Advertisement

Improving Self-efficacy in Solving Inventive Problems with TRIZ

Chapter
Part of the Creativity in the Twenty First Century book series (CTFC)

Abstract

The chapter presents the evaluation of Self-Efficacy changes within a sample of students, between the beginning and the end of a course on systematic innovation held at Politecnico di Milano. More specifically, the study aims to show how TRIZ and OTSM-TRIZ (Russian acronyms of, respectively, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving and General Theory of Powerful Thinking) methods and tools, which have been taught within the course on systematic innovation, can improve students’ Self-Efficacy in solving Inventive Problems . The improvement of problem solving skills, or at least a rise in their related Self-efficacy, is considered a crucial aspect for facing challenging and uncomfortable situations. These situations can involve the learning of new concepts and the creative application of knowledge, and the appropriately dealing with unexpected situations. The evaluation has been carried out through a personalized set of sentences to which participants were asked to answer by using a 4-level scale that expressed their degree of agreement or disagreement. The statistical analysis has highlighted that the course and its related content provided a significant contribution towards the overall improvement of the students’ Self-Efficacy. Moreover, a second set of sentences, which aims to assess the attitude towards the main characteristics of creative instruments for problem solving, has shown that students tend to both refuse traditional trade-off solutions and start thinking in a systematic way. This involves the taking into account of aspects and facets that they did not usually consider before the introduction of TRIZ and OTSM-TRIZ concepts.

Keywords

Goal State Technical System Solution Concept Knowledge Society Inventive Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Altshuller, G. (1984). Creativity as an exact science. New York: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Becattini, N. (2013). Product and process modelling—State of the Art Update. Document available at http://www.format-project.eu/deliverables/public-reports-and-white-papers/deliverable-2.2/view.
  5. Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G., & Rotini, F. (2012). Model and algorithm for computer-aided inventive problem analysis. Computer Aided Design Journal, 44(10), 961–986. (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G., & Rotini, F. (2013). A TRIZ-based CAI framework to guide engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 318–333.Google Scholar
  7. Becattini, N., Cascini, G., & Rotini, F. (2015). An OTSM-TRIZ based framework towards the computer-aided identification of cognitive processes in design protocols. In: Design Computing and Cognition’14 (pp. 99–117). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boden, M. A. (2009). Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine, 30(3), 23–34.Google Scholar
  10. Brockhus, S., van der Kolk, T. E. C., Koeman, B., & Badke-Schaub, P. G. (2014). The influence of creative self-efficacy on creative performance. In DS 77: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International Design Conference.Google Scholar
  11. Cascini, G. (2012). TRIZ-based anticipatory design of future products and processes. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 16(3), 29–63.Google Scholar
  12. Cavallucci, D., & Khomenko, N. (2007). From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: Addressing complexity challenges in inventive design. International Journal of Product Development, 4(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiandotto, B., & Gola, M. (2000). Basic questionnaire to be employed for putting into practice a program for teaching evaluation by the students. In: Final report to the Italian Ministry for University and Scientific and Technological Research (in Italian).Google Scholar
  14. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harlim, J., & Belski, I. (2011). Learning TRIZ: Impact on confidence when facing problems. In Proceedings of the TRIZ Future Conference 2011 (pp. 113–122). Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  18. Harlim, J., & Belski, I. (2013). Long-term innovative problem solving skills: Redefining problem solving. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 280–290.Google Scholar
  19. Kelley, D., & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New York: Penguin Random House Company.Google Scholar
  20. Khomenko, N., De Guio, R., Lelait, L., & Kaikov, I. (2007). A framework for OTSM-TRIZ-based computer support to be used in complex problem management. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 30(1), 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
  22. Lytras, M. D., & Sicilia, M. A. (2005). The Knowledge Society: A manifesto for knowledge and learning. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Son.Google Scholar
  24. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach, 3rd ed. (Wallace, K., & Blessing, L., Eds., German Trans.). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rampichini, C., Grilli, L., & Petrucci, A. (2004). Analysis of university course evaluations: from descriptive measures to multilevel models. Statistical Methods and Applications, 13(3), 357–373.Google Scholar
  27. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.Google Scholar
  28. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. Chicester, New York: Wiley. ISBN 0471943517.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201. (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steiner, T., Belski, I., Harlim, J., Baglin, J., Ferguson, R. & Molyneaux, T. (2011). Do we succeed in developing problem-solving skills—the engineering students’ perspective. In Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  31. TETRIS Project Consortium (2009). Handbook of the TETRIS project—available at http://www.tetris-project.org.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations