scholarly journals Work in Progress: Using Neuro-responses to Understand Creativity, the Engineering Design Process, and Concept Generation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tess Hartog ◽  
Megan Marshall ◽  
Amin Alhashim ◽  
Md Tanvir Ahad ◽  
Zahed Siddique
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Imas ◽  
Jeffrey LaMack ◽  
Charles Tritt ◽  
Larry Fennigkoh ◽  
Icaro Dos Santos

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Nolte ◽  
Christopher McComb

Abstract The engineering design process can produce stress that endures even after it has been completed. This may be particularly true for students who engage with the process as novices. However, it is not known how individual components of the design process induce stress in designers. This study explored the cognitive experience of introductory engineering design students during concept generation, concept selection and physical modelling to identify stress signatures for these three design activities. Data were collected for the design activities using pre- and post-task surveys. Each design activity produced distinct markers of cognitive experience and a unique stress signature that was stable across design activity themes. Rankings of perceived sources of stress also differed for each design activity. Students, however, did not perceive any physiological changes due to the stress of design for any of the design activities. Findings indicate that physical modelling was the most stressful for students, followed by concept generation and then concept selection. Additionally, recommendations for instructors of introductory engineering design courses were provided to help them apply the results of this study. Better understanding of the cognitive experience of students during design can support instructors as they learn to better teach design.


Author(s):  
Katie Heininger ◽  
Hong-En Chen ◽  
Kathryn Jablokow ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller

The flow of creative ideas throughout the engineering design process is essential for innovation. However, few studies have examined how individual traits affect problem-solving behaviors in an engineering design setting. Understanding these behaviors will enable us to guide individuals during the idea generation and concept screening phases of the engineering design process and help support the flow of creative ideas through this process. As a first step towards understanding these behaviors, we conducted an exploratory study with 19 undergraduate engineering students to examine the impact of individual traits, using the Preferences for Creativity Scale (PCS) and Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation inventory (KAI), on the creativity of the ideas generated and selected for an engineering design task. The ideas were rated for their creativity, quality, and originality using Amabile’s consensual assessment technique. Our results show that the PCS was able to predict students’ propensity for creative concept screening, accounting for 74% of the variation in the model. Specifically, team centrality and influence and risk tolerance significantly contributed to the model. However, PCS was unable to predict idea generation abilities. On the other hand, cognitive style, as measured by KAI, predicted the generation of creative and original ideas, as well as one’s propensity for quality concept screening, although the effect sizes were small. Our results provide insights into individual factors impacting undergraduate engineering students’ idea generation and selection.


Science Scope ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 041 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Garafolo ◽  
Nidaa Makki ◽  
Katrina Halasa ◽  
Wondimu Ahmed ◽  
Kristin Koskey ◽  
...  

Procedia CIRP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
pp. 660-665
Author(s):  
Giovanni Formentini ◽  
Núria Boix Rodríguez ◽  
Claudio Favi ◽  
Marco Marconi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document