Is group work beneficial for producing creative designs in STEM design education?

Abstract

Creativity is a significant element in design education, and frequently a significant competency during recruitment for design professions. Group work and individual work are widely employed in higher education. Many studies have highlighted the merits of employing group work in design education, cultivating collaborative design abilities and fostering sought-after employability skills. Although the benefits of group work in design practice and education are widely recognised, few studies have shown evidence that group work outperforms individual work regarding creative design activities in higher education contexts. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore whether group or individual work is more beneficial for fostering students in generating creative designs in STEM design education. A case study, involving two cohorts of second-year undergraduate students studying a UK Engineering degree Industrial Design programme, is reported. The case study compares the design outputs produced by the two cohorts tackling the same design challenge in a product design module but employing individual and group work, respectively. The case study results show that no significant differences have been found between the design outputs produced by group work and individual work, considering novelty, usefulness and overall creativity. Further analysis reveals that a student’s academic performance is not significantly related to the level of creativity of the design produced. This research indicates design educators should employ both group and individual work to complement each other in design education, and suggests potential solutions to enhance students’ design creativity.

Empathy Design Thinking: cultivating creative minds in primary education

“…These discussions point to critical research gaps, especially in applying empathy within educational contexts (Han et al, 2021;Stephan, 2023;Pivonka et al, 2024). The transition from theoretical explorations of creativity to their application in today's classrooms, guided by these policies, suggests a move toward more dynamic and empathetic educational models (Heylighen and Dong, 2019;Dotson et al, 2020;Bush et al, 2024;van Rheden et al, 2024).…”

Basic Capital of Creative Economy: The Role of Intellectual, Social, Cultural, and Institutional Capital

“…Educated minds are more likely to be open to new information, which can then trigger creativity [38]. However, talent or skill and proficiency are needed to put creative concepts, inspiration, ideas and imagination into action and produce something new [39]. The skills to put the knowledge into practice are essential.…”

A Study of the Early-Stage Engineering Design Activities in Practice

“…At the same time, the equally important EDPE is ignored. For example, Han et al (2021) explored whether individual or group work is more beneficial for fostering students in generating creative solutions; Karwowski et al (2020) investigated the relationship between creativity and learning by testing how participants produce creative solutions through combining, modifying, or transforming ideas; Crilly (2019) explored the effect of fixation on design creativity, particularly problem-solving, among students and professional designers in industry; a study by Tekmen-Araci and Mann (2019) suggests that some instructors in engineering design education understand creativity to apply just to problem-solving, and they transfer the same knowledge to students. These examples show that EDPS is usually the focus of several engineering design and creativity discussions in academia and industry.…”