The Impact of a Creativity-focused REU on Students’ Conceptions of Research and Creativity

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) have been strongly supported through the National Science Foundation as a way to increase the number of students engaged with research and potentially attend graduate school. This qualitative study examines the impact of a creativityfocused REU program in biomedical engineering on students’ conceptions of research and its relationship to the creative process. In addition, this study examines how faculty incorporate concepts of the creative process in their work with the REU students. Results of the study show that after participating in the program, students were likely to have a conception of research that was broader and more cyclical. Results also suggest that students recognize the connection between research and the creative process, and that the experience dispelled misconceptions of creativity that it only applies to the arts. Limitations of the study and future directions for the program and related research are discussed. Introduction According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programs strive to increase the number of students, including those from underrepresented groups, who are involved in research in meaningful ways (NSF, Retrieved February 1, 2018). The NSF Program solicitation estimates awarding grants for approximately 180 new REU sites each year with anticipated funding, including new sites and supplemental awards, exceeding $68 million annually. The number of awards and the amount of allocated funding suggests a perceived importance of the program for increasing the number of students involved in research. One of the goals of many REU programs is to increase the likelihood that involved students will go on to graduate school in the STEM disciplines. As compared to a matched sample of undergraduates who did not participate in an REU program, Zydney and colleagues (2002) found that participating students had an increased likelihood of attending graduate school and felt that the program improved their career trajectories. Similarly, Seymour and colleagues found that students felt that their research experience allowed them to have a clearer picture of their postgraduation plans and felt more prepared for their career or graduate school. Other benefits of REUs include stronger self-perceptions of research skills (Follmer, Gomez, Zappe, & Kumar, 2017) and improved ability to understand and communicate research findings (Hsieh, 2013). While almost all REU programs likely have similar goals regarding increased likelihood to attend graduate school or increased gains in research skills, each REU site typically offers a unique theme, often relating to the discipline or to the professional skill set. The REU examined in this study focuses on the incorporation of the creative process as it relates to research and the scientific method. Using this creativity-focused REU as context, this study seeks to further understand the potential impact that programs can have on students’ perceptions of research, creativity, and the relationship between the two. Students who understand that research in engineering is creative may be more likely to attend or explore graduate school as a possible path following graduation. The CREATE REU: Examining the link between research and the creative process The context of the study is an REU site located in the biomedical engineering program at a large mid-Atlantic research-focused university. The REU site, entitled Cardiovascular Research: Engineering a Translational Experience (CREATE), focuses on training undergraduates in the core technologies of nano-scale biomedical engineering for applications to new understanding of cardiovascular disease and the development of therapeutic interventions. The objectives of the overall program, described further in Huffstickler, Zappe, Manning and Slattery (2017), are to help students: 1. Conduct research on multi-scale problems to improve the understanding and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 2. Apply the creative process to solve engineering problems applied to CVD treatment or intervention. 3. Be able to describe the process of translating research into marketable technology. 4. Be able to identify requirements for success in graduate and professional schools. As stated in the second objective listed above, one of the core elements of the program is linking the creative process to the scientific method. Despite the emphasis by national organizations to better integrate professional skills into the engineering curriculum (e.g. National Academy of Engineering, 2004), skills relating to creativity are often relegated to pockets of the curriculum such as design or entrepreneurship education (Zappe, Mena, & Litzinger, 2013). The lack of integration of creativity into the larger engineering curriculum stems from several barriers. A study by Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) shows that faculty often have misconceptions of creativity as being innate, being a soft or fuzzy construct, and being limited primarily to the arts. As the authors state, “...faculty prior conceptions about creativity creates an atmosphere that severely restricts researchers’ and practitioners’ ability and desire to study and apply creativity.” Kazerounian and Foley (2007) found a disconnect between engineering students’ and faculty members’ perceptions relating to creativity. Students felt that instructors do not value creativity and that they do not create classroom environments conducive for creative behaviors. Litzinger, Zappe, Hunter, and Mena (2012) found that faculty members were receptive to integrating creativity into technical courses if presented with conceptions of creativity as being a process, dispelling the myth of creativity as an innate, soft, and fuzzy construct solely applicable to the arts. Another barrier concerns the challenge with finding sufficient time to cover technical content and incorporate professional skills. Faculty may find it difficult to find the time to integrate aspects relating to creativity when under time constraints to cover a set amount of technical material. Experiences such as REUs are more flexible in nature than the undergraduate curriculum, which can more easily allow for the incorporation of professional skills such as creativity. Students in the CREATE REU participated in a series of workshops linking the creative process to the scientific method. Based on their workshop participation, students were asked to incorporate elements of the creative process into their summer research project. Workshops primarily focused on Mumford and colleagues’ (1991) model of the creative process, which includes the steps of problem definition, information gathering, information organization, conceptual combination, idea generation, idea evaluation, implementation planning, and solution monitoring. Table 1 maps the steps of Mumford’s model to the steps of the scientific method, as defined by Crawford and Stucki (1990). Huffstickler, et al. (2017) describe the mapping of the creative process to the scientific method in more detail. Table 1: Relationship between the creative process and the scientific method 8 Stages of the Creative Process (Mumford et al., 1991) 8 Steps of the Scientific Method (Crawford & Stucki, 1990) 1 Problem Construction 1 Define the question 2 Information gathering 2 Gather information and resources (observe)