Barriers to Creativity in Engineering Education: a Study of Instructors and Students Perceptions

Home , Creative synthesis

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245366675

Barriers to Creativity in Engineering Education: A Study of Instructors and Students Perceptions

Article in Journal of Mechanical Design · July 2007 DOI: 10.1115/1.2739569

CITATIONS READS 158 2,294

2 authors, including:

Kazem Kazerounian University of Connecticut

69 PUBLICATIONS 938 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Systematic Design and Analysis of Artificial Molecular Machines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kazem Kazerounian on 21 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Barriers to Creativity in Engineering Education: A Study of Instructors and Students Kazem Kazerounian Professor Fellow ASME Perceptions

Stephany Foley This paper studies “creativity” in engineering education, by examining the perception of NSF Graduate Fellow instructors and students. We aim to identify factors that impede a creative environment (creativity blockers). The study entails a review of established research in the ﬁelds of Department of Mechanical Engineering, psychology and educational psychology to identify factors which create an educational University of Connecticut, environment conducive to creativity. These factors are formalized in the Ten Maxims of Storrs, CT 06269-3139 Creativity in Education, a set of criteria that constitute an educational environment conducive to fostering creativity in students. These maxims form the basis for our work in examining the contemporary engineering education. Extensive surveys are designed, cre- ated, distributed, and statistically quantiﬁed to study the perceptions of engineering educators and students, in comparison to nonengineering educators and students. The results unfortunately show that current engineering students experience almost none of the Ten Maxims of Creativity as part of their academic experiences. ͓DOI: 10.1115/1.2739569͔

1 Introduction nuclear era, cold war, energy crisis, and emergence of computers began to transform engineering education. More complex applica- Creativity is a prerequisite in any ingenious design: the harvest tions exceeded the limits of the engineers’ intuitions and de- of electricity; the airplane; the Apollo program; the silicon chip; the internet. Time and again, America has proven that creativity manded a superior mastery of the natural and mathematical sci- results in design and technological breakthroughs that change the ences. The paragon of engineering education became one in which course of human history. The history of achievements reveals a students entered a program well-versed in mathematics and sci- process in which knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences and graduated with an even greater mastery of these areas. ences converged with the skills of critical judgment and creativity, The pendulum had swung to the opposite side, with theoretical an understanding of economics, the adoption of iterative processes aspects of engineering predominating. Engineers were being that embrace failure, and the desire to create technological trained just like scientists. miracles. This amalgamation is now known as “engineering.” To In the late 1980s, experts in industry began to question the foster and further evolve this legacy of engineering ingenuity, it is pedagogical premises of “knowledge transfer.” Their assessment critical that we educate engineers to be creative thinkers and edu- was negative. Engineers, they claimed, generally lacked the skills cators. This fact is repeatedly echoed by educators, industrial needed to excel in an increasingly competitive environment. They managers, professional associations, national academies, and po- cited skills relating to critical thinking, team dynamics, societal litical leaders. If creativity is so central to engineering, why is it and cultural awareness, communication, creativity, problem solv- not an obvious part of the engineering curriculum at every univer- ing, economic analysis, and so on; skills that scientists were rarely sity? Part of the answer might come from reviewing the history of expected to have mastered. In response to these criticisms, educa- engineering education in the United States and Europe. Engineer- tors responsible for designing engineering programs, first in the ing education in Europe and the United States has gone through at United States, then in Europe and finally in other parts of the least three distinct phases in the past 50 years. The nature of these world, renewed their attempts to strengthen the “design compo- phases, in turn, largely defined the perception and implementation nent” of engineering curricula. Executing this transformation of creative thinking in engineering education. proved more difficult than they had anticipated. The “design com- ponents” they introduced were, in most cases, scarcely more than 1.1 The Historical Phases of Engineering Education in exercises in the rigorous synthesis of various applications of the Western Countries. Soon after World War II in the United States same fundamental sciences. Many engineering educators felt very and in Great Britain, large numbers of war veterans with signifi- uncomfortable abandoning a structured and rigorous scientific cant informal, hands-on technical training entered formal engi- paradigm and adopting the more flexible approach required in neering programs and shaped the culture and pedagogical para- “design.” Nowhere was this more apparent than in The Accredi- digms of engineering education. In the 1950s and early 1960s, in tation Board for Engineering and Technology’s ͑ABET’s͒ design the United States and in Europe, engineering education heavily requirements for engineering curricula in the 1980s ͓1,2͔, which emphasized learning by doing and hands-on skills. As a result, ironically spelled out a very rigid ͑and quantifiable͒ method for students emerged from these programs as highly trained engineer- eliciting “creativity.” ing technologists who were able to produce practical, workable In the 1990s, the evolution of engineering education continued. systems and technical machines. Engineering schools in Asia and Over the past decade, ABET advanced a major reform effort de- the Middle East adopted similar approaches. signed to encourage curricular innovation and to improve the ac- In the late 1960s, the 1970s and early 1980s, the space race, creditation process. These efforts have given rise to new criteria for evaluating engineering programs, Engineering Criteria 2000 ͑EC2000͓͒3͔, which have once again shifted the emphasis of Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received October 4, 2006; engineering curricula, this time moving away from using pre- final manuscript received February 28, 2007. Review conducted by Clive L. Dym. scribed measures and toward evaluating student outcomes in a

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm process of continuous self-assessment and improvement. Al- taking risks. Without learning to fail, students have an un- though the subject of creativity is not addressed directly in the realistic view of what the engineering profession is truly ͑EC2000͒, these new accreditation criteria have sparked much de- about. bate among engineering educators and have significantly pro- • Curiosity, inherent in those who actually choose to be engi- moted interest in engineering education and its challenges and neers, has been limited to “how something works” rather consequences ͓4–7͔. than the equally important “if something could work” in the school environment. Regurgitating known solutions has become the norm without the balance of allowing students to 1.2 Our Hypothesis: Creativity is Not Valued in the Con- keep that sense of wonder. temporary Engineering Education. It is our belief that despite • The majority of the engineering faculty are educated them- the intense efforts toward embracing creativity in engineering selves in very structured programs in which scientific and education in recent years, progress has not been significant. Very mathematical accuracy was the unequivocally dominant fac- often, creative work by the students is viewed by faculty as an tor. The current administrative philosophies in the schools of excuse for sloppy work. They believe that engineering is serious engineering and the evaluation, tenure and reward systems business that demands tedious attention to details and an absolute for the engineering faculty, further encourages such struc- need for accuracy. Often, embracing ambiguity and exercising tured mindsets. flexibility is equated with holding lower standards. Even in the • Women constitute a small minority among the engineering design process in assigned projects, faculty require the students to faculty. According to the American Association of Univer- mostly follow well-proven design techniques that they have cov- sity Women, they constitute between 3% and 15% of the ered in the text books or lectures rather than challenge students to engineering faculty ͓8,9͔. There is solid researched evidence think through a new process or innovate a unique solution. that diversity and creativity of an environment are strongly Further, although we have not been able to find any authorita- linked ͓10͔. tive research in the literature, we believe that the factors and the • Infusion of design activities in the engineering curricula has environment that impede creativity are far more profound and been in practice mostly limited to “synthesis” exercises us- dominant in the engineering education than they are in sciences ing known methodologies. Capstone design projects in the education and naturally far more than those in liberal arts educa- senior year are very valuable exercises that widen the view tion. A few engineering programs represent notable exceptions to for engineering students. However this stops far short of this but they remain just that; exceptional, and the differences embracing and harvesting creativity as an integral part of seem to have more to do with the individual instructors than with their four-year college education in engineering. the overall curriculum. Through our informal interviews with engineering faculty and 1.3 Our Approach. This paper entails some of the outcomes students, and reflections on our own experiences as educators, we of a study at the University of Connecticut. The overriding goals have established anecdotal evidence that identifies some creativity of this study are to determine the factors that define, impede, or blockers in engineering education. Although this evidence cannot foster creativity in engineering education, its social and techno- be considered scientific or statistically significant data, they led us logical consequences, and to develop, test, and recommend modi- to form the hypothesis ͑conjecture͒ that is the premise of our fications to the engineering curriculum that facilitate embracing work: Creativity is not valued in contemporary engineering edu- creativity. This paper looks specifically at the current status quo at cation. To examine the validity of this conjuncture, we have un- the University of Connecticut’s School of Engineering which we dertaken a more formal study as described in this paper. Examples believe is a good example of mainstream engineering education in of the anecdotal comment we received were: the United States. To validate or disprove our hypothesis, the focus of this paper is on the followings • Engineering is serious business, engineers must be accurate not creative. 1. Identify factors and traits that delineate creativity, as appro- • Creativity leads to chaos and disorder in the school and later priate to education based on established research in the fields to design uncertainties and therefore legal liabilities in prac- of psychology, educational psychology, and in current cre- tice. ative work practices of innovative product designers. • Creative behavior contradicts or violates academic standards 2. Evaluate the self-perception of engineering as well as non- at school and national engineering standards in practice, engineering faculty of how they may or may not elicit cre- standards that are results of tens of years of experience. ativity in their classrooms. • Musicians, artists, and poets do not build automobiles, 3. Evaluate engineering students as well as nonengineering stu- bridges, and cell phones. dents on how they perceive factors contributing to creativity • Anyone can produce a draft design. Engineers must only use in their educational environment. fundamentally sound equations and established procedures 4. Identify the specific factors ͑if any͒ that impede creativity in and precedents to design. engineering education and determine whether they are more • Engineers cannot take risks. The example of building or less prevalent in engineering education than in other dis- bridges, making mistakes, and loss of lives comes up often. ciplines. 5. Use these factors that impede creativity to suggest recom- We also received critiques of the status quo from some col- mendations to modify the engineering classroom experience leagues. Some are noteworthy: to include creativity development. • The typical engineering program teaches that there is a 2 What is Creativity? known correct answer that we are aiming toward and that we should find this particular answer as quickly and effi- 2.1 Intrinsic Creativity. A large body of knowledge exits in ciently as possible. the psychology literature on the definition of, and traits that con- • There is no room for the student to wonder, discover, and stitute creativity, ͓11–23͔. Sternberg lists 61 different definition of innovate. “creativity” ͓15͔ from various viewpoints including those of be- • Engineering programs tend to be highly competitive and havioral psychology, social psychology, cognitive science, phi- sufficient grades are very important, in fact grades will losophy, design research, innovation, and many others. Psycho- likely determine whether a student can stay in the program. logical research ͓20,22͔ has shown that most people have a similar Although it may be a valuable experience to learn to work implicit definition of creativity. When being creative, a person under pressure, such restrictions also inhibit students from tends to take chances ͓14,19͔; to have the ability to make unique

762 / Vol. 129, JULY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm connections between ideas ͓12͔; to be flexible and imaginative the use of proper brainstorming techniques and problem solving ͓12,15,17͔; to question the normative ways of doing things ͓11͔; methodologies. As a result, engineering students were able to de- and to be motivated, intuitive, and inquisitive ͓14͔. The expression sign an innovative product. This concept was further verified by a of these creative tendencies depends largely on the type of setting study at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at National or field in which creativity is being studied ͓14,16,20͔. One en- Central University in Taiwan ͓46͔. This Taiwan study integrates compassing definition of creativity recently offered by education the teaching of creative problem solving into a sample mechanical ͓ ͔ researchers Plucker et al. 24 : “Creativity is the interaction engineering classroom. Students were required to solve open- among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual ended problems using the method stemming from Wallas’s four or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and stages of creative problem solving: 1. preparation—research on useful social context as defined within a .” A simpler and less the problem, 2. incubation—leaving the problem in your mind for formal definition of creativity is the ability to generate new ideas some time, 3. illumination—when the solution emerges and be- or new association between existing ideas. Even simpler, a more comes clear, and 4. verification—verifying that it works ͓47͔. Stu- intuitive definition is the ability to make new things. dents in the study self-reported increased curiosity and ambition 2.2 Fostering Creativity. With the physiological definition of but instructors negatively commented that “students might under- intrinsic creativity, as discussed previously, in mind, in this paper stand the theories and procedures they learned in class, but ͓are͔ we focus on the environment and the attitudes that foster creativ- unable to transfer it to the design of the project” ͓46͔. In both the ity from a cross section of psychology, education, and engineering Louisiana State study and the Taiwan study limited incorporation practice ͓11,25–36͔. Although some teachers may believe that stu- of creative techniques was followed with small but encouraging dents enter into programs as creative or noncreative ͑i.e., that this success. is an individual difference that cannot be changed͒, psychological Other research suggests that an engineering education may sup- research ͓34–36͔ strongly supports the notion that creativity and press creative personality characteristics but that engineers can insight can be nurtured within the educational context. One way unleash this innate creativity in the right environment. Douglas that creativity can be augmented is through increasing the rewards Wilde of Stanford University concluded that engineering educa- ͓ ͔ of creative output 14,19 . Contrary to early works that stressed tion has been shown to inherently block creative potential ͓31͔. that rewards would decrease both intrinsic motivation and creativ- His brief study measured the Creativity Index ͑CI͒ computed from ͓ ͔ ity 17,37 , more recent research has shown that when the rewards the Myers–Briggs Type Indicators of participants in an ASEE for creativity are salient and instructions to the students are clear, ͑ ͒ ͓ ͔ American Society for Engineering Education creativity work- rewards increase creativity 38,39 with an increase in extrinsic shop. The mean CI of participants showed an increase after par- motivation and no decrease in intrinsic motivation. Moreover, ticipants were in the open and creativity-friendly atmosphere of Eisenberger and Rhoades ͓39͔ found that when either students or the workshop. As he found that under ordinary circumstances per- employees within the workplace believed there was a strong con- sonality type is immutable, Wilde attributed these changes not to a nection between high performance and reward they felt increased self-determination ͑or the ability to determine their own out- change in the personality type but to the workshop atmosphere comes͒ and this led to more creativity in the classroom and work- unmasking the creative traits of the true personality type which place environment. had been suppressed by participants’ engineering education. Two This leads to a second and more complex issue which is important points are recognized in Wilde’s study. First, that engi- whether students are more focused on potential high achievement neering education might be suppressing creativity even in natu- versus avoiding low grades. Although these may seem similar, rally creative people and second, that creative potential can be psychological research has shown that ͓40–42͔ whether students unleashed in the right environment. take a “promotion” ͑also called an “approach”͒ focus versus a But do engineers have personalities that are inherently less cre- “prevention” ͑also called an “avoidance”͒ focus affects their lev- ative? This is not true according to a study at Monash University els of creativity and problem solving. When researchers manipu- in Melbourne, Australia ͓26͔. This study suggests that it is actually lated the learning environment such that students felt it is more the environment of the engineering programs that hampers cre- accepting of risky behavior, students’ creativity increased ͓29–32͔. ativity and further recommends that we apply creativity encour- Students were more excited about the potential to excel and less agement approaches from the business world to engineering edu- worried about the possibility of failure ͓36,39͔. On the other hand, cation. Hadgraft compares the idea of total quality in business to when the environment reinforces the penalties for failure, students that of problem-based learning in education, suggesting “more become more prevention focused and, therefore, less creative in balance towards the needs of real work engineers, and not aca- their work. The cues in the classroom environment that foster a demic engineers.” Hadgraft also recommends a total focus on a more creative, promotion focus can be quite subtle ͓41͔. creative environment for the entire department—students, faculty, and staff—is necessary. 2.3 Creativity in Engineering Education. The literature on Rare but successful individual engineering courses that offer the study of creativity in engineering education is far more sparse students opportunity for creativity have been recognized by engi- compared to psychological or general educational studies on cre- ͓ ͔ ativity. Nevertheless, several important points and observations neering educators 48 . This paper studies engineering courses at exist in the literature about creativity in engineering education. the University of Iowa, the University of Nevada–Reno, the U.S. Some of the earlier work on creativity in modern engineering Naval Academy, and Olin College. In these courses problem- education includes the works on creative engineering synthesis based learning is enlisted to help encourage creative thought by ͓43͔ and innovation in engineering ͓44͔. students. Following the recommendations of Dr. Paul Torrence ͓ ͔ More recent studies have already taught us that innovative be- 48 , a renowned creativity researcher, some of these courses in- havior in engineering students can be increased if students are clude creativity fostering approaches such as “looking at some- offered a few specific creative problem solving methodologies to thing from several different psychological, sociological, physical, follow ͓33͔ or if students are given individual creativity assess- or emotional points of view,” “tasks structured only enough to ments that expose weaknesses or gaps in creativity potential and give clues and direction,” “going beyond the obvious encour- address individual creativity blockers ͓45͔. A study at the Louisi- aged.” Unfortunately these courses remain the exception rather ana State University attempted to teach engineering students how than the rule. to use critical and creative thinking skills simultaneously, while The bottom line is that the literature shows that creativity is designing a product or solving an open-ended problem ͓33͔. Strat- possible for engineering students. The next step is to identify what egies offered to the students included a user role-playing exercise, the impediments are to creativity in engineering education.

Journal of Mechanical Design JULY 2007, Vol. 129 / 763

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm 3 The Ten Maxims of Creativity in Education a sensible risk in the form of low grades or lack of recognition for the higher difficulty of a risky project. Educators who give con- Based on a large body of literature on creativity, our own ex- structive critique of a risky project can encourage creative solu- perience, as well as interviews with successful innovators, indus- tions. trial designers, and practicing engineers, a list of ten factors that constitute and foster a creative educational paradigm is proposed 3.8 Search for Multiple Answers. Creativity is encouraged in this paper. We call these factors the Maxims of Creativity in when students look beyond one correct answer. Educators can Education and we propose that these maxims constitute an educa- teach proper brainstorming as well as requiring alternate solutions tional environment conducive to fostering creativity in students. after a correct answer is determined by students. “What if” sce- These maxims form the basis for our work in judging current narios for a moment of freedom from practical thinking can also engineering education. be used to generate creative problem solvers. A note of caution: This list is not the result of our original research in the psychology of creativity. Almost all of the pro- 3.9 Internal Motivation. Students are more creative when posed maxims, in one form or another, either explicitly or implic- internally motivated in their studies. Educators can foster a deeper itly, and with alternative terminologies and expressions, have been sense of interest or deeper curiosity by making a topic relatable. studied in the cited literature. The maxims should not be examined Emphasizing how the understanding of a topic will affect the stu- from a viewpoint of mathematical accuracy. A list that has half as dent beyond class requirements and grades can also help with many or twice as many criteria might be as or even more effec- motivation. This stronger grasp of the topic can allow for creativ- tive. Last, these maxims should not be considered as an ad hoc ity. and arbitrary conjecture either. As indicated earlier, this proposed 3.10 Ownership of Learning. Students reveal creative ability list is a unique compilation and culminating result of an extensive when they feel some ownership of or control over their learning literature search, our own experience, and extensive discussions process. This control can range from students having a choice in with a broad spectrum of educators and practitioners. project topics to participation in individual curriculum develop- 3.1 Keep an Open Mind. Students can be taught creativity ment. This greater investment can unleash creative potential. by learning to see common things in a new light; this pushes students to understand that the best answer may not be the most 4 Determining the Factors Impeding Creativity- obvious one but rather something unexpected. Brain teasers and Surveys riddles are simple examples. Numerous attempts have been made to develop a creativity 3.2 Ambiguity is Good. Students can be taught that the un- quotient of an individual similar to the intelligence quotient ͑IQ͒. comfortable period between getting the question and the answer However a recent study shows that these attempts have been should be tolerated. Keeping a possible answer just out of reach mostly unsuccessful ͓49͔ and many dependent on the personal for a while allows for more thought on a topic and for a greater judgment of the tester. Our approach was to examine the creativity wealth of information to be collected before a decision or answer and its impediment factors in the contemporary engineering edu- is made. During the process discoveries are made and innovation cation through examining the perception of instructors and stu- can happen. The opposite is giving a set answer or process dents on the value they place on creativity and their self- quickly. This greatly limits the possibility of innovation. perception on the practices in their classrooms. For this purpose, surveys ͓50,51͔ were prepared to question 3.3 Iterative Process that Includes Idea Incubation. A cre- students and instructors at the University of Connecticut. Survey ative process can occur in stages: preparation, incubation, illumi- ͓ ͔ questions attempted to uncover the presence or absence of the nation, and verification 47 . Time must be allowed for this pro- creativity criteria in the classroom settings. Each survey question cess: ͑1͒ to collect a wealth of information and understanding ͑ ͒ was linked to one or more of the Ten Maxims of Creativity. Two surrounding a given problem, 2 to incubate the idea or relax and separate surveys targeted students and instructors in three general “back burner” the problem so that the student can have uncon- academic areas: engineering, science, and humanities. The engi- scious thought dedicated to discovery of a solution, ͑3͒ to discover ͑ ͒ neering group consisted of mechanical, biomedical, electrical, a working solution or solutions, and finally 4 to test discovered computer, civil, environmental, materials, and chemical engineer- solutions. All steps are equally important and the concept of back ing. The “science” group was comprised of math, physics, chem- burnering an idea is essential. istry, computer science, and biology majors. The “humanities” 3.4 Reward for Creativity. Educators can encourage creativ- group was comprised of education, anthropology, and language ity by explicitly rewarding it. Behaviorists believe creativity to be majors. Over 400 students ͑sophomore through senior͒ were sur- a response to positive reinforcement. If innovative solutions are veyed. Instructor surveys totaled 75. rewarded the student will be more likely to strive for an innova- Every single one of the questions for each discipline group tive solution. If only a set answer is rewarded students are un- resulted in a statistically normal distribution. Principal compo- likely to bother thinking beyond the offered solution. nents factor analyses were conducted in order to ascertain the factor structure and the correlating factors. MINITAB platform was 3.5 Lead by Example. Students will also learn creativity by used for this purpose. The details of the statistical analysis as well example or inspiration. Educators can share with students, stories as the distribution of answers to each question are included in Ref. of the innovators in their field and how progress has been made in ͓50͔. For each question, groups of students: engineering, science, the field in the past. and humanities were compared in order to determine if there was 3.6 Learning to Fail. Mistakes can lead to deeper topic un- an overall single trend in the questions for all students or whether derstanding and innovation. But when students fear harsh disci- the groups differed. Groups were compared question by question. pline for mistakes during the learning process their environment is Particular attention was paid to questions revealing absence of no longer conducive to exploration and discovery. Learning how the corresponding creativity criteria for engineers as well as a something does NOT work offers insights into how it MIGHT strong disagreement with other student groups. This tells us where work. Educators who allow this temporary failure practically en- engineering students were uniquely missing an opportunity for courage innovative solutions by students. creative expression in their academic experience. The process used to analyze the student data was repeated for 3.7 Encouraging Risk. Risk-taking is considered a personal- the instructor groups as well. Additionally, the creativity criteria ity trait of creative individuals. But sensible risk-taking can be revealed to be missing by students in each group by the above- discouraged by educators who create a strong negative impact for mentioned process was compared to criteria revealed to be miss-

