indetifying how school teachers use cps

7/27/2019 Indetifying How School Teachers Use CPS

1/102

Identifying How School Teachers Use

Creative Problem Solving

Copyright 2004, Hideki Muneyoshi.

Used with permission of Hideki Muneyoshi.


2/102

Identifying How School Teachers UseCreative Problem Solving

byHideki Muneyoshi

An Abstract of a Thesisin

Creative Studies

Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of ScienceDecember, 2004

Buffalo State College,State University of New York,

International Center for Studies in Creativity


3/102

ABSTRACT OF THESIS

Identifying How School Teachers Use

Creative Problem Solving

The main focus of this study was to identify how school teachers have used

aspects of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) in their classes. Three research questions

guided this study. They were: 1) what CPS tools, principles, and concepts are used

most often by teachers; 2) how have they used these tools, principles, and concepts;

and 3) what impact do teachers believe CPS has had on their students.

A survey was distributed among 50 educators who are current students or

graduates of the Masters degree program at the International Center for Studies in

Creativity. Twenty-two responses were received. For the research question 1, a

quantitative analysis was conducted. For the research questions 2 and 3, a qualitative

analysis was carried out.

Statistical analysis showed that of the CPS components, teachers most often

used Generate Ideas. Of the principles,Build on Other Ideas was most frequently

cited. The stage Generate Ideas was also frequently used. In regard to tools, the

teachers reported usingBrainstormingmost often. Eight themes emerged when data

were analyzed for ways in which aspects of CPS were used in the classroom. Thesethemes were: 1) School life-general; 2) School life- specific; 3)Lesson/unit planning;

4) Subject-related use; 5) Writing; 6)Project work; 7) Getting responses fromstudents; and 8)Evaluating. The educators perceived the impact of the use of CPS

aspects on their students in 16 themes, such as the impact on students attitudes

toward learning, students attitudes toward problem-solving, students motivation, andso on. Interpretations of these findings are discussed and suggestions for future

research are provided.

Hideki Muneyoshi

Date


4/102

Buffalo State College

State University of New YorkInternational Center for Studies in Creativity

Identifying How School Teachers UseCreative Problem Solving

A Thesis in

Creative Studies

by

Hideki Muneyoshi

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirementsfor the Degree of

Master of Science

December 2004

Dates of Approval:

Gerard J. Puccio

ProfessorChairperson of the Department of Creative StudiesPrincipal Thesis Advisor

Richard S. Podemski

Dean of Graduate Studies and Research


5/102

ii

THESIS COMMITTEE SIGNATORY

Dr. Mary C. Murdock

Associate Professor of Creative Studies

Dr. Gerard J. Puccio

Professor of Creative Studies

Dates of Approval


6/102

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the professors and friends that I have met since Icame to Buffalo. It is my genuine wish that I mention their names and express my

sincere appreciation to them here. But I have to refrain from doing it because it would

turn out to be another book. I must acknowledge the following people here, however,because my indebtedness to them is substantial.

I am most grateful to Dr. Gerard J. Puccio, my mentor, for his valuable

academic advice and a number of wonderful opportunities that he offered me. His

many perspicacious suggestions enhanced the quality of my independent research and

thesis. Besides, connecting me with Japanese creativity scholars, he opened a door of

my academic career.

Mike Fox provided me with priceless opportunities to teach creative classes

in his undergraduate course. His insightful feedback always encouraged me to better

my teaching for the next class. Aiming to become a creativity educator, I cannot thank

him enough.

For his masterful problem-solving, I would like to express my appreciation toDr. Jean F. Gounard. He was always willing to spend his valuable time solving my

problems. His success rate was one hundred percent.The name that appears most often as a colleague in the professional

experience section of my curriculum vitae is Kathy Selover. I truly appreciate herhaving collaborated with me in numerous workshops. Those experiences are my

treasures.Jean-Pierre Issa, a talented pianist and my tolerant housemate, helped me go

through my graduate life on numberless occasionsalmost everyday. With his

willingness to help people, he shows boundless kindness. Besides, unique, insightful

ideas often sprung from him during our discussions on creativity. They always

inspired me to keep learning the topic. Without him, I could not have done even the

half of what I did during my two year graduate life in Buffalo. Thank you very much,

J-P.


7/102

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTSTitle Page ...............................................................................................................p. iThesis Committee Signatory ..................................................................................p. ii

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................p. iii

Table of Contents.................................................................................................. p. ivList of Tables ........................................................................................................ p. vi

Chapter 1: Statement of the Problem .................................................................... p. 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... p. 1

Nature and Purpose of the Research....................................................................... p. 1

Background ........................................................................................................... p. 2

Creativity is important................................................................................ p. 2

Creativity should be taught......................................................................... p. 3

CPS is one of the best ways to teach creativity ........................................... p. 3

CPS is used in educational contexts............................................................ p. 6

Few research studies show how teachers actually use CPS in classes.......... p. 7Research Questions................................................................................................. p.8Summary ............................................................................................................... p. 8

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature............................................................. p. 10Introduction ......................................................................................................... p. 10

Creative Thinking Must be Nurtured.................................................................... p. 10

What is creative thinking? ........................................................................ p. 10

Reasons why creative thinking is important.............................................. p. 13

Research on the degree to which creativity can be taught ......................... p. 15

CPS is One of the Best Ways to Teach Creative Thinking in the Classroom ......... p. 20

History of CPS ......................................................................................... p. 20

Reasons why CPS is one of the best ways to teach creative thinking in the classroom ............................................................................................... p. 24

Research studies on the benefits of CPS training with students................. p. 27

Summary ............................................................................................................. p. 30

Chapter 3: Methods and Procedures for Conducting the Study ........................... p. 31

Introduction ......................................................................................................... p. 31Rationale for Methodology .................................................................................. p. 31

Participants.......................................................................................................... p. 31

Measurement ....................................................................................................... p. 33Procedure ............................................................................................................ p. 34Data analysis ....................................................................................................... p. 34

Summary ............................................................................................................. p. 36

Chapter 4: Results .............................................................................................. p. 37

Introduction ......................................................................................................... p. 37

Findings of Part I ................................................................................................. p. 37

Mean and standard deviations for the frequency of the use of thecomponents, principles, stages, and tools of CPS in classes .................... p. 38

Mean ranks of the frequency of the use of the CPS components,principles, stages, and tools in classes..................................................... p. 41


8/102

One-way ANOVA for the frequency of the use of the CPS principlesand tools in classes ................................................................................. p. 44

Post Hoc test for the frequency of the use of the CPS principles and tools in classes ....................................................................................... p. 45

Findings of Part II................................................................................................ p. 49

School life................................................................................................ p. 50Learning and teaching .............................................................................. p. 52

Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... p. 56

Findings of Part III .............................................................................................. p. 56

Perceived impact of students attitudes..................................................... p. 57

Perceived impact on student behaviors ..................................................... p. 59

Perceived impact on students feelings ..................................................... p. 62

Perceived impact on students thinking .................................................... p. 63

Perceived impact on classroom climate .................................................... p. 63

Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... p. 64

Summary ............................................................................................................. p. 65

Chapter 5: Findings, Interpretations and Recommendations ............................... p. 66

Introduction ......................................................................................................... p. 66Summary of Research Outcomes ......................................................................... p. 66

Interpreting the Study Findings............................................................................ p. 68

Build on other ideas ................................................................................. p. 68

The students classroom work .................................................................. p. 69

Classroom climate.................................................................................... p. 69

Dynamic balance...................................................................................... p. 69

Brainstorming .......................................................................................... p. 71

More divergent principles than convergent ones ....................................... p. 72

