Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Many public and private institutions believe other hand, several researchers have maintained
that there is a growing need for employees who that many of the skills and competencies needed
are able to think creatively and solve a wide in working life are seldom obtained at school
range of problems (Grabinger, 1996). On the (e.g., Resnick, 1986). Therefore, competency-
based or performance-based approaches to teams, collaborate, and act as professionals,
108 teacher education have been recommended in confronting problems as they occur with no
order to give students a broader perspective and absolute boundaries. Although they get insuffi-
The Journal of Technology Studies
to equip them to teach technology (Custer, cient information, the students must settle on
1994; Sinn, 1996; Whitty & Willmott, 1991). In the best possible solution by a given date. This
particular, it has been argued that creative prob- type of multistaged process is characteristic of
lem solving is an integral part of technology effective and creative problem solving. These
education, in contrast to an instruction-follow- stages may include (a) formulating the problem,
ing method of technology education, reproduc- (b) recognition of facts related to the problem,
ing artifacts, and teacher-dominated work (De (c) goal setting, (d) ideation or generating alter-
Luca, 1993; Sellwood, 1991; Williams & natives, (e) the evaluation of ideas, (f) choosing
Williams, 1997). Wu, Custer, and Dyrenfurth the solution and, (g) testing and evaluating (De
(1996) suggested even more forcefully that (cre- Luca, 1993; Fisher, 1990; Welch & Lim, 2000).
ative) problem solving should be a core content The process is nonlinear and follows no particu-
area and method of teaching technology. These lar rules because rational approaches miss the
approaches particularly seem to fit technology- entire point of creative problem solving.
oriented modules in teacher education.
In accordance with Hennessy and Murphy
In this article, the Creative Technology (1999), the term collaboration is used in this
Education Project (CTEP) is presented, and article to describe social interaction within a
phases of problem-solving processes in which group or a team, when students actively talk and
the participating primary school student teach- share their cognitive resources, working together
ers generate alternatives and evaluate ideas are to produce a single outcome. They are also sup-
analyzed. The aims of this project were to intro- posed to establish joint goals and referents,
duce technology education goals and contents to making joint decisions, solving emerging prob-
these students, as well as to offer tools for learn- lems, constructing and modifying solutions, and
ing and teaching technology, and to facilitate evaluating the outcomes through dialogue and
personal growth. One purpose of the project was action. Collaboration requires students to active-
to encourage the students to become familiar ly communicate (e.g., negotiate or debate) and
with technology and problem-solving processes work together (e.g., set goals, plan, generate
and to develop especially creative skills and alternatives) with the aim of producing a single
abilities (e.g., ideation and the evaluation of outcome (e.g., an object, a computer program,
ideas). For those purposes, a model was intro- or a technological process/system). The students
duced, named the Overall Mapping of a must then evaluate their outcome through dia-
Problem Situation (OMPS). This model helps logue and action (Hennessy & Murphy, 1999).
students in ideation (the generation of alterna-
tive solutions) and evaluation of ideas when When problem solving is creative, the ideas
working on project teams. This model was prac- or products produced during the problem-solv-
ticed with concrete technology education proj- ing process are both original and appropriate
ects. Thus, the project focus was on collabora- (Fisher, 1990). For these purposes, various idea-
tive problem solving, with special emphasis on generation techniques or ideation models are
ideation and the positive evaluation of ideas. valuable (Smith, 1998). The number of alterna-
tive solutions is important because the best way
Creative and Collaborative to come up with good ideas is to have plenty of
Problem Solving choice (Parker, 1991). Consequently, the out-
Different ways to emphasize creative prob- come of creative problem-solving activities
lem solving in small groups have been suggest- depends largely on the creative processes and
ed (e.g., Dooley, 1997; Grabinger, 1996; Hill, ideation techniques that have been learned and
1999). A common feature of these approaches is applied. Furthermore, there are factors of atti-
to place students in the midst of a realistic, ill- tude (interest, motivation, and confidence), cog-
defined, complex, and meaningful problem with nitive ability (knowledge, memory, and think-
no obvious or correct solution. Students work in ing-skill), and experience (familiarity with con-
tent, context, and strategies) that influence prob- evaluation of these alternatives.
lem-solving processes (Fisher, 1990). For exam- 109
ple, nonjudgmental positive feedback and the The following questions guided this study:
students became familiar with the OMPS group processes that generated creative alterna-
method by using it to plan a bridge or tower to tives (Higgins, 1994). During the planning
be constructed out of newspapers. phase, the teams identified, on average, 3.8 (SD
= 1.30) facts and expressed 2.1 (SD = 1.6) opin-
During the planning phase of the project ions related to the problem. The teams set, on
(four to eight hours), the groups of 3 to 4 stu- average, 2.7 (SD = 1.0) goals and created 1.9
dents worked in 24 collaborative teams accord- (SD = 1.2) visions. They generated, on average,
ing to the basic principles of the OMPS method 3.4 (SD = 0.59) problem-solving approaches
and generated a map of the creative process (see and 7.3 (SD = 2.4) ideas as to how to solve the
Figure 1). First, the students had to find, formu- problem. In the subsequent maps, there were
late, and specify the problem (How could some- 13.6 (SD = 7.7) positive evaluations of the pre-
thing be done differently?) and recognize the sented ideas and 3.9 (SD = 3.4) constructive
facts (agreed by the team) and opinions related how questions. Some teams presented their
to the problem. Next, the teams set the problem ideas in figures.
or team assignments in a cogent phrase, such as:
How can an interesting electric toy be con- During the creative process, it was also pos-
structed differently? or How can a game be sible to ask constructive questions about the
designed differently? In addition, the students idea or to combine, redefine, and piggyback
had to set the goals and visions (ideal perform- ideas. After generating dozens of ideas, students
ance). Then, the students had to create suitable chose the most appropriate solution by compar-
approaches for solving the problem and to gen- ing the positive feedback and constructive ques-
erate problem-solving alternatives. Every alter- tions that related to each idea. Typically, the
native idea was subsequently backed up by pre- final solution was a combination of several orig-
senting at least three reasons for its adoption. inal ideas. During the ideation phase, the stu-
Nonjudgmental positive feedback and the dents were encouraged to follow the creative
acceptance of all ideas, even absurd or impracti- rules and to utilize idea generation techniques
cal ones, were held as important rules during all while working in collaborative groups. After
selecting the final ideas, students then planned The items were located randomly in the
out how they would construct the structure or questionnaire, which was accessible over the 111
perform the process. Internet, and the students were asked to fill in
easier for us to describe how these 85 students 0.43) to the second factor dealing with the stu-
experienced creative problem-solving process- dents success in ideation.
es during the CTEP.
Factor 2, productive ideation, consisting of
On an aggregate level, these four factors six items, explained 11.3% of the variance indi-
explained 57.2% of the common variance, with cating students opinion about their ideation
eigenvalues of 6.19, 2.14, 1.42, and 1.13, and skills. Two items (F2-I1 and F2-I4) indicate the
percentages of total variance of 32.57%, quality of the ideas. It is important that ideas
11.26%, 7.46%, and 5.96%, respectively. The generated during a creative process are
communality, 57.2%, indicated that four factors originalotherwise one should label the process
could be used satisfactorily as predictors for all as routine. It is also important that the students
19 variables. Moreover, the extent to which each learn to combine and develop others ideas fur-
item played a role in the interpretation of the ther. The key issue for success in creative
factors was high. The eigenvalues indicated that processes is how the creative power of the group
Factor 1 covered most of the variance, and the can be utilized in finding fresh ideas. The num-
other factors each contributed about the same ber of ideas (F2-I2, F2-I5) is also connected to
amount to the explanation of the variances. their quality. It is known that in the beginning of
an ideation session common, familiar ideas typi-
Each of the four factors indicating the stu- cally come to mind. Therefore, if there are many
dents perspectives regarding problem-solving ideas in the group, at least some of them will be
processes and variables (items) that described of high quality. It is important to use creativity
the highest loading on each factor are presented (F2-I6) and to be both intuitive and systematic
in Table 1. Three items also had loadings over in turn (F2-I3) during the process of ideation.
0.30 on other than their main factors, and these Item F2-I6 also had a high loading (0.40) on the
are commented upon below. The factors were fourth factor, which in this case dealt with posi-
labeled on the basis of researcher discussion on tive attitude.
variables (items) loading on a factor. The means
and standard deviations of each item are also Factor 3, collaborative support and evalua-
presented in Table 1. tion, consisting of four items, explained 7.5% of
the variance. Items F3-I1 and F3-I4 indicate that
Factor 1, success in problem-solving students learned to express their feedback posi-
processes, explained 32.5% of the total variance tively and constructively. The two remaining
and included seven items. The first two items items (F3-I2, F3-I3) deal with positive attitudes
(F1-I1 and F1-I2) loading on this factor are con- when evaluating ideas.
nected to the problem-solving processes.
Recognizing problems in ones surroundings The remaining two statements loaded on
(F1-I6) and restricting a problem (F1-I7) belong Factor 4, positive attitude, explained 6.0% of the
to the first phase of the process and are, there- variance. Item F4-I1 indicates that students
fore, a natural starting point for the problem- behaved positively, and the other item (F4-I2)
solving process. The creative atmosphere that is deals with a positive attitude as regards the cre-
indicated in items F1-I5 and F1-I3 is necessary ative process.
to establish a creative problem-solving process,
but it is not sufficient to ensure that one can be Means of the first two items loading on
launched. Another prerequisite for success Factor F1 were 3.6 and 3.7. Thus, most students
would be knowledge about ideation techniques thought that they had learned about the nature
and ideation skills. These perspectives to prob- of creative processes and how to work according
lem-solving processes are indicated in items F1- to the principles of creative processes as well.
I3 and F1-I4, which describe perspectives for This is what was expected, since these topics
ideation, but they do not tell how students suc- were emphasized during both the lecture and the
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations and Varimax, with Kaiser Normalization
Rotated Factor Loadings for Principal Axis Factoring, Calculated for the Items
113
Measuring Primary School Student Teachers Opinions About the Creative
workshops. Much time was also spent on under- data on creative process skills, and the primary
standing the meanings of ideation and the evalu- school student teachers maps, it could be effec-
ation of ideas. Means of the items loading on tively argued that the OMPS method helps stu-
the second factor indicate that, according to the dents understand the nature of creative processes
self-evaluative data, the students had learned (at and, particularly, that there are different phases
least reasonably well) to generate alternatives. involved in each of these processes. The mean
Means of all items loading on the third factor (3.7) of item F1-I7 indicates that the students
indicate that the students had, in their own opin- believed that they had learned to identify and
ion, learned how to give positive and construc- restrict a problem. This is one of the most impor-
tive feedback regarding other students ideas. tant phases in problem solving (Sapp, 1997).
One may also note that much was discussed as Factors 2 and 3 indicate that the students
regards how to give constructive feedback, believed that they had succeeded in generating
which was also practiced during the project. alternatives and, in particular, to evaluate and
Even the meaning and the value of such behav- appreciate others ideas. This means that the stu-
ior during creative processes were discussed. dents felt that they had learned to give positive
The students were familiar, for example, with feedback regarding other students ideas, to rec-
how positive feedback defines what is valuable ognize the advantages of those ideas, and even to
in an idea presented by another student. Positive develop them further. It is obvious that a formal
feedback also indicates where or from which method in which each idea has to be backed up
direction possible solutions can be found. by the presentation of at least three reasons for
Moreover, positive peer feedback is important its adoption is necessary for success. Such evalu-
for the self-respect and confidence of other ation creates a nonjudgmental positive atmos-
students. phere for creativity, and it helps to behave posi-
tively as indicated in Factor 4.
Discussion
Based on the identified factors, the means On the other hand, the number of approaches
and standard deviations of the self-evaluative (M = 3.4) and ideas (M = 3.3) generated during
the ideation phase was comparatively low. This one is evaluating ideas and in the open creative
114 was reflected by the students opinion on the thinking that is required to generate alternatives.
item I learned to generate original and new
The Journal of Technology Studies
ideas. The mean of this item (3.4) was one of In summary, this case study indicates that
the lowest. Furthermore, the students felt that creative problem-solving approaches may be
they did not learn enough about the generation efficiently used to improve teacher education.
of many original and new alternatives. Those On the other hand, students must be encouraged
skills are important when extremely new alter- to create many possible solutions to problems
natives are wanted (Amabile, 1996). From the and then to select the best ones. Furthermore,
point of view of similar projects, it is important students should receive a thorough introduction
to observe that more efficient guidance in gen- to creative problem solving in general (Williams
erating alternatives is needed. Students should & Williams, 1997). Such training could be ben-
be carefully introduced to techniques that can be eficial because many students in our study
used for generating numerous alternatives became anxious when no formula existed or no
because the best way to get good ideas is to direct guidance was given to their work. In addi-
have plenty to choose from. It can be concluded tion, the recognition of facts connected to the
that the outcomes of creative problem-solving background of the problem proved to be impor-
activities depend on the creative processes as tant in this study. Thus, it is essential for the
well as ideation techniques learned and applied creative process that students have relevant
(Smith, 1998). information available.
The items measuring the students success Dr. Jari Lavonen is a senior lecturer and
in the ideation and evaluation of ideas loaded on docent in science and technology education at
different factors. This result means that the stu- the University of Helsinki and the president of
dents succeeded in separating those aspects the Finnish Mathematics and Science Education
when evaluating their problem solving. Both Research Association.
abilities (ideation and the evaluation of ideas) Dr. Ossi Autio is a professor in Skill and
are essential for creative problem solving as Arts Education at the University of Helsinki.
well as the ability to segregate them. The ways Dr. Veijo Meisalo is a professor of peda-
in which the human mind works when creating gogy of mathematical sciences and the head of
new ideas can be argued. As de Bono (1970) the Department of Teacher Education at the
emphasized, critical thinking is needed when University of Helsinki.
References
Alamki, A. (2000). Current trends in technology education in Finland. Journal of Technology Studies,
26(1), 1923. (Retrieved from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTS/Winter-Spring-2000/alamaki.html)
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Custer, R. L. (Ed.). (1994). Performance based education: Technology activity modules. Columbia:
University of Missouri, Instructional Materials Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED379460)
de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking; Creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row.
De Luca, V. W. (1993). Survey of technology education problem-solving activities. The Technology
Teacher, 51(5), 2630.
Dooley, C. (1997). Problem-centered learning experiences: Exploring past, present and future
perspectives. Roeper Review, 19(4), 192196.
Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal components analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences, No. 69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elmer, R., & Davies, T. (2000). Modelling and creativity in design and technology education.
In J. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 137156).
Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children to think. Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell.
Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (2000). Developing models in science education. Dodrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In R. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for
115
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 665691). London: Prentice Hall.