problem solving and creativity education

Why Every Educator Needs to Teach Problem-Solving Skills

Strong problem-solving skills will help students be more resilient and will increase their academic and career success .

Want to learn more about how to measure and teach students’ higher-order skills, including problem solving, critical thinking, and written communication?

Problem-solving skills are essential in school, careers, and life.

Problem-solving skills are important for every student to master. They help individuals navigate everyday life and find solutions to complex issues and challenges. These skills are especially valuable in the workplace, where employees are often required to solve problems and make decisions quickly and effectively.

Problem-solving skills are also needed for students’ personal growth and development because they help individuals overcome obstacles and achieve their goals. By developing strong problem-solving skills, students can improve their overall quality of life and become more successful in their personal and professional endeavors.

Problem-Solving Skills Help Students…

   develop resilience.

Problem-solving skills are an integral part of resilience and the ability to persevere through challenges and adversity. To effectively work through and solve a problem, students must be able to think critically and creatively. Critical and creative thinking help students approach a problem objectively, analyze its components, and determine different ways to go about finding a solution.  

This process in turn helps students build self-efficacy . When students are able to analyze and solve a problem, this increases their confidence, and they begin to realize the power they have to advocate for themselves and make meaningful change.

When students gain confidence in their ability to work through problems and attain their goals, they also begin to build a growth mindset . According to leading resilience researcher, Carol Dweck, “in a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment.”

    Set and Achieve Goals

Students who possess strong problem-solving skills are better equipped to set and achieve their goals. By learning how to identify problems, think critically, and develop solutions, students can become more self-sufficient and confident in their ability to achieve their goals. Additionally, problem-solving skills are used in virtually all fields, disciplines, and career paths, which makes them important for everyone. Building strong problem-solving skills will help students enhance their academic and career performance and become more competitive as they begin to seek full-time employment after graduation or pursue additional education and training.

  Resolve Conflicts

In addition to increased social and emotional skills like self-efficacy and goal-setting, problem-solving skills teach students how to cooperate with others and work through disagreements and conflicts. Problem-solving promotes “thinking outside the box” and approaching a conflict by searching for different solutions. This is a very different (and more effective!) method than a more stagnant approach that focuses on placing blame or getting stuck on elements of a situation that can’t be changed.

While it’s natural to get frustrated or feel stuck when working through a conflict, students with strong problem-solving skills will be able to work through these obstacles, think more rationally, and address the situation with a more solution-oriented approach. These skills will be valuable for students in school, their careers, and throughout their lives.

    Achieve Success

We are all faced with problems every day. Problems arise in our personal lives, in school and in our jobs, and in our interactions with others. Employers especially are looking for candidates with strong problem-solving skills. In today’s job market, most jobs require the ability to analyze and effectively resolve complex issues. Students with strong problem-solving skills will stand out from other applicants and will have a more desirable skill set.

In a recent opinion piece published by The Hechinger Report , Virgel Hammonds, Chief Learning Officer at KnowledgeWorks, stated “Our world presents increasingly complex challenges. Education must adapt so that it nurtures problem solvers and critical thinkers.” Yet, the “traditional K–12 education system leaves little room for students to engage in real-world problem-solving scenarios.” This is the reason that a growing number of K–12 school districts and higher education institutions are transforming their instructional approach to personalized and competency-based learning, which encourage students to make decisions, problem solve and think critically as they take ownership of and direct their educational journey.

Problem-Solving Skills Can Be Measured and Taught

Research shows that problem-solving skills can be measured and taught. One effective method is through performance-based assessments which require students to demonstrate or apply their knowledge and higher-order skills to create a response or product or do a task.

What Are Performance-Based Assessments?

With the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), the use of standardized testing became the primary way to measure student learning in the U.S. The legislative requirements of this act shifted the emphasis to standardized testing, and this led to a  decline in nontraditional testing methods .

But   many educators, policy makers, and parents have concerns with standardized tests. Some of the top issues include that they don’t provide feedback on how students can perform better, they don’t value creativity, they are not representative of diverse populations, and they can be disadvantageous to lower-income students.

While standardized tests are still the norm, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona is encouraging states and districts to move away from traditional multiple choice and short response tests and instead use performance-based assessment, competency-based assessments, and other more authentic methods of measuring students abilities and skills rather than rote learning. 

Performance-based assessments  measure whether students can apply the skills and knowledge learned from a unit of study. Typically, a performance task challenges students to use their higher-order skills to complete a project or process. Tasks can range from an essay to a complex proposal or design.

Preview a Performance-Based Assessment

Want a closer look at how performance-based assessments work?  Preview CAE’s K–12 and Higher Education assessments and see how CAE’s tools help students develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and written communication skills.

Performance-Based Assessments Help Students Build and Practice Problem-Solving Skills

In addition to effectively measuring students’ higher-order skills, including their problem-solving skills, performance-based assessments can help students practice and build these skills. Through the assessment process, students are given opportunities to practically apply their knowledge in real-world situations. By demonstrating their understanding of a topic, students are required to put what they’ve learned into practice through activities such as presentations, experiments, and simulations. 

This type of problem-solving assessment tool requires students to analyze information and choose how to approach the presented problems. This process enhances their critical thinking skills and creativity, as well as their problem-solving skills. Unlike traditional assessments based on memorization or reciting facts, performance-based assessments focus on the students’ decisions and solutions, and through these tasks students learn to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Performance-based assessments like CAE’s College and Career Readiness Assessment (CRA+) and Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+) provide students with in-depth reports that show them which higher-order skills they are strongest in and which they should continue to develop. This feedback helps students and their teachers plan instruction and supports to deepen their learning and improve their mastery of critical skills.

Explore CAE’s Problem-Solving Assessments

CAE offers performance-based assessments that measure student proficiency in higher-order skills including problem solving, critical thinking, and written communication.

• College and Career Readiness Assessment (CCRA+) for secondary education and
• Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+) for higher education.

Our solution also includes instructional materials, practice models, and professional development.

We can help you create a program to build students’ problem-solving skills that includes:

• Measuring students’ problem-solving skills through a performance-based assessment    
• Using the problem-solving assessment data to inform instruction and tailor interventions
• Teaching students problem-solving skills and providing practice opportunities in real-life scenarios
• Supporting educators with quality professional development

Get started with our problem-solving assessment tools to measure and build students’ problem-solving skills today! These skills will be invaluable to students now and in the future.

Ready to Get Started?

Learn more about cae’s suite of products and let’s get started measuring and teaching students important higher-order skills like problem solving..

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

• Become a Member
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computational Thinking
• Digital Citizenship
• Edtech Selection
• Global Collaborations
• STEAM in Education
• Teacher Preparation
• ISTE Certification
• School Partners
• Career Development
• ISTELive 24
• Solutions Summit
• Leadership Exchange
• 2024 ASCD Leadership Summit
• 2025 ASCD Annual Conference
• Edtech Product Database
• Solutions Network
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Sponsorship & Advertising
• Learning Library

5 Reasons Why It Is More Important Than Ever to Teach Creativity

• Education Leadership

On the laundry list of skills and content areas teachers have to cover, creativity doesn’t traditionally get top billing. It’s usually lumped together with other soft skills like communication and collaboration: Great to have, though not as important as reading or long division.

But research is showing that creativity isn’t just great to have. It’s an essential human skill — perhaps even an evolutionary imperative in our technology-driven world.

“The pace of cultural change is accelerating more quickly than ever before,” says Liane Gabora , associate professor of psychology and creative studies at the University of British Columbia. “In some biological systems, when the environment is changing quickly, the mutation rate goes up. Similarly, in times of change we need to bump up creativity levels — to generate the innovative ideas that will keep us afloat.”

From standardized tests to one-size-fits-all curriculum, public education often leaves little room for creativity, says EdNews Daily founder Robyn D. Shulman . This puts many schools out of sync with both global demand and societal needs, leaving students poorly prepared for future success.

What can education leaders do about it? For starters, they can make teaching creativity a priority. Here are five reasons to encourage teachers to bring more creativity into the classroom:

1. Creativity motivates kids to learn.

Decades of research link creativity with the intrinsic motivation to learn. When students are focused on a creative goal, they become more absorbed in their learning and more driven to acquire the skills they need to accomplish it.

As proof, education leader Ryan Imbriale cites his young daughter, who loves making TikTok videos showcasing her gymnastics skills. “She spends countless hours on her mat, working over and over again to try to get her gymnastics moves correct so she can share her TikTok video of her success,” says the executive director of innovative learning for Baltimore County Public Schools.

Students are most motivated to learn when certain factors are present: They’re able to tie their learning to their personal interests, they have a sense of autonomy and control over their task, and they feel competent in the work they’re doing. Creative projects can easily meet all three conditions.

2. Creativity lights up the brain.

Teachers who frequently assign classwork involving creativity are more likely to observe higher-order cognitive skills — problem solving, critical thinking, making connections between subjects — in their students. And when teachers combine creativity with transformative technology use, they see even better outcomes.

Creative work helps students connect new information to their prior knowledge, says Wanda Terral, director of technology for Lakeland School System outside of Memphis. That makes the learning stickier.

“Unless there’s a place to ‘stick’ the knowledge to what they already know, it’s hard for students to make it a part of themselves moving forward,” she says. “It comes down to time. There’s not enough time to give them the flexibility to find out where the learning fits in their life and in their brain.”

3. Creativity spurs emotional development.

The creative process involves a lot of trial and error. Productive struggle — a gentler term for failure — builds resilience, teaching students to push through difficulty to reach success. That’s fertile soil for emotional growth.

“Allowing students to experience the journey, regardless of the end result, is important,” says Terral, a presenter at  ISTE Creative Constructor Lab .

Creativity gives students the freedom to explore and learn new things from each other, Imbriale adds. As they overcome challenges and bring their creative ideas to fruition, “students begin to see that they have limitless boundaries,” he says. “That, in turn, creates confidence. It helps with self-esteem and emotional development.”

4. Creativity can ignite those hard-to-reach students.

Many educators have at least one story about a student who was struggling until the teacher assigned a creative project. When academically disinclined students are permitted to unleash their creativity or explore a topic of personal interest, the transformation can be startling.

“Some students don’t do well on tests or don’t do well grade-wise, but they’re super-creative kids,” Terral says. “It may be that the structure of school is not good for them. But put that canvas in front of them or give them tools so they can sculpt, and their creativity just oozes out of them.”

5. Creativity is an essential job skill of the future.

Actually, it’s an essential job skill right now.

According to an Adobe study , 85% of college-educated professionals say creative thinking is critical for problem solving in their careers. And an analysis of LinkedIn data found that creativity is the second most in-demand job skill (after cloud computing), topping the list of soft skills companies need most. As automation continues to swallow up routine jobs, those who rely on soft skills like creativity will see the most growth.

“We can’t exist without the creative thinker. It’s the idea generation and the opportunity to collaborate with others that moves work,” Imbriale says.

“It’s one thing to be able to sit in front of computer screen and program something. But it’s another to have the conversations and engage in learning about what somebody wants out of a program to be written in order to be able to deliver on that. That all comes from a creative mindset.”

Nicole Krueger is a freelance writer and journalist with a passion for finding out what makes learners tick.

• artificial intelligence

• Back to All Programs /

Creative Thinking: Innovative Solutions to Complex Challenges

Learn how to grow a culture of creativity to innovate competitive solutions.

October 16, 2024

8:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET

2 consecutive days

$2,990 Programs fill quickly — free cancellation up to 14 days prior

Registration Deadline

October 8, 2024

Overview: Creative Thinking Skills Course

The tech breakthrough that makes smartphones irrelevant, a new viral ad campaign, your company’s next big revenue generator — ideas like these could be sitting in your brain; all you need are the creative thinking skills and strategies to pull them out.

This interactive program focuses explicitly on the creative thinking skills you need to solve complex problems and design innovative solutions. Learn how to transform your thinking from the standard “why can’t we” to the powerful “how might we.” Crack the code on how to consistently leverage your team’s creative potential in order to drive innovation within your organization. Explore how to build a climate for innovation, remove barriers to creativity, cultivate courage, and create more agile, proactive, and inspired teams.

You will leave this program with new ideas about how to think more productively and how to introduce creative thinking skills into your organization. You can apply key takeaways immediately to implement a new leadership vision, inspire renewed enthusiasm, and enjoy the skills and tools to tackle challenges and seize opportunities.

Innovation experts Anne Manning and Susan Robertson bring to this highly-interactive and powerful program their decades of experience promoting corporate innovation, teaching the art of creative problem solving, and applying the principles of brain science to solve complex challenges.

Who Should Take Creative Thinking Skills Training?

This program is ideal for leaders with at least 3 years of management experience. It is designed for leaders who want to develop new strategies, frameworks, and tools for creative problem solving. Whether you are a team lead, project manager, sales director, or executive, you’ll learn powerful tools to lead your team and your organization to create innovative solutions to complex challenges.

All participants will earn a Certificate of Participation from the Harvard Division of Continuing Education.

Benefits of Creative Thinking Skills Training

The goal of this creative thinking program is to help you develop the strategic concepts and tactical skills to lead creative problem solving for your team and your organization. You will learn to:

• Retrain your brain to avoid negative cognitive biases and long-held beliefs and myths that sabotage creative problem solving and innovation
• Become a more nimble, proactive, and inspired thinker and leader
• Create the type of organizational culture that supports collaboration and nurtures rather than kills ideas
• Gain a practical toolkit for solving the “unsolvable” by incorporating creative thinking into day-to-day processes
• Understand cognitive preferences (yours and others’) to adapt the creative thinking process and drive your team’s success
• Develop techniques that promote effective brainstorming and enable you to reframe problems in a way that inspires innovative solutions

The curriculum in this highly interactive program utilizes research-based methodologies and techniques to build creative thinking skills and stimulate creative problem solving.

Through intensive group discussions and small-group exercises, you will focus on topics such as:

• The Creative Problem Solving process: a researched, learnable, repeatable process for uncovering new and useful ideas. This process includes a “how to” on clarifying, ideating, developing, and implementing new solutions to intractable problems
• The cognitive preferences that drive how we approach problems, and how to leverage those cognitive preferences for individual and team success
• How to develop—and implement— a methodology that overcomes barriers to innovative thinking and fosters the generation of new ideas, strategies, and techniques
• The role of language, including asking the right questions, in reframing problems, challenging assumptions, and driving successful creative problem solving
• Fostering a culture that values, nurtures, and rewards creative solutions

Considering this program?

Send yourself the details.

Related Programs

• Design Thinking: Creating Better Customer Experiences
• Agile Leadership: Transforming Mindsets and Capabilities in Your Organization

October Schedule

• Creative Challenges: A Team Sport
• The Place to Begin: Reframe the Challenge
• Ideas on Demand
• Building a Creative Organization

Instructors

Anne manning, susan robertson, certificates of leadership excellence.

The Certificates of Leadership Excellence (CLE) are designed for leaders with the desire to enhance their business acumen, challenge current thinking, and expand their leadership skills.

This program is one of several CLE qualifying programs. Register today and get started earning your certificate.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Teaching Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving in Science

• Robert L. DeHaan

Division of Educational Studies, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322

Search for more papers by this author

Engaging learners in the excitement of science, helping them discover the value of evidence-based reasoning and higher-order cognitive skills, and teaching them to become creative problem solvers have long been goals of science education reformers. But the means to achieve these goals, especially methods to promote creative thinking in scientific problem solving, have not become widely known or used. In this essay, I review the evidence that creativity is not a single hard-to-measure property. The creative process can be explained by reference to increasingly well-understood cognitive skills such as cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control that are widely distributed in the population. I explore the relationship between creativity and the higher-order cognitive skills, review assessment methods, and describe several instructional strategies for enhancing creative problem solving in the college classroom. Evidence suggests that instruction to support the development of creativity requires inquiry-based teaching that includes explicit strategies to promote cognitive flexibility. Students need to be repeatedly reminded and shown how to be creative, to integrate material across subject areas, to question their own assumptions, and to imagine other viewpoints and possibilities. Further research is required to determine whether college students' learning will be enhanced by these measures.

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Dunne paces in front of his section of first-year college students, today not as their Bio 110 teacher but in the role of facilitator in their monthly “invention session.” For this meeting, the topic is stem cell therapy in heart disease. Members of each team of four students have primed themselves on the topic by reading selected articles from accessible sources such as Science, Nature, and Scientific American, and searching the World Wide Web, triangulating for up-to-date, accurate, background information. Each team knows that their first goal is to define a set of problems or limitations to overcome within the topic and to begin to think of possible solutions. Dr. Dunne starts the conversation by reminding the group of the few ground rules: one speaker at a time, listen carefully and have respect for others' ideas, question your own and others' assumptions, focus on alternative paths or solutions, maintain an atmosphere of collaboration and mutual support. He then sparks the discussion by asking one of the teams to describe a problem in need of solution.

Science in the United States is widely credited as a major source of discovery and economic development. According to the 2005 TAP Report produced by a prominent group of corporate leaders, “To maintain our country's competitiveness in the twenty-first century, we must cultivate the skilled scientists and engineers needed to create tomorrow's innovations.” ( www.tap2015.org/about/TAP_report2.pdf ). A panel of scientists, engineers, educators, and policy makers convened by the National Research Council (NRC) concurred with this view, reporting that the vitality of the nation “is derived in large part from the productivity of well-trained people and the steady stream of scientific and technical innovations they produce” ( NRC, 2007 ).

For many decades, science education reformers have promoted the idea that learners should be engaged in the excitement of science; they should be helped to discover the value of evidence-based reasoning and higher-order cognitive skills, and be taught to become innovative problem solvers (for reviews, see DeHaan, 2005 ; Hake, 2005 ; Nelson, 2008 ; Perkins and Wieman, 2008 ). But the means to achieve these goals, especially methods to promote creative thinking in scientific problem solving, are not widely known or used. An invention session such as that led by the fictional Dr. Dunne, described above, may seem fanciful as a means of teaching students to think about science as something more than a body of facts and terms to memorize. In recent years, however, models for promoting creative problem solving were developed for classroom use, as detailed by Treffinger and Isaksen (2005) , and such techniques are often used in the real world of high technology. To promote imaginative thinking, the advertising executive Alex F. Osborn invented brainstorming ( Osborn, 1948 , 1979 ), a technique that has since been successful in stimulating inventiveness among engineers and scientists. Could such strategies be transferred to a class for college students? Could they serve as a supplement to a high-quality, scientific teaching curriculum that helps students learn the facts and conceptual frameworks of science and make progress along the novice–expert continuum? Could brainstorming or other instructional strategies that are specifically designed to promote creativity teach students to be more adaptive in their growing expertise, more innovative in their problem-solving abilities? To begin to answer those questions, we first need to understand what is meant by “creativity.”

What Is Creativity? Big-C versus Mini-C Creativity

How to define creativity is an age-old question. Justice Potter Stewart's famous dictum regarding obscenity “I know it when I see it” has also long been an accepted test of creativity. But this is not an adequate criterion for developing an instructional approach. A scientist colleague of mine recently noted that “Many of us [in the scientific community] rarely give the creative process a second thought, imagining one either ‘has it’ or doesn't.” We often think of inventiveness or creativity in scientific fields as the kind of gift associated with a Michelangelo or Einstein. This is what Kaufman and Beghetto (2008) call big-C creativity, borrowing the term that earlier workers applied to the talents of experts in various fields who were identified as particularly creative by their expert colleagues ( MacKinnon, 1978 ). In this sense, creativity is seen as the ability of individuals to generate new ideas that contribute substantially to an intellectual domain. Howard Gardner defined such a creative person as one who “regularly solves problems, fashions products, or defines new questions in a domain in a way that is initially considered novel but that ultimately comes to be accepted in a particular cultural setting” ( Gardner, 1993 , p. 35).

But there is another level of inventiveness termed by various authors as “little-c” ( Craft, 2000 ) or “mini-c” ( Kaufman and Beghetto, 2008 ) creativity that is widespread among all populations. This would be consistent with the workplace definition of creativity offered by Amabile and her coworkers: “coming up with fresh ideas for changing products, services and processes so as to better achieve the organization's goals” ( Amabile et al. , 2005 ). Mini-c creativity is based on what Craft calls “possibility thinking” ( Craft, 2000 , pp. 3–4), as experienced when a worker suddenly has the insight to visualize a new, improved way to accomplish a task; it is represented by the “aha” moment when a student first sees two previously disparate concepts or facts in a new relationship, an example of what Arthur Koestler identified as bisociation: “perceiving a situation or event in two habitually incompatible associative contexts” ( Koestler, 1964 , p. 95).

In this essay, I maintain that mini-c creativity is not a mysterious, innate endowment of rare individuals. Instead, I argue that creative thinking is a multicomponent process, mediated through social interactions, that can be explained by reference to increasingly well-understood mental abilities such as cognitive flexibility and cognitive control that are widely distributed in the population. Moreover, I explore some of the recent research evidence (though with no effort at a comprehensive literature review) showing that these mental abilities are teachable; like other higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS), they can be enhanced by explicit instruction.

Creativity Is a Multicomponent Process

Efforts to define creativity in psychological terms go back to J. P. Guilford ( Guilford, 1950 ) and E. P. Torrance ( Torrance, 1974 ), both of whom recognized that underlying the construct were other cognitive variables such as ideational fluency, originality of ideas, and sensitivity to missing elements. Many authors since then have extended the argument that a creative act is not a singular event but a process, an interplay among several interactive cognitive and affective elements. In this view, the creative act has two phases, a generative and an exploratory or evaluative phase ( Finke et al. , 1996 ). During the generative process, the creative mind pictures a set of novel mental models as potential solutions to a problem. In the exploratory phase, we evaluate the multiple options and select the best one. Early scholars of creativity, such as J. P. Guilford, characterized the two phases as divergent thinking and convergent thinking ( Guilford, 1950 ). Guilford defined divergent thinking as the ability to produce a broad range of associations to a given stimulus or to arrive at many solutions to a problem (for overviews of the field from different perspectives, see Amabile, 1996 ; Banaji et al. , 2006 ; Sawyer, 2006 ). In neurocognitive terms, divergent thinking is referred to as associative richness ( Gabora, 2002 ; Simonton, 2004 ), which is often measured experimentally by comparing the number of words that an individual generates from memory in response to stimulus words on a word association test. In contrast, convergent thinking refers to the capacity to quickly focus on the one best solution to a problem.

The idea that there are two stages to the creative process is consistent with results from cognition research indicating that there are two distinct modes of thought, associative and analytical ( Neisser, 1963 ; Sloman, 1996 ). In the associative mode, thinking is defocused, suggestive, and intuitive, revealing remote or subtle connections between items that may be correlated, or may not, and are usually not causally related ( Burton, 2008 ). In the analytical mode, thought is focused and evaluative, more conducive to analyzing relationships of cause and effect (for a review of other cognitive aspects of creativity, see Runco, 2004 ). Science educators associate the analytical mode with the upper levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) of Bloom's taxonomy (e.g., Crowe et al. , 2008 ), or with “critical thinking,” the process that underlies the “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that drives problem-solving and decision-making” ( Quitadamo et al. , 2008 , p. 328). These modes of thinking are under cognitive control through the executive functions of the brain. The core executive functions, which are thought to underlie all planning, problem solving, and reasoning, are defined ( Blair and Razza, 2007 ) as working memory control (mentally holding and retrieving information), cognitive flexibility (considering multiple ideas and seeing different perspectives), and inhibitory control (resisting several thoughts or actions to focus on one). Readers wishing to delve further into the neuroscience of the creative process can refer to the cerebrocerebellar theory of creativity ( Vandervert et al. , 2007 ) in which these mental activities are described neurophysiologically as arising through interactions among different parts of the brain.

The main point from all of these works is that creativity is not some single hard-to-measure property or act. There is ample evidence that the creative process requires both divergent and convergent thinking and that it can be explained by reference to increasingly well-understood underlying mental abilities ( Haring-Smith, 2006 ; Kim, 2006 ; Sawyer, 2006 ; Kaufman and Sternberg, 2007 ) and cognitive processes ( Simonton, 2004 ; Diamond et al. , 2007 ; Vandervert et al. , 2007 ).

Creativity Is Widely Distributed and Occurs in a Social Context

Although it is understandable to speak of an aha moment as a creative act by the person who experiences it, authorities in the field have long recognized (e.g., Simonton, 1975 ) that creative thinking is not so much an individual trait but rather a social phenomenon involving interactions among people within their specific group or cultural settings. “Creativity isn't just a property of individuals, it is also a property of social groups” ( Sawyer, 2006 , p. 305). Indeed, Osborn introduced his brainstorming method because he was convinced that group creativity is always superior to individual creativity. He drew evidence for this conclusion from activities that demand collaborative output, for example, the improvisations of a jazz ensemble. Although each musician is individually creative during a performance, the novelty and inventiveness of each performer's playing is clearly influenced, and often enhanced, by “social and interactional processes” among the musicians ( Sawyer, 2006 , p. 120). Recently, Brophy (2006) offered evidence that for problem solving, the situation may be more nuanced. He confirmed that groups of interacting individuals were better at solving complex, multipart problems than single individuals. However, when dealing with certain kinds of single-issue problems, individual problem solvers produced a greater number of solutions than interacting groups, and those solutions were judged to be more original and useful.

Consistent with the findings of Brophy (2006) , many scholars acknowledge that creative discoveries in the real world such as solving the problems of cutting-edge science—which are usually complex and multipart—are influenced or even stimulated by social interaction among experts. The common image of the lone scientist in the laboratory experiencing a flash of creative inspiration is probably a myth from earlier days. As a case in point, the science historian Mara Beller analyzed the social processes that underlay some of the major discoveries of early twentieth-century quantum physics. Close examination of successive drafts of publications by members of the Copenhagen group revealed a remarkable degree of influence and collaboration among 10 or more colleagues, although many of these papers were published under the name of a single author ( Beller, 1999 ). Sociologists Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar's study ( Latour and Woolgar, 1986 ) of a neuroendocrinology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies make the related point that social interactions among the participating scientists determined to a remarkable degree what discoveries were made and how they were interpreted. In the laboratory, researchers studied the chemical structure of substances released by the brain. By analysis of the Salk scientists' verbalizations of concepts, theories, formulas, and results of their investigations, Latour and Woolgar showed that the structures and interpretations that were agreed upon, that is, the discoveries announced by the laboratory, were mediated by social interactions and power relationships among members of the laboratory group. By studying the discovery process in other fields of the natural sciences, sociologists and anthropologists have provided more cases that further illustrate how social and cultural dimensions affect scientific insights (for a thoughtful review, see Knorr Cetina, 1995 ).

In sum, when an individual experiences an aha moment that feels like a singular creative act, it may rather have resulted from a multicomponent process, under the influence of group interactions and social context. The process that led up to what may be sensed as a sudden insight will probably have included at least three diverse, but testable elements: 1) divergent thinking, including ideational fluency or cognitive flexibility, which is the cognitive executive function that underlies the ability to visualize and accept many ideas related to a problem; 2) convergent thinking or the application of inhibitory control to focus and mentally evaluate ideas; and 3) analogical thinking, the ability to understand a novel idea in terms of one that is already familiar.

LITERATURE REVIEW

What do we know about how to teach creativity.

The possibility of teaching for creative problem solving gained credence in the 1960s with the studies of Jerome Bruner, who argued that children should be encouraged to “treat a task as a problem for which one invents an answer, rather than finding one out there in a book or on the blackboard” ( Bruner, 1965 , pp. 1013–1014). Since that time, educators and psychologists have devised programs of instruction designed to promote creativity and inventiveness in virtually every student population: pre–K, elementary, high school, and college, as well as in disadvantaged students, athletes, and students in a variety of specific disciplines (for review, see Scott et al. , 2004 ). Smith (1998) identified 172 instructional approaches that have been applied at one time or another to develop divergent thinking skills.

Some of the most convincing evidence that elements of creativity can be enhanced by instruction comes from work with young children. Bodrova and Leong (2001) developed the Tools of the Mind (Tools) curriculum to improve all of the three core mental executive functions involved in creative problem solving: cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control. In a year-long randomized study of 5-yr-olds from low-income families in 21 preschool classrooms, half of the teachers applied the districts' balanced literacy curriculum (literacy), whereas the experimenters trained the other half to teach the same academic content by using the Tools curriculum ( Diamond et al. , 2007 ). At the end of the year, when the children were tested with a battery of neurocognitive tests including a test for cognitive flexibility ( Durston et al. , 2003 ; Davidson et al. , 2006 ), those exposed to the Tools curriculum outperformed the literacy children by as much as 25% ( Diamond et al. , 2007 ). Although the Tools curriculum and literacy program were similar in academic content and in many other ways, they differed primarily in that Tools teachers spent 80% of their time explicitly reminding the children to think of alternative ways to solve a problem and building their executive function skills.

Teaching older students to be innovative also demands instruction that explicitly promotes creativity but is rigorously content-rich as well. A large body of research on the differences between novice and expert cognition indicates that creative thinking requires at least a minimal level of expertise and fluency within a knowledge domain ( Bransford et al. , 2000 ; Crawford and Brophy, 2006 ). What distinguishes experts from novices, in addition to their deeper knowledge of the subject, is their recognition of patterns in information, their ability to see relationships among disparate facts and concepts, and their capacity for organizing content into conceptual frameworks or schemata ( Bransford et al. , 2000 ; Sawyer, 2005 ).

Such expertise is often lacking in the traditional classroom. For students attempting to grapple with new subject matter, many kinds of problems that are presented in high school or college courses or that arise in the real world can be solved merely by applying newly learned algorithms or procedural knowledge. With practice, problem solving of this kind can become routine and is often considered to represent mastery of a subject, producing what Sternberg refers to as “pseudoexperts” ( Sternberg, 2003 ). But beyond such routine use of content knowledge the instructor's goal must be to produce students who have gained the HOCS needed to apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate knowledge ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ). The aim is to produce students who know enough about a field to grasp meaningful patterns of information, who can readily retrieve relevant knowledge from memory, and who can apply such knowledge effectively to novel problems. This condition is referred to as adaptive expertise ( Hatano and Ouro, 2003 ; Schwartz et al. , 2005 ). Instead of applying already mastered procedures, adaptive experts are able to draw on their knowledge to invent or adapt strategies for solving unique or novel problems within a knowledge domain. They are also able, ideally, to transfer conceptual frameworks and schemata from one domain to another (e.g., Schwartz et al. , 2005 ). Such flexible, innovative application of knowledge is what results in inventive or creative solutions to problems ( Crawford and Brophy, 2006 ; Crawford, 2007 ).

Promoting Creative Problem Solving in the College Classroom

In most college courses, instructors teach science primarily through lectures and textbooks that are dominated by facts and algorithmic processing rather than by concepts, principles, and evidence-based ways of thinking. This is despite ample evidence that many students gain little new knowledge from traditional lectures ( Hrepic et al. , 2007 ). Moreover, it is well documented that these methods engender passive learning rather than active engagement, boredom instead of intellectual excitement, and linear thinking rather than cognitive flexibility (e.g., Halpern and Hakel, 2003 ; Nelson, 2008 ; Perkins and Wieman, 2008 ). Cognitive flexibility, as noted, is one of the three core mental executive functions involved in creative problem solving ( Ausubel, 1963 , 2000 ). The capacity to apply ideas creatively in new contexts, referred to as the ability to “transfer” knowledge (see Mestre, 2005 ), requires that learners have opportunities to actively develop their own representations of information to convert it to a usable form. Especially when a knowledge domain is complex and fraught with ill-structured information, as in a typical introductory college biology course, instruction that emphasizes active-learning strategies is demonstrably more effective than traditional linear teaching in reducing failure rates and in promoting learning and transfer (e.g., Freeman et al. , 2007 ). Furthermore, there is already some evidence that inclusion of creativity training as part of a college curriculum can have positive effects. Hunsaker (2005) has reviewed a number of such studies. He cites work by McGregor (2001) , for example, showing that various creativity training programs including brainstorming and creative problem solving increase student scores on tests of creative-thinking abilities.

Model creativity—students develop creativity when instructors model creative thinking and inventiveness.

Repeatedly encourage idea generation—students need to be reminded to generate their own ideas and solutions in an environment free of criticism.

Cross-fertilize ideas—where possible, avoid teaching in subject-area boxes: a math box, a social studies box, etc; students' creative ideas and insights often result from learning to integrate material across subject areas.

Build self-efficacy—all students have the capacity to create and to experience the joy of having new ideas, but they must be helped to believe in their own capacity to be creative.

Constantly question assumptions—make questioning a part of the daily classroom exchange; it is more important for students to learn what questions to ask and how to ask them than to learn the answers.

Imagine other viewpoints—students broaden their perspectives by learning to reflect upon ideas and concepts from different points of view.

How Is Creativity Related to Critical Thinking and the Higher-Order Cognitive Skills?

It is not uncommon to associate creativity and ingenuity with scientific reasoning ( Sawyer, 2005 ; 2006 ). When instructors apply scientific teaching strategies ( Handelsman et al. , 2004 ; DeHaan, 2005 ; Wood, 2009 ) by using instructional methods based on learning research, according to Ebert-May and Hodder ( 2008 ), “we see students actively engaged in the thinking, creativity, rigor, and experimentation we associate with the practice of science—in much the same way we see students learn in the field and in laboratories” (p. 2). Perkins and Wieman (2008) note that “To be successful innovators in science and engineering, students must develop a deep conceptual understanding of the underlying science ideas, an ability to apply these ideas and concepts broadly in different contexts, and a vision to see their relevance and usefulness in real-world applications … An innovator is able to perceive and realize potential connections and opportunities better than others” (pp. 181–182). The results of Scott et al. (2004) suggest that nontraditional courses in science that are based on constructivist principles and that use strategies of scientific teaching to promote the HOCS and enhance content mastery and dexterity in scientific thinking ( Handelsman et al. , 2007 ; Nelson, 2008 ) also should be effective in promoting creativity and cognitive flexibility if students are explicitly guided to learn these skills.

Creativity is an essential element of problem solving ( Mumford et al. , 1991 ; Runco, 2004 ) and of critical thinking ( Abrami et al. , 2008 ). As such, it is common to think of applications of creativity such as inventiveness and ingenuity among the HOCS as defined in Bloom's taxonomy ( Crowe et al. , 2008 ). Thus, it should come as no surprise that creativity, like other elements of the HOCS, can be taught most effectively through inquiry-based instruction, informed by constructivist theory ( Ausubel, 1963 , 2000 ; Duch et al. , 2001 ; Nelson, 2008 ). In a survey of 103 instructors who taught college courses that included creativity instruction, Bull et al. (1995) asked respondents to rate the importance of various course characteristics for enhancing student creativity. Items ranking high on the list were: providing a social climate in which students feels safe, an open classroom environment that promotes tolerance for ambiguity and independence, the use of humor, metaphorical thinking, and problem defining. Many of the responses emphasized the same strategies as those advanced to promote creative problem solving (e.g., Mumford et al. , 1991 ; McFadzean, 2002 ; Treffinger and Isaksen, 2005 ) and critical thinking ( Abrami et al. , 2008 ).

In a careful meta-analysis, Scott et al. (2004) examined 70 instructional interventions designed to enhance and measure creative performance. The results were striking. Courses that stressed techniques such as critical thinking, convergent thinking, and constraint identification produced the largest positive effect sizes. More open techniques that provided less guidance in strategic approaches had less impact on the instructional outcomes. A striking finding was the effectiveness of being explicit; approaches that clearly informed students about the nature of creativity and offered clear strategies for creative thinking were most effective. Approaches such as social modeling, cooperative learning, and case-based (project-based) techniques that required the application of newly acquired knowledge were found to be positively correlated to high effect sizes. The most clear-cut result to emerge from the Scott et al. (2004) study was simply to confirm that creativity instruction can be highly successful in enhancing divergent thinking, problem solving, and imaginative performance. Most importantly, of the various cognitive processes examined, those linked to the generation of new ideas such as problem finding, conceptual combination, and idea generation showed the greatest improvement. The success of creativity instruction, the authors concluded, can be attributed to “developing and providing guidance concerning the application of requisite cognitive capacities … [and] a set of heuristics or strategies for working with already available knowledge” (p. 382).

Many of the scientific teaching practices that have been shown by research to foster content mastery and HOCS, and that are coming more widely into use, also would be consistent with promoting creativity. Wood (2009) has recently reviewed examples of such practices and how to apply them. These include relatively small modifications of the traditional lecture to engender more active learning, such as the use of concept tests and peer instruction ( Mazur, 1996 ), Just-in-Time-Teaching techniques ( Novak et al. , 1999 ), and student response systems known as “clickers” ( Knight and Wood, 2005 ; Crossgrove and Curran, 2008 ), all designed to allow the instructor to frequently and effortlessly elicit and respond to student thinking. Other strategies can transform the lecture hall into a workshop or studio classroom ( Gaffney et al. , 2008 ) where the teaching curriculum may emphasize problem-based (also known as project-based or case-based) learning strategies ( Duch et al. , 2001 ; Ebert-May and Hodder, 2008 ) or “community-based inquiry” in which students engage in research that enhances their critical-thinking skills ( Quitadamo et al. , 2008 ).

Another important approach that could readily subserve explicit creativity instruction is the use of computer-based interactive simulations, or “sims” ( Perkins and Wieman, 2008 ) to facilitate inquiry learning and effective, easy self-assessment. An example in the biological sciences would be Neurons in Action ( http://neuronsinaction.com/home/main ). In such educational environments, students gain conceptual understanding of scientific ideas through interactive engagement with materials (real or virtual), with each other, and with instructors. Following the tenets of scientific teaching, students are encouraged to pose and answer their own questions, to make sense of the materials, and to construct their own understanding. The question I pose here is whether an additional focus—guiding students to meet these challenges in a context that explicitly promotes creativity—would enhance learning and advance students' progress toward adaptive expertise?

Assessment of Creativity

To teach creativity, there must be measurable indicators to judge how much students have gained from instruction. Educational programs intended to teach creativity became popular after the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) was introduced in the 1960s ( Torrance, 1974 ). But it soon became apparent that there were major problems in devising tests for creativity, both because of the difficulty of defining the construct and because of the number and complexity of elements that underlie it. Tests of intelligence and other personality characteristics on creative individuals revealed a host of related traits such as verbal fluency, metaphorical thinking, flexible decision making, tolerance of ambiguity, willingness to take risks, autonomy, divergent thinking, self-confidence, problem finding, ideational fluency, and belief in oneself as being “creative” ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 ; Tardif and Sternberg, 1988 ; Runco and Nemiro, 1994 ; Snyder et al. , 2004 ). Many of these traits have been the focus of extensive research of recent decades, but, as noted above, creativity is not defined by any one trait; there is now reason to believe that it is the interplay among the cognitive and affective processes that underlie inventiveness and the ability to find novel solutions to a problem.

Although the early creativity researchers recognized that assessing divergent thinking as a measure of creativity required tests for other underlying capacities ( Guilford, 1950 ; Torrance, 1974 ), these workers and their colleagues nonetheless believed that a high score for divergent thinking alone would correlate with real creative output. Unfortunately, no such correlation was shown ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 ). Results produced by many of the instruments initially designed to measure various aspects of creative thinking proved to be highly dependent on the test itself. A review of several hundred early studies showed that an individual's creativity score could be affected by simple test variables, for example, how the verbal pretest instructions were worded ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 , pp. 442–443). Most scholars now agree that divergent thinking, as originally defined, was not an adequate measure of creativity. The process of creative thinking requires a complex combination of elements that include cognitive flexibility, memory control, inhibitory control, and analogical thinking, enabling the mind to free-range and analogize, as well as to focus and test.

More recently, numerous psychometric measures have been developed and empirically tested (see Plucker and Renzulli, 1999 ) that allow more reliable and valid assessment of specific aspects of creativity. For example, the creativity quotient devised by Snyder et al. (2004) tests the ability of individuals to link different ideas and different categories of ideas into a novel synthesis. The Wallach–Kogan creativity test ( Wallach and Kogan, 1965 ) explores the uniqueness of ideas associated with a stimulus. For a more complete list and discussion, see the Creativity Tests website ( www.indiana.edu/∼bobweb/Handout/cretv_6.html ).

The most widely used measure of creativity is the TTCT, which has been modified four times since its original version in 1966 to take into account subsequent research. The TTCT-Verbal and the TTCT-Figural are two versions ( Torrance, 1998 ; see http://ststesting.com/2005giftttct.html ). The TTCT-Verbal consists of five tasks; the “stimulus” for each task is a picture to which the test-taker responds briefly in writing. A sample task that can be viewed from the TTCT Demonstrator website asks, “Suppose that people could transport themselves from place to place with just a wink of the eye or a twitch of the nose. What might be some things that would happen as a result? You have 3 min.” ( www.indiana.edu/∼bobweb/Handout/d3.ttct.htm ).

In the TTCT-Figural, participants are asked to construct a picture from a stimulus in the form of a partial line drawing given on the test sheet (see example below; Figure 1 ). Specific instructions are to “Add lines to the incomplete figures below to make pictures out of them. Try to tell complete stories with your pictures. Give your pictures titles. You have 3 min.” In the introductory materials, test-takers are urged to “… think of a picture or object that no one else will think of. Try to make it tell as complete and as interesting a story as you can …” ( Torrance et al. , 2008 , p. 2).

Figure 1. Sample figural test item from the TTCT Demonstrator website ( www.indiana.edu/∼bobweb/Handout/d3.ttct.htm ).

How would an instructor in a biology course judge the creativity of students' responses to such an item? To assist in this task, the TTCT has scoring and norming guides ( Torrance, 1998 ; Torrance et al. , 2008 ) with numerous samples and responses representing different levels of creativity. The guides show sample evaluations based upon specific indicators such as fluency, originality, elaboration (or complexity), unusual visualization, extending or breaking boundaries, humor, and imagery. These examples are easy to use and provide a high degree of validity and generalizability to the tests. The TTCT has been more intensively researched and analyzed than any other creativity instrument, and the norming samples have longitudinal validations and high predictive validity over a wide age range. In addition to global creativity scores, the TTCT is designed to provide outcome measures in various domains and thematic areas to allow for more insightful analysis ( Kaufman and Baer, 2006 ). Kim (2006) has examined the characteristics of the TTCT, including norms, reliability, and validity, and concludes that the test is an accurate measure of creativity. When properly used, it has been shown to be fair in terms of gender, race, community status, and language background. According to Kim (2006) and other authorities in the field ( McIntyre et al. , 2003 ; Scott et al. , 2004 ), Torrance's research and the development of the TTCT have provided groundwork for the idea that creative levels can be measured and then increased through instruction and practice.

SCIENTIFIC TEACHING TO PROMOTE CREATIVITY

How could creativity instruction be integrated into scientific teaching.

Guidelines for designing specific course units that emphasize HOCS by using strategies of scientific teaching are now available from the current literature. As an example, Karen Cloud-Hansen and colleagues ( Cloud-Hansen et al. , 2008 ) describe a course titled, “Ciprofloxacin Resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae .” They developed this undergraduate seminar to introduce college freshmen to important concepts in biology within a real-world context and to increase their content knowledge and critical-thinking skills. The centerpiece of the unit is a case study in which teams of students are challenged to take the role of a director of a local public health clinic. One of the county commissioners overseeing the clinic is an epidemiologist who wants to know “how you plan to address the emergence of ciprofloxacin resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae ” (p. 304). State budget cuts limit availability of expensive antibiotics and some laboratory tests to patients. Student teams are challenged to 1) develop a plan to address the medical, economic, and political questions such a clinic director would face in dealing with ciprofloxacin-resistant N. gonorrhoeae ; 2) provide scientific data to support their conclusions; and 3) describe their clinic plan in a one- to two-page referenced written report.

Throughout the 3-wk unit, in accordance with the principles of problem-based instruction ( Duch et al. , 2001 ), course instructors encourage students to seek, interpret, and synthesize their own information to the extent possible. Students have access to a variety of instructional formats, and active-learning experiences are incorporated throughout the unit. These activities are interspersed among minilectures and give the students opportunities to apply new information to their existing base of knowledge. The active-learning activities emphasize the key concepts of the minilectures and directly confront common misconceptions about antibiotic resistance, gene expression, and evolution. Weekly classes include question/answer/discussion sessions to address student misconceptions and 20-min minilectures on such topics as antibiotic resistance, evolution, and the central dogma of molecular biology. Students gather information about antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae , epidemiology of gonorrhea, and treatment options for the disease, and each team is expected to formulate a plan to address ciprofloxacin resistance in N. gonorrhoeae .

In this project, the authors assessed student gains in terms of content knowledge regarding topics covered such as the role of evolution in antibiotic resistance, mechanisms of gene expression, and the role of oncogenes in human disease. They also measured HOCS as gains in problem solving, according to a rubric that assessed self-reported abilities to communicate ideas logically, solve difficult problems about microbiology, propose hypotheses, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Comparing the pre- and posttests, students reported significant learning of scientific content. Among the thinking skill categories, students demonstrated measurable gains in their ability to solve problems about microbiology but the unit seemed to have little impact on their more general perceived problem-solving skills ( Cloud-Hansen et al. , 2008 ).

What would such a class look like with the addition of explicit creativity-promoting approaches? Would the gains in problem-solving abilities have been greater if during the minilectures and other activities, students had been introduced explicitly to elements of creative thinking from the Sternberg and Williams (1998) list described above? Would the students have reported greater gains if their instructors had encouraged idea generation with weekly brainstorming sessions; if they had reminded students to cross-fertilize ideas by integrating material across subject areas; built self-efficacy by helping students believe in their own capacity to be creative; helped students question their own assumptions; and encouraged students to imagine other viewpoints and possibilities? Of most relevance, could the authors have been more explicit in assessing the originality of the student plans? In an experiment that required college students to develop plans of a different, but comparable, type, Osborn and Mumford (2006) created an originality rubric ( Figure 2 ) that could apply equally to assist instructors in judging student plans in any course. With such modifications, would student gains in problem-solving abilities or other HOCS have been greater? Would their plans have been measurably more imaginative?

Figure 2. Originality rubric (adapted from Osburn and Mumford, 2006 , p. 183).

Answers to these questions can only be obtained when a course like that described by Cloud-Hansen et al. (2008) is taught with explicit instruction in creativity of the type I described above. But, such answers could be based upon more than subjective impressions of the course instructors. For example, students could be pretested with items from the TTCT-Verbal or TTCT-Figural like those shown. If, during minilectures and at every contact with instructors, students were repeatedly reminded and shown how to be as creative as possible, to integrate material across subject areas, to question their own assumptions and imagine other viewpoints and possibilities, would their scores on TTCT posttest items improve? Would the plans they formulated to address ciprofloxacin resistance become more imaginative?

Recall that in their meta-analysis, Scott et al. (2004) found that explicitly informing students about the nature of creativity and offering strategies for creative thinking were the most effective components of instruction. From their careful examination of 70 experimental studies, they concluded that approaches such as social modeling, cooperative learning, and case-based (project-based) techniques that required the application of newly acquired knowledge were positively correlated with high effect sizes. The study was clear in confirming that explicit creativity instruction can be successful in enhancing divergent thinking and problem solving. Would the same strategies work for courses in ecology and environmental biology, as detailed by Ebert-May and Hodder (2008) , or for a unit elaborated by Knight and Wood (2005) that applies classroom response clickers?

Finally, I return to my opening question with the fictional Dr. Dunne. Could a weekly brainstorming “invention session” included in a course like those described here serve as the site where students are introduced to concepts and strategies of creative problem solving? As frequently applied in schools of engineering ( Paulus and Nijstad, 2003 ), brainstorming provides an opportunity for the instructor to pose a problem and to ask the students to suggest as many solutions as possible in a brief period, thus enhancing ideational fluency. Here, students can be encouraged explicitly to build on the ideas of others and to think flexibly. Would brainstorming enhance students' divergent thinking or creative abilities as measured by TTCT items or an originality rubric? Many studies have demonstrated that group interactions such as brainstorming, under the right conditions, can indeed enhance creativity ( Paulus and Nijstad, 2003 ; Scott et al. , 2004 ), but there is little information from an undergraduate science classroom setting. Intellectual Ventures, a firm founded by Nathan Myhrvold, the creator of Microsoft's Research Division, has gathered groups of engineers and scientists around a table for day-long sessions to brainstorm about a prearranged topic. Here, the method seems to work. Since it was founded in 2000, Intellectual Ventures has filed hundreds of patent applications in more than 30 technology areas, applying the “invention session” strategy ( Gladwell, 2008 ). Currently, the company ranks among the top 50 worldwide in number of patent applications filed annually. Whether such a technique could be applied successfully in a college science course will only be revealed by future research.

• Abrami P. C., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Wadem A., Surkes M. A., Tamim R., Zhang D. ( 2008 ). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis . Rev. Educ. Res 78 , 1102-1134. Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M. ( 1996 ). Creativity in Context , Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M., Barsade S. G., Mueller J. S., Staw B. M. ( 2005 ). Affect and creativity at work . Admin. Sci. Q 50 , 367-403. Google Scholar
• Ausubel D. ( 1963 ). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning , New York: Grune and Stratton. Google Scholar
• Ausubel B. ( 2000 ). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View , Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
• Banaji S., Burn A., Buckingham D. ( 2006 ). The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the Literature , accessed 29 December 2008 London: Centre for the Study of Children, Youth and Media, www.creativepartnerships.com/data/files/rhetorics-of-creativity-12.pdf . Google Scholar
• Barron F., Harrington D. M. ( 1981 ). Creativity, intelligence and personality . Ann. Rev. Psychol 32 , 439-476. Google Scholar
• Beller M. ( 1999 ). Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Blair C., Razza R. P. ( 2007 ). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten . Child Dev 78 , 647-663. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Bodrova E., Leong D. J. ( 2001 ). The Tool of the Mind: a case study of implementing the Vygotskian approach In: American Early Childhood and Primary Classrooms , Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Google Scholar
• Bransford J. D.Brown A. L.Cocking R. R. ( 2000 ). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Brophy D. R. ( 2006 ). A comparison of individual and group efforts to creatively solve contrasting types of problems . Creativity Res. J 18 , 293-315. Google Scholar
• Bruner J. ( 1965 ). The growth of mind . Am. Psychol 20 , 1007-1017. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Bull K. S., Montgomery D., Baloche L. ( 1995 ). Teaching creativity at the college level: a synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by instructors . Creativity Res. J 8 , 83-90. Google Scholar
• Burton R. ( 2008 ). On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not , New York: St. Martin's Press. Google Scholar
• Cloud-Hanson K. A., Kuehner J. N., Tong L., Miller S., Handelsman J. ( 2008 ). Money, sex and drugs: a case study to teach the genetics of antibiotic resistance . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 302-309. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Craft A. ( 2000 ). Teaching Creativity: Philosophy and Practice , New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Crawford V. M. ( 2007 ). Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teachers' problem solving accessed 1 July 2008 Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Conference Delphi, Greece http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/Crawford_EuroCogSci07Proceedings.pdf . Google Scholar
• Crawford V. M., Brophy S. ( 2006 ). Adaptive Expertise: Theory, Methods, Findings, and Emerging Issues; September 2006 In: accessed 1 July 2008 Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/AESymposiumReportOct06.pdf . Google Scholar
• Crossgrove K., Curran K. L. ( 2008 ). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 146-154. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Crowe A., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. ( 2008 ). Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 368-381. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Davidson M. C., Amso D., Anderson L. C., Diamond A. ( 2006 ). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4–13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching . Neuropsychologia 44 , 2037-2078. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• DeHaan R. L. ( 2005 ). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education . J. Sci. Educ. Technol 14 , 253-270. Google Scholar
• Diamond A., Barnett W. S., Thomas J., Munro S. ( 2007 ). Preschool program improves cognitive control . Science 318 , 1387-1388. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Duch B. J., Groh S. E., Allen D. E. ( 2001 ). The Power of Problem-based Learning , Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers. Google Scholar
• Durston S., Davidson M. C., Thomas K. M., Worden M. S., Tottenham N., Martinez A., Watts R., Ulug A. M., Caseya B. J. ( 2003 ). Parametric manipulation of conflict and response competition using rapid mixed-trial event-related fMRI . Neuroimage 20 , 2135-2141. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Ebert-May D., Hodder J. ( 2008 ). Pathways to Scientific Teaching , Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Google Scholar
• Finke R. A., Ward T. B., Smith S. M. ( 1996 ). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Applications , Boston, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Freeman S., O'Connor E., Parks J. W., Cunningham M., Hurley D., Haak D., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. ( 2007 ). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology . CBE Life Sci. Educ 6 , 132-139. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Gabora L. ( 2002 ). Hewett T.Kavanagh E. Cognitive mechanisms underlying the creative process Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creativity and Cognition 2002 October 13–16 Loughborough University, United Kingdom 126-133. Google Scholar
• Gaffney J.D.H., Richards E., Kustusch M. B., Ding L., Beichner R. ( 2008 ). Scaling up education reform . J. Coll. Sci. Teach 37 , 48-53. Google Scholar
• Gardner H. ( 1993 ). Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi In: New York: Harper Collins. Google Scholar
• Gladwell M. ( 2008 ). In the air; who says big ideas are rare? The New Yorker accessed 19 May 2008 www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell . Google Scholar
• Guilford J. P. ( 1950 ). Creativity . Am. Psychol 5 , 444-454. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Hake R. ( 2005 ). The physics education reform effort: a possible model for higher education . Natl. Teach. Learn. Forum 15 , 1-6. Google Scholar
• Halpern D. E., Hakel M. D. ( 2003 ). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond . Change 35 , 36-42. Google Scholar
• Handelsman J. ( 2004 ). Scientific teaching . Science 304 , 521-522. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Handelsman J, Miller S., Pfund C. ( 2007 ). Scientific Teaching , New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. Google Scholar
• Haring-Smith T. ( 2006 ). Creativity research review: some lessons for higher education. Association of American Colleges and Universities . Peer Rev 8 , 23-27. Google Scholar
• Hatano G., Ouro Y. ( 2003 ). Commentary: reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research . Educ. Res 32 , 26-29. Google Scholar
• Hrepic Z., Zollman D. A., Rebello N. S. ( 2007 ). Comparing students' and experts' understanding of the content of a lecture . J. Sci. Educ. Technol 16 , 213-224. Google Scholar
• Hunsaker S. L. ( 2005 ). Outcomes of creativity training programs . Gifted Child Q 49 , 292-298. Google Scholar
• Kaufman J. C., Baer J. ( 2006 ). Intelligent testing with Torrance . Creativity Res. J 18 , 99-102. Google Scholar
• Kaufman J. C., Beghetto R. A. ( 2008 , Ed. R. L. DeHaanK.M.V. Narayan , Exploring mini-C: creativity across cultures In: Education for Innovation: Implications for India, China and America , Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 165-180. Google Scholar
• Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. ( 2007 ). Creativity . Change 39 , 55-58. Google Scholar
• Kim K. H. ( 2006 ). Can we trust creativity tests: a review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) . Creativity Res. J 18 , 3-14. Google Scholar
• Knight J. K., Wood W. B. ( 2005 ). Teaching more by lecturing less . Cell Biol. Educ 4 , 298-310. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cetina Knorr K. ( 1995 , Ed. S. JasanoffG. MarkleJ. PetersenT. Pinch , Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science In: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 140-166. Google Scholar
• Koestler A. ( 1964 ). The Act of Creation , New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Latour B., Woolgar S. ( 1986 ). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
• MacKinnon D. W. ( 1978 , Ed. D. W. MacKinnon , What makes a person creative? In: In Search of Human Effectiveness , New York: Universe Books, 178-186. Google Scholar
• Martindale C. ( 1999 , Ed. R. J. Sternberg , Biological basis of creativity In: Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 137-152. Google Scholar
• Mazur E. ( 1996 ). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
• McFadzean E. ( 2002 ). Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: Part 1—a conceptual model . Manage. Decis 40 , 463-475. Google Scholar
• McGregor G. D. ( 2001 ). Creative thinking instruction for a college study skills program: a case study. . Dissert Abstr. Intl 62 , 3293A UMI No. AAT 3027933. Google Scholar
• McIntyre F. S., Hite R. E., Rickard M. K. ( 2003 ). Individual characteristics and creativity in the marketing classroom: exploratory insights . J. Mark. Educ 25 , 143-149. Google Scholar
• Mestre J. P. ( 2005 ). Transfer of Learning: From a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective , Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
• Mumford M. D., Mobley M. I., Uhlman C. E., Reiter-Palmon R., Doares L. M. ( 1991 ). Process analytic models of creative capacities . Creativity Res. J 4 , 91-122. Google Scholar
• National Research Council ( 2007 ). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy In: Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Neisser U. ( 1963 ). The multiplicity of thought . Br. J. Psychol 54 , 1-14. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Nelson C. E. ( 2008 ). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access accessed 15 September 2008 http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/icn027v1.pdf . Google Scholar
• Novak G, Gavrin A., Christian W, Patterson E. ( 1999 ). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology , San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings. Google Scholar
• Osborn A. F. ( 1948 ). Your Creative Power , New York: Scribner. Google Scholar
• Osborn A. F. ( 1979 ). Applied Imagination , New York: Scribner. Google Scholar
• Osburn H. K., Mumford M. D. ( 2006 ). Creativity and planning: training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills . Creativity Res. J 18 , 173-190. Google Scholar
• Paulus P. B., Nijstad B. A. ( 2003 ). Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration , New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Perkins K. K., Wieman C. E. ( 2008 , Ed. R. L. DeHaanK.M.V. Narayan , Innovative teaching to promote innovative thinking In: Education for Innovation: Implications for India, China and America , Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 181-210. Google Scholar
• Plucker J. A., Renzulli J. S. ( 1999 , Ed. R. J. Sternberg , Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity In: Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 35-61. Google Scholar
• Quitadamo I. J., Faiola C. L., Johnson J. E., Kurtz M. J. ( 2008 ). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 327-337. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Runco M. A. ( 2004 ). Creativity . Annu. Rev. Psychol 55 , 657-687. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Runco M. A., Nemiro J. ( 1994 ). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness . Roeper Rev 16 , 235-241. Google Scholar
• Sawyer R. K. ( 2005 ). Educating for Innovation Thinking Skills Creativity accessed 13 August 2008 1 41-48 www.artsci.wustl.edu/∼ksawyer/PDFs/Thinkjournal.pdf . Google Scholar
• Sawyer R. K. ( 2006 ). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation , New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Schwartz D. L., Bransford J. D., Sears D. ( 2005 , Ed. J. P. Mestre , Efficiency and innovation in transfer In: Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective , Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 1-51. Google Scholar
• Scott G., Leritz L. E., Mumford M. D. ( 2004 ). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review . Creativity Res. J 16 , 361-388. Google Scholar
• Simonton D. K. ( 1975 ). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: a transhistorical time-series analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 32 , 1119-1133. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Simonton D. K. ( 2004 ). Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist , Oxford, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Sloman S. ( 1996 ). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning . Psychol. Bull 9 , 3-22. Google Scholar
• Smith G. F. ( 1998 ). Idea generation techniques: a formulary of active ingredients . J. Creative Behav 32 , 107-134. Google Scholar
• Snyder A., Mitchell J., Bossomaier T., Pallier G. ( 2004 ). The creativity quotient: an objective scoring of ideational fluency . Creativity Res. J 16 , 415-420. Google Scholar
• Sternberg R. J. ( 2003 ). What is an “expert student?” . Educ. Res. 32 , 5-9. Google Scholar
• Sternberg R., Williams W. M. ( 1998 ). Teaching for creativity: two dozen tips accessed 25 March 2008 www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/teaching_creativity.php . Google Scholar
• Tardif T. Z., Sternberg R. J. ( 1988 , Ed. R. J. Sternberg , What do we know about creativity? In: The Nature of Creativity , New York: Cambridge University Press, 429-440. Google Scholar
• Torrance E. P. ( 1974 ). Norms and Technical Manual for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking , Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Torrance E. P. ( 1998 ). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms—Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A and B , Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Torrance E. P., Ball O. E., Safter H. T. ( 2008 ). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Streamlined Scoring Guide for Figural Forms A and B , Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Treffinger D. J., Isaksen S. G. ( 2005 ). Creative problem solving: the history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development . Gifted Child Q 49 , 342-357. Google Scholar
• Vandervert L. R., Schimpf P. H., Liu H. ( 2007 ). How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation . Creativity Res. J 9 , 1-18. Google Scholar
• Wallach M. A., Kogan N. ( 1965 ). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
• Wood W. B. ( 2009 ). Innovations in undergraduate biology teaching and why we need them . Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol in press. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study 1 Jul 2024 | Computers & Education, Vol. 215
• Are we teaching novice instructional designers to be creative? A qualitative case study 16 January 2024 | Instructional Science, Vol. 52, No. 3
• Educators as agents of breadth-biased learning: using social reconstructionism as rationale for embracing media multitasking and enhancing teaching practices in higher education 3 April 2024 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 15
• Searching for creativity: How people search to generate new ideas 1 December 2023 | Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 75, No. 4
• Fostering creativity in low-engagement students through socratic dialogue: An experiment in an operations class 1 Mar 2024 | The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• Cognitive flexibility and academic performance: Individual and cross-national patterns among adolescents in 57 countries 1 Feb 2024 | Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 217
• What's in a word? Student beliefs and understanding about green chemistry 1 January 2024 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 25, No. 1
• Preservice Physical Education Teachers’ Resistance to Change: The Importance of Occupational Socialization Experiences 26 October 2023 | Trends in Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 4
• How can we measure metacognition in creative problem-solving? Standardization of the MCPS scale 1 Sep 2023 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 49
• TOWARDS ENHANCING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR YOUTH IN HAIL REGION 1 August 2023 | Advanced Education, Vol. 10, No. 22
• Investigating the impact of innovation competence instruction in higher engineering education 12 June 2023 | European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 10
• Regaining creativity in science: insights from conversation 17 May 2023 | Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 10, No. 5
• How transdisciplinary integration, creativity and student motivation interact in three STEAM projects for gifted education? 29 March 2023 | Gifted Education International, Vol. 39, No. 2
• Does creative coursework predict educational, career, and community engagement outcomes for arts alumni? 15 November 2022 | Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2
• Make science disruptive again 27 March 2023 | Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 41, No. 4
• Promoting Creativity in Undergraduate Recreation and Leisure Services Classrooms: An Overview 19 March 2021 | SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, Vol. 38, No. 1
• A Positive Association between Working Memory Capacity and Human Creativity: A Meta-Analytic Evidence 13 January 2023 | Journal of Intelligence, Vol. 11, No. 1
• Students Creativity Through Digital Mind Map 26 July 2023
• Pedagogical and School Practices to Foster Key Competences and Domain-General Literacy 23 August 2023
• Coping with Challenges and Uncertainty in Scientific Research 13 Dec 2022 | Asia-Pacific Science Education, Vol. 8, No. 2
• Teaching design thinking as a tool to address complex public health challenges in public health students: a case study 12 April 2022 | BMC Medical Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• ‘Allowing them to dream’: fostering creativity in mathematics undergraduates 26 May 2022 | Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 46, No. 10
• Interaction with metaphors enhances creative potential 1 July 2022 | Journal of Poetry Therapy, Vol. 35, No. 4
• Creative problem solving in knowledge-rich contexts 1 Oct 2022 | Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 10
• Teaching Protein–Ligand Interactions Using a Case Study on Tau in Alzheimer’s Disease 1 July 2022 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 99, No. 8
• The Effectiveness of Collaborative Learning on Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Metacognitive Skill Ability: Meta-Analysis on Biological Learning 15 July 2022 | European Journal of Educational Research, Vol. volume-11-2022, No. volume-11-issue-3-july-2022
• Student approaches to creative processes when participating in an open-ended project in science 30 June 2022 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 44, No. 10
• Arts, Machines, and Creative Education 24 Jun 2022
• Perceived Learning Effectiveness and Student Satisfaction 6 May 2022
• A Contribution to Scientific Creativity: A Validation Study Measuring Divergent Problem Solving Ability 3 September 2021 | Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2
• Problem Solving and Digital Transformation: Acquiring Skills through Pretend Play in Kindergarten 28 January 2022 | Education Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2
• Growing Innovation and Collaboration Through Assessment and Feedback: A Toolkit for Assessing and Developing Students’ Soft Skills in Biological Experimentation 12 May 2022
• The Role of Creativity in Teaching Mathematics Online 1 December 2022
• Breathing Life Into Marketing Scholarship Through Creativity Learning and Teaching 1 Jan 2022
• Mobilizing Research-Based Learning (RBL) in Higher Education 1 Jan 2022
• Trends and opportunities by fostering creativity in science and engineering: a systematic review 2 September 2021 | European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 46, No. 6
• The effect of a scientific board game on improving creative problem solving skills 1 Sep 2021 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 41
• Create Teaching Creativity through Training Management, Effectiveness Training, and Teacher Quality in the Covid-19 Pandemic 6 August 2021 | Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4
• Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation  11 January 2021 | Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 69, No. 4
• Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Bilimsel Yaratıcılık ve Bilimsel Problem Çözme ile İlgili Öz Değerlendirmeleri 15 July 2021 | Yuzunci Yil Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi
• Cultivating creative thinking in engineering student teams: Can a computer‐mediated virtual laboratory help? 23 November 2020 | Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 37, No. 2
• Entrepreneurial competencies of undergraduate students: The case of universities in Nigeria 1 Mar 2021 | The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• Promoting Creativity in General Education Mathematics Courses 5 August 2019 | PRIMUS, Vol. 31, No. 1
• Methodological Considerations for Understanding Students’ Problem Solving Processes and Affective Trajectories During Game-Based Learning: A Data Fusion Approach 3 July 2021
• The main trends in the process of building the creative potential of engineering students 18 June 2021 | E3S Web of Conferences, Vol. 274
• Research on the Present Situation and Countermeasures of Cultivating Graduate Students’ Innovation Ability under Cooperative Innovation Environment 1 Jan 2021 | Creative Education Studies, Vol. 09, No. 02
• Innovation Centers and the Information Schools: The Influence of LIS Faculty 1 Dec 2020 | Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 61, No. 4
• Biomimetics: teaching the tools of the trade 28 September 2020 | FEBS Open Bio, Vol. 10, No. 11
• STEM academic teachers’ experiences of undertaking authentic assessment-led reform: a mixed method approach 21 March 2019 | Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 9
• Problems of forming marketing competencies in the digital economy 1 Sep 2020 | IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 940, No. 1
• Culturally Responsive Assessment of Physical Science Skills and Abilities: Development, Field Testing, Implementation, and Results 2 June 2020 | Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 31, No. 3
• Culturally Responsive Assessment of Life Science Skills and Abilities: Development, Field Testing, Implementation, and Results 3 June 2020 | Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 31, No. 3
• Curriculum Differentiation’s Capacity to Extend Gifted Students in Secondary Mixed-ability Science Classes 27 June 2020 | Talent, Vol. 10, No. 1
• Student Motivation from and Resistance to Active Learning Rooted in Essential Science Practices 23 December 2017 | Research in Science Education, Vol. 50, No. 1
• Integrating Entrepreneurship and Art to Improve Creative Problem Solving in Fisheries Education 27 February 2020 | Fisheries, Vol. 45, No. 2
• Concepts Re-imagined: Relational Signs Beyond Definitional Rigidity 15 August 2020
• Promoting Student Creativity and Inventiveness in Science and Engineering 24 October 2020
• Teaching for Leadership, Innovation, and Creativity 1 Jan 2020
• Problem Çözme Becerileri Eğitim Programının Çocukların Karar Verme Becerileri Üzerindeki Etkisi 30 December 2019 | Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 21, No. 3
• Mento’s change model in teaching competency-based medical education 27 December 2019 | BMC Medical Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• The Effects of Individual Preparations on Group Creativity 21 January 2020
• The Value of Creativity for Enhancing Translational Ecologies, Insights, and Discoveries 9 July 2019 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10
• Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health to Guide Students' Clinical Approach to Aging With Pathology 1 Jul 2019 | Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, Vol. 35, No. 3
• Impact of Brainstorming Strategy in Dealing With Knowledge Retention Skill: An Insight Into Special Learners' Needs In Saudi Arabia 1 January 2021 | MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices
• The potential of students’ creative disposition as a perspective to develop creative teaching and learning for senior high school biological science 12 March 2019 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1157
• Evaluating Remote Experiment from a Divergent Thinking Point of View 25 July 2018
• Exploring Creative Education Practices and Implications: A Case study of National Chengchi University, Taiwan 4 April 2022 | Journal of Business and Economic Analysis, Vol. 02, No. 02
• Exploring Creative Education Practices and Implications: A Case study of National Chengchi University, Taiwan 1 January 2020 | Journal of Business and Economic Analysis, Vol. 02, No. 02
• Diverging from the Dogma: A Call to Train Creative Thinkers in Science 14 September 2018 | The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 100, No. 1
• Comparison of German and Japanese student teachers’ views on creativity in chemistry class 16 May 2018 | Asia-Pacific Science Education, Vol. 4, No. 1
• The use of humour during a collaborative inquiry 27 August 2018 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 40, No. 14
• Connecting creative coursework exposure and college student engagement across academic disciplines 29 August 2019 | Gifted and Talented International, Vol. 33, No. 1-2
• Views of German chemistry teachers on creativity in chemistry classes and in general 1 January 2018 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 3
• Embedding Critical and Creative Thinking in Chemical Engineering Practice 1 Jul 2018
• Introducing storytelling to educational robotic activities 1 Apr 2018
• Investigating Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Science in Courses Taught Using the CREATE Strategy 1 Mar 2018 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• Teachers’ learning on the workshop of STS approach as a way of enhancing inventive thinking skills 1 Jan 2018
• Creativity Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning in Biomedical Sciences 1 Jan 2018
• The right tool for the right task: Structured techniques prove less effective on an ill-defined problem finding task 1 Dec 2017 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 26
• The influential factors and hierarchical structure of college students’ creative capabilities—An empirical study in Taiwan 1 Dec 2017 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 26
• Teacher perceptions of professional role and innovative teaching at elementary schools in Taiwan 10 November 2017 | Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 21
• Evaluation of creative problem-solving abilities in undergraduate structural engineers through interdisciplinary problem-based learning 28 July 2016 | European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 42, No. 6
• What Shall I Write Next? 19 September 2017
• Inquiry-based Laboratory Activities on Drugs Analysis for High School Chemistry Learning 3 October 2017 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 895
• BARRIERS TO STUDENTS’ CREATIVE EVALUATION OF UNEXPECTED EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 25 June 2017 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 3
• Kyle J. Frantz ,
• Melissa K. Demetrikopoulos ,
• Shari L. Britner ,
• Laura L. Carruth ,
• Brian A. Williams ,
• John L. Pecore ,
• Robert L. DeHaan , and
• Christopher T. Goode
• Elizabeth Ambos, Monitoring Editor
• A present absence: undergraduate course outlines and the development of student creativity across disciplines 3 October 2016 | Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 2
• Exploring differences in creativity across academic majors for high-ability college students 16 February 2018 | Gifted and Talented International, Vol. 32, No. 1
• Creativity in chemistry class and in general – German student teachers’ views 1 January 2017 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 2
• IMPORTANCE OF CREATIVITY IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1 January 2017
• Accessing the Finest Minds 1 Jan 2017
• Science and Innovative Thinking for Technical and Organizational Development 1 Jan 2017
• Learning High School Biology in a Social Context 1 Jan 2017 | Creative Education, Vol. 08, No. 15
• Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education 6 September 2016 | Instructional Science, Vol. 44, No. 6
• Creative Cognitive Processes in Higher Education 20 November 2014 | The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 50, No. 4
• An Evidence-Based Review of Creative Problem Solving Tools 6 April 2016 | Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 2
• Case-based exams for learning and assessment: Experiences in an information systems course 1 Apr 2016
• Case exams for assessing higher order learning: A comparative social media analytics usage exam 1 Apr 2016
• Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task 1 Mar 2016 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 19
• A Belief System at the Core of Learning Science 1 Jan 2016
• Science and Innovative Thinking for Technical and Organizational Development 1 Jan 2016
• Student Research Work and Modeled Situations in Order to Bridge the Gap between Basic Science Concepts and Those from Preventive and Clinical Practice. Meaningful Learning and Informed beneficience 1 Jan 2016 | Creative Education, Vol. 07, No. 07
• FOSTERING FIFTH GRADERS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY THROUGH PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING 25 October 2015 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 14, No. 5
• Scaffolding for Creative Product Possibilities in a Design-Based STEM Activity 16 November 2014 | Research in Science Education, Vol. 45, No. 5
• Intuition and insight: two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education 18 June 2015 | Studies in Science Education, Vol. 51, No. 2
• Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students 28 March 2015 | Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 16, No. 2
• Initiatives Towards an Education for Creativity 1 May 2015 | Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 180
• Brian A. Couch ,
• Tanya L. Brown ,
• Tyler J. Schelpat ,
• Mark J. Graham , and
• Jennifer K. Knight
• Michèle Shuster, Monitoring Editor
• Kim Quillin , and
• Stephen Thomas
• Mary Lee Ledbetter, Monitoring Editor
• The Design of IdeaWorks: Applying Social Learning Networks to Support Tertiary Education 21 July 2015
• References 1 Jan 2015
• Video Games and Malevolent Creativity 1 Jan 2015
• Modelling a Laboratory for Ideas as a New Tool for Fostering Engineering Creativity 1 Jan 2015 | Procedia Engineering, Vol. 100
• “Development of Thinking Skills” Course: Teaching TRIZ in Academic Setting 1 Jan 2015 | Procedia Engineering, Vol. 131
• Leadership in the Future Experts’ Creativity Development with Scientific Research Activities 4 November 2014
• Developing Deaf Children's Conceptual Understanding and Scientific Argumentation Skills: A Literature Review 3 January 2014 | Deafness & Education International, Vol. 16, No. 3
• Leslie M. Stevens , and
• Sally G. Hoskins
• Nancy Pelaez, Monitoring Editor
• 2014 | Cortex, Vol. 51
• A Sociotechnological Theory of Discursive Change and Entrepreneurial Capacity: Novelty and Networks 1 Jan 2014 | SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 3
• GEOverse: An Undergraduate Research Journal: Research Dissemination Within and Beyond the Curriculum 1 August 2013
• Learning by Practice, High-Pressure Student Ateliers 2 August 2013
• Relating Inter-Individual Differences in Verbal Creative Thinking to Cerebral Structures: An Optimal Voxel-Based Morphometry Study 5 November 2013 | PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 11
• 21st Century Biology: An Interdisciplinary Approach of Biology, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education 1 Nov 2013 | Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 102
• Reclaiming creativity in the era of impact: exploring ideas about creative research in science and engineering 1 Nov 2013 | Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 9
• An Evaluation of Alternative Ways of Computing the Creativity Quotient in a Design School Sample 1 Jul 2013 | Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3
• A.-M. Hoskinson ,
• M. D. Caballero , and
• J. K. Knight
• Eric Brewe, Monitoring Editor
• Understanding, attitude and environment 17 May 2013 | International Journal for Researcher Development, Vol. 4, No. 1
• Promoting Student Creativity and Inventiveness in Science and Engineering 1 Jan 2013
• Building creative thinking in the classroom: From research to practice 1 Jan 2013 | International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 62
• A Demonstration of a Mastery Goal Driven Learning Environment to Foster Creativity in Engineering Design 1 Jan 2013 | SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 111
• The development of creative cognition across adolescence: distinct trajectories for insight and divergent thinking 8 October 2012 | Developmental Science, Vol. 16, No. 1
• A CROSS-NATIONAL STUDY OF PROSPECTIVE ELEMENTARY AND SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CREATIVITY STYLES 10 September 2012 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 11, No. 3
• Evaluation of fostering students' creativity in preparing aided recalls for revision courses using electronic revision and recapitulation tools 2.0 1 Aug 2012 | Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 31, No. 8
• Scientific Creativity: The Missing Ingredient in Slovenian Science Education 15 April 2012 | European Journal of Educational Research, Vol. volume-1-2012, No. volume1-issue2.html
• Could the ‘evolution’ from biology to life sciences prevent ‘extinction’ of the subject field? 6 March 2012 | Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, Vol. 31, No. 1
• Mobile innovations, executive functions, and educational developments in conflict zones: a case study from Palestine 1 October 2011 | Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 60, No. 1
• Informing Pedagogy Through the Brain-Targeted Teaching Model 1 Jan 2012 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 13, No. 1
• Teaching Creative Science Thinking 16 Dec 2011 | Science, Vol. 334, No. 6062
• Sally G. Hoskins ,
• David Lopatto , and
• Leslie M. Stevens
• Diane K. O'Dowd, Monitoring Editor
• Embedding Research-Based Learning Early in the Undergraduate Geography Curriculum 1 Aug 2011 | Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 3
• Jared L. Taylor ,
• Karen M. Smith ,
• Adrian P. van Stolk , and
• George B. Spiegelman
• Debra Tomanek, Monitoring Editor
• 2010 | IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 43, No. 17
• Critical and Creative Thinking Activities for Engaged Learning in Graphics and Visualization Course
• Creativity Development through Inquiry-Based Learning in Biomedical Sciences

Submitted: 31 December 2008 Revised: 14 May 2009 Accepted: 28 May 2009

© 2009 by The American Society for Cell Biology

• Advanced Search

Problem Solving and Creativity: Complementing Programming Education with Robotics

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations.

• ÇAKIROĞLU Ü ER B (2023) A model to develop activities for teaching programming through metacognitive strategies Thinking Skills and Creativity 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101279 48 (101279) Online publication date: Jun-2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101279
• Anderhag P Salomonsson N Bürgers A Estay Espinola C Fahrman B Seifeddine Ehdwall D Sundler M (2023) What strategies do students use when they are programming a robot to follow a curved line? International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10.1007/s10798-023-09841-x 34 :2 (691-710) Online publication date: 14-Jul-2023 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09841-x
• Kiesler N (2022) Reviewing Constructivist Theories to Help Foster Creativity in Programming Education 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) 10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962699 (1-5) Online publication date: 8-Oct-2022 https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962699
• Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Applied computing

Digital libraries and archives

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Computing education

Computational thinking

Computing education programs

Computer science education

• K-12 education

Recommendations

Teaching how to teach computational thinking.

Computational Thinking is argued to be an essential skill for the workforce of the 21st century. As a skill, Computational Thinking should be taught in all schools, employing computational ideas integrated into other disciplines. Up until now, questions ...

Survey Says: CS Majors are Interested in K-12 Teaching Careers

Despite the need for computing professionals and high salaries, the majority of Computer Science (CS) majors at Colorado School of Mines in a pre-service teaching methods class (CS Teaching Techniques) reported interest in becoming K-12 teachers. Get ...

Learning programming online: a racket-course for elementary school teachers in Finland

Many countries all over the world are in the process of introducing programming in their K-9 curricula. Due to recent changes in the Finnish curriculum there is a large need to train teachers in teaching programming at primary school level. In this ...

Information

Published in.

• General Chairs:

NTNU, Norway

Excited/NTNU, Norway

• Program Chairs:

University of Auckland, NZ

• SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, author tags.

• computer science education
• Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Upcoming conference, contributors, other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 4 Total Citations View Citations
• 384 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 43
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 5
• Branco A Dutra C Zumpichiatti D Campos F SantClair G Mello J Moreira J Godinho J Marotti J Gomide J Sherriff M Merkle L Cutter P Monge A Sheard J (2021) Programming for Children and Teenagers in Brazil Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 10.1145/3408877.3432554 (411-417) Online publication date: 3-Mar-2021 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3408877.3432554

View Options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Creative Problem Solving

What is creative problem solving.

Creative problem solving (CPS) is a process that design teams use to generate ideas and solutions in their work. Designers and design teams apply an approach where they clarify a problem to understand it, ideate to generate good solutions, develop the most promising one, and implement it to create a successful solution for their brand’s users.  

© Creative Education Foundation, Fair Use

Why is Creative Problem Solving in UX Design Important?

Creative thinking and problem solving are core parts of user experience (UX) design. Note: the abbreviation “CPS” can also refer to cyber-physical systems. Creative problem solving might sound somewhat generic or broad. However, it’s an ideation approach that’s extremely useful across many industries.  

Not strictly a UX design-related approach, creative problem solving has its roots in psychology and education. Alex Osborn—who founded the Creative Education Foundation and devised brainstorming techniques—produced this approach to creative thinking in the 1940s. Along with Sid Parnes, he developed the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process. It was a new, systematic approach to problem solving and creativity fostering.  

Osborn’s CPS Process.

© IdeaSandbox.com, Fair Use

The main focus of the creative problem solving model is to improve creative thinking and generate novel solutions to problems. An important distinction exists between it and a UX design process such as design thinking. It’s that designers consider user needs in creative problem solving techniques, but they don’t necessarily have to make their users’ needs the primary focus. For example, a design team might trigger totally novel ideas from random stimuli—as opposed to working systematically from the initial stages of empathizing with their users. Even so, creative problem solving methods still tend to follow a process with structured stages. 

What are 4 Stages of Creative Problem Solving?

The model, adapted from Osborn’s original, typically features these steps:  

Clarify: Design teams first explore the area they want to find a solution within. They work to spot the challenge, problem or even goal they want to identify. They also start to collect data or information about it. It’s vital to understand the exact nature of the problem at this stage. So, design teams must build a clear picture of the issue they seek to tackle creatively. When they define the problem like this, they can start to question it with potential solutions.  

Ideate: Now that the team has a grasp of the problem that faces them, they can start to work to come up with potential solutions. They think divergently in brainstorming sessions and other ways to solve problems creatively, and approach the problem from as many angles as they can.  

Develop: Once the team has explored the potential solutions, they evaluate these and find the strongest and weakest qualities in each. Then, they commit to the one they decide is the best option for the problem at hand.  

Implement: Once the team has decided on the best fit for what they want to use, they discuss how to put this solution into action. They gauge its acceptability for stakeholders. Plus, they develop an accurate understanding of the activities and resources necessary to see it become a real, bankable solution.  

What Else does CPS Involve?

© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0

Two keys to the enterprise of creative problem solving are:  

Divergent Thinking

This is an ideation mode which designers leverage to widen their design space when they start to search for potential solutions. They generate as many new ideas as possible using various methods. For example, team members might use brainstorming or bad ideas to explore the vast area of possibilities. To think divergently means to go for:  

Quantity over quality: Teams generate ideas without fear of judgment (critically evaluating these ideas comes later). 

Novel ideas: Teams use disruptive and lateral thinking to break away from linear thinking and strive for truly original and extraordinary ideas.  

Choice creation: The freedom to explore the design space helps teams maximize their options, not only regarding potential solutions but also about how they understand the problem itself.  

Author and Human-Computer Interactivity Expert, Professor Alan Dix explains some techniques that are helpful for divergent thinking:  

• Transcript loading…

Convergent Thinking

This is the complementary half of the equation. In this ideation mode, designers analyze, filter, evaluate, clarify and modify the ideas they generated during divergent thinking. They use analytical, vertical and linear thinking to isolate novel and useful ideas, understand the design space possibilities and get nearer to potential solutions that will work best. The purpose with convergent thinking is to carefully and creatively:  

Look past logical norms (which people use in everyday critical thinking). 

Examine how an idea stands in relation to the problem.  

Understand the real dimensions of that problem.    

Professor Alan Dix explains convergent thinking in this video:  

What are the Benefits of Creative Problem Solving?

Design teams especially can benefit from this creative approach to problem solving because it:  

Empowers teams to arrive at a fine-grained definition of the problem they need to ideate over in a given situation.  

Gives a structured, learnable way to conduct problem-solving activities and direct them towards the most fruitful outcomes.  

Involves numerous techniques such as brainstorming and SCAMPER, so teams have more chances to explore the problem space more thoroughly.  

Can lead to large numbers of possible solutions thanks to a dedicated balance of divergent and convergent thinking.  

Values and nurtures designers and teams to create innovative design solutions in an accepting, respectful atmosphere.  

Is a collaborative approach that enables multiple participants to contribute—which makes for a positive environment with buy-in from those who participate.  

Enables teams to work out the most optimal solution available and examine all angles carefully before they put it into action.  

Is applicable in various contexts—such as business, arts and education—as well as in many areas of life in general.  

It’s especially crucial to see the value of creative problem solving in how it promotes out-of-the-box thinking as one of the valuable ingredients for teams to leverage.   

Watch as Professor Alan Dix explains how to think outside the box:  

How to Conduct Creative Problem Solving Best?

It’s important to point out that designers should consider—and stick to—some best practices when it comes to applying creative problem solving techniques. They should also adhere to some “house rules,” which the facilitator should define in no uncertain terms at the start of each session. So, designers and design teams should:  

Define the chief goal of the problem-solving activity: Everyone involved should be on the same page regarding their objective and what they want to achieve, why it’s essential to do it and how it aligns with the values of the brand. For example, SWOT analysis can help with this. Clarity is vital in this early stage.  Before team members can hope to work on ideating for potential solutions, they must recognize and clearly identify what the problem to tackle is.  

Have access to accurate information: A design team must be up to date with the realities that their brand faces, realities that their users and customers face, as well as what’s going on in the industry and facts about their competitors. A team must work to determine what the desired outcome is, as well as what the stakeholders’ needs and wants are. Another factor to consider in detail is what the benefits and risks of addressing a scenario or problem are—including the pros and cons that stakeholders and users would face if team members direct their attention on a particular area or problem.   

Suspend judgment: This is particularly important for two main reasons. For one, participants can challenge assumptions that might be blocking healthy ideation when they suggest ideas or elements of ideas that would otherwise seem of little value through a “traditional” lens. Second, if everyone’s free to suggest ideas without constraints, it promotes a calmer environment of acceptance—and so team members will be more likely to ideate better. Judgment will come later, in convergent thinking when the team works to tighten the net around the most effective solution. So, everyone should keep to positive language and encourage improvisational tactics—such as “yes…and”—so ideas can develop well.  

Balance divergent and convergent thinking: It’s important to know the difference between the two styles of thinking and when to practice them. This is why in a session like brainstorming, a facilitator must take control of proceedings and ensure the team engages in distinct divergent and convergent thinking sessions.  

Approach problems as questions: For example, “How Might We” questions can prompt team members to generate a great deal of ideas. That’s because they’re open-ended—as opposed to questions with “yes” or “no” answers. When a team frames a problem so freely, it permits them to explore far into the problem space so they can find the edges of the real matter at hand.  

UX Strategist and Consultant, William Hudson explains “How Might We” questions in this video:  

Use a variety of ideation methods: For example, in the divergent stage, teams can apply methods such as random metaphors or bad ideas to venture into a vast expanse of uncharted territory. With random metaphors, a team prompts innovation by drawing creative associations. With bad ideas, the point is to come up with ideas that are weird, wild and outrageous, as team members can then determine if valuable points exist in the idea—or a “bad” idea might even expose flaws in conventional ways of seeing problems and situations.  

Professor Alan Dix explains important points about bad ideas:  

• Copyright holder: William Heath Robinson. Appearance time: 1:30 - 1:33 Copyright license and terms: Public domain. Link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/William_Heath_Robinson_Inventions_-_Page_142.png
• Copyright holder: Rev Stan. Appearance time: 1:40 - 1:44 Copyright license and terms: CC BY 2.0 Link: As yummy as chocolate teapot courtesy of Choccywoccydoodah… _ Flickr.html
• Copyright holder: Fabel. Appearance time: 7:18 - 7:24 Copyright license and terms: CC BY-SA 3.0 Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hammer_nails_smithonian.jpg
• Copyright holder: Marcus Hansson. Appearance time: 05:54 - 05:58 Copyright license and terms: CC BY 2.0 Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcus_hansson/7758775386

What Special Considerations Should Designers Have for CPS?

Creative problem solving isn’t the only process design teams consider when thinking of potential risks. Teams that involve themselves in ideation sessions can run into problems, especially if they aren’t aware of them. Here are the main areas to watch:  

Bias is natural and human. Unfortunately, it can get in the way of user research and prevent a team from being truly creative and innovative. What’s more, it can utterly hinder the iterative process that should drive creative ideas to the best destinations. Bias takes many forms. It can rear its head without a design team member even realizing it. So, it’s vital to remember this and check it. One team member may examine an angle of the problem at hand and unconsciously view it through a lens. Then, they might voice a suggestion without realizing how they might have framed it for team members to hear. Another risk is that other team members might, for example, apply confirmation bias and overlook important points about potential solutions because they’re not in line with what they’re looking for.  

Professor Alan Dix explains bias and fixation as obstacles in creative problem solving examples, and how to overcome them:  

Conventionalism

Even in the most hopeful ideation sessions, there’s the risk that some team members may slide back to conventional ways to address a problem. They might climb back inside “the box” and not even realize it. That’s why it’s important to mindfully explore new idea territories around the situation under scrutiny and not merely toy with the notion while clinging to a default “traditional” approach, just because it’s the way the brand or others have “always done things.”   

Dominant Personalities and Rank Pulling

As with any group discussion, it’s vital for the facilitator to ensure that everyone has the chance to contribute. Team members with “louder” personalities can dominate the discussions and keep quieter members from offering their thoughts. Plus, without a level playing field, it can be hard for more junior members to join in without feeling a sense of talking out of place or even a fear of reprisal for disagreeing with senior members.  

Another point is that ideation sessions naturally involve asking many questions, which can bring on two issues. First, some individuals may over-defend their ideas as they’re protective of them. Second, team members may feel self-conscious as they might think if they ask many questions that it makes them appear frivolous or unintelligent. So, it’s vital for facilitators to ensure that all team members can speak up and ask away, both in divergent thinking sessions when they can offer ideas and convergent thinking sessions when they analyze others’ ideas.  

Premature Commitment

Another potential risk to any creativity exercise is that once a team senses a solution is the “best” one, everyone can start to shut off and overlook the chance that an alternative may still arise. This could be a symptom of ideation fatigue or a false consensus that a proposed solution is infallible. So, it’s vital that team members keep open minds and try to catch potential issues with the best-looking solution as early as possible. The key is an understanding of the need for iteration—something that’s integral to the design thinking process, for example.   

Overall, creative problem solving can help give a design team the altitude—and attitude—they need to explore the problem and solution spaces thoroughly. Team members can leverage a range of techniques to trawl through the hordes of possibilities that exist for virtually any design scenario. As with any method or tool, though, it takes mindful application and awareness of potential hazards to wield it properly. The most effective creative problem-solving sessions will be ones that keep “creative,” “problem” and “solving” in sharp focus until what emerges for the target audience proves to be more than the sum of these parts.  

Learn More About Creative Problem Solving

Take our course, Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services . 

Watch our Master Class Harness Your Creativity To Design Better Products with Alan Dix, Professor, Author and Creativity Expert. 

Read our piece, 10 Simple Ideas to Get Your Creative Juices Flowing . 

Go to Exploring the Art of Innovation: Design Thinking vs. Creative Problem Solving by Marcino Waas for further details. 

Consult Creative Problem Solving by Harrison Stamell for more insights.  

Read The Osborn Parnes Creative Problem-Solving Process by Leigh Espy for additional information.  

See History of the creative problem-solving process by Jo North for more on the history of Creative Problem Solving. 

Questions about Creative Problem Solving

To start with, work to understand the user’s needs and pain points. Do your user research—interviews, surveys and observations are helpful, for instance. Analyze this data so you can spot patterns and insights. Define the problem clearly—and it needs to be extremely clear for the solution to be able to address it—and make sure it lines up with the users’ goals and your project’s objectives. 

You and your design team might hold a brainstorming session. It could be a variation such as brainwalking—where you move about the room ideating—or brainwriting, where you write down ideas. Alternatively, you could try generating weird and wonderful notions in a bad ideas ideation session. 

There’s a wealth of techniques you can use. In any case, engage stakeholders in brainstorming sessions to bring different perspectives on board the team’s trains of thought. What’s more, you can use tools like a Problem Statement Template to articulate the problem concisely. 

Take our course, Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services . 

Watch as Author and Human-Computer Interaction Expert, Professor Alan Dix explains important points about bad ideas:  

Some things you might try are:  1. Change your environment: A new setting can stimulate fresh ideas. So, take a walk, visit a different room, or work outside. 

2. Try to break the problem down into smaller parts: Focus on just one piece at a time—that should make the task far less overwhelming. Use techniques like mind mapping so you can start to visualize connections and come up with ideas. 

3. Step away from work and indulge in activities that relax your mind: Is it listening to music for you? Or how about drawing? Or exercising? Whatever it is, if you break out of your routine and get into a relaxation groove, it can spark new thoughts and perspectives. 

4. Collaborate with others: Discuss the problem with colleagues, stakeholders, or—as long as you don’t divulge sensitive information or company secrets—friends. It can help you to get different viewpoints, and sometimes those new angles and fresh perspectives can help unlock a solution. 

5. Set aside dedicated time for creative thinking: Take time to get intense with creativity; prevent distractions and just immerse yourself in the problem as fully as you can with your team. Use techniques like brainstorming or the "Six Thinking Hats" to travel around the problem space and explore a wealth of angles. 

Remember, a persistent spirit and an open mind are key; so, keep experimenting with different approaches until you get that breakthrough. 

Watch as Professor Alan Dix explains important aspects of creativity and how to handle creative blocks: 

Read our piece, 10 Simple Ideas to Get Your Creative Juices Flowing . 

Watch as Professor Alan Dix explains the Six Thinking Hats ideation technique. 

Creative thinking is about coming up with new and innovative ideas by looking at problems from different angles—and imagining solutions that are truly fresh and unique. It takes an emphasis on divergent thinking to get “out there” and be original in the problem space. You can use techniques like brainstorming, mind mapping and free association to explore hordes of possibilities, many of which might be “hiding” in obscure corners of your—or someone on your team’s—imagination. 

Critical thinking is at the other end of the scale. It’s the convergent half of the divergent-convergent thinking approach. In that approach, once the ideation team have hauled in a good catch of ideas, it’s time for team members to analyze and evaluate these ideas to see how valid and effective each is. Everyone strives to consider the evidence, draw logical connections and eliminate any biases that could be creeping in to cloud judgments. Accuracy, sifting and refining are watchwords here. 

Watch as Professor Alan Dix explains divergent and convergent thinking: 

The tools you can use are in no short supply, and they’re readily available and inexpensive, too. Here are a few examples: 

Tools like mind maps are great ways to help you visualize ideas and make connections between them and elements within them. Try sketching out your thoughts and see how they relate to each other—you might discover unexpected gems, or germs of an idea that can splinter into something better, with more thought and development. 

The SCAMPER technique is another one you can try. It can help you catapult your mind into a new idea space as you Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse aspects of the problem you’re considering. 

The “5 Whys” technique is a good one to drill down to root causes with. Once you’ve spotted a problem, you can start working your way back to see what’s behind it. Then you do the same to work back to the cause of the cause. Keep going; usually five times will be enough to see what started the other problems as the root cause. 

Watch as the Father of UX Design, Don Norman explains the 5 Whys technique: 

Read all about SCAMPER in our topic definition of it. 

It’s natural for some things to get in the way of being creative in the face of a problem. It can be challenging enough to ideate creatively on your own, but it’s especially the case in group settings. Here are some common obstacles: 

1. Fear of failure or appearing “silly”: when people worry about making mistakes or sounding silly, they avoid taking risks and exploring new ideas. This fear stifles creativity. That’s why ideation sessions like bad ideas are so valuable—it turns this fear on its head. 

2. Rigid thinking: This can also raise itself as a high and thick barrier. If someone in an ideation session clings to established ways to approach problems (and potential solutions), it can hamper their ability to see different perspectives, let alone agree with them. They might even comment critically to dampen what might just be the brightest way forward. It takes an open mind and an awareness of one’s own bias to overcome this. 

3. Time pressure and resource scarcity: When a team has tight deadlines to work to, they may rush to the first workable solution and ignore a wide range of possibilities where the true best solution might be hiding. That’s why stakeholders and managers should give everyone enough time—as well as any needed tools, materials and support—to ideate and experiment. The best solution is in everybody’s interest, after all.  

It takes a few ingredients to get the environment just right for creative problem solving:  

Get in the mood for creativity: This could be a relaxing activity before you start your session, or a warm-up activity in the room. Then, later, encourage short breaks—they can rejuvenate the mind and help bring on fresh insights.  

Get the physical environment just right for creating problem solving: You and your team will want a comfortable and flexible workspace—preferably away from your workstations. Make sure the room is one where people can collaborate easily and also where they can work quietly. A meeting room is good as it will typically have room for whiteboards and comfortable space for group discussion. Note: you’ll also need sticky notes and other art supplies like markers. 

Make the atmosphere conducive for creative problem solving: Someone will need to play facilitator so everyone has some ground rules to work with. Encourage everyone to share ideas, that all ideas are valuable, and that egos and seniority have no place in the room. Of course, this may take some enforcement and repetition—especially as "louder" team members may try to dominate proceedings, anyway, and others may be self-conscious about sounding "ridiculous." 

Make sure you’ve got a diverse team: Diversity means different perspectives, which means richer and more innovative solutions can turn up. So, try to include individuals with different backgrounds, skills and viewpoints—sometimes, non-technical mindsets can spot ideas and points in a technical realm, which experienced programmers might miss, for instance. 

Watch our Master Class Harness Your Creativity To Design Better Products with Alan Dix, Professor, Author and Creativity Expert. 

Ideating alone? Watch as Professor Alan Dix gives valuable tips about how to nurture creativity: 

• Copyright holder: GerritR. Appearance time: 6:54 - 6:59 Copyright license and terms: CC-BY-SA-4.0 Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blick_auf_das_Dylan_Thomas_Boathouse_und_die_Trichterm%C3%BCndung_des_Taf,_Wales.jpg

Research plays a crucial role in any kind of creative problem solving, and in creative problem solving itself it’s about collecting information about the problem—and, by association, the users themselves. You and your team members need to have a well-defined grasp of what you’re facing before you can start reaching out into the wide expanses of the idea space.  

Research helps you lay down a foundation of knowledge and avoid reinventing the wheel. Also, if you study existing solutions and industry trends, you’ll be able to understand what has worked before and what hasn't.  

What’s more, research is what will validate the ideas that come out of your ideation efforts. From testing concepts and prototypes with real users, you’ll get precious input about your creative solutions so you can fine-tune them to be innovative and practical—and give users what they want in a way that’s fresh and successful. 

Watch as UX Strategist and Consultant, William Hudson explains important points about user research: 

First, it’s crucial for a facilitator to make sure the divergent stage of the creative problem solving is over and your team is on to the convergent stage. Only then should any analysis happen.  

If others are being critical of your creative solutions, listen carefully and stay open-minded. Look on it as a chance to improve, and don’t take it personally. Indeed, the session facilitator should moderate to make sure everyone understands the nature of constructive criticism.  

If something’s unclear, be sure to ask the team member to be more specific, so you can understand their points clearly. 

Then, reflect on what you’ve heard. Is it valid? Something you can improve or explain? For example, in a bad ideas session, there may be an aspect of your idea that you can develop among the “bad” parts surrounding it. 

So, if you can, clarify any misunderstandings and explain your thought process. Just stay positive and calm and explain things to your critic and other team member. The insights you’ve picked up may strengthen your solution and help to refine it. 

Last—but not least—make sure you hear multiple perspectives. When you hear from different team members, chances are you’ll get a balanced view. It can also help you spot common themes and actionable improvements you might make. 

Watch as Todd Zaki Warfel, Author, Speaker and Leadership Coach, explains how to present design ideas to clients, a valuable skill in light of discussing feedback from stakeholders. 

Lateral thinking is a technique where you approach problems from new and unexpected angles. It encourages you to put aside conventional step-by-step logic and get “out there” to explore creative and unorthodox solutions. Author, physician and commentator Edward de Bono developed lateral thinking as a way to help break free from traditional patterns of thought. 

In creative problem solving, you can use lateral thinking to come up with truly innovative ideas—ones that standard logical processes might overlook. It’s about bypassing these so you can challenge assumptions and explore alternatives that point you and your team to breakthrough solutions. 

You can use techniques like brainstorming to apply lateral thinking and access ideas that are truly “outside the box” and what your team, your brand and your target audience really need to work on. 

Professor Alan Dix explains lateral thinking in this video: 

1. Baer, J. (2012). Domain Specificity and The Limits of Creativity Theory . The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 16–29.   John Baer's influential paper challenged the notion of a domain-general theory of creativity and argued for the importance of considering domain-specific factors in creative problem solving. This work has been highly influential in shaping the understanding of creativity as a domain-specific phenomenon and has implications for the assessment and development of creativity in various domains. 

2. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity . Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.   Mark A. Runco and Gerard J. Jaeger's paper proposed a standard definition of creativity, which has been widely adopted in the field. They defined creativity as the production of original and effective ideas, products, or solutions that are appropriate to the task at hand. This definition has been influential in providing a common framework for creativity research and assessment. 

1. Fogler, H. S., LeBlanc, S. E., & Rizzo, B. (2014). Strategies for Creative Problem Solving (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. 

This book focuses on developing creative problem-solving strategies, particularly in engineering and technical contexts. It introduces various heuristic problem-solving techniques, optimization methods, and design thinking principles. The authors provide a systematic framework for approaching ill-defined problems, generating and implementing solutions, and evaluating the outcomes. With its practical exercises and real-world examples, this book has been influential in equipping professionals and students with the skills to tackle complex challenges creatively. 

2. De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats . Little, Brown and Company.   

Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats introduces a powerful technique for parallel thinking and decision-making. The book outlines six different "hats" or perspectives that individuals can adopt to approach a problem or situation from various angles. This structured approach encourages creative problem-solving by separating different modes of thinking, such as emotional, logical, and creative perspectives. De Bono's work has been highly influential in promoting lateral thinking and providing a practical framework for group problem solving. 

3. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving (3rd ed.). Charles Scribner's Sons.  

Alex F. Osborn's Applied Imagination is a pioneering work that introduced the concept of brainstorming and other creative problem-solving techniques. Osborn emphasized how important it is to defer judgment and generate a large quantity of ideas before evaluating them. This book laid the groundwork for many subsequent developments in the field of creative problem-solving, and it’s been influential in promoting the use of structured ideation processes in various domains. 

Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift

What is the first stage in the creative problem-solving process?

• Implementation
• Idea Generation
• Problem Identification

Which technique is commonly used during the idea generation stage of creative problem-solving?

• Brainstorming
• Prototyping

What is the main purpose of the evaluation stage in creative problem-solving?

• To generate as many ideas as possible
• To implement the solution
• To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of ideas

In the creative problem-solving process, what often follows after implementing a solution?

• Testing and Refinement

Which stage in the creative problem-solving process focuses on generating multiple possible solutions?

Better luck next time!

Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now

Congratulations! You did amazing

You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.

Check Your Inbox

We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .

Literature on Creative Problem Solving

Here’s the entire UX literature on Creative Problem Solving by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Creative Problem Solving

Take a deep dive into Creative Problem Solving with our course Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services .

The overall goal of this course is to help you design better products, services and experiences by helping you and your team develop innovative and useful solutions. You’ll learn a human-focused, creative design process.

We’re going to show you what creativity is as well as a wealth of ideation methods ―both for generating new ideas and for developing your ideas further. You’ll learn skills and step-by-step methods you can use throughout the entire creative process. We’ll supply you with lots of templates and guides so by the end of the course you’ll have lots of hands-on methods you can use for your and your team’s ideation sessions. You’re also going to learn how to plan and time-manage a creative process effectively.

Most of us need to be creative in our work regardless of if we design user interfaces, write content for a website, work out appropriate workflows for an organization or program new algorithms for system backend. However, we all get those times when the creative step, which we so desperately need, simply does not come. That can seem scary—but trust us when we say that anyone can learn how to be creative­ on demand . This course will teach you ways to break the impasse of the empty page. We'll teach you methods which will help you find novel and useful solutions to a particular problem, be it in interaction design, graphics, code or something completely different. It’s not a magic creativity machine, but when you learn to put yourself in this creative mental state, new and exciting things will happen.

In the “Build Your Portfolio: Ideation Project” , you’ll find a series of practical exercises which together form a complete ideation project so you can get your hands dirty right away. If you want to complete these optional exercises, you will get hands-on experience with the methods you learn and in the process you’ll create a case study for your portfolio which you can show your future employer or freelance customers.

Your instructor is Alan Dix . He’s a creativity expert, professor and co-author of the most popular and impactful textbook in the field of Human-Computer Interaction. Alan has worked with creativity for the last 30+ years, and he’ll teach you his favorite techniques as well as show you how to make room for creativity in your everyday work and life.

You earn a verifiable and industry-trusted Course Certificate once you’ve completed the course. You can highlight it on your resume , your LinkedIn profile or your website .

All open-source articles on Creative Problem Solving

10 simple ideas to get your creative juices flowing.

• 4 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

• Board of Directors

CPSI = C reative P roblem S olving I nstitute

Join us at the creative education foundation’s creative problem solving institute (cpsi) — the world’s longest-running creativity conference..

Highlights from 2019 CPSI in Buffalo, NY

Whether you are new to deliberate creativity or a seasoned creativity professional, CPSI provides an array of engaging, transformative, and easy to apply creativity, innovation, and leadership skills.

New attendees learn from our hand selected and trained Core CPS Faculty, by participating in our Core CPS Courses. Returning attendees can choose from an array of innovative workshops that explore novel applications and combinations of creativity disciplines. Join us at CPSI and experience the transformative power of applied imagination with more than 400 of your new best friends.

Make CPSI a family affair when you sign up your 8 to 17 year olds for YouthWise , too!

Make CPSI a Team Retreat and Save!

Bring four or more people for a team discount! Contact us for more information.

June 27, 2024

The Importance of Design Thinking in Education: Sparking Creativity in Children

The Creativity Crisis

Every generation has fond memories of how much better it was when they were kids. Just 40 short years ago, children didn’t come home from playing until the street lights came on. They drank from the water hose, and an advertisement at 10:00 pm reminded parents to make sure their children were home. Kids played make-believe with friends in the sandbox, built forts, and creatively figured out how to not be bored, all while trying not to get into too much trouble.

Today’s youth are very different. Raised in a world of on-demand video, cell phones, and non-stop digital entertainment, kids have little opportunity to be bored. Without boredom, creativity is diminished. However, in today’s rapidly evolving world, creativity is no longer just a desirable skill; it is essential. Many educators and parents are increasingly concerned that children are not developing their creative potential either in school or during play. This deficiency can be attributed to an overly structured educational system and the pervasive influence of instant gratification culture. 

Recent research indicates a worrying decline in children’s creativity. A study by Kyung Hee Kim found that while IQ scores have been rising, creativity scores have been decreasing since the 1990s. This phenomenon, known as the “creativity crisis,” can be partly attributed to the structured nature of modern education systems, which often prioritize standardized testing over creative exploration.

Children today spend less time in unstructured play, which is crucial for developing creativity. Instead, they are often engaged with digital devices that provide constant stimulation and limit opportunities for imaginative thinking. To address this issue, integrating design thinking into education can be a powerful solution.

Understanding Design Thinking

Design thinking is a problem-solving approach that involves empathizing with users, defining problems, ideating, prototyping, and testing. This process, originally developed for the design and business sectors, has been increasingly recognized for its potential in education. Encouraging students to think like designers fosters creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration.

How Design Thinking Can Help with the Creativity Crisis

• Fostering Empathy and Understanding: The first stage in design thinking is empathy. Children learn to understand the needs and perspectives of others, which enhances their emotional intelligence and creativity. By empathizing with end-users, they can develop more innovative and relative solutions to problems.
• Encouraging Problem Definition and Exploration: Design thinking teaches children to define problems clearly. This process involves exploring various aspects of a problem and asking critical questions. The define stage helps children develop a deeper understanding of issues and encourages them to think critically.
• Promoting Ideation and Brainstorming: In the ideation stage, children are encouraged to brainstorm multiple solutions without the fear of failure . This stage is vital for creativity as it allows children to explore a wide range of ideas and approaches without fear of criticism or reproach.
• Hands-On Prototyping and Experimentation: The prototyping stage involves creating tangible representations of ideas. This hands-on approach helps children learn by doing, which is essential for developing creative problem-solving skills. Experimentation and iteration are key components, teaching children that failure is part of the learning process.
• Iterative Testing and Feedback: Testing is the final stage in design thinking. This stage involves testing prototypes and gathering feedback from multiple stakeholders and potential end users. This iterative process helps children refine their ideas and learn from their mistakes, fostering resilience and adaptability.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Several studies highlight the benefits of design thinking in education. For instance, a 2010 study by Carroll et al. found that incorporating design thinking into the curriculum improved students’ engagement, collaboration, and problem-solving skills. Another study, this one by Henriksen et al ., demonstrated that design thinking projects enhanced students’ creative confidence and ability to innovate.

Additionally, research by Rauth et al. showed that students who participated in design thinking workshops exhibited greater creativity and critical thinking abilities compared to those who did not participate. These findings underscore the potential of design thinking to reinvigorate creativity in children.

Practical Implementation

To effectively integrate design thinking into education, schools and educators can:

• Encourage Interdisciplinary Projects: Design thinking works best when applied to real-world problems that require knowledge from various disciplines. Interdisciplinary projects help students see the connections between different subjects and develop a more holistic understanding of issues.
• Provide Time for Unstructured Play: Allowing children time for unstructured play is crucial for fostering creativity. Schools can create maker spaces or innovation labs where students can experiment with materials and ideas without the confines of a traditional classroom setting.
• Train Teachers in Design Thinking: Educators need to be trained in design thinking principles and practices. Professional development programs can equip teachers with the skills and knowledge to effectively implement design thinking in their classrooms. Design thinking is not just for STEM or elective courses. It can be integrated into lessons in core content areas, and is a great tool for encouraging students to develop relevant and meaningful connections to content beyond test preparation.
• Incorporate Technology Mindfully: While technology can be a powerful tool for learning, it should be used with educated intentionality to enhance creativity. Educators should look for digital tools that support design thinking, such as 3D modeling software or collaborative platforms.

Creating a Culture of Creativity, Together

In a world where creative problem-solving is increasingly important, design thinking offers a valuable approach to reinvigorating children’s creative potential. By fostering empathy, critical thinking, and hands-on experimentation, design thinking can help address the creativity crisis in education. It encourages children to explore, innovate, and develop the skills needed to thrive in the 21st century. As educators and parents, it is our responsibility to provide opportunities for children to unleash their creativity and become the problem-solvers of tomorrow.

Learn more about design thinking with our training and development resources . 

Also, read our previous blog on free STEM resources , including design thinking lessons.

And if you would like to learn more about resources and programs to integrate design thinking into your school, classroom or homeschool group, please contact us at [email protected] .

Kim Reynolds

Recent updates.

Cultivating Entrepreneurial Skills Through Music in K-12 Classrooms

May 29, 2024

When students collaborate to create a piece of music and perform it for an audience, they are practicing the exact skills of innovation and creativity that we value in entrepreneurship.

