Huifen Guo

The growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in engineering education has created a need for measures that capture students’ creativity with these tools in engineering contexts. This research developed and validated the GAI-Assisted Engineering Creativity Scale (GECS) across six studies involving university engineering students. Study 1 generated and refined the initial item pool through theory-informed content validation. Study 2 identified a four-dimensional structure comprising Intentionality, Authenticity, Human–AI Collaboration, and Critical Integration. Study 3 confirmed this structure, compared alternative measurement models, and examined measurement invariance across gender. Study 4 evaluated short-term test–retest reliability and informed the final item refinement. Study 5 examined convergent and discriminant validity in relation to established measures of AI-assisted creativity and general creative attributes and behaviors. Study 6 evaluated associations with creative thinking, critical thinking, creative self-concept, and general creativity scale. The final 16-item GECS demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, a replicable four-factor structure, moderate short-term temporal stability, and meaningful relationships with theoretically relevant constructs. The findings support the GECS as a multidimensional measure of students’ creativity assisted by GAI in engineering work.

The development of higher-order thinking and creativity is widely regarded as a central objective in engineering education. With the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools, particularly AI chatbots, there is growing interest in understanding how these technologies are related to cognitive processes and creative outcomes. This study examines the relationships among higher-order thinking, GAI chatbot use, and engineering creativity, with a particular focus on their underlying dimensions. Data were collected through a self-reported survey administered to engineering students, and the proposed model was analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Importance–performance map analysis (IPMA) and necessary condition analysis (NCA) were also conducted to provide complementary perspectives. The results indicate that higher-order thinking is positively associated with engineering creativity and with reported GAI chatbot use. In contrast, the association between GAI chatbot use and engineering creativity is comparatively weaker, although statistically significant. The IPMA results show that higher-order thinking has higher relative importance within the model, while GAI chatbot use demonstrates moderate performance but lower importance. The NCA findings further suggest that certain dimensions of higher-order thinking may act as constraints at lower levels of creativity. The findings highlight differentiated relationships among cognitive processes, AI tool use, and creativity in engineering education. The study contributes to a more fine-grained understanding of how higher-order thinking and AI tool use are related to different aspects of engineering creativity.

Problem-solving skills are a core competency for engineering students, yet the psychological mechanisms underlying their development remain poorly understood. Creative self-efficacy has been identified as a potential motivational driver of problem-solving skills, but the pathways through which it functions have received limited empirical investigation. This study examines the direct relationship between creative self-efficacy and problem-solving skills and explores the dual mediating roles of critical thinking and metacognition in this relationship. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of undergraduate engineering students (N = 711). Validated self-report scales were used to assess creative self-efficacy, critical thinking, metacognition, and problem-solving skills. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was employed to test the proposed dual mediation model. Creative self-efficacy was found to have a statistically significant direct effect on problem-solving skills (p < 0.01), although the effect size was weak (f² = 0.031). In contrast, creative self-efficacy had strong effects on both critical thinking (p < 0.001, f² = 0.690) and metacognition (p < 0.001, f² = 0.676). Both critical thinking (p < 0.01) and metacognition (p < 0.001) significantly mediated the relationship between creative self-efficacy and problem-solving skills, though their direct effects on problem-solving were modest (f² = 0.035 and f² = 0.129, respectively). The findings demonstrate that creative self-efficacy primarily enhances problem-solving skills through its positive effects on critical thinking and metacognition. These results highlight the need for engineering education to strengthen students’ critical thinking and metacognition while fostering their confidence in their problem-solving. These insights offer both theoretical and practical guidance for designing targeted interventions to enhance students’ problem-solving skills.

This study investigates the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on engineering students’ creativity, examining the mediating roles of critical thinking and AI self-efficacy in this relationship. We analyze the data collected using SPSS (v.24) and SmartPLS (v.4) to assess the variables’ structural relationships and effect sizes. The results demonstrate that GenAI usage competence significantly enhances engineering students’ creativity (t > 1.96, p < 0.05,f² = 0.012). Furthermore, critical thinking partially mediates the relationships between GenAI usage competence and AI self-efficacy, as well as between GenAI usage competence and creativity (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). AI self-efficacy is also a partial mediator in the relationships between critical thinking and creativity, and between GenAI usage competence and creativity (t > 1.96, p < 0.05). This study identifies a chain mediation model in which critical thinking and AI self-efficacy sequentially mediate the relationship between GenAI usage competence and student creativity (t > 1.96, p < 0.001). These findings highlight the interplay between technological tools, cognitive abilities, and psychological factors, indicating that simply teaching technical skills is not enough. For engineering education, this implies that integrating GenAI tools into the curriculum must go hand in hand with fostering students’ critical thinking and AI self-efficacy to truly enhance creativity.

Background: The multifaceted challenges encountered by engineering university students generate paradoxical tensions, which serve as catalysts for fostering creativity. Engaging in paradoxical thinking during academic pursuits enhances students’ ability to solve complex engineering problems. Despite this, the intricate interconnections among paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of engineering university students remain ambiguous. Methods: This study aimed to explore the gap by surveying 1,410 engineering students in China, examining how paradoxical thinking mediates the relationship between paradoxical tensions and creativity. Additionally, it investigated the moderating impact of team psychological capital on the associations between paradoxical tensions and both paradoxical thinking and creativity. SPSS 24.0 was initially used to convert the cleaned data into a “.csv” format, and Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) was then employed to assess the model. Results: The findings reveal a positive influence of paradoxical tensions on creativity and thinking. Notably, paradoxical thinking emerges as a significant contributor to enhancing the creativity of engineering university students. Furthermore, the findings show that paradoxical tensions enhance creativity by influencing paradoxical thinking. While team psychological capital emerged as a significant factor in moderating the link between paradoxical tension and creativity, its role in moderating the association between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking was not statistically significant. Conclusions: This study revealed how paradoxical tensions among engineering university students influence creativity through paradoxical thinking moderated by team psychological capital. The findings provide new insights for researchers to understand paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, team psychological capital, and the underlying psychological mechanism for engineering university students’ creativity better, and they have practical implications for education administrators.

Background The multifaceted challenges encountered by engineering university students generate paradoxical tensions, which serve as catalysts for fostering creativity. Engaging in paradoxical thinking during academic pursuits enhances the ability of students to solve complex engineering problems. Despite this, the intricate interconnections among paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, and the creativity of engineering university students remain ambiguous. Methods This study sought to address this gap by surveying 1410 engineering university students in China, delving into how paradoxical thinking mediates the link between paradoxical tensions and creativity. Additionally, it investigated the moderating impact of team psychological capital on the associations between paradoxical tensions and both paradoxical thinking and creativity. SPSS 24.0 was initially used to convert the cleaned data into a “.csv” format, and Smart PLS (v.4.0.9.5) was then employed to assess the model. Results The findings of the study reveal a positive influence of paradoxical tensions on both creativity and paradoxical thinking. Notably, paradoxical thinking emerges as a significant contributor to enhancing the creativity of engineering university students. Furthermore, the findings show that paradoxical tensions enhance creativity by influencing paradoxical thinking. While team psychological capital emerged as a significant factor in moderating the link between paradoxical tension and creativity, its role in moderating the association between paradoxical tension and paradoxical thinking was not statistically significant. Conclusions This study revealed how paradoxical tensions among engineering university students influence creativity through paradoxical thinking, moderated by team psychological capital. The findings not only provide new insights for researchers to better understand paradoxical tensions, paradoxical thinking, team psychological capital and the underlying psychological mechanism for engineering university students' creativity, but also have practical implications for education administrators.