(Illustration courtesy of istock.com/agsandrew)
While there is concern that U.S. math and science scores are not competing well internationally, many suggest that the American educational system can be strengthened through creativity. Since engineering seeks solutions to problems, creativity can be a vital asset. Even the National Academy of Engineers has suggested that engineers should be proficient in both technical and non-technical skills, including creativity.
However, creativity is often neglected in traditional engineering education curriculums. Engineering education, which often includes drills of problem-solving exercises may create a mind/body split that could be distressing to marginalized identities (Faulkner 2000). The repetitive nature of problem sets and lab work can narrow the scope of thought, prioritizing technical mastery over engagement with social context. Most undergrad engineering majors are not trained to recognize their own cognitive biases to effectively evaluate their work (Booker, Gates, and Knights 2021). Even worse, there can be a loss in students’ creativity over a 4-year undergraduate program (Sola et al. 2017; YASEMIN TEKMEN-ARACI 2019).
Neglecting creativity can alienate artistically-inclined students. Current engineering curriculums often over-emphasize learning in the “hard” math and sciences and convey this information in a manner that tends to suppress the imagination and alienate students with different learning styles (Bairaktarova & Eodice, 2017). By encouraging creativity, the pool of engineers can also be diversified (Bairaktarova & Eodice, 2017). The good news is that creativity can be taught and cultivated among engineering students.
What is Creativity?
Creativity is defined as the ability to develop novel ideas which are of high quality and task-appropriate (Sternberg, 2001). Creativity differs from intelligence, which is the ability to acquire skills which allows one to adapt to their environment. For example, products made by intelligent people may be of high quality but are not novel. Generally, there is a reward for intelligent people in society, though intelligence is relative between societies (Sternberg, 2001).
Thinking Patterns
Creativity heavily relies on divergent thinking as opposed to convergent thinking. Convergent thinking is the ability to use accepted principles, facts, and logical analysis to arrive at one solution. Divergent thinking is the ability to generate multiple ideas (fluidity) and to differentiate between these ideas (flexibility). Intelligence differs from creativity, though it is considered a prerequisite to creativity.
Divergent v. Convergent thinking. Divergent thinking includes: Elaboration (embellish and idea), Fluency (generate large number of ideas and alternatives), Flexibility (viewing problems from different point of view), and Originality (novel ideas).
Culture
Furthermore, creativity is relative to culture. For example, cubist paintings were novel 100 years ago but are not so today. Creativity may be considered the antithesis of intelligence since creative people are questioning or “opposing” societal work; therefore, their ideas may be heavily questioned and attacked (Sternberg, 2001). Some creative work is less novel and is an incremental change on an existing idea within a defined paradigm. This type of creative work tends to be better received (Sternberg, 2001).
Albert Gleizes, 1910, La Femme aux Phlox (Woman with Phlox). An example of a cubism.
Usually, there is a decline in creativity after the age of eight years old because of the person’s desire to conform (Wankat & Oreovicz, 2015). Creativity is undervalued in American education and there is an alarming drop in divergent thinking skills between preschoolers and adolescents. As Erin Crosby Eckstine describes:
Creativity loss is not just an engineering problem, but a general problem due to conformist social pressures and educational systems that don’t foster creativity.
Personality influences
Research on how creative people live and work reveals their most common personality trait: complexity. Creative people often embody contradictory behavior (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). For example, they may have a lot of physical energy, but can sit still, often concentrating for long periods of time. They can be both smart and naïve, playful and disciplined, introverted and extroverted, imaginative and realistic, humble and proud, rebellious and conservative, non-conformist, defy rigid gender roles, can be both passionate and objective about their work, and vulnerable to both suffering and joy.
Several studies have attempted to link specific Big Five Personality Traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience) to creativity with mixed results. The prevailing assumption was that extraverted, open (“free-spirited”) and less conscientious (diligence, goal setting, careful) individuals were highly creative. However, further research has demonstrated that conscientious college students had high levels of creativity.
The “mad genius” hypothesis is a prevalent cultural myth related to creativity. For decades, many studies have attempted to scientifically ‘prove’ the relationship between mental illness, often bipolar disorder, and creativity. Indeed, some well-known creative individuals, such as Syliva Plath, Virginia Woolf, and Robert Lowell notoriously struggled with mental illness. However, the impact of mental health on creativity is far more complex than previously assumed, and many of these “mad genius” studies were based on limited or faulty data and have been disproven in the past decade.
Furthermore, people can also deliberately ‘choose’ to be more creative. Creative people can redefine a problem, go against the crowd, take reasonable risks, seek new connections, and recognize that existing knowledge can hinder and help new ideas (Sternberg, 2001). Therefore, people can develop creative thinking skills intentionally through effort and mindset.
Why is Creativity Important in Engineering?
Creative thinking can be especially beneficial for engineers when designing novel solutions to problems. While fields like mathematics heavily rely on convergent thinking, studies have shown that divergent thinking skills can complement children’s math convergent thinking skills and especially on problems with multiple solutions. However, the typical engineering curriculum decreases the chance that creative solutions will be used by students (Wankat & Oreovicz, 2015).