Igniting Indigenous Talent: A Story of Tech, Innovation and Entrepreneurial Spirit

November 01, 2023

As we celebrate National Native American Heritage Month, we honor the diverse cultures and important contributions of Indigenous peoples. This month is a chance to understand how having people from

The Benefits of Making Data-Driven Decisions in Business

September 28, 2023

Data collection is the foundation of nearly everything we interact with—what we watch, where we travel, our interests, hobbies, demographics and even our behavior. It’s everywhere. While discussions surrounding data

Analyze the Competencies of Teachers about Classroom Teaching Methodologies for Creative Teaching in Universities of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

• Rabia Khurshid University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
• Asma Zia University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
• Sadia Suleman Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University Quetta
• Saud Al Taj Glasgow Caledonian University London

In recent years, there has been a great deal of emphasis and inspiration to shift from the usual “chalk and talk” to a more creative and innovative teaching methodologies. Without creativity, we have no art, no literature, no innovation, no problem solving, and no development. And it may be, less understandable that creativity has an equally vital position in teaching. That’s why it is of utmost importance to enhance creativeness in teaching methodologies in order to support learners’ learning abilities particularly, with the use of actual teaching activities, for accepting pleasure and attracting learners in a flexible and inventive way. The rationale of this study was to analyze the competencies of faculty about classroom teaching methodologies for creative teaching in universities of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The nature of the study was quantitative. To test the research questions the survey research methodology was adopted. The sample of the study consisted of 541 university teachers. The findings of the study were based upon data analysis of questionnaires collected from university teachers. Findings of the study showed that teachers were not fully competent in all aspects of creative teaching methodologies. In some areas teachers were on high level of competency while on other hand they were on low and moderate level of competency in use of creative teaching methodologies. The study concluded on the basis of the result of the study that there is a need to improve the competencies in some areas regarding the use of teaching methodologies for promoting creativity in teaching.

Aschenbrener, M.A., Terry, R., Torres, R.M., & Smith, A.R. (2010). Effective Teaching Methods. Retrived from https://cheap-papers.com/essays/education/effective-teaching-methods.php

Bramwell, G., Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F. R., Kronish, N., & Chennabathni, R., (2011). Creative Teacher. Roper Review, 33, 228-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.603111

Daniels, H. (2010). Effective Teaching Methods. Retrived from https://cheap papers.com/essays/education/effective-teaching-methods.php

Dweck, C. S. (2007). Boosting Achievement with Messages that Motivate. Canadian Education Association, 47(2), 6-10. http://www.cea-ace.ca/home.cfm

Fautley, J. S. (2007). Creativity in Secondary Education. Learning Matters Ltd.

Horng, J. S. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 352-358. ttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00445.x

Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., ChanLin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creativeteachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 29(4), 352-358

Lambert, M. D, Velez, J. J. (2011). Technology diffusion in the soft disciplines: Using social technology to support information technology. Computers in the Schools, 9(1), 81-105.

Lee. (2013). Effective Teaching Methods. Retrived from https://cheap papers.com/essays/education/effective-teaching-methods.php

Lubart, T. L., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., &Zenasni, F. (2015). Psychology of Creativity. Paris: Armand Collin.

Murtaza, M. H. (2011). Staff Development Needs in Pakistan Higher Education. College Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 5-6. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i1.982

Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 143(6), 565.

Rinkevich, J. L. (2011). Creative teaching: Why it matters and where to begin. The clearing House. A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(3), 219-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.575416

Sousa, D. ( 2011). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press.

Stein, M. I. (2012). Stimulating Creativity. New York: Academic Press

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10

Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Teaching for creativity: The sounds of silence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9(2), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000007 .

Swank, J. M., & Lambie, G. W. (2016). Development of the research competencies scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49(2), 91-108.

Tang, J. B. (2017). Teaching for Quality Learning. England: Open University Press.

Tharp, R. G, (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving, excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony.Boulder, CO: West view Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1980). Assessing the further reaches of creative potential. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14(1), 1-19. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ230504 .

Waugh, R. F. (2010). A measure of fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22 (2), 206-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.481534

Wilhelm, J. D. (2008). Engaging readers and writers with inquiry: Promoting deep understandings in language arts and the content areas with guiding questions. New York: Scholastic Inc.

Wisdom, J. (2007). Creativity in Higher Education: Challenges and Facilitating Factors. Temas em Psicologia, 25(2), 553-561. DOI: 10.9788/TP2017.2-09.

Zhou, C. (2016). Research on Creative Problem-Solving Skill Development in Higher Education. Denmark: IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Similar Articles

• Pervez Ahmed, Alam Tareen, Socio-Political and Educational Reforms of Robert Sandeman in Balochistan: An analytical study , Journal of Education And Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta: Vol. 17 No. 1 (2024): Journal of Education and Humanities Research (JEHR)

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Artyom Arustamyan, Saud Al Taj, Ashraf Nasir, ROLE OF STRATEGIC MARKETING IN CREATING ORGANISATIONAL VALUE , Journal of Education And Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta: Vol. 10 No. 2 (2020): Journal of Education & humanities Research, University of Balochistan
• Mini Appukuttan , Saud Al Taj, Ashraf Nasir, TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS OF A TOP RATED PRIMARY SCHOOL IN TERMS OF ITS LEADERSHIP CLIMATE , Journal of Education And Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta: Vol. 10 No. 2 (2020): Journal of Education & humanities Research, University of Balochistan
• Palwasha Tareen, Zualfiqar Ali, Saud Al Taj, Overcoming the Challenges of Recruitment and Retention of Quality Teachers in Private Colleges of Pakistan , Journal of Education And Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta: Vol. 13 No. 1 (2022): Journal of Education & Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta-Pakistan
• Luo Fang, He Haiyang, Muhammad Kamran Taj, Saud Al Taj, Understanding Maritime Military Operations within the Framework of International Law and Education , Journal of Education And Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta: Vol. 16 No. 2 (2023): Journal of Education & Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta-Pakistan
• Rabia, Asma Zia, Salma Nawaz, Training Need Analysis of University Teachers for Creative Teaching , Journal of Education And Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta: Vol. 16 No. 2 (2023): Journal of Education & Humanities Research (JEHR), University of Balochistan, Quetta-Pakistan

Current Issue

Developed by, information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Make a Submission

JEHR: Institute of Education & Research (IER) UoB, University of Balochistan, Quetta-Pakistan.

'Y' Category HEC Recognized Journal  ISSN: 2415-2366 (Print) 2710-2971 (Online)

Email: [email protected]    Tel:   (+92) (081) 9211245

• Cette page n'est pas disponible en Français

Managing choice, coherence, and specialisation in upper secondary education

• Education and skills
• Student performance (PISA)
• Teachers and educators
• Learning environment
• Education organisation and governance
• Student problem solving skills
• Vocational education and training (VET) skills
• School autonomy

Cite this content as:

With a far greater share of the student cohort progressing into upper secondary education than previous generations, modern upper secondary systems need to accommodate a wider variety of student interests, aspirations and learning levels. To respond to these needs, countries need to balance choice and specialisation to promote coherence. Systems that provide too much choice or specialisation risk hindering coherence, while those with too little choice or specialisation risk that upper secondary does not enable students to identify their interests and deepen their skills in those areas, which is essential for smooth transitions into post-secondary pathways and the labour market. This Education Spotlight provides a framework for countries to consider how far their current system supports the goals of choice, specialisation and coherence and provides examples from across OECD countries as inspiration for future reforms.

In the same series

Related publications

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

For New Ideas, Think Inside (This) Box

June 25, 2024 • 7 min read.

In this Nano Tool for Leaders, Penn's David Resnick offers guidance on using helpful constraints to unlock new solutions to old problems.

Nano Tools for Leaders®   —  a collaboration between  Wharton Executive Education  and  Wharton’s Center for Leadership and Change Management  — are fast, effective tools that you can learn and start using in less than 15 minutes, with the potential to significantly impact your success and the engagement and productivity of the people you lead.

Harness constraints and analogies to unlock new solutions to old problems.

Traditional brainstorming,  as coined by Alex Osborne in the 1950s, asks participants to consider any and all ideas that might solve a problem. While blue-sky, no-limits thinking has several benefits, the drawback is that leaders often, paradoxically, get stuck. They encounter challenges like the “curse of the blank page,” not knowing where to start because they can start anywhere. They may also face the “ Einstellung effect ,” a phenomenon whereby the easy recollection of familiar solutions can block their ability to think of new ones.

This has led some to (erroneously) believe that generating solutions is best left to people who are naturally creative. The good news is that there are tools that can help one become much better at generating new ideas. The even better news is that using these tools does not involve extensive training or attending workshops. In fact, one tool developed at Penn Medicine’s Center for Health Care Transformation and Innovation is a simple  card game , and the “secret sauce” it teaches is how to leverage constraints and analogies. The  Accelerators in Innovation  game has teams of players use accelerator cards to create new kinds of solutions with questions such as “How would you solve postpartum depression if you operated like IKEA?” and “How might you tackle long emergency room wait times if you were Warren Buffet?” The solutions are then applied to problems presented on challenge cards while trying to avoid monkey wrenches from their opponents. After rapid-fire pitches, the judge determines each round’s winner.

Action Steps

1. make sure you are solving a problem..

Don’t solve for how to implement a solution. A classic example involved a design team brought in to figure out how to increase access to incubators. The issue is that the solution was already baked in (increase access to incubators). The team spent some time reframing the problem to focus on the true issue: ensuring that newborns are kept at a safe temperature, especially when delivery occurs in places with little or no access to electricity. Reframing to focus on the actual problem opened the team to entirely different solutions.

2. Leverage analogies.

Having to pull ideas out of thin air can be difficult and stressful. Analogies force us to consider other options or perspectives we may never have thought of, or thought of and dismissed. They cause us to ask ourselves “What is good about this other solution and how might it be applied to solving the problem I’m facing?” Examples include:

Think about successful companies and how their strengths could be applied to your problem. For example, IKEA is phenomenal at clearly explaining to people with limited background knowledge and literacy how to do something. So how might IKEA go about explaining post-op care to knee replacement patients?

Similarly, try using personas. Mary Poppins is renowned for making an unpleasant experience a delightful one. Mr. Rogers is known for his commitment to leveraging the kindness of neighbors. Darth Vader’s approach to getting things done is a ruthless level punishment for those who fail. Regardless of whom you choose, you can use the strengths or philosophies of these characters to inspire ideas. How might Mary Poppins improve adherence to physical therapy regimens? How might Darth Vader?

3. Leverage constraints.

Constraints are, unintuitively, another great way to force new thinking. Some options are:

How might you solve a problem if you were forced to delete a crucial (but perhaps onerous or costly) step of the process? Great examples are “How might tollbooths collect fees without a human there to do it?” (FastPass) or “How might people get their rental car if there was no line to wait in?” (Hertz Gold).

Design for extremes

How might you solve the problem if you had to solve for extreme use cases or extreme targets? For example, what would it take to screen 100 percent of eligible patients for colon cancer? How might you reduce civilian traffic fatalities to zero?

Real-world issues

Apply real-world constraints that have thrown a monkey wrench in your plans for past ideas. For example, how might you create a new marketing campaign that must be successful for consumers who do not speak English? How might you build a new product to launch on time even if multiple team members take a sabbatical or parental leave?

Focus on solving for how to make your solution delightful to users. This isn’t about making something silly or fun. It’s about surprising your users in a manner that unexpectedly accomplishes something for them.

4. Push for volume.

An additional benefit to Penn Medicine’s  Accelerators  card game is that it encourages multiple rounds to hear multiple ideas. When thinking of solutions, push for volume in your initial rounds. You’ll soon “use up” the ideas that come to mind easily and be forced to consider more creative or audacious alternatives.

5. Don’t take yourself too seriously.

Another key component of generating ideas while playing a game is that it allows for laughter and a sense of play. This mindset can foster creativity and an atmosphere of psychological safety for sharing ideas.

How One Leader Uses It

Rebecca Trotta, PhD, director of the Center for Nursing Excellence at Penn, leveraged this tool in developing a new program to support older adults after hospitalization. Her challenge was to build a service that could provide intensive at-home support. Despite an existing evidence-based protocol, there was concern that patient acceptance of this support would be low. Many folks are simply exhausted after being in the hospital and don’t want someone in their home. Using the constraint of solving for “delight,” Trotta and her team came up with the idea of delivering home meals to these patients and their caregivers.

While it might appear as a frivolous and seemingly useless expense, it turned out that after spending days (and sometimes weeks) in the hospital, patients came home to fridges that were empty or full of spoiled food. Providing them with a meal ensured they had adequate nutrition. More importantly, though, the meals showed a sense of caring and thoughtfulness that went well beyond patients’ expectations. It built a strong sense of trust that paid dividends in drastically increasing the acceptance of home services compared to baseline.

Contributor to this Nano Tool

David Resnick, MPH, MSEd, Senior Innovation Manager at Penn Medicine’s Center for Health Care Transformation and Innovation.  Accelerators in Health Care  card game co-created with Michael Begley, MA, Senior Experience Consultant at EPAM Systems, and Visiting Professor and Assistant Program Director of Masters of UX at Thomas Jefferson University.

Knowledge in Action: Related Executive Education Programs

• Effective Decision Making: Thinking Critically and Rationally
• The Neuroscience of Business: Innovations in Leadership and Strategic Decisions
• Mastering Innovation: Strategy, Process, and Tools
• Business Model Innovation in the Age of AI

Additional Resources

Access all Wharton Executive Education Nano Tools

Download this Nano Tool as a PDF

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Why a Partnership With OpenAI Benefits All Parties

How the pandemic accelerated the use of digital wallets, how financial frictions could hinder innovation, looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

More From Forbes

The most rigorous math program you've never heard of.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Math-M-Addicts students eagerly dive into complex math problems during class.

In the building of the Speyer Legacy School in New York City, a revolutionary math program is quietly producing some of the city's most gifted young problem solvers and logical thinkers. Founded in 2005 by two former math prodigies, Math-M-Addicts has grown into an elite academy developing the skills and mindset that traditional schooling often lacks.

"We wanted to establish the most advanced math program in New York," explains Ruvim Breydo, co-founder of Math-M-Addicts. "The curriculum focuses not just on mathematical knowledge, but on developing a mastery of problem-solving through a proof-based approach aligned with prestigious competitions like the International Mathematical Olympiad."

From its inception, Math-M-Addicts took an unconventional path. What began as an attempt to attract only the highest caliber high school students soon expanded to offer multiple curriculum levels. "We realized we couldn't find enough kids at the most advanced levels," says Breydo. "So we decided to develop that talent from an earlier age."

The program's approach centers on rigor. At each of the 7 levels, the coursework comprises just a handful of fiendishly difficult proof-based math problems every week. "On average, we expect them to get about 50% of the solutions right," explains instructor Natalia Lukina. "The problems take hours and require grappling with sophisticated mathematical concepts."

But it's about more than just the content. Class sizes are small, with two instructors for every 15-20 students. One instructor leads the session, while the other teacher coordinates the presentation of the homework solutions by students. The teachers also provide customized feedback by meticulously reviewing each student's solutions. "I spend as much time analyzing their thought processes as I do teaching new material," admits instructor Bobby Lee.

Netflix’s Best New Show Has A Perfect 100% Critic Score

New chrome security rules—google gives websites until 11/1 to comply, ranked: the 30 most walkable cities in the world, according to a new report.

Lee and the Math-M-Addicts faculty embrace an unconventional pedagogy focused on developing logic, creativity, and a tenacious problem-solving mindset over procedures. "We don't dumb it down for them," says Breydo. "We use technical math language and allow students to struggle through the challenges because that's where real learning happens."

Impressive results of Math-M-addicts students in selective math competitions highlight their ... [+] preparation and dedication.

For the Math-M-Addicts team, finding the right teachers is as essential as shaping brilliant students. Prospective instructors go through a rigorous multi-stage vetting process. "We seek passionate mathematical problem solvers first," says program director Sonali Jasuja. "Teaching experience is great, but first and foremost, we need people who deeply understand and enjoy the reasoning behind mathematics."

Even exceptional instructors undergo extensive training by co-teaching for at least a year alongside veteran Math-M-Addicts faculty before taking the lead role. "Our approach is different from how most US teachers learned mathematics," explains instructor Tanya Gross, the director of Girls Adventures in Math (GAIM) competition. "We immerse them in our unique math culture, which focuses on the 'why' instead of the 'how,' empowering a paradigm shift."

That culture extends to the students as well. In addition to the tools and strategies imparted in class, Math-M-Addicts alumni speak of an unshakable confidence and camaraderie that comes from up to several thousands of hours grappling with mathematics at the highest levels alongside peers facing the same challenges.

As Math-M-Addicts ramps up efforts to expand access through online classes and global partnerships, the founders remain devoted to their core mission. "Math education should not obsess with speed and memorization of math concepts," argues Breydo. "This is not what mathematics is about. To unlock human potential, we must refocus on cognitive reasoning and problem-solving skills. We are seeking to raise young people unafraid to tackle any complex challenge they face"

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.