Teachers used divergent tools and convergent tools .................................. p. 73

Problem solving skills .............................................................................. p. 74

The impact on attitudes and behaviors...................................................... p. 75

Recommendations ............................................................................................... p. 76

Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................................... p. 77

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... p. 78

References ........................................................................................................... p. 79Appendix A: Concept Paper................................................................................. p. 84

Appendix B: Consent Form ................................................................................. p. 88

Appendix C: Survey ............................................................................................ p. 89

Appendix D: Brief Descriptions of CPS Aspects .................................................. p. 91


9/102

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: The Comparisons of the Names of the CPS Components and StagesAmong the Three Models ................................................................... p. 24

Table 4.1: Mean and Standard Deviations for the Three Components of theSurvey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............ p. 38Table 4.2: Mean and Standard Deviations for the 12 Principles of the Survey of

School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............................ p. 38

Table 4.3: Mean and Standard Deviations for the Six Stages of the Survey ofSchool Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............................ p. 39

Table 4.4: Mean and Standard Deviations for the 19 Tools of the Survey ofSchool Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............................ p. 40

Table 4.5: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the Three Componentsin Classes ........................................................................................... p. 41

Table 4.6: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the 12 Principles inClasses ............................................................................................... p. 42

Table 4.7: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the Six Stages inClasses ............................................................................................... p. 42

Table 4.8: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the 19 Tools in Classes .... p. 42

Table 4.9: One-Way ANOVA for the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Principlesin Classes .......................................................................................... p. 44

Table 4.10: One-way ANOVA for the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Tools inClasses ............................................................................................... p. 44

Table 4.11: Results of Post Hoc Test for Dynamic Balance .................................. p. 45

Table 4.12: Results of Post Hoc Test for Defer Judgment ..................................... p. 46

Table 4.13: Results of Post Hoc Test for Build on Other Ideas ............................. p. 46

Table 4.14: Results of Post Hoc Test for Brainstorming ....................................... p. 46

Table 4.15: Results of Post Hoc Test for Brainstorming with Post-Its ............... p. 47

Table 4.16: Results of Post Hoc Test for Forced Connections............................... p. 47

Table 4.17: Results of Post Hoc Test for Hits ....................................................... p. 48

Table 4.18: Results of Post Hoc Test for Highlighting .......................................... p. 48

Table 4.19: Results of Post Hoc Test for Praise First ............................................ p. 48

Table 4.20: Results of Post Hoc Test for Stem Power ........................................... p. 49


10/102

Chapter 1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the rationale for the present study.

The content of the chapter focuses on the nature of the study and why it is important

to teach creative thinking in schools. The chapter closes with the thesis questions and

a summary.

Nature and Purpose of the Research

In our current fast-changing societies we are bound to face new problems one

after another. To prepare students to solve problems is one of the roles of education.

But how? Davis (1999) held that one of the most effective and teachable strategies is

Creative Problem Solving (CPS). It is meaningful, therefore, that school teachers use

CPS in their classes. In order to encourage them to do so it is essential for them to

know how CPS is actually used in classes and how the teachers using CPS have

perceived the impact on their students. The goal of this research is, therefore, to

determine in what ways elementary and secondary school teachers who are currently

in or have completed the graduate program at the International Center for Studies in

Creativity have used CPS in their classrooms.


11/102

2

Background

Creativity is Important

There are a number of scholars who maintained that creativity is important in

terms of the various aspects of the lives of human beings (Carnevale, Gianer, &

Meltzer, 1990; Cropley, 2001; Rogers, 1957; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Torrance &

Safter, 1999; Treffinger, Isaksen & Dorval, 2000). Sternberg and Lubart (1999) stated

that creativity is a topic of wide scope that is important at both the individual and

societal levels for a wide range of task domains (p.3). Treffinger, Isaksen and Dorval

(2000) held that the study of creativity is becoming very important for individuals,

groups and organizations. In terms of the importance of creativity in an organizational

setting, Carnevale, Gianer, and Meltzer (1990) stated that an organizations ability to

achieve its strategic goals are often dependent on how quickly it can bring the

creativity of its employees into play.

The importance of creativity is also explained in relation to the current

changing societies. Torrance and Safter (1999) stated that the speed of technological

change will accelerate and some of these changes have been so huge that people can

hardly depend upon the past as an adequate guide to future behavior. Besides, the

volume of information and the amount of education required to acquire the skills for

using this information will increase rapidly. Cropley seems to agree with them when

he (2001) argued that the rapid and global change occurring in societies requires us to

see creativity more seriously. He pointed out that people need to be able to adjust to

such a rapid and sweeping change both for their own well-being and for that of the

societies in which they live (p.158). The following words of Carl Rogers (1957)

synthesizes the previously stated views: the present development of the physical


12/102

3

sciences is making an imperative demand upon us as individuals and as a culture for

creative behavior in adapting ourselves to our new world if we are to survive (p.82).

Creativity Should be Taught

Considering the importance of creativity, it is reasonable to argue that

creativity should be taught in education. Cropley (2001) contended that education

needs to nurture creative properties such as flexibility, openness, the tolerance for

ambiguity, the ability to produce novelty and the like. He (2001) also stated that

teaching and learning methods that emphasize creativity can increase students

motivation as well as their attitudes to school and their self-esteem. Torrance (1970)

pointed out that people fundamentally prefer to learn in creative ways through

creative and problem-solving activities. Furthermore he maintained that many

important things can be learned more effectively and efficiently in creative ways

rather than by authority. Puccio and Murdock (2001) insisted that it be significant for

schools to nurture the creative thinking skills of all students so that individuals can

prepare themselves to join the workforce and organizations can stay competitive.

Guilford (1992), one of the pioneers in the field of creativity, maintained that of all

the consequences of various actions on creativity, those related to education

undoubtedly have the greatest and most enduring social impact (p72). These

arguments for teaching creativity seem strong. Even so, there is a question left to be

answeredHow should creativity be taught?

CPS is One of the Best Ways to Teach Creativity

There exist a number of methods and programs for teaching creativity.

Cropley (2001) introduced ten major well-known creativity programs/methods.


13/102

4

They were Image/Craft, Purdue Creative Thinking Program, Productive Thinking

Program, Myers-Torrance Idea Books, Creative Problem Solving, Talents Unlimited,

Khatena Training Method, Osborn-Parnes Program, Clapham-Schuster Program and

Creative Dramatics. In addition, there are a variety of other ways to teach creativity

utilizing thinking techniques as a main intervention tool such as brainstorming,

Synectics, and the KJ method.

While a number of ways to enhance creativity exist, a question is which

method is the best to adopt for the purpose of improving creativity. The answer is that

the most reasonable method to employ is Creative Problem Solving (CPS). Here is

supporting evidence. First of all, the CPS training enjoys the strong evidence of its

effectiveness provided by the Creative Studies Project (Parnes, 1987). The research

that consisted of two four-semester long empirical studies was made by Sidney J.

Parnes and Ruth Noller from 1969 to 1972. They provided the experimental groups

with creativity training mainly using CPS and the control groups with no creativity

intervention. The project turned out to provide clear evidence that CPS and other

methods could be used to enhance students creativity. The results of this study were

so impressive that it gave birth to a masters degree program in creative studies at the

State University College at Buffalo, New York.

Second, the two studies conducted by Torrance in 1972 and in 1983

(Torrance, 1972, 1987) showed that CPS produced successful results as a creativity

training program. In his research of 1972, Torrance examined 142 studies about the

effectiveness of various creativity teaching methods, out of which 22 studies

investigated the CPS-related programs. He found that 91% of those 22 studies showed

successful results associated with the CPS methods. With the research of 1983, 88%

of the seven studies of CPS training programs showed successful results. In


14/102

5

discussing the effectiveness of CPS training, Torrance (1995) stated that the model

seemed to be effective at all educational levels, in subject matter areas, and with all

levels of ability in public school systems (p.235).

Third, several meta-analytic studies have underscored the positive impact of

training in CPS. Rose and Lyn (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of long-term

creativity training programs. They analyzed 46 studies of creativity training programs.

The results of the analysis revealed that programs with the most consistent positive

impact on Torrance Test of Creative Thinkingscores were those that involved CPS.

Rose and Lyn (1984) suggested that the substantial impact of CPS on verbal creativity

provides strong evidence to support the effectiveness of this program (p.21). They

added that the use of CPS in education and business should enhance more original

thinking among practitioners.

Scott, Leritz and Mumford (2004a, 2004b) conducted two meta-analyses for

the effectiveness of creativity training. They conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of

program evaluation based on 70 prior studies that examined the effectiveness of

creativity training (2004a). Their meta-analysis revealed various findings. Among

these were that only use of a cognitive approach consistently contributed to study

effects and training stressing the cognitive processing activities commonly held to

underlie creative effortswas positively related to study success (p. 382). While

describing the CPS training program as being cognitive-process oriented, therefore,

Scott et al. pointed out CPS training as an example of the more successful of the

creativity training programs currently available (p. 383).

The objectives of their second study (2004b) were to identify the major types

of creativity training found in the literature and to evaluate the effectiveness of these

different training types using meta-analytic data. They obtained 156 studies that


15/102

6

examined the effectiveness of creativity training programs. After a content analysis

was carried out to appraise these programs, they implemented a cluster analysis to

determine the major types of training. As a result, they identified 11 major types of

creativity training, one of which turned out to be the CPS training as a cognitively-

oriented approach. Then, they carried out a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness

of each type of training and found that the types of training, including cognitively-

oriented approach such as CPS training, proved particularly effective.

CPS is Used in Educational Contexts

The studies above indicate the effectiveness of the use of CPS in education. It

appears to be valuable, therefore, to utilize CPS in educational contexts. Now, do

educators use CPS? In fact, since Alex F. Osborn introduced CPS in 1952, education

has been one of the fields where CPS has been most applied (Hills, 1996; Kopasz,

1997; Sosenko, 1998). Sosenko (1998) organized 88 pieces of literature related to the

impact of CPS. She obtained 49 pieces of educational literature in relation to CPS.

When Kopasz (1997) investigated how much CPS had been applied in educational

contexts, she found that 100 pieces of the literature on the use of CPS existed in that

field. One such example is a CPS training carried out by the International Center for

Studies in Creativity (ICSC) at Buffalo State College. This Center worked with the

Curriculum Department of the Buffalo Public Schools and trained local teachers and

administrators to facilitate CPS in schools (Vitagliano, 1994).

In addition, the graduate courses of the ICSC have trained a number of

school teachers on CPS. When Lunken (1991) assessed the long-term effects of the

Master of Science degree in Creative Studies on its graduates, one of her findings was

that the majority of graduates worked in education. Investigating the impact of a


16/102

7

graduate semester course of the ICSCs program on its students, Keller-Mathers

(1990) obtained frequent comments on the use of CPS from students who taught in

school.

Here exists another instance of the educational use of CPS in classes. In her

masters project, Wirth (2002) designed and taught art classes in high school by

integrating creativity principles and methods which included CPS. She observed that

her students seemed to enjoy thinking tools such asBrainstorming,Brainwritingand

Highlighting. Also she found that greater energy existed among the students as each

project began, and that energy carried students all the way through the artistic process.

Moreover, her students were excited and enthusiastic about what they were making

and learning (Wirth, 2002, p.125).

Few Research Studies Show How Teachers Actually Use CPS in Classes

In spite of the fact that there are numerous studies of the use of CPS in

educational contexts like the above, there is little literature showing how educators

regularly use CPS in their actual classes and as a result what impact they believe this

use has on their students. Although Sosenko (1998) discovered 49 studies about the

educational use of CPS, they consisted of a case study, reviews and empirical research

studies. It included no literature discussing the actual use of CPS in classes. Kopaszs

project yielded a similar outcome. Most of the literature she acquired were research

studies, workbooks, how-to books, and instructional materials. Six articles showed the

experiences of the authors use of CPS in their classes; however, none of them

mentioned their regular use of CPS in their actual classes. This might be a critical

deficiency, when society sees the importance of enhancing creativity and CPS can

play an essential role for the purpose. There is a need for good information on how


17/102

8

CPS has been successfully incorporated into the classroom. If teachers gain a body of

the knowledge of how CPS can be regularly used in actual classroom settings and of

its impact on students, the dissemination of the use of CPS in classes may go further.

Therefore, the deficiency must be filled.

Research Questions

This study attempted to uncover how school teachers utilize CPS in their

classes and what impact they believed CPS has on their students as a result. The study

addressed the following questions by posing them to educators who were current

students or graduates of the Masters degree program at the ICSC:

What CPS tools, principles, and concepts are used most often by educatorswho are current students or graduates of the Masters degree program at the

ICSC?

How do they use these tools, principles, and concepts?

What impact do they believe CPS has on their students?(e.g. improvement of test scores, changes in students behaviors, enhanced

motivation of students for learning, etc.)

Summary

This chapter discussed what this current study is and why it is important.

First, it dealt with the nature and purpose of the study. Second, it provided

background explanations. The chapter explained: that creative thinking is important in

todays society and so should be taught in school, that for the purpose of it, CPS is

one of the best ways to teach thinking skills and has a great deal of evidence

supporting its effectiveness, that CPS seems to be used in educational contexts.


18/102

9

However there are only a few studies that show how teachers regularly use CPS in

actual classes. Finally, the research questions were introduced.


19/102

10

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter discusses why creative thinking must be nurtured and argues

that CPS is one of the best ways to teach it in the classroom. The first part of the

chapter presents the authors definition of creative thinking, the reasons why creative

thinking is important, and the research supporting the notion that creative thinking can

be enhanced. The second part of the chapter deals with the history of CPS, the reasons

why CPS is an effective means to teach creative thinking in the classroom, and

research studies on the benefits of CPS training with students.

Creative Thinking Must be Nurtured

What is Creative Thinking?

The author defines creative thinking as a rational process made up of two

cognitive phases: the generation of various options and the selection of original,

effective ones. Sometimes the generative phase subsumes divergent characteristic.

There are a number of statements supporting this definition by creativity scholars

(Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1999; Guilford, 1977; Nickerson, 1999; Onda, 1994; Puccio

& Murdock, 2001; Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2000).

Finke, Ward, and Smith (1999) studied how people think when they are being

creative. Their concept of creative cognition, the Geneplore Model, showed that when

an individual thinks creatively, his/her mind goes through two phases, generation and


20/102

11

exploration (Finke et al., 1999). According to the model, many creative activities can

be described in terms of an initial generation of candidate, mental structures followed

by exploratory evaluation of them. Furthermore, they maintained that during the

process of creative cognition one alternates between generative and exploratory

processes, refining the mental structures according to the constraints of the particular

task.

After an individual comes up with multiple options at one generative process,

he/she analyzes and evaluates them to decide whether to select the effective option(s)

in the exploratory process. Hence, Finke et al.s exploratory process can be regarded

as the process of selecting options. Therefore, the Geneplore Modelgoes with the

definition of creative thinking in this study: it has two cognitive processes that are the

generation of options and the selection of them.

Onda, a Japanese creativity scholar, has a very similar concept about creative

thinking. Onda (1994) argued that creative thinking is a set of divergent thinking and

convergent thinking. He defined creativity as something that consists of creative

abilities that produce something original and valuable and creative personalities that

support the abilities (Onda, 1994, p. 99). Furthermore, he explained that creative

abilities are made up of creative thinking and creative skills. According to him,

creative thinking is made up of divergent thinking and convergent thinking.

Several creativity scholars emphasized the important relation between

creative thinking and a divergent cognitive process.

Guilford (1977) stated the importance of divergent thinking and the

transformation of mental structures in thinking creatively. He maintained that the

abilities of the Structure of Intellectmost related to creative thinking come in the

operation category of divergent production and the product category of


21/102

12

transformation. Without either or both of these features being involved in thinking,

we cannot say that creative thinking has taken place. These abilities make essential

contributions (Guilford, 1977, p. 160). According to him, creative thinking must

include the divergent, generating process of options.

Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval (2000) seemed to agree with Guilford when

they described creative thinking as a divergent process. In fact, they even viewed

creative thinking as divergent thinking itself. They stated that in the process of

creative thinking, we begin at a single point or with a single question, but extend our

search in many different directions, generating a wide variety of new possibilities

(2000, p. 7).

Nickerson (1999) held that creative thinking is the generating step of original

and novel options. Then that is followed by critical thinking that evaluates what

creative thinking offers and selects some among them for further consideration.

Basically, he described creative thinking in the same way as Isaksen and Treffinger

did.

Although what those divergent-thinking advocates argued was important, the

author argues that creative thinking is more than divergent thinking; it consists of

multiple cognitive steps, which are idea-generation and idea-selection. Creativity is

the production of novel ideas that are effective. Puccio and Murdock (2001) stated, It

[creative thinking] is a rational process that enables people to successfully produce

novel and useful responses to open-ended challenges and opportunities (p. 70). Thus,

in order to produce an effective option, an evaluative, selective process is necessary.

This process takes place only when an individual carries out idea-selection after

his/her idea-generation.


22/102

13

Considering all of these discussions above, the author defines creative

thinking in the current study as a rational process in which an individual generates

(sometimes divergently) and selects original, effective options.

Reasons Why Creative Thinking is Important

Creative thinking is essential in our daily lives. The need for creative

thinking enters into various aspects of our lives, which is why we should promote

creative thinking skills for children in school.

Puccio and Murdock (2001) contended that creative thinking is demanded on

multiple levels: individually, in organizations, and in societies. According to them,

many problems that have no preset solution and a number of opportunities that have

no prescribed pathway to success demand creative thinking. Such problems and

opportunities exist in every facet of our daily lives from household planning to

leisure and recreation to work (Puccio & Murdock, 2001, p. 69). Also, they asserted

that it is imperative that schools nurture the creative thinking skills of all students to

prepare them to join the work force. Furthermore, they insisted that in order to

preserve a society and promote its growth, creative thinking plays a critical role.

Torrance also held the same opinions as Puccio and Murdock by stating that

it became clear that creative thinking is important in mental health, educational

achievement, vocational success, and many other important areas in life( Torrance,

1965, pp. 10-11). He also explained that it is impossible to prepare school children to

cope with all the demands that they will encounter due to all the changes which they

will experience.

Onda (1994) maintained that creativity plays an important role in students

academic achievement. According to him, creativity influences students academic


23/102

14

performance. In a Japanese research study, a strong, positive correlation was found

between academic performance and creativity among elementary and junior high

school students (Onda, 1994). He discussed another research result showing that

university students creativity had strong influence on their academic performance.

The study revealed a high, positive correlation between their creativity and grades

upon their graduation (Onda, 1994).

Cropley (2001) pointed out the importance of creativity in maintaining

mental health. He argued that creativity enhances mental health. According to him,

studies of highly creative people indicated that creativity is related to psychological

properties such as flexibility, openness, autonomy, humor, willingness to try things,

and realistic self-assessment. He considered that creativity and mental health seem to

be connected at least at the level of everyday creativity.

The study of Carnevale, Gainer and Meltzer (1990) revealed that creative

thinking skills are needed in the workplace. They made a thirty-month research study

on essential workplace skills that employers wanted their employees to have. They

organized their research findings into the list of sixteen skills. One of those skills

turned out to be creative thinking. The research also demonstrated that employers

wanted to improve the creative problem-solving skills of their employees because, in

the workplace, creative thinking is generally manifested through the process of

creative problem solving (Carnevale, Gainer & Meltzer 1990). Those researchers

argued that an organizations ability to achieve its strategic objectives often depends

on its capability to utilize the skills of problem solving and creative thinking.

Rogers (1957) insisted that there is a desperate social need for the creative

behavior of creative individuals. For example, he stated that our education tends to

turn our children into conformists rather than freely creative thinkers. He also


24/102

15

contended that the number of scientists who can make creative hypotheses was small.

His insistence for the need of creative thinking in the society was condensed into the

following words: Unless man can make new and original adaptations to his

environment as rapidly as his science can change the environment, our culture will

perish (Rogers, 1957, p. 70).

As these various scholars asserted, creative thinking plays an essential role in

our lives. Therefore, we must cultivate creative thinking skills in schools.

Research on the Degree to Which Creativity can be Taught

Numerous researchers argue that creativity can be taught and increased

(Cropley, 2001; Davis, 1999; Houtz, 2003; Treffinger & Isaksen, 2001; Onda, 1994;

Parnes, 1997; Torrance & Safter, 1999). Nickerson (1999) mentioned that data

supporting the assumption that creativity cannot be enhanced are meager. Treffinger

and Isaksen (2001) were more assertive when they discussed the possibility of

increasing creativity. They stated, We need no more theses or dissertations on the

simple question, Can we, through some deliberate instructional or training program,

enhance performance on some specified measure of creativity?(p. 443) because

creativity and problem solving skills can be taught (p. 443).

Here, it seems appropriate to discuss research studies that support their

notions. The following is one of the extensive empirical studies that succeeded in

enhancing creativity. From 1970 to 1972, Parnes and Noller (Parnes, 1987; Parnes &

Noller, 1972a, 1972b, 1972c, 1973) made an experimental research study on the

development of creativity at Buffalo State College, State University of New York. The

study was called the Creative Studies Project. They divided 350 incoming college

freshmen into an experimental group and a control group. The former group was


25/102

16

provided with a sequence of four semester-long, credit-bearing courses in the Creative

Studies program for two years. The experimentals received the training mainly in

Creative Problem Solving, Synectics, Creative Analysis, and SCAMPER (Parnes &

Noller, 1972c). The study involved some 200 research measurements over the two-

year period on the experimentals and the controls who did not take creativity courses.

Over all, the research findings showed that the students participating in the

courses performed significantly better than comparable controls in applying their

creative abilities (Parnes, 1987). For example, in special tests given in English classes

the experimentals showed more positive results (Parnes & Noller, 1972b). In this

research, they gave English-related creativity tests to the sub samples of the

experimentals and the controls in English classes. They found that two out of five

tests showed significant results, with the other three scoring in the same direction all

favoring the experimentals.

At the end of the two years, there were nine measures that showed significant

differences in favor of the students completing four semesters of creativity courses

(Parnes, 1987). One of those nine measures required participants to create a plan of

action to improve research testing operations, which were a problem of current

concern to professional researchers (i.e., a real life problem). Two researchers rated

their plans. Thirty-seven percent of the controls plans were average or above; 73% of

the experimentals plans were found to have been average or above. The difference in

percentages was statistically highly significant.

