Fostering Creativity in Engineering Undergraduates

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 05:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

High Ability StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Fostering Creativity inEngineering UndergraduatesDavid H. Cropley & Arthur J. CropleyPublished online: 14 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: David H. Cropley & Arthur J. Cropley (2000) FosteringCreativity in Engineering Undergraduates, High Ability Studies, 11:2, 207-219, DOI:10.1080/13598130020001223

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598130020001223

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13598130020001223

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598130020001223

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

High Ability Studies, Vol. 11. No. 2, 2000

Fostering Creativity in EngineeringUndergraduatesDAVID H. CROPLEY & ARTHUR J. CROPLEY1

In the present study, an attempt was made to facilitate for engineering undergraduates tocome up with innovative ideas by teaching creativity, not simply in a paper and pencil testsituation but also in a practical exercise. A total of 64 male engineering undergraduatesreceived three lectures on creativity at the beginning of a course on engineering innovation.Some of them (N 5 37) also completed a “creativity” test: TCT–DP (Urban & Jellen,1996) and were individually counselled on the basis of test scores. A separate control group(N 5 21) took the test together with these students, but otherwise did not participate in anyway in the study. Upon retesting 6 weeks later the counselled students were more innovative,whereas the control group were simply less inhibited. In addition, machines constructed bythe counselled students were more elegant and creative than those of the 27 students whomerely attended the lectures. Thus, the training was associated with changes in behaviournot only on the test, but in a practical activity also.

Fostering Creativity in Engineering Undergraduates

Almost from the beginning, modern research has demonstrated that althoughstudents with high IQs usually obtain good grades both at school and university,they are consistently outstripped by those with not only a high IQ but also highcreativity (see Cropley & Urban, 2000, for a recent summary). In the specific caseof engineering, Facaoaru (1985) showed that engineers rated most highly by theircolleagues displayed, among other things, factual knowledge, rapid recall, andlogical thinking (central aspects of conventional intelligence) combined with proper-ties such as having unusual ideas, tolerating the unconventional, and seeing unex-pected implications (elements of creativity). Apparently, creativity adds somethingto intelligence. Indeed, Sternberg and Lubart (1992) concluded that“contrarianism” (going against the conventional way) is a characteristic of all giftedindividuals.

Hassenstein (1988) argued that Klugheit (a German word, which literally means

1 Authors’ addresses: David H. Cropley (corresponding author), School of Electrical andInformation Engineering, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia andArthur J. Cropley (University of Hamburg, Germany), correspondence: 3/120 South Terrace,Adelaide SA 5000, Australia.

ISSN 1359-8139 print; 1469-834X online/00/020207-13 Ó 2000 European Council for High AbilityDOI: 10.1080/13598130020001223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

208 D. H. Cropley & A. J. Cropley

cleverness, but used by Hassenstein as a label for a more encompassing concept ofgiftedness) incorporates both factual knowledge, accurate observation, good mem-ory, logical thinking, and speed of information processing (e.g. intelligence) andinventiveness, unusual associations, fantasy, and flexibility (e.g. creativity). Follow-ing this approach, Cropley (1995) argued that creativity is indispensable for “true”giftedness. In the present article, then, creativity will be regarded as an integral partof giftedness.

The call for education to foster creativity in engineers was one of the mainreactions to the “Sputnik shock” of 1957, when the then Soviet Union succeededin launching the first successful earth satellite, and was widely regarded as havingbeaten the United States in the first event of the space race. This perceivedfailure of American science and engineering was attributed to lack of creativity,and judged to be the result of defects in education. University-level teaching ofengineering was widely regarded as indifferent or even hostile to creativity, andempirical studies supported this view. Snyder (1967), for instance, showed thatstudents at an American university, who preferred trying new solutions, dropped outof engineering courses three times more frequently than those who preferredconventional solutions. Gluskinos (1971) found no correlation between creativity asmeasured by a “creativity” test and grades (GPAs) in engineering courses. Despitethis, the literature over the years demonstrates the existence of a continuing interestin fostering the creativity of engineering students (e.g. Gawain, 1974; Masi, 1989;Olken, 1964).

