Search for: All records

WIP: Assessing the Creative Person, Process and Product in Engineering Education This evidence-based practice paper provides guidance in assessing creativity in engineering education. In the last decade, a number of vision statements on the future of engineering education (e.g. Educating the Engineer of 2020, the ASCE Body of Knowledge) point to the fact that creativity is essential to engineering innovation; it is regarded as an important attribute in the education of engineers in order to meet the most urgent national challenges and to drive economic growth in the new millennium. Yet studies suggest that engineering students’ creative skills are being left underdeveloped or diminish over the course of their studies, or worse, that students who consider themselves to be creative are being driven away from engineering as a chosen field. On the surface, creativity skills are perceived as difficult to utilize in the engineering classroom, primarily due to the didactic nature of science and engineering instruction. Assessing the product of open ended or ill-structured assignments remains a difficult task as well. This study examines available assessments for creativity that are founded in three of the Four Ps of creativity: person, process, product (the fourth P, press, is not considered in this work.) The intent is to identify verified metrics that can be used to quantify creativity with a particular look to whether the metrics are appropriate for creativity, particularly as they pertain to the science and engineering domains. These metrics are examined for applicability to science and engineering, ease of administration and completion, expertise required to score, cost to administer, and time required to administer. Rather than determining the “best” metrics, this examination will provide guidelines for engineering educators and researchers interested in creativity for selecting appropriate metrics to be used in classrooms and research studies based on metric attributes. 

This research paper elaborates on the process used by a team of researchers to create a codebook from interviews of Civil Engineers who included students, professors, and professionals, solving ill-structured problems. The participants solved two ill-structured problems while speaking aloud their thought process. In addition to recording the participant verbalization, the solution to their problems were also collected with the use of a smart pen. Creating a codebook from interviews is a key element of qualitative analysis forming the basis for coding. While individuals can create codebooks for analysis, a team-based approach is advantageous especially when dealing with large amounts of data. A team-based approach involves an iterative process of inter-rater reliability essential to the trustworthiness of the data obtained by coding. In addition to coding the transcripts as a team, which consisted of novice, intermediate, and experts in the engineering education field, the audio and written solution to the problems were also coded. The use of multiple data sources to obtain data, and not just the verbatim transcripts, is lesser studied in engineering education literature and provides opportunities for a more detailed qualitative analysis. Initial codes were created from existing literature, which were refined through an iterative process. This process consisted of coding data, team consensus on coded data, codebook refinement, and recoding data with the refined codes. Results show that coding verbatim transcripts might not provide an accurate representation of the problem-solving processes participants used to solve the ill-structured problem. Benefits, challenges and recommendations regarding the use of multiple sources to obtain data are discussed while considering the amount of time required to conduct such analysis.