Identifying How School Teachers Use Creative Problem Solving

Copyright 2004, Hideki Muneyoshi.

Used with permission of Hideki Muneyoshi.

Identifying How School Teachers Use

Creative Problem Solving
by
Hideki Muneyoshi
An Abstract of a Thesis
in
Creative Studies
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
December, 2004
Buffalo State College,
State University of New York,
International Center for Studies in Creativity

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 using Brainstorming most often. Eight themes emerged when data were analyzed for ways in which aspects of CPS were used in the classroom. These themes 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 from students; 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, and so on. Interpretations of these findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

Hideki Muneyoshi

Date

Buffalo State College State University of New York International Center for Studies in Creativity Identifying How School Teachers Use Creative Problem Solving A Thesis in Creative Studies by Hideki Muneyoshi Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science December 2004 Dates of Approval:

Gerard J. Puccio Professor Chairperson of the Department of Creative Studies Principal Thesis Advisor

Richard S. Podemski Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

ii THESIS COMMITTEE SIGNATORY

Dates of Approval

Dr. Mary C. Murdock Associate Professor of Creative Studies

Dr. Gerard J. Puccio Professor of Creative Studies

iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank all of the professors and friends that I have met since I came 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 to Dr. 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 her having 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.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page ...............................................................................................................p. i Thesis Committee Signatory ..................................................................................p. ii Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................p. iii Table of Contents.................................................................................................. p. iv List 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. 7 Research Questions................................................................................................. p.8
Summary ............................................................................................................... p. 8 Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature............................................................. p. 10 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 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. 31 Rationale for Methodology .................................................................................. p. 31 Participants.......................................................................................................... p. 31 Measurement ....................................................................................................... p. 33 Procedure ............................................................................................................ p. 34 Data 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 the
components, 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

v One-way ANOVA for the frequency of the use of the CPS principles
and 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. 50 Learning 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. 66 Summary 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. 79 Appendix 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

vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The Comparisons of the Names of the CPS Components and Stages Among the Three Models ................................................................... p. 24 Table 4.1: Mean and Standard Deviations for the Three Components of the
Survey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............ p. 38 Table 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 of
School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............................ p. 39 Table 4.4: Mean and Standard Deviations for the 19 Tools of the Survey of
School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving ............................ p. 40 Table 4.5: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the Three Components
in Classes ........................................................................................... p. 41 Table 4.6: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the 12 Principles in
Classes ............................................................................................... p. 42 Table 4.7: Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the Six Stages in
Classes ............................................................................................... 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 Principles
in Classes .......................................................................................... p. 44 Table 4.10: One-way ANOVA for the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Tools in
Classes ............................................................................................... 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

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.

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

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.

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

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 Thinking scores 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

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 cognitivelyoriented 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 cognitivelyoriented 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

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 as Brainstorming, Brainwriting and 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

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 educators who 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.

9 However there are only a few studies that show how teachers regularly use CPS in actual classes. Finally, the research questions were introduced.

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

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 Model goes 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 Intellect most related to creative thinking come in the operation category of divergent production and the product category of

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.

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

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

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

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 twoyear 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

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 nonacademic 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

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 metaanalysis. 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.

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).

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), and solution-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 of fact-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

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.

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, and Planning 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.

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 Appraisal and Process 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).

24 Table 2.1 The Comparisons of the Names of the CPS Components and Stages among the three models Osborn-Parnes Isaksen et als _ Miller et al.s CPS CPS CPS Understanding the Explore the Problem Challenge Components N/A Generating Ideas Planning for Action Constructing opportunities Exploring Data Framing Problems Generating Ideas Developing Solutions Building Acceptance Appraising Tasks _ Designing Process _ Generate Ideas Prepare for Action Identify Goal/Wish/Challenge Gather Data Clarify the Problem Generate Ideas Select & Strengthen Solutions Plan for Action

Objective-Finding Fact-Finding Problem-Finding Idea-Finding Stages Solution-Finding Acceptance-Finding

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.

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, OsbornParnes 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

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-

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

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<.05). The results indicated that there was a higher degree of transfer of problem-solving skills by the students who learned CPS through transfer strategies. Another study showed that not only gifted students, but also average students can benefit from CPS training. Schack (1993) investigated the effects of a creative problem solving curriculum on students of varying ability. Two hundred sixty-seven middle school students who had previously been designated as gifted (n=78), honors (n=106), or average (n=83) participated in this study. Four of the experimental groups and three of the control groups were heterogeneously grouped. Of the homogeneously grouped classes, one experimental and one control group included gifted students and another pair included average students; the third comparison group included honors students. Experimental group students participated in a 45-lesson curriculum carried out over a 9-18 week period by the various experimental group teachers. To assess problem solving, both of the experimental and control students responded to a hypothetical problem before and after the treatment, with results scored by two independent judges for problem fluency, solution fluency, flexibility, originality, and use of criteria. Experimental students showed significant gains in problem-solving

29 ability compared with controls, with no significant differences among ability level (p<.001). Both average and honors students showed gains in several aspects of CPS after instruction and practice. With respect to CPS, the results suggested that both gifted and average students can benefit from process skills taught in gifted programs. The third study with students showed that middle school students could retain the CPS skills that they learned. Baer (1988) investigated the long-term effects of CPS training with middle school students. Two matched eighth-grade classes of high-ability students (n = 48) participated in the study. The experimental group spent three days and two nights at an outdoor school learning to use the Osborn-Parnes CPS model. There was no treatment for the control group. Just prior to the training both groups were tested, and six months after the training they were retested. There were four subtests: (a) data-fining, (b) problem-finding, (c) idea-finding, and (d) solution-finding, containing both divergent and convergent sections. The problems that appeared on the subtests came from math, language arts, science, social studies, and the out-of-school lives of students. On every subtest the experimental group outperformed the control group significantly, indicating that after six months the skills of CPS had been retained. Also, the experimental group showed significantly higher increases on each of the subtests and the total battery in testing six months after the seminar. K. Puccio (1994) investigated the effectiveness of CPS training with elementary school children, specifically looking at how CPS might help them with real-life problems. The study tested 12 lessons which taught first graders CPS. Qualitative data were collected from the teacher, two observers, and the first grade students. The research showed that the children were able to apply CPS on real problems at varying degrees and could apply seven out of the eight divergent and

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.

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

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

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 called Foursight. 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

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.

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 adopted Logico-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

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.

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 letter R if you have used it regularly; the letter O 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 R into 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.

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 Solving
Variables Explore the Challenge Generate Ideas Prepare for Action (n = 22) Minimum 0.00 1.00 0.00 Maximum 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mean 1.64 1.77 1.59 SD 0.58 0.48 0.59

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 School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving
Variables Dynamic Balance Divergent Thinking Defer Judgment Strive for Quantity Seek Wild Ideas Build on Other Ideas Convergent Thinking Affirmative Judgment Be Deliberate Check Your Objectives Improve Ideas Consider Novelty (n = 22) Minimum 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mean 0.91 1.91 1.95 1.91 1.82 2.00 1.86 1.55 1.36 1.36 1.82 1.55 SD 0.87 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.39 0.00 0.35 0.74 0.79 0.79 0.59 0.74

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 while Divergent Thinking obtained the third highest mean score with 1.91 and Convergent Thinking acquired the fourth highest with 1.86, Dynamic Balance, the concept that consists of those two thinking processes, gained the lowest mean score.

Table 4.3 Mean and Standard Deviations for the Six Stages of the Survey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving
Variables Identify the Goal, Wish, Challenge Gather Data Clarify the Problem Generate Ideas Select & Strengthen Solutions Plan for Actions (n = 22) Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mean 1.45 1.64 1.41 1.73 1.64 1.55 SD 0.60 0.58 0.67 0.46 0.58 0.60

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).

40 Table 4.4 Mean and Standard Deviations for the 19 Tools of the Survey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving
Variables Brainstorming Brainstorming with Post-Its Brainwriting Forced Connections Morphological Matrix Attribute Listing Word Dance SCAMPER Visual Connections Ladder of Abstraction Excursions Hits Highlighting Card Sort Targeting Evaluation Matrix Paired Comparison Analysis Praise First Stem Power (n = 22) Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mean 1.82 1.32 0.91 1.09 0.86 0.64 0.59 0.68 0.91 0.86 0.41 1.59 1.27 0.77 0.14 0.95 0.77 1.50 1.27 SD 0.50 0.72 0.68 0.81 0.83 0.79 0.80 0.78 0.81 0.89 0.67 0.67 0.88 0.81 0.47 0.90 0.81 0.74 0.88

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, Brainstorming acquired the highest mean score in this category with 1.82 (SD = 0.50). Targeting gained 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 were Brainstorming (mean = 1.82, SD = 0.50), Hits (mean = 1.59, SD = 0.67), and Praise 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.

41 Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Components, Principles, Stages, and Tools in Classes For table 4.5 through table 4.8, the Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric test, was conducted to identify whether there were significant differences in regard to how often the teachers used the CPS components, principles, stages, and tools.

Table 4.5 Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the Three Components in Classes
Component Generate Ideas Explore the Challenge Prepare for Action (n = 22) Mean Rank 36.23 32.86 31.41

Table 4.5 outlines which one among the three CPS components has been used more often in classes than others. A mean rank indicates that the higher score a variable (i.e., a component in this case) acquires as its mean rank, the more often it has been used in classes than others in the category. Although the outcome of this calculation was not statistically significant (Chi-Square=1.14, df=2, p<.566), the component, Generate Ideas, gained the highest mean rank with 36.23; thus, it is possible that it has been used most often in classes in this category. The lowest score of mean rank was 31.41 with Prepare for Action, which might suggest that the component has been used the least frequently in classes in this category.

42 Table 4.6 Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the 12 Principles in Classes
Principle Build on Other Ideas Defer Judgment Divergent Thinking Strive for Quantity Improve Ideas Convergent Thinking Seek Wild & Unusual Ideas Be Affirmative Consider Novelty Be Deliberate Check Your Objectives Dynamic Balance (n = 22) Mean Rank 164.00 158.57 153.14 153.14 150.27 147.70 142.27 121.68 121.68 103.95 103.95 69.64

Table 4.6 depicts which of 12 principles has been used more frequently in classes than the others. The results were statistically significant (Chi-Square=61.09, df=11, p<.000). The principle, Build on Other Ideas, acquired the highest score with 164.00; therefore it is shown to have been used most often in classes. Dynamic Balance gained the lowest score with 69.64. It follows that the principle has been used the least often in this category. The five most-often-used principles in the ranking order are Build on Other Ideas (164.00), Defer Judgment (158.57), Divergent Thinking (153.14), Strive for Quantity (153.14), and Improve Ideas (150.27). It is interesting that the four of the five principles are made up of the ones related to divergent thinking.

Table 4.7 Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the Six Stages in Classes
Stage Generate Ideas Select & Strengthen Solution Gather Data Plan for Action Identify the Goal, Wish, Challenge Clarify the Problem (n = 22) Mean Rank 74.82 70.80 70.80 65.07 59.34 58.18

43 Table 4.7 displays which of the six CPS stages has been used more often in classes than others. While the results were not statistically significant (ChiSquare=4.71, df=5, p<.452), the stage, Generate Ideas, acquired the highest score with 74.82, which might suggest that the stage has been used most frequently in classes in this category. Clarify the Problem gained the lowest with 58.18. It might imply that the stage has been used the least often than the rest of this category.

Table 4.8 Mean Ranks of the Frequency of the Use of the 19 Tools in Classes
Tool Brainstorming Hits Praise First Brainstorming w/ Post-Its Highlighting Stem Power Forced Connections Evaluation Matrix Brainwriting Visual Connections Morphological Matrix Ladder of Abstraction Paired Comparison Analysis Card Sort SCAMPER Attribute Listing Word Dance Excursions Targeting (n = 22) Mean Rank 321.73 292.09 280.05 256.59 249.77 249.77 226.32 207.77 202.86 202.23 196.05 195.73 184.00 184.00 171.95 165.77 159.59 135.50 98.73

Table 4.8 portrays which of the 19 tools has been used more often in classes than others. The results were statistically significant (Chi-Square=94.79, df=18, p<.000). The tool, Brainstorming, acquired the highest score with 321.73; therefore it is shown to have been used most often in classes. Targeting gained the lowest score with 98.73. It follows that the tool has been used the least often in this category.

44 One-way ANOVA for the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Principles and Tools in Classes Given the significant results found out for the Kruskal-Wallis analysis for the CPS principles and tools, a one-way ANOVA was carried out to determine which specific principles and tools were used most often. The results are listed below. Again, it is important to note that calculations were performed only on the items of principles and tools. Only they provided statistically significant results in the analysis for mean ranks.

Table 4.9 One-way ANOVA for the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Principles in Classes
Source Between groups Within groups Sum of Squares 26.03 82.64 df 11 252 Mean Square 2.37 0.33 F 7.22 Sig. 0.00

Table 4.9 presents the results of the one-way ANOVA for the frequency of the use of CPS principles in classes. The results were F (11, 252) = 7.22 and p < 0.00, which shows that the group means of the frequency of the use of CPS principles were significantly different. Table 4.10 One-way ANOVA of the Frequency of the Use of the CPS Tools in Classes
Sum of Squares 69.53 236 Mean Square 3.86 0.59

Source Between groups Within groups

df 18 399

F 6.53

Sig. 0.00

Table 4.10 outlines the results of the one-way ANOVA for the frequency of the use of CPS tools in classes. The results were F (18, 399) = 6.53 and p < 0.00. Therefore, the group means of the frequency of the use of CPS tools were significantly different.

45 Post Hoc Test for the Frequency of the Use of CPS Principles and Tools in Classes In order to determine which groups differ from each other significantly, a post hoc test was conducted using the Tukey Honestly Significantly Different (Tukey HSD) test. Because the one-way ANOVA was carried out only for principles and tools, this test was also conducted only for those aspects of CPS. It is important to note that all items of principles and tools were calculated; however, only those calculations that produced statistically significant outcomes in this test are reported here. Hence, this segment presents the results of the post hoc test for Dynamic Balance, Defer Judgment, and Build on Other Ideas in principles, and Brainstorming, Brainstorming with Post-Its, Forced Connections, Hits, Highlighting, Praise First, and Stem Power in tools. Table 4.11 Results of Post Hoc Test for Dynamic Balance
Principle Principles Divergent Thinking Defer Judgment Strive for Quantity Seek Wild & Unusual Ideas Build on Other Ideas Convergent Thinking Be Affirmative Improve Ideas Consider Novelty Mean Difference -1.00 -1.05 -1.00 -0.91 -1.09 -0.95 -0.64 -0.91 -0.64 Std. Error 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01

Dynamic Balance

Table 4.11 outlines the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Dynamic Balance. As shown in the table, Dynamic Balance differs from the following items: Divergent Thinking, Defer Judgment, Strive for Quantity, Seek Wild & Unusual Ideas, Build on Other Ideas, Convergent Thinking, Be Affirmative, Improve Ideas, and Consider Novelty. It is important to note that all mean differences on the table are negative; it means that the participants of this survey have used principles (e.g., Divergent Thinking) more often than Dynamic Balance in their classes.

46 Table 4.12 Results of Post Hoc Test for Defer Judgment

Principle Defer Judgment Principles Be Deliberate Check Your Objectives Mean Difference 0.59 0.59 Std. Error 0.17 0.17 Sig. 0.03 0.03

Table 4.12 presents the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Defer Judgment. As shown in the table, Defer Judgment differs from Be Deliberate and Check Your Objectives, which means that the participants of this survey used Divergent Thinking more frequently than these two principles in their classes.

Table 4.13 Results of Post Hoc Test for Build on Other Ideas
Principle Build on Other Ideas Principles Be Deliberate Check Your Objectives Mean Difference 0.64 0.64 Std. Error 0.17 0.17 Sig. 0.01 0.01

Table 4.13 depicts the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Build on Other Ideas. Build on Other Ideas differs from Be Deliberate and Check Your Objectives. These results indicate that the participants of this survey have used Build on Other Ideas more often than these two principles in their classes. Table 4.14 Results of Post Hoc Test for Brainstorming
Tool Tools Brainwriting Morphological Matrix Attribute Listing Word Dance SCAMPER Visual Connections Ladder of Abstraction Excursions Card Sort Targeting Evaluation Matrix Paired Comparison Analysis Mean Difference 0.91 0.95 1.18 1.23 1.14 0.91 0.95 1.41 1.05 1.68 0.86 1.05 Std. Error 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sig. 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00

Brainstorming

47 Table 4.14 displays the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Brainstorming. The table shows that Brainstorming differs from the following items: Brainwriting, Morphological Matrix, Attribute Listing, Word Dance, SCAMPER, Visual Connections, Ladder of Abstraction, Excursions, Card Sort, Targeting, Evaluation Matrix, and Paired Comparison Analysis. These results suggest that the participants of this survey utilized Brainstorming more often than these tools in their classes. Also, the results show the popularity of the use of Brainstorming among the teachers over other divergent tools. Table 4.15 Results of Post Hoc Test for Brainstorming with Post-Its
Tool Brainstorming with Post-Its Tools Excursions Targeting Mean Difference 0.91 1.18 Std. Error 0.23 0.23 Sig. 0.01 0.00

Table 4.15 presents the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Brainstorming with Post-Its. Brainstorming with Post-Its differs from Excursions and Targeting. These results indicate that the participants of this survey used Brainstorming with Post-Its more frequently than these two tools in their classes. Table 4.16 Result of Post Hoc Test for Forced Connections
Tool Forced Connections Tools Targeting Mean Difference 0.95 Std. Error 0.23 Sig. 0.00

Table 4.16 depicts the statistically significant result of the post hoc test for Forced Connections. The table indicates that Forced Connections differs only from Targeting. This result suggests that the participants of this survey used Forced Connections more often than Targeting in their classes.

48 Table 4.17 Results of Post Hoc Test for Hits

Tool Tools Attribute Listing Word Dance SCAMPER Excursions Targeting Mean Difference 0.95 1.00 0.90 1.18 1.45 Std. Error 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Hits

Table 4.17 presents the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Hits. As shown in the table, Hits differs from Attribute Listing, Word Dance, SCAMPER, Excursions, and Targeting. The participants of this survey answered that they used Hits more frequently in their classes than these five tools.

Table 4.18 Results of Post Hoc Test for Highlighting

(I) Tool Highlighting (J) Tool Excursions Targeting Mean Difference (IJ) 0.86 1.14 Std. Error 0.23 0.23 Sig. 0.03 0.00

Table 4.18 presents the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Highlighting. As shown in the table, Highlighting differs from Excursions and Targeting. It means that the participants of the current survey have used Highlighting more frequently than these tools in their classes. Table 4.19 Results of Post Hoc Test for Praise First
Tool Praise First Tools Attribute Listing Word Dance Excursions Targeting Mean Difference 0.86 0.91 1.09 1.36 Std. Error 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sig. 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00

Table 4.19 depicts the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Praise First. As shown in the table, Highlighting differs from Attribute Listing, Word Dance, Excursions, and Targeting. These results suggest that the participants of the present survey used Praise First more often than these four tools in their classes.

49 Table 4.20 Results of Post Hoc Test for Stem Power

Tool Stem Power Tools Excursions Targeting Mean Difference 0.86 1.14 Std. Error 0.23 0.23 Sig. 0.03 0.03

Table 4.20 outlines the statistically significant results of the post hoc test for Stem Power. These results show that Stem Power differs from Excursions and Targeting. The participants of this survey answered that they have used Stem Power more frequently than these two tools in their classes.

Findings for Part II

This section presents the qualitative results of Part II of the Survey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving. The question of this part is 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'. The replies of 22 participants were analyzed. The current study employed Logico-inductive 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. A total of eight topic themes emerged as a result of the data analysis. Further analysis revealed that they fell into one of three categories: school life, learning and teaching, and miscellaneous.

50 For the purpose of presenting these findings, the next subsection outlines the results of the study. These topic themes are organized within their respective category and are presented in no particular order. First, each category is explained. Next, each corresponding topic theme is presented along with its description. Finally, to support each topic theme, teachers quotes are presented. School Life The School Life category refers to the activities of both students and teachers outside of the school learning or teaching experience. This category contains a total of 15 items. Topic themes that emerged under this category include School life: general; and School life: specific.

School life: general

A number of teachers reported the use of CPS aspects in school life in general. They used them in class discussions and in random conversations with their students. Some teachers answered that they had students solve problems by using CPS.

Quotes:

We explore possibilities, generate ideas on how we can make them successful- then, create a plan for action. We do this in content areas, building friendship, and in everyday life. in class discussions Brainstorming is a common tool we use verbally or with Post-its in random conversations or with formal idea generation settings. I use the stems (IWBGI, etc.) when I am hoping for students to do certain things that arent always desirable (IWBGI our classroom wasnt so messy.) I use the stems when talking with students as a way to get them thinking and get them to problem solve for themselves. I also use the process with my students when there is a class problem that needs to be solved. Students were involved in identifying problems in their areas of interest and following through to taking action.

51 School life: specific The comments involved in this topic theme are the activities of students and/or teachers with specific goals outside of subject learning/teaching in school. The teachers responses include items such as using CPS aspects at the beginning of the year to have students create ground rules, or create behavior modifications and so on. Quotes:

[CPS aspects] are taught in the beginning of the year At the beginning of the year I introduce my class as a team and we create ground rules that we agree to abide by. The students defer judgment and are open to many ideas. I use this process a lot when creating behavior modifications with a student that may be having a hard time working in the class. We identify a goal, get background knowledge, target the problem, and determine how we will overcome it and be successful. [CPS was] used with students in preparing for competitions such as Odyssey of the Mind, Science Olympiad, and Math is Everywhere. [CPS was] also used when working with Students Council on problems or opportunities in the school community Each day I have a Goal for the day on the board (7th grade science). The students actually identify the goal and reflect if they acquired that goal at the end of the class. the students use these tools to come up with group rules Students used CPS: to promote American Sign Language to design classroom climate to meet Ekvalls component to produce an improvisational performance to create a luncheon program for healthy eating to promote reading at the middle school to improve lunch menu to produce a newsletter of the future (future scenarios) and to produce a set of past cards to promote adoption of orphaned animals.

52 Learning and Teaching Learning and Teaching refers to the class activities of students and/or teachers. This category includes 42 items. It is made up of six topic themes of the following: lesson/unit planning, subject-related use, writing, project work, getting responses from students, and evaluating.

Lesson/unit planning Teachers reported the use of CPS aspects for lesson/unit planning. They utilize CPS aspects for developing lessons, prioritizing concepts to teach, deciding on a topic for the semester and the like. Quotes:

I regularly use the CPS components and principles while planning my

lessons.
I use CPS when planning my lessons/ units. Objective, Data, and Solution finding come into play most when I am
developing lessons or improving upon old lessons.
I use the tools to prioritize what concepts are more important to cover than others. we use PCA to decide what the course topic will be for the semester evaluation of the lesson/unit ALUs are done at the end of units of study

Subject-related use Teachers answered that they used CPS aspects in teaching subjects. This topic theme contains the items that state specific subjects in themselves. Quotes:

I use Hits and Highlighting in my social studies classes for students to engage and identify key points in their guided notes

53

apartment searching with Evaluation Matrix [in a class called Living on Your Own] classroom management, reading musical symbols, playing musical instruments, creative activities (painting pictures to music, writing music, solving music problems), group activities (dancing, lummistick activities, bean bag games)

I n Health, when discussing how alcohol effects the body I facilitated students/classes through a problem using flow sheets and their choice of topic. Usually connected with a subject area or their curriculum if it warranted a creative approach. used with students whenever generating or focusing options in all subject areas such as creative writing Invention Ideas Grade 7 / Science: Brainstorm a list of environmental
annoyances; Convergent thinking intriguing, interesting
Given a vague art problems such as create an impressionistic portrait, then we figure out as a group what that means, what to include, how, etc. Immigration Grade 8 / Social Studies: IWW is a family immigrating to America in 1900 like your family moving to live in the Space Station?

Writing Teachers responded that they used CPS aspects to teach their students to write. For example, the students used CPS when they wrote on different topics or developed stories. One teacher answered that she got her students to think words in her English class with a CPS tool. Quotes:

We also brainstorm people, events, and places to write about. for writing on different topics As an English teacher, Word Dance is a part of life. Students are always
looking for another word for x . This [Ladder of Abstraction] is a great tool for students to learn how to expand on and engage deeper whether they are being asked to write about. Morphological Matrix used in developing creative writing stories

54

Morphological Matrix is great for writing pieces choosing characters, setting, conflicts are fun Creative Writing- Grade 6 / English Language Arts: SCAMPER- De-brief the visualization I use it [CPS] for students to understand essay questions by looking at ways to clarify and address what is being asked.

Project work Teachers reported that the students worked on their projects by using CPS. The students used CPS frequently especially when they were working on invention. Quotes:

used with students whenever generating or focusing options in all subject areas such as developing topics for projects and/or research one [project] that applies to most children Gr.1-4 is our Invention Unit used during units on Inventing Gather Data: Use all available resources and example to help them in their solution Plan for Actions: Decide where to begin and if you have trouble with an aspect, find someone who can help you with it Build on Other Ideas: if you see something you like in an example or a friends project, you can borrow parts of it but change it a little to make it your own Convergent Thinking: Pick the best aspects from your sketches to incorporate into your final project Improve Ideas: I ask things like How can you draw the viewers eye to this area? Students created and/or planned new products or outcomes independently or in small groups using CPS

55 Getting responses from students Teachers used CPS aspects on various occasions to gain responses from students in classes such as previous knowledge, key learnings, insights, and the like. Quotes:

I have students brainstorm all the time to get answers to a constructivist form of teaching, so I will use a forced fit [Forced Connections] or visual connection [Visual Connections] while groups are brainstorming I will then have them converge on their lists and produce answers to compare with other groups

[At] the beginning of units the students brainstorm all the things they know about the topic, make hits I used brainstorming with post-its to generate with 5th graders what they liked about [a guest that they had in the class]. When starting a new unit in science I might have brainstormed using post its. This way the students were involved from the start. I was also able to learn and see what they know about that topic. It also gave me different ideas for the unit.

I use praise first to get students and peers thoughts on projects, field trips

Evaluating Teachers answered that they evaluated their students work by utilizing aspects of CPS. Also, some of them stated that they had the students self-evaluate their work with CPS tools. Quotes:

[I] used when appraising student work with presentations or projects as a grading rubric One concrete way I regularly use evaluating ALUo is through writing, in particular, we have critiquing sessions in small groups. We evaluate one childs writing by using ALUo. We then rotate children in and out of the group. The students then go back to their draft and make corrections based on

56 what they heard. The ideas shared through the ALUo are written on a post it for the child (thats what they use for change).

self evaluations after project work Miscellaneous Miscellaneous is a category for the items that do not fall into the other

categories of Part II. Quotes:

Stories With Holes (Nathan Levy) Grade 6/7/8: Divergent thinking, defer judgment, strive for quantity, build on other ideas, consider novelty Card Sort: Multiple Intelligence exercise my main focus is applying CPS to align with ELA and Math standards

Findings for Part III

This section presents the qualitative results of Part III of the Survey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving. The question of this part is What impact(s) do you believe your use of the item(s) marked R has had on your students? Please provide some brief descriptions of the impact(s). (e.g. changes in students behaviors, enhanced motivation of students for learning, etc.) The responses by the 22 participants were analyzed. Part III as well as Part II employed Logico-inductive analysis. A total of 16 topic themes emerged as a result of the data analysis. Further analysis revealed that they fell into one of six categories: perceived impact on students attitude, perceived impact on students behaviors, perceived impact on students feelings, perceived impact on students thinking, perceived impact on classroom climate, and miscellaneous.

57 For the purpose of presenting these findings, the subsection that follows outlines the results for Part III. These topic themes are organized within their respective category and are presented in no particular order. First, each category is explained. Next, each corresponding topic theme is presented along with its description. Finally, to support each topic theme, teachers quotes are presented.

Perceived Impact on Students Attitudes This category refers to the teachers perception of the impact of using CPS on their students attitudes. There are six topic themes included in this category. The topic themes have 23 items in all.

Improved participation in class Teachers answered that they perceived the students have improved their participation in classes. Quotes:

Using the CPS process in my lesson planning has improved the delivery and (the students) interest/participation in my classroom. The students are warmly receptive to the activities that promote thinking.

Impact on the attitudes toward ideas Teachers reported that they observed that the use of CPS aspects in classes impacted their students ways of dealing with ideas. Quotes:

all students love to express their ideas and share their thoughts. Students are comfortable trying ideas whether they know they will work or not. they feel free to give crazy ideas

58 Impact on the attitudes toward learning Teachers have perceived that CPS has made their students more active and enthusiastic in learning. Also they have seen the students take more ownership of learning. Quotes:

My students are very active in their own learning process. they extend their learning and branch out to new ideas and topics The students take more ownership of their own learning. The enthusiasm of learning has increased.

Impact on the attitudes toward problem-solving Many teachers reported that while they have used aspects of CPS in classes, they have observed a lot of impact on the students attitudes toward problem-solving. They perceived a positive impact. Quotes:

Explore the Challengehelp them internalize the problem, learn what is important and how they will be graded for the project They are learning to be open to many possibilities, to approach problems in a more positive way. Aware of the need to state problems as How to? By having students take part in CPS for general classrooms issues, theyfeel they have ownership and actually try to remedy the problem. they are more willing to tackle subsequent problems stem starters have gotten students to start solving problems and think more for themselves They have also learned that problems can be solved in many ways. the way that students approach problems improves dramatically The complaining / griping attitude is replaced with a so, what can we do about it attitude They look to be problem solvers and critical thinkers

59 Students like CPS A teacher made a couple of comments suggesting that she has perceived that her students enjoyed and liked CPS. Quotes:

students show pleasure, excitement, laughter, happier they love it

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous is the topic theme for the items that belong to this category but do not fall into any other themes. There are three items here. Quotes:

Many students and parents found that creativity training has a profound and life long impact on creative productive behavior. The students look forward to being critiqued and critiquing. My students are eager to give it their all and take risks to learn more. Perceived Impact on Student Behavior Perceived Impact on Student Behavior refers to how the teachers have

remarked on the impact of using CPS on their students behaviors. There are five topic themes in this category. They have a total of 27 items.

See things more affirmatively A teacher reported that she observed that her students began to see things more affirmatively as result of utilizing a CPS aspect (i.e., Praise First) in her class. Quotes:

Praise Firsthelps them learn how to better give constructive criticism

60

Praise First has been great because it makes the kids focus on the positive

More cooperation Teachers answered that they perceived students were more cooperate with each other. For example, they observed that the students asked each other for help and understood how to team. Quotes:

Plan for Actionstudents find good resources in each other and will ask others for ideas and help Build on Other Ideasthey dont feel alone and realize that even good ideas can be improved on by them. We have a very close connection to each other and consider ourselves
family.
understand how to team

Students use CPS A number of teachers reported that they perceived the students use CPS by themselves. For example, they stated that the students used CPS principles and terminologies in their daily lives. Quotes:

were fluent in generating they were able to facilitate groups Students are excited about B.S. and easily apply the rules. adopt easily to these strategies I observed them using them on their own. students usually apply the principles to help them with organizing their time, selecting a college, getting a better job, communicating better with friends on family

61

In their thinking out loud they use the terminology of CPS Ill hear them say to a classmate Now you need to defer judgment!

Students learn to take time Teachers answered that their students became more patient and willing to take time. They also perceived the students persistence increased. Quotes:

They learn to be patient with exploring the entire situation. Students learn to take a step back before getting frustrated. The levels of persistence increase

Impact on their classroom work A number of responses from teachers stated that they perceived the impact on the students work in classes. For example, some of them mentioned the improved quality of the students projects; others described the students willingness to work longer. Quotes:

[In their writing process with the Ladder of Abstract] Once students see the level of abstraction, they find it easier to structure and write essays. Improve Ideasonce I ask an open-ended question about their project, the student is able to come up with their own solution to improve the project. Gather Datathe more data available (in a great variety) the more diverse the projects for the class are Convergent Thinking/ Select & Strengthenstudents create better projects by choosing the best aspects from all of their sketches a Cardsort completed by the students keeps them focused and we can
complete all or most of the tasks
especially working without judging their work or others

62

They want to often times work longer on a task The quality of their work and projects improved Perceived Impact on Students Feelings Perceived Impact on Students Feelings refers to how teachers perceived the

influence of the use of aspects of CPS in their classes on their students feelings. This category includes three topic themes, which contain a total of 16 items.

Impact on the students motivation Teachers reported that they perceived the motivation of the students influenced by the use of CPS aspects in classes. Quotes:

The more an environment defers judgment, the level of motivation of

students increase.
their motivation becomes a part of their persona. Because CPS provides opportunities for significant and meaningful student input, students are motivated to put in greater effort.

Increased confidence A number of teachers reported the impact on the students level of confidence. Their accounts suggest that the use of CPS aspects in classes have had positive influence on students confidence. Quotes:

I have many testimonials of shy kids gaining strengths and confidence. They are more confident in expressing themselves and their ideas CPS in general helped students gain confidence in themselves They internalized the skills and became more confident, independent
learners.

63

When students are able to view all of the data, they are more secure with taking the next step in their learning/creating abilities.

Miscellaneous This topic theme is for the items that do not fall into the other topic themes (i.e., Perceived Impact on Students Feelings). Quotes:

My students feel comfortable in answering questions and having conversations without feeling judged They feel empowered to know that their voice means something. The process, tools and techniques when learned, practiced and applied give students independence in many ways. Perceived Impact on Students Thinking Perceived Impact on Students Thinking refers to how teachers perceived the

influence of utilizing aspects of CPS in classes on the ability and process of their students thinking. It is important to note that this category does not have any topic theme because the items belonging here are too independent to create any. Quotes:

I am always so impressed with their ability to brainstorm. A more creative environment enables them to be more expressive, more open in their thinking. Students are encouraged to use divergent and convergent thinking. They dont just stop thinking and exploring a topic. Students are thinking more creatively because of their exposure to CPS
principles.
Perceived Impact on Classroom Climate Perceived Impact on Classroom Climate refers to how the teachers perceived

64 the impact of CPS on their classroom climate. This category contains two topic themes: emergence of safety environment and change of classroom climate.

Emergence of a safe learning environment Teachers reported that by utilizing aspects of CPS in their classes, they perceived the emergence of an environment in which students feel safe. Quotes:

Their [students] level of fear decreases By allowing my students to have more say in how we learn in our
environment, my class is very open and safe.
Their [students] trust and feelings of safety increase.

Change of classroom climate Teachers answered that they observed a change of classroom climate in their classes. They described the climate as being positive and atypical. Quotes:

A more positive classroom atmosphere is the most noticeable result. My classroom environment is atypical It has made a HUGE difference in classroom climate.

Miscellaneous This category, Miscellaneous, is for the items of Part III that do not fall into the other categories. There are two items here. Quotes:

The special-need students have the success with the open-ended questions. They moved out ahead as producers of products and knowledge

65

Summary

This chapter presented the findings of the data analysis for the Survey of School Teachers Use of Creative Problem Solving. First, it provided the quantitative results of the surveys Part I. Next, it presented the qualitative results of the surveys Part II. Finally, the qualitative results of Part III were provided.

66 Chapter 5 FINDINGS, INTERPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the findings of this study. This chapter begins with a summary of the purpose of this research study and its research questions originally presented in Chapter One. Next, the implications of the findings are examined. Then, recommendations are introduced. Third, suggestions are put forth for researchers who are interested in replicating or extending this study. Finally, the conclusion is provided.

Summary of Research Outcomes The goal of this research was 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. Below, the main questions that guided this study are presented, along with a brief account based on the analysis of data. Q. What CPS tools, principles, and concepts are used most often by educators who are current students or graduates of the Masters degree program at the ICSC? The educators who answered the current survey used most often Generate Ideas in CPS components, Build on Other Ideas in the principles, Generate Ideas in the stages, and Brainstorming in the tools.

67 Q. How do they use these tools, principles, and concepts? The educators used aspects of CPS in eight topic themes. They were: School life: general, School life: specific, Lesson/unit planning, Subject-related use, Writing, Project work, Getting responses from students, and Evaluating. Q. What impact do they believe CPS has on their students? The answers to this research question were grouped into 16 topic themes. They were: Improved participation in class Impact on the attitudes toward
ideas
Impact on the attitudes toward
learning
Impact on the attitudes toward
problem-solving
Students like CPS See things more affirmatively More cooperation Students use CPS Students learn to take time Impact on their classroom work Impact on the students motivation Increased confidence Emergence of a safe learning
environment
Change of classroom climate Two miscellaneous

One category without any sub-themes within it was Perceived Impact on Students Thinking. Interpr eting the Study Fi ndings

Before discussing the implications of the findings as a result of the analysis of the data, this section discusses the current studys limitations. This study acquired 22 answers from the 50 participants. indings as universal, and so This number is too small to consider the f the implications following must be considered and discussed cautiously . Also, in section one, the survey used the terms Regularly and Occasionally. These terms were not defined for the participants. ble that they might Therefore, it is possi have had dif With these limitations in ferent ideas towards Regularly or Occasionally. mind, lets now turn to a summary of the findings associated with this . study

Build on Other Ideas All teachers reported that they regularly used the CPS aspect of Build on Other Ideas in their classes. Although this result was unexpected, it is reasonable if the following are considered. First, the principle is easy to follow . If one changes a small attribute of some idea, he/she has used Build on Other Ideas . Teachers can show how to carry it out to their students easily; their students can use the principle readily . Second, it takes only a short time to build on other ideas in classes. People do not need many ideas to build on. If they have an idea, they have an opportunity to use this principle. Finally , the words used in the principle (i.e., build, other , idea) are relatively easy to understand. They are enough plain language for elementary students to understand, compared to the words used in the other principles such , as defer strive, af firmative, deliberate, novelty and so on.

69
The Students Classr oom W ork The teachers reported that they perceived the positive impact of their use of CPS aspects in their classes on their students classroom work. This is not surprising given the results of Walkers (2002) investigation into the relationship between CPS and the subject area standards of New York State. He found the connections of CPS to various subject areas such as English, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science and so on. He stated that all these connections were strong enough to show the importance of Creative Problem Solving in relation to New York State Standards (p. 8). In a sense, the findings of the current study turned out to support his statement, and also can be encouraging to teachers, who hope to make their students classroom work better .

Classr oom Climate The teachers who answered the current survey perceived the impact of their use of CPS aspects on classroom climate. gent This might result from the teachers using the diver principles and Brainstorming in classes almost regularly . As reported by the teachers in this study , it is possible that with deferred judgment in classes, their students level of fear decrease[d] and the students trust and feelings of safety increase[d] (see ChapterFour). While this supposition must be studied, the fact that the teachers perceived the impact of their use of CPS aspects on classroom climate can be encouraging to the school teachers who would like to establish a creative climate in their classes.

Dynamic Balance Dynamic Balance turned out to be the least frequently used principle. This result was statistically significant. Out of twelve principles, the mean rank shows that the third ranking principle was Diver gent Thinking and the sixth was . The last was Conver gent Thinking

70
Dynamic Balance . This principle is the concept made up of diver gent thinking and conver gent thinking.Thus, if they used diver gent th inking with those gent thinking and conver frequencies, Dynamic Balance should have been answered to be used more frequently; however , the teachers used . Also, they answered Dynamic Balance no more than occasionally that they used Brainstorming (a diver gent tool) and Hits (a conver gent tool) almost regularly , but they used Dynamic Balance only less than occasionally . This finding may have resulted for multiple reasons. One explanation can be that the teachers may have executed diver gence in a prescribed way in ir the gence and conver classes; however , they might have failed to identify what they did as the dynamic balance due to their possible misunderstanding of the principle. gence and The dynamic balance consists of diver conver gence, but one does not have to put the same amount o and ener gy in f time conver gence that he/she puts in diver gence. In spite of the fact, they might have misunderstood that diver gence must be done in a balanced way gence and conver . The author suspects that the misunderstanding may be promoted by the ent curr graphic ofDynamic Balance . The graphic has a diamond shape with the upper part representing diver gence. Both parts usually have the gence and the lower standing for conver same shape. It may not deliver the dynamic between the two phases. Also the term Balance may cause the same misunderstanding among the teachers. It might provide an impression that diver gence and conver , which means that time and gence must occur in a balanced way effort must be spent in both phases equally .
In any event, this find
may suggest that the teachers decided that since they spent ing effort and time in an unbalancedway between the two phases, they did notDynamic use Balance . In other words, it is possible that they might have answered that they did not use Dynamic Balance , based on their misunderstanding of the concept of the principle.

71 Another explanation may be that while the teachers had a correct understanding of the concept of the dynamic balance, which consists ofgence diver and conver gence, they might have implemented the two phases descriptively . Sometimes they might have dealt with only diver gence, other times, they might have done only conver gence.Thus, the teachers might have ended up answering that they used . Dynamic Balance only less than occasionally One of the teachers who answered the current survey reported a supporting comment, I use Hits and Highlighting in my social studies classes for students to engage and identify key points in their guided notes. If a class has an already-made list of items in their textbooks, the teacher can have his/her students make hits on them without doing any diver gence.

Brainstorming Brainstorming was the most popular of all CPS tools. The results of the post hoc test for Brainstorming show that the tool was also significantly more often used than eight other diver gent tools. Considering that the total number of gent divertools is eleven, it is safe to state that Brainstorming was the most popular among the teachers as a gent divertool. However , this outcome is not surprising. The idea generation tool is one of the most used ones in the Creative Studies program, and also one of the easiest to use.a pen and a sheet of paper , With one can start brainstorming. On the other hand, when its implication is considered, th may have to be e result viewed with caution, because the dominant popularity of Brainstorming among the teachers may suggest that the students creativity styles were neglected. The teachers students may have had dif creativity styles, and thusferences ferent pre for what types of ideas they would like to generate. There are a number of research studies, such as the KAI theory . Selby (1993) found , showing that there are various styles of creativity that dif ferent creativity styles based on the KAI theory e in xisted American eighth graders. It

72
is possible, therefore, that those teachers students have ferent dif creativity styles, too. That means that some students prefer to generate more adaptive ideas, and others prefer to come up with more innovative ones. Besides, diver gent tools are also related to creativity styles. Miller et al.) (2001 show which idea generation tool produces what type of ideas. They introduced a continuum with idea generation tools placed below it. right end of the continuumdescribed as The is More intuitive, novel, bigger ideas that take longer to implement and the left end, More structured, adaptive ideas, generally easier to implement (2001, p. 75). Brainstorming is placed relatively toward the left end of the continuum. Some tools are set toward the right end, others, toward the left. This means that some tools are better suited to produce innovative or adaptive ideas than others. The finding suggests, however Brainstorming , that their teachers dominantly used In classes for idea generation. This implies that the students creativity styles and preferences for idea types might have been neglected.

More DivergentPrinciples than Convergent Ones The teachers used diver gent principles more often than those of conver gence. The five most often used principles in the mean ranking order Build were: on Other Ideas , Defer Judgment , Diver gent Thinking and Impr ove Ideas . Four of the five belong , Strive for Quantity to diver gence.This finding is not very surprising because of t he dominant popularity of Brainstorming among the teachers. So, the finding indicates that when they used the diver gent tool, they followed the diver . gent principles appropriately

73
Teachers Used Divergent T ools and Convergent ools T The teachers used Brainstorming the most frequently; however , they also used conver gent tools such as Hits, Praise First,and Highlighting very often. The mean ranks of the frequency of the use of the nineteen tools in classes show that the top five in the ranking order were: Brainstorming, Hits, Praise First, Brainstorming w/post-its, . and Highlighting Hits, Praise First, ) were conver Three of them (i.e., and Highlighting gent tools. This finding may sound strange. It is because when one uses a gent conver tool, he/she is expected to use the conver , one of the previous findings gent principles. However shows that the teachers used diver gent ones; on the gent principles more often than conver other hand, they utilized conver gent too ls were gent tools to such a degree that three conver ranked in the top five out of nineteen with regard to the frequency of use. This might suggest that the teachers used Brainstorming with diver gent principles gent tools (i.e., Hits, Praise First, ) more frequently by far than those conver and Highlighting with conver gent principles. However did not , the results of the post hoc test Brainstorming for show the statistically significant dif gent tool ference of the frequency of the use of the diver compared with these three conver tion can be negated. gent tools. Thus, this no Another explanation can be that when those teachers used these threegent conver tools, they used them without following the conver , especially Check gent principles properly Your Objectives and Be Deliberate Hits are made in conver . For example, when gence, they are made usually based on whether options meet criteria, such as the objective(s). According to the mean ranks of the frequency of the use of the twelve principles in classes,,however Check Y our Objectives was the second least often used in the principles (so was Be Hits was the second most frequently used tool. Deliberate ). On the other hand, This may indicate, therefore, that the teachers failed to usein the way that the tool is supposed to be Hits used.The same might be tru gent tools, Highlighting and Praise e for the other two conver

74 First . Hence, it is possible that the teachers used these conver gent tools in inef fective ways. However , there is another viewpoint toward this current finding. It is that the teachers may have used those conver gent principles gent tools implicitly following the conver when they were facilitating with their students. One may not necessarily have to teach conver gent principles and tools in facilitating. It is not hard for individuals to follow th e conver gent principles intuitively with those tools, especially . It is possible that the Praise First teachers and their students used the conver gent principles unconsciously while using those conver gent tools. Thus, the teachers did not recognize their ses u of those principles and it reflected on their responses to the current survey .

Problem SolvingSkills The teachers perceived a positive impact of the use of CPS on their students attitudes and behaviors toward problem solving; however , therewas no comment provided by the teachers that they perceived the students became more able to solve problems by themselves. Why did this result happen? One may ar that it is because while in using gue conver gent tools such as Hits, Praise First and Highlighting in their classes, the teachers did not utilize the conver gent principles gent principles as they were supposed to do. If the conver are not followed, then it is less likely that the option(s) selected would be ef fective enough to solve problems. As defi ned in Chapter Two of the current research, creative thinking is a rational process in which an individual generates (sometimes diver and selects original, gently) effective options. A CPS user selects original,fective ef gent phase of the options in the conver dynamic balance. So, if conver gence is not properly implemented with its principles, one cannot expect that the options chosen will fective. be ef
Alternatively
current findings may have resulted from the format of the survey , the Although its Part III asked the used with teachers. teachers to provide their perceptions on

75 the impact of their uses of CPS aspects on their students, it did not call on them to precisely pinpoint how CPS improved actual problem-solving performance.had If this been asked

in the survey , they might have answered that they perceived the students improved problem-solving. Also, it is possible that teachers wereafforded not suf ficient opportunities to

witness ef fective problem-solving among students in classes. It is widely said that teachers are toobusy teaching the subjects for standardized tests. So it may be that have teachers great dif ficulty giving their students t he opportunities to try their problem solving skills in classes. In other words, the students at home may use their problem-solving skills and be effective problem-solvers. In orderidentify to why there was no comment of the teachers more studies on this that they perceived the students solved their problems , better topic will be necessary .

