Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

2013 Edition
| Editors: Elias G. Carayannis

Promoting Student Creativity and Inventiveness in Science and Engineering

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_395

Synonyms

Introduction

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama captured the essence of recent national blue ribbon panels and the conclusions of many economists: “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world” he said. But to create a workforce with enhanced critical and creative thinking skills, we need to train experts in science and engineering who can find innovative solutions to problems. Scientists and engineers in the laboratory or field frequently encounter ill-structured problems that can have many solutions and multiple solution paths. To approach such problems, “higher order” mental operations are crucial. These include analysis, synthesis, and abstraction but in addition, creative thinking, which according to Bloom’s taxonomy of learning skills is the most complex and abstract of the higher order cognitive skills (Krathwohl 2002). It is creative thinking that...

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

References

  1. DeHaan RL. Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009;8(3):172–81 (http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/8/3/172).
  2. DeHaan RL. Teaching creative science thinking. Science. 2011;234:1499–500.Google Scholar
  3. Felder RM, Brent R. Active learning: an introduction. ASQ High Educ Brief. 2009;2(4):1–5.Google Scholar
  4. Gardner H. Creating minds: an anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. New York: Harper Collins; 1993.Google Scholar
  5. Handelsman J, Miller S, Pfund C. Scientific teaching. New York: Freeman; 2007.Google Scholar
  6. Kaufman JC, Beghetto RA. Exploring mini-C: creativity across cultures. In: DeHaan RL, Narayan KMV, editors. Education for innovation: implications for India, China and America. Rotterdam: Sense; 2008. p. 165–80.Google Scholar
  7. Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 2002;41(4):212–8.Google Scholar
  8. Nersessian NJ. Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Ruiz-Primo MA, Briggs D, Iverson H, Talbot R, Shepard LA. Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science. 2011;331:1269–70 (11 Mar 2011).Google Scholar
  10. Scott G, Leritz LE, Mumford MD. The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Res J. 2004;16:361–88.Google Scholar
  11. Subramaniam K, Kounios J, Parrish TB, Jung-Beeman M. A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(3):415–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Educational StudiesEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA