a sample reading is available now

Review Copy Only--for Rights Sales, contact RussoRights ([email protected])

SUCCESSFUL EDUCATIONHow to Educate Creative Engineers

TOMASZ ARCISZEWSKI, Ph.D.Successful Education LLC


Illustrations and Cover Design: Michael SikesConsultants: Dr. Joanna and Milena Arciszewski

Editor: Lyn-Li Torres PughPage Design: Kristen Trader

Published by

Successful Education LLCP.O. Box 772 Fairfax, VA 22038 - 0772www.successfuleducation.us

Successful Education.How to Educate Creative Engineers

Copyright © 2013 by Tomasz Arciszewski. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, including Internet usage, without written permission from Successful Education LLC except in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles and reviews.

Second Edition 1.0. 2013 – Soft Cover ISBN 978-1-4675-6482-3


Chapter 3 – Conceptual Foundations: The Theory of Successful Intelligence

43

SECTION TWO: TOMORROWChapter Three–Conceptual Foundations

Successful engineering education requires a strong and sound theoretical basis in which to work from. From this point, engineering educators and departments can create policies, courses and events that are in line with it. The following sections outline the main building blocks of successful engineering education and also provide the conceptual foundations IRU�WKH�VSHFL¿F�HGXFDWLRQDO�FKDQJHV�,�SURSRVH�ODWHU�LQ�WKH�ERRN�

7KH�7KHRU\�RI�6XFFHVVIXO�,QWHOOLJHQFHThe Theory of Successful Intelligence, also called the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, was developed by cognitive psychologist Robert J. Sternberg in the 1980s and 1990’s �6WHUQEHUJ��$FFRUGLQJ�WR�6WHUQEHUJ��VXFFHVVIXO�LQWHOOLJHQFH�LV�GH¿QHG�as the ability to achieve life success. In Sternberg’s point of view, successful people are able to achieve their goals by leveraging their strengths, compensating for their weaknesses, and adapting to, shaping, and selecting environments that will facilitate VXFFHVV��,Q�DGGLWLRQ��6WHUQEHUJ�VSHFL¿HV�WKDW�WKHUH�LV�QR�DEVROXWH�PHDVXUH�IRU�VXFFHVV��,QVWHDG��VXFFHVV�LV�GH¿QHG�E\�WKH�LQGLYLGXDO�LQ�UHODWLRQ�WR�KLV�RU�KHU�VRFLR�FXOWXUDO�FRQWH[W�and personal desires.

The Theory of Successful Intelligence is based on three major assumptions which Sternberg provides evidence to support:

� �� 6XFFHVVIXO�LQWHOOLJHQFH�FDQ�EH�OHDUQHG�� 6XFFHVVIXO� LQWHOOLJHQFH� LV�D�FRPELQDWLRQ�RI� WKUHH�DELOLWLHV��HDFK�RI�ZKLFK�FDQ�EH�

learned independently: - Analytical intelligence - Practical intelligence - Creative intelligence� �� 6XFFHVVIXO� LQWHOOLJHQFH� LV� G\QDPLF�� ERWK� WKH� FULWHULD� RI� DQG� WKH�DSSURDFKHV� WKH�

individual employs to achieve success (i.e. the relative combination of the three intelligences) may change during one’s lifetime.

3


Chapter 3 – Conceptual Foundations: Successful vs. Conventional Intelligence

44

Practical intelligence is the ability to solve simple problems from everyday activities. It may also involve adaptation to changing environments, shaping those environments or selecting them (i.e. being able to leave a hostile environment and go to a friendlier one). Practical intelligence is acquired mostly through rote learning, memorization of facts and heuristics (understood here as experience-based knowledge).

Analytical intelligence is the ability to solve routine analytical problems, i.e. problems requiring deductive skills and the use of existing knowledge. Examples of the use of analytical knowledge include analysis of internal forces, dimensioning, and numerical optimization. Analytical intelligence is acquired through the combination of rote learning and deductive skills. It is a vital component in solving analytical problems. It is particularly emphasized (in fact, over-emphasized) in traditional classroom curriculum.

Creative intelligence is the ability to solve non-routine (creative or inventive) problems, which produce novel/unknown solutions or ideas. Creative intelligence is achieved through the combination of rote learning and learning both deductive and abductive skills.

Traditional IQ tests measure analytical intelligence alone and traditional education, including engineering education, emphasizes analytical intelligence almost entirely. However, the Theory of Successful Intelligence stipulates that a balance of all three intelligences is absolutely necessary for life success.

6XFFHVVIXO�YV��&RQYHQWLRQDO�,QWHOOLJHQFHConventional theories describe human intelligence as the ability to solve abstract problems. According to these theories, intelligence is disassociated from the real world and the actions a person performs within it. Intelligence is static for the most part and FDQQRW�EH�VLJQL¿FDQWO\�FKDQJHG�WKURXJK�HGXFDWLRQ��H[SHULHQFH�RU�LQWHUDFWLRQ�ZLWK�D�JLYHQ�environment. Intelligence within the conventional model can be tested and measured using various criteria, which measure the so-called “Intelligence Quotient,” or IQ.

Current research has called the traditional concept of human intelligence into question. Indeed, decades of such research and testing have revealed that standard measures fail to account for the majority of variance found in adult success, including professional success. For example, IQ accounts for only one-sixth of the variance intelligence in income (Sternberg and Williams 1997; Duckworth et al. 2007; Bowles et al. 2002). For university VWXGHQWV��1HLVVHU�DQG�FROOHDJXHV�UHSRUW�WKDW�,4�SUHGLFWHG�OHVV�WKDQ�WZHQW\�¿YH�SHUFHQW�of variance in grades, despite the widespread belief that it accounts for the majority of academic success (Neisser et al. 1996).

This evidence and much more proves that conventional theories of human intelligence DUH�VLPSO\�LQVXI¿FLHQW�IRU�GHYHORSLQJ�WKH�FRQFHSWXDO�DQG�VFLHQWL¿F�IRXQGDWLRQ�IRU�FKDQJH�within engineering education. They do not support improving this education by encouraging creativity in students.

%ORRP¶V�7D[RQRP\�YHUVXV�6WHUQEHUJ¶V�,QWHOOLJHQFHVBloom was a cognitive psychologist whose work had an impact on computer science and engineering education. His Taxonomy of Educational Objectives for the cognitive


Chapter 3 – Conceptual Foundations: Bloom’s Taxonomy vs. Sternberg’s Intelligences

45

domain (Bloom et al. 1956) distinguishes six levels of achievement, including Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. This taxonomy has been used by the American Society of Civil Engineers BOK Committees (2004, 2008; see chapter one) as a useful articulation of desirable abilities to be learned in the educational process and to formally identify various outcomes of the ASCE BOK1 and BOK2. There is a fundamental difference between Bloom’s approach and that of Sternberg. Bloom’s approach is based on dependence while Sternberg’s approach is based on independence. In other words, Bloom’s Taxonomy assumes that all abilities are hierarchically dependent one on another and must be sequentially learned starting with the ability to retrieve knowledge (memorization of facts) and ending with the ability to evaluate solutions. Sternberg, in contrast, has assumed that three types of intelligence- practical, analytical, and creative- are acquired mostly independently. For example, someone with strong creative intelligence (an inventor with many patents) may have very limited analytical or practical intelligence. As stated earlier, there has been much intelligence research conducted recently which supports Sternberg’s assumption of Intelligence Independence (Taub et al, 2001; Sierra-Fitzgerald and Quevedo-Caicedo, 2001, Dietrich, 2004).In Table 3.1. Bloom’s objectives/abilities are compared with Sternberg’s intelligence types/abilities. It is not a one-to-one mapping; the comparison clearly reveals the inconsistencies of Bloom’s approach and its inadequacy when compared with Sternberg’s. In column 3, dominant logical reasoning mechanisms behind the individual abilities are provided.

