Download - Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 1/21
Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking
Daniel M. Ferguson
Development Theories and Engineering Thinking
Spring 2011
Course number ENE 69500-01
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 2/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 2
Abstract
Approaching problem solving creatively is a societal goal handed to every engineer.
(National Academy of Engineering, 2004) Creative problem solving requires that an engineer
master not only scientific knowledge but also develop their cognitive or thinking skills to the
level where they can deal not only with structured problems but with the ill-structured, subjective
and relative conditions that mark real world problems and require creative solutions. (Irish,
1999b; D. Jonassen, 2006) Domain changing creative problem solving is the holy grail of
engineering and often requires many long years of knowledge acquisition, interaction with
experienced, diverse and knowledgeable engineers working in the same domain and personal
courage and curiosity. (Crawley, 2007) Five suggestions drawn from creativity research are
made for supporting creativity in engineering problem solving. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996;
Michael Kirton, 1976; National Academy of Engineering, 2005)
Introduction
Engineering is the profession that conceives, designs, implements and operates products,
processes and systems that use natural resources and technologies for the benefit of society.
(Crawley, 2007) Given the limitations and scarcity of natural resources faced by all
communities on our planet the need to conserve natural resources and find ways to use our
natural resources more effectively and sustainably in any product, process, or system is an
overriding and continuous societal goal given to all engineers. (National Academy of
Engineering, 2004)
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 3/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 3
Engineers, who think creatively and solve the problems of our societies by translating
scientific discoveries into novel and appropriate solutions to societal problems, are a priceless
societal resource. (National Academy of Engineering, 2005) Developing creative problem
solving engineers is the societal goal assigned to engineering education.
Engineering thinking is the cognitive or thinking process by which an engineer applies
scientific principles and societal constraints to the optimal conversion of available natural
resources into a problem solution that benefits society in the communities where they live and
work. (Crawley, 2007) Problem solving as a process involves several data gathering, analysis,
communication and organization steps and this problem solving process is defined as: problem
definition, problem analysis, solution generation, solution evaluation, solution selection,
implementation and evaluation. (Cherry, 2011; Crawley, 2007)
In each stage of the problem solving process gathering information, working in a team,
considering all reasonable alternatives and coming up with new or novel solutions to the problem
are crucial strategies employed by engineers to arrive at the best solution given the constraints
that they face. (Crawley, 2007) Improving on an existing problem solution (e.g. finding a lower
cost material that performs as well as the existing material in use) is one of the important
considerations faced by engineers who are working on finding the solution to a problem.
Finding novel solutions to aspects of a problem is when creativity supports engineering thinking.
Bernard. F. Gordon, Founder of Analogic Corporation, in 1984 called an engineer's " spirit of
creativity and courage, [the skill and personality trait] that leads to creativity and innovation", an
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 4/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 4
essential characteristic of a "real engineer." (Crawley, 2007) Recognition for being creative can
also be external to an engineer's immediate community (e.g. company) and actions. When an
engineer's novel ideas are accepted and used by the larger society outside their immediate
community (e.g., a patent is granted, a company is created that uses the novel idea), the novel
ideas generated by an engineer are judged to be domain-changing creative. (Csikszentmihalyi,
1996; Drucker, 1986; Hargadon, 2003)
Engineering is Problem Solving
In his report on engineering education written in 1918 but covering the development of
engineering over the previous 30-50 years, Charles Mann said "the ultimate aim of engineering is
more intelligent production." (Mann, 1918) Mann's definition of the role of engineering in
society is congruent with Crawley‟s modern definition of engineering as: “the use of new or
existing technology incorporated in products, processes or systems to meet the changing needs of
society.” (Crawley, 2007, pp. 2-3)
A different way to define engineering is described by David Noble, where he views the
profession of engineering standing between science and applying science to the practical
problems of society. (Noble, 1978) B.E. Seely sees engineering as practical problem solving.
(Seely, 1999) Seely explains how societal forces, such as world wars, influence the definition of
what engineers should know and do. In particular he points out that the debate can tilt toward
both the practical engineer and the theoretical engineer under societal pressures. When society
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 5/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 5
needs to increase the production of goods and services to fight a war more engineers and more
production are both needed. Describing the experiences of Eric Walker (Dean of Engineering at
Penn State in 1950) during and after WWII, Seely writes "Walker's wartime experiences
convinced him that engineers need to know about and be able to apply the newest scientific
knowledge and understandings." (Seely, 1999, p. 290) Seely adds that a good engineer must
strike a balance between knowing and doing." (Seely, 1999, p. 292)
In 1984 Bernard F Gordon, also stated that “a real engineer is one who has attained and
continuously enhances technical, communications, and human relations knowledge, skills and
attitudes, and who contributes effectively to society by theorizing, conceiving, developing, and
producing reliable structures and machines of practical and economic value." (Crawley, 2007,
pp. 10-11). Koen describes an engineer "as a problem solver who executes a strategy for causing
the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources."(Koen, 2003)
Koen adds that "change and resources are easy to understand but society does not always
understand that [an] engineer solves problems in an optimal way given the constraints faced by
the engineer. Therefore, the engineers' solutions are not always perceived as best by everyone
impacted by the engineers implemented solution." (Koen, 2003)
Problem solving is therefore at the core of an engineer‟s role and responsibility in society
and the problems engineers are asked to solve range from highly structured to totally lacking
structure , that is, ill-defined or poorly understood. (D. H. Jonassen, 2000) Jonassen reviewed
eleven different types of problems that engineers may be asked to solve, all requiring a process
of generating and weighing alternatives and coming up with the best possible solution. (D. H.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 6/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 6
Jonassen, 2000) Solving problems by engineers requires a broad set of thinking and
communication skills, knowledge across domains, consideration of societal constraints and
implementation of a solution that is perceived as best by the engineer, but does not satisfy all of
society‟s stakeholders impacted by the problem solution. (Koen, 2003) Engineers are expected
to make improvements on existing solutions whenever possible and generating novel solutions
when creatively problem solving is what B.F. Gordon hailed as an essential engineering trait,
that is, creativity. (Crawley, 2007)
Engineering Thinking
A critical aspect of our ability to solve problems are our cognitive or thinking processes
and use of symbolic language which we develop as children and continue to use and develop as
an adult. (Ginsburg & Opper, 1988; Vygotsky, 1986) Benjamin Bloom in 1956 and William G
Perry in 1970 proposed models of how we think and solve problems of increasing complexity.
Bloom and Perry's models are representations of how engineers develop and use their cognitive
skills and solve engineering problems. (Irish, 1999a; Krathwohl, 2002; Perry, 1970)
Bloom‟s cognitive model proposes six increasingly subjective and less defined levels of
problems to which we apply our thinking or cognitive skills to solve problems:
1. Knowledge recalls specifics, patterns, universals, abstractions.
2. Comprehension uses information to translate, summarize, extrapolate.
3. Application uses abstractions (e.g. laws) in particular and concrete situations.
4. Analysis understands relations between ideas or concepts
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 7/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 7
5. Synthesis puts together elements into a whole, to combine elements to
constitute a pattern.
6. Evaluation makes judgments based on internal evidence, makes judgments
based on external criteria(Irish, 1999a)
A revision to Bloom‟s taxonomy by Krathwohl renames the six levels as 1. Remember, 2.
Understand, 3. Apply, 4. Analyze, 5. Evaluate, and 6. Create. Krathwohl also identifies four
types of knowledge to which these levels of thinking apply: Factual Knowledge, Conceptual
Knowledge (understanding theories or formulas), Procedural Knowledge (knowledge of
processes), and Metacognitive Knowledge (knowing how much you know or don't know).
Krathwohl‟s hypothesis is that we move through Bloom‟s six cognitive levels with respect to
each type of knowledge and this hypothesis is relevant to engineering thinking because engineers
may have to use all four types of knowledge identified by Krathwohl to solve complex problems.
