June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
NSF Grantees Poster Session
26.342.1 - 26.342.12
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.
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
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015