An Experimental Investigation of the Innovation Capabilities of Undergraduate Engineering Students

Background One of the goals of most undergraduate engineering curricula is to prepare students to solve openended design problems. Solving design problems requires applying technical knowledge to create original ideas and turn those into practical applications. However, the impact of engineering curricula on the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineers is not well understood. Purpose (Hypothesis) This study seeks to provide insights into the research question of whether freshman undergraduate engineering students can be more innovative than seniors. Innovation is measured in terms of the originality of the solutions they propose for an open-ended design problem, as well as the technical feasibility of those solutions for practical application. Design/Method Freshman- and senior-level undergraduate engineering students were tasked with developing solutions to a specific design problem (a next-generation alarm clock). Both levels of students used a modified 6-3-5/C-sketch method for generating concepts. A fraction of both the freshman and the senior students also received innovation enhancement. Resulting concepts were analyzed for originality and technical feasibility. Results Freshman students generated concepts that were significantly more original than those of seniors, with no significant difference in quality or technical feasibility of the concepts generated by the two levels of students. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, the findings suggest that freshman engineering students can be more innovative than their senior-level counterparts. This motivates the need for additional studies to investigate the effect of factors such as skill acquisition and design curricula on the innovation capabilities of students.

[1]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Representing Analogies: Increasing the Probability of Innovation , 2006 .

[2]  D. Woltz,et al.  Negative transfer errors in sequential cognitive skills: strong-but-wrong sequence application. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Answering the Unexpected Questions: Exploring the Relationship Between Students' Creative Self-Efficacy and Teacher Ratings of Creativity , 2011 .

[4]  John Merrill,et al.  CEDA: A research instrument for creative engineering design assessment. , 2008 .

[5]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  Increasing Innovation in Multi-Function Systems: Evaluation and Experimentation of Two Ideation Methods for Design , 2009 .

[6]  Julie S. Linsey.  Design-by-analogy and representation in innovative engineering concept generation , 2007 .

[7]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  Identifying Customer Needs: Disabled Persons as Lead Users , 2006 .

[8]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[9]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[10]  Sher ry Folsom-Meek,et al.  Human Performance , 1953, Nature.

[11]  J. Edward Colgate,et al.  IDEA: Implementing Design Throughout the Curriculum at Northwestern* , 2004 .

[12]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity , 1996 .

[13]  Denis Besnard,et al.  Interface changes causing accidents. An empirical study of negative transfer , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Powers of observation in creative design , 1996 .

[15]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments , 2000 .

[16]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Modality and representation in analogy , 2008, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[17]  Horst Geschka,et al.  Modern Techniques for Solving Problems , 1976 .

[18]  N. Cross,et al.  Design Expertise Amongst Student Designers , 1994 .

[19]  John S. Gero,et al.  Fixation Effects: Do They Exist in Design Problem Solving? , 1993 .

[20]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  AC 2010-822: EXTREME EXPERIENCE INTERVIEWS FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGNS: CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT OF A NEW NEEDS-GATHERING METHOD , 2010 .

[21]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  The Characteristics of Innovative, Mechanical Products , 2011 .

[22]  K. Smith,et al.  Conducting Rigorous Research in Engineering Education , 2006 .

[23]  J. Duderstadt.  Engineering for a Changing World , 2010 .

[24]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  A Study of the Effectiveness of Empathic Experience Design as a Creativity Technique , 2011 .

[25]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[26]  Denny Davis,et al.  Capstone Design Courses and Assessment: A National Study , 2004 .

[27]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[28]  Gordon Ellis,et al.  Grand challenges for engineering , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[29]  Hershey H. Friedman,et al.  Rating the Rating Scales , 1999 .

[30]  L. H. Shu,et al.  Biomimetic design through natural language analysis to facilitate cross-domain information retrieval , 2007, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[31]  A. Osborn.  Applied imagination : principles and procedures of creative problem-solving , 1957 .

[32]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  PROMPT VERSUS PROBLEM: HELPING STUDENTS LEARN TO FRAME PROBLEMS AND THINK CREATIVELY , 2007 .

[33]  J. Edward Colgate,et al.  Engineering Design and Communication: The Case for Interdisciplinary Collaboration* , 2001 .

[34]  John Merrill,et al.  Assessing General Creativity and Creative Engineering Design in First Year Engineering Students , 2009 .

[35]  Johan Malmqvist,et al.  Rethinking Engineering Education - The CDIO Approach , 2007 .

[36]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of engineering students , 2010 .

[37]  N.A. Pendergrass,et al.  Improving first-year engineering education , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

[38]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Using multiple methods to evaluate a freshmen design course , 2000, 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37135).

[39]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[40]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design and other types of fixation , 1996 .

[41]  Thomas A. Angelo,et al.  Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. Second Edition. , 1993 .

[42]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. , 1968 .

[43]  Katja Hölttä-Otto,et al.  The Effect of Prototyping and Critical Feedback on Fixation in Engineering Design , 2011, CogSci.

[44]  A. Luchins.  Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. , 1942 .

[45]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Creative Expertise as Superior Reproducible Performance: Innovative and Flexible Aspects of Expert Performance , 1999 .

[46]  Bo T. Christensen,et al.  The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[47]  Laurance Jerrold.  Georgia on my mind , 2001 .

[48]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development , 2000 .

[49]  Hee-Sun Lee,et al.  Measuring Engineering Design Self‐Efficacy , 2010 .

[50]  Altshuller.  Creativity As an Exact Science , 1984 .

[51]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task , 2002 .

[52]  R. Weisberg,et al.  Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  M. Karwowski.  It Doesn't Hurt to Ask . . . But Sometimes It Hurts to Believe: Polish Students' Creative Self-Efficacy and Its Predictors , 2011 .

[54]  P. Tierney,et al.  Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance , 2002 .

[55]  J. Guilford,et al.  The nature of human intelligence. , 1968 .

[56]  P. Paulus,et al.  Idea Generation in Groups : A Basis for Creativity in Organizations , 1994 .

[57]  R. Weisberg.  Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius , 1993 .

[58]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty , 2010 .

[59]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement of Ideation Effectiveness , 2010 .

[60]  Craig D. Lewis,et al.  Comparing Design Team Self Reports With Actual Performance: Cross Validating Assessment Instruments , 2002 .

[61]  Cristina H. Amon,et al.  Systematic Design of a First‐Year Mechanical Engineering Course at Carnegie Mellon University , 1997 .

[62]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Problem-solving Strategies and Expertise in Engineering Design. , 1997 .

[63]  Matti Perttula,et al.  The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation , 2007 .

[64]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[65]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .