**4.3. Methodology**

The supervisor and the student surveys aimed to capture the levels of intensity for each response. The student questionnaire aimed to capture the amount of agreement or disagree‐ ment on a six-point Likert scale. An even Likert scale intensity ranking was preferred to enforce clear delimitation of the responses. The survey was built on the dimensions present‐ ed in Table 3:


**Table 3.** Grouped items of the survey dimensions

Additional data acquired from the interviews and design practical activities were used by the supervisor to characterise each student creativity components, as listed in the first column of Table 3. Each group of students were supervised during a semester. At the end, students were interviewed with concern to the survey dimensions.

Each group of students was formed by the students themselves, based on affinities to each other and to the design mission. The design mission was formulated by each group, from the prerequisite research and real needs in specific engineering domain. All the initial design themes were presented in front of four large groups, commented and selected by the students, voting the importance, relevance and attractiveness. Around the design themes portfolio, the student groups were formed and the mission statements were defined. A project calendar was set and compulsory deadlines and milestones were agreed between the members of each group.

Correlation analysis was performed in order to track down any connection between the creativity components with personal, interpersonal, conjectural and endowments set of items. As such, motivating factors and barriers in expressing one's creativity were identified, at the level of the group studied.
