Enhancing Creativity in Engineering and Engineering Technology Students MICHELLE KLAWANS, ABIEYUWA AGHAYERE, PHD, GENNADY FRIENDMAN, PHD, VLADIMIR GENIS, PHD, JENNIFER KATZ-BUONINCONTRO, PHD, FREDRICKA REISMAN, PHD DREXEL UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATION GRANT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION (RIGEE)

Background  Most engineering projects demand creative or innovate approaches  Creativity in engineering is highly valued, but isn’t well studied in undergraduate engineering education  Traditional engineering education falls short in enhancing creative capabilities

Previous Work University of Connecticut  Engineering students do not feel that professors value creativity  Professors reported valuing creativity, but not seeing it in their students  Researchers found that professors did not know how to teach or evaluate creativity Penn State University  Faculty workshops entitled “Integrating the Creative Process in Engineering Courses”  Expanded to faculty teaching design, technical, and analytic courses  Hands-on process, faculty given time to brainstorm and alter their curriculum

Work at Drexel  Research Initiation Grant in Engineering Education (RIGEE)  Inter-disciplinary research collaboration between engineering/engineering technology faculty and creativity and cognitive science experts  Two year National Science Foundation Grant

Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment (RDCA)  Assesses an individual’s self-perception on 11 major creativity factors: Fluency, flexibility, elaboration, originality, resistance to premature closure, tolerance of ambiguity, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, risk taking, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation  Built upon the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), the most widely used test of creativity  RDCA is automatically scored, takes 10 minutes to complete, and provides immediate results  Currently undergoing the final stages of validation

Methods  Instructors for 3 undergraduate engineering/engineering technology courses (MHT 314, ECEE 304, EECS 352) participated in a seminar on integrating creativity into engineering education These courses were subsequently labeled “creativity” courses  Instructors for EET 319, MET 316, and MHT 401 did not attend the seminar These courses were labeled “non-creativity” courses and served as controls

Methods  Students in all 6 classes were asked to participate in the study  RIGEE staff visited classes during the first and last weeks of the 10 week quarter to administer the RDCA  Students who consented to participate completed the RDCA on iPod Touches  Students were assigned ID numbers to ensure anonymity  Students were able to view their raw scores after completing the RDCA  Raw scores were converted to final RDCA scores in all 11 categories along with a total score

Analysis  N=31 in creativity courses  N=22 in non-creativity courses  Paired t-tests conducted to determine if students exhibited a significant change in any of the RDCA categories between the first and last weeks of the quarter  Results with p<0.05 were considered to be significa nt

Results – Creativity Courses RDCA Originality (Pre-) RDC Fluency (Pre-) RDCA Flexibility (Pre-) RDCA Elaboration (Pre-) RDCA Tolerance of Ambiguity (Pre-) RDCA Resistance to Premature Closure (Pre-) RDCA Originality (Post) 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

Results – Creativity Courses contd. RDCA Divergent Thinking (Pre-) RDCA Convergent Thinking (Pre-) RDCA Risk Taking (Pre-) RDCA Intrinsic Motivation (Pre-) RDCA Extrinsic Motivation (Pre- ) RDCA Total Score (Pre-) RDCA Divergent Thinking (Post) 0.85 _____ RDCA Convergent Thinking (Post) _____ 0.50 _____ RDCA Risk Taking (Post) _____ 0.97 _____ RDCA Intrinsic Motivation (Post) _____ 0.45 _____ RDCA Extrinsic Motivation (Post) _____ 0.45 _____ RDCA Total (Post)_____ 0.68

Results – Non-Creativity Courses RDCA Originality (Pre-) RDC Fluency (Pre-) RDCA Flexibility (Pre-) RDCA Elaboration (Pre-) RDCA Tolerance of Ambiguity (Pre-) RDCA Resistance to Premature Closure (Pre-) RDCA Originality (Post) 0.79 _____ RDCA Fluency (Post) _____ 0.55 _____ RDCA Flexibility (Post) _____ 0.63 _____ RDCA Elaboration (Post) _____ 0.76 _____ RDCA Tolerance of Ambiguity (Post) _____ 0.44 _____ RDCA Resistance to Premature Closure (Post) _____ 0.10

Results – Non-Creativity Courses contd. RDCA Divergent Thinking (Pre-) RDCA Convergent Thinking (Pre-) RDCA Risk Taking (Pre-) RDCA Intrinsic Motivation (Pre-) RDCA Extrinsic Motivation (Pre- ) RDCA Total Score (Pre-) RDCA Divergent Thinking (Post) 0.09 _____ RDCA Convergent Thinking (Post) _____ 0.48 _____ RDCA Risk Taking (Post) _____ 0.38 _____ RDCA Intrinsic Motivation (Post) _____ 0.11 _____ RDCA Extrinsic Motivation (Post) _____ 0.39 _____ RDCA Total (Post)_____ 0.24

Results – Summary  There was no significant difference observed between pre- and post-RDCA scores in either creativity or non-creativity courses  10 weeks may not be enough time to observe a significant change in creativity  Students may have remembered their answers from the first administration  RDCA question order was not randomized

Future Directions  Focus groups of students revealed that completing the RDCA made them more aware of the various components of creativity Many students indicated that they were more likely to integrate creativity into their coursework after completing the RDCA  The best option may be to go directly to students with creativity training rather than the instructors Mandatory one or two credit class during student’s first year of engineering education  Currently following seniors in senior design course to assess creativity in senior design project

Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for this project, but the opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.