Engineering As a Creative Activity: Mediating Rules, Tools, Communities and Objects as Perceived by Engineering Students

Research Paper Recommended citation: Eriksson, V., & Björklund, T. (2025). Engineering As a Creative Activity: Mediating Rules, Tools, Communities and Objects as Perceived by Engineering Students. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631857. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. ENGINEERING AS A CREATIVE ACTIVITY: MEDIATING RULES, TOOLS, COMMUNITIES AND OBJECTS AS PERCEIVED BY ENGINEERING STUDENTS V Eriksson a, 1 , TA Björklund b a Aalto Design Factory, Department of Energy and Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 0000-0002-4169-6847 b Aalto Design Factory, Department of Energy and Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 0000-0002-3471-746X Conference Key Areas: Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills; Sustainability and society in engineering Keywords: Creativity, Activity Theory, Sustainability, Multidisciplinarity, Collaboration ABSTRACT Creativity in engineering is a dynamic and multidimensional activity shaped by tools, structures, and objectives that influence problem-solving and innovation. This paper employs Activity Theory (AT) as a theoretical lens to explore creativity as an activity, analysing insights from 130 master’s level mechanical engineering students who identified and mapped self-selected examples of creative engineering solutions. AT, a framework for understanding human activity as a system of interrelated components—subject, tools, rules, community, division of labour, and object— provides a structured means to examine the contextual factors shaping creative engineering practices. Findings from the mapping process reveal that creative engineering solutions are characterized by efficiency and sustainability as key objectives, supported by multidisciplinarity and the strategic leveraging of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and additive manufacturing. The analysis highlights how students perceive the diverse tools (technology-focused, such as AI and additive manufacturing), rules (innovation-focused, enabling efficiency and sustainability), and object characteristics (design-focused) of creative engineering examples. This study contributes to the first step in mapping engineering creativity by defining the activity system students perceive. These results underscore the importance of curricular approaches that promote originality, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the effective integration of advanced technologies in creative problem-solving. 1 INTRODUCTION The significance of creativity in engineering was explicitly identified decades ago, underscoring its enduring relevance in the field (Cropley, 2016) and its role in achieving novel and practical solutions to complex problems (Deitrick & Berdanier, 1 Corresponding Author: V Eriksson, [email protected] 2024). In a world characterized by rapid and unpredictable transformations, engineers must be equipped with the creative thinking skills necessary to adapt and innovate (National Academy of Engineering, 2004; Bui, Amrita & Nguyen, 2025). Indeed, the ability to think creatively has been identified as one of the characteristics distinguishing outstanding engineers from good ones and is a key competence in engineering (Passow & Passow, 2017). The capacity to imagine, originate, explore, and take risks in problem-posing and problem-solving is increasingly recognized as a crucial talent that higher education must actively cultivate (Beaulieu, 2022). However, despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of creativity, a notable disconnect persists between its perceived value and its actual integration within engineering education (Deitrick & Berdanier, 2024). Research indicates that engineering students, compared to other disciplines, may hold a less pronounced perception of creativity (Beaulieu, 2022). Old views of creativity as an innate trait or exclusively associated with artistic expression may persist (Bereczki and Kárpáti, 2018; Cropley, 2016). This perception influences how engineering educators, as well as those from other science fields, explore creativity and how it manifests in their teaching (Jackson, 2006). Kazerounian and Foley (2007) found that engineering students believed their teachers didn’t value creativity, while the teachers in question believed their students lacked creativity. Engineering education environments frequently provide limited opportunities for engaging in creative processes, often due to highly structured, instructor-controlled courses (Cropley, 2015). Indeed, engineering students report low levels of motivation, rewarding creativity, and keeping an open mind, which supports creativity (Kazerounian & Foley, 2007). This is not to say that creativity is not present in engineering education. For example, open-ended projects provide opportunities for creativity, including flexibility, originality, and tolerance for ambiguity in course objectives and learning plans (Daly et al., 2014). Indeed, participating in project-based courses increases student performance in subsequent engineering courses (Nguyen et al., 2020). However, creativity often remains an implicit factor in the curriculum (Marquis & Henderson, 2015) and is not assessed (Daly et al., 2014; Kazerounian & Foley, 2007). Furthermore, the form in which creativity is presented in engineering education is often more focussed, locating its value within more technical problem-solving (Cropley & Cropley, 2005). Educators trying to explore a broader range of creativity in their classes may run into several dilemmas and constraints in course design, curriculum, as well as institutional and stakeholder expectations (Feng et al., 2024) One way that creativity in engineering education can be enhanced is through more targeted creativity-related goals, instruction and assessment in courses (Daly et al., 2014). To provide a starting point to identifying opportunities to improve how creativity can be not only incorporated but also explicated in engineering education, the current study zooms into student perceptions of creative engineering using the Scandinavian strand of activity theory (Engeström, 1987) as an analytical lens. Within engineering education, researchers have utilised activity theory (AT) to study engineering students’ experiences when integrating educational technologies (Esnaashari, Gardner & Rehm, 2025), and Johri (2011) explored how engineering students engage with mediating tools and community interactions in their learning environments, demonstrating how creativity emerges from structured yet flexible activity systems. Activity theory has also been employed to study the broader context of engineering education, such as associated communication and writing skills (Goldsmith & Willey, 2016) and the promotion of active learning (Christie & De Graaff, 2017). The exploration of learning was also applied to innovation studies, where Engeström (2001) introduced the concept of expansive learning, illustrating how creative breakthroughs often occur through contradictions and transformations within activity systems. The first step in mapping activity systems is defining the various dimensions of the activity. In the current study, we analyse what engineering students believe makes a solution creative. These findings enable us to define through these perceptions a preliminary activity system of creativity in engineering. 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Participants and data collection This study explores creativity in engineering as an activity by analyzing how first-year master’s level (graduate) mechanical engineering students conceptualize and articulate creativity in self-selected examples. The participants from various mechanical engineering programs 2 . Data was obtained from a course assignment that required students to (1) describe a self-selected creative engineering example and (2) critically discuss why they considered it creative. 2.2 Phase 1: Open coding Thematic analysis, used in this study, is a rigorous qualitative research method used to identify, analyze, and interpret patterns within data (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This process involved iterative reading, comparison, and abstraction. Following institutional ethics approval, student submissions (n=130) were analyzed using an open coding approach to identify patterns and themes in their descriptions. Open coding is a qualitative research technique that systematically identifies emerging concepts by segmenting and categorizing data without predefined codes. Each assignment was examined for descriptions of creative elements, and all instances of such descriptions were coded. This approach allowed multiple instances of the same concept (e.g., "leveraging data-driven decision-making") to be coded within a single assignment if referenced more than once. A total of 974 quotations were coded, resulting in 323 unique codes. The codes captured various aspects of creativity, including features, materials, technologies, individuals, and objectives. Once open coding was complete, thematic analysis was used to systematically refine the 323 open codes into 29 focused code groups. Table 1 presents an example of a focused code and its associated open codes. Table 1. Example of the construction of focused codes from open coding Focused code Underpinning open codes (coded instances) Impact focussed Engineering examples coded that feature: global impact (6); impact of technology (6); impact on consumer decisions (1); impact of industry (2); research impact (1); large-scale impact (1); real-world impact (3) 2 Arctic Technology, Engineering Materials, Marine Technology, Mechatronics, Product Development, Production Engineering and Solid Mechanics Thematic analysis was particularly valuable in this context, distilling complex, diverse data into coherent, focused codes while preserving individual perspectives. 2.3 Phase 2: Activity Theory mapping To analyze how the focused codes aligned with the Activity Theory (AT) triangle (Fig 1), we systematically examined each code’s role within the key AT components: subject, tools, rules, community, division of labour, and object. AT provides a structured framework for understanding creativity as an activity, emphasizing the interplay between individuals, mediating artefacts, and systemic structures. Fig. 1. Activity Theory triangle (based on Engeström, 1987, 78) As we asked students to find an existing example of creative engineering, the subject and outcome dimensions of the triangle were already defined. In AT, the subject can be defined as the individual or group of individuals who engage in a shared activity (Engeström, 2000). In our case, the subject represents the engineering team or organisation that created the creative solution. We also knew the outcome - a creative engineering solution. The remaining elements of the triangle tools, rules, community, division of labour, and object were used to map the focused codes (a summary of the principal focused codes mapped to the AT triangle is included in Table 2, with all focused codes discussed in the findings). Table 2. Open coding to focussed coding sample AT Dimension Associated focused areas (coded instances) Tools Encompassing physical and conceptual tools are used to achieve or support the activity (Sannino, 2011). In this study, relevant focus areas include AI-driven optimization (26), additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping (24), and datadriven decision-making (33). Rules The implicit or explicit guidelines that shape how work is organised often reflect the values and norms that influence group interactions (Barab et al., 2013). Most notably, focused coding highlighted innovative (111) ways of working, efficiency (81), and sustainability (89). Community The collective of individuals who share a common objective forms the community (Engeström, 2009). In this study, the community's nature is highlighted as needing to challenge conventional thinking (90), make unconventional choices (45), and push boundaries (46). Division of Labour Addressing how tasks and responsibilities are distributed (Engeström, 2000). Relevant focus areas in this study include multidisciplinarity (26) and working towards continuous development (9); however, the practical division of tasks is not defined. Object Defining the goal or intended outcome of the activity (Barab et al., 2013) was characterized by codes related to improved functionality and design (212), sustainable energy alternatives (97), affordability (96), advancement (74), and automation (84). By defining the activity system through the focused codes, a first step in mapping engineering creativity as an activity was achieved. The findings revealed limitations, as students mainly identified characteristics of the community, not individual community members, and characteristics of the division of labour, not the tasks themselves. Additional research is needed to supplement the findings and address these limitations. AT analysis is an iterative process, often requiring the researcher to return to data collection once the analysis process is underway (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Once the activity is defined, our future research can focus on analysing the contradictions and tensions within the activity system and how tools mediate these. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Tools that enable creativity The data highlighted three key tool-related themes. Firstly, many students consistently emphasized leveraging data in design and decision-making (n=34), indicating a shift towards data-driven creativity. This encompassed the use of computational design tools (n=6), the application of data to drive design and engineering decisions (n=18), and the utilization of digital models in engineering (n=10). These tools facilitated the exploration of complex design spaces and enabled evidence-based creative choices, demonstrating how digital resources mediated the object of their creative activity. Secondly, using artificial intelligence in the form of generative AI (n=25) or generative design algorithms (n=1), emerged as a powerful tool for expanding creative possibilities. Students perceived AI as a means to automate routine tasks, generate novel solutions, and explore unconventional design iterations, highlighting AI as a tool that alters the rules of creative engineering practice. Finally, leveraging additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping as tools (n=24) was identified as crucial for realizing and iterating on creative ideas. The ability to rapidly prototype and process (n=5) challenges traditional manufacturing constraints, enabling students to translate abstract concepts into tangible forms, fostering a more experimental and iterative approach to creative problem-solving. 3.2 Rules that facilitate creativity Predominantly, students identified sustainability as a central tenet of creative engineering (n=89), establishing it as a guiding principle that dominates their creative endeavors. This encompassed specific protocols for reducing environmental impact (n=16), utilizing environmentally friendly materials and processes (n=13), prioritizing reusability (n=14), and adhering to environmental compliance in design and manufacturing (n=10), demonstrating how ethical and ecological considerations function as powerful regulatory forces within their creative activities. Secondly, the imperative to employ efficiency-focused rules (n=81) emerged as a crucial driver of creative problem-solving. This included the use of efficient fuels (n=17), increasing speed (n=13), and supporting manufacturing and material optimization (n=11), highlighting how performance-based constraints shape the direction and boundaries of creative exploration. Crucially, the data underscored that innovation (n=111) was a fundamental rule, with students consistently associating creativity with the explicit pursuit of novel solutions. This manifested in the development of innovative designs (n=32), the integration of innovative technologies (n=38), exploration of innovative manufacturing options (n=15) and innovative battery technologies (n=2). In addition to these dominant themes, students also acknowledged the importance of rules and protocols related to precision (n=42), safety (n=40), user experience (n=12), impact (n=20), and future focus (n=19). 3.3 Community and the Division of Labour to foster creativity Students noted that a creative engineering community should champion new approaches and challenge conventional thinking (n=90). This was further emphasised by the perceived need to make unconventional choices (n=45) and push boundaries (n=46), with specific practices including aiming for radical solutions and innovations (n=24) and exploring unconventional design choices (n=27). Regarding the division of labour, students perceived that fostering creativity required specific working methods, most notably multidisciplinary sharing and working (n=26). This emphasis on cross-disciplinary collaboration recognises that diverse perspectives and expertise are essential for generating innovative solutions. Furthermore, the importance of continuous development (n=9) was noted, suggesting creativity is perceived as an ongoing process of learning and refinement. 3.4 Object features that represent creativity Predominantly, students viewed creativity as improving existing designs or functions (n=212), focusing on practical and incremental innovation. Within this broad theme, specific object characteristics emerged as particularly salient, including a focus on lighter constructions (n=34), customization (n=21), ease of use (n=14), flexibility (n=12), decreased weight (n=11), and improved stability (n=10). These findings suggest that students perceived the object of creative engineering as one that addresses specific, tangible improvements in existing products or processes, highlighting a focus on optimization and refinement. Furthermore, affordability (n=96) emerged as a significant object characteristic, indicating that students viewed creative solutions as both innovative and economically viable. The pursuit of advancement (n=74), particularly in technology (n=36), further defined the object of creative engineering, emphasizing the importance of pushing technological boundaries and incorporating cutting-edge solutions. Less prominent but still relevant codes indicate that object characteristics must include accessibility (n=22), accuracy (n=15), modularity (n=8), and designs that draw inspiration from nature (n=7). 3.5 Initial exploration of dimension relationships The overall analysis reveals a dynamic system where student creativity in engineering is a mediated activity, shaped by the interplay and tensions between their goals, the instruments they use, the norms they adhere to, and the social context in which they operate. Although a comprehensive exploration of the relationships, mediation, and tensions between the activity dimensions will be addressed in future publications, key considerations emerge for engineering educators. Findings indicate a relationship between digital tools and creative processes, illustrating how data-driven, AI-based models facilitate the exploration of complex design spaces and enable evidence-based creative choices, directly mediating the creation of improved designs and advanced technologies. However, there is a potential contradiction in this reliance on AI. While AI expands creative possibilities and automates tasks, excessive dependence may hinder fundamental understanding or independent human creative intuition, potentially limiting the radical solutions the community seeks. The preference indicated by n=1 generative design algorithms versus n=25 generative AI suggests an inclination towards more generalized AI tools rather than highly specialized algorithms. This may suggest either a nascent understanding of AI's role or a preference for tools that offer broader utility. For engineering educators, this presents an opportunity to evaluate and integrate task-specific AI technologies into the curriculum, with a critical examination of the impact of these technologies on the pursuit of creative solutions. Similarly, there could be a subtle tension between affordability (n=96) as an object feature and the rule of leveraging cutting-edge technologies (n=16) within the community. Cutting-edge technologies may initially be more expensive, potentially conflicting with the goal of affordability. Similarly, radical innovations (n=24) may sometimes clash with the immediate ease of use (n=14) or stability (n=10) of existing designs, at least in early stages. The balance between affordability and ease of use, and thus the potential for broader access, and the need to innovate with new technologies could present educators with interesting dilemmas for in-class discussion. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Engineering students’ perceptions of creativity were highly interconnected to the availability and application of advanced digital tools. They noted how these tools mediated their actions, shaped their understanding of the object of their activity, and influenced the overall outcome of creative engineering practice. Typically, the emphasis was on optimizing and atomization to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current solutions. This focus mirrors studies emphasizing the central role of effectiveness and efficiency in professional engineering, with for example effectiveness being a crucial facet for meaningful work for early career engineers (Anonymous, 2023) and efficiency being central to engineers' professional identities (Trevelyan & Williams, 2019). In the current study, creative engineering was not viewed as unconstrained expression, but as a practice deeply embedded within a system of rules prioritising sustainability, efficiency, innovation and impact. The emerging focus on sustainability in the students’ perceptions connects to the broader understanding that creativity is increasingly vital in addressing global challenges such as sustainability (Bui, Amrita & Nguyen, 2025). The demand for engineers with creative skills also extends beyond traditional engineering roles into interdisciplinary fields, such as the creative and cultural industries, where combining technical expertise and creative abilities enhances productivity and drives innovation (Turegeldinova et al., 2024). However, while the student responses had a strong emphasis on challenging existing conventions, the responses also portrayed the object of creative engineering activity as a solution that improves upon existing designs and functions and prioritizes affordability, technological advancement, and user-centered considerations. This understanding defines the object of creative activity as a tangible improvement with practical implications, yet also suggests somewhat limited room for more radical innovation that may be called for. Indeed, Daly and colleagues (2014) found limited emphasis on divergent thinking and originality even in engineering courses focusing on creativity. Given that most accounts on creativity emphasize novelty and usefulness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Diedrich et al., 2015), the results suggest there may be room for further educational focus on originality or more radical innovation to complement students’ focus on impact and effectiveness. Developing innovative and unconventional solutions for a more sustainable future requires engineers who can think creatively and integrate technical knowledge with imaginative approaches (Bui, Amrita & Nguyen, 2025). Findings from this study also show that students perceive creativity as a socially situated activity, where a community that embraces unconventional thinking and a division of labour that promotes multidisciplinary collaboration and continuous learning are critical for fostering creative outcomes. Studies suggest students may wish for more multidisciplinary courses to support creative processes (Daly et al. 2016). In addition to utilizing project-based courses incorporating multiple stakeholders and disciplines, educators could assess the degree to which different stakeholders, multidisciplinary collaboration and unconventional thinking are present in their courses, learning objectives and assessments to support a broader understanding of socially situated creativity in engineering education. While providing initial insights, this study is limited by its reliance on data from a single institution within a Nordic country, despite the student body's diversity. Further research is necessary to explore potential institutional and cultural variations in the emphasis placed on the studied phenomena, as well as to identify how these emphases might differ across various engineering fields, such as civil, chemical, and electrical engineering. Additionally, the data captures a singular point in time, specifically as students transition from bachelor's to master's degrees. Longitudinal studies comparing perceptions of creativity across different academic levels (e.g., first-year bachelor's, first-year master's, and professionals) would be valuable in understanding how students' perspectives evolve. Finally, the current data focuses on student reflections on external examples; future research could benefit from contrasting these reflections with similar analyses of students' work and examples in creative problem-solving scenarios. Despite these limitations, the analysis of creativity in engineering through the lens of activity theory, offers a starting point for educators reflecting on their curricula as well as researchers in engineering education and creativity to examine the interplay between tools, rules, community, division of labour, and objectives in a systemic perspective of creative engineering. The perceived importance of effectiveness, efficiency, and collaborative environments highlights the synergy between effective engineering practice and integrating creative problem-solving into addressing complex challenges and fostering a culture of continuous improvement and sustainability.