Advertisement

Creativity Theory and Action in Bioengineering Class

  • Ferris M. Pfeiffer
  • Suzanne Burgoyne
  • Heather K. Hunt
  • Johannes Strobel
  • Rachel E. Bauer
  • Jennie J. Pardoe
  • Simonita Perales Simkins
  • Mary Elaine Vansant
  • Joshua Saboorizadeh
  • Kate Busselle
  • William Palmer
Chapter
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 2)

Abstract

In this chapter, we describe how a bioengineering professor and a theatre professor collaborated to implement a creativity curriculum in a bioengineering capstone design course. Starting in 2015, the team has not only embedded theatre-based creativity instruction in the fall semester class but researched the impact of the pilot training projects. In order to measure impact, the team utilized an instrument that was designed and validated to evaluate engineering design self-efficacy (Carberry AR, Lee H.-S, and Ohland MW, J Eng Educ, 99(1):71–79, 2010). The survey includes 36 items and four factors: confidence, motivation, success and anxiety. Pre-post test results indicated that students who received creativity instruction improved their self-efficacy in engineering design twice as much as the control group. Noted psychologist Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Freeman, New York, 1997) is relevant to creativity, since experts such as Robinson (Robinson K, Out of our minds: Learning to be creative, (Rev. ed.). Capstone, Chichester, U.K. 2011) point out that many students are conditioned by parents, society, and the school system, to believe they inherently lack creativity. Any approach to creativity education must address this issue and help students rediscover their innate creative potential.

The second pilot (Fall 2016), funded by a campus interdisciplinary research grant, not only replicated the self-efficacy results of the first pilot but added a second evaluation step to determine if the quality of the ultimate capstone project outcomes differed between the experimental and control groups when evaluated by content experts. The second pilot resulted in our team receiving another campus grant for a third pilot and convinced the Bioengineering Department to embed creativity training permanently into their capstone course.

Keywords

Bioengineering education Creativity instruction Theatre-based learning Self-efficacy Interdisciplinary collaboration Motivation Design fixation Active learning 

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  2. Beghetto, R. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 191–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk, J. (2013). Unleashing engineering creativity. Vienna: Eogogics Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Boal, A. (2002). Games for actors and non-actors (2nd ed., A. Jackson, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Carberry, A. R., Lee, H.-S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crilly, N. (2015). Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers. Design Studies, 38, 54–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cropley, D. H. (2015a). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Cropley, D. H. (2015b). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and obstacles in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 402–410). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of invention and innovation. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  11. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wiesman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. D. (2014). Employee post-training behavior and performance: Evaluating the results of the training process. International Journal of Training and Development, 18(3), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dieckman, S. B. (1991). A crucible for actors: Questions of directorial ethics. Theatre Topics, 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Millburg, S. (1980, October 10). Powerful ‘Crucible’ casts spell on Creighton crowd. Omaha World Herald, p. 39.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, A. (1971). In G. Weales (Ed.), The crucible: Text and criticism. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  20. Ng, T. W. H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Connell, T. S., Dyment, J. E., & Smith, H. A. (2015). Students’ appropriation, rejection and rerceptions of creativity in reflective journals. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1), 1–13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1069797.pdf.
  22. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  23. Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative (Rev. ed.). Chichester: Capstone.Google Scholar
  24. Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig-zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sternberg, R. (2007). Creativity as a habit. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A handbook for teachers (pp. 3–25). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zenios, S., & Makower, J. (2009). Biodesign: The process of innovating medical technologies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferris M. Pfeiffer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Suzanne Burgoyne
    • 3
  • Heather K. Hunt
    • 1
  • Johannes Strobel
    • 4
  • Rachel E. Bauer
    • 3
  • Jennie J. Pardoe
    • 3
  • Simonita Perales Simkins
    • 3
  • Mary Elaine Vansant
    • 3
  • Joshua Saboorizadeh
    • 3
  • Kate Busselle
    • 3
  • William Palmer
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological EngineeringUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of TheatreUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Information Science & Learning TechnologyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations