Creativity Test Applied in Engineering

Transcription

1 Creativity Test Applied in Engineering Authors: Luis Ignacio Eguíluz, University of Cantabria, Department of Electrical Engineering, Santander, Spain, M. Ángeles Cavia, University of Cantabria, Department of Electrical Engineering, Santander, Spain, José C. Lavandero, University of Cantabria, Department of Electrical Engineering, Santander, Spain, Abstract Creativity has never been defined too precisely, though we know that it exists thanks to the great number of cultural, scientific and technological advances fashioned by many outstanding persons throughout the centuries. Creativity is synonymous with innovation, imagination, originality, intuition and discovery. It is an activity which has facilitated the development of the means through which society has moved forward in constant progress throughout the years. It is essential, therefore, that creativity continues to play a major role in scientific developments in the XXI Century. This paper describes the methodology developed to apply a Creativity Test in the subject of Advanced Electric Circuits of the Industrial Engineering Degree Course at the Industrial Engineering and Telecommunications School of the University of Cantabria, Spain. This test was designed in the nineteen-eighties to stimulate creativity among a group of Engineering students from the University of Cantabria. Some modifications have been introduced in recent years to improve its efficiency. It is currently taken prior to the date of the final exam, a seminar being organized previously in which various aspects of the test items design are discussed and some indications are given as to the points to be assessed. Another important innovation is the possibility of designing additional items of the circuit-information type, which may give rise to some novel items. In the surveys answered by the students, a generally favourable opinion was expressed, particularly as regards such aspects as educational innovation, help with learning and the possibility for the students of improving their mark. In short, this test allows the students to familiarize themselves with the use of the multiple-choice test, giving them an idea of what may be asked without directly helping them to answer, which means that they are of little use to a badly prepared student. Index Terms Creativity Test, Engineering Education. INTRODUCTION During the nineteen-eighties [1]-[4], the first model of what was later to be termed 'creativity test' was developed in the University of Cantabria. This test has been applied since then under different conditions and at various stages, with a view to promoting this quality of creativity, often associated with such terms as skill, invention, innovation, imagination, originality, intuition and discovery. This quality is considered essential since it leads to cultural, scientific and technological advances which are vital for the progress of a region or country. It seems obvious that there can be no progress without creativity and by studying and applying it, we can ensure that new ideas will be produced, old problems can be solved through novel alternatives, new strategies, techniques, methods and procedures can be devised, more innovative teaching materials can be elaborated and creative skills will be promoted. These days, it is the computer that performs the routine tasks of calculation and nobody would challenge the creative role of the engineer. It is essential that the engineer continues to develop and value this creativity if he is to adapt to the profound technological changes ahead. CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION In its first application, the creativity test was made up of multiple choice items. The test was optional, lasted for fifty minutes and the students were allowed to use any books they wanted. The test procedure was as follows: i. The student was given a sheet with six figures corresponding to the test to be taken. 1

2 ii. iii. iv. The student selected a figure and elaborated an item without modifying the topology of the circuit. He could, however, add or take out measuring devices, switches and active or passive elements. The student had to present an item in its standardised form: six choices, a solution with an explanation and a justification of the choice of detractors, relating them with the most common errors. Each item proposed had to be able to be solved in a time limit of six minutes, the time limit set for solving the exam test items. This norm was intended to impede the presentation of tedious items with no originality. The correction of the items corresponded to the Work Group professors. The evaluation could not influence the exam mark negatively; rather, the higher the quality of the item proposed, the more favourable the marking system. Once this stage was completed, the students had ten minutes to exchange ideas; the idea of this break was to promote debate among the students in order to identify possible test items for the circuits provided. Next, the test was completed and finally, the students were asked to answer a survey. The test was further developed in subsequent projects [2]-[3]. In the academic year , several modifications were made to improve both the methodology and the efficiency of the test. The main modifications made were the following: 1. The Creativity Test was taken prior to the exam, pursuing a new objective - to familiarise the student with the solution of multiple-choice tests. 2. One week before the test, a seminar was held explaining the construction of the items. 3. From among the items proposed and correctly resolved, some were selected to form part of the multiple-choice test to be solved in the final exam. Another important novelty was introduced consisting in the possibility of selecting not only the circuit but also a functional diagram, or an operating characteristic or even a table of properties. The circuit-additional information pairing seemed to offer opportunities for a creative development of ideas. EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS Due to the intrinsic difficulty of the subject matter, to the students' busy timetables and the existence of laboratory practicals and experimental work in most technical subjects, it was assumed that involvement in this type of experience would imply, on the part of the student, a redistribution of his time and a decision as to whether this experience would be beneficial or not. The subjects of the students who participated in the various tests were from intermediate years: "Electric Circuits and Electrometry" (1984) from the second year of Technical Industrial Engineering studies; "Electrometry" (2000) from the second year of Chemical Engineering; and "Advanced Electric Circuits" (2003) from the third year of Industrial Engineering studies. It should be borne in mind, then, that some of the students enrolled in these studies have subjects pending from previous or later years. With this background and taking into account that attendance at classes has fallen constantly over the years, it was expected that the number of students participating would be far lower than the number of students enrolled. Table I shows the participation figures. In the applications developed since the year 2000, the Work Group has elaborated certain general guidelines to be followed in the process, which include a motivating element in the form of positive marks which can be added to the final exam mark. As can be seen in [4] the structure of the Teaching Innovation Seminar was perfectly synchronized and focused on the careful selection of the items which would form the test, the figures and diagrams to be used and the development of the survey. Tables I and II show information on the quality of the items designed and the results for the points included in the survey, respectively. In Table II, x and s are the mean value and the typical deviation of each variable respectively, is the relation between and the number of marks possible. Bear in mind that in the 1984 surveys, a range of 0 to 10, that is eleven possible values, was chosen. The reason for this was that the range of marks was similar to that used in the marking of the subjects. Nowadays, however, the students are more familiar with a range of 1 to 5, which is the range used in the teacher assessment questionnaire which they answer periodically. 2

3 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This section presents an analysis of the results obtained in the experimental process throughout the period of application in terms of the quality of the items elaborated by the students and the results of the test survey. Figure 1 shows a comparative analysis of the Creativity Test with respect to several aspects. Points 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 of Table II did not exist in the1984 test. It can be deduced from Table 1 that most of the students who participate in the seminar on multiple-choice tests go on to do the Creativity Test. Table II also shows some other interesting results: Point 1.4 (detection of conceptual errors) presents a value of 0.58 for the year 1984, 0.79 for the year 2000 and 0.78 for 2003, proving to be one of the most interesting points for the student. In contrast, point 1.5 (promotion of the teaching vocation) gives results of 0.55 for the year 1984, 0.54 for the year 2000 and 0.60 for 2003, proving to be one of the least relevant points. CONCLUSIONS After performing the Creativity Test on several occasions, the first thing that should be pointed out is the high level of student participation maintained in all of the tests. Overall, the students have considered the following as the most important aspects: Knowledge of the type of circuits in the test. Promotion of groupwork. Reflection on the most common conceptual errors. Creativity is directly related with invention, and can be considered synonymous with innovation, imagination and originality. It seems obvious that there can be no progress without creativity and that this quality should be explored to produce new ideas and devise innovative strategies, techniques and methods. As a final conclusion, this test allows the students to familiarise themselves with the multiple-choice test, providing them with a clearer idea of the objectives of such tests. The students also considered that this test did not directly help to solve items, so that badly prepared students could not benefit. The survey, completed by the students, reflects what had already been detected in all of the educational innovation tests performed previously: the students value them very positively, acknowledging the efforts of the teacher in seeking new paths to improve the quality of his teaching. More specifically, the two most highly valued aspects were, first, the general usefulness of the seminar for enhancing the learning process and secondly its efficiency as an instrument for detecting conceptual errors. REFERENCES [1] Eguíluz, L.I.; Sánchez, P.; Una experiencia educativa: Prueba de Creatividad basada en un banco de ítems. International Journal on Electrical Engineering Education, Vol. 22. Manchester [2] Sánchez, P.; Nuevas estrategias de enseñanza y evaluación de la Electrotecnia en la universidad. PhD Thesis (In Spanish). E.T.S.I.I. y T. Universidad de Cantabria [3] Cavia, M.A. Sistema hipermedial inteligente para el aprendizaje de la Electrotecnia en enseñanzas de ingeniería. PhD Thesis (In Spanish). E.T.S.I.I. y T. Universidad de Cantabria [4] Eguíluz, L.I; Sánchez, P.; Cavia, M.A. La prueba de creatividad integrada en un sistema hipermedial. VIII Congreso de Innovación Educativa en Enseñanzas Técnicas. San Sebastián,

4 FIGURES AND TABLES TABLE I STUDENT PARTICIPATION AND QUALITY OF ITEMS OF THE CREATIVITY TEST STUDENT PARTICIPATION Numbers attending seminar Participants in Test Numbers answering survey QUALITY OF ITEMS Do not fulfil the norms Badly resolved Acceptable quality High quality % 25 % 40 % 14.7 % 25 % 52 % 47 % 40 % 8 % 23.6 % 10 % TABLE II OVERALL RESULTS OF SURVEY ON CREATIVITY TEST RESULTS OF SURVEY 1. Efficiency with respect to: x s α x S α x s α 1.1 Familiarising oneself with circuits 1.2 Correlating concepts of the subject 1.3 Exchanging opinions 1.4 Detecting conceptual errors 1.5 Promoting the teaching vocation 1.6 Increasing student motivation 1.7 Improving quality of teaching 1.8 Improving learning generally Test-Final exam correlation 2.1 Easier after doing test Made no difference 2.2 Number of items which I expect to appear on exam. Zero. One. Two. Three. More than three % 42.1 % 15.8 % 5.3 % 21.0 % 15.8 % 42.1 % % 17.1 % 14.3 % 34.3 % 8.6 % % 55.0 % 5.0 % % 4 3. Increase in mark Slight Adequate Excessive 36.8 % 47.4 % 22.9 % 71.4 % Usefulness of these tests Yes No 73.7 % 94.2 % 2.9 % 2.9 % 75.0 % 25.0 % 5. Usefulness of innovative educational experiences Yes % 4

5 No % 5.0 % FIGURE 1. EFFICIENCY OF CREATIVITY TEST WITH RESPECT TO THE ASPECTS CONSIDERED IN THE SURVEY. α Efficiency with reference to (see Table II) 5