Assessing creativity in engineering students

Abstract

Creativity has been studied extensively since 1956 when the NSF sponsored the first national research conference on creativity (Taylor, 1962).Within engineering education, one often hears the call for the development of creativity in engineering students. As part of the IDEAS grant (DUE-0836861), we examined the relationship between domain specific hypothetical challenges and opportunities, and engineering students' self-reported attitudes and behavioral intentions designed to measure creative self-efficacy in engineering. Our concept of creative self-efficacy in engineering was designed to assess one's confidence in their ability to be creative within the engineering domain. Using factors analysis procedures, we have identified four factors that appear to be novel indicators of creative self-efficacy in engineering:Cognitive Approaches, Cognitive Challenges, Cognitive Preparedness, and Impulsivity in problem solving.

Self-Assessing Creative Problem Solving for Aspiring Software Developers: A Pilot Study

“…Our factor analysis yields three major components for CPS in SE: Ability, Mindset, and Interaction. These factors somewhat overlap with the aforementioned engineering scale of [2]. They discovered four factors: cognitive approaches (not unlike our factor Ability), cognitive challenges and cognitive preparedness (somewhat overlapping with our factor Mindset), and impulsivity.…”

“…Therefore, we call F3 Interaction. Social aspects have already been shown to be a critical component of CPS [2]. External suggestions, support, and criticism are important to build creative solutions and to build them quickly.…”

“…Scales have also been developed to measure creativity specifically in engineering students. Amato-Henderson et al [2] based their scale on three existing scales: the Resistance to Change scale, the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory, and the Zampetakis & Moustakis Scale that assesses entrepreneurial intentions. The FGS did not mention entrepreneurial intentions, and while general engineering and SE share many conceptual ideas, they differ radically in execution.…”

Creativity in Green Roof Design: Digital Consensual Assessment Outcomes from a High School Engineering Camp

“…analysis is far more stable with larger sample sizes than that of this study, and therefore further testing would be necessary in order to make claims about this instrument's discriminant validity. Table 2 Factor loading of 12 dimensions, promax rotation A need for the promotion of creative thinking and innovative problem-solving has been identified in the research literature [3][4] , and the importance of creativity in engineering education has become well documented in recent years 26 . This study builds upon the work of Amabile 14 , Hennessey, et.al 10 , Hickey 11 , and others in confirming that creativity can be recognized by raters who are knowledgeable in a domain and that it can be reliably assessed in the classroom.…”