Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3

8/6/2019 Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/creativity-supports-engineering-thinking-43 1/21

Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking

Daniel M. Ferguson

Development Theories and Engineering Thinking

Spring 2011

Course number ENE 69500-01



Daniel M Ferguson Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking Page | 2

Abstract

Approaching problem solving creatively is a societal goal handed to every engineer.

(National Academy of Engineering, 2004) Creative problem solving requires that an engineer

master not only scientific knowledge but also develop their cognitive or thinking skills to the

level where they can deal not only with structured problems but with the ill-structured, subjective

and relative conditions that mark real world problems and require creative solutions. (Irish,

1999b; D. Jonassen, 2006) Domain changing creative problem solving is the holy grail of

engineering and often requires many long years of knowledge acquisition, interaction with

experienced, diverse and knowledgeable engineers working in the same domain and personal

courage and curiosity. (Crawley, 2007) Five suggestions drawn from creativity research are

made for supporting creativity in engineering problem solving. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996;

Michael Kirton, 1976; National Academy of Engineering, 2005)

Introduction

Engineering is the profession that conceives, designs, implements and operates products,

processes and systems that use natural resources and technologies for the benefit of society.

(Crawley, 2007) Given the limitations and scarcity of natural resources faced by all

communities on our planet the need to conserve natural resources and find ways to use our

natural resources more effectively and sustainably in any product, process, or system is an

overriding and continuous societal goal given to all engineers. (National Academy of

Engineering, 2004)




Engineers, who think creatively and solve the problems of our societies by translating

scientific discoveries into novel and appropriate solutions to societal problems, are a priceless

societal resource. (National Academy of Engineering, 2005) Developing creative problem

solving engineers is the societal goal assigned to engineering education.

Engineering thinking is the cognitive or thinking process by which an engineer applies

scientific principles and societal constraints to the optimal conversion of available natural

resources into a problem solution that benefits society in the communities where they live and

work. (Crawley, 2007) Problem solving as a process involves several data gathering, analysis,

communication and organization steps and this problem solving process is defined as: problem

definition, problem analysis, solution generation, solution evaluation, solution selection,

implementation and evaluation. (Cherry, 2011; Crawley, 2007)

In each stage of the problem solving process gathering information, working in a team,

considering all reasonable alternatives and coming up with new or novel solutions to the problem

are crucial strategies employed by engineers to arrive at the best solution given the constraints

that they face. (Crawley, 2007) Improving on an existing problem solution (e.g. finding a lower

cost material that performs as well as the existing material in use) is one of the important

considerations faced by engineers who are working on finding the solution to a problem.

Finding novel solutions to aspects of a problem is when creativity supports engineering thinking.

Bernard. F. Gordon, Founder of Analogic Corporation, in 1984 called an engineer's " spirit of

creativity and courage, [the skill and personality trait] that leads to creativity and innovation", an




essential characteristic of a "real engineer." (Crawley, 2007) Recognition for being creative can

also be external to an engineer's immediate community (e.g. company) and actions. When an

engineer's novel ideas are accepted and used by the larger society outside their immediate

community (e.g., a patent is granted, a company is created that uses the novel idea), the novel

ideas generated by an engineer are judged to be domain-changing creative. (Csikszentmihalyi,

1996; Drucker, 1986; Hargadon, 2003)

Engineering is Problem Solving

In his report on engineering education written in 1918 but covering the development of

engineering over the previous 30-50 years, Charles Mann said "the ultimate aim of engineering is

more intelligent production." (Mann, 1918) Mann's definition of the role of engineering in

society is congruent with Crawley‟s modern definition of engineering as: “the use of new or

existing technology incorporated in products, processes or systems to meet the changing needs of

society.” (Crawley, 2007, pp. 2-3)

A different way to define engineering is described by David Noble, where he views the

profession of engineering standing between science and applying science to the practical

problems of society. (Noble, 1978) B.E. Seely sees engineering as practical problem solving.

(Seely, 1999) Seely explains how societal forces, such as world wars, influence the definition of

what engineers should know and do. In particular he points out that the debate can tilt toward

both the practical engineer and the theoretical engineer under societal pressures. When society




needs to increase the production of goods and services to fight a war more engineers and more

production are both needed. Describing the experiences of Eric Walker (Dean of Engineering at

Penn State in 1950) during and after WWII, Seely writes "Walker's wartime experiences

convinced him that engineers need to know about and be able to apply the newest scientific

knowledge and understandings." (Seely, 1999, p. 290) Seely adds that a good engineer must

strike a balance between knowing and doing." (Seely, 1999, p. 292)

In 1984 Bernard F Gordon, also stated that “a real engineer is one who has attained and

continuously enhances technical, communications, and human relations knowledge, skills and

attitudes, and who contributes effectively to society by theorizing, conceiving, developing, and

producing reliable structures and machines of practical and economic value." (Crawley, 2007,

pp. 10-11). Koen describes an engineer "as a problem solver who executes a strategy for causing

the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources."(Koen, 2003)

Koen adds that "change and resources are easy to understand but society does not always

understand that [an] engineer solves problems in an optimal way given the constraints faced by

the engineer. Therefore, the engineers' solutions are not always perceived as best by everyone

impacted by the engineers implemented solution." (Koen, 2003)

Problem solving is therefore at the core of an engineer‟s role and responsibility in society

and the problems engineers are asked to solve range from highly structured to totally lacking

structure , that is, ill-defined or poorly understood. (D. H. Jonassen, 2000) Jonassen reviewed

eleven different types of problems that engineers may be asked to solve, all requiring a process

of generating and weighing alternatives and coming up with the best possible solution. (D. H.




Jonassen, 2000) Solving problems by engineers requires a broad set of thinking and

communication skills, knowledge across domains, consideration of societal constraints and

implementation of a solution that is perceived as best by the engineer, but does not satisfy all of

society‟s stakeholders impacted by the problem solution. (Koen, 2003) Engineers are expected

to make improvements on existing solutions whenever possible and generating novel solutions

when creatively problem solving is what B.F. Gordon hailed as an essential engineering trait,

that is, creativity. (Crawley, 2007)

Engineering Thinking

A critical aspect of our ability to solve problems are our cognitive or thinking processes

and use of symbolic language which we develop as children and continue to use and develop as

an adult. (Ginsburg & Opper, 1988; Vygotsky, 1986) Benjamin Bloom in 1956 and William G

Perry in 1970 proposed models of how we think and solve problems of increasing complexity.

Bloom and Perry's models are representations of how engineers develop and use their cognitive

skills and solve engineering problems. (Irish, 1999a; Krathwohl, 2002; Perry, 1970)

Bloom‟s cognitive model proposes six increasingly subjective and less defined levels of

problems to which we apply our thinking or cognitive skills to solve problems:

1. Knowledge recalls specifics, patterns, universals, abstractions.

2. Comprehension uses information to translate, summarize, extrapolate.

3. Application uses abstractions (e.g. laws) in particular and concrete situations.

4. Analysis understands relations between ideas or concepts




5. Synthesis puts together elements into a whole, to combine elements to

constitute a pattern.

6. Evaluation makes judgments based on internal evidence, makes judgments

based on external criteria(Irish, 1999a)

A revision to Bloom‟s taxonomy by Krathwohl renames the six levels as 1. Remember, 2.

Understand, 3. Apply, 4. Analyze, 5. Evaluate, and 6. Create. Krathwohl also identifies four

types of knowledge to which these levels of thinking apply: Factual Knowledge, Conceptual

Knowledge (understanding theories or formulas), Procedural Knowledge (knowledge of

processes), and Metacognitive Knowledge (knowing how much you know or don't know).

Krathwohl‟s hypothesis is that we move through Bloom‟s six cognitive levels with respect to

each type of knowledge and this hypothesis is relevant to engineering thinking because engineers

may have to use all four types of knowledge identified by Krathwohl to solve complex problems.

An engineer's ability to operate with different types of knowledge is then a function of the level

of thinking ability that they possess for that type of knowledge. This differentiated ability to

effectively use different types of knowledge is particularly important at the crucial stages for

solving complex problems, Bloom's synthesis and evaluation stages or the evaluate and create

stages for Krathwohl. (Krathwohl, 2002)

Perry‟s scheme of intellectual development has nine stages but the stages are not

cumulative as in Bloom‟s taxonomy and each stage of thinking replaces the previous stage as in

a paradigm shift in psychological development- a capacity to hold in the mind and work with

conflicting areas of information and contradiction.




A simplified version of Perry‟s scheme is: (Irish, 1999a; Perry, 1970)

Basic Duality – Position 1, A view of the world; values, actions, behaviors, in terms of

duel value sets; us-them, right-wrong, authority-illegitimate, (Perry, 1970)

Multiplicity – Positions 2, 3, & 4 (Pre-Legitimate, Subordinate, Correlate) An individual

starts to recognize pluralistic views and value sets. (Perry, 1970)

Relativism – Position 5 (the foundation concept for positions 6-9. All knowledge is

relative, authority becomes authority and absolutes become degrees in value. (Perry, 1970)

Commitment – Positions 6, 7, 8, & 9 mental growth switches from trying to understand

and come to terms with view and value, to trying to understand and come to terms with the

implications of commitment/responsibility in a relativistic world. (Perry, 1970)

In Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive processing an engineer can operate at different

cognitive levels depending on the information required, the specific problem context being

considered, how much domain knowledge they possess and how much experience they have in

solving the category of problem under consideration. (D. H. Jonassen, 2000) There are other

researchers who categorize our mental models as relating to matter, processes or mental states

and who argue that crossing categories represents another type of difficulty in cognitive

processing. (Chi, Slotta, & de Leeuw, 1994) However in Perry's model there is a passage from

one stage to another stage that determines how an engineer views knowledge or the problem

aspects under consideration. The stage of intellectual development of an engineer influences

what they believe about thinking and knowledge and therefore how they approach problem

solving. (Perry, 1970) For both Bloom and Perry's mental models an engineer who is problem

solving will assume:




if at level or stage 1, that there is a discrete answer to the problem (like on a math test).

if at levels 2-3 or stages 2-4, that there is an answer to the problem, and even if I don't

know it, someone does (like my teacher).

if at level 4 or stage 5, there are many answers to a problem and we just need to find one

that works for us and satisfies all the problem objectives and constraints.(the

professional engineer)

if at level 5-6 or stages 6-9, there is really no simple answer to any problem, rather there

is a decision to be made based on the available information and this decision can

change as new information is made available. (the creative problem solving

engineer). These are also the stages or levels where creative solutions

emerge.(Irish, 1999a)

Research has found that engineers who are able to operate at the upper levels or stages of

these thinking models are most often engineers with substantial experience, significant domain

knowledge and who are able to operate in the context of a diverse team which is also solving

problems in the same domain. (Irish, 1999a) Coincidentally researchers in creativity have

discovered that many creative people exhibit these same cognitive attributes and domain

characteristics. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

There are two additional findings that researchers have obtained from studies using

Bloom‟s taxonomy and Perry‟s model of intellectual development as theoretical frameworks that

illuminate how engineers solve or don't solve problems creatively:




1. Engineering students enter college with problem solving skills around Bloom‟s levels

1-2 and Perry‟s level 1-2 and leave college with problem solving skills around

Bloom‟s levels 3-4 and Perry‟s level 2-4. The problems they are generally able to

solve as an engineer after a four-year engineering education program are those that

are solvable using equations or resolvable by standard solutions, in other words, not

likely to require higher level or higher stage thinking. (Irish, 1999a) Advancing to the

higher levels of thinking as described by these models is not automatically occurring

during an undergraduate engineering education.

2. To advance your thinking to Bloom‟s levels 4-6 or Perry‟s levels 5-9 requires that the

engineers understand and accept that real world problems are ill-structured and

problem information is relative and subjective and nearly always incomplete.

From society's point of view it is not enough for an engineer to solve simple structured

problems, like replacing a worn out tire with a new tire, we want the engineer to design a new

type of tire that lasts longer, is safer in bad weather and doesn't ever go flat. (Michelin, 2006) We

want engineers who will develop better tire solutions and who are able to think at the higher

Bloom and Perry thinking levels and stages. We need engineers who can address ill-structured

problems and design creative solutions to these complex real-world problems, that is, think

creatively. (Crawley, 2007; National Academy of Engineering, 2005)




Engineering Creativity

As humans (engineers) work to solve their problems they can and do propose solutions

that are judged to be novel, sometimes solutions that are so unique they are even called brilliant

ideas and occasionally, most often after many long years of hard work and supported by a

network or community, they propose a solution or a change in a domain that is valued and

adopted by that community or their culture. (Hargadon, 2003; Johnson, 2010) All three of these

types of problem solutions as described by Csikszentmihalyi are called 'creative' by society.

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) So creativity in problem solving as defined by Csikszentmihalyi is

producing a novel idea or brilliant idea, or a domain-changing solution and this is the definition

of engineering creativity.

Ferrrari citing Sternberg says: “Creativity has been understood as the "ability to produce

work that is both novel and appropriate" While Craft sees creativity as the ability to see

possibilities that others haven't noticed , [novel] and Esquivel sees it as the critical process

involved in the generation of new ideas [novel].” (Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009) Zeng et al

after reviewing definitions of engineering creativity see creativity as "a cognitive process that

results in an idea or solution that is novel and appropriate that people will purchase, adopt, use or

appreciate [domain-changing]." (Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011)

Researchers also suggest that: "Creativity arises where there is a happy combination of

factors such as personality traits, social influences, environmental constraints and cultural values

but that there is no single recipe for making it happen.(Edmonds, et al., 2005)" Sternberg




maintains that there „is not a single trait or type of creativity but perhaps many different types of

creativity when he says that there are at least three different forms creativities might take:

creativities with respect to processes, domains, and styles. (Sternberg, 2005, p. 371) Torrance

describes human creativity attributes as fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration and

further states that an individual can be trained to be more creative, a critical point for the

engineering problem solver. (1993) Csikszentmihalyi points out that some of the most creative

problem solutions occur when you cross domains or work in a diverse team that is populated by

team members who have very diverse domain knowledge and life and work experiences.

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)

Csikszentmihalyi further suggests that novelty or originality are easier to generate,

whereas ideas judged appropriate and adopted in a symbolic domain (domain changing) are very

difficult to generate. Discovering new or creative acts or ways of thinking that change a domain

almost always requires three critical and difficult inputs according to Csikszentmihalyi:

1. long arduous acquisition of knowledge about a domain of acting or thinking,

2. incremental gains in understanding of that domain acquired over long periods of time

but with puzzles that remain, and

3. interaction with other experts who are gathering information about that same domain

but bring their own unique and diverse insights and experiences to share with you, that

is, you learn together and share experiments, thoughts, and ideas but from very

different perspectives.(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)




In summary, engineering creativity, coming up with novel and appropriate problem

solutions to ill-structured real world problems, often requires a long, arduous acquisition of

knowledge. New insights in problem solutions are made incrementally and interaction with

other engineers with diverse backgrounds working in the same domain stimulate creative

insights. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)

Engineering Problem Solving and Creativity Processes

The patterns of problem solving and creative thinking processes are similar and involve

the same cognitive processes. Problem solving is generally defined as a four to seven steps

process (Cherry, 2011; Heller, Keith, & Anderson, 1992) and, for example, here is a prototypical

six step problem solving process definition:

Problem Definition: Document the problem to solve; check that you are answering the right

problem.

Problem Analysis: Understand the facts of the current problem situation and why there is a

problem.

Generating Possible alternate solutions: Consider several possible solutions that meet the

situation objectives within constraints.

Analyzing alternatives: Investigate each potential solution and develop the criteria that you

will use to select a solution. Record the good and bad points of each alternative and other

influencing factors which are relevant to each alternative.




Selecting the Best Solution(s): Evaluate the facts and other factors for possible solutions.

Select a solution(s) based upon your criteria.

Implementation: Prepare and execute the plan for the selected solution (s).(Dewey, 1933;

Kimmel, 2003)

Creativity as a process on the other hand is often defined as having four or five steps: (Zeng, et

al., 2011)

Problem Analysis: Execute problem finding and problem formulating which involves

understanding the problem context and framing the problem in concrete and meaningful

ways to facilitate idea generation.

Ideation: Generate a variety of alternate solutions to the formulated problem.

Evaluation: Specify a set of criteria and evaluate the generated ideas against those criteria.

Implementation: Select the solution[s] and prepare and execute the plan for the selected

solution[s].

Table 1 below shows descriptions of the process steps for problem solving and creativity. The

descriptive words, the sequence of steps and the inputs and outcomes of the process steps are

very similar. Kirton says that "creativity [the process] is a subset if not entirely synonymous

with problem solving" (M. Kirton, 2003, p. 150). Given that creativity and problem solving

process steps are similar we assume that the required skill sets are also similar, that is, if you can

think of alternate ways to solve a problem, some of those alternatives can be novel or even

brilliant and occasionally domain changing.




Table 1.0 Comparison of process steps in engineering problem solving and engineering

creativity

EngineeringProblem Solving

Steps

Description of Problem Solving

Step

EngineeringCreativity Steps Description of Creativity Step

Problem

Definition:

Document the

problem to solve;

check that you areanswering the right

problem.

Problem Analysis:

problem finding

Understanding the

problem context

Problem

Analysis:

Understand the facts

of the current problem

situation and why

there is a problem.

Problem Analysis:

problem formulating

Framing the problem

in concrete and

meaningful ways to

facilitate ideageneration.

Generating

Possible alternate

solutions:

Consider severalpossible solutions that

meet the situation

objectives withinconstraints.

Ideation: Generate a variety of alternate solutions to

the formulated

problem.

Analyzing

alternatives:

Investigate eachpotential solution and

develop the criteria

that you will use to

select a solution.Record the good and

bad points of each

alternative and otherinfluencing factors

which are relevant to

each alternative.

Evaluation: Specify a set of criteria and evaluate

the generated ideas

against those criteria.

Selecting the

Best Solution(s):

Evaluate facts and

other factors for eachpossible solution.

Select a solution(s)

based upon your

criteria.

Implementation: Select the solution(s)

and prepare andexecute the plan for

the selected

solution(s).

Implementation: Prepare and executethe plan for the

selected solution (s).




Although the problem solving and creative processes are virtually identical, researchers

identify different personal traits for individuals engaging successfully in these processes. Welch

defines problem-solving skills as: (using) tools, defining, goal-identification, (using) heuristics,

and reasoning.(2009) However, Simon cautions that different people will use different cognitive

strategies in solving problems (Simon, 1975) much as Sternberg maintains that there are different

types of creative strategies that people deploy. (Sternberg, 2005) (Hipple, 2005) Kirton also

identifies many different problem solving styles of people whom he calls adapters or innovators

and maintains that both personality types can be effective problem solvers, depending on their

capacity and on the context of the problem situation.(M. Kirton, 2003) There is no single type of

person who is a good engineer problem solver or good creative engineer and you can be trained

to be a better creative problem solver individually and in a team, a position long maintained by

DeBono. (2006)

Supporting Creative Engineering Problem Solving

How do engineers learn and engineering educators and society support creative

engineering problem solving?: First, instill in engineers the vision that their role in society is a

problem solver, a translator of science into solutions that improve society and the understanding

that the creative problem solver must look beyond the obvious solutions for those solutions

which truly benefit society. (Crawley, 2007; Koen, 2003) Next, give engineers the training and

confidence that establishes their competence and effectiveness as a societal problem solver and

help them master a beginning level of scientific and technical knowledge with the understanding




they must continue to learn creative problem solving during their whole lives. This learning must

be broad-based, including the skills, facts and theories that they will need in their professional

careers. (ABET Inc., 2009; Crawley, 2007) Finally help engineers attain the Bloom and Perry

levels of synthesis and evaluation where they are working on ill-structured relativistic problems,

that is, real world problems. (Irish, 1999a)

How can society and engineering educators support more creativity in engineering

problem solving processes?:

First, since the engineer must invest considerable resources to learning the domain of

practice, society must support this investment. Domain changing solutions require a thorough

understanding of the domain and deep insights acquired after many years of hard work and

research. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996)

Second, engineers must learn how to access the strengths of a diverse team that is

working together to solve a problem in a domain. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996)

Third, the environment within the work and life community of the engineer must support

and provide motivation for creative practices and tolerate failure. (Michael Kirton, 1976)

Fourth, the engineer or society must build a team that has worked across domains

because team diversity stimulates creative thinking and supports the creation of unusual

associations and insights, domain changing solutions. (Cszikszentmihalyi, 1996)

Fifth, the engineer and society must balance problem solving teams with diverse kinds of

personalities so that they can respond creatively to the wide range of problems faced by our

societies. (Dweck, 2006; M. Kirton, 2003)




Summary of Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking

Becoming a creative problem solver is the goal of every engineer and teaching and

developing creative problem solving skills is the goal of every engineering education program.

In order to reach the creative problem solving cognitive levels an engineer must learn how to

deal with ill-structured and relativistic problems where there is no simple answer only a

commitment to find the best possible creative solution given the constraints-and to change that

solution as new information becomes available.

Examining creativity and problem solving processes is like looking at identical twins, it's

hard to know which process you are discussing without knowing the subject or first name.

Researchers in human creativity and researchers in engineering problem solving have proceeded

in parallel but share common definitions, discoveries and are in agreement that novelty and

appropriateness are the criteria to use to identify a creative solution and a good problem solution.

Problem solving and creativity, evaluated as processes and as an engineering thinking task, both

include generating new ways to solve a problem as a key process step.

Creativity and problem solving are encouraged by the conditions surrounding individual

or teams and the diversity of personalities and domain knowledge involved in the processes.

