| description abstract | The inclusion of professional attitudes and competences in engineering education has been a widely advocated demand by several professional organizations. These competences encompass a range of skills, including critical thinking, communication, and creativity. Specifically, integrating creativity into structural engineering education poses a significant challenge due to the lack of guidance for educators on how to foster it. The goal of this study was to address this gap by gathering information from structural professionals’ perspectives. For that, the research was designed as an iterative qualitative methodology that followed a hermeneutic phenomenological process. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with 27 professionals selected from the fields of creativity and structures. The interview transcripts were thematically coded and analyzed through six phases. The analysis of the transcriptions allowed us to define six themes of interest, which were given a description according to theoretical knowledge of creativity. Comparing experts’ opinions with the themes’ definition reveals a high correlation in the general domain of creativity but less agreement in the specific domain of structures. The findings provide some guidelines that should be followed to promote creativity in structures. By bridging theoretical literature of creativity with professional perspectives, the educational experience will be enriched while maintaining the necessary rigor of structural engineering. Ever wondered how to teach creativity to engineering students? Accrediting organizations now expect graduates to show creative thinking, but teaching this skill can be challenging. We have interviewed 27 educators in the fields of creativity and civil engineering to analyze their perspectives on the complex task of teaching creativity. This research offers tips to help you bring creativity into your courses. Key ideas include adding real-world problems to the curriculum, encouraging students to solve open-ended challenges, and creating a safe space for failure. The study also highlights the importance of teaching structural codes not as limits, but as tools that support both creativity and safety. These strategies will enrich the educational experience while maintaining the rigorous standards of structural engineering. | |