Table 3.1. Comparison of Bloom’s and Sternberg’s abilities


Chapter 3 – Conceptual Foundations: Successful Intelligence and BOK II

46

Successful intelligence in all areas is needed to succeed in life as well as in engineering and this is true even by the existing standards articulated in Bloom’s Taxonomy. What’s PRUH�VLJQL¿FDQW�WR�HQJLQHHULQJ�HGXFDWRUV�LV�WKDW�6WHUQEHUJ¶V�7KHRU\�RI�6XFFHVVIXO�KDV�been accepted by several education theorists. This acceptance means that educators UHFRJQL]H�WKDW�FRQYHQWLRQDO�ZD\V�RI�WKLQNLQJ�DERXW�LQWHOOLJHQFH�DUH�VLPSO\�LQVXI¿FLHQW�WR�guarantee true success. It also means that intelligence can be taught. Sternberg has laid the groundwork for the change needed within engineering education. With it as a model, all students can be taught and there is no need to adopt the “smart or not smart” fatalism implicit in IQ-based theories. I propose that teaching the three intelligences of Successful Intelligence Theory become an explicit objective of engineering departments across the nation.With regard to creative intelligence, Bloom’s Taxonomy does hint at the concept (see Table 3.1, Level 5: Ability to Synthesize Solutions), but it is merely considered one of many intermediate steps that must be sequentially followed in the process of learning. Furthermore, according to Bloom creative ability is attained only by a small portion of students. This line of thinking, in reality, cheats the majority of students out of a rich, engaging education. With the exception of a select few, most students under traditional thinking are relegated to static, non-creative education and thus routine and practical engineering practices.7KH�7KHRU\�RI�6XFFHVVIXO�,QWHOOLJHQFH�FODLPV�WKDW�QR�RQH�FDQ�EH�VXFFHVVIXO��DV�GH¿QHG�E\�6WHUQEHUJ��ZLWKRXW�FUHDWLYH�LQWHOOLJHQFH��DQG��PRUH�VSHFL¿FDOO\��ZLWKRXW�D�EDODQFH�RI�WKH�three intelligences: analytical, practical, and creative. Engineering education has never provided a complete balance of all these three abilities. When the master-apprentice paradigm was in place, there were only two components that were taught: creative and practical abilities. In the 20th Century, the analytical component was substituted for creativity. According to the Theory of Successful Intelligence, to succeed students require a complete balance of analytical, practical and creative abilities.,Q� HQJLQHHULQJ�� RQH� PXVW� FRQVLGHU� WKH� DGGHG� FRPSRQHQW� RI� VXFFHVV�VLJQL¿FDQFH��A creation may be entirely successful, unique, beautiful and even potentially useful. +RZHYHU��LI�LW�LV�QRW�VLJQL¿FDQW�LW�ZLOO�OLNHO\�QRW�FRQWULEXWH�WR�VRFLHW\�DV�D�ZKROH�DQG�WR�WKH�advancement of engineering in particular.6LJQL¿FDQFH� UHTXLUHV� WKDW� D� VROXWLRQ� ¿OO� D� QHHG� RU� DGGUHVV� D� JDS� LQ� D�ZD\� WKDW� RWKHU�solutions do not and in a way that is superior to existing solutions in terms of simplicity, FRVW��GXUDELOLW\��EHDXW\�RU�LQ�DQRWKHU�UHOHYDQW�ZD\��,Q�RUGHU�WR�GHYHORS�D�VLJQL¿FDQW�VROXWLRQ��an engineer must be able to combine a high degree of expertise in engineering principles, a broad knowledge of the domain of existing solutions, a high degree of understanding of the challenges and issues surrounding the “solution domain” and an innovative approach. 7KH�VROXWLRQ�GRPDLQ�PD\�EH��IRU�H[DPSOH��VWUXFWXUDO�HQJLQHHULQJ��EXW�D�VLJQL¿FDQW�LQYHQWLRQ�should also address an important social need, such as safety in the case of beam-column connections in structures subjected to blast.

6XFFHVVIXO�,QWHOOLJHQFH�DQG�%2.��IRU�&LYLO�(QJLQHHUVTable 3.2. provides a list of the ASCE Body of Knowledge 2 (BOK2) outcomes and associated levels of civil engineering knowledge competence. These outcomes and levels



47

Table 3.2. BOK2 Outcomes and Intelligence Types



48

are in alignment with Bloom’s Taxonomy and are expected for students in a BS program. The last three columns provide types of intelligence required for individual outcomes in the context of the Theory of Successful Intelligence. The table is subjective. It has EHHQ�SUHSDUHG�E\�PH�DQG�UHÀHFWV�P\�TXDOLWDWLYH�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�RXWFRPHV�IRU�YDULRXV�intelligence types.

The analysis of outcomes reveals interesting facts regarding the Theory of Successful Intelligence. First, in three out of twenty-four BOK outcomes (12.5%) , only practical intelligence is expected. In 83.3% of outcomes (20 out of 24), only a combination of practical and analytical intelligence is expected. Most importantly, in only 4% of outcomes (1 out of 24), creative intelligence is required. Therefore, it would seem that the BOK2 outcomes are intended to produce civil engineers who are pragmatic followers (using practical intelligence) with very strong analytical abilities (using analytical intelligence). An unintentional outcome of developing curricula to satisfy BOK2 outcomes is that it produces engineers with little education about or expectations for the use of their creative abilities (creative intelligence). Such engineers are good contributors to the status quo, but they will not change our profession for the better. Their work will be entirely vulnerable to outsourcing, and they will not lead us into the 21st Century. Considering engineering education from the perspective of the Theory of Successful Intelligence will produce much more desirable results than the present practice of relying on Bloom’s Taxonomy exclusively.

BOK2 undoubtedly represents progress towards education reform, but it is mostly TXDQWLWDWLYH��2YHUDOO��LW�LV�LQVXI¿FLHQW�FRQVLGHULQJ�WKH�FKDOOHQJHV�QRZ�IDFLQJ�RXU�SURIHVVLRQ��Truly successful education will represent an expansion of the present teaching paradigm through the addition of creative intelligence. How this should be done still remains open for discussion although some relevant suggestions can be found later in this section.

A paradigm change within education will be a move from educating capable engineers ZKR� SRVVHVV� VSHFL¿F� GHVLUHG� DELOLWLHV� WR� HGXFDWLQJ� VXFFHVVIXOO\� LQWHOOLJHQW� HQJLQHHUV�who are prepared for successful professional careers in a fast-paced and challenging world. It will be a move from an incomplete and unbalanced education, focused mostly RQ�SUDFWLFDO�DQG�DQDO\WLFDO�LQWHOOLJHQFH��WR�DQ�HGXFDWLRQ�ZKLFK�VSHFL¿FDOO\�GHYHORSV�HDFK�of the three intelligences, as well as teaches their balance and integration in solving engineering challenges. A curriculum in which courses and projects are designed to call upon and educate each intelligence component – analytical, practical, and creative– will produce engineers capable of innovation, with a competitive edge worldwide, and who DUH�FKDOOHQJHG�DQG�VDWLV¿HG�E\�WKHLU�ZRUN�

.H\�&RQFHSWVIn the following segment, I will present the concept of successful education using such terms as “transdisciplinarity,” “emergent behavior,” “knowledge convergence,” “synthesis,” “synesthesia” and “thinking styles.” These concepts are not well known in engineering DQG�WKHUHIRUH�WKH\�DUH�LQWURGXFHG�¿UVW�



49

7UDQVGLVFLSOLQDULW\The concept of transdisciplinarity can be best explained from the knowledge perspective. Transdisciplinary knowledge (Sage 2000) is usually acquired through the transformation, restructuring, and integration of knowledge from multiple domains, for example from mechanical engineering, biology, and structural engineering. In our example, such transdisciplinary knowledge is called “bioengineering.” Transdisciplinary knowledge provides a holistic understanding of a new domain and is an integration of several existing domains contributing knowledge to the new one. The acquisition of transdisciplinary knowledge should be distinguished from fusion, (Fig. 3.1) which leads to “knowledge soup” (Koza 2003). In fusion, knowledge from several domains is combined, but not integrated. Fig. 3.1. provides an example of transdisciplinary knowledge called “Design Bioinspiration” resulting from integration of knowledge coming from structural engineering, biology, and psychology (Arciszewski and Cornell 2007).

In the case of truly successful engineering education, transdisciplinary knowledge comes from several domains such as engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry and computer science EXW�DOVR�IURP�FRJQLWLYH�SV\FKRORJ\��KLVWRU\��SROLWLFDO�VFLHQFH�DQG�¿QH�DUWV��7KHVH�DUH�RQO\�VRPH�examples of domains that can contribute to our success.

(PHUJHQW�%HKDYLRUThe concept of emergent behavior has been the subject of studies by philosophers, biologists, engineers, and computer scientists since the late 19th Century (Lewes 1875, Blitz 1992, Arciszewski et al., 1995, Holland 1998, Goldstein 1999, Corning 2002, Morowitz 2002, Wolfram 2002, Bedau and Hamphreys 2008). Emergent behavior can be used to understand complex systems and in our case, it can be used to determine how to create successful education.

In metaphorical terms, an emergent behavior is like a perfect storm. Perfect storms can never be predicted. They are complex and rare occurrences and unique products of several basic and interrelated phenomena happening simultaneously. There are

Fig. 3.1. Transdisciplinary Knowledge versus Knowledge Soup



50

no predictable results of these phenomena. Instead, an entirely new quality, which is a product of a qualitative or revolutionary change driven by a unique combination of individual-contributing phenomena, is formed. An emergent behavior can be described by the following three points:� �� ,W�XVXDOO\�OHDGV�WR�DFTXLVLWLRQ�RI�QHZ�FRQFHSWV�H[SDQGLQJ�WKH�ERG\�RI�NQRZOHGJH�

about the domain in which it occurs.� �� ,W�LV�XQSUHGLFWDEOH�DQG�XQH[SODLQDEOH�DQG�WKHUHIRUH�FDQQRW�EH�GHULYHG�VLPSO\�

from known contributing phenomena.� �� ,W�LV�LUUHGXFLEOH�DQG�FDQQRW�EH�SUHVHQWHG�DV�D�VLPSOH�UHVXOW�RI�LWV�FRPSRQHQWV�If we want to recreate an emerging behavior, a holistic understanding of the contributing phenomena is necessary. The proper combination of phenomenon must be known as ZHOO�LQ�RUGHU�WR�FUHDWH�D�VSHFL¿F�VLWXDWLRQ�LQ�ZKLFK�WKH�GHVLUHG�EHKDYLRU�ZLOO�RFFXU�HPHUJH��In physics, an emergent behavior can be recreated with certainty. For example, it is well NQRZQ�WKDW�LI�D�PDJQHW�LV�KHDWHG�JUDGXDOO\��LW�VXGGHQO\�ORVVHV�LWV�PDJQHWLVP�DW�D�VSHFL¿F�temperature. In the case of social phenomena such as that associated with education, only a probabilistic relationship can be established between the contributing phenomena (activities) and the desired emerging phenomenon (in our case, a successful education).

.QRZOHGJH�&RQYHUJHQFHThe driving force for success can be also understood in the context of knowledge convergence. This is a process involving the acquisition of knowledge from several domains. :KHQ�D�VSHFL¿F�FULWLFDO�VWDJH�RI�WKLV�SURFHVV�LV�UHDFKHG��RU�ZKHQ�WKH�QHFHVVDU\�DQG�VXI¿FLHQW�body of knowledge is acquired, knowledge integration and acquisition of transdisciplinary knowledge is initiated. It is an emergent phenomenon and can be compared to many other natural phenomena that humans have learned from in the past, the accumulated knowledge of which has created the intellectual foundation for our civilization (Fig. 3.2.). Newly acquired transdisciplinary knowledge contains newly acquired concepts, which are only partially explainable in the context of the domains contributing to knowledge convergence and, indeed, they are also the result of it.In regards to Successful Education, transdisciplinary knowledge can be considered as knowledge convergence from such domains as education, cognitive psychology, history, sociology and engineering and can be viewed as a new quality independent from the domains contributing to its emergence.

Fig. 3.2. Knowledge Convergence



51

6\QWKHVLVIn engineering, “Synthesis” usually means an abductive process in which existing knowledge is used to produce new hypotheses or concepts. In the context of engineering design and creativity, synthesis is a process occurring during the conceptual design stage. Synthesis covers a large class of processes leading to the generation of design FRQFHSWV��)RU�H[DPSOH��$OWVFKXOOHU��GLVWLQJXLVKHV�DW� OHDVW�¿YH�W\SHV�RI�V\QWKHVLV�occurring in the conceptual design phase. Examples of individual types are provided below (Arciszewski et al. 1995):

� �� Selection: Catalog design of columns in an industrial building.� �� 0RGL¿FDWLRQ� Two existing car concepts of a sports car and of a utility vehicle

are combined to produce the concept of a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV).� �� Innova tion: The concept of an airbag for a car is produced using concepts of a

safety car pillow (crash engineering) and of a balloon (aerospace engineering).� �� Invention: A concept of ceramic disc brakes is produced combining the concept

of disc brakes with concepts coming from a new technology of high-strength ceramic materials.

� �� Discovery: A concept of an S-Ray machine is developed in the 1920’s using recently discovered concept of x-rays.

Table 3.3. (Arciszewski et al. 1995) provides a comparison of design synthesis types including the knowledge sources and dominant operations typical for individual synthesis types.

The concept of Synthesis is used by Bloom (et al.1956) in his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. It is also used in the ASCE BOK2 (ASCE 2008) as a level of cognitive achievement in the BOK Outcome Rubric. Synthesis in engineering education has been recognized as the key to design creativity (Arciszewski 2006, Arciszewski and Rebolj 2007, 2008). However, the existing practice of design education almost exclusively focuses on detailed design that deals only with quantitative/numerical aspects. There is still a dominant belief that synthesis cannot be taught in a systematic way and it must be acquired by students as a by-product of their gradually-growing design practice. This belief must be abolished in order to open a path to successful engineering education.

6\QHVWKHVLDSynesthesia is a concept that describes a relatively rare phenomenon known in cognitive psychology where a stimulation of one cognitive sense causes a reaction in a second sense. For example, synesthesia occurs when, upon hearing the number seven, a person sees the color green, or the number seven is simply perceived as green. In a more FRPSOH[�IRUP�RI�V\QHVWKHVLD��FDVXDO�FRQFHSWV�DUH�SHUVRQL¿HG�DQG�D�JLYHQ�W\SH�RI�WUXVV��for example, is seen as an “adventurous truss” or as a “beautiful truss.” Synesthesia is mostly a naturally emergent phenomenon. It may be hereditary or it may occur as a result of various medical conditions such as a stroke or an epileptic seizure. It can be also induced through the use of psychedelic drugs.

Synesthesia has been the subject of research in psychology for more than a hundred



52

years. Current synesthesia research has focused on the phenomenon as it relates to human creativity. Synesthetic experiences have an impact on human behavior and many artists in the areas of visual art, music, or theater report synesthesia in their creative processes. In addition, a heuristic method called Synectics uses “personal metaphors” and is the equivalent of the purposeful creation of synesthesia in order to expand the available body of knowledge and minimize the impact of an the Vector of Psychological Inertia (see chapter one). In Synectics, one’s ability to produce personal metaphors is encouraged as a means for becoming more creative and able to produce novel ideas. There are even exercises and computer tools today, for example “Mind Gymnasium” in the MindLink software (MindLink Inc.), which are available and could aid in developing this skill.

I understand synesthesia in the context of Leonardo da Vinci’s work on engineering creativity. Da Vinci’s process can be described as the emergence of the human ability to

Table 3.3. Design Synthesis Types (Arciszewski et al. 1995)



53

generate novel ideas when a unique combination of conditions takes place, each condition QHFHVVDU\�EXW�QRQH�VXI¿FLHQW��6\QHVWKHVLD� UHTXLUHV� WKH� LQWHJUDWLRQ�RI�NQRZOHGJH� IURP�several domains and this combined knowledge eventually leads to the acquisition of WUDQVGLVFLSOLQDU\�NQRZOHGJH��6DJH��WKURXJK�WKH�ORVV�RI�LWV�VSHFL¿F�GRPDLQ�FRQWH[W�(meaning) and the acquisition of a new transdisciplinary meaning. It can also be considered an emergent phenomenon, or behavior, as well.

We can use a variation of the storm analogy to describe synesthesia. Synesthesia for engineers is like a perfect storm for sailors. However, a perfect natural storm is a negative and random event entirely controlled by nature. In contrast, synesthesia is a positive and desired phenomenon, of which at least some of its conditions can be created in a systematic way, as postulated by Leonardo da Vinci in his Principles (see following subsection).

Inherently creative students who can link senses or create metaphors do exist. Very few RI� WKHVH� W\SHV� RI� VWXGHQWV� HQWHU� LQWR� WKH� HQJLQHHULQJ� ¿HOG�� KRZHYHU�� DQG� SURJUHVV� LQ�engineering cannot be entirely dependent on these individuals and their spontaneous activities. The huge majority of “regular” students must be educated on how to engage LQ�WKH�LQQRYDWLRQ�SURFHVV��(YHQ�QDWXUDOO\�FUHDWLYH�VWXGHQWV�ZLOO�VLJQL¿FDQWO\�EHQH¿W�IURP�learning how to produce novel ideas in a systematic way at the exact time that they are needed.

Engineering education can be considered a complex adaptive system (Arciszewski and Russell submitted). Synesthesia, then, would be its emergent property. Even if we know the conditions stimulating learning human creativity, however, their introduction does not necessarily guarantee the emergence of the desired educational synesthesia. At best, it only increases the probability that synesthesia will take place. Obviously, stimulating synesthesia in engineering education is not a risk-free activity, but a valuable route to proceed if we want to produce successful graduates.

7KLQNLQJ�6W\OHVEach student has a different style of thinking and educators must recognize this if we are to optimize the learning experience for our students. A style is not an intellectual ability but rather describes, and often predicts and prescribes, how a given individual uses his or her abilities. In terms of knowledge, a thinking style can be described as a collection of methodical decision rules and heuristics which are used by a given person to decide how to conduct various processes, particularly those involving other people. In engineering, usually the same result may be produced using a variety of methods. In human interactions, KRZHYHU��YHU\�RIWHQ�WKH�QDWXUH�RI�D�SURFHVV��VW\OH��LV�HTXDOO\�LPSRUWDQW�DV�LWV�¿QDO�UHVXOW��The right process builds a community while a wrong one destroys it.

6W\OHV�FDQ�EH�GH¿QHG�XVLQJ�¿YH�V\PEROLF�DWWULEXWHV��6WHUQEHUJ��LQFOXGLQJ�IXQFWLRQV��forms, levels, scope, and leanings (see Table 3.4). A total of ninety-six basic styles can EH�GLVWLQJXLVKHG��HDFK�GH¿QHG�E\�D�VLQJOH�FRPELQDWLRQ�RI�YDOXHV��RQH�IRU�HDFK�DWWULEXWH��7KLV�OLVW�RI�VW\OHV�LV�VWLOO�LQFRPSOHWH��7KHUH�LV�DQ�LQ¿QLWH�QXPEHU�RI�WKLQNLQJ�VW\OHV�WKDW�HDFK�person could possess, considering the fact that many people may combine several basic styles.



54

Sternberg says that a successful human operates like a democratic society or like a balanced system (Sternberg 1997). As such, he or she has three major functions: the generation of ideas (legislation), the implementation (execution) of ideas, and judging LI� WKH� UHVXOWV� DUH� FRQVLVWHQW� ZLWK� WKH� LQLWLDO� LGHDV�� (DFK� IXQFWLRQ� LV� EHVW� IXO¿OOHG� LI� WKH�appropriate style is employed. Generation of ideas, for example, is best performed using a “legislative” style of thinking, which mostly utilizes creative intelligence. Implementation of ideas requires an “executive” style, which mostly utilizes practical intelligence.

Finally, judging results requires a “judicial” style, which relies heavily upon analytical intelligence (Fig. 3.3). Each human uses a combination of all three styles in their life, but one style is usually dominant in a given individual. In all cases, the style of thinking should UHÀHFW�WKH�QDWXUH�RI�D�JLYHQ�MRE�DV�ZHOO��VLQFH�WKH�EHVW�UHVXOWV�DUH�XVXDOO\�SURGXFHG�ZKHQ�WKH�VW\OH�UHÀHFWV�WKH�GHPDQGV�RI�D�WDVN�LQ�DGGLWLon to the human using the preferred style.

Table 3.4. Attributes describing styles

Fig. 3.3. Judicial, Legislative and Executive Thinking Styles



55

Sternberg (1997) distinguishes at least four types of thinking styles: monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic. In the case of the monarchic style, an individual is entirely focused on a single issue or goal. He/she is single-minded and considers the entire world in the context of his/her issue (Fig. 3.4).

People with a dominant hierarchic style, on the other hand, are very well organized and can focus on many goals, usually hierarchically arranged in the form of long lists that are systematically pursued (Fig. 3.5). The oligarchic person usually has several competing goals of perceived comparable importance going on at once, some of which may even seem contradictory (Fig. 3.6). Finally, a person with an anarchic style has neither goals nor priorities. His/her selection of goals and activities appear to be entirely spontaneous and unpredictable (Fig. 3.7).

Fig. 3.5. Hierarchic Thinking Style Fig. 3.6. Oligarchic Thinking Style

Fig. 3.7. Anarchic Thinking Style

Fig. 3.4. Monarchic Thinking Style


Chapter 3 – Key Concepts: da Vinci’s Seven Principles

56

There are also two levels of thinking: global and local (Sternberg 1997). People with global styles tend to be focused on the big picture and on a holistic understanding of the world. By contrast, local-thinking individuals focus on details. Obviously, there are also people who can change their level of thinking depending on the circumstances.As far as scope of thinking is considered (Sternberg 1997), an internal style of thinking is used primarily by introverts who are mostly, if not entirely, focused on their own thinking without paying any attention to the thoughts and activities of others. By contrast, people with the external style are always focused on other people and get their ideas and motivations from interactions with others.Finally, leanings deal with the level of risk-aversiveness (Sternberg 1997) of the individual. People with liberal styles are not afraid of risks and novelty and often seek them out. They thrive in conditions of uncertainty and change. People with conservative styles, on the other hand, avoid taking risks as much as possible. Leanings of thinking styles are not related to the political orientations of people. There are many political liberals afraid of change (for example, trade unionists) and many conservatives looking for change (for example, Newt Gingrich’s Revolution). The importance of thinking styles in engineering, particularly in the context of education, is still poorly understood. In general, educators do not prepare their lectures or projects with their students’ unique thinking styles in mind and unfortunately, our state of ignorance has had negative consequences. These include ineffective education, missed opportunities, frustration among students and instructors, and, most importantly, the decline of the profession through LQGLYLGXDOV�LQ�DOO�DVSHFWV�RI�WKH�¿HOG�QRW�XWLOL]LQJ�WKHLU�IXOO�SURIHVVLRQDO�SRWHQWLDO��)RU�H[DPSOH��LI�a student who is a global thinker is working with an instructor who is a local thinker, the student will be forced to focus only on details and on the analytical aspects of the knowledge being taught. The instructor will not understand the student’s resistance to focusing only on facts DQG�VSHFL¿F�DQDO\WLFDO�PRGHOV��&RRSHUDWLRQ�ZLOO�EHFRPH�GLI¿FXOW�EHWZHHQ�WKHP�DQG�ERWK�ZLOO�feel frustrated while not realizing the reasons behind their problems. In such a situation, there is a real possibility that the student, after having bad experiences with several local-thinking instructors, will decide to leave the profession, convinced that engineering is just not for him/KHU��(DFK�WLPH�WKLV�KDSSHQV��ZH�ORVH�D�SRWHQWLDO�LQYHQWRU�DQG�OHDGHU��,I�VLJQL¿FDQW�SURJUHVV�in engineering education is to be made, the issue of thinking styles must be considered further. Precisely how to incorporate thinking styles in successful education is not the focus of this book and much research still needs to be done on the subject. I do believe, however, that the issue must be addressed soon, perhaps through studying the results of utilizing various educational methods appropriate for students with different thinking styles within the classroom itself.'D�9LQFL�6HYHQ�3ULQFLSOHVAnother strategy for creative learning and thinking is Leonardo da Vinci’s Seven Principles, a term coined by Michael Gelb (1998). These Principles are the key to understanding da Vinci’s numerous accomplishments and genius. Even more importantly, they provide an intellectual foundation for building a systematic approach to life and science which could be called a “da Vincian Approach.” The da Vincian Approach is based on two fundamental assumptions:The essence of da Vinci’s genius can be captured by seven principles.



57

His artistic activities and discoveries in science as well as thinking processes leading to his inventions can be rationalized and presented for systematic use for everyone.There are many books on da Vinci and his heritage. However, the most complete and intellectually stimulating as well as colorful investigations are those written by Michael J. Gelb (1998, 1999, 2004). This section is based mostly on his work on the subject.All seven principles are shown in Fig. 3.8. and are individually discussed in the subsequent sections.

Fig. 3.8. The Seven Principles



58

3ULQFLSOH�1R��&XULRVLWD�In Italian, “curiosita” means “curiosity.” However, this word as a da Vincian concept has a much more complex meaning. In general, curiosita can be described as:³«VHHNLQJ�WKH�WUXWK�RU�DQ�LQ¿QLWHO\�FXULRXV�DQG�RSHQ�DWWLWXGH�WR�OLIH�DQG�QDWXUH�UHVXOWLQJ�LQ�a never-ending learning process“ (Gelb 1998).The combination of intense curiosity and an open attitude of never-ending learning is the key to da Vinci’s genius. Curiosita will be explained from several perspectives in order to understand its trans-disciplinary meaning.First, there is the spiritual dimension of Curiosita. This aspect is directly related to da 9LQFL¶V� FRQVWDQW� VSLULWXDO� DQG� VFLHQWL¿F� TXHVW� WR� XQGHUVWDQG� WKH� RULJLQV� RI� OLIH�� 7KHVH�WZR�VHHPLQJO\�FRQWUDGLFWLYH�FRQFHSWV�RI�VSLULWXDO�DQG�VFLHQWL¿F�JURZWK�GHVFULEH�EHVW�KLV�passion for learning in general.While in Florence, da Vinci began his studies of human anatomy, including the anatomy of pregnant women and unborn babies. His drawing of a human embryo in a womb (Fig. 3.9) LV�WKH�¿UVW�NQRZQ�DQDWRPLFDOO\�FRUUHFW�UHQGLWLRQ�RI�VXFK��7KH�GUDZLQJ�LV�D�V\PERO�RI�GD�9LQFL¶V�RZQ�VFLHQWL¿F�GLVFRYHULHV��EXW�LW�LV�DOVR�ULSH�ZLWK�VSLULWXDO�DQG�V\PEROLF�PHDQLQJ��,W�shows the beginnings of human life. It also shows the moment when a child demonstrates his or her own Curiosita in the mother’s womb. A child is born with an unlimited and unrestricted Curiosita. Unfortunately, under the traditional, deduction-driven and mostly analytical educational system, Curiosita is gradually destroyed. Very few people are able to maintain and cultivate it. Such people are often the subjects of ridicule since they always TXHVWLRQ�HVWDEOLVKHG�WUXWKV�DQG�FRQIURQW�DXWKRULWLHV�E\�DVNLQJ�GLI¿FXOW�DQG�RIWHQ�³VWUDQJH´�questions. However, by asking these questions, they are always learning and expanding their knowledge. If we want to educate successful engineers, we must preserve their Curiosita and also change the perception of openly curious students as troublemakers and immature persons.Where engineering education is FRQFHUQHG�� WKH�PRVW�GLI¿FXOW�FKDOOHQJH� LV�to teach students practical and analytical intelligence while at the same time expanding their Curiosita. Unfortunately, the majority of freshman coming to universities have already accumulated at least eleven to twelve years of traditional HGXFDWLRQ�� ZKLFK� VLJQL¿FDQWO\� UHGXFHV�� LI�not eliminates, their Curiosita. This is why simply maintaining it is not an option if our goal is to educate successful engineers. We must know how to restore a destroyed Curiosita and how to expand it in our students. The use of visual thinking in design (Arciszewski et al. 2009) provides a good example of how students could pose questions without creating chaos and disrupting a lecture. Fig. 3.9. A Human Embryo in a Womb



59

Fortunately, da Vinci and his followers claim that Curiosita is part of our personalities but also a part of our body of knowledge, which deals with the methodological aspects of knowledge acquisition (Gelb 1998). It can be destroyed by traditional education but also restored, or even expanded, through proper training involving various mental exercises. The objective of such training is to nurture our emotional intelligence and to develop an investigative style (Gelb 2004). Leonardo’s unique investigative style cannot be easily replicated today, but understanding its major components will help us to develop methods and tools for teaching our students how to practice Curiosita.

Da Vincian investigative style can be compared to a systematic process of knowledge acquisition in which a number of generic questions are known a priori while more questions are formulated as part of the process. When the initial questions are gradually answered, it stimulates additional questions and leads to building a new understanding of the problem being investigated. Questions are important and the focus is not so much on looking for the right answers but on formulating the right questions.

There are several conditions to make such a process successful (Gelb 1998). First, the investigator must conduct formal studies. Then he or she must enhance these investigations with daily observations of nature or life in general. Second, the investigator must combine in his/her work broad studies of many domains only loosely related to the problem with LQ�GHSWK�VWXGLHV�RI�WKH�SUREOHP�VSHFL¿F�GRPDLQ��1H[W��WKH�LQYHVWLJDWRU�VKRXOG�FRQVLGHU�the problem from multiple perspectives and distances, literally and symbolically (Fig. 3.10.). The entire process must be balanced with periods of inactivity so that both the FRQVFLRXV�DQG�VXEFRQVFLRXV�VLGHV�RI�WKH�KXPDQ�EUDLQ�ZLOO�FRQWULEXWH�WR�WKH�¿QDO�VROXWLRQ�and the process should be infused with a poetic language in which various metaphors will stimulate human creativity and provide the necessary Sfumato (see next section). Finally, all results should be regularly recorded in a notebook which should be always carried. The notebook should be used all the time to write down thoughts, ideas, impressions and observations. The purpose of the notebook is not only to create a record, but, much more importantly, to create a foundation for knowledge integration and for the emergence of transdisciplinary knowledge.

Fig. 3.10. Study of a Human Arm: Various Perspectives


a sample reading is available now

Documents