Both require a mastery of the knowledge and processes in a domain. Novel and appropriate

ideas are easier to generate, especially across domains, but domain changing problem solutions

are generated in incremental steps and the result of long hard work, most often by diverse teams

of engineers or collaborators.




In examining creative problem solving the assumption is made that creative, problem

solving and cognitive or thinking skills can be developed, and are not inherited or fixed. (Dweck,

2006) Debates and ideas are plentiful for how best to achieve growth in these human and

societal dimensions and these strategies were not discussed. Only Bloom and Perry's mental

models of cognitive processes were examined in detail. Other mental models and related

concepts may also offer insights into creative problem solving. (Chi, et al., 1994) Creativity is

also viewed as occurring more likely in the context of diverse teams and after substantial domain

knowledge is acquired. Other theories suggest that aha moments and epiphanies occur through

creative processes not requiring such arduous efforts or even team contexts. Alternate creativity

theories were not considered.

References

2010-2011 Criteria for Accrediting Applied Science Programs (2009).

Cherry, K. (2011). What is Problem Solving? , from About.com:

http://psychology.about.com/od/problemsolving/f/problem-solving-steps.htm

Chi, M., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From Things to Processes: A Theory of Conceptual Change for Learning Science Concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.

Crawley, E. F. S. L. (2007). Rethinking engineering education the CDIO approach. New York:

Springer.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.

New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Cszikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.

New York, NY Harper Perennial.DeBono (Producer). (2006) Edward de Bono on creative thinking. Podcast retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjSjZOjNIJg&feature=related.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think? Lexington, MA: Heath.Drucker, P. F. (1986). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York,

NY: Harper Business.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset:The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballentine Books.

Edmonds, E. A., Weakley, A., Candy, L., Fell, M., Knott, R., & Pauletto, S. (2005). The studioas laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology research. International

Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 452-481.




Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training

in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting InnovativeTeaching. European Commission Joint Research Centre.

Ginsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development . New York,

NY: Prentice Hall.

Hargadon, A. (2003). How Breakthroughs Happen. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching Problem Solving through Cooperative

Grouping: Group vs. Individual Problem Solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7).Hipple, J. (2005). Solve Problems Inventively. Chemical Engineering Progress, 101(4), 44-51.

Irish, R. (1999a). Engineering Thinking: Using Benjamin Bloom and William Perry to Design

Assignments. Engineering Thinking, 3(2), 83-102.

Irish, R. (1999b). Engineering Thinking: Using Benjamin Bloom and William Perry to DesignAssignments. Journal of Engineering Thinking, 3(2), 83-102.

Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation . New

York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Jonassen, D. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineeringeducators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology

research and development, 48(4), 63-85.

Kimmel, S. J. (2003). The common skills of problem solving: from program development to

engineering design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 810-817.

Kirton, M. (1976). Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory [1998 Edition]. In L. L. Brown & R.Brown (Eds.), KAI . Highlands, Gravel Path, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 2PQ,

United Kingdom: Occupational Research Centre.

Kirton, M. (2003). Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change. New York, NY:Routledge.

Koen, B. V. (2003). Definition of the Engineering Method.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into

Practice, 41(4).Mann, C. (1918). Study of Engineering Education.

Michelin (2006). Run-flat Tires: A Primer. Retrieved 2011, from Edmunds.com:

National Academy of Engineering (2004). The Engineer of 2020. Washington D.C.: NationalAcademy of Sciences.

National Academy of Engineering (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: adapting engineering

education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Noble, D. F. (1978). . "America By Design. Science, Technology, And The Rise Of CorporateCapitalism" (Book Review). Monthly Review, 30, 19.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years a

scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of engineering education, 1900-1965. Journal of

Engineering Education, 88(3), 285-294+372.

Simon, H. (1975). The Functional Equivalence of Problem Solving Skills. Cognitive Psychology,

7 , 268-288.Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Creativity or creativities? International Journal of Human-Computer

Studies, 63(4-5), 370-382.




Torrance, E. P. (1993). The Beyonders in a Thirty Year Longitudinal Study of Creative

Achievement. .Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Welch, J. (2009). Problem-solving skills utilized by graduating engineers from a baccalaureate

program to solve problems. Unpublished Ed.D., Pepperdine University, United States --

California.Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests be

Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real World Creativity. Creativity Research Journal,

23(1), 24-37.

Documents

Creativity Supports Engineering Thinking 4.3