3 research outputs found

    Améliorer la performance créative des futurs ingénieurs par une approche cognitive

    Get PDF
    RÉSUMÉ : Les personnes crĂ©atives et innovantes sont reconnues pour leur contribution au bien-ĂȘtre de la sociĂ©tĂ©. En tant que professionnels, les ingĂ©nieurs sont souvent appelĂ©s Ă  produire des idĂ©es novatrices et Ă  participer ainsi Ă  l’amĂ©lioration des produits, services et procĂ©dĂ©s de leur organisation. La recherche sur la crĂ©ativitĂ© fournit des thĂ©ories, des modĂšles, des outils et des rĂ©sultats empiriques pouvant ĂȘtre exploitĂ©s dans les programmes de formation sur le sujet. Les institutions d’enseignement et les entreprises pourraient en tirer profit afin de dĂ©velopper les compĂ©tences crĂ©atives de leurs Ă©tudiants et employĂ©s. Cependant, l’étendue et la dispersion de la littĂ©rature sur la crĂ©ativitĂ© dans plusieurs disciplines, le manque de structure dans les cadres thĂ©oriques, la grande diversitĂ© des objectifs poursuivis et des activitĂ©s pĂ©dagogiques rapportĂ©es dans les Ă©tudes sur l’enseignement de la crĂ©ativitĂ© et le peu de travaux sur l’évaluation des impacts font que les enseignants et les concepteurs de programmes Ă©ducatifs ont besoin de guidage pour savoir comment s’y prendre pour obtenir de bons rĂ©sultats. Suivant une approche cognitive, nous avons rĂ©alisĂ© trois Ă©tudes qui nous ont menĂ©e Ă  concevoir et dĂ©velopper un cours sur la crĂ©ativitĂ© ayant les avantages d’ĂȘtre ancrĂ© sur un cadre thĂ©orique solide, d’ĂȘtre pleinement expliquĂ© et d’avoir Ă©tĂ© testĂ© sur le terrain auprĂšs de trois groupes d’étudiants en ingĂ©nierie. La premiĂšre Ă©tude visait Ă  clarifier le processus d'Ă©valuation du test Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA) et Ă  vĂ©rifier sa fiabilitĂ© selon une mĂ©thode statistique frĂ©quemment utilisĂ©e en gĂ©nie, la mĂ©thode ReproductibilitĂ© et RĂ©pĂ©tabilitĂ© (R&R). Celle-ci, gĂ©nĂ©ralement utilisĂ©e sur des donnĂ©es quantitatives comme la longueur ou la tension, a Ă©tĂ© appliquĂ©e au CEDA qui utilise des Ă©chelles de Likert pour faire des Ă©valuations subjectives. Les Ă©chelles permettent d’évaluer cinq aspects de la crĂ©ativitĂ© (pensĂ©e divergente, pensĂ©e convergente, satisfaction des contraintes, identification des opportunitĂ©s, rĂ©solution de problĂšme) selon quatre critĂšres (fluiditĂ©, flexibilitĂ©, originalitĂ© et utilitĂ©). Trois juges ont ainsi Ă©valuĂ© 22 rĂ©sultats de tests effectuĂ©s auprĂšs de professionnels intĂ©ressĂ©s par le sujet de la crĂ©ativitĂ©. L’analyse de ces rĂ©sultats rĂ©vĂšle que l'utilisation de la mĂ©thode R&R est pertinente dans cet environnement de psychomĂ©trie pour Ă©valuer la performance du CEDA. Celle-ci est jugĂ©e satisfaisante en ce qui concerne la variation totale mesurĂ©e, puisque moins de 10% de la variation des rĂ©sultats est due Ă  l'outil lui-mĂȘme. De plus, l’utilisation de cartes de contrĂŽle (graphiques permettant de suivre et maĂźtriser la variation de processus) pour analyser la fiabilitĂ© de la stratĂ©gie d'Ă©valuation a montrĂ© que le processus d'Ă©valuation mis en Ɠuvre pour les deux critĂšres qualitatifs (originalitĂ©/utilitĂ©) Ă©tait sous contrĂŽle, puisque les rĂ©sultats obtenus se situaient entre les limites de contrĂŽle calculĂ©es, et que les variations Ă©taient dues Ă  des causes inĂ©vitables ou incontrĂŽlables. Par ailleurs, des discussions entre les juges ont permis de clarifier le processus d’évaluation de la crĂ©ativitĂ© en dĂ©finissant de maniĂšre dĂ©taillĂ©e les Ă©chelons des Ă©chelles de Likert pour les critĂšres d’originalitĂ© et d’utilitĂ©. La clarification du processus d'Ă©valuation avec le CEDA permet aux Ă©ducateurs d'avoir une mesure plus prĂ©cise et fiable de la performance crĂ©ative de leurs Ă©tudiants. Les modĂšles thĂ©oriques de la crĂ©ativitĂ© suggĂšrent souvent que le processus de crĂ©ativitĂ© implique un style de pensĂ©e particulier. Par consĂ©quent, la deuxiĂšme Ă©tude visait Ă  investiguer le lien entre deux capacitĂ©s cognitives reliĂ©es Ă  la crĂ©ativitĂ© et la performance crĂ©ative (Ă©valuĂ©e par le CEDA). L’étude comprenait deux expĂ©riences et un test (CEDA) impliquant diffĂ©rents groupes de futurs ingĂ©nieurs. Dans la premiĂšre expĂ©rience qui porte sur le rappel et la reprĂ©sentation externe (sur papier) d’informations stockĂ©es en mĂ©moire, nous avons Ă©tudiĂ© le nombre de mots (ou d’idĂ©es) que les participants rapportaient et les types de reprĂ©sentations externes qu’ils utilisaient pour montrer les informations stockĂ©es dans leur mĂ©moire relativement Ă  trois stimuli (deux objets et un mot) qui leur Ă©taient prĂ©sentĂ©s un Ă  un. L’objectif de cette expĂ©rience Ă©tait de voir si certains types de reprĂ©sentations externes (Ă©toile, chaĂźne, rĂ©seau ou leur combinaison) favorisaient une plus grande crĂ©ativitĂ© (mesurĂ©e avec le test). Les rĂ©sultats montrent que 89% des participants ont produit des graphiques en forme d’étoiles reliant des mots (avec ou sans chaĂźnes de mots) avec une moyenne de 11 mots par participant. Au plan de l'originalitĂ©, 79% des participants ont obtenu un score entre 2 et 4 sur 10. La deuxiĂšme expĂ©rience visait Ă  connaĂźtre l'Ă©tat d'esprit des participants Ă  qui on demandait de lire deux courts textes se rapportant Ă  deux domaines diffĂ©rents (dĂ©fense militaire et mĂ©decine) en vue de rĂ©pondre Ă  une question posĂ©e Ă  la fin du deuxiĂšme texte sur l’existence de liens possibles entre les scĂ©narios prĂ©sentĂ©s dans les deux textes. Il s’agit d’une expĂ©rience utilisĂ©e dans le cadre d’études sur le raisonnement lors du traitement d’une analogie. L’objectif Ă©tait de voir si les personnes qui rĂ©ussissent mieux Ă  Ă©tablir des liens entre diffĂ©rents domaines avaient une meilleure performance crĂ©ative (mesurĂ©e avec le CEDA). Les rĂ©sultats rĂ©vĂšlent que 76% des participants ont utilisĂ© des idĂ©es en cours de dĂ©finition ou « Ă  moitiĂ© cuites », c’est-Ă -dire qui sont prĂ©sentes dans le processus de rĂ©flexion amorcĂ© mais qui restent floues et incomplĂštes. Finalement, le test avec le CEDA a permis de mesurer la performance crĂ©ative des participants afin de voir s’il existait des corrĂ©lations entre la façon dont on reprĂ©sente (Ă  l’externe) l’information stockĂ©e dans la mĂ©moire ou l’originalitĂ© de ces mots et la performance crĂ©ative, et entre la perception d’analogies entre diffĂ©rents domaines et la performance crĂ©ative. Aucune corrĂ©lation significative sur le plan statistique n’a pu ĂȘtre montrĂ©e. Cependant les rĂ©sultats empiriques ont pu ĂȘtre partagĂ©s avec les apprenants afin d'accroĂźtre leurs connaissances de leurs propres processus cognitifs (et mĂ©tacognitifs) leur donnant ainsi un levier Ă©ducatif additionnel pour dĂ©velopper leur potentiel de crĂ©ativitĂ©. La troisiĂšme Ă©tude a permis de concevoir, de dĂ©velopper, de donner et d’évaluer l’impact d’un cours de 45 heures sur la crĂ©ativitĂ© dans le contexte de l’ingĂ©nierie. Le cours est ancrĂ© sur un cadre thĂ©orique cognitif et fait appel Ă  10 stratĂ©gies pĂ©dagogiques dont des jeux sĂ©rieux, un cahier d'observations personnelles, des projets individuels (artistiques) et collectifs (ingĂ©nierie). L’impact du cours sur la performance crĂ©ative a Ă©tĂ© Ă©valuĂ© quantitativement et qualitativement avec le CEDA. Le cours a eu lieu Ă  l'École Polytechnique de MontrĂ©al durant trois sessions. Cent-trente-deux Ă©tudiants provenant de programmes de premier cycle et des cycles supĂ©rieurs ont participĂ© au cours. Les rĂ©sultats quantitatifs (t-test pairĂ©s prĂ©-post : fluiditĂ© (t=-2.95), flexibilitĂ© (t=-2.62), originalitĂ© (t=-3.06), utilitĂ© (t=-3.58)) indiquent que le cours permet d’amĂ©liorer significativement la performance crĂ©ative des participants, selon les quatre critĂšres d’évaluation du CEDA mentionnĂ©s ci-dessus. Les rĂ©sultats qualitatifs, classĂ©s selon trois thĂšmes (pertinence, perception, apprentissage), rĂ©vĂšlent que les Ă©tudiants ont apprĂ©ciĂ© le cours et l’ont trouvĂ© pertinent, et que celui-ci contribuait Ă  accroĂźtre leur comprĂ©hension de la crĂ©ativitĂ©, de ses mĂ©canismes cognitifs et des approches disponibles pour l'amĂ©liorer. Les trois Ă©tudes ont permis d’acquĂ©rir une meilleure comprĂ©hension de la crĂ©ativitĂ© et des façons de la dĂ©velopper dans un contexte d'ingĂ©nierie. Il est raisonnable de penser que les leçons tirĂ©es de ces Ă©tudes s'appliquent Ă  de nombreux domaines dans lesquels il pourrait ĂȘtre pertinent d’avoir des activitĂ©s de formation Ă  la crĂ©ativitĂ©.----------ABSTRACT : Creative and innovative people are recognized for their contribution to society’s wellbeing. Engineers are often called upon to produce innovative ideas and thus participate in the improvement of their organization’s products, services, and processes. Research on creativity provides theories, models, tools, and empirical results which can be exploited in training programs on the subject. Educational institutions and organizations could benefit from this in order to improve the creative skills of their students and employees. However, the extent and dispersion of the literature on creativity across many disciplines, the lack of structure in theoretical frameworks, the wide range of objectives and pedagogical activities reported in the studies on the teaching of creativity and the limited number of work on impact assessment mean that teachers and curriculum developers need guidance on how to achieve good results. Following a cognitive approach, we conducted three studies that led us to design and develop a course on creativity that had the advantages of being rooted in a solid theoretical framework, fully explained, and tested on the ground with three groups