Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

A review of brainstorming techniques in higher education

T
⁎
Hosam Al-Samarraie , Shuhaila Hurmuzan
Centre for Instructional Technology & Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Various Brainstorming (BS) techniques have been proposed specifically to develop individuals’
Brainstorming creativity and productivity during idea-generation sessions. Yet, the available knowledge about
Higher education the potential of certain BS techniques seem very limited in higher education. Thus, a review of
Group discussion previous studies on some BS types such as the traditional brainstorming (TBS), nominal brain-
Idea generation
storming (NBS), and electronic brainstorming (EBS) was conducted. A total of 42 well-grounded
Creativity
studies about the use of these techniques in a university context were reviewed. The classification
of these studies was based on four key schemes related to the purpose of use, opportunities,
challenges, and proposed solutions in a discipline-specific context. The review results revealed a
set of evidences supporting the use of TBS, NBS, and EBS in specific areas. We also provided a
comprehensive view of why certain interventions can be more effective in some contexts than
others. The insights gained from this review can be used to guide educational decision makers to
identify the best BS practices/conditions within a university setting. It also shed light on the
potential opportunities and challenges that students may experience when using certain BS rules
and techniques.

1. Introduction

Many researchers focus on creativity as the primary catalyst for stimulating students’ thinking and decisions. In higher education,
it is seen as an essential element that students must develop in order to understand and contribute to their existing knowledge in ways
that underpin the extension of that knowledge (Egan, Maguire, Christophers, & Rooney, 2017; Paul & Elder, 2004). This has led many
studies to apply various methods in order to foster creative thinking among university students through idea generation (Kelly, 2016;
Montag-Smit & Maertz, 2017).
Brainstorming (BS) is one of the techniques for fostering group creativity by which ideas and thoughts are shared among members
spontaneously in order to reach solutions to practical problems (Gogus, 2012). Osborn (1957) was the first person who introduced
group BS as a means for increasing creativity in corporate settings. Later, its application has been expanded to various areas and
settings, including higher education where it has been commonly used to generate ideas, clarifications, and solutions. As a result, the
BS sessions became more appropriate for increasing productivity in a learning-specific situation (Unin & Bearing, 2016). Many
previous studies (e.g., Drapeau, 2014; Michinov, Jamet, Métayer, & Le Hénaff, 2015; Schlee & Harich, 2014) have claimed that the
process involved in the idea generation task may potentially play an exceptional role in stimulating individuals’ ability to produce
creative solutions that can be further evaluated and, eventually, applied in practice. Very commonly, the individuals’ ability during
the BS session is measured based on the quantity or uniqueness of the generated ideas (Fu et al., 2015). Quantity of ideas is estimated
based on the number of solutions delivered by a group or individual students. The uniqueness of ideas, however, is estimated based
on certain dimensions related to novelty, workability, relevance, and specificity of ideas (Hong & Chiu, 2016).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hosam@usm.my, myclasy@gmail.com (H. Al-Samarraie), shuhailahurmuzan@gmail.com (S. Hurmuzan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002
Received 19 October 2017; Received in revised form 29 November 2017; Accepted 17 December 2017
Available online 18 December 2017
1871-1871/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

In general, BS techniques are delivered in three main ways: verbal/traditional brainstorming (TBS), nominal brainstorming (NBS),
and electronic brainstorming (EBS). TBS is the first form of idea generation where group members actively participate in active
dialogue and interaction by verbally sharing their ideas one at a time. It helps stimulate the production of a large quantity of ideas,
ruling out criticism, freewheeling, and combining ideas throughout the sessions. Despite these benefits, the literature (e.g., Miller,
2009; Putman & Paulus, 2009) has reported that the TBS groups may still produce fewer ideas than an equivalent number of
individuals working alone. This has resulted in a considerable use of the NBS technique where group members can generate ideas
individually without communicating with other members of the same group (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2013). Possible reason for
this preference can be attributed to the NBS’s role as a mediator in meeting the demands of the additive task through producing the
largest number of ideas. To date, previous studies are still vague about the potential of NBS to help students generate a flow of good
quality ideas (Kramer, Kuo, & Dailey, 1997; Sutton & Arnold, 2013). As such, EBS has been introduced as a means for group members
to facilitate idea generation simultaneously. It involves the use of online resources and tools such as e-mail, browser-based systems,
chat, and discussion forums to support the discussion process (Baruah & Paulus, 2016).
However, it is still arguable whether or not EBS can increase students’ performance in idea generation more than TBS and NBS.
Group and individual performances with regards to these interventions may vary from one context to another, based on the nature of
the imposed creativity task and individuals’ knowledge of the subject matter (Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015). In some situations,
when using certain BS techniques, individuals/teams may tend to generate a large quantity of ideas (Levine, Alexander, Wright, &
Higgins, 2016), whereas using other techniques in the same situation may result in generating few highly creative ideas. This led us to
wonder the reason for these variations across disciplines. It is also apparent from the literature that there is still a lack of studies that
differentiate between the different effects of BS techniques on students’ idea generation in various conditions and contexts. On the
other hand, it is assumed that different disciplines may imply different content requirements/preferences, criteria and approaches to
learning, and epistemological standards (Casalino and D’atri, 2005). According to Brandies and Dotzauer (2016), certain methods
successfully used in research of a certain discipline, may fail when used by researchers of another discipline, due to different
methodologies existing within different disciplines. Based on these observations, we were motivated to explore how different BS
techniques important for developing idea generation skills for groups and individuals are used across university disciplines. A review
of previous studies on TBS, NBS, and EBS was carried out to underline these concerns. Precisely, we identified the effectiveness of
using these techniques in specific discipline areas. We then described the key opportunities and challenges of BS techniques in
context-specific disciplines, followed by description of previous efforts made towards managing or averting some of these challenges.
It is assumed that outcomes from this study could guide educational decision makers to clearly identify the best utilization of BS
practices in higher education. This is mainly to ensure that students are equipped with the skills necessary to be creative and
innovative in their university studies and after graduation.

2. Review methodology

The aim of this study is to summarize the potential impact of certain BS techniques on university students’ idea generation
experiences and creativity development. With many studies having examined/compared the effects of TBS, NBS, and EBS in different
contexts, we considered the literature to provide us with the main source to achieve this study’s aim. Our process of analysis was
based on the recommendations of Srivastava (2007) which comprises the following steps:

1) Defining unit of analysis: Previous research papers, chapters, and theses on the utilization of BS in higher education were defined
and used in this review. The argument as to why higher education ought to be more concerned with the utilization of BS
techniques is mainly to encourage active learner-centered education. This includes the changing learning needs of society and the
impact of new technologies on educational policies. In addition, the continuing growth of efforts to develop individuals’ creativity
and thinking abilities requiring an in-depth understanding of techniques for stimulating such skills. Based on these, it was as-
sumed that reviewing the utilization of BS techniques in higher education is essential to helping students to put their ideas into
practice.
2) Collecting publications: Our literature review focuses upon English-speaking peer-reviewed journals, since they are the most
common resources for information exchange among researchers. To establish a time span, the period for this review was set from
January 1958 (where the earliest and prominent studies on BS have been noted) up to September 2017. Google scholar, Scopus
and ISI Web of Knowledge databases were used for searching the relevant articles on BS in higher education. Various combi-
nations of keywords were performed in the search: (‘verbal/traditional brainstorming’ OR ‘nominal brainstorming’ OR ‘electronic
brainstorming’ OR ‘e-brainstorming’ OR ‘web-based brainstorming’ OR ‘online brainstorming’) AND (‘higher education’ OR
‘university level’ OR ‘undergraduate/postgraduate students’). In total; we identified 1677 papers published and dispersed over
several journals.
3) Classification context: This review comprised of four key schemes. The first scheme reports on the feasibility of BS interventions in
developing students’ creativity through idea generation and other means. The second scheme describes the major opportunities
that can be obtained from using certain BS techniques. The third scheme addresses the potential challenges that students may face
when using these techniques. The fourth scheme underlines proposed solutions to overcome these challenges.
4) Material evaluation: The material used to address the impact of TBS, NBS, and EBS was analysed and sorted according to the
proposed schemes. In this phase, a number of criteria were followed to ensure the suitability of the studies. To adhere to the prime
objective of this study, our review was limited to previous works that measured the impact of BS on certain learning outcomes
within the context of higher education, which, as a result, led to the exclusion of 1427 studies. Studies that investigated the impact

79
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

of internal and external attributes within the BS group were not considered in this study. From the remained 250 articles, only 162
articles measured the impact of certain BS techniques. For example, we excluded previous works that put more emphasis on
“border cognitive and social aspects” when students participate in a BS session. In addition, studies that used BS in contexts other
than higher education, such as primary and secondary education, special education, government training, and other non-academic
domains were also not included in this review. This left us with 88 studies, which were further inspected for quality to draw a final
conclusion on the proposed schemes. The overall quality of these studies was identified by four experienced experts in the
educational field (score from 1 to 3, low-high) based on: 1) appropriateness of the method, 2) relevance to the context of focus,
and 3) whether the findings are credible and valid. We measured the weight of each study by summing scores on each of the three
dimensions. Then, we performed the inter-rater reliability (r) test which resulted in 0.974 agreement between the experts. Based
on this, a total of 42 well-grounded studies were identified.

3. Results

This section presents the results from the finalized 42 studies used to draw valid conclusions on the effectiveness of BS in relation
to the proposed schemes (purpose of use, opportunities, challenges, and proposed solutions). The selected studies were reviewed with
the intention to identify the use of TBS, NBS, and EBS in idea generation, creative thinking, and other relevant activities in higher
education. The next subsection includes a discussion of these studies in a discipline specific context.

3.1. The purpose of using BS techniques in higher education

Table 1 provides a periodic presentation, of the major works that have been carried out on TBS, NBS, and EBS in five study
disciplines such as business, psychology, industry, language, and education.

3.1.1. BS techniques in business

In business, BS was commonly found to be useful for increasing students’ ability to generate more ideas that are both unique and
novel. EBS was reported to be the most frequently used technique for stimulating students’ production in terms of the number of
uniqueness and quality of ideas (Aiken, Vanjani, & Paolillo, 1996; Roy, Gauvin, & Limayem, 1996). The use of EBS over NBS and TBS
have been claimed to imply a shared set of simultaneous interactions among members of the group by allowing them to produce ideas
that are relevant to the topic under discussion (Cooper, Gallupe, Pollard, & Cadsby, 1998; Dennis & Valacich, 1994). In addition, EBS
was also found to play a key role in increasing individual group members’ creativity and reducing the social anxiety placed on
generating novel or higher order conclusions (Johnson & D’Lauro, 2017). This can be due to a number of factors such as free
association and constant collision of opinions which helped ideas to circulate freely among the group members. Yet, this comes at the
cost of an increase in cognitive load for individuals who lack knowledge and communication skills to participate in shared decision-
making, which may limit the quality of the produced solutions (Hender, Dean, & Rodgers, 2002). NBS, however, was used as an
alternative solution for EBS, particularly to increase the number of non-redundant ideas (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001). The general
belief is that NBS can help individuals adjust to the BS session which, as a result, increase group’s decision quality and the individual
decision-making processes (Herbert & Yost, 1979). It may also develop individuals’ fluency and flexibility levels of their reasoning
(Althuizen, 2017). However, this assumption contradicts findings from other previous studies, like Benbasat and Lim (2000), which
reported that group member s may find it more feasible to generate more non-redundant ideas when using EBS than NBS. This can be
explained by the role of EBS in reducing availability bias during the session (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). Our review of the literature
showed that the effect of TBS on group members’ performance is substantial to improving idea quantity only when combined with a
specific, difficult quantity goals (Litchfield, 2009). Interestingly, when comparing with EBS and NBS, TBS appears to be less sufficient
for the idea generation process (Gallupe et al., 1992), whereas its use has been mostly restricted to the stimulation of creative
thinking and problem solving among students (Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, 1959; Parnes & Meadow, 1959). This assumption was not
supported by Tsai (2013) who demonstrated that the standard classroom setting with no material aid could still increase students’
creativity more than the TBS method. In addition, the potential of TBS in contrast to other BS techniques is not well validated in the
literature. From these observations, it can clearly be seen that EBS appear to be the most suitable technique for carrying out BS
sessions in business-related fields, followed by the NBS technique.

3.1.2. BS techniques in psychology

In psychology, BS was widely used to increase the quantity and quality of ideas generated by students during the session. In the
literature, a number of studies have repeatedly remarked the potential of NBS to promote students’ positive perception and sa-
tisfaction over other BS techniques (McGlynn, McGurk, Effland, Johll, & Harding, 2004; Miller, 2009; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe,
2006a, 2006b). This is possibly because, group members during the NBS session generate ideas individually without communicating
with other members of the group (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001). Ziegler et al., (2000) argued that NBS can effectively increase
individuals’ creative idea production more than the EBS technique. The review showed a little evidence in support of EBS to lead to
mutual cognitive stimulation, thereby enhancing creative productivity. Hence, the use of EBS as a means of enhancing idea pro-
duction in BS groups seems unwarranted. Instead, EBS can be used to increase students’ general performance and attention as the
superiority effect does not appear when they spend more effort to explore other solutions (Michinov, 2012). From these views, it is
evident that NBS is more efficient for producing quality and non-redundant ideas in psychology discussion groups than any other BS
techniques. This may also be attributed to the role of NBS in supporting students to attain more combinations (Kohn, Paulus, & Choi,

80
 Table 1
A comparison of previous studies on BS in higher education.

No Studies BS Purpose Group size Outcomes

1 Parnes and Meadow (1959)
2 Meadow et al. (1959)
TBS Examined the effects of TBS on the development of students’ 17 students TBS increased the number of creative ideas among students.
creative thinking.
TBS Tested the potential of TBS in facilitating creative problem solving 32 students TBS increased students’ creativity in various thinking tasks.
among students.
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan

3 Lewis et al. (1975)
4 Herbert and Yost (1979)
5 Comadena (1984)
6 Gallupe et al. (1992)
7 Dennis and Valacich (1993)
8 Dennis and Valacich (1994)
9 Valacich et al. (1994)
10 Aiken et al. (1996)
11 Roy et al. (1996)
12 Dennis et al. (1996)
TBS & NBS Compared between TBS and NBS in solving engineering problems. 1, 2, 4, 6 per group The TBS group was less productive than the NBS group when it came to
provide creative solutions for engineering problems.
NBS & TBS Compared the effects of NBS and TBS in decision-making settings. 16 students NBS increased group’s decision quality and the best individual decision.
TBS Investigated the effect of TBS on students’ performance based on 19 groups of 4 Students who produced more ideas perceived TBS to be more attractive than
idea outcomes. students those who had low ideational productivity.
TBS & EBS Examined the effects of TBS and EBD on students’ ability to 100 students EBS groups outperformed TBS groups.
produce unique ideas.
EBS & NBS Compared the impact of EBS and NBS on students’ performance. 276 students EBS groups generated more ideas than NBS groups.
EBS & NBS Examined the differences in students’ ability to generate ideas 420 students EBS groups generated more ideas (with higher quality) than NBS groups.
when using EBS and NBS.
NBS & EBS Compared the potential of NBS and EBS in different idea generation 199 students EBS groups outperformed NBS groups by generating more nonredundant
tasks. ideas.
EBS Studied the effects of EBS on students’ satisfaction based on the 9 groups of 9–10 EBS promoted students’ satisfaction.
number of unique/quality comments. students
EBS Investigated the effect of EBS on students’ motivation and 15 groups of 5–6 EBS increased students’ overall productivity.
performance based on the quantity and novelty of ideas. students
EBS Studied the effect of EBS on students’ performance and ability to 400 students EBS allowed students to generate more ideas of greater total quality.
generate quality and novel ideas.

81
13 Briggs et al. (1997) EBS Investigated the effects of EBS on students’ ability to generate more 290 students EBS increased the quantity and quality of ideas generated by students.
quality ideas.
14 Dennis et al. (1997b) EBS Examined the impact of EBS with single and multiple dialogues on 200 students EBS groups generated more ideas both high-quality and novel.
ideation outcomes.
15 Kramer et al. (1997) TBS & NBS Determined the effect of TBS and NBS on students’ decision quality 200 students The decision quality of the TBS group was better than the NBS group.
and satisfaction. Students’ satisfaction in both groups was positive.
16 Cooper et al. (1998) EBS, TBS & Explored the effects of three BS groups on members’ production of 360 students EBS groups were more productive in generating ideas related to the topic of
NBS ideas. interest.
17 Ziegler et al. (2000) NBS & EBS Investigated the effects of NBS and EBS on students’ ability to 60 students EBS helped students to produce fewer redundant ideas than NBS. As for the
generate quality ideas irredundant. quality, no differences were found when using the two methods.
18 Park-Gates (2001) TBS & NBS Compared the effects of TBS and NBS on students’ creativity. 36 students No significant differences were found in students’ creativity when using TBS
and NBS.
19 Barki and Pinsonneault EBS & NBS Investigated the effects of EBS and NBS with regards to the 192 students NBS groups generated ideas at least as good as EBS groups.
(2001) anonymous condition on students’ ability to generate ideas.
20 Hender et al. (2002) EBS Compared the impact of EBS versus non-brainstorming techniques 135 students EBS increased the quantity and creativity of ideas among students with lower
on students’ creativity. cognitive load.
21 McGlynn et al. (2004) TBS & NBS Compared the effects of TBS and NBS on the productivity and task 384 students NBS increased the quantity. quality of ideas and overall performance. Both
performance of students. methods were positively perceived by students.
22 Kerr and Murthy (2004) EBS Investigated the effectiveness of EBS in increasing students’ 46 students The use of EBS improved students’ ability to produce a greater number of
performance. ideas.
23 Rietzschel (2005) NBS & TBS Compared the effects of NBS and TBS on students’ idea selection. 138 students NBS groups generated more original ideas than TBS groups.
24 Rietzschel et al. TBS & NBS Compared the effects of TBS and NBS on students’ abilities to 138 students NBS increased students’ productivity and ideas quality more than TBS.
(2006a,2006b) generate and select ideas. Students were more satisfied with the use of TBS.
25 Rao (2007) TBS Examined the effects of TBS on learners’ writing performance and 38–40 students TBS stimulated students’ writing skills by increasing their performance and
perception. creative thinking.
(continued on next page)
Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91
 Table 1 (continued)

No Studies BS Purpose Group size Outcomes

26 Shengming (2008) TBS & NBS Investigated the effects of TBS and NBS on students’ English 192 students TBS improved students’ writing more than NBS.
writing.
27 Feinberg and Nemeth (2008) TBS Studied the effectiveness of TBS in creative idea generation. 141 students TBS limited students’ productivity of creative ideas.
28 Putman and Paulus (2009) TBS & NBS Investigated the effects of TBS and NBS on students’ generation of 120 students NBS groups generated more original and less frequent ideas than TBS groups,
ideas. which resulted in better decisions.
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan

29 Lynch et al. (2009) EBS, TBS & Compared the effectiveness of different BS techniques in fraud risk 188 students EBS and NBS were more effective than TBS in terms of increasing students’
NBS assessments. capabilities to assess fraud cases.
30 Miller (2009) NBS & TBS Demonstrated the superiority of NBS over TBS groups during ideas 105 students NBS increased students’ ability to generate more ideas than TBS.
generation process.
31 Litchfield (2009) TBS Investigated the effects of TBS and non-TBS on the number of ideas 264 students TBS improved idea quantity only when combined with a specific and difficult
generated by students. quantity goal.
32 Kohn et al. (2011) NBS & EBS Studied the effects of NBS and EBS on students’ idea combination. 108 students EBS groups generated fewer combinations than NBS groups.
33 Al-khatib (2012) TBS Investigated the effects of using TBS in developing creative 47 students TBS improved students’ problem-solving skills.
problem-solving skills among students.
34 Michinov (2012) EBS Studied the impact of EBS on the generation of ideas in groups. 80 students EBS increased group’s members performance, attention and satisfaction.
35 Tang et al. (2012) TBS Studied the effects of TBS, scenario, and synectics on students’ 27 students The TBS group was more oriented toward functional thinking.
design.
36 Zainol et al. (2012) TBS Investigated the potential of using TBS in stimulating students’ 460 students TBS promoted students’ design performance through ownership of the topic
performance. and evaluation apprehension.
37 Tsai (2013) TBS Investigated the effect of TBS and classroom setting on students’ 10 students The classroom setting increased students’ creativity more than TBS.
creativity performance.
38 Mohammad and Hussein TBS Compared between TBS and guided TBS to increase students’ 4 groups of 3–4 TBS improved students’ motivation.
(2013) motivation to write essays. students

82
39 Ghabanchi and Behrooznia TBS Investigated the effects of TBS on reading comprehension ability 54 students TBS improved students’ reading comprehension and critical thinking.
(2014) and critical thinking of students.
40 Amoush (2015) TBS Investigated the impact of TBS on students’ writing performance. 80 students Students’ writing scores were improved with the application of TBS strategy.
41 Johnson and D’Lauro (2017) EBS Compared the potential of introducing early and late ideas in EBS 36 students Providing early ideas in EBS helped students to generate better quality
in increasing the quality of ideas. solutions.
42 Althuizen (2017) NBS Investigated the effects of presence and absence of information in 20 students Providing information in NBS helped to increase members’ fluency and
the NBS task. flexibility.
Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

Table 2
BS interventions across disciplines.

Outcomes Disciplines

Business Psychology Industrial Language Education Overall

Creative thinking TBS (1+/1−) X TBS (0+/1−) TBS (1+/0-) X TBS (2+/2−)
NBS (0+/1−) NBS (0+/1−)
Problem solving TBS (1+/0−) X TBS (0+/1−) X TBS (1+/0−) TBS (2+/1−)
NBS (1+/0−) NBS (1+/0−)
Performance TBS (0+/1−) TBS (0+/1−) TBS (1+/0−) TBS (3+/0−) TBS (1+/0−) TBS (4+/0−)
EBS (2+/0−) NBS (1+/0−) NBS (0+/1−) NBS (1+/1−)
EBS (1+/0−) EBS (3+/0−)
Satisfaction TBS (1+/0−) TBS (2+/0−) X X X TBS (3+/0−)
NBS (1+/0−) NBS (1+/1−) NBS (2+/1−)
EBS (1+/0−) EBS (1+/0−) EBS (2+/0−)
Quantity of ideas TBS (1+/1−) TBS (0+/4−) TBS (1+/0−) X TBS (0+/1−) TBS (2+/6−)
NBS (1+/2−) NBS (5+/0−) NBS (1+/0−) NBS (7+/2−)
EBS (10+/0−) EBS (1+/0−) EBS (11+/0−)
Quality of ideas TBS (1+/1−) TBS (0+/4−) X X EBS (1+/0−) TBS (1+/5−)
NBS (2+/1−) NBS (4+/1−) NBS (6+/2−)
EBS (6+/0−) EBS (0+/1−) EBS (7+/1−)
Novelty of ideas TBS (0+/2−) X TBS (0+/1−) X X TBS (2+/0−)
NBS (2+/0−) NBS (0+/1−) NBS (1+/1−)
EBS (4+/0−) EBS (1+/0−)
Perceptions TBS (1+/0−) TBS (1+/0−) TBS (1+/0−) TBS (1+/0−) X TBS (4+/0−)
NBS (1+/0−) NBS (1+/0−) NBS (2+/0−)
EBS (1+/0−) EBS (1+/0−)
Cognitive load EBS (1+/0−) X X X X EBS (1+/0−)
Attention EBS (1+/0−) X X X EBS (1+/0−)
Motivation X X X TBS (1+/0−) X TBS (1+/0−)
Comprehension X X X TBS (1+/0−) X TBS (1+/0−)
Ideas appropriateness X X TBS (0+/1−) X X TBS (0+/1−)
NBS (0+/1−) NBS (0+/1−)
Nonredundant ideas TBS (0+/1−) NBS (0+/1−) X X X TBS (0+/1−)
NBS (0+/2−) EBS (1+/0−) NBS (0+/3−)
EBS (3+/0−) EBS (4+/0−)
Resource utilization TBS (1+/0−) X X X X TBS (1+/0−)
NBS (0+/1−) NBS (0+/1−)
Idea combination X NBS (1+/0−) X X X NBS (1+/0−)
EBS (0+/1−) EBS (0+/1−)

Note. + positive; − negative; BS (frequency of positive effect/frequency of negative effect)

2011) and be more capable of producing more original and less frequent ideas than EBS and TBS groups (Putman & Paulus, 2009;
Rietzschel, 2005).

3.1.3. BS techniques in industry

In industry (design and engineering), TBS use in general was more frequent than other techniques. Previous studies (e.g., Tang,
Chen, & Gero, 2012; Zainol, Yusof, Mastor, Sanusi, & Ramli, 2012) reasoned it to the beneficial effect of the procedural guidelines,
which make the TBS more oriented towards functional thinking by promoting creative thinking among group members through
ownership of the topic and evaluation apprehension. However, very limited works in the literature on BS have shown that the use of
TBS may provide less creative solutions for engineering problems than NBS does (Lewis, Sadosky, & Connolly, 1975). This assumption
is evident from the finding of Park-Gates (2001) that using TBS and NBS do not result in any significant differences in creativity scores
whereas TBS may neither enhance nor interfere with the creative process. Thus, it can be opined that TBS and NBS might still be used
to provide the required resources for aiding students’ creative thinking experience during the BS session.

3.1.4. BS techniques in language

In the language discipline, various BS techniques were found to serve different purposes other than generating ideas. For instance,
we found that most previous studies (e.g., Ghabanchi & Behrooznia, 2014; Rao, 2007) have been exceptionally encouraging the use of
TBS as the most efficient BS technique within this context. So far, several advantages have been reported on the use of this technique,
mainly to develop students’ motivation and writing skills by sharing resources essential for constructing meaningful conclusions
(Mohammad & Hussein, 2013). Amoush (2015) found that using TBS can be beneficial for improving the writing scores of the group.
The comparison of different BS techniques (see Table 2) showed how TBS can potentially empower students to apply and review
different writing strategies (Shengming, 2008) that can lead to facilitating their comprehension and critical thinking (Ghabanchi &
Behrooznia, 2014). Based on these observations, we are convinced to conclude that using TBS would definitely offer valuable op-
portunities to students when learning languages (especially English) as it helps to reduce negative social influences and convey the

83
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

actual situations under discussion so as to increase idea generation and group creativity.

3.1.5. BS techniques in education

Some previous studies in the discipline of education have suggested that BS interventions can facilitate the idea-generation
process by ensuring the selection of the most appropriate combinations of ideas. For example, Al-khatib (2012) used TBS as an
attempt to foster students’ problem-solving skills by creating an educational climate that is conducive to learning and critical
thinking. We found that both EBS and NBS can be more effective than TBS in developing individuals’ selection of ideas (Lynch,
Murthy, & Engle, 2009). Johnson and D’Lauro (2017) claimed that EBS may offer access to early ideas that can help students to
generate better quality scenarios. Within this context, shorter EBS sessions are deemed appropriate to select an idea that is feasible
and unoriginal.
Our observation from the previous studies, led us to conclude that applying certain BS techniques may potentially have an impact
on certain learning outcomes of individual group members. By looking at the distribution of the number of times BS techniques have
been used in previous studies (see Table 2), it can be easily asserted that EBS is an efficient solution for stimulating students’ ability to
generate good quality ideas, particularly in business programs. NBS, however, can still be used as an alternative for EBS in discussing
psychological issues in different settings. Nevertheless, the use of TBS might be more useful for language learners and teachers. When
it comes to the development of productivity and creativity among university students, we conclude, based on the critical analysis of
the literature, that both EBS and NBS can be more appealing than TBS.
Further analysis of our review, provided evidence that, apart from the specific contexts within which unique BS techniques could
be employed, the general utilization of the various BS techniques also offers some opportunities to higher education coupled with a
number of identified challenges. In view of this, some key opportunities and challenges are enumerated below.