764 / Vol. 129, JULY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm Fig. 1 Creativity criteria perceived by instructors in various disciplines to be absent from the educational experience

ing by instructors in that same group. Several instances occurred where within a group, instructor and students disagreed as to which of the criteria were being provided to students. Some of the survey results are presented graphically in Figs. 1–3. Please note that the numbers in diagrams correspond to the Ten Maxims of Creativity in Education list. Figures 1–3 show those criteria perceived to be missing. Therefore numbers within each group’s circle indicate the absence of particular criteria for that group. The following immediate observations can be made directly from the Venn diagrams: Fig. 3 Creativity criteria perceived by instructors and students in various disciplines to be absent from the educational • Out of the three groups of students and instructors surveyed: experience engineering, sciences, and humanities; engineering students and instructors have the greatest number of disconnects or instances where students feel a creativity criteria is absent veys only overlapped when they were agreeing that a but instructors do not report this same criteria absent ͑seven creativity criterion was absent from their educational disconnects for the engineering group versus ﬁve for the experience. science group and three for the humanities group͒. ͑c͒ Science students tended to fall in the middle ground • Engineering students report by far the greatest number of between engineering students and humanities stu- absent creativity criteria ͑9 out of 10 versus science: 6 out of dents. 10 and humanities: 2 out of 10͒. ͑d͒ Engineering students and humanities students only • Agreement versus disagreement between engineering, sci- agreed on a question in the survey when all students ence, and humanities—student surveys: ͑engineering, science, and humanities͒ agreed on a ͑ ͒ point, i.e. only when it was a common issue for all a There was never an instance in the surveys when en- students. gineering students felt a creativity criteria was present in their education and science and humanity students Other interesting general conclusions on the perceived value of also did not feel it was present; meaning engineering creativity were revealed in these surveys: students did not report any unique strong point on the creativity criteria list. • All groups of students report that they themselves valued ͑b͒ Science student surveys and engineering student sur- creativity. • Student perception of how instructors value creativity var- ied: ͑a͒ Engineering students felt that instructors did not value creativity. ͑b͒ Humanities students felt that instructors did value creativity. ͑c͒ Science students’ answers were inconclusive.

• All groups of instructors report value in creativity but they did not all uniformly see creativity in their students: ͑a͒ All instructor groups reported that they value creativity in their students. ͑b͒ Humanities instructors see creativity in students. ͑c͒ Engineering and science instructors did not see creativity in students.

5 Discussion of the Survey Results With a Focus on Engineering Students Fig. 2 Creativity criteria perceived by students in various dis- A closer look at the observations made for the engineering stu- ciplines to be absent from the educational experience dents reveals noteworthy indications. There are four common

