undergraduate engineering and engineering technology courses and ... creativityâ classes will allow for an assessment of the efficacy of creativity training for.
Enhancing Creativity in Engineering and Engineering Technology Students Michelle Klawans1; Abieyuwa Aghayere2, PhD; Gennady Friedman, PhD 3; Vladimir Genis, PhD4; Jennifer Katz-Buonincontro, PhD5; Fredricka Reisman, PhD3
Abstract While engineering projects demand creative and innovative approaches to produce new and useful ideas and projects, the traditional engineering curriculum has fallen short in significantly enhancing the creative capabilities of engineering students as they progress through undergraduate programs. To help address this creativity gap the Research Initiation Grant in Engineering Education (RIGEE) project has established an interdisciplinary research collaboration between engineering/engineering technology faculty and creativity and cognitive science experts to identify, develop, and test methods for integrating creativity into undergraduate engineering and engineering technology courses and enhancing the creative capacities of engineering and engineering technology students. This research project assesses eleven aspects of creative thinking as measured by the Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment (RDCA), including originality, divergent thinking, and risk taking. During the 20122013 academic year, the RDCA was administered in several undergraduate engineering courses, some of which were taught by engineering professors who had undergone creativity training, and these courses have been labeled as “creativity” classes in the RIGEE protocol. Those courses taught by engineering professors with no formal creativity training have been labeled as “noncreativity” classes. Comparing the eleven domains of the RDCA between “creativity” and “noncreativity” classes will allow for an assessment of the efficacy of creativity training for engineering and engineering technology professors. Background Most engineering projects demand creative or innovative approaches in the design of equipment, systems, and facilities. Creativity, or the ability to produce new, useful ideas and products that are high in quality, is a valued yet understudied construct in engineering education, and the traditional engineering curriculum has so far fallen short in significantly enhancing the creative capabilities of engineering students as they progress from their freshman year through their senior year. Several previous studies have evaluated various methods of enhancing creativity amongst engineering students. A 2012 review of such studies came to three main conclusion. First, that applying strategies to develop creativity and high-level thinking skills should not become a burden to students and/or professors. Second, that techniques should be introduced throughout the curriculum and be related to interesting topics that are of concern to engineering students. Third, that the key to developing creativity in engineering education is to help students realize their 1
Drexel University School of Public Health Drexel University Goodwin College of Professional Studies 3 Drexel University College of Engineering 4 Drexel University School of Technology and Professional Studies 5 Drexel University School of Education 2
creative potential, understand what is known about creativity, and increase students confidence that they will be creative engineers in the future (Zhou 2012). A similar 2013 review examined the various barriers to integrating the creative process in engineering education. They found that although the Model of the Engineer 2020 states that engineers should possess practical ingenuity and creativity, very few institutions have made an effort to integrate creativity into undergraduate engineering education. Studies found that this disparity is due to engineering curriculum focusing on analytic and technical material and faculty’s prior conceptions about creativity. Data collected from the University of Connecticut found that engineering students do not feel that instructors value creativity, while engineering professors reported valuing creativity, but not seeing it in their students. However, while instructors report valuing creativity, many studies found that they do not know how to teach or evaluate it (Zappe, Mena et al. 2013). Penn State University is currently leading the trend in engineering creativity by sponsoring workshops for faculty called “Integrating the Creative Progress in Engineering Courses”. The goal of the workshops is to integrate the creative progress across engineering curriculum, rather than in just design courses. Pilot data from the workshops showed positive results, but raised the question of whether the success of the workshops could be replicated with faculty who were not “lead users” of creativity and innovation at the school. In 2012, faculty who taught non-design, technical, and analytic courses in engineering were invited to attend the workshop. The process was fully handson, with faculty given time to alter their course curriculum and brainstorm ideas on how to use the creative process in their classrooms. Many instructors felt that they wouldn’t be able to incorporate all the steps of the creative process due to time constraints, but felt they could incorporate various activities that encouraged creativity (Zappe, Mena et al. 2013). Zhou et al. (2010) evaluated two methods of teaching creativity to students at Aalborg University in Denmark. The first method involved integrating creativity into classroom teaching (instrumental), and the second involved introducing real-life engineering problems that required creativity (explorative). They found that both strategies effectively implemented creativity pedagogy and stimulated creative thinking skills in a problem based learning environment (Zhou, Holgaard et al. 2010). To build upon this body of knowledge, Drexel University has established an interdisciplinary research collaboration between engineering/engineering technology faculty and creativity and cognitive science experts to identify, develop and test ways of integrating creativity into undergraduate engineering and engineering technology course projects and enhancing the creative capacities of engineering and engineering technology students. This Research Initiation Grant in Engineering Education (RIGEE) project was awarded a two-year National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to address this creativity gap. To measure creativity, undergraduate engineering and engineering technology students enrolled in select courses were administered various creativity assessments, including the Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment (RDCA). The RDCA assesses an individual's selfperception on 11 major creativity factors (fluency, flexibility, elaboration, originality, resistance to premature closure, tolerance of ambiguity, convergent and divergent thinking, risk taking, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) that have emerged from the creativity research. Some of the RDCA items are built upon the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which in turn stems from Guilford's creativity research. The TTCT remains the most widely used test of creativity and the most referenced of all creativity tests. However, the TTCT must be scored by
trained evaluators, takes an hour or longer for administration, focuses on prediction of creative performance rather than providing diagnostic information, and is costly. The RDCA, on the other hand, is automatically scored, takes about 10 minutes to complete, and provides immediate results. The RDCA mobile app provides a Likert-type assessment resulting in a self-report designed to be used diagnostically to identify one's creative strengths, rather than to predict creativity. The RDCA results can be used to provide the assessment taker with an instant overall creativity score, as well as scores to identify specific creativity factors in which the taker may already be strong, factors they may be personally satisfied with, and factors the taker may wish to strengthen through creativity exercises. The RDCA Creativity App upgrade is forthcoming, and will provide a detailed individual profile comprised of responses to each creativity factor and specific creativity exercises that one may wish to engage in to strengthen specific creativity factors. The Reisman Diagnostic Creative Assessment (RDCA) is currently undergoing final stages of validation.
Methods Instructors for Drexel University undergraduate engineering and engineering technology courses MHT 314, ECEE 304, and EECS 352 participated in a seminar on integrating creativity into engineering education prior to teaching these courses. These courses were then labeled as “creativity” courses, and the professors were encouraged to utilize their creativity training as they taught. Three undergraduate engineering and engineering technology courses taught by professors who did not attend the creativity seminar, EET 319, MET 316, and MHT 401, were selected as a control group. Students in these six classes were e-mailed a project description and consent form prior to the beginning of the quarter. During the first or second week of the ten week quarter, RIGEE staff visited classrooms to explain the project and collect signed consent forms. Students were informed that those who participated would be entered into a drawing for one of two $50 gift cards to the Drexel bookstore. Students who agreed to participate were assigned a randomly generated ID number by the project’s IT department and this ID number was used to complete and submit the RDCA assessment via iPod Touches. Students were given approximately 15 minutes to complete the assessment under the supervision of project staff while professors waited outside the classroom. As the survey was conducted electronically, students were able to view their raw RDCA scores following completion of the assessment. RIGEE staff visited classes again during the last week of the quarter to administer the second round of surveys. The project’s technology supervisor was present to provide ID numbers for any students who had forgotten their ID number. Again, students completed the assessment on iPod Touches and were able to view their raw scores after completing the survey. This raw data was converted to final RDCA scores in all eleven categories and a total score. Data was then analyzed in order to determine if students in creativity classes exhibited a differential change in any measures of creativity as compared to students in non-creativity classes.
Results Paired t-tests were conducted in order to determine if students exhibited a change between pre- and post-RDCA scores. Students who only completed one of the two assessment timepoints were not included in the analysis. Creativity courses (n=31) were analyzed separately from non-creativity courses (n=22). Creativity Courses: MHT 314, ECEE 304, EECS 352
Table 1a: Paired t-Tests of RDCA Pre- and Post (Creativity Classes, n=31) RDCA Originality (Pre-) RDCA Originality (Post)
RDC Fluency (Pre-)
RDCA Flexibility (Pre-)
RDCA Elaboration (Pre-)
RDCA Tolerance of Ambiguity (Pre-)
RDCA Resistance to Premature Closure (Pre-)
0.17
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
RDCA Fluency (Post)
_____
0.42
_____
_____
_____
_____
RDCA Flexibility (Post)
_____
_____
0.23
_____
_____
_____
RDCA Elaboration (Post)
_____
_____
_____
0.69
_____
_____
RDCA Tolerance of Ambiguity (Post)
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.40
_____
RDCA Resistance to Premature Closure (Post)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.28
* statistically significant (p