More recently, many corporations have rediscovered creativity: according toMunroe (1995), 70% of the cost of a product is determined by its design, so thatcreative design can lead to substantial cost savings. As a result, creativity training foremployees is becoming widespread (Clapham, 1997; Thackray, 1995). According tothe 1995 US Industry Report, corporations are now budgeting billions of US dollarsfor creativity training programs, and demand for training is said to be outstrippingthe supply of trainers (Hequet, 1995).

At the level of the individual engineer, considerations of the global marketplaceand the creative skills regarded as essential for a successful career in engineering(Dekker, 1995) have also raised the issue of fostering creativity in engineeringeducation (e.g. Steiner, 1998). A recent survey in Australia (Government of Aus-tralia, 1999), however, suggests that this training is not taking place, or is ineffectiveif it is. According to employers in the survey, three-quarters of new graduates inAustralia are “unsuitable” for employment because of “skill deficiencies” in creativ-ity, problem-solving, and independent and critical thinking.

Attempts in the past to train engineering students to be more creative haveproduced mixed results. Rubinstein (1980) and Woods (1983) reported somesuccess in training them in problem-solving. More recently, in a pretest–postteststudy, (i.e. Basadur, Graen & Scandura, 1986) it was shown that a programemphasizing divergent thinking increased the preference of manufacturing engineer-ing students for generating new solutions, although the study did not report anychanges in actual performance. Clapham and Schuster (1992) administered“creativity” tests to engineering students from a variety of majors. About half of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Fostering Creativity in Engineering Undergraduates 209

them then received creativity training that emphasized deferment of judgement,brainstorming, incubation and idea-getting techniques, while the remainder acted ascontrols. The statistical analysis showed that the test scores of the trained studentshad increased significantly more than those of the controls.

Clapham (1997) reviewed possible mechanisms through which beneficial effectsof training might occur, and concluded that they can be attributed to programs’ability to foster: (a) development of appropriate thinking skills; (b) acquisition ofpositive attitudes to creativity and creative performance; (c) motivation to becreative; (d) perception of oneself as capable of being creative; (e) reduction ofanxiety about creativity; and (f) experience of positive mood in problem-solvingsituations. It is apparent that this list goes beyond simply thinking skills, andencompasses attitudes, motivation, self-image, and similar factors.

Despite a certain degree of success, as just reported, comprehensive analyses ofthe effects of short-term training on creativity (e.g. Mansfield, Busse & Krepelke,1978) indicated that effects do not persist over time and do not transfer to situationsmarkedly different from the original training. Nonetheless, Feldhusen and Goh(1995) concluded that it is possible to teach students to be “creative”, for instanceto seek new ideas and try novel approaches. In a discussion of creativity andmotivation Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) made a further important point byemphasizing that creativity can be fostered, even via external rewards (extrinsicmotivation), provided that it is made clear to students what it is that they arerequired to do differently or better, and that they are given specific feedback basedon their own behaviour. This is inconsistent with Amabile’s (1983) widely acceptedconclusion that extrinsic motivation is inimical to creativity.

In the present study an attempt was made to encourage engineering undergradu-ates to come up with innovative ideas, not simply in a paper and pencil test situation,however, but also in a practical exercise (“Build a wheeled vehicle powered by theenergy stored in a mouse trap”). The course the students attended emphasized notmerely thinking, but also noncognitive aspects of creating novelty such as image ofthe successful engineer, the need for courage, and tolerance of unusual or unexpec-ted ideas. This was done both by offering three lectures specifically on creativity aswell as by incorporating case studies of creative breakthroughs in engineering intothe remaining lectures. The students also received specific, individual, psychologicalfeedback on their own performance, in the form of “creativity counselling” based ontest scores, something that has seldom occurred in earlier projects (see below formore details). The “creativity” test employed in the study (see below) was amultidimensional instrument that made it possible to differentiate between noveltyproduced by unconventional elaboration of existing ideas and novelty resulting fromproduction of new ideas. Finally, the project was carried out within the frameworkof a course taken for credit as a normal part of the participants’ undergraduateprogram. The students’ received grades in this course, and their machines wereassigned marks (i.e. there was a strong element of extrinsic motivation, theoreticallyfatal to creativity). Thus, the material reported here possesses the potential to extendunderstanding of a number of issues in the training of creativity in higher educationsettings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Method

Data were collected by means of two procedures: a “creativity” test, on the onehand, ratings of the creativity of a working machine constructed by students, on theother. The key difference between the two assessments is that scores on creativitytests are an abstraction, whereas a machine actually built by participants is abehavioural measure bearing some relation to the real-life work of engineers.

Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (TCT—DP)

Urban and Jellen’s (1996) Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT—DP)was used to assess creative potential. The wisdom of referring to procedures such asthis one as “creativity” tests is unclear (i.e. their validity has been questioned).Recently, Helson (1999) distinguished between “creative potential” and “creativeproductivity”, and pointed out that the former—measured by tests—may or may notlead to the latter. For this reason, we prefer to write “creativity” in quotation marks(as above) when referring to the tests, or to label them “tests of creative potential”.

According to the manual, this instrument is suitable for use with a very wide rangeof ages, including tertiary students, and for several purposes over and above simpleassessment, including counselling. At its core is what the test constructors call“image production”. Persons taking the test are required to complete figural frag-ments, as in several other creativity tests. However, scoring is not based on statisticaluncommonness of the figures produced but on a number of criteria derived fromGestalt psychology. In all, the test yields 14 dimensions including “BoundaryBreaking”, “Unconventionality”, and “New Elements”. There is also a “Total”score, the sum of the various subdimensions. The test has two forms, A and B, thatcan be regarded as equivalent.

The authors reported validity coefficients of about 0.80 for correlations of testscores with teacher ratings, and test–retest reliabilities of the order of 0.70. In thepresent study, correlating Form A “Total” of the control group with Form B 6weeks later yielded a test–retest reliability of 0.75 (N 5 21, p 5 0.01), a satisfactorylevel in view of Hocevar and Bachelor’s (1989) report that test–retest reliabilities ofabout 0.70 are typical for creativity tests.

Interrater reliability was estimated by having 36 randomly chosen Form Aprotocols rescored by a second rater (without knowledge of the scores assigned bythe first). An interrater reliability of 0.94 was obtained (N 5 36, p 5 0.01).

The Creative Product

Almost from the beginning of the modern era of creativity research, raters’ assess-ments of products of various kinds have been employed as a way of measuringcreative productivity. This approach has been supported in principle by recenttheorizing and research. Hennessey (1994) emphasized that a product can beregarded as creative when competent judges apply this label, and suggested themethod of “consensual assessment”. When judges agree that it is, a product is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


creative. In Hennessey’s study, untrained undergraduates were able to make consist-ent judgements about the creativity of products by simply applying their ownsubjective understanding of creativity. Interrater agreements were up to 0.93, andreliabilities of the ratings ranged from 0.73 to 0.93.

In the present study, the vehicles were rated on four dimensions according to thesubjective judgement of the rater: Effectiveness (distance travelled), Novelty (orig-inality and surprisingness), Elegance (understandability and workmanlike finish), andGerminality (usefulness, ability to open up new perspectives). These four dimensionsare a fusion of the scales of Taylor’s (1975) Creative Product Inventory, that includesscales for “Generation”, “Reformulation”, “Originality”, “Relevance”, “Hedonics”,“Complexity”, and “Condensation”, and the dimensions of Besemer and O’Quin’s(1987) Creative Product Analysis Matrix, including “Novelty”, “Resolution”, and“Elaboration and Synthesis”.

In addition, each vehicle was awarded points for the Overall Impression it made,bearing in mind that the students had been urged to make their vehicles as creativeas possible (see below). In all five categories, a vehicle could receive from 0 to 5points, with intervals of .25 points between ratings being possible (i.e. scores suchas 3.50 or 2.75 could occur). The machines were assessed blind (without knowledgeof the group to which a particular student belonged) by an engineering instructor.Unfortunately, because the models were part of the students’ exams and had to bereturned to them quickly, there was only time for a single rater to assess them, sothat the level of agreement between raters (interrater reliability) could not bedetermined.

Procedure

Recruiting Participants.