Journal of Mechanical Design JULY 2007, Vol. 129 / 765

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm threads among the creativity maxims and what these maxims im- dents who choose a riskier stance on projects and that they en- ply. The common threads or groupings are: Criteria that determine courage students to be creative. They do not however report that a thought process students can learn to use ͑maxim #1 and #2͒; they explicitly reward creativity in projects. This last fact may criteria that determine steps in students work process ͑maxims #3 explain why criteria #4 ͑reward for creativity͒ is absent as re- and #8͒; criteria that provide a teaching/learning process instruc- ported by engineering students. Engineering students report that tors can supply ͑maxim #4, #6, and #7͒; criteria that provides they do not feel instructors value an unexpected answer and that motivation and inspiration for students ͑maxim #5, #9, and #10͒. professors do not reward creativity with a good grade. 5.1 Thought Process for Students. 5.2.2 Learning to Fail (Maxim of Creativity #6). Not surpris- ingly, surveys revealed that all students ͑engineering, science, and 5.1.1 Keep an Open Mind (Maxim of Creativity #1). Engineer- humanities͒ feel this creativity criteria is missing from their edu- ing students uniquely perceive a strong weakness in thinking with cation. Students are concerned about grades. All student groups an open mind when doing their work. They report that they have report that they fear that a wrong answer on homework will nega- not learned to think of problems in a new and unusual way and tively affect grades and that they are afraid to make mistakes on that they are not encouraged to think freely about problems as homework and tests even if they feel they have still learned an assigned problems have known solutions they are expected to re- important lesson in the process. Getting a good grade supersedes peat. Inconsistent with this student view, engineering instructors satisfaction in learning a lesson. Additionally, engineering and sci- report that they feel it is valuable for students to try many, even ence students are afraid to answer questions during class if they unusual, methods to a problem solution and that they feel they might get the answer wrong. show students examples of problems with unexpected solutions. Where is the instructor/student disconnect on this creativity crite- 5.2.3 Encouraging Risk (Maxim of Creativity #7). Not unlike ria? The problem seems to lie in the type of assignments given to explicitly rewarding for creativity ͑creativity criteria #4͒ and al- engineering students more than the in-class experience. Assign- lowing students initial failures ͑creativity criteria #6͒, promoting ments usually have a known solution students are expected to risk guides students through an open and encouraging learning recognize and regurgitate rather than use learned tools to draw process. Both engineering and science students report that profes- their own unique conclusions. Although this is sufficient for train- sors do not encourage them to take risks on assignments. This lack ing capable engineers it is not effective for developing innovative of encouragement toward risk is strongly linked to students feel- thinkers. ing that professors do not value unexpected answers. And like creativity criteria #6 ͑learning to fail͒ what students do not want to 5.1.2 Ambiguity is Good (Maxim of Creativity #2). All student risk is a good grade. Similar to other creativity criteria in this groups reported that they thought mulling over an assignment is a section ͑criteria #4 and #6͒ engineering instructors do not report waste of time; they would rather just get to the answer. This this as absent from the students’ education experience, instead makes sense for engineering students as their instructors reported reporting that they strongly encourage students to take risks on that they often push students to more quickly come to the point of homework and projects. a project because they need to learn the value of working effi- ciently. The idea of staying in an open-ended state of thought for 5.3 Encouraging Motivation and Inspiration. as long as possible seemed foreign to most engineers. What this means for engineering students is that they are not being given the 5.3.1 Lead by Example (Maxim of Creativity #5). Sharing ex- opportunity to keep the answer just out of reach, allowing more amples of innovators can encourage like behavior in students. thought on a topic and time for a greater wealth of information to However, both engineering and science students report they do not be collected and innovation to happen. learn about innovative people in their field from professors. As professors in these same fields report that they do indeed relate 5.1.3 Iterative Process that Includes Idea Incubation (Maxim stories of innovators to their students, we have yet another discon- of Creativity #3). Engineering students uniquely lacked this crite- nect that does not exist between humanities students and instruc- ria. Engineering students did not show any knowledge of this tors. process particularly the “incubation” step in the Wallas creative thinking stages ͓47͔ that contributed to development of maxim #3. 5.3.2 Internal Motivation (Maxim of Creativity #9). Only en- This step is where an idea is allowed to sit with a student for a gineering and science instructors report a lack of evidence of in- while so that it can be thought about while doing other activities ternal motivation for students. These instructors report students ͑i.e., back burner the idea͒. Contrary to science and humanities are assigned identical assignments leaving individual student in- students, engineering students report that they did not take time to terest out of the equation and that students are unlikely to chal- discover a solution by back burnering the idea for a period. Engi- lenge things taught in class, revealing a lack of engagement on the neering instructors report that they like to assign projects as far students’ parts. None of the groups of students reported internal ahead of the due date as possible. This process was similarly motivation missing from their education. revealed in the discussion of creativity criteria #2 ͑Ambiguity is 5.3.3 Ownership of Education (Maxim of Creativity #10). En- good͒. Science and humanities students acknowledged the concept gineering and science students both report that they do not have of back burnering an idea when working on a project suggesting enough room for elective classes and that they don’t have any that they do indeed have a different work process than engineering input into class choices in their field. Conversely even though students. humanities instructors reported students taking their class as part 5.1.4 Search for Multiple Answers (Maxim of Creativity #8). of a requirement, humanities students reported a feeling of own- Engineering students and instructors both agree that creativity cri- ership of their educational process in the form of elective class teria #8 ͑search for multiple answers͒ is missing from engineering selection, plenty of input in class choices, and ease of tailoring a education. Engineering students uniquely perceive this criteria to program to their specific needs. be absent from their education. Humanities students report that they feel professors have taught them there is always more than 6 Summary of Key Survey Results one right answer. Open-ended assignments and the search for mul- Several key results are contained within the discussion. tiple answers are more common in humanities classes. 5.2 Teaching/Learning Style Conducive to Creativity. • Engineering instructors are doing an insufficient job of passing on creativity inducements to students. The surveys sug- 5.2.1 Reward for Creativity (Maxim of Creativity #4). Both gest that engineering educators feel they provide some in- engineering and humanities instructors report that they reward stu- ducements for creative behavior in their students. The

766 / Vol. 129, JULY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm students however have not picked up on these creativity References hints and feel that instructors do not place any value on ͓1͔ Koehn, E., 1997, “Engineering Perceptions of ABET Accreditation Criteria,” J. creativity. Only the criteria understood by students are those Profl. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 123͑2͒, pp. 66–70. that can be utilized by students. Where there are student/ ͓2͔ Nowatzki, E., 1997, “ABET in the Year 2000—Evolution or Extinction?,” J. ͑ ͒ instructor disagreements on whether criteria is present, the Profl. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 123 1 , pp. 3–4. ͓3͔ ABET, 2004, 2005-2006 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, En- student perception must be considered the basis for change. gineering Accreditation Commission: Baltimore, MD. • Of the three groups—engineering, sciences, and ͓4͔ Catalano, G. D., 2006, “Promoting Peace in Engineering Education: Modify- humanities— engineering students have the most room for ing the ABET Criteria,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 12͑2͒, pp. 399–406. creative improvement. Engineering students feel that their ͓5͔ Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., and McGourty, J., 2005, “The ABET “Professional Skills”—Can They Be Taught? Can They Be Assessed?,” J. Eng. education lacks nine out of the Ten Maxims of Creativity. Educ., 94͑1͒, pp. 41–55. This is a startling number. Through the surveys, they ex- ͓6͔ Rover, D. T., 2004, “Liberal Education in Twenty-First Century Engineering: press that creativity development has been almost entirely Responses to ABET/EC 2000 Criteria,” J. Eng. Educ., 93͑2͒, pp. 93–95. been left out of these students’ experiences. ͓7͔ Prados, J. W., 2004, “Can ABET Really Make a Difference?,” Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ., 20͑3͒, pp. 315–317. • The lack of creative work process was unique to engineering ͓8͔ American Association of University Women, 2006, American Association of students in this study. Criteria relating to a creative thought University Women, http://www.aauw.org. process, #3 ͑iterative process that includes idea incubation͒ ͓9͔ Guran, Y., 1997, “Women in Engineering in the Age of Information Technol- and #8 ͑search for multiple answers͒ were perceived by the ogy,” Global Journal of Engineering Education, 1͑1͒; available at http:// engineering students to be foreign to them. No time or effort www.eng.monash.edu.au/non-cms/uicee/gjee/vol1no1/abstra13.htm ͓10͔ Shirley, D., 2006, “Women in Engineering: Focus on Success,” The Bridge, is perceived to be spent in learning divergent thought; a National Academy of Engineering, 29͑2͒, available at http://www.nae.edu/nae/ necessity for creative evolution. bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-4NHM972OpenDocument • Engineering students who need to problem solve are ham- ͓11͔ Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I., 1995, Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Cre- pered by an inability to keep an open mind when viewing a ativity in a Culture of Conformity, Free Press, New York, pp. ix, 326. ͓12͔ Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery problem. Even though it is essential to an innovative prob- and Invention. 1st ed., Harper Collins, New York, pp. viii, 456. lem solving process, engineering students uniquely feel they ͓13͔ Davis, G. A., 1999, Creativity is Forever, Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, have not been taught to keep an open mind. ͑Criteria #8͒ IA. • Engineering survey results describe an emphasis on effi- ͓14͔ Hennessey, B. A., 2004, Developing Creativity in Gifted Children: The Cen- tral Importance of Motivation and Classroom Climate, The National Research ciency and reliance on old solutions over innovation and Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. possible improvement. There are three criteria that engineer- ͓15͔ Sternberg, R. J., 1998, The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological ing instructors and students agree is absent from their edu- Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. x, 454. cation process. They are: ambiguity is good, search for mul- ͓16͔ Sternberg, R. J., 2000, “Identifying and Developing Creative Giftedness,” Roeper Review, 23͑2͒, pp. 60–64. tiple answers, and ownership of education. ͓17͔ Amabile, T., 1983, The Social Psychology of Creativity, Springer, New York. • Two criteria stood out because they are perceived absent by ͓18͔ Sternberg, R., 1999, Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, all students. They are: #2 ͑ambiguity is good͒ and # 6 Cambridge. ͑learning to fail͒. The latter is not all that surprising; most ͓19͔ Hennessey, B. A., and Amabile, T., 1988, “Reward, Instrinsic Motivation, and ͑ ͒ students do not want to fail. Their ability to graduate de- Creativity,” Am. Psychol., 53 6 , pp. 674–675. ͓20͔ Sternberg, R., 1985 “Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Creativity and Wis- pends on passing grades. The former however refers to dom,” J. Pers Soc. Psychol., 49͑3͒, pp. 607–627. thought process where students keep an idea just out of ͓21͔ Plucker, J., and Beghetto, R., 2004, “Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to reach for lengthy periods so that time is dedicated to gath- Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future,” Educ. Psychol., ͑ ͒ ering many thoughts during this an uncomfortable “foggy” 39 2 , pp. 83–96. ͓22͔ Adams, J., 1999, “Inner Knowing: Consciousness, Creativity, Insight, and In- concept period. tuition,” Library Journal, 124͑2͒, pp. 110–111. ͓23͔ Adams, J., 1996, “Creativity: How to Catch Lightning in a Bottle—Gamez G,” Library Journal, 121͑14͒, pp. 196–197. ͓24͔ Plucker, J., Beghetto, R., and Dow, G., 2004 “Why Isn’t Creativity More 7 Conclusion Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future.,” Educ. Psychol., 39͑2͒, pp. 83–96. In this paper we have proposed criteria in the form of the Ten ͓25͔ Davis, M., and Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, 1998, Think- Maxims of Creativity, necessary for a creative environment in en- ing Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession, Practical and gineering education. Through examining the perceptions of the Professional Ethics Series, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. xii, 240. ͓26͔ Hadgraft, R. G., 1997, “Building Creative, People-Oriented Departments,” students and the instructors in engineering, sciences and humani- Global Journal of Engineering Education, 1͑1͒, available at http:// ties disciplines, and the agreements and disconnect of these per- www.eng.monash.edu.au/uicee/gjee/vol1no1/abstra15.htm ceptions, we have studied the status of creativity in the contem- ͓27͔ Kelley, T., and Littman, J., 2000, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity porary engineering education. from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, Currency/Doubleday, New York, p. cm. Our study has unfortunately shown that the current engineering ͓28͔ Standler, R. B., 1998, Creativity in Science and Engineering,p.18. student experiences almost none of these criteria as a part of their ͓29͔ Sternberg, R. J., and Williams, W. M., Association for Supervision and Cur- academic experience. Engineering students feel they lack the ele- riculum Development, 1996, How to Develop Student Creativity, Association ment of creativity in their educational experience. for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. ͓30͔ Von Oech, R., 1990, A Whack on the Side of the Head: How You Can Be More Engineering instructors need to be greater cheerleaders for in- Creative, Rev. ed., Warner Books, New York, p. 196. novation. This means providing inducements to take risks, inspir- ͓31͔ Wilde, D. J., 1993, “Changes Among ASEE Creativity Workshop Partici- ing with stories of successful innovators, teaching that failure is a pants,” J. Eng. Educ., 82͑3͒, 167–170. realistic part of engineering that students must learn how to em- ͓32͔ Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., and Nevin, A., 1994, Creativity and Collabora- tive Learning: A Practical Guide to Empowering Students and Teachers, P.H. brace so they can learn and make corrections, and by explicitly Brookes, Baltimore, pp. xxvi, 420. requiring and rewarding creativity. ͓33͔ Conwell, J. C., Catalano, G. D., and Beard, J. E., 1993, “A Case Study in Creative Problem Solving in Engineering Design,” J. Eng. Educ., 82͑4͒,18– 24. ͓34͔ Fichter, M. M., 2004, “Nurturing Creativity,” Verhaltenstherapie, 14͑4͒, pp. Acknowledgment 241–243. ͓35͔ Barak, M., and Goffer, N., 2002, “Fostering Systematic Innovative Thinking The authors gratefully acknowledge the NSF grant titled, “The and Problem Solving: Lessons Education Can Learn From Industry,” Interna- Galileo Project” ͑NSF Project No. DGE-0139307͒ which made tional Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12͑3͒, pp. 227–247. ͓ ͔ this work possible. We also express our sincere thanks to Profes- 36 Dennard, R. H., 2000, “Creativity in the 2000s and beyond—Motivation and Leadership Remain Essential for Nurturing Creativity and Providing an Envi- sor Bernard Roth from Stanford University for his valuable in- ronment in Which It can Flourish,” Res. Technol. Manag., 43͑6͒, p. 23–25. sight and guidance. ͓37͔ Hennessey, B., and Amabile, T., 1998, “Reward, Intrinsic Motivation, and