Prevalence of Divergent Thinking
Daly et al. (2014) examined how the learning goals, instructional methods, and assessments of seven engineering courses fostered cognitive creative skills at a major Midwestern public research university with 8000 engineering students. They specifically surveyed seven engineering courses which already had goals of fostering creativity.
They used a small sample size (seven courses) which consisted of a variety of disciplines, formats, levels, and topics. All courses were in the same semester. The study documented instances of engineering pedagogy which were aimed at promoting creative thinking in students. They analyzed interviews of students and instructors, student surveys, and the course materials for the entire semester. These items were coded into four areas of creativity: “Generating ideas” (divergent thinking), “Digging Deeper into Ideas” (convergent thinking), “Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas” (personal characteristics), and “Listening to One’s Inner voice” (reflection or metacognition).
The results showed that convergent thinking was well represented, but divergent thinking was not. However, instruction that could foster divergent thinking was generally lacking. They recommended instructors to encourage students to embrace ambiguity, avoid premature closure, and increase reflection.
Engineering creative design is different than general creativity
Charyton & Merrill (2009) developed a Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA) and administered it to 63 engineering (57 males, 6 females) and 21 non-engineering (6 males, 15 females) to assess creativity at a Midwestern U.S. university. CEDA tests the ability to formulate and express design ideas by generating multiple design solutions for a given problem.
Engineering students were in a course in which they had to design a functional roller coaster. Non-engineering students instead took an introductory psychology course where the purpose was to learn about different fields of psychology. The students’ CEDA results were tested against general creativity metrics including the Creative Personality Scale (a widely used creativity test), the Creative Temperament Scale (assessment of personality characteristics), and the Cognitive Risk Tolerance Scale (self-reported creativity when faced with the threat of negative assessment).
The researchers reported that engineering students were not significantly different from non-engineering students in general creativity measures (personality, temperament, cognitive risk). However, they found that engineering students could be differentiated into low, medium, and high levels of creative engineering design, despite having the same levels of general creativity. This result implies that creative engineering design is different than general creativity.
Charyton et al. (2011) compared a revised CEDA method to other established creativity metrics including the Purdue Creativity Test (PCT), the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test-Rotations (PSVT-R), and a Systems test. The PCT was developed to test engineers on their creativity (divergent thinking) for selection of placement in field. The PSVT-R is most commonly used to test engineering students’ spatial visualization. The Systems Tests tested the functionality of the roller coaster design for each team.
The study involved 259 engineering students (221 males, 38 females; 81% freshmen or sophomores) enrolled in a two-course introductory engineering sequence at a Midwestern U.S. university. Coursework included sketching exercises, journal assignments, and a roller coaster design project.
The researchers reported that males and females showed no significant differences in their CEDA, PCT, PSVT-R or the Systems Test. They concluded that CEDA was significantly related to the PCT (divergent thinking) and moderately related to PVST-R (spatial skills). They concluded that this moderate relationship was due to the fact that CEDA measured both divergent and convergent thinking skills, suggesting that CEDA is domain specific to engineering.
Valuing Creativity to help Improve Student Retention
Because creativity is not rewarded in engineering, there may be lower retention rates of creative individuals. Atwood & Pretz (2016) examined creativity as a factor in persistence and achievement in engineering undergraduates at Elizabethtown College, a small, private, liberal arts college in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. They tracked students over four years and examined high school rank, SAT scores, creativity (self-reported and rated), and personality.
Creative assessments included a Creative Achievement Questionnaire (a survey of creative accomplishments and creative self-efficacy), writing a creative caption, writing a creative essay, and divergent thinking tasks. None of the creativity assessments were significant predictors of academic achievement or persistence in the first year.
However, creative self-efficacy (belief one can produce creative products) was negatively related to student persistence. Students who saw themselves as highly creative were less likely to persist in engineering”
Atwood & Pretz (2016) concluded that creativity was not rewarded or appropriately taught in engineering. People who perceived themselves as being creative might leave the major, feeling stifled.
Conclusion
Creativity, especially divergent thinking, is important for student’s problem-solving skills, innovation, and their well-being. However, current engineering programs often fail to cultivate or even preserve creativity, which not only discourages diverse thinkers but can reduce student retention. Furthermore, creative thinking in engineering is a distinct, domain-specific skill that can be cultivated in the classroom. Next time, I will present strategies for improving student creativity.
Creativity test link: https://www.datcreativity.com/task
References
Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2015). Teaching Engineering (2nd ed.). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
That’s a real problem. Engineers are supposed to drive innovation, yet their creativity often gets restricted by rigid processes. On top of that, diversity is frequently overlooked, which limits the range of perspectives and prevents the exploration of alternative solutions.
This connects to a key question in Creatism: how do we measure creation vs. consumption in technical fields? If engineering education focuses on consuming existing knowledge rather than creating new solutions, are we producing consumers or creators? Would love your thoughts on this in the Creatism discussion: https://rhythmicity.substack.com/p/creatism-create-more-than-you-consume