All participants were enrolled in a second-year course: Engineering Innovation andPractice (EIP). Because of the well-known gender differences in creativity test scoresand effects of creativity training, possible confounding by gender needed to becontrolled. The small number of female students in EIP meant, that this could onlybe done by confining the study to males. During the first week of semester, thepurpose of EIP was explained to the students enrolled in it, as well as the variousactivities involved in the course. Of particular interest here are the creativity testing,the creativity counselling, the creativity lectures and the construction of themousetrap-powered vehicle. In the second week the students were given the oppor-tunity of taking the TCT—DP test and receiving the counselling. It was emphasizedthat participation was voluntary. About 60% of the 64 male students in thecourse did in fact volunteer (N 5 37). They are referred to in the following asthe “experimental” group. Of these people, three did not submit the model,leaving a reduced experimental group of 34.The remaining EIP-students (N 5 27)attended the lectures and submitted the vehicle, but did not do the test or receivecounselling. They comprise the “lecture” group. In the same week, male volunteerswere also recruited in a different engineering course that included none of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


elements of EIP. These students (N 5 21) did the test with the EIP-students, butneither attended EIP lectures nor received counselling, and formed the “control”group. The 85 men in the three groups ranged in age from 18 to 25. It is importantto note that the experimental and control groups consisted of volunteers (i.e. theywere self-selected), while the men in the lecture group, who simply submitted themodel, were “refusers”. Thus, the possibility cannot be discounted that the exper-imental and control groups contained men particularly receptive to material oncreativity, the lecture group men particularly unreceptive. Indeed, the mean TCT—DP scores of experimentals and controls that are reported in this article wereconsiderably higher than scores for similar groups given in the test manual.

Procedures for Measuring Creative Potential

Members of both groups of volunteers took Form A of the TCT—DP in the secondweek of the semester. Their protocols were scored by three female graduate studentsof psychology according to the procedures outlined in the test manual (Urban &Jellen, 1996). These raters had been trained to score the test in a half-day workshop.Protocols were identified by code numbers only, and the raters were not informedwhich group the men whose work they were rating belonged to. In the eighth weekof semester the students took Form B of the test, and their protocols were onceagain scored blind by the same raters.

Creativity Counselling

On the basis of scores on 13 of the subtests of the TCT—DP (time taken wasexcluded), a profile was constructed for each of the 37 EIP-students who had takenthe test. The profiles focused on three dimensions: “Productivity”, “Originality”,and “Unconventionality”. Initially, these dimensions were established by means ofan intuitive grouping of subscales that experience with the TCT—DP suggestedbelong together. Subsequently, however, the dimensions were empirically confirmedby a factor analysis of the Form A protocols of 111 male, second-year engineeringstudents (the men who completed Form A in connection with the present study,regardless of the group they belonged to or whether they also completed Form B,plus additional students who took EIP in the next semester).

The factor analysis (principal-axis method followed by rotation of factors witheigenvalues greater than unity to the Varimax criterion of simple structure) yieldedthree “significant” factors, as anticipated. The first (eigenvalue 5 2.30, 17.7% oftotal variance) was defined by Boundary Breaking, Continuations, and Comple-tions, and was labelled “Productivity”; the second (eigenvalue 5 1.98, 15.2% of totalvariance) by New Elements, Thematic Connections, and Perspective, and labelled“Novelty”. The third factor (eigenvalue 5 1.40, 10.8% of total variance) was definedby Humour, Symbol–Figure Combinations, Symbolic/Abstract/Fictional, andNon-Stereotypical Utilization of the Given Fragments. It was labelled“Unconventionality”. Bearing in mind that the reliabilities of the individual subtests

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


were on average about 0.70, these three factors accounted for about 90% of theaccountable variance of the TCT—DP.

In the third week of semester, each student was individually counselled by one ofthe three psychologists already mentioned, the sessions typically taking about 15minutes. The counsellors had received training in using the test for creativity priorto counselling in the workshop previously mentioned.

Each participant was shown his own profile, and attention was drawn to areas ofrelative strength and weakness, not in a normative, but in an ideographic fashion.This was done without reference to the actual test or to scoring criteria. To take aconcrete example that illustrates what the procedure was like, a student might beadvised as follows: “You produced plenty of ideas. However, only a few of themwere novel or unconventional”. The student might then specifically thematize issuessuch as unwillingness to risk doing something “foolish”, whereupon the counsellorwould encourage the participant to distinguish between prudence and excessivecaution.

The Creativity Lectures

In the second, third, and fourth weeks of semester the students enrolled in EIPreceived three lectures from a psychology specialist (the second author) on: (a) Whathas creativity got to do with engineering students?; (b) Why do engineers haveproblems with creativity?; (c) What are the psychological elements of creativity?; (d)What are the characteristics of a creative product?; (e) How can you solve problemscreatively?; and (f) What blocks creativity? Lectures emphasized the importance ofcreativity in modern engineering practice and as a factor in developing a career inthe field, and attempted to provide students with an understandable, practical modelof creativity that stressed cognitive, motivational, affective, and social aspects. Itemphasized that creative products must not only be novel and germinal, but mustalso reflect a high level of engineering knowledge (be effective and relevant). As willbe discussed below, this stress on building a model that really worked causeddifficulty for some students.

The Behavioural Measure

The course outline indicated that one of the assignments to be completed andscored as part of the assessment for the course was to build “a wheeled vehiclepowered by a mousetrap”. This had to be submitted in the eighth week of thesemester. It was emphasized to the students that the creativity of their vehicle wouldbe an important source of points, although they were also reminded that it wouldhave to be capable of propelling itself. When students asked for clarification of either“a wheeled vehicle”, or “powered by a mousetrap”, they were advised that the wordsin question were a sufficient definition of the task, and would not be elaboratedupon by the instructor. They were, however, reminded that the course was aboutcreativity, and were also reminded of the four dimensions on which their productswould be evaluated (i.e. Effectiveness, Novelty, Elegance, and Germinality).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Results

The results are presented in two parts: those relating to TCT—DP scores andinvolving comparisons of the experimental group (N 5 37) with the control group(N 5 21), and those relating to the assessment of the vehicle and involving compari-son of the reduced experimental group (N 5 34) with the lecture group (N 5 27).

Changes in Test Scores

The first results are derived from a comparison of the test scores of the experimentalgroup with those of the control group. The members of both groups were tested withthe TCT—DP and retested 6 weeks later. At the time of the second testing theexperimental group’s members had received counselling based on their creativityprofiles and had attended the lectures on creativity. The control group had simplywaited 6 weeks. Both groups consisted of volunteers, a fact that is likely to havereduced the possible confounding effects of self-selection. Indeed, since the controlswere not even in EIP, but responded to a general appeal in second-year courses, thevolunteer effect may well have been stronger in their case than in that of theexperimentals, and would thus be conservative (i.e. it would reduce the chance ofcreativity differences in favour of the experimentals).

The TCT—DP scores of the groups, both total scores and also scores on thevarious dimensions, were compared using a two-way analysis of variance, thedimension “experimental group vs. control group” (counselled vs. not counselled)defining one independent variable, the dimension “first testing vs. second testing”the other. Naturally, there were repeated measures on the time of testing factor,since the same people were tested on two occasions. This design permitted bothbetween-group and within-group comparisons.

The analyses of variance indicated that there was already a significant differencebetween the total score of the experimentals (M 5 40.92, SD 5 12.26) and that ofthe controls (M 5 36.76, SD 5 9.78) at the time of the first testing, F(1, 56) 5 6.15,p 5 0.02, i.e. even before the lectures and counselling. There was a significantinteraction between group and time of testing, F(1,56) 5 4.94, p 5 0.03. This wascaused by a large increase in the mean (M 5 47.27, SD 5 10.56) of the experimen-tals (40.92 vs. 47.27), whereas the mean of the controls (M 5 37.33, SD 5 12.89)had remained almost constant (36.76 vs. 37.33). Thus, it can be argued thatwhereas simply waiting 6 weeks for the second testing had no effect on the meanscore of the controls, lectures and counselling led to a statistically significantincrease in the scores of the experimentals.