3.2. Opportunities and challenges of BS techniques

A successful BS session normally leads to productive participation, thus extensive generation of ideas during the discussion. A
number of potential opportunities from using different BS techniques have been addressed in previous research along with other
potential challenges. Table 3 and Table 4 present a summary of the key opportunities and challenges related to the use of BS in the
discipline of higher education.
From Table 3, we found that the use of TBS discussions can foster shared thinking among members by allowing them to produce
more workable ideas and improve their perception of task attraction (Comadena, 1984). TBS may also help students to actively
participate in informed discussions through increasing the rate of positive and negative responses that are essential to generate good
quality ideas (Kramer et al., 1997). It can increase the likelihood of idea selection from different viewpoints, important for over-
coming productivity losses (Rietzschel et al., 2006a, 2006b). This is by depleting cognitive resources for creative thinking, which may
enable members of the group to effectively deal with changes in viewpoints. It can also be observed that the use of TBS may play a key
role in increasing students’ control of the production process and help them organize ideas in a logical but not rigid structure (Rao,
2007). This include maintaining individual’s focus on each aspect of the discussion at a time (Mohammad & Hussein, 2013). In
addition, TBS could contribute to the alteration of cognitive processes as a result of the critical thinking and sharing of resources
among members of the group (Ghabanchi & Behrooznia, 2014). Other opportunities lie in reducing critics and interference that
members may experience during the BS session.
Our review of the literature on NBS revealed its potential application for ensuring a sufficient use of resources among members,
thus making better quality decisions (Herbert & Yost, 1979). Both TBS and NBS techniques are believed to create feasible sharing
rules that can stimulate students’ positive behaviour to creatively solve complex problems.
EBS was found to offer better opportunities than TBS and NBS techniques. It lowers production blocking and evaluation ap-
prehension among group’s members (Valacich, Dennis, & Connolly, 1994; Ziegler, Diehl, & Zijlstra, 2000). It also provides the
atmosphere for building competency among individuals that, as a result, would greatly contribute to the quantity and quality of ideas
(Aiken et al., 1996). We found that both feedback and the use of multiple dialogues in the EBS session would facilitate the devel-
opment of self-evaluation and thus reduce social loafing (Roy et al., 1996), especially when members experience unregulated be-
haviour due to the absence of social cues during the group discussion (Cooper et al., 1998). When the EBS group’s members engage in
active sharing of resources, they can definitely see the benefit of free association and frequent collision of ideas by forcing them to
explore and reason out each other’s viewpoints (Hender et al., 2002). In addition, the use of EBS may offer simultaneous and
uninterrupted production of ideas by increasing the synergy (Gallupe et al., 1992) and introducing few process losses while enabling
process gains (Dennis & Valacich, 1993). It can also help in solving ill-defined problems and reduce time pressure that usually occur
when many ideas are generated (Johnson & D’Lauro, 2017). Based on these, it can reasonably be inferred that EBS may increase the
exposure of individuals to a flow of ideas and outcomes (Michinov, 2012) that, as a result, reduce production blocking and thereby
increase the group’s creative thinking.
On the other hand, several key challenges from using TBS, NBS, and EBS techniques across disciplines are presented in Table 4.
The common challenge faced by students in the BS session is the lack of an informed instruction for students to be able to apply the
hypotheses produced during the discussion. Other aspects related to waiting time (Roy et al., 1996) and bad ideas (Briggs, Reinig,
Shepherd, Yen, & Nunameker, 1997) may potentially create uncertainty among students when attempting to produce solutions.
Although TBS has been reported to be an exceptional tool for stimulating students’ comprehension, scheduling the TBS sessions
and maintaining active participation are the two common challenges for the idea generation process. This is where students tend to
lose focus during the discussion and so they might feel disorganized (Mohammad & Hussein, 2013). In addition, when students

84
 Table 3
Opportunities of BS techniques across disciplines.
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan

BS Techniques Disciplines

Business Psychology Industrial Language Education

TBS • Promote shared thinking to produce more
workable ideas.
• Increase students’ perception of task attraction.
• Increase the rate of positive and negative
responses to the group activity.
NBS • Enable students to make better use of resources N/A
to arrive to the final decision.
EBS • Provide the atmosphere for building competency
among group members.
received from the session allow for
• Facilitate idea selection from different
viewpoints that overcome productivity
loss.
• Deplete cognitive resources for creative
thinking.
• Provide continuous exposure to a flow of
ideas.
students from production blocking
N/A • Allow students to organize the • Allow students to move from one step to
materials in a logical order. another freely without any critics and
• Enable students to focus more on interference.
each aspect of the topic at a time.
• Stimulate prior knowledge
activation for critical thinking.
• Facilitate sharing of writing skills
among learners.
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A • Help solving ill-defined problems under
time pressure.

85
• Feedback
self-evaluation and thus reduce social loafing.
• Free
and offer the possibility of mutual
• Multiple dialogues help overcome the cognitive, stimulation.
social, and procedural factors for better idea
generation.
• Lower production blocking and evaluation
apprehension.
• Encourage unregulated behaviour due of the
absence of the social cues.
• Allow using free association and frequent
collision of ideas that force movement among
fewer dialogues.
• Refocus members’ attention more evenly.
• Increase synergy with larger group size.
• Introduce few process losses while enabling
process gains.
• Offer simultaneous and uninterrupted
production of ideas.
Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91
 Table 4
Challenges of BS techniques across disciplines.

BS Techniques Disciplines

Business Psychology Industrial Language Education

H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan

TBS • Increase fear of criticism by self or others. • Lack instructions to use the • Require experienced group leader and • The lack of maintaining active N/A
• Lack of previous experience may influence hypotheses during the session. extensive training of participants. participation.
members’ productivity during the session. • Establish a mental framework that • Do not support quantifying a concept. • Potential loss of focus during the
• Not designed for certain personality and is not conducive to freedom and • Difficult to assess the usefulness of process.
social characteristics. divergent. ideas when there is a large amount of • Difficulty to adhere to the
• Low equity of interaction among members. conceptual ideas. procedures may restrict the best
• Require more time for students to be result.
exposed.
• Limit the utilization of the best resources.
• Require specific and difficult goals.
NBS • Low equity of interaction among members. • Difficult to generate ideas when the • Do not support quantifying a concept. N/A N/A
BS take place late in the task. • The present of blocking production
• Students have no access to the total
group’s production.
• Difficulty listening to the group’s
discussion while producing own
ideas.
explicit selection criteria.

86
EBS of proper guides.
• Lack the development of N/A N/A
• Lack time may create uncertainty
• Restrict
authentic ideas.
• Coordination
difficulties.
• Waiting
among students. the ideas of other members ideas may not be
fear of criticism by others may
• Reading
may not produce any mutual
• Early
used.
• Participants
stop them from sharing all the ideas that stimulation.
they have. • The present of blocking production.
• Fear of harm to individual reputations.
• Irrelevant ideas may distract students from
producing effective solutions.
• Multiple time period condition may not
encourage members to work faster and
generate more ideas.
• Introduce more process losses initially.
• Lack of support for through the
manipulation of group history, contextual
cues, and topic sensitivity.
• Require more effort to type ideas than to
say them.
• Not appropriate for highly ambiguous
tasks.
• Small group size may influence the idea
generation process.
Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

adhere to the TBS procedures, it may restrict them from selecting the best workable solutions during the BS process (Amoush, 2015).
Specifically, previous studies highlighted that using TBS may lead group members to engage in a mental framework that is not
conducive to freedom and divergence.
As for the challenges related to EBS, we noted that not all good ideas can be freely expressed during the discussion session due to
the members’ fear of having their reputation harmed (Cooper et al., 1998). This initially appears to introduce more process losses
than gains. EBS groups also require more effort to type ideas or comments than to say them which makes it not appropriate for highly
ambiguous tasks (Gallupe et al., 1992). This is mostly true when the group size is small (Valacich et al., 1994). It may pose some
restrictions on the development of authentic ideas (Michinov, 2012) where there is a possibility that accessing other members’ ideas
may not result in sufficient mutual understanding needed to generate good solutions due to the production blocking (Ziegler et al.,
2000).
Our review of the challenges associated with the use of NBS leads us to some conclusions, for example, NBS could limit students’
generation of ideas when the BS activity starts late as it could prevent one from accessing the total group’s ideas (Rietzschel et al.,
2006a, 2006b). This is due to the fact that it is difficult to coordinate the BS schedules, whereas an idea generated early in the session
may not be selected as the best idea (Johnson & D’Lauro, 2017). In addition, possible interruptions in the production process and lack
of explicit selection criteria may hinder the final selection of workable ideas for further consideration (Miller, 2009).
Other shared challenges from using different BS techniques were also observed in the literature. For example, the use of TBS and
EBS could result in adding up more fear among members who have been criticised by others, and potentially reduce the production of
quality ideas (Dennis et al., 1997a; Parnes & Meadow, 1959). In addition, both TBS and NBS may impose low equity of interaction
among students, in which they need to spend more time to become acquainted with one another (Tsai, 2013). Thus, it could be
difficult for students to quantify elusive and qualitative concepts when using these techniques. This can be attributed to the large
amount of conceptual ideas that need to be assessed by individual group members, which leaves less time for them to deliver the final
solutions (Tang et al., 2012).
Finally, we observed that some of these challenges in a discipline-specific context do not necessarily arise when certain BS
techniques fail to provide opportunities for developing students’ ideation skills in other contexts. Therefore, one may conclude that
the characteristics of the academic program and profession may somehow play a key role in altering students’ perception about the
appropriateness of these techniques in a learning situation.

3.3. Proposed solutions to the BS challenges

Our review of the literature showed that engaging students in active discussion may empower the overall idea generation process
by increasing the quantity of ideas being shared. However, several challenges may still be besetting to students (teams and in-
dividuals) during the BS sessions. Therefore, various solutions have been introduced and examined as an attempt to overcome some
of the challenges mentioned above (see Table 4). Previous efforts on BS have been somewhat concerned about extending the current
practices of TBS by stimulating members’ cognitive and interaction experiences. For example, Shih et al. (2009) proposed a colla-
borative Group-Mind design as an attempt to foster creative problem solving in a collaborative setting. This tool was based on
mapping students’ ideas as an alternative way for the TBS whiteboard. The tool was used for subjects that require memory recall and
more abstract conceptualization. It was expected that Group-Mind can overcome structure and process constraints issues that may
hinder the organization and dynamism of ideas during the BS session. Clayphan et al., (2011) introduced the use of tabletop system as
an extension to the TBS’s format. The aim was basically to eliminate any particular orientation that may occur during the discussion.
This was achieved by allowing members to review and modify all ideas generated by self and others. It is claimed that this type of
presentation would direct the focus of collaborators on the ideas and entering them with the keyboards. Later, Clayphan et al. (2014)
carried out another study to adapt scripted collaboration approach in order to enhance the effectiveness of the tabletop BS method.
This combination was named as Script-Storm based on the use of fixed scripts through which the table is used to present these scripts
that the group’s members cannot alter by themselves; and participant-defined script to stimulate members’ control over the script
settings. We assume that the use of Script-Storm might decrease confusion among TBS groups especially when they end up with many
ideas. Korde (2012), on the other hand, examined the potential of providing review sessions during a BS task. The main idea behind
Korde’s work was to involve members in generating ideas either as a pair or individually. It was expected that when providing the
group’s members with enough time to review one another’s thoughts, they will be able to produce more ideas than those who did not
use a separate review session. Thus, Script-Storm may help overcome challenges related to the variation in group size and fear of
criticism found in the TBS session. Another solution was proposed by Tausch et al., (2014), who suggested the use of metaphorical
group mirror to influence the peripheral feedback during the discussions. This concept was developed based on combining the
qualitative and metaphorical feedback with the individual and aggregated feedback. The use of such combination may offer a
balanced number of ideas that can help the students to decide quickly and accurately. In addition, Hsu et al. (2017) proposed
combining the 635 BS and the C-Sketch to aid designers in generating creative ideas through passing pictures and words in the
divergent thinking phase. It was expected that using such combination would provide a way for designers to review ideas from
multiple perspectives and help them develop more innovative solutions. Another study was conducted by Helquist et al., (2017) on
the use of peer-reviewed BS with a predetermined number of anonymous peers, after which the original views are submitted to
another random and anonymous peer for selection of the “best” version. This method may have the potential to increase the equity of
interaction among the groups as compared to the TBS technique.
A very few studies on extending the NBS design were found in the literature, for example, Villanueva et al. (2011) who suggested
the use of Wikideas and creativity connector for altering the generation of ideas and originality among students. The use of these tools

87
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

was to advance the NBS environment through exposing individuals to relevant clues. We believe that this method may enable the
students to generate, evaluate and select the most relevant ideas and to form teams for project execution.
We also documented other notable solutions to the EBS design from the literature. Some of these solutions were devoted to
fostering the distribution of ideas from a design-driven perspective. Potter and Balthazard (2004), for example, proposed the use of
global matching model of memory cognition to form what they call cause cueing during the EBS session. The aim of this design was to
direct members’ attention to the causes of the target problem that they themselves have identified, and increase the number of ideas
that an individual generates. Jung (2006) introduced Verbal-EBS that works based on the properties of both speaking and reading
through the integration of speech recognition technology with group memory so to reduce the time when writing ideas with key-
board. Another work by Krieger and Wang (2008) presented IDEAS2IDEAS as an alternative EBS tool to promote constructive and
collaborative ideation behaviour among the group members. A study by Faste et al., (2013) proposed Chainstorming method based
on passing ideas (and rules) along communication chains to offer a fast and enjoyable means of creative ideation in the EBS en-
vironment. It can be said that both IDEAS2IDEAS and Chainstorming have the potential to overcome challenges related to reducing
process losses and simplifying the introduction of highly ambiguous tasks. Moradian et al., (2014) introduced the use of game
elements to increase members’ participation in a collaborative creative idea generation processes. The use of games was typically to
stimulate interaction among members which was found to help teams produce more ideas and engage in more discussions. We
assume that using games in EBS is a promising solution to direct groups to the relevant ideas during a subsequent convergence
activity, without negatively affecting the quality of ideas. Despite these efforts, the effectiveness of these solutions is yet to be
validated across disciplines.

4. Final remarks

Promoting individuals’ ability to generate quality and novel ideas in order to solve complex problems are considered a valuable
asset in any organization. BS has been practically applied in various fields with the prime purpose to enhance the overall idea
generation when members are actively engaged in discussion. The extensive review on the BS applications in higher education
allowed us to uncover some interesting aspects resulting from using TBS, NBS, and EBS in a discipline-specific context. In depth, we
were able to underline the key challenges and opportunities of these techniques in the emerging university disciplines of business,
psychology, industry, language, and other relevant ones. Previous efforts on extending the current formation of BS techniques were
also looked at in this study. The classification of factors in which TBS, NBS, and EBS techniques have been utilized by previous studies
is presented in Fig. 1. It is anticipated that the discussion of these factors in a discipline specific context will provide a basis for future
strategies to promote effective group BS practices and also provide a useful reference for studies aiming to develop certain creativity-
relevant skills in higher education.
From the figure, it can be said that the main purpose of using TBS, NBS, and EBS techniques is to increase the quantity and quality

Fig. 1. BS factors across disciplines.

88
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

of ideas, satisfaction, positive perception, and performance individual group members. Precisely, we found that:

1) TBS can promote group members’ creative thinking practices and writing skills through copying letters/vocabulary and de-
monstration, in order to generate more sufficient decisions. We think that the coherence of ideas drafted by students in the TBS
group could enable them to produce in writing. It helps create an atmosphere of cooperation by enabling students to share and
review their ideas throughout the session. In principle, we think that university students can benefit from the repetition of drills or
memorization of dialogue found in the TBS activity.
2) NBS can facilitate ideas generation, through significant improvement in the quantity and quality of ideas. For example, NBS can
increase students’ participation in free riding and allowing them to list all ideas that come to mind without being interrupted. It
also contributes to the way individuals and groups construct ideas by enabling them to sufficiently use the available resources to
construct more workable decisions.
3) EBS can offer an alternative way for learners to engage themselves in interactive and lively discussion which helps to encourage
them to think creatively and openly. EBS can effectively assess students in the ideas generation process that are novel and non-
redundant. We think that the process for constructing ideas in the EBS environment requires less cognitive and social resources
which play a role in decreasing the production blocking that may occur when the group participate in anonymous discussion. As
such, students are assumed to express their thoughts freely with less apprehensiveness when finalizing the final ideas.
Furthermore, voice messages can be used as an alternative for the keyboard when documenting ideas in the EBS environment. By
doing so, students will be more able to organize their thoughts, so they can refer back to them at anytime. We believe that using
EBS in the higher education context will help increase the synergy of students through peer learning, assessing the current level of
knowledge, participation in online discussion, organizing thoughts, and reaching group consensus.

In addition, larger group size can be used to support decision-making processes, while small group size can be used to provide
creative and formative discussions. Still, more efforts are needed to improve the processes within the TBS, NBS, and EBS environ-
ments in a way that ensures the delivery of the best attainable ideas and production of intermediate feedback. This may be achieved
by using more informed approaches and guidelines that could direct group members and individuals through the activity cycle.
Future studies may also consider exploring how the varying length of brainstorming sessions and complexity can influence in-
dividuals’ and teams’ productivity. The insights addressed in this study about different BS techniques in higher education can guide
educational decision makers to identify the best BS practice within specific contexts. The study also shed light on some challenges
that students may face when using these techniques to develop their creativity-relevant skills. With the increase utilization of
technology within a university context, EBS is seemed to be the most reliable and realistic solution for carrying out BS sessions.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of
the paper. They owe a special thanks to Dr. Wan Ahmad Jaafar Wan Yahaya for his moral support and encouragement throughout the
research. They are also grateful to Brandford Bervell for acting as a third reader for this work.

References

Aiken, M., Vanjani, M., & Paolillo, J. (1996). A comparison of two electronic idea generation techniques. Information and Management, 30(2), 91–99.
Al-khatib, B. A. (2012). The effect of using brainstorming strategy in developing creative problem solving skills among female students in princess alia university
college. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(10), 29–38.
Althuizen, N. (2017). Communicating a key benefit claim creatively and effectively through five conveyor properties. Psychology and Marketing, 34(1), 5–18.
Amoush, K. H. (2015). The impact of employing brainstorming strategy on improving writing performance of english major students at balqa applied university in
jordan. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35), 88–92.
Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality: Is electronic brainstorming the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32(2),
158–205.
Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2016). The role of time and category relatedness in electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 47(3), 333–342.
Benbasat, I., & Lim, J. (2000). Information technology support for debiasing group judgments: An empirical evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 83(1), 167–183.
Brandies, A., & Dotzauer, M. (2016). Transdisciplinary approaches in practice-oriented research projects as combination of method and methodology: Consideration of
need as well as requirement analysis and integration. Swiss Inter-and Transdisciplinarity Day, 2016.
Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Shepherd, M. M., Yen, J., & Nunameker, J. (1997). Quality as a function of quantity in electronic brainstorming. Paper presented at the
proceedings of the thirtieth hawaii international conference on system sciences..
Casalino, N., & D’atri, A. (2005). E-learning vs is education and research: The luiss university experience. Paper presented at the proc. of international conference on
methods and technologies for learning-ICMTL.
Clayphan, A., Collins, A., Ackad, C., Kummerfeld, B., & Kay, J. (2011). Firestorm: A brainstorming application for collaborative group work at tabletops. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces.
Clayphan, A., Kay, J., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Scriptstorm: Scripting to enhance tabletop brainstorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1433–1453.
Comadena, M. E. (1984). Brainstorming groups: Ambiguity tolerance, communication apprehension, task attraction, and individual productivity. Small Group Behavior,
15(2), 251–264.
Cooper, W. H., Gallupe, R. B., Pollard, S., & Cadsby, J. (1998). Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(2), 147–178.
Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531.
Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1994). Group, sub-group, and nominal group idea generation: New rules for a new media? Journal of Management, 20(4), 723–736.
Dennis, A., Aronson, J., Heninger, B., & Walker, E. (1996). Task and time decomposition in electronic brainstorming. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 1996.
Proceedings of the twenty-ninth Hawaii international conference on.
Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Carte, T. A., Garfield, M. J., Haley, B. J., & Aronson, J. E. (1997a). The effectiveness of multiple dialogues in electronic brainstorming.

89
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

Information Systems Research, 8(2), 203–211.

Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Carte, T. A., Garfield, M. J., Haley, B. J., & Aronson, J. E. (1997b). Research report: The effectiveness of multiple dialogues in electronic
brainstorming. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 203–211.
Drapeau, P. (2014). Sparking student creativity: Practical ways to promote innovative thinking and problem solving: ASCD.
Egan, A., Maguire, R., Christophers, L., & Rooney, B. (2017). Developing creativity in higher education for 21st century learners: A protocol for a scoping review.
International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 21–27.
Faste, H., Rachmel, N., Essary, R., & Sheehan, E. (2013). Brainstorm, chainstorm, cheatstorm, tweetstorm: New ideation strategies for distributed hci design. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Feinberg, M., & Nemeth, C. (2008). The rules of brainstorming: An impediment to creativity? Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
Fu, K., Murphy, J., Yang, M., Otto, K., Jensen, D., & Wood, K. (2015). Design-by-analogy: Experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for
concept generation improvement. Research in Engineering Design, 26(1), 77–95.
Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of
Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369.
Ghabanchi, Z., & Behrooznia, S. (2014). The impact of brainstorming on reading comprehension and critical thinking ability of efl learners. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 98, 513–521.
Gogus, A. (2012). Brainstorming and learning Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer484–488.
Helquist, J., Kruse, J., & Diller, C. (2017). Peer-reviewed brainstorming to facilitate large group collaboration. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 50th hawaii
international conference on system sciences.
Hender, J. M., Dean, D. L., Rodgers, T. L., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr (2002). An examination of the impact of stimuli type and gss structure on creativity: Brainstorming
versus non-brainstorming techniques in a gss environment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 59–85.
Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2013). Generating ideas about the uses of brainstorming: Reconsidering the losses and gains of brainstorming groups
relative to nominal groups. Southern Communication Journal, 78(1), 42–55.
Herbert, T. T., & Yost, E. B. (1979). A comparison of decision quality under nominal and interacting consensus group formats: The case of the structured problem.
Decision Sciences, 10(3), 358–370.
Hong, H.-Y., & Chiu, C.-H. (2016). Understanding how students perceive the role of ideas for their knowledge work in a knowledge-building environment. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1).
Hsu, C.-C., Wang, T.-I., Lin, K.-J., & Chang, J.-W. (2017). The effects of fusing 635 brainstorming and c-sketch methods on the creativity of industrial design. Paper
presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on.
Johnson, B. R., & D’Lauro, C. J. (2017). After brainstorming, groups select an early generated idea as their best idea. Small Group Research [1046496417720285].
Jung, J. J. (2006). A new approach to enhance group ideation: The effect of verbal-ebs on cognitive stimulation.
Kelly, R. (2016). Engaging in creative practice: From design thinking to design doing. Creative Development: Transforming Education Through Design Thinking, Innovation,
and Invention, 57.
Kerr, D. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381–399.
Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Choi, Y. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
47(3), 554–561.
Korde, R. (2012). Asynchronous idea generation. (Master of Science in Psychology). The University of Texas at Arlington.
Kramer, M. W., Kuo, C. L., & Dailey, J. C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes beyond generating ideas. Small Group
Research, 28(2), 218–242.
Krieger, M., & Wang, Y. (2008). Ideas2ideas: Encouraging constructive ideation in an online, mass-participation brainstorming system. UIST, Poster session..
Levine, J. M., Alexander, K. M., Wright, A. G., & Higgins, E. T. (2016). Group brainstorming: When regulatory non fit enhances performance. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 257–271.
Lewis, A. C., Sadosky, T. L., & Connolly, T. (1975). The effectiveness of group brainstorming in engineering problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 3, 119–124.
Litchfield, R. C. (2009). Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea quantity? Motivation and Emotion, 33(1), 25–31.
Lynch, A. L., Murthy, U. S., & Engle, T. J. (2009). Fraud brainstorming using computer-mediated communication: The effects of brainstorming technique and
facilitation. The Accounting Review, 84(4), 1209–1232.
McGlynn, R. P., McGurk, D., Effland, V. S., Johll, N. L., & Harding, D. J. (2004). Brainstorming and task performance in groups constrained by evidence. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(1), 75–87.
Meadow, A., Parnes, S. J., & Reese, H. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 43(6), 413.
Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social comparison and individual creativity on performance and
attention to others’ ideas during electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 57–67.
Michinov, N. (2012). Is electronic brainstorming or brainwriting the best way to improve creative performance in groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea-
generation techniques. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E222–E243.
Miller, L. E. (2009). Evidence-based instruction: a classroom experiment comparing nominal and brainstorming groups. Organization Management Journal, 6(4),
229–238.
Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product
novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65.
Mohammad, M. F., & Hussein, A. A. (2013). Enhancing students‟ motivation to write essays through brainstorming: A comparative study. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 3(9), 191–196.
Montag-Smit, T., & Maertz, C. P. (2017). Searching outside the box in creative problem solving: The role of creative thinking skills and domain knowledge. Journal of
Business Research, 81, 1–10.
Moradian, A., Nasir, M., Lyons, K., Leung, R., & Sim, S. E. (2014). Gamification of collaborative idea generation and convergence. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems..
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.
Park-Gates, S. L. (2001). Effects of group interactive brainstorming on creativity. Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (Doctor of phylosophy).
Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of brainstorming instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 50(4), 171.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). Critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. Mis Quarterly, 621–643.
Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 29–40.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100–106.
Rietzschel, E., Nijstad, B., & Stroebe, W. (2006a). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and
selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006b). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation
and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251.
Rietzschel, E. F. (2005). From quantity to quality: Cognitive, motivational and social aspects of creative idea generation and selection. Utrecht University.
Roy, M. C., Gauvin, S., & Limayem, M. (1996). Electronic group brainstorming: The role of feedback on productivity. Small Group Research, 27(2), 215–247.

90
H. Al-Samarraie, S. Hurmuzan Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 78–91

Schlee, R. P., & Harich, K. R. (2014). Teaching creativity to business students: How well are we doing? Journal of Education for Business, 89(3), 133–141.
Shengming, Y. (2008). The effects of brainstorming on english writing. Foreign Language World, 4, 011.
Shih, P. C., Nguyen, D. H., Hirano, S. H., Redmiles, D. F., & Hayes, G. R. (2009). Groupmind: Supporting idea generation through a collaborative mind-mapping tool.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work.
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 53–80.
Sutton, S. G., & Arnold, V. (2013). Focus group methods: Using interactive and nominal groups to explore emerging technology-driven phenomena in accounting and
information systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14(2), 81–88.
Tang, H., Chen, Y., & Gero, J. (2012). The influence of design methods on the design process: Effect of use of scenario, brainstorming, and synectics on designing.
Proceedings of Design Research Society (DRS), 1824–1838.
Tausch, S., Hausen, D., Kosan, I., Raltchev, A., & Hussmann, H. (2014). Groupgarden: Supporting brainstorming through a metaphorical group mirror on table or wall.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun Fast, Foundational.
Tsai, K. C. (2013). Facilitating creativity in adult learners through brainstorming and play. Higher Education of Social Science, 4(3), 1–8.
Unin, N., & Bearing, P. (2016). Brainstorming as a way to approach student-centered learning in the esl classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224,
605–612.
Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 57(3), 448–467.
Villanueva, O., Chacón, X., Artazcoz, O., Lizarraga, S., & Baquedano, S. (2011). Evaluation of computer tools for idea generation and team formation in project-based
learning. Computers and Education, 56(3), 700–711.
Zainol, A. S., Yusof, W. Z. M., Mastor, K. A., Sanusi, Z. M., & Ramli, N. M. (2012). Using group brainstorming in industrial design context: Factors inhibit and exhibit.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 106–119.
Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Zijlstra, G. (2000). Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: Does computer-mediated communication improve group brainstorming?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(2), 141–158.

91