An engineer's ability to operate with different types of knowledge is then a function of the level
of thinking ability that they possess for that type of knowledge. This differentiated ability to
effectively use different types of knowledge is particularly important at the crucial stages for
solving complex problems, Bloom's synthesis and evaluation stages or the evaluate and create
stages for Krathwohl. (Krathwohl, 2002)
Perry‟s scheme of intellectual development has nine stages but the stages are not
cumulative as in Bloom‟s taxonomy and each stage of thinking replaces the previous stage as in
a paradigm shift in psychological development- a capacity to hold in the mind and work with
conflicting areas of information and contradiction.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 8/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 8
A simplified version of Perry‟s scheme is: (Irish, 1999a; Perry, 1970)
Basic Duality – Position 1, A view of the world; values, actions, behaviors, in terms of
duel value sets; us-them, right-wrong, authority-illegitimate, (Perry, 1970)
Multiplicity – Positions 2, 3, & 4 (Pre-Legitimate, Subordinate, Correlate) An individual
starts to recognize pluralistic views and value sets. (Perry, 1970)
Relativism – Position 5 (the foundation concept for positions 6-9. All knowledge is
relative, authority becomes authority and absolutes become degrees in value. (Perry, 1970)
Commitment – Positions 6, 7, 8, & 9 mental growth switches from trying to understand
and come to terms with view and value, to trying to understand and come to terms with the
implications of commitment/responsibility in a relativistic world. (Perry, 1970)
In Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive processing an engineer can operate at different
cognitive levels depending on the information required, the specific problem context being
considered, how much domain knowledge they possess and how much experience they have in
solving the category of problem under consideration. (D. H. Jonassen, 2000) There are other
researchers who categorize our mental models as relating to matter, processes or mental states
and who argue that crossing categories represents another type of difficulty in cognitive
processing. (Chi, Slotta, & de Leeuw, 1994) However in Perry's model there is a passage from
one stage to another stage that determines how an engineer views knowledge or the problem
aspects under consideration. The stage of intellectual development of an engineer influences
what they believe about thinking and knowledge and therefore how they approach problem
solving. (Perry, 1970) For both Bloom and Perry's mental models an engineer who is problem
solving will assume:
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 9/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 9
if at level or stage 1, that there is a discrete answer to the problem (like on a math test).
if at levels 2-3 or stages 2-4, that there is an answer to the problem, and even if I don't
know it, someone does (like my teacher).
if at level 4 or stage 5, there are many answers to a problem and we just need to find one
that works for us and satisfies all the problem objectives and constraints.(the
professional engineer)
if at level 5-6 or stages 6-9, there is really no simple answer to any problem, rather there
is a decision to be made based on the available information and this decision can
change as new information is made available. (the creative problem solving
engineer). These are also the stages or levels where creative solutions
emerge.(Irish, 1999a)
Research has found that engineers who are able to operate at the upper levels or stages of
these thinking models are most often engineers with substantial experience, significant domain
knowledge and who are able to operate in the context of a diverse team which is also solving
problems in the same domain. (Irish, 1999a) Coincidentally researchers in creativity have
discovered that many creative people exhibit these same cognitive attributes and domain
characteristics. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
There are two additional findings that researchers have obtained from studies using
Bloom‟s taxonomy and Perry‟s model of intellectual development as theoretical frameworks that
illuminate how engineers solve or don't solve problems creatively:
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 10/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 10
1. Engineering students enter college with problem solving skills around Bloom‟s levels
1-2 and Perry‟s level 1-2 and leave college with problem solving skills around
Bloom‟s levels 3-4 and Perry‟s level 2-4. The problems they are generally able to
solve as an engineer after a four-year engineering education program are those that
are solvable using equations or resolvable by standard solutions, in other words, not
likely to require higher level or higher stage thinking. (Irish, 1999a) Advancing to the
higher levels of thinking as described by these models is not automatically occurring
during an undergraduate engineering education.
2. To advance your thinking to Bloom‟s levels 4-6 or Perry‟s levels 5-9 requires that the
engineers understand and accept that real world problems are ill-structured and
problem information is relative and subjective and nearly always incomplete.
From society's point of view it is not enough for an engineer to solve simple structured
problems, like replacing a worn out tire with a new tire, we want the engineer to design a new
type of tire that lasts longer, is safer in bad weather and doesn't ever go flat. (Michelin, 2006) We
want engineers who will develop better tire solutions and who are able to think at the higher
Bloom and Perry thinking levels and stages. We need engineers who can address ill-structured
problems and design creative solutions to these complex real-world problems, that is, think
creatively. (Crawley, 2007; National Academy of Engineering, 2005)
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 11/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 11
Engineering Creativity
As humans (engineers) work to solve their problems they can and do propose solutions
that are judged to be novel, sometimes solutions that are so unique they are even called brilliant
ideas and occasionally, most often after many long years of hard work and supported by a
network or community, they propose a solution or a change in a domain that is valued and
adopted by that community or their culture. (Hargadon, 2003; Johnson, 2010) All three of these
types of problem solutions as described by Csikszentmihalyi are called 'creative' by society.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) So creativity in problem solving as defined by Csikszentmihalyi is
producing a novel idea or brilliant idea, or a domain-changing solution and this is the definition
of engineering creativity.
