Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Mechanical Engineering and Biology Students’ Ideation and Bioinspired Design Abilities

  • Conference paper
Book cover Design Computing and Cognition '14

Abstract

Bioinspired design uses nature as a source of inspiration for creating solutions to engineering design problems. Nature evolves time-tested, efficient designs that may offer an innovative solution. However, it appears that one of the main obstacles to bioinspired design is the engineers’ lack of biological knowledge, which causes difficulty in identifying analogous natural systems for the design problems. In this paper, we compare the ability of senior engineering and biology undergraduates to use nature as inspiration for concept generation. The two groups’ solutions were analyzed for quantity of non-redundant ideas, quality, novelty, and variety of the solutions. The initial results indicate that there is not a statistically significant difference between the two groups. General trends are examined, and a qualitative study of the results is presented. The overall results suggest that biology coursework does not significantly aid students in identifying analogous biological systems or developing more creative solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Van Nierop EA, Alben S, Brenner MP (2008) How bumps on whale flippers delay stall: an aerodynamic model. Phys Rev Lett 100(5):54502, 1-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barthlott W, Neinhuis C (1997) Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta 202:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Geim A, Grigorieva SVDIV, Novoselov K, Zhukov A, Shapoval SY (2003) Microfabricated adhesive mimicking gecko foot-hair. Nat Mater 2:461–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Autumn K, Sitti M, Liang YA, Peattie AM, Hansen WR, Sponberg S, Kenny TW, Fearing R, Israelachvili JN, Full RJ (2002) Evidence for van der Waals adhesion in gecko setae. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:12252–12256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vincent JFV, Mann DL (2002) Systematic technology transfer from biology to engineering. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Eng Sci 360:159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yen J, Weissburg M (2007) Perspectives on biologically inspired design: introduction to the collected contributions. Bioinspir Biomim 2:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dym C, Agogino A, Eris O, Frey D, Leifer L (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ 94:103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hyman BI (1998) Fundamentals of engineering design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  9. Otto KN, Wood KL (2000) Product design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD, Goyal A (2011) Product design and development. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B, Nataraju B (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19:113–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Benami O, Jin Y (2002) Creative stimulation in conceptual design. IDETC 2002:251–263

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shu L, Ueda K, Chiu I, Cheong H (2011) Biologically inspired design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 60:673–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunbar K (1997) How scientists think: on-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In: Ward TB (ed) Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes. American Psychological Association, pp 461–493

    Google Scholar 

  15. Christensen BT, Schunn CD (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Mem Cognit 35:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vattam S, Helms ME, Goel AK (2007) Biologically-inspired innovation in engineering design: a cognitive study. Technical report. Georgia Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gebeshuber I, Drack M (2008) An attempt to reveal synergies between biology and mechanical engineering. Proc IME C J Mech Eng Sci 222:1281–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. The Biomimicry Institute (2013) What is biomimicry? http://biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/what-is-biomimicry.html

  19. Biomimicry Guild (2008) A conversation with Janine Benyus

    Google Scholar 

  20. Altshuller G (1999) The innovation algorithm: Triz, systematic innovation and technical creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Worcester

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vincent JFV, Bogatyreva OA, Bogatyrev NR, Bowyer A, Pahl AK (2006) Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J R Soc Interface 3:471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stone RB, Wood KL (2000) Development of a functional basis for design. J Mech Des 122:359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nagel JKS, Stone RB, Mcadams DA (2010) An engineering-to-biology thesaurus for engineering design. IDETC 2010:117–128

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cheong H, Chiu I, Shu L, Stone R, Mcadams DA (2011) Biologically meaningful keywords for functional terms of the functional basis. J Mech Des 133:021007-1-11

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cheong H, Shu L, Stone RB, Mcadams DA (2008) Translating terms of the functional basis into biologically meaningful keywords. IDETC 2008:137–148

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vattam S, Wiltgen B, Helms M, Goel A, Yen J (2011) Dane: fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired design. Des Creat 2010:115–122

    Google Scholar 

  27. The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2008–2013) Asknature. http://www.asknature.org/

  28. Glier MW, Tsenn J, Linsey JS, Mcadams DA (2012) Evaluating the directed method for bioinspired design. IDETC 2012:403–413

    Google Scholar 

  29. Genco N, Hölttä-Otto K, Seepersad C (2012) An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. J Eng Educ 101:60–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shah JJ, Smith SM, Vargas-Hernandez N (2003) Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud 24:111–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Linsey J, Tseng I, Fu K, Cagan J, Wood K, Schunn C (2010) A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty. J Mech Des 132:041003, 1-12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson-Laird PN (1989) Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In: Vosniadou S (ed) Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press, pp 313–331

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the National Science Foundation NSF EEC 1025155/1338383. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Joanna Tsenn & Daniel A. McAdams

  2. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Julie S. Linsey

Authors
  1. Joanna Tsenn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel A. McAdams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie S. Linsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Tsenn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and School of Architecture, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

    John S. Gero

  2. University College London, Bartlett School of Architecture, London, United Kingdom

    Sean Hanna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tsenn, J., McAdams, D.A., Linsey, J.S. (2015). A Comparison of Mechanical Engineering and Biology Students’ Ideation and Bioinspired Design Abilities. In: Gero, J., Hanna, S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_36

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14955-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14956-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation