Content provided in partnership with

EXPANDING THE MIND

ASEE Prism, Summer 2004 by McGraw, Dan

CREATIVITY IS SUCH AN INTEGRAL PART OF BEING AN ENGINEER, BUT HOW ON EARTH DO YOU TEACH IT?

The cliche of creative scientists has been put forth throughout history - the Einsteinian wild hair, locked in a room for days at a time, mumbling to themselves, not paying attention to their grooming or hygiene, eating sporadically, lost in a fog of their own thoughts, working diligently until the "ah-ha" moment of discovery.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Creativity, or its semantic cousins innovation and invention, is not easily defined. It is not logical, certainly not a process that comes about in an ordered, sequential, step-by-step fashion. Many creative thinkers have found success by being forced to work outside conventional norms, sometimes mocked by their associates and corporate managers. Creativity seems to be a process that is based upon a notion of exclusion: ideas not embraced by the establishment. Whether it is called "serendipity" or "thinking outside the box," inventive engineers have the unique ability to look at one set of problems and come up with a solution no one else sees.

Throughout the history of creative scientific endeavor, the No. 1 trait that seems to be common among creative thinkers is their perseverance in solving a problem. Despite the common image of the lone inventor, the other factor in the inventing process seems to be the ability to work in collaboration with others. While genius and creativity are certainly innate abilities, collaboration and diligence can be learned.

The burning question for many engineering schools is whether these abilities that support creativity can be taught. In the national economic and political realm, engineers are asked to come up with "the next big thing." With so many lower-level tech jobs moving overseas, the solution is to come up with new technologies that will keep America's preeminence in the world of innovation. But can one simply turn on the switch and make a creative engineer?

There is no easy answer to that question. Yes, engineering schools can provide the environment to foster creative thought. But, no, you can't take any student who writes computer code and magically turn him or her into the creator of "the next big thing."

The theory that engineering schools can teach creativity is controversial. Many schools attempt to give students opportunities to flex their creative muscle in design classes and through special projects. But one of creativity's defining characteristics is the desire to change the status quo, an attribute not often prized by rigid educational systems designed to teach basic scientific principles.

"Without creativity we are nothing," John Lienhard, professor emeritus of mechanical engineering and history at the University of Houston, wrote recently. "But when we step off those unexpected side roads that intersect the main arteries of our thinking, we are not welcome. Change is a threat to the world around us...The cultural daemon within us poses a threat most people want to see sealed off."

ENGINEERING CREATIVITY

Browse through any engineering school Web site and find its mission statement. Many of these will say how the school "fosters creativity and innovation" among its students. Virtually everyone agrees that creativity and innovation are hallmarks of a proper engineering education. How to teach these two has almost as many answers as there are practitioners.

The traditional school of thought holds that an engineering education should impart to students basic scientific tools: heat transfer equations, understanding loads in buildings, and principles of electronics. Students then find their way to apply those principles creatively. The new school holds that engineering, by its very nature, is the creative application of scientific principles, and an engineering education without real coursework in how to be creative does a disservice to students and the profession.

America has a global competitive advantage in invention and creativity. Thomas L. Friedman, writing recently in the New York Times, points out America's role in engineering creativity: "America is the greatest engine of innovation that has ever existed, and it can't be duplicated anytime soon, because it is a product of multiple factors: Extreme freedom of thought, an emphasis on independent thinking, a steady immigration of new minds, a risk-taking culture with no stigma attached to trying and failing, a noncorrupt bureaucracy, and financial markets and a venture capital system that are unrivaled at taking new ideas and turning them into global products."

But, again, can this be taught or even "fostered?" Are there skill sets that maximize creative potential? Are there some students who are innately more creative than others? "The problem is that we tend to think of creativity as something that is fuzzy and magical," says Carlos Santamarina, a professor of mechanical engineering at Georgia Tech who has written about and studied teaching creativity. "There are skills that can be learned...every student can be more creative, better at problem solving and invention, if they are aware of their own creativity and how to improve it. It's like any other cognitive skill, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum."

EXPANDING THE MIND

ASEE Prism, Summer 2004 by McGraw, Dan

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference