORKS
The pink stick is compressed more tightly. The blue stick keeps more air inside. Different densities create different sounds.
STICK A · HIGH DENSITY
STICK B · MEDIUM DENSITY
Prepare the soft marshmallow texture.
Build even layers and roll a long cylinder.
Use different pressure for different densities.
Smooth, tap and compare the sound.
PRODUCT / THREE EXPERIENCES
Our product can create a short emotional response, support a positive mood and produce visible signs of enjoyment.
EMOTION · SHORT RESPONSE
Emotion is a feeling caused by a specific event.
The unusual idea of a marshmallow instrument makes people want to look closer, touch it and discover how it works.
MOOD · LASTING FEELING
Mood lasts longer and is less connected to one clear trigger.
Making rhythms together creates an energetic, playful and positive mood for the whole group.
AFFECT · VISIBLE EXPRESSION
Affect is how feelings are shown through the face, voice and body.
Bright eyes, smiles and trying different tapping movements show curiosity and enjoyment.
PRODUCT / WHO IT’S FOR
Creative music and learning activities.
A starting point for respectful discussion and creativity.
Friendly, hands-on group experiences.
Simple play to enjoy together.
02 / EXPLORE
The idea, the people and the motivation behind our project.
OUR STORY & TEAM / OUR IDEA
Our idea began with a simple question: what if we made a rhythm instrument entirely from marshmallows?
We combined a two-stick rhythm interaction with a completely different material—marshmallows—to create an experience that connects sound, creativity and an unexpected material.
Marshmallow Clapsticks is a student innovation concept. It does not copy or replace the cultural meaning of traditional clapsticks.
OUR STORY & TEAM / FOUR ROLES
Each role matches the way we can best support the project.
Team Coordinator
Keeps our ideas, tasks and discussions connected.
Presenter
Explains our product clearly and brings energy.
Research
Checks information and keeps our ideas practical.
Team Support
Listens, helps others and supports each task.
OUR STORY & TEAM / TEAM JOURNEY
Motivation is the force that starts, guides and keeps our behaviour going. Our project is shaped by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
FROM WITHIN
Our intrinsic motivation comes from the interest and satisfaction of the innovation process itself. We are curious about turning ordinary marshmallows into something that can be shaped, tapped and played.
FROM AROUND US
Our extrinsic motivation comes from results and recognition. We hope to receive useful feedback and show that our creativity and teamwork have practical value.
Curiosity made us want to try the idea. Designing and testing kept the work enjoyable. Feedback and recognition gave us another reason to improve it. Together, these internal and external factors moved our team from an unusual question to a product concept we could share.
03 / EXPLORE
Reflecting on our teamwork through organisational behaviour.
TEAM REFLECTION / WEEK 7
Learning to make room for different views.
In a product design discussion in the early stage of the project, the team needed to determine the number of grams of marshmallows needed to make a set of Marshmallow Clapsticks. As a Researcher, Haolin had doubts about the number used at that time, but because the team had just started to cooperate and the members were not familiar enough, he was worried that directly questioning the judgment of other members might cause embarrassment, so he did not raise it immediately at first. Later, after other members took the initiative to ask for his research opinions, he proposed the need to re-verify the amount of marshmallows, and the team also further checked and adjusted the relevant information.
Psychological safety means feeling safe to ask questions, share different views and take interpersonal risks. Haolin’s hesitation illustrates how low psychological safety can limit open communication and knowledge sharing.
Social Facilitation Theory considers how the presence of others can influence individual performance. Week 7 presents social facilitation as a potential process gain. It offers a further lens for considering Haolin’s participation during group discussions. However, his greater willingness to speak after receiving encouragement mainly supports the psychological safety explanation; it does not, by itself, show that others’ presence improved his task performance.
Haolin's initial hesitation meant that the team did not immediately recheck the amount of marshmallows required for each set of Clapsticks. This delayed the revision of product information, and also reflects how the limited Psychological Safety affects knowledge sharing and team decision-making.
Later, other members took the initiative to ask Haolin's opinion. He raised questions about the amount of marshmallows, and the team then rechecked and adjusted the relevant information together. This positive response made him realize that questioning an idea is not considered a criticism of the individual, so in subsequent discussions, he became more willing to share research results and different views.
This problem has improved so far, but maintaining Psychological Safety still requires the continuous efforts of the team. From this experience, the team realized that it is necessary to actively invite members to ask questions and respond in a constructive way so that potential issues can be raised earlier, while making full use of each member's expertise.
Course concepts: MGMT2007, Week 7 — Psychological safety (slides 11–12); Social facilitation (slide 20).
TEAM REFLECTION / WEEK 9
Using feedback to rethink our message and make a better decision.
When we first discussed the Marshmallow Clapsticks website, we wanted the product to create both a rhythm activity and a social experience. We thought that sharing marshmallows could encourage interaction, so we included “Edible” as a feature in the first draft.
This decision made sense to us as designers, but we did not fully consider how an external evaluator might interpret it. Dr EY Song later reminded us by email to focus on the innovation of the product itself, rather than the existing edible properties of marshmallows. The key decision then became whether to keep our original promotional message or change it in response to this feedback.
This incident reflects Framing Bias, that is, decision-makers pay excessive attention to specific aspects of a situation and ignore other relevant factors. At first, the team mainly focused on the positive effect of edible on social interaction, but did not fully consider that external evaluators might understand it as an innovative selling point of the product.
Bounded Rationality (Simon, 1972) further explains this phenomenon. Due to the limitations of time, information and cognitive ability, decision-makers often make judgments based on a few criteria. Our team mainly evaluates edible based on social values, without fully considering the audience's understanding and publicity effect.
Therefore, Framing Bias explains why the team focuses on the positive aspects of edible, while Bounded Rationality explains why the team relies on limited judgment criteria. Both of them limit the comprehensiveness of the initial decision-making.
The original message risked blurring the product’s core innovation and created extra revision work. After receiving the email, we re-examined the promotional focus together. We recognised that our intention to encourage social interaction did not guarantee that an evaluator would understand the message in the same way.
We therefore changed the question guiding our decision. Instead of only asking how edibility could support interaction, we considered how the website could communicate the product’s innovative value more clearly. We decided to remove the promotional claims about edibility and focus on tapping together, creating rhythms and social interaction.
The change was more than a wording edit: external feedback helped us reconsider the frame behind our original judgment. We kept the goal of a shared social experience, but changed how we communicated it. This shows how feedback can improve a team decision when members use it to reassess their assumptions.
We learned that a reasonable design intention can still lead to a biased promotional decision. Before agreeing on future content, we will evaluate each claim from three perspectives: social value, innovation and audience understanding. Each member will consider both what we intend to communicate and how someone outside the team might interpret it. We will compare these views and check for possible misunderstandings before publishing.
When we receive external feedback, we will use these same perspectives to reconsider the reasoning behind a claim as well as its wording. Our response to the teacher’s email improved this decision, but it does not prove that the bias has disappeared. Keeping this review process will help us question our first impressions and make better decisions together.
Course concepts: MGMT2007, Week 9 — Framing Bias and Bounded Rationality. Simon (1972) is cited in the team’s original Story 2 document.
TEAM REFLECTION / OVERALL REFLECTION
Our Week 7 experience showed us that assigning roles is only part of effective teamwork. Members also need to feel able to use their expertise and question ideas. We want to keep inviting different views, discussing concerns respectfully and checking whether our discussions lead to better decisions.