In addition, Parnes and Noller (1972b) administered the tests of Guilfords

Structure of Intellect(SOI) to experimentals and controls. The tests were made up of a

pre-test and 32 post-tests made during the four successive semesters. The

experimentals were significantly superior to the controls on 20 tests out of the total 32


26/102

17

tests (Parnes & Noller, 1972b). These two scholars found that the experimentals

scored significantly better than the controls on the semantic (16 significantly out of 27

post-tests) and behavioral (4 significantly out of 9 post-tests) scales of the SOI. In

three of five of the mental operations (i.e., cognition, divergent production and

convergent production), the experimentals also outperformed the controls (7

significantly out of 10 post-tests for cognition, 9 significantly out of 14 for divergent

production, and 4 significantly out of 8 for convergent production).

The experimentals not only had strong positive results on the tests of the

Creative Studies Projects; they also had positive (but not significant) movement on

personality measures (Parnes, 1987). Besides, the experimentals showed a growing

tendency (not statistical significance) to become more productive in their non-

academic achievement in areas calling for creative performance (Parnes, 1987).

The study introduced next is another investigation that examined whether

creativity can be taught. Scott, Leritz and Mumford (2004a) made a quantitative

review of the prior 70 studies of creativity training programs. Their two goals were to

assess the overall effectiveness of creativity training and to identify the key

characteristics of training content and delivery methods that influenced the relative

success of creativity training interventions. They found that well-designed creativity

training can yield gains in performance with divergent thinking, problem-solving,

creative performance, and attitude/behavior.

To deicide which studies were to be evaluated in this meta-analysis, they

identified the studies included in prior meta-analysis efforts and the available general

reviews of creativity training, examining data bases such as Psychological Abstracts

and ERIC. They also contacted the authors of each article recognized in the initial

literature review and asked them to provide them with any previously unpublished


27/102

18

studies they had conducted that might be included in their meta-analysis.

Furthermore, they contacted some 50 consulting firms involved in creative training

and asked them to provide any available course evaluation data along with relevant

descriptions material.

At this point, they obtained 156 studies that were candidates for potential

inclusion in the meta-analysis. As a result of their further rigorous evaluation of those

156 studies, they narrowed them down to 70 studies to be included in their meta-

analysis.

To identify whether or not creativity training is effective, effect size estimates

were obtained for each treatment-dependent variable pair. Those dependent variables

(the things that each creativity training aimed to enhance in the participants) were

grouped into four general categories. They were divergent thinking (fluency,

flexibility, originality, elaboration), problem-solving production of original solution to

novel problems), performance (generation of creative product), and attitudes and

behaviors (reactions to creative ideas, creative efforts initiated).

To identify the key characteristics of training content and delivery methods

that affected the success of creativity training, Scott et al. conducted a content

analysis. In this analysis, about 100 characteristics of the treatments in the 70 studies

were assessed for effect size estimates with those four dependent variables. For

example, the training characteristics assessed were age differences of participants,

setting of trainings (academic vs. occupational), academic achievement of

participants, framework stressed in the design of course content (i.e., cognitive, social,

personal, motivational, or confluential), techniques stressed in training course (e.g.,

critical thinking, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, ideation, brainstorming),

and so on.


28/102

19

As a result of their meta-analysis, Scott et al. obtained the a substantial

overall effect size (0.68; SE=0.09) of creativity training across the four criteria (e.g.,

divergent thinking, problem solving). In the cases of divergent thinking and problem

solving criteria, their effect sizes were 0.75 (SE=0.11) and 0.84 (SE=0.13)

respectively. As for performance and attitudes/behavior criteria, they yielded effect

size estimates of 0.35 (SE=0.11) and 0.24 (SE=0.13) respectively. Scott et al.

articulated that creativity training provided some noteworthy effects on performance

and attitudes/behavior and had a particularly strong influence on divergent thinking

and problem solving.

The following results are some of the ones that they obtained as a result from

the content analysis. Creativity training was effective in the following:

different age groups of younger than 14 (ES=0.67; SE=0.10) and older than 14(ES=0.59; SE=0.13),

both academic (ES=0.65; SE=0.08) and organizational (ES=1.41; SE=0.37)settings, and

the students of various academic achievements such as non-gifted (ES=0.72;SE=0.08), low achieving (ES=0.68; SE=0.08), high achieving (ES=0.66;

SE=0.38), and gifted students (ES=0.38; SE=0.23).

Furthermore, successful training tended to be based on a cognitive-framework with its

effect size (r=0.31; =0.24), which was higher than the effect size estimates of the

other theoretical frameworks. Also, they found that four techniques stressed in

training courses, that is, Divergent Thinking, Convergent Thinking, Ideation, and

Brainstorming, yielded large effect sizes on attitude/behavior criteria with 0.49, 0.62,

0.64, and 0.35 respectively. Discussing all of the findings of this meta-analysis, they

made a succinct conclusion that Creativity training works (p. 382).


29/102

20

CPS is One of the Best Ways to Teach Creative Thinking in the Classroom

As demonstrated through research (Parnes,1987; Parnes & Nollers, 1972a,

1972b, 1972c, 1973; Soctt, Leritz and Mumford, 2004a), creative thinking can be

taught and enhanced. The author of this present study argues that creative thinking

can be most successfully nurtured when its training program utilizes Creative Problem

Solving (CPS).

History of CPS

CPS emerged through several decades of work by a number of writers,

developers, researchers, and trainers (Treffinger, 2000). Alex F. Osborn developed the

original description of CPS. In 1952, Osborn published a seven-stage CPS process,

based on his work in the advertising field. The stages were: orientation,preparation,

analysis, hypothesis, incubation,synthesis, and verification (Treffinger, 2000).

In 1963 Osborn presented his modified conception of CPS. He condensed the

seven-stage process into three stages:fact-finding(problem definition and

preparation), idea-finding(idea production and development), andsolution-finding

(evaluation and adoption of a final solution). Also he began to work with Sidney

Parnes around that time.

In the 1960s Parnes and his colleagues developed and tested experimentally

the five-stage revision of Osborn's original framework comprised offact-finding,

problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding(Treffinger,

2000). This revised framework came to be known as Osborn-Parnes approach to

creative problem solving (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004). It was diverse and drew


30/102

21

various tools and methods from other creativity and problem solving models (Isaksen

& Treffinger, 2004). This version was used in the Creative Studies Project.

In the 1970s Ruth Noller worked with Parnes and others in succeeding

developments and applications of the early five-step model (Treffinger, 2000). In

1976, these efforts resulted in the their depiction of the five-step CPS model, which

illustrated for the first time the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking in the

CPS process (Treffinger, 2000). This model continued to be broadly disseminated in

the 1970s and 1980s (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004).

Meanwhile, since the introduction by Osborn of CPS in 1952, there had been

a number of limitations in regard to the model. For example, CPS was seen as

focusing mainly on divergence and was often confused with brainstorming (Isaksen,

1996). Therefore, Isaksen, Treffinger, and Firestien (1982) introduced a range of

convergent tools to balance the prior focus on divergent tools.

Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) also introduced the six divergent rules and six

convergent rules. Previously CPS had lacked explicit principles to carry out diverging

and converging steps successfully, so people had had to rely on their intuition

(Treffinger, 2000). However, these new rules enabled people to make a constant

quality performance of CPS.

Introducing those tools and rules, Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) articulated

the necessity of a more deliberate balance between the divergent and convergent

phases within CPS. They explained the importance of the dynamic balance (Isaksen

& Treffinger, 1985) by mentioning that it enabled people to establish a reasonable

balance between generating numerous ideas and making good choices and decisions

about them.


31/102

22

In addition to the notion of the dynamic balance, Isaksen and Treffinger

(1985) added to CPS a sixth deliberate step called Mess-Finding. The stage put at the

front end of the process involved exploring peoples interests and concerns to

consider a number of general topics that might serve as starting-points for CPS.

Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) also discussed a bucket analogy of using

CPS. Their idea was to treat each of the six stages as if it were a large bucket holding

many tools. The analogy suggested that the components, stages, and phases of CPS

might be used in a variety of different orders or sequences, based upon the needs of a

problem solver (Treffinger, 2000). Because the description of CPS continued to depict

a linear series of stages for problem-solving activity. According to Isaksen and Dorval

(1993), CPS practitioners in the 1980s kept using the prescriptive application of CPS.

In 1987, Isaksen and Treffinger concluded that because of the new process

modifications, the entire CPS process could no longer be properly run through in one

setting. This finding was also confirmed by examining how people actually applied

CPS in real problem-solving situations (Treffinger, 2000). To resolve this issue, the

six stages of CPS were organized into three main components: Understanding the

Problem, Generating Ideas, andPlanning for Action (Isaksen & Dorval, 1993). CPS

became a process composed of three components and six stages at this point.

Also, the constructivist movement in educational research and learning

theory in the early 1990s influenced the thinking of Isaksen and Treffinger about more

flexible approaches to CPS (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004). This movement led them to

a concept that it was important to enable people to personalize their understanding

and application of CPS. They considered that the implementation of the concept

would enhance the power and practicality of CPS. This concept change led to another

big shift of perception toward CPS.


32/102

23

In 1993, Isaksen and Dorval changed the graphic depiction of CPS

substantially: the framework was completely broken apart into three independent

components. This critical development of the CPS graphic was expected to promote a

completely descriptive use of CPS.

Furthermore, in 1994, based on the development, Isaksen, Dorval and

Treffinger created two new, free-standing stages for CPS: Task AppraisalandProcess

Planning. The former determined the appropriateness of the use of CPS, and the latter

planned three things: the entry point into the framework, the pathway through it, and

the exit from it. These two stages prepared problem solvers to carry out the remaining

six-stage process of CPS. As a result, the stages enabled them to avoid wasting energy

and efforts on activities that they did not really need (Treffinger, 2000).

In 1995, Miller, Vehar, and Firestien (2001) modified the process to make it

easier to understand and use. Accordingly, the names of the components and stages

were changed into plain English (See Table 2.1).


33/102

24

Table 2.1

The Comparisons of the Names of the CPS Components and Stages among the three

models

_Osborn-Parnes

CPS

Isaksen et als

CPSMiller et al.s CPS

Understanding the Explore the

Problem Challenge

Components N/A Generating Ideas Generate Ideas

Planning for

ActionPrepare for Action

Objective-FindingConstructingopportunities

IdentifyGoal/Wish/Challenge

Fact-Finding Exploring Data Gather Data

Problem-Finding Framing Problems Clarify the Problem

Stages

Idea-Finding Generating Ideas Generate Ideas

Solution-FindingDeveloping

Solutions

Select & Strengthen

Solutions

Acceptance-FindingBuilding

AcceptancePlan for Action

Appraising Tasks

_ _

Designing Process

Reasons Why CPS is One of the Best Ways to Teach Creative Thinking in the

Classroom

Just as Puccio and Murdock (2001) maintained that creative thinking can be

taught and enhanced through such methods as Creative Problem Solving (p. 71), this

present study, too, claims that creative thinking can be fostered through CPS. It is

because they are closely related to each other. CPS has six stages and each stage

includes the generation of options and the selection of appropriate ones. This

mechanism is the same as the definition of creative thinking that was presented earlier

in the current chapter. Thus, when an individual is using CPS, he/she is thinking

creatively.


34/102

25

Guilford (1977) described the close relationship between problem solving

and creative thinking in a different way. According to him, creative thinking produces

novel outcomes, and problem solving involves producing a new response to a new

situation, which is a novel outcome. Therefore, he concluded that it is possible that

creative thinking may be described as another form of problem solving.

There are several studies which support the discussion that using CPS

nurtures creative thinking. Two of them are Torrances research made in 1972 and

1983. In the former study, Torrance (1972) reviewed the results of 142 studies

published between 1960 and 1972. These studies included a wide range of training

methods from facilitating testing conditions and motivation, to the manipulation of

teacher-classroom variables, to complex programs involving packages of materials, to

the creative arts, and to Osborn-Parnes CPS program. The best results appeared with

those experiments using the various modifications of the Osborn-Parnes training

program. They reached success rates of over 90 percent (# of the studies of the

Osborn-Parnes CPS at the elementary/secondary level=22, # of successful

studies=20.0, percentage of successful studies =91%). Torrance (1972) sounded

confident in regard to the effectiveness of CPS training programs by stating that

almost any regular practitioner of this approach to teaching children to think

creatively could furnish dozens of unpublished studies with results equally as

impressive (p. 192).

In 1983, Torrance (1987) also examined 166 experimental studies at the

elementary and secondary level conducted since the 1972 survey. Again, Osborn-

Parnes CPS, or its modification for the elementary and secondary level, achieved the

highest success ratio among various training methods of creativity (# of studies=7, #

of successful studies =6.2, percentage of successful studies =88 %). The combined


35/102

26

results of the surveys of 1972 and 1983 showed a success ratio of 90% (26.2

successes out of 29 studies at the elementary and secondary level).

Another study that reviewed the research of creativity training programs was

conducted by Rose and Lyn in 1984. They (1984) examined six long-term creativity

training programs through a meta-analysis of 46 studies. In order to select appropriate

studies to analyze, they used the following criteria: the study must include the effect

of a series of lessons or training treatments; it must use the Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking (TTCT) or its modified forms as the assessment instrument; and it must

provide enough data to calculate an effect size. Eight studies were analyzed to

examine the effectiveness of Osborn-Parnes CPS program. Their meta-analysis

showed that CPS had the most consistent, positive impact on the TTCT scores with

the overall positive effect size (Effect Size, .629). Their study also revealed that the

most positive effect of CPS training was on verbal scores with 1.076 (ES), which had

a very large impact(p. 20). They found that CPS training programs substantially

impacted on verbal originality (ES = 1.135), verbal fluency (ES = 1.211) and

flexibility (ES = .883). Their meta-analysis clearly revealed the strong impact of

Osborn-Parnes CPS training programs on verbal creativity. It supports the

effectiveness of CPS training program to enhance creative thinking.

Another meta-analytic study illustrated that a cognitively-oriented approach

to creativity training, such as CPS training, enhanced creative thinking. Scott, Leritz,

and Mumford (2004b) conducted a meta-analysis about the types of creativity training

and their effectiveness. They collected the literature on 156 creativity training

programs. They conducted a content analysis to assess the programs with regard to

cognitive processes, training techniques, media, and types of practice exercises. They

implemented a cluster analysis to determine the major types of training and a meta-


36/102

27

analysis to identify the effectiveness of each type of training. As a result of the cluster

analysis, 11 types of creativity training emerged. One of them was a CPS-based

training, which they called Creative Process Training (p. 165). According to their

meta-analysis, Creative Process Training or a CPS-based training proved successful.

That type of creativity training produced the second largest effect size of 1.08. Hence,

Scott et al. concluded that Creative Process Training (i.e., CPS-based training) was

one of the most effective training types.

Research Studies on the Benefits of CPS Training with Students

CPS training can enhance creative thinking as Torrance, Rose and Lyn, and

Scott et al. discussed in their reviews of research. Also it has been proven that CPS

training with students can equip them to utilize creative thinking to solve problems

creatively. The following are the four research studies that support this point.

The first study shows that it is possible for middle school students to transfer

CPS skills after undergoing CPS training. Crammond, Martin and Shaw (1990)

investigated the generalizability of creative problem solving to real life problems.

They studied whether students trained in CPS would generalize such training to solve

problems presented out of the context of the training sessions. Seventy-eight sixth,

seventh, and eighth grade gifted students participated in the study. They were

randomly assigned to either of two experimental groups or a control group. The first

experimental group (n=28) received traditional CPS training, and the second

experimental group (n=25) received CPS training with transfer strategies involved.

The control group (n=25) received training in various memory tasks, analogical skills,

and logic exercises. Each group of students met independently with an experimenter

for sixteen sessions (40 min/ each) during eight weeks. After the training, all students


37/102

28

were given a problem solving task during which they were observed, and also given a

follow-up interview. Individual test protocols were examined for evidence of the

application of CPS strategies.

The percentages of students in each group who showed various problem

solving behaviors were calculated and the results were analyzed. As a result, it was

found that the second experimental group (the one with transfer strategies) applied

CPS skills more frequently in the follow-up problem solving task than the first

experimental group and the control group with statistically significant differences

among the groups (F= 3.86, p


38/102

29

ability compared with controls, with no significant differences among ability level

(p


39/102

30

convergent tools. The children could share their thoughts and ideas through drawings

and manipulatives. They recognized the components and stages. These findings

indicate that young children can apply CPS to solve real problems.

Summary

This chapter discussed the reasons creative thinking must be fostered and

argued that the best way to teach creative thinking in the classroom is CPS. The first

part of the chapter presented the authors definition of creative thinking, the reasons

why creative thinking is important, and the research showing that creative thinking

can be developed. The second part of the chapter discussed the history of CPS, the

reasons why CPS is one of the best ways to teach creative thinking in the classroom,

and research studies on the benefits of CPS training with school children.


40/102

31

Chapter 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING THE STUDY

Introduction

This chapter reviews the methods and a procedure used in this study. It

describes the rationale for methodology first and the participants next. Then it

discusses the instrument used to gather data. Finally it presents the procedures for data

collection and analysis.

Rationale for Methodology

This study was designed to investigate how school teachers use Creative

Problem Solving (CPS). The research questions were: 1) What CPS tools, principles,

and concepts are used most often by educators; 2) How do they use these tools,

principles, and concepts; and 3) What impact do they believe the use of CPS has on

their students.

To the first research question, this study utilized a quantitative approach

because the answer to the question would be gained by analysis using numbers.

Specifically, respondents could use a number scale to indicate how often they use

various aspects of CPS. As for the second and third questions, a qualitative approach

was employed because those questions were exploratory in nature and so the answers

to the questions were expected to be descriptive.

Participants

The participants of the current study were the alumni and current students of

the International Center for the Studies in Creativity who have taught in primary


41/102

32

schools and secondary schools. To decide who could be participants in the present

study, the author obtained lists of the alumni and current students from the Center and

information on them from its faculty members.

As for the occupations of the alumni, one of the Centers lists identified

them. But for the purpose of making certain to cover as many teaching alumni as

possible, the author asked one of the faculty members of the Center, who is familiar

with the occupations of the alumni, about who had taught in school.

The current students were selected to be participants, only if they had taught

in school and had already taken CRS 670, the course called Foundations in Teaching

and Training Creativity. The stated purpose of this graduate course is an overview of

facilitation models, processes, and techniques; analysis of facilitation practices.

Investigation of learning and leadership styles, with emphasis on application for

creative problem solving; structured observation and participation in creative studies

undergraduate course (the College Relations Office, 2002, p. 76). Therefore, the

current students who had taken CRS 670 were expected to know how to teach by

utilizing CPS.

In order to identify the current students who had taken CRS670 and had

taught in school, two kinds of lists were considered: one is an occupational list of the

current students and the other, the lists of the current students who had taken CRS670.

The Center provided the author with the occupational list and so he was able to

identify who had taught in school among the current students. To find out who had

taken CRS670 among those students, the author acquired from the Center the lists of

the students who had finished the course during the semesters of 2001, 2002, and

2003. The author didnt need any further lists of such students, because he found that

if they had taken 670 six semesters before, they basically had graduated from the


42/102

33

program already during the selection of the participants for this study. Thus, they were

thought to be already on the alumni list.

In order to choose participants qualified for the current study, the author

selected 50 alumni and current students from those lists (as of March 2004).

Measurement

The current study used the instrument called the Survey of School Teachers

Use of Creative Problem Solving (SSTUCPS) (See Appendix C). This instrument was

created by the author based on the measurement of Wheelers Creative Problem

Solving Course Survey (Wheeler, 2001). In 2001, Wheeler investigated the impact of

Creative Problem Solving training through an examination of individual differences.

His study utilized two measures. One was the Buffalo Creative Process Inventory,

which is now calledFoursight. The other was the Creative Problem Solving Course

Survey, which the current study adapted and modified.

The SSTUCPS in this current study contained three distinctive parts: Part I

asked the participants how often they have applied aspects of CPS in their classes,

Part II was about how they have used aspects of CPS, and Part III tried to identify

perceived impact the use of CPS has had on their students. Each part of the survey

was designed to correspond to one of the research questions of the current study. Part

I related to the question of what CPS tools, principles, and concepts are used most

often by educators. Part II dealt with how they used these tools, principles, and

concepts. Part III was associated with the question of what impact they believed the

use of CPS had on their students.

The response format for the SSTUCPS varied. In Part I, the participants were

asked to think how often they had used each item in Part I in their classes. Then they


43/102

34

were asked to put R if they had used it regularly, O if they had used it

occasionally, and leave the space blank if they had never used it. The rationale for this

system of identification in Part I was that it was expected to raise the possibilities that

the participants would respond to the questionnaire mailed to them. They were

teachers and therefore busy in their daily lives. So, the author decided to employ for

their convenience the R-O-blank system which was created by his consultation with

three faculty members of the Center. For Part II and III, since they were open-ended

questions (To help us understand how you have applied aspects of CPS in your

classroom, please provide some brief examples for the items above that you marked

with an R for Part II and What impact(s) do you believe your use of the item(s)

marked R has had on your students? for Part III), the participants were asked to

describe their answers freely.

Procedure

The SSTUCPS was mailed to 50 participants in March of 2004. Twenty-three

answers came back by the end of June of that year. One of the participants did not

answer Part I. Besides, she mentioned that she used CPS only after she had changed

her career from teaching to therapy, which means that she had not utilized CPS in her

class. Thus, her response was excluded from the analysis for the current study.

Therefore, the number of participants considered for the data analysis was 22.

Data Analysis

This study utilized two approaches to data analysis. A quantitative approach

was used to analyze the data of Part I. A qualitative approach was employed for Part II

and Part III.


44/102

35

Part I.

Prior to the whole data analysis, the participants were assigned subject

numbers (e.g., #1, #2, #3...). Next, the R, O, and Never were converted into

numeric scores. Two points were assigned to the items marked Regularly. One point

was provided for the ones marked Occasionally. Zero point was given to the items

that were not marked at all. Then, the total points for each item across the 22

participants were calculated. Descriptions were then calculated and one-way ANOVA

was used to compare mean scores. When the results from the data analysis revealed

statistically significant differences, a post hoc test with Tukey HSD was carried out to

identify which groups differ from each other.

Part II and III.

Part II and Part III employed qualitative analysis, because their data were

descriptive and the purpose of Part II and III was to discover meaningful patterns

from the verbal responses of the participants. To analyze the data of Part II and Part

III, the current study adoptedLogico-inductive analysis (Charles & Mertler, 2002).

Charles and Mertler stated that it is a method of analyzing qualitative data by

applying logical thought processes (p. 382). According to them, the analysis involves

these stages: 1) identify topics in data, 2) cluster topics into categories, 3) form

categories into patterns, and 4) make explanations from what the patterns suggest.

The data of Part II went through this analysis. First, the verbal, descriptive

answers of the participants were explored to find their comments about how they had

used aspects of CPS. Next, the comments found valuable were grouped based on their

similarities. These groups were given topic themes. Then, they were clustered into

categories based on the similarities among the themes (e.g., categories such as


45/102

36

Lesson Planning and Lesson of Writing). Those categories were reviewed to

identify meaningful patterns. Finally, patterns were used to draw conclusions.

The data analysis of Part III was basically the same as Part II. First, the data

were examined to discover pertinent comments. The comments found pertinent were

clustered into topic groups, which were provided topic themes. They were then

clustered into categories based on their similarities. The categories were studied in

order to form patterns. Finally, the explanations of the patterns were considered.

After the author identified categories in Part II and Part III, a CPS trained

individual was asked to organize the qualitative data from the two questions into the

categories created by the author. A comparison between the author and the rater for

the data collected for was 78 %. The 78 % level of agreement was reached for both

Part II and Part III.

Summary

This chapter examined the methods and procedures used in the current study.

Rationale for methodology, participants, measurement, procedure, and data analysis

were reviewed.


46/102

37

Chapter 4

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the analysis of the

data collected for this study. Quantitative and qualitative data are presented. First, the

results from the data analysis for Part I of the survey administered in the study are

reported. Next, the qualitative data of Part II are described. Finally, the chapter

concludes with the presentation of the qualitative data from Part III.

Findings of Part I

The question that the participants reported to in Part I was Think of how

often you use each of the listed CPS components, principles, stages, and tools

presented. In front of each of these items, put either the letterR if you have used it

regularly; the letterO if you have occasionally used it. And leave blank if you have

never used it. The data from the 22 participants who answered the question were

analyzed. In the analysis, the letters that the participants provided were converted into

points respectively with Rinto 2, O into 1, and blank into 0.

In this section, first, the descriptive statistics are presented. Next, the results

from the Kruskal-Wallis test are reported. Then, the outcomes from one-way ANOVA

are introduced. Finally, the results of post hoc tests are presented.


47/102

38

Mean and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of the Use of the Components,

Principles, Stages, and Tools of the CPS in Classes

Table 4.1 to 4.4 show mean and standard deviations for how often the

teachers reported using the CPS components, principles, stages, and tools in classes. If

an item acquires the mean score of more than 1.00, then it means that the teachers

who answered the current survey have used the item more than occasionally in their

classes.

Table 4.1

Mean and Standard Deviations for the Three Components of the Survey of School

Teachers Use of Creative Problem SolvingVariables Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Explore the Challenge 0.00 2.00 1.64 0.58

Generate Ideas 1.00 2.00 1.77 0.48

Prepare for Action 0.00 2.00 1.59 0.59

(n = 22)

Table 4.1 displays the mean and standard deviations for the frequency of the

use of the CPS components in classes. The component, Generate Ideas, acquired the

highest mean score with 1.77 (SD = 0.48).Prepare for Action had the lowest mean

score with 1.59 (SD = 0.59).

Table 4.2

Mean and Standard Deviations for the 12 Principles of the Survey of SchoolTeachers Use of Creative Problem Solving

Variables Minimum Maximum Mean SD

0.00 2.00 0.91 0.87Dynamic Balance

Divergent Thinking 1.00 2.00 1.91 0.29Defer Judgment

Strive for Quantity 1.00 2.00 1.91 0.29

1.00 2.00 1.95 0.21

Seek Wild Ideas 1.00 2.00 1.82 0.39

Build on Other Ideas 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00

Convergent Thinking

Affirmative Judgment 0.00 2.00 1.55 0.74

1.00 2.00 1.86 0.35

Be Deliberate 0.00 2.00 1.36 0.79

Check Your Objectives 0.00 2.00 1.36 0.79

0.00 2.00 1.82 0.59Improve Ideas

Consider Novelty 0.00 2.00 1.55 0.74

(n = 22)


48/102

39

Table 4.2 outlines the mean and standard deviations for the frequency of the

use of the CPS principles in classes. The variables consisted of the 12 principles of

CPS.Build on Other Ideas acquired the highest mean score with 2.00 (SD = 0.00).

This means that every participant of this survey answered that they used this principle

regularly in their classes.Dynamic Balance gained the lowest mean score of 0.91 (SD

= 0.87).

It is interesting to note that whileDivergent Thinkingobtained the third

highest mean score with 1.91 and Convergent Thinkingacquired the fourth highest

with 1.86,Dynamic Balance, the concept that consists of those two thinking

processes, gained the lowest mean score.

Table 4.3Mean and Standard Deviations for the Six Stages of the Survey of School Teachers

Use of Creative Problem Solving


Identify the Goal, Wish, Challenge 0.00 2.00 1.45 0.60

Gather Data 0.00 2.00 1.64 0.58

Clarify the Problem 0.00 2.00 1.41 0.67

Generate Ideas 1.00 2.00 1.73 0.46

Select & Strengthen Solutions 0.00 2.00 1.64 0.58

Plan for Actions 0.00 2.00 1.55 0.60

(n = 22)

Table 4.3 shows the mean and standard deviations for the frequency of the

use of the CPS stages. The variables were six CPS stages. Generate Ideas obtained

the highest mean score in this group with 1.73 (SD = 0.46). The lowest mean score

was acquired by Clarify the Problem. Its mean score was 1.41 (SD = 0.67).


49/102

40

Table 4.4

Mean and Standard Deviations for the 19 Tools of the Survey of School Teachers Useof Creative Problem Solving


0.00 2.00 1.82 0.50Brainstorming

Brainstorming with Post-Its 0.00 2.00 1.32 0.72

Brainwriting

Forced Connections 0.00 2.00 1.09 0.81

0.00 2.00 0.91 0.68

Morphological Matrix

Attribute Listing 0.00 2.00 0.64 0.79

0.00 2.00 0.86 0.83

Word Dance 0.00 2.00 0.59 0.80

SCAMPER 0.00 2.00 0.68 0.78

Visual Connections 0.00 2.00 0.91 0.81

Ladder of Abstraction 0.00 2.00 0.86 0.89

Excursions 0.00 2.00 0.41 0.67

Hits 0.00 2.00 1.59 0.67

Highlighting

Card Sort 0.00 2.00 0.77 0.81

0.00 2.00 1.27 0.88

Targeting

Evaluation Matrix 0.00 2.00 0.95 0.90

0.00 2.00 0.14 0.47

Paired Comparison Analysis

Praise First 0.00 2.00 1.50 0.74

0.00 2.00 0.77 0.81

Stem Power 0.00 2.00 1.27 0.88

(n = 22)

Table 4.4 depicts that the mean and standard deviations for the frequency of

the use of the CPS tools. There were 19 variables. As shown in the table,

Brainstormingacquired the highest mean score in this category with 1.82 (SD =

0.50). Targetinggained the lowest with 0.14 (SD = 0.47). This low score may have

resulted from the fact that the thinking tool has hardly been taught in the Creative

Studies program where they studied; therefore, it is reasonable to think that most of

the participants of the current survey did not know of this tool. The items with a mean

score of more than 1.50 wereBrainstorming(mean = 1.82, SD = 0.50),Hits (mean =

1.59, SD = 0.67), andPraise First(mean = 1.50, SD = 0.74). One of the reasons for

this result may be that these tools can be used by teachers and students with little

preparation in class.


50/

indetifying how school teachers use cps

Documents