The Impact on Attitudes and Behaviors The current study and Scott et al.s quantitative meta-analysis (2004a) seem to have yielded results supporting each other . As introduced in ChapterTwo of the present study , Scott e t al. made a quantitative metaanalysis of the previous creativity training. One of the findings obtained in their study was four that techniques stressed in training courses gent Thinking, Ideation, and Brainstor (i.e., Diver gent Thinking, Conver ming) produced

fect sizes on attitude/ behavior criteria. . current study also yielded a substantial ef This similar result. The teachers who participated in the present study answered that while using almost regularly or more than occasionally those four CPS aspects in classes, they perceived the impact of using CPS aspects on the students various attitudes and behaviors. Many of them answered that their students attitudes and behaviors toward problem-solving changed. Considering the , it might be findings of Scott et .al research and the current study

76
time to regard CPS training as not only a way of improving creative cognitive process, but also a means of altering creative attitudes and behaviors.

Recommendations

There are five recommendations In this section.

First of all , in order to accommodate creativity style dif
ference In students, it might be good for teachers to use a variety of gent diver tools in classes so that their students can use their creativity fully , based on their creativity styles. Secondly , to cause the impact on the problem solving abilities of students, teachers might wish to teach the CPS process to their classes explicitly . It is recommended, however , to expose their stud ents to CPS aspects first by using them in classes, and then teach the students the whole CPS process. The students may understand and be able to use it better . Thirdly , the findings of the current study indicate that it is possible that the use of CPS impacts the students classroom work. Therefore, to promote the teachers use of CPS in classes more, the ICSC might create a new graduate course. The graduate students in the course who teach or will teach in school, would learn how to apply CPS aspects to teaching subject matters. Fourthly , to deepen the graduate students understanding of the CPS principles, the ICSC might create another new graduate course. The students in such a course would understand CPS principles better by studying and writing This pa pers on each principle. course could be especially gent principles. critical for the students to learn more about conver Finally , the ICSC might introduce a new graphic of the dynamic balance so that individuals who may misunderstand its concept will comprehend it better and . Isaksen

77 Dorval (1993) changed the graphic of CPS to enhance CPS users understanding of the process. Now the students at the ICSC are aware that CPS is a descriptive process, thanks

to theirgraphic change. The ICSCmight have a brainstorming session on possible graphics that will represent the concept of the dynamic balance. better

Suggestions for Futur e Resear ch

Future research can deal more with perception the of the impact of the use of CPS aspects in classes from ferent dif perspectives. One such study might investigate students perceptions of the impact on themselves of their teachers use of CPS in Another classes. might be made for parents perceptions of the impact on their children of their teachers use of CPS aspects in classes. In both studies, it is strongly advised to attempt to involve ge a lar number of participants. In addition to these studies, one can make a semester -long observation of the classes of teachers who report using CPS aspects frequently their in classes. By doing so, the researcher will be able to observe objectively how teachers use CPS aspects in classes and what impact it on their students. has If a teacher carries out one of the recommendations above, which is to teach CPS aspects first and then the whole CPS process, he/she can make an experimental research around it. One group would be exposed to CPS aspects first in classes for a certain period, and then would be taught the whole CPS process. The other group would be taught the whole CPS process only . Then, the researcher would evaluate the problem-solving abilities of the students in both two groups.

78
Conclusion

The final chapter discussed the current studys findings, interpretation of the findings and recommendations and suggestions for future research. First it summarized questions and the findings. Next, it interpreted the findings. purpose, the research Then . Thirdly , the suggestions for future research recommendations were introduced were provided. The present research studied how school teachers used CPS aspects In their classes and what impact it had on their students. The study was conducted solely from the perspectives of the teachers. swer to the question, more studies will be To obtain a complete an necessary . With the findings of this present study analogical to a piece of pizza, the author of the current study hopes that other researchers will conduct further studies around the questions in the future and we will obtain a whole pizza . the

79 References Baer , J. M. (1988). Longterm ef fects of creativity training Journal of Early Adolescence , 8, pp. 183-193. with middle school students . essential

Carnevale , A. P ., Gianer , L. J., & Meltzer , A. S. (1990). Workpl ace Basics: The . San Francisco, CA skills employers want : Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Charles, M. C., & Mertler , C.A. (2002). Intr oduction to educational esear r ch (4thed.). Boston , MA: Allyn & Bacon. College Relations Of fice. (20 02). 2002-2004 Buffalo State College Graduate Catalog . falo, NY : State University of New falo. [Catalog]. Buf York College at Buf Cramond , B. Martin, C. E., & Shaw , E. L. (1990). Generalizability of creative problem solving procedures to real-life problems. . Journal for the Education of the Gifted vol. 13, 2, pp. 141-155. Cropley , A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators . London, UK : Kogan Page Limited. Davis , A. G. (1999). Creativityis for ever (4thed.). Dubuque , IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company . Finke, R.A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. Sternbur J. g (Ed.), Handbook of Cr , UK: Cambridge eativity (pp.189-212). Cambridge University Press. Guilford , J .P . (1977).Way beyond the IQ. Buffalo, NY : the Creative Education Foundation, Inc. Guilford , J. P . (1992).Creativity in retrospect. In S. J. Parnes (Ed.), Sour ce bookfor creative problem solving(pp.69-75). Buffalo,NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Hills , P . M. (1996). The development of an illustrative, inter disciplinarybibliography of creative pr oblem-solving literatur e fr om 1985- 1995. Unpublished . masters York College at Buf project , State University of New falo; International Center for , Buf Studies in Creativity falo, New York. Houtz , J. C. (2003). The educational psychology creativity of . In J. C. Houtz (Ed.), The educational psychology of cr . (pp. 3-24). Cresskill , NJ eativity : Hampton Press, Inc. Isaksen, S. G. (1996). Task appraisal and pr ocess planning:Managing change methods. [Electronic version].The International Creativity Network Newsletter , 6, pp. 47, 10-1 1. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from http://www .buffalostate.edu/centers/creativity/Resources/Reading_Room/Isaksen-9 6.html

80
Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1993). Changing views of eative cr pr oblem: 40 years of continuous impr ovement[Electronic version]. The Internat ional Creativity Network Newsletter3, Retrieved October 4, 2003, from , pp. 1, 4-5. http://www .buffalostate.edu/centers/creativity/Resources/Reading_Room/Isaksen-D orval-93.html Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B.,Treffinger & , D. J. (1994). Creativeappr oachesto pr oblem solving:A framework for change . Dubuque , IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company . Isaksen , S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger , D. J. (2000). Creative appr oachesto pr oblem solving:A framework for change . Dubuque , IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company . Isaksen , S. G., &Treffinger , D. J. (1985). Creative pr oblem solving: Thebasic course. Buffalo, NY : Bearly Limited. Isaksen , S. G., &Treffinger , D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years reflective of practice: Versions of creative problem solving. eative Behavior Journal of Cr , vol.38, 2, 2, pp.75-101. Isaksen , S. G.,Treffinger , D. J., & Firestien, R. L. (Eds.). (1982). Handbook of cr eative learning . Williamsville , NY : Center for Creative Learning. . Keller - Mathers , S. (1990). Impact of cr eative pr oblem solving training on participants ofessional lives: personal and pr A replication and extension. Unpublished masters project, State University of New falo; ternational York College at Buf
In Center for Studies in Creativity
falo, New , Buf York. Kopasz , K. I. (1997). Identifying, examining, and disseminating literatur e related to creative pr oblem solving (CPS) applications in educational contexts. Unpublished masters project, State University of New York College at Buf falo; International Center for Studies in Creativity , Buf falo, New York. Lunken , H. P . (1991).Assessment of long term effects of the Master of Science ee degr in Creative S tudies on its graduates. Unpublished masters project, State University falo; International Center for Studies in Creativity of NewYork College at Buf , Buffalo, New York. Miller , B., Vehar , J., & Firestien, L. R. (2001). Creativity unbo und: An intr oduction to ville, NY: Innovation Resources, Inc. creative pr ocess(3rded.).Williams Nickerson , R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity . In R. J. Sternber g (Ed.),Handbook of creativity (pp. 392-430). Cambridge , UK; Cambridge University Press. Onda, A. (1994).Development ofcreative education . Tokyo:Koseisya-koseikaku. Osborn , A. F. (1963).Applied Imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribners Sons.

