open 2013: creativity is not a purple dragon

Creativity is NOT a Purple Dragon

Creativity is NOT a Purple Dragon

Creativity is tucked away into various pockets of the engineering curriculum.

Engineering Design Courses

Entrepreneurship Programs

Images from http://www.engr.psu.edu/future/WhyPSUEngr/ and http://www.sedtapp.psu.edu/index.php.

Students express frustration at the lack of opportunities to be creative in the curriculum.

“Most engineering classes are memorizing equations and solving problems in a specific way that has been taught to you.”

“I’ve only had a few classes where I felt I was able to be creative in my work.”

“Engineering classes are the place Creativity goes to die.”

The paper has three intended purposes:

1. Discuss the barriers to integrating the creative process into engineering courses

2. Understand how creativity has been conceptualized in engineering education

3. Generate ideas on how to implement the creative process throughout the curriculum

There are several potential reasons why creativity is not well integrated into engineering curricula.

1. Myths relating to creativity

2. Lack of ambiguity and opportunities for failure in most courses

3. Rewards structure in most courses

4. Difficulty assessing creative behaviors

5. Students’ perceptions regarding instructor’s value of creative behavior

Kazerounian and Foley (2007) asked why creativity is not central to the engineering curriculum.

1. Engineering students do not feel that instructors value creativity.

2. Engineering instructors value creativity, but do not see it in their students.

“Creativity is not valued in contemporary engineering education.”

Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) advocate for a comprehensive definition of creativity to guide research.

“Creativity is the interaction between aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context.”

Following the methodology of Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004), we examined how creativity is conceptualized in engineering education research.

Content analysis of articles from 2006-2011 with “creativity” or “creative” in title

Major journals in engineering educationNo conference papersNo engineering design or entrepreneurship journals

The questions guiding the content analysis were:

1. Does the article explicitly define creativity? (i.e. “Creativity is…” or “Creative means…”)

2. How do the authors define/describe creativity?

Few articles were found that used the word “creativity” or “creative” in the title.

Journal Number of Articles

Advances in Engineering Education 0

Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 0

European Journal of Engineering Education 4

International Journal of Engineering Education 10

Journal of Engineering Education 2

Over half of the articles explicitly defined “creativity.”

No Explicit Definition

44%Explicit Def-inition56%

All articles related creativity to solving problems and finding solutions.

Spiritual

Interactionist

Divergent thinking

Useful

Product

Process

Unique

Problem solving

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Only three articles contained a complete definition similar to the interactionist model of creativity.

Spiritual

Interactionist

Divergent thinking

Useful

Product

Process

Unique

Problem solving

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Current efforts at PSU to integrate the creative process into courses include workshops and funded projects.

Current efforts at PSU to integrate the creative process into courses include workshops and funded projects.

Current efforts at PSU to integrate the creative process into courses include workshops and funded projects.

We also try to include discussions of creativity in other teaching-related workshops.

Faculty are more accepting of the “creative process” rather than “creativity.”

“Creative process = Engineering”

“Creativity could be incorporated more broadly into engineering curricula beyond the design-oriented courses.”

Acknowledgements:

Thank you to co-authors, Tom Litzinger and Irene Mena of the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education at Penn State.

Thank you also to the Leonhard Center for providing funding for the creativity initiatives discussed in the paper.