This greater increase in total scores of experimentals than of controls was largelyattributable to significant increases in three of the subdimensions of the TCT—DP,New Elements, F(1,56) 5 7.51, p 5 0.01, Boundary Breaking (Fragment Depen-dent), F(1,56) 5 5.72, p 5 0.02, and Unconventionality via Manipulation of theMaterials, F(1,56) 5 5.65, p 5 0.02. Although there were numerical increases inscores of the experimentals on several other subdimensions, unaccompanied bycorrespondingly large increases for the controls, these differences were not statisti-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


cally significant and are thus to be regarded as tendencies rather than significantdifferences. The most notable example, however, is Boundary Breaking (FragmentIndependent), where the mean of the experimental group increased from 2.43(SD 5 2.99) to 4.38 (SD 5 2.41), as against the control group, where the increasewas from 1.71 (SD 5 2.78) to 2.57 (SD 5 2.87). In the case of Continuations andCompletions, there were actually numerical decreases in scores of both groups onthe second testing (this will be commented on below).

Creativity of the Product

The second set of results was derived from a comparison of the creativity of themouse trap-powered vehicles submitted by the members of the experimental group(who had taken the test, been counselled and received the lectures) with that of thevehicles constructed by the lecture group, who had not taken the test and had notbeen counselled.

All participants succeeded in constructing a vehicle that met the minimum formalrequirements (it had wheels and was capable of moving itself). Several of theresulting models were elegantly designed and well finished. However, most studentsassumed that the vehicle had to be four-wheeled and had to run on the ground likea car or truck. In addition, most focused on the energy stored in the trap’s spring asthe source of power, as well as consciously opting for a vehicle that was effective inthat it could cover a metre or more, and was socially acceptable in that it looked likeexisting vehicles. Only a few were able to achieve a dramatic breakaway fromconventional thinking, for instance by constructing an aeroplane launched by acatapult powered by the mousetrap’s spring (the plane had wheels and covered aconsiderable distance), or by building a large hollow wheel set rolling by a weightmounted in its interior and wound into position by the mousetrap’s spring. Moreradical in some ways was a wheeled cart attached to the mousetrap by a string.When the mousetrap was thrown off the table on which the vehicle stood, its weightpulled the vehicle along as the trap fell to the floor, thus using the gravitational forceacting on the mousetrap’s mass as the source of energy. The only limit on thedistance this method could propel the vehicle was the height of the surface fromwhich the mousetrap was thrown. One group set fire to the mousetrap and used theheat generated by the flames to generate steam that moved the vehicle a shortdistance, thus using the chemical energy stored in the wood. A final group thoughtof using the mousetrap’s spring to compress a bellows and inflate a balloon, thatwould then deflate violently and drive the vehicle by its jet action, but abandonedthis approach as too risky, since it might not propel the vehicle sufficiently far to bejudged effective.

Correlations among the five dimensions showed that Effectiveness and Elegancecorrelated substantially with each other, r 5 0.54 (N 5 61, p 5 0.00), not surprisingin view of the fact that both dimensions emphasized whether or not the vehicleworked. Novelty correlated substantially with Germinality, r 5 0.92 (N 5 61,p 5 0.00), but not with Effectiveness, r 5 –0.11 (N 5 61, n.s.), or Elegance, r 5 0.12(N 5 61, n.s.), while Germinality had only low correlations with Effectiveness,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


r 5 –0.09, (N 5 61, n.s.), or Elegance r 5 0.26 (N 5 61, p 5 0.05). In other words,ratings defined two relatively independent dimensions, one characterized by Effec-tiveness and Elegance, the other by Novelty and Germinality. The OverallImpression score correlated substantially with Novelty, r 5 0.87 (N 5 61, p 5 0.00),and Germinality, r 5 0.89 (N 5 61, p 5 0.00), but far less with Effectiveness, r 5 0.16(N 5 61, n.s.), or Elegance, r 5 0.38 (N 5 61, p 5 0.01), so that the rater’s subjectiveimpression was formed on the basis of Novelty and Germinality, scarcely surprisingin view of the fact that the rater formed an overall impression based on perceivedcreativity of the vehicles.

Comparison of the means of the two groups showed that the mean of theexperimental group on Elegance (M 5 3.46, SD 5 0.39) was significantly differentfrom the mean (M 5 3.15, SD 5 0.48) of the lecture group: t(59) 5 2.80, p 5 0.00.The difference between the mean of the experimentals on Overall Impression(M 5 3.59, SD 5 0.43) and that of the lecture group (M 5 3.34, SD 5 0.46) was alsostatistically significant: t(59) 5 2.18, p 5 0.04. In all other cases (Novelty, Germinal-ity and even Effectiveness), the means of the experimentals were numerically higherthan those of the lecture group (i.e. it is possible to speak of a tendency for thecounselled group to surpass the group without counselling on the various assess-ments of their vehicles).

Discussion

The subdimensions of the TCT—DP on which the experimentals obtained signifi-cantly greater increases than the controls were in essence tasks requiring eitherproduction of something new (as against extending or altering something thatalready existed), or using the materials in a radically unconventional way, forinstance by rotating or folding the answer sheet (as against retaining the usual spatialorientation, even though in some cases giving unexpected answers). The controlssometimes constructed more unconventional figures, but tended to stick within theconventional framework. For instance, on the retest they elaborated existing figuresin a more ingenious fashion than before. This can be attributed to the fact that onthe second occasion the test materials were familiar and the unstructured nature ofthe task less inhibiting. By contrast, the experimentals went further. As a group, theywere more prepared to introduce new material out of their own heads or change theexisting structure. The untrained students increased their scores to be sure, but didthis by being less inhibited, whereas the people in the experimental group increasedtheirs by being more innovative. This interpretation is supported by the fact that thevariance of the experimental group decreased at the second testing, whereas that ofthe control group increased. In the “treated” group weaknesses were reduced, thushomogenizing performance, whereas in the “untreated” group those with higherinitial scores became more adept with experience of the test, whereas those withlower scores to start with remained limited in their answers. Thus, the quantitativedifferences between the counselled students and the control group seem to reflect aqualitative effect of counselling on behaviour.

The results show that, in addition to producing more novelty in the test setting,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


the experimentals transferred this to the actual building of a vehicle. This finding isof considerable interest, because it involves a criterion intuitively resembling theactual work of engineers, raising the hope that the effects obtained in this studymight persist in real-life settings. This was achieved despite the fact that the studentswere working for grades (extrinsic motivation), and supports the position of Eisen-berger and Armeli (1997) rather than Amabile (1983). The “counselling” describedhere gives practical hints on implementing Eisenberger and Armeli’s recommenda-tion for clear feedback to students on what they need to do differently in order tobehave more creatively.

When instructors ask engineering students to create novelty, they expose them toa dilemma. Engineering requires high levels of expertise: mastery of basic knowl-edge, skills and techniques. The public wants machines to work and bridges tocontinue standing. Mastery of what already exists thus has a high value for students,and production of novelty runs directly counter to this tradition. Paradoxically,however, it is highly prized. Somehow, a compromise must be found between twoapparently contradictory ways of behaving. Focusing on people who had achievedhigh public acclaim for their expertise, Root-Bernstein (1989) described the “noviceeffect”: this is seen in experts who display high command of orthodoxy, but are stillable to break out of the straitjacket of their own expertise and look at their subjectwith the openness and freshness of beginners. The present study can be seen aslooking at this issue from the other end of the scale: it is concerned with how toencourage students to seek to develop expertise, but at the same time to remaincapable of creating novelty.

Ericsson and Smith (1991) pointed out that expertise is typically conceived of asarising from a combination of primarily inherited attributes (such as intelligence,personality, or special abilities) and primarily acquired attributes such as specialcognitive strategies or domain-specific knowledge. It is scarcely conceivable that thebrief training provided in the present study would bring about profound andlonglasting changes in participants’ ability or personality structure (i.e. in the senseof Helson (1999) in their fundamental psychological potential to be creative).However, it was possible to show them a different way that they found enjoyable ofsolving an engineering problem, as well as to give them a convincing demonstrationof their own ability to come up with ideas. In this sense, the study offers hints abouthow to influence the emergence of acquired attributes, in the present case specificknowledge about creativity, divergent cognitive strategies, and a positive attitude tonovelty. However, there seems little likelihood that such attributes will persist unlessthey are further developed by appropriate follow-up activities.

References

AMABILE, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.BASADUR, M., GRAEN, G. B. & SCANDURA, T. (1986). Training effects of attitudes toward divergent

thinking among manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 612–617.BESEMER, S. P. & O’QUIN, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a

judging instrument. In S. G. ISAKSEN (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics(pp. 367–389). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


CLAPHAM, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs.Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33–44.

CLAPHAM, M. M. & SCHUSTER, D. H. (1992). Can engineering students be trained to think morecreatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 156–162.

CROPLEY, A. J. (1995). Creative intelligence: A concept of “true” giftedness. In J. FREEMAN, P.SPAN & H. WAGNER (Eds.), Actualizing talent: A lifelong challenge (pp. 99–114). London:Cassell.

CROPLEY, A. J. & URBAN, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In K. A.HELLER, F. J. MONKS, R. J. STERNBERG & R. F. SUBOTNIK (Eds.), International handbook ofresearch and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

DEKKER, D. L. (1995, August). Engineering design processes, problem solving and creativity.Proceedings of the 1995 International Association for Engineering Education Frontiers in EducationConference, pp. 16–19.

EISENBERGER, R. & ARMELI, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance withoutreducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652–663.

ERICSSON, K. A. & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: anintroduction. In Ericsson, K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of Expertise:Prospects and Limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

FACAOARU, C. (1985). Kreativitat in Wissenschaft und Technik [Creativity in science and technol-ogy]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

FELDHUSEN, J. & GOH, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity. An integrative review oftheory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231–247.

GAWAIN T. H. (1974). Re� ection on education for creativity in engineering. International Associ-ation for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, 17, 189–192.

GLUSKINOS, U. M. (1971). Criteria for student engineering creativity and their relationship tocollege grades. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 189–195.

GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA (1999). Higher Education Funding Report, 1999. Canberra, Australia:Government Printer.

HASSENSTEIN, M. (1988). Bausteine zu einer Naturgeschichte der Intelligenz [Fundamentals of anatural history of intelligence]. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.

HELSON, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity ResearchJournal, 12, 89–102.

HENNESSEY, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relation-ships between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7,193–208.

HEQUET, M. (1995, October). Doing more with less. Training, pp. 76–82.HOCEVAR, D. & BACHELOR, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the

study of creativity. In J. A. GLOVER, R. R. RONNING & C. R. REYNOLDS (Eds.), Handbook ofcreativity (pp. 53–76). New York: Plenum.

MANSFIELD, R. S., BUSSE, T. V. & KREPELKA, (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training.Review of Educational Research, 48, 517–536.

MASI, J. V. (1989, August). Teaching the process of creativity in the engineering classroom.Proceedings of the 1989 International Association for Engineering Education Frontiers in EducationConference, pp. 288–292.

MUNROE, A. S. (1995, January 26). Is your design a life sentence? Machine Design, p. 156.OLKEN, H. (1964, December). Creativity training for engineers–its past, present and future.

International Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, pp. 149–161.ROOT-BERNSTEIN, R.S. (1989). Discovery. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.RUBINSTEIN, M. F. (1980). A decade of experience in teaching an interdisciplinary problem

solving course. In D. T. TURNA & F. REIF (Eds.), Problem solving and education (pp. 35–48).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

SNYDER, B. (1967). Creative students in science and engineering. Universities Quarterly, 21,205–218.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


STEINER, C. J. (1998). Educating for innovation and management: The engineering educa-tors’dilemma. International Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education,41, 1–7.

STERNBERG, R.J. & LUBART, T.I. (1992). Creative giftedness in children. In P. S. KLEIN & A. J.TANNENBAUM (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 33–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

TAYLOR, A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. TAYLOR & J. W. GETZELS (Eds.),Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297–325). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

THACKRAY, J. (1995, July). That vital spark (creativity enhancement in business). ManagementToday, pp. 56–58.

URBAN, K. K. & JELLEN, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production. Lisse, TheNetherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

WOODS, D. R. (1983). Introducing explicit training in problem solving into our courses. HigherEducation Research and Development, 2, 79–102.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

58 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Fostering Creativity in Engineering Undergraduates