Ferrrari citing Sternberg says: “Creativity has been understood as the "ability to produce
work that is both novel and appropriate" While Craft sees creativity as the ability to see
possibilities that others haven't noticed , [novel] and Esquivel sees it as the critical process
involved in the generation of new ideas [novel].” (Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009) Zeng et al
after reviewing definitions of engineering creativity see creativity as "a cognitive process that
results in an idea or solution that is novel and appropriate that people will purchase, adopt, use or
appreciate [domain-changing]." (Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011)
Researchers also suggest that: "Creativity arises where there is a happy combination of
factors such as personality traits, social influences, environmental constraints and cultural values
but that there is no single recipe for making it happen.(Edmonds, et al., 2005)" Sternberg
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 12/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 12
maintains that there „is not a single trait or type of creativity but perhaps many different types of
creativity when he says that there are at least three different forms creativities might take:
creativities with respect to processes, domains, and styles. (Sternberg, 2005, p. 371) Torrance
describes human creativity attributes as fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration and
further states that an individual can be trained to be more creative, a critical point for the
engineering problem solver. (1993) Csikszentmihalyi points out that some of the most creative
problem solutions occur when you cross domains or work in a diverse team that is populated by
team members who have very diverse domain knowledge and life and work experiences.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)
Csikszentmihalyi further suggests that novelty or originality are easier to generate,
whereas ideas judged appropriate and adopted in a symbolic domain (domain changing) are very
difficult to generate. Discovering new or creative acts or ways of thinking that change a domain
almost always requires three critical and difficult inputs according to Csikszentmihalyi:
1. long arduous acquisition of knowledge about a domain of acting or thinking,
2. incremental gains in understanding of that domain acquired over long periods of time
but with puzzles that remain, and
3. interaction with other experts who are gathering information about that same domain
but bring their own unique and diverse insights and experiences to share with you, that
is, you learn together and share experiments, thoughts, and ideas but from very
different perspectives.(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 13/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 13
In summary, engineering creativity, coming up with novel and appropriate problem
solutions to ill-structured real world problems, often requires a long, arduous acquisition of
knowledge. New insights in problem solutions are made incrementally and interaction with
other engineers with diverse backgrounds working in the same domain stimulate creative
insights. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)
Engineering Problem Solving and Creativity Processes
The patterns of problem solving and creative thinking processes are similar and involve
the same cognitive processes. Problem solving is generally defined as a four to seven steps
process (Cherry, 2011; Heller, Keith, & Anderson, 1992) and, for example, here is a prototypical
six step problem solving process definition:
Problem Definition: Document the problem to solve; check that you are answering the right
problem.
Problem Analysis: Understand the facts of the current problem situation and why there is a
problem.
Generating Possible alternate solutions: Consider several possible solutions that meet the
situation objectives within constraints.
Analyzing alternatives: Investigate each potential solution and develop the criteria that you
will use to select a solution. Record the good and bad points of each alternative and other
influencing factors which are relevant to each alternative.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 14/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 14
Selecting the Best Solution(s): Evaluate the facts and other factors for possible solutions.
Select a solution(s) based upon your criteria.
Implementation: Prepare and execute the plan for the selected solution (s).(Dewey, 1933;
Kimmel, 2003)
Creativity as a process on the other hand is often defined as having four or five steps: (Zeng, et
al., 2011)
Problem Analysis: Execute problem finding and problem formulating which involves
understanding the problem context and framing the problem in concrete and meaningful
ways to facilitate idea generation.
Ideation: Generate a variety of alternate solutions to the formulated problem.
Evaluation: Specify a set of criteria and evaluate the generated ideas against those criteria.
Implementation: Select the solution[s] and prepare and execute the plan for the selected
solution[s].
Table 1 below shows descriptions of the process steps for problem solving and creativity. The
descriptive words, the sequence of steps and the inputs and outcomes of the process steps are
very similar. Kirton says that "creativity [the process] is a subset if not entirely synonymous
with problem solving" (M. Kirton, 2003, p. 150). Given that creativity and problem solving
process steps are similar we assume that the required skill sets are also similar, that is, if you can
think of alternate ways to solve a problem, some of those alternatives can be novel or even
brilliant and occasionally domain changing.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 15/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 15
Table 1.0 Comparison of process steps in engineering problem solving and engineering
creativity
EngineeringProblem Solving
Steps
Description of Problem Solving
Step
EngineeringCreativity Steps Description of Creativity Step
Problem
Definition:
Document the
problem to solve;
check that you areanswering the right
problem.
