Search for: All records

Abstract Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. In addition, the results show discrepancies in the reliability and consistency of global ratings of creativity. The results of this study guide the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence. 

Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas paired with a qualitative study with expert raters. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. Qualitative analysis of recordings from expert raters’ think aloud concept mapping points to potential sources of disagreement. In addition, the results show that while quasi-expert and expert raters provided similar ratings of design novelty, there was not significant agreement between these groups for ratings of design quality. The results of this study provide guidance for the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence for the development and potential modification of engineering design creativity metrics. 

Abstract Product dissection is a popular educational tool in engineering design due to its ability to help students understand a product, provide inspiration for new design ideas, and aid in product redesign. While prior research has investigated how dissecting a product before idea generation impacts the creative output of the ideation session, these studies failed to look at the types of ideas generated before dissection or how the type of product dissected impacts this. Thus, the goal of the current study was to examine how product dissection impacts the solution space explored by students. Fifty-five undergraduate engineering students participated in the experiment; 40 participants virtually dissected a product, while the remaining 15 completed a personality test. The results of the study highlight that students explored new types of ideas during the second ideation session for all conditions and at all levels, with students having the biggest increase in embodiment variety when they dissected analogically far products. Overall, there were no differences in design variety between students in the dissection condition and the incubation condition. This study highlights how incubation can impact design variety and calls for further investigation of the interaction between product dissection and incubation. 

Abstract Product dissection has the ability to create an engaging and active learning environment for engineering students. The purpose of this paper was to further investigate students’ perceptions on product dissection in the classroom. This paper was developed to provide an examination of the usefulness of product dissection for idea generation and how product dissection modules might aid in students’ understanding of the module. The findings of this paper conclude that students felt that the product dissection module was useful, valuable, and enjoyable and that students had a positive sentiment towards the designed aspects of the dissection module. Through the use of content analysis, areas for improvement in these modules are identified. 

The purpose of product dissection is to teach students how a product works and provide them with inspiration for new ideas. However, little is known about how variations in dissection activities impact creative outcomes or engineering self-efficacy (ESE) and creative self-efficacies (CSE). This is important since the goal of engineering education is to produce capable and creative engineers. The current study was, thus, developed to address this research gap through a factorial experiment. The results showed that idea development was not impacted by dissection conditions but that ESE and CSE were increased through these activities. The results also showed that higher levels of CSE and ESE had alternate effects on novel idea development indicating they are at odds in engineering education.