Changing Creativity through Engineering Education and Bio-Inspired Design

Fabien R Durand; Jin Woo Kim; Dorian Henao; Joanna Tsenn; Daniel A. McAdams; Julie S Linsey; Michael Helms

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Seattle, Washington
Publication Date: June 14, 2015
Start Date: June 14, 2015
End Date: June 17, 2015
ISBN: 978-0-692-50180-1
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: NSF Grantees’ Poster Session
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 12
Page Numbers: 26.342.1 - 26.342.12
DOI: 10.18260/p.23681
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/23681
Download Count: 580

Request a correction

Joanna Tsenn is a Ph.D. student studying Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University, with an anticipated graduation date of August 2015. She received her B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 2010. Her research interests include bioinspired design and engineering design methodology. Her dissertation topic relates to the development of a text mining tool to automatically identify biological materials’ structure-property relationships, which can aid in the design of bioinspired materials.

visit author page

author page

Daniel A. McAdams Texas A&M University

author page

Julie S Linsey Georgia Institute of Technology

author page

Michael Helms Georgia Institue of Technology

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Changing Creativity through Engineering Education and Bio-Inspired Design With today’s increasing competition and desire for innovation in our society, one of themain goals of engineering schools is to improve students’ creativity. However, according to priorstudies (Genco, Holtta-Otto, Seepersad, 2012), the creativity of mechanical engineering studentsdecreases over the course of an engineering program. In this paper we seek to answer twoquestions. First, we want to understand how the creativity of mechanical engineers is changingover time in other mechanical engineering programs, as measured against four standard metricsof creativity – quantity, quality, variety and novelty. Second, we want to understand howbiologically inspired design, and different methods within biologically inspired design, might beused to enhance student performance. To answer the first question, we provide evidence from two studies: The first, a within-subjects longitudinal study, analyzes and compares the results of fourteen students who havegenerated solutions for the same design problem during their freshman and senior years. Theresults from different years are measured in terms of the quantity of ideas, quality, novelty, andvariety of the solutions generated. In the second study, a between-groups study, we compare theaverage results of students in different years of study (freshmen, sophomores, juniors, andseniors). While the within-subjects study demonstrates selective increases in creativity for smallgroups, the between-groups study demonstrates that across the whole, we see no significantchange in creativity across the program. To answer the second question, we provide evidence from the study of a biologicallyinspired design course. This study conducted over two semesters one year apart, evaluates theeffects of a senior level Bio-Inspired Design course and various methods of performing bio-inspired design. Student designers learned 5 methods of conducting bio-inspired design: DirectedMethod, Case Study, AskNature.com, BioTriz, and Functional Basis Keyword. Each method iscompared by analyzing the resulting design results in terms of the quantity of ideas, quality,novelty and variety of the solutions generated. The results show various strengths andweaknesses associated with each tool. The students were also given Carberry et al’s EngineeringDesign Self-Efficacy survey before and after the course to assess the effects of the course. Theresults show increases in confidence, a high level of motivation, and decreases in anxiety inconducting engineering design. Our initial studies provide supporting evidence that for the measures of quantity, quality,variety and novelty for controlled, short design tasks, student engineers generally do not improvein creativity. Our follow-up studies demonstrate that within the context of a course inbiologically inspired design, some methods may be better suited for improving different aspectsof creativity. We also demonstrate that student self-efficacy measures improve across the coursein general.

Citation
Format

Durand, F. R., & Kim, J. W., & Henao, D., & Tsenn, J., & McAdams, D. A., & Linsey, J. S., & Helms, M. (2015, June), Changing Creativity through Engineering Education and Bio-Inspired Design Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23681

TY - CPAPER
AB - Changing Creativity through Engineering Education and Bio-Inspired Design With today’s increasing competition and desire for innovation in our society, one of themain goals of engineering schools is to improve students’ creativity. However, according to priorstudies (Genco, Holtta-Otto, Seepersad, 2012), the creativity of mechanical engineering studentsdecreases over the course of an engineering program. In this paper we seek to answer twoquestions. First, we want to understand how the creativity of mechanical engineers is changingover time in other mechanical engineering programs, as measured against four standard metricsof creativity – quantity, quality, variety and novelty. Second, we want to understand howbiologically inspired design, and different methods within biologically inspired design, might beused to enhance student performance. To answer the first question, we provide evidence from two studies: The first, a within-subjects longitudinal study, analyzes and compares the results of fourteen students who havegenerated solutions for the same design problem during their freshman and senior years. Theresults from different years are measured in terms of the quantity of ideas, quality, novelty, andvariety of the solutions generated. In the second study, a between-groups study, we compare theaverage results of students in different years of study (freshmen, sophomores, juniors, andseniors). While the within-subjects study demonstrates selective increases in creativity for smallgroups, the between-groups study demonstrates that across the whole, we see no significantchange in creativity across the program. To answer the second question, we provide evidence from the study of a biologicallyinspired design course. This study conducted over two semesters one year apart, evaluates theeffects of a senior level Bio-Inspired Design course and various methods of performing bio-inspired design. Student designers learned 5 methods of conducting bio-inspired design: DirectedMethod, Case Study, AskNature.com, BioTriz, and Functional Basis Keyword. Each method iscompared by analyzing the resulting design results in terms of the quantity of ideas, quality,novelty and variety of the solutions generated. The results show various strengths andweaknesses associated with each tool. The students were also given Carberry et al’s EngineeringDesign Self-Efficacy survey before and after the course to assess the effects of the course. Theresults show increases in confidence, a high level of motivation, and decreases in anxiety inconducting engineering design. Our initial studies provide supporting evidence that for the measures of quantity, quality,variety and novelty for controlled, short design tasks, student engineers generally do not improvein creativity. Our follow-up studies demonstrate that within the context of a course inbiologically inspired design, some methods may be better suited for improving different aspectsof creativity. We also demonstrate that student self-efficacy measures improve across the coursein general.
AU - Fabien R Durand
AU - Jin Woo Kim
AU - Dorian Henao
AU - Joanna Tsenn
AU - Daniel A. McAdams
AU - Julie S Linsey
AU - Michael Helms
CY - Seattle, Washington
DA - 2015/06/14
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Changing Creativity through Engineering Education and Bio-Inspired Design
UR - https://peer.asee.org/23681
DO - 10.18260/p.23681
ER -