Journal of Mechanical Design JULY 2007, Vol. 129 / 767

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm Creativity,” Am. Psychol., 1988͑53͒, pp. 674–675. Undergraduates,” High Ability Studies, The Journal of the European Council ͓38͔ Eisenberger, R., and Armeli, S., 1997, “Can Salient Reward Increase Creative for High Ability, 11͑2͒, pp. 207–219. Performance Without Reducing Intrinsic Creative Interest,” J. Pers Soc. Psy- ͓46͔ Chang, P. F., et al., 2000, “The Development and Implementation of the Tech- chol., 72͑No 3͒, pp. 652–663. nological Creativity Course: An Interdisciplinary Approach,” 2000 Interna- ͓39͔ Eisenberger, R., and Rhoades, L., 2001, “Incremental Effects of Reward on tional Conference of Engineering Education, ICEE 2000 Conference Proceed- Creativity,” J. Pers Soc. Psychol., 81͑4͒, pp. 728–741. ings, Taipei, Taiwan. ͓40͔ Friedman, R., and Forster, J., 2005, “Effects of Motivational Cues on Percep- ͓47͔ Wallas, G., 1926, The Art of Thought, Harcourt Brace, New York. tual Asymmetry: Implications for Creativity and Analytical Problem Solving,” ͓48͔ Stouffer, W. B., Russel, J., and Oliva, M. G., 2004, “Making the Strange J. Pers Soc. Psychol., 88͑2͒, pp. 263–275. Familiar: Creativity and the Future of Engineering Education,” Proceedings of ͓41͔ Friedman, R., and Forster, J., 2001, “The Effects of Promotion and Prevention the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Cues on Creativity,” J. Pers Soc. Psychol., 81͑6͒, pp. 1001–1013. Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, UT. ͓42͔ Crowe, C., and Higgins, E. T., 1997, “Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclina- ͓49͔ Kraft, U., 2005, “Unleashing Creativity,” Scientiﬁc American Mind ͑April͒, tion: Promotion and Prevention in Decision Making,” Org. Behav. Hum. De- Vol. 16͑1͒, 16–23. cis. Process, 1997͑69͒, pp. 117–132. ͓50͔ Foley, S. M., 2006, Determining Barriers to Creativity in Engineering Educa- ͓43͔ Alger, J. R. M., and Hays, C. V., 1964, Creative Synthesis in Design, Prentice- tion, in Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Connecticut, Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Storrs, CT. ͓44͔ Gregory, S. A., 1972, Creativity and Innovation in Engineering, Butterworths, ͓51͔ Kazerounian, K., and Foley, S., 2007, “Barriers to Creativity in Engineering London. Education,” Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Tech- ͓45͔ Cropley, D. H., and Cropley, A. J., 2000, “Fostering Creativity in Engineering nical Conferences, Miami, Las Vegas.

768 / Vol. 129, JULY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 03 Feb 2008 to 213.96.38.176. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm View publication stats