Problem Analysis:
problem finding
Understanding the
problem context
Problem
Analysis:
Understand the facts
of the current problem
situation and why
there is a problem.
Problem Analysis:
problem formulating
Framing the problem
in concrete and
meaningful ways to
facilitate ideageneration.
Generating
Possible alternate
solutions:
Consider severalpossible solutions that
meet the situation
objectives withinconstraints.
Ideation: Generate a variety of alternate solutions to
the formulated
problem.
Analyzing
alternatives:
Investigate eachpotential solution and
develop the criteria
that you will use to
select a solution.Record the good and
bad points of each
alternative and otherinfluencing factors
which are relevant to
each alternative.
Evaluation: Specify a set of criteria and evaluate
the generated ideas
against those criteria.
Selecting the
Best Solution(s):
Evaluate facts and
other factors for eachpossible solution.
Select a solution(s)
based upon your
criteria.
Implementation: Select the solution(s)
and prepare andexecute the plan for
the selected
solution(s).
Implementation: Prepare and executethe plan for the
selected solution (s).
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 16/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 16
Although the problem solving and creative processes are virtually identical, researchers
identify different personal traits for individuals engaging successfully in these processes. Welch
defines problem-solving skills as: (using) tools, defining, goal-identification, (using) heuristics,
and reasoning.(2009) However, Simon cautions that different people will use different cognitive
strategies in solving problems (Simon, 1975) much as Sternberg maintains that there are different
types of creative strategies that people deploy. (Sternberg, 2005) (Hipple, 2005) Kirton also
identifies many different problem solving styles of people whom he calls adapters or innovators
and maintains that both personality types can be effective problem solvers, depending on their
capacity and on the context of the problem situation.(M. Kirton, 2003) There is no single type of
person who is a good engineer problem solver or good creative engineer and you can be trained
to be a better creative problem solver individually and in a team, a position long maintained by
DeBono. (2006)
Supporting Creative Engineering Problem Solving
How do engineers learn and engineering educators and society support creative
engineering problem solving?: First, instill in engineers the vision that their role in society is a
problem solver, a translator of science into solutions that improve society and the understanding
that the creative problem solver must look beyond the obvious solutions for those solutions
which truly benefit society. (Crawley, 2007; Koen, 2003) Next, give engineers the training and
confidence that establishes their competence and effectiveness as a societal problem solver and
help them master a beginning level of scientific and technical knowledge with the understanding
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 17/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 17
they must continue to learn creative problem solving during their whole lives. This learning must
be broad-based, including the skills, facts and theories that they will need in their professional
careers. (ABET Inc., 2009; Crawley, 2007) Finally help engineers attain the Bloom and Perry
levels of synthesis and evaluation where they are working on ill-structured relativistic problems,
that is, real world problems. (Irish, 1999a)
How can society and engineering educators support more creativity in engineering
problem solving processes?:
First, since the engineer must invest considerable resources to learning the domain of
practice, society must support this investment. Domain changing solutions require a thorough
understanding of the domain and deep insights acquired after many years of hard work and
research. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996)
Second, engineers must learn how to access the strengths of a diverse team that is
working together to solve a problem in a domain. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996)
Third, the environment within the work and life community of the engineer must support
and provide motivation for creative practices and tolerate failure. (Michael Kirton, 1976)
Fourth, the engineer or society must build a team that has worked across domains
because team diversity stimulates creative thinking and supports the creation of unusual
associations and insights, domain changing solutions. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996)
Fifth, the engineer and society must balance problem solving teams with diverse kinds of
personalities so that they can respond creatively to the wide range of problems faced by our
societies. (Dweck, 2006; M. Kirton, 2003)
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 18/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 18
Summary of Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking
Becoming a creative problem solver is the goal of every engineer and teaching and
developing creative problem solving skills is the goal of every engineering education program.
In order to reach the creative problem solving cognitive levels an engineer must learn how to
deal with ill-structured and relativistic problems where there is no simple answer only a
commitment to find the best possible creative solution given the constraints-and to change that
solution as new information becomes available.
Examining creativity and problem solving processes is like looking at identical twins, it's
hard to know which process you are discussing without knowing the subject or first name.
Researchers in human creativity and researchers in engineering problem solving have proceeded
in parallel but share common definitions, discoveries and are in agreement that novelty and
appropriateness are the criteria to use to identify a creative solution and a good problem solution.
Problem solving and creativity, evaluated as processes and as an engineering thinking task, both
include generating new ways to solve a problem as a key process step.
Creativity and problem solving are encouraged by the conditions surrounding individual
or teams and the diversity of personalities and domain knowledge involved in the processes.
Both require a mastery of the knowledge and processes in a domain. Novel and appropriate
ideas are easier to generate, especially across domains, but domain changing problem solutions
are generated in incremental steps and the result of long hard work, most often by diverse teams
of engineers or collaborators.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 19/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 19
In examining creative problem solving the assumption is made that creative, problem
solving and cognitive or thinking skills can be developed, and are not inherited or fixed. (Dweck,
2006) Debates and ideas are plentiful for how best to achieve growth in these human and
societal dimensions and these strategies were not discussed. Only Bloom and Perry's mental
models of cognitive processes were examined in detail. Other mental models and related
concepts may also offer insights into creative problem solving. (Chi, et al., 1994) Creativity is
also viewed as occurring more likely in the context of diverse teams and after substantial domain
knowledge is acquired. Other theories suggest that aha moments and epiphanies occur through
creative processes not requiring such arduous efforts or even team contexts. Alternate creativity
theories were not considered.
References
2010-2011 Criteria for Accrediting Applied Science Programs (2009).
Cherry, K. (2011). What is Problem Solving? , from About.com:
http://psychology.about.com/od/problemsolving/f/problem-solving-steps.htm
Chi, M., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From Things to Processes: A Theory of Conceptual Change for Learning Science Concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Crawley, E. F. S. L. (2007). Rethinking engineering education the CDIO approach. New York:
Springer.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Cszikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
New York, NY Harper Perennial.DeBono (Producer). (2006) Edward de Bono on creative thinking. Podcast retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjSjZOjNIJg&feature=related.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think? Lexington, MA: Heath.Drucker, P. F. (1986). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York,
NY: Harper Business.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset:The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballentine Books.
Edmonds, E. A., Weakley, A., Candy, L., Fell, M., Knott, R., & Pauletto, S. (2005). The studioas laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology research. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 452-481.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 20/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 20
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training
in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting InnovativeTeaching. European Commission Joint Research Centre.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development . New York,
NY: Prentice Hall.
Hargadon, A. (2003). How Breakthroughs Happen. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.
Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching Problem Solving through Cooperative
Grouping: Group vs. Individual Problem Solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7).Hipple, J. (2005). Solve Problems Inventively. Chemical Engineering Progress, 101(4), 44-51.
Irish, R. (1999a). Engineering Thinking: Using Benjamin Bloom and William Perry to Design
Assignments. Engineering Thinking, 3(2), 83-102.
Irish, R. (1999b). Engineering Thinking: Using Benjamin Bloom and William Perry to DesignAssignments. Journal of Engineering Thinking, 3(2), 83-102.
Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation . New
York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Jonassen, D. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineeringeducators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology
research and development, 48(4), 63-85.
Kimmel, S. J. (2003). The common skills of problem solving: from program development to
engineering design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 810-817.
Kirton, M. (1976). Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory [1998 Edition]. In L. L. Brown & R.Brown (Eds.), KAI . Highlands, Gravel Path, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 2PQ,
United Kingdom: Occupational Research Centre.
Kirton, M. (2003). Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change. New York, NY:Routledge.
Koen, B. V. (2003). Definition of the Engineering Method.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4).Mann, C. (1918). Study of Engineering Education.
Michelin (2006). Run-flat Tires: A Primer. Retrieved 2011, from Edmunds.com:
National Academy of Engineering (2004). The Engineer of 2020. Washington D.C.: NationalAcademy of Sciences.
National Academy of Engineering (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: adapting engineering
education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Noble, D. F. (1978). . "America By Design. Science, Technology, And The Rise Of CorporateCapitalism" (Book Review). Monthly Review, 30, 19.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years a
scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of engineering education, 1900-1965. Journal of
Engineering Education, 88(3), 285-294+372.
Simon, H. (1975). The Functional Equivalence of Problem Solving Skills. Cognitive Psychology,
7 , 268-288.Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Creativity or creativities? International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 63(4-5), 370-382.
8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 21/21
Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 21
Torrance, E. P. (1993). The Beyonders in a Thirty Year Longitudinal Study of Creative
Achievement. .Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: MIT.
Welch, J. (2009). Problem-solving skills utilized by graduating engineers from a baccalaureate
program to solve problems. Unpublished Ed.D., Pepperdine University, United States --
California.Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests be
Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real World Creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
23(1), 24-37.