The thinking preferences of engineering students at the University of Toledo have been assessed in a longitudinal study, using the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). The scores and profiles reveal thinking preferences in four different ways of thinking and "knowing": A = analytical-logical-quantitative, B = sequential-organized-detailed, C = interpersonal-sensory-kinesthetic, and D = innovative-holistic-conceptual thinking. With the HBDI, we have a tool that can assess the effects of curriculum restructuring. Data from 1990-1993 fall freshmen classes and 1991-1994 spring senior classes have been evaluated, where the 1994 seniors are the first group for which freshmen data are available. Conclusions drawn from the results are: 1) Overall, there has been a shift from "plug-and-chug" quadrant B thinking to increased "creative" quadrant D thinking, because more students with strong quadrant D preferences are being developed and retained, primarily due to the new creative problem solving course. 2) Avoidance of quadrant C thinking (teamwork skills) is persisting and creates classroom climates that are uncomfortable for some students, a high percentage being females. Students are not developing the teamwork and interpersonal thinking skills demanded by industry. 3) A majority of students are still being cloned in the A-dominant profile of the faculty. Students who have developed independent ways of practicing right-brain thinking and all students who were involved in creative problem solving as class assistants became more whole-brained or right-brained. Quadrant C and D thinking activities must be integrated into the curriculum each term for students to develop their full potential and reinforce the whole-brain thinking skills introduced in the first-year creative problem solving course. April 1995Journal of Engineering Education 193 Thinking Preferences of Engineering Students: Implications for Curriculum Restructuring*At Michigan Tech, creative problem solving is a three credit-hour course taught by an instructional team of two faculty (preferably interdisciplinary) and two undergraduate assistants (sophomores). **Some of these faculty members applied what they learned in other courses; others remained relatively unchanged, and a few became hostile to the creativity course. † The Ned Herrmann model is occasionally mistaken for the 4MAT system based on the Kolb learning cycle. A comparison of the two models is given in Reference 4, pp.108-111. The 4MAT system values each of its four styles of learning equally, and instructors are encouraged to use all segments of the cycle, even though they themselves may have preferences for particular modes. We have found that the 4MAT system addresses all four thinking quadrants in the Herrmann model. Using the creative problem-solving approach or the 4MAT system will make for better thinking and learning since both involve the whole brain. April 1995Journal of Engineering Education 195 Figure 3. Paradigm shift in thinking skills required for success.

No abstract

(UK). For many years he was management consultant at Ford Motor Company in high-tech education and training. In 1994 he received the ASEE Chester F. Carlson Award for innovation in engineering education. He has co-authored books on creative problem solving, engineering design, entrepreneurship and innovation. He has work experience in industry, seven universities in the U.S. (in three of them as dean of engineering) and four universities abroad (most recently on sabbatical at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology). His engineering specialties are in aero-acoustics, vibration, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, solar energy, and engineering design, with over 100 papers published in these fields. Dr.

The thinking preferences of 487 students at the University if North Carolina at Charlotte were evaluated with the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) 1 at the beginning of the fall 1995 term. These beginning engineering, computer science, and engineering technology students were grouped in teams of four to seven students for projects in their ENGR 1201 Introduction to Engineering Practice and Principles or EGET 3071 Professional Development in Engineering Technology courses. As much as possible the teams were multidisciplinary. The engineering teams included computer science, electrical, mechanical, civil, and general (undeclared) majors; the engineering technology teams included electrical, mechanical, civil, and manufacturing engineering technology majors. Half of the teams in each of the two courses were selected with consideration of the HBDI profiles of the students in an attempt to form heterogeneous or so-called "whole-brain" teams; the other half of the teams had random distributions of thinking preferences. At the end of the term, the team projects (and the team learning process) were evaluated by faculty teams in order to test the hypothesis that heterogeneous teams as a whole will have better problem-solving outcomes even when the homogeneous student teams have been taught about thinking preferences and their implications for group dynamics and communications. This is an important issue: can the cost and labor involved in using the HBDI (especially at the freshman level) be justified by its contribution to improved team outcomes? This paper reports the preliminary findings of the first phase of a longitudinal study at UNC Charlotte examining the relationships between the make-up of thinking style profiles of teams and the outcomes they produce. The current study attempts to validate earlier studies of the thinking preferences of engineering students conducted at the University of Toledo 2. The study will add detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment data over a five year projected course. This paper reports initial anecdotal findings; early statistical assessment will be available at the ASEE '96 Annual Conference.

(England). For many years he was management consultant at Ford Motor Company and in the last years helped develop and direct a high-tech education and training program in the use of design and data management tools. In 1994 he received the ASEE Chester F. Carlson award for innovation in engineering education. He has co-authored several books in creative problem solving, engineering design, entrepreneurship and innovation-a synthesis of many years of experience working as engineer in industry as well as serving as dean of engineering and professor at six different universities in the U.S. and four different universities abroad. His engineering specialties are in aero-acoustics, vibration, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, solar energy, and engineering design. He has published over 100 papers in these fields. Dr.