Can simple ideation techniques enhance idea generation?

Background: The ability to problem solve effectively is imperative for the engineering profession. It has been reported that current methods of teaching engineering students do not necessarily succeed in enhancing their problem-solving skills (Steiner et al., 2011). It has also been reported that a unit that introduced students to tools of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) statistically significantly improved student's problem solving self-efficacy (I. Belski, 2009; I. Belski, Baglin, and Harlim, 2013). Moreover, it was discovered that the TRIZ "unit boosted students' problem solving self-efficacy to the level significantly exceeding the one achieved during four years of a traditional engineering degree" (I. Belski et al., 2013, p. 322). Purpose: This paper aims to assess whether problem-solving methodologies and ideation heuristics that can be taught in less than two weeks can affect students' problem-solving skills beyond their perception. It evaluates a quantitative influence of two ideation methodologies on student problem-solving performance. Design/Method: Three tutorial groups of the first year students that were enrolled in a unit on Enterprise Engineering participated in this study. All students were given 16 minutes of tutorial time to individually generate as many ideas as possible for the same problem. Students from the Control group were not exposed to any treatment and were simply thinking of the ideas and recording them for 16 minutes. Students from the Random Word group were offered eight random words (a technique suggested by Edward de Bono). Each word was shown to students for two minutes. Students from the Su-Field group were also offered eight sets of words that were presented for just two minutes each. These words, though, were not random. They represented the eight fields of MATCEMIB (Mechanical, Acoustic, Thermal, Chemical, Electric, Magnetic, Intermolecular, Biological) that are an integral part of the TRIZ tool of Substance-Field Analysis (Su-Field) (I. Belski, 2007). Student responses were independently evaluated by four assessors who used the same assessment criteria. Results: On average, students of the Control group generated just 2 dissimilar solution ideas each. Students from the experimental groups were more productive. The average numbers of the distinct solution ideas proposed by a student from the Random Word group were 3, and from the Su-Field group - 5. The Kruskall-Wallis tests showed that the differences between the numbers of ideas generated by students from the Su-Field group were statistically significantly above the numbers of ideas generated by the other two groups. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study show that students who were exposed to the fields of MATCEMIB were much more productive in idea generation than others. It is recommended that the fields of MATCEMIB are introduced to engineering students early during their tertiary education. Moreover, assuming that the basics of Substance-Field Analysis can be taught in a week or two, engineering educators need to consider teaching the complete tool of Substance-Field Analysis to their students