Finding Möjligheter: Creativity and Ill-Structured Problems

Centered around the concept of Möjligheter, this paper focuses on motivating the rationale for faculty to 1) add more authentic problems to their design courses, 2) foster more interdisciplinary challenges in their courses, or 3) approach design instruction in a more consistent, scholarly or philosophic way. As educators, we often show students how to do individual problems step by step, and find the one right solution but significantly less in helping them to develop the skills and knowledge needed to view a problem from multiple perspectives, understand the relationship of creativity to engineering design and employ these in ill-structured problems. Möjligheter provide a framework for exploring both needs (problems) and benefits (value). In this paper, we argue how engineering faculty should instead, show how creativity can be used in the service of constrained, if ill-structured, projects, requires collaboration, and ultimately allows students to develop better solutions than when we teach design without explicitly addressing creativity.

[1]  J. A. Crowther.  The Evolution of Physics: , 1938, Nature.

[2]  J. W. Getzels,et al.  The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art , 1977 .

[3]  Steven P. Levitan,et al.  Linking requirements and design data for automated functional evaluation , 1996 .

[4]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity , 1996 .

[5]  Martin H. Levinson.  Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention , 1997 .

[6]  A. Sfard.  On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[7]  K. Robinson.  Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative , 2001 .

[8]  Delores Saddler,et al.  Research Review , 2012 .

[9]  P. Pintrich.  The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing , 2002 .

[10]  M. Mumford,et al.  The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review , 2004 .

[11]  Ozgur Eris,et al.  Effective Inquiry for Innovative Engineering Design , 2004 .

[12]  A Meta-Analysis,et al.  Can Only Intelligent People Be Creative , 2005 .

[13]  David F. Radcliffe,et al.  Innovation as a Meta-Attribute for Graduate Engineers* , 2005 .

[14]  R. Spencer.  Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration , 2008 .

[15]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  A framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[16]  Mats Daniels,et al.  Constructive controversy as a way to create "true collaboration" in an open ended group project setting , 2010, ACE '10.

[17]  David Hiebert,et al.  A Historical Perspective of Design Requirements for AEDC's Propulsion Wind Tunnel and von Kármán Facilities. , 2010 .

[18]  R. Keith Sawyer,et al.  Zig zag : the surprising path to greater creativity , 2013 .

[19]  Mani Mina,et al.  Integrating design and bridging activities of the engineering and the design college: Merging language cultures, creativities, and perspectives , 2013, 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[20]  M. Borrego,et al.  Team Effectiveness Theory from Industrial and Organizational Psychology Applied to Engineering Student Project Teams: A Research Review , 2013 .

[21]  Thomas A. Litzinger,et al.  Creativity is Not a Purple Dragon , 2013 .

[22]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Teaching Creativity in Engineering Courses , 2014 .

[23]  Stephen T. Frezza.  A knowledge basis for engineering design , 2014, 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings.

[24]  Jiffer Harriman,et al.  Aesthetics of Design: a Case Study of a Course , 2015 .

[25]  Roberto Almeida Bittencourt,et al.  Open source projects in software engineering education: a mapping study , 2015, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[26]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  College students’ views of creative process instruction across disciplines , 2016 .

[27]  I Diane Cooper,et al.  What is a "mapping study?". , 2016, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.