of engineering students. A recent tool proposed to evaluate creativity in an engineering context is the Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA) (Charyton, 2014). Considering that there are very few reports on its use in the field, our first study was designed to improve the CEDA’s evaluation process and determine its reliability using a statistical method widely used in engineering: the Reproducibility and Repeatability method (R&R). R&R is generally used on quantitative data such as length or voltage, but in this case it was applied to the CEDA which uses qualitative data. The scales make it possible to assess five aspects of creativity - divergent thinking, convergent thinking, constraint satisfaction, problem finding and problem solving - using four criteria - fluency, flexibility, originality and usefulness. Three judges assessed 22 tests completed by professionals interested in creativity. Control charts (for monitoring and controlling process variation) were used to analyze the reliability of the evaluation strategy. As a first step, the Likert scales’ criteria for assessing originality and usefulness were decided collectively by the evaluators. Because less than 10% of the measurement system’s total variation was due to the tool variation, we concluded that CEDA can provide an accurate and reliable measure of the creative performance in engineering, and that R&R provides an adequate assessment for the CEDA’s reliability. The second study investigated the relationship between creative performance and two cognitive abilities related to creativity: the retrieval and external representation of encoded concepts, and the management of multiples concepts at one time (potentiality). It consists of two cognitive exercises and the CEDA test. The first was inspired by mental and conceptual mapping to study the recovery and external representation (on paper) of concepts stored in memory. Three stimuli (two objects and one word) were presented one at a time to engineering students who were asked to represent what those stimuli made them think of. We calculated the number of words (concepts) reported by each participant; an average of 11 words was counted. The types of external representations they used to display the concepts stored was also studied; 89% of participants produced stars-like representations, with or without chains (more than one concept in line). Also, the originality of the words composing those maps was evaluated; 79% scored between 2 and 4 out of 10 for originality. The ultimate goal was to determine whether certain types of external representations (showing more elaborate connections between concepts) foster more creativity (measured with the CEDA) than other types of representations. There were no significant correlations between the types of external representations or their originality and the creative performance. Theoretical models of creativity often suggest that the creativity process involves a particular thinking style or as Amabile depicts “the ability to use wide, flexible categories for synthesizing information and the ability to break out of perceptual and performance ‘scripts’” (Amabile, 2012, p. 3). Therefore, the goal of the second experiment was to determine the participants’ thinking style when resolving a problem. Participants were asked to read two short scenarios from two different fields (military strategy and medicine), to answer a question at the end of the second text which showed whether they had seen the analogy between the military problem and the medical problem. This procedure is often used in studies of analogy. No significant correlation was found between success in establishing links between different fields (principle of analogy) and creative performance as measured with the CEDA. Interestingly, however, 76% of participants used ill-defined or “half-baked” ideas, which lends support to the theory that ideas unfold through reflecting on, and thereby crystallizing, unclear and/or incomplete ideas, as opposed to generating many and choosing the best. Participants who reported “half-baked” ideas did not necessarily obtain higher CEDA scores. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the benefits of honing of ill-defined ideas come to light in creative problems or tasks that unfold over hours, days, or years, particularly those that involve breaking out of a rut. The CEDA was used to compare participants’ creative performance on the two previous cognitive experiments to determine if there were correlations between creative performance and (1) the way information stored in memory is externally represented, and (2) the detection of analogies. No significant correlations were found. However, the results (especially map types and CEDA) provided information that was shared with students to increase their knowledge of their own processes (metacognition), giving them additional educational mechanisms to develop their creative potential. The third study consisted in the design and teaching of a three-semester, 45-hour course on creativity in an engineering context at Polytechnique Montreal. The course was anchored in a conceptual framework involving 10 pedagogical activities, including serious games, a personal observation notebook, individual (artistic) and collective (engineering) projects. One hundred and thirty-two students from undergraduate and graduate programs participated. The impact of the course on creative performance was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively with the CEDA. The t-test paired values (pre-post) showed the course significantly improved participants’ creative performance, according to four criteria: fluidity (t=-2.95), flexibility (t=-2.62), originality (t=-3.06), usefulness (t=-3.58). The qualitative information was categorized into three themes: relevance, perception and learning. The students reported that they enjoyed the course, and found it relevant in their curriculum, and claimed it helped to increase their understanding of creativity, its cognitive mechanisms, and techniques for improving it. Thus, the third study provides useful information on how to build a creativity course anchored on a theoretical framework, and empirical results on the impact of the course on participants’ creative performance. We concluded that the three studies were useful to gain a better understanding of creativity and ways to develop it in an engineering environment. It is reasonable to think that the lessons learned from these studies apply to many areas in which it would appear appropriate to develop effective and efficient creativity training activities

    Schizophrenia-like Cognitive, Trait and DNA Markers in Regular Cannabis Users

    Get PDF
    Rationale: Converging evidence suggests that cannabis use can induce psychosis and is a distinct risk factor for schizophrenia. Taken together with the effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on neural systems, dopamine and endocannabinoids it is likely that cannabis use may also produce sub- clinical psychosis-linked changes in a much larger number of regular recreational users; observable in schizophrenia-sensitive assessments. Use of the drug by individuals with genetic risk factors for schizophrenia appears to magnify the chances of pathology, and so changes in recreational users with one or more of these genetic markers may be more evident or pronounced. Method: 50 cannabis users and 50 non cannabis users were assessed in each of two studies. Study one assessed selective attention in the Latent Inhibition (LI) and Kamin Blocking (KB) paradigms and examined schizophrenia-linked traits using the short form of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (the SPQ-B; Raine and Benishay, 1995). Study two assessed executive control (using an Anti-Saccade Test), decision-making (using the Iowa Gambling Task), and selective/sustained attention and inhibitory control (Continuous Performance Test). Study two included additional personality measures to explore paranoia, emotional processing, ambivalence and impulsivity. Across both studies, the relative contribution of seven genetic risk markers in five candidate genes for schizophrenia (DAOA, COMT, NRG1, FAAH and CNR1) were assessed. Key Results: Cannabis use was associated with abolished latent inhibition and significantly riskier decision making, especially in those who used the drug more frequently. Cannabis users reported significantly higher scores for psychosis-linked personality traits and there was a dose-response effect with heavier users experiencing more of these schizotypal traits. Some key trends existed in the genotyping data for the cannabis group. The psychosis-risk C allele in the NRG1 gene was linked to higher SPQ-B scores and more errors on the AST; and was also associated with longer use of cannabis. Cannabis users without the protective three-way T-G-G haplotype COMT gene had higher scores for the SPQ-B disorganised thinking subscale than users with the protective haplotype. Discussion: The data in this thesis suggests that cannabis users are showing differences in brain inhibitory function and decision-making akin to previous research with schizophrenic patients, their first degree relatives and high schizotypy scorers. Exposure to THC may contribute to changes in individuals by pushing them further along a schizophrenia-spectrum resulting in the display of more psychotic-like traits and cognitive dysfunction at sub-clinical levels. These preliminary findings need expansion and replication, particularly with regards to the COMT three-way haplotype
    corecore