81 Parnes , S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.) , Frontiers of creativity esear r ch (pp.156-188). Buf falo, NY : Bearly Limited. Parnes , S. J. (1997). Optimize: The magic of your mind . Buf falo, NY : Bearly Limited. Parnes, S. J., & Ruth, N. B. (1972a). Applied creativi ty: The creative studies eative Behavior 1-22. Journal of Cr , vol.6, 1, 1, pp.1 project.

Parnes, S. J., & Ruth, N. B. (1972b). Applied creativity : The creative studies project. Journal of Cr eative Behavior vol.6, 3, 3, pp.164-186. Parnes, S. J., & Ruth, N. B. (1972c). Applied creativity : The creative studies project. Journal of Cr eative Behavior, vol.6, 4, 4, pp.275-294. Parnes, S. J., & Ruth, N. B. (1973). Applied creativity : The creative studies of Cr eativeBehavior , vol.7, 1, 1, pp.15-36. project. Journal

Puccio, K. G. (1994). An analysis of an observational study creative of pr oblem solving for en. Unpublished masters project York primary childr , State University of New falo; International Center for , College at Buf Studie s in CreativityBuf falo, New York. Puccio, G. J., & Murdock, M. C. (2001). Creative thinking : An essential life skill. A. In L. Costa (Ed.), Developing mind: A resour ce book for teaching thinking (3rd ed.) (pp.67-71).Alexandria , VA; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rogers, C. R. (1957). Toward atheory of creativity . In H. H. Anderson (Ed.) , Creativity and its cultivation(pp.69-82). New York; Harper & Brothers Publishers. Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984).A meta-analysis of long-term creativity programs. Journalof Cr eative Behavior 1-22. , vol.18, 1, 1, pp.1 training

Schack, G . D. (1993). Ef fectsof creative problem-solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly pp. 32-38 . vol. 37, 1, winter 1993. Scott, G. , Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004a). The ef fectiveness of creativity training:A quantitative review . Creativity Resear ch Journal , vol. 16, 4, pp. 361388. Scott, G.,Leritz , L. E., &Mumford, M. D. (2004b). Types of creativity t raining: Approaches and their fectiveness. ef eative Behavior Journal of Cr , vol.38, 3, 3, pp.149-179. Selby , E. C.,Treffinge r, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Powers , S. V. (1993). Use of the Kirton Adaptation Innovation Inventory with middle school students. Journalof Cr eative Behavior , 27, pp.223-235.

82
Sosenko , L. O. (1998). Identifying, examining , or ganizing , and disseminating the literatur e related to the impacts ofeative cr pr oblem solving. Unpublished masters project , State University of New York Colleg e at Buf falo; International Center for Studies in Creativity , Buf falo, NewYork. Sternber g, R. J., &Lubart,T. L. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. eativity(pp.3-15). CambridgeUK: In R. J.Sternbur g (Ed.) , Handbook of Cr , Cambridge University Press. Torrance , E. P . (1965). Rewar ding cr eative behavior: Experiments in classr oom creativity . Englewood Clif fs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Torrance , E. P . (1970).Encouraging creativity in the classr oom. Dubuque , IA:Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers Torrance , E. P . (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Cr eative Behavior , 6, pp.1 14-143. Torrance , E. P . (1987). Recent trends in teaching children adults and to think creatively . In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.) , Frontiers of cr eativity r esear ch: beyond the basics. (pp.204-215). Buf falo, NY : Bearly limited. Torrance , E. P . (1995).Why fly ?: A philosophy of cr eativity . Norwood , NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Torrance , E. P . & Safter , T. H. (1999).Makingthe cr eative leap beyond.Buf falo, NY: the Creative Education Foundation Press. Treffinger D. J. (2000). Understanding of the history of CPS. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), : Making a differ ence with cr (pp.35-53). Facilitative leadership eative pr oblem solving. Dubuque, A I : Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company . Treffinger , D. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (2001). Teaching forcreative learning and problem solving. In A. L. Costa (Ed.) , Developing mind: A r esour ce book for teaching rd thinking(3 ed.) (pp.442-445).Alexandria , VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Treffinger , D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, B. K. (2000). Creative pr oblem solving:An intr oductio n (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc. Vitagliano , K. (1994). Creative pr oblem s olving:A pr ocess for Buffalo public schools. [Electronic version]. The International Creativity Network Newsletter4, , 1. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from http://www .buffalostate.edu/centers/creativity/Resources/Reading_Room/V itagliano94.html Walker , K. D. (2002). Creative studies teacher certification: How New ork YState eative studies and eative cr g. Unpublished standar ds r elate \ to cr pr oblem solvin masters project , State University of New York College at Buf falo; International Center for Studies in Creativity falo, New York. , Buf

83 Wheeler , R. A. (2001).Impr oving the understanding of the impact of eative cr pr oblem ough an examination of individual differ solving training thr ences.Unpublished York College at Buf masters project, State University of New falo; International Center for Studies in Creativity falo, New York. , Buf Wirth, D. H. (20 02). Capitalizing on eative cr potential in art education: Integrating creativity principles and methods into the art classr oom. Unpublished masters York College at Buf project , State University of New falo; International Center , Buf for Studies in Creativity falo, New York.

84

APPENDIX A Concept Paper

Theme: eativity t to other Linking CPS/Cr constructs
Initiative:
Dissemination ofinformationfrom the Creative Studies program
Thesis T itle: Identifying How School eacher T s Use Creative Problem Solving (CPS). Rationale and Questions: In our lives we are bound to face new problems. To prepare students to solve such problems is one of the roles of education. But how? Davis (1999) mentions that one of the most ef strategies is CPS. fective andeachable t Therefore it is meaningful that school teachers use CPS. The purpose of this research is 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 (ICSC) have been using CPS. The specific questions that will guide the study are: What CPS tools, principles, and concepts are used most often by educators who 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 see on their students from teaching by using CPS? (e.g. improvement of test scores, changes in students behaviors, enhanced motivation of students for learning, etc.) Statement of Significance: SinceAlex F . Osborn introduced Creative Problem Solving (CPS) in 1953, education has been one of the fields where CPS has been most applied (Hills, 1996;Kopasz, 1997; Sosenko, 1998). When Kopasz (1997) investigated how much CPS had been applied in educational contexts, she found that one hundred 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 of Creativity (ICSC) at Buf They worked falo State College. with the Curriculum Department of the falo Buf Public Schools and trained local teachers and administrators to facilitate CPS in schools ( Vitagliano , 1994). In addition, the graduate courses of the ICSC have been training a number of school teachers onWhen CPS.Lunken (1991) assessed the long-termfects ef 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 graduate semester course of the program on its students, ICSCs Keller -Mathers (1990) obtained frequent comments on using CPS from students who were teaching in school. These findings verify that CPS has been widely used in the field of education. Nonetheless, almost no studies have focused on how the teachers, who are currently in or who have graduated from the program, teach in class by utilizing CPS. What CPS tools, principles, and concepts do they use in their classes? How do they use them? What impact do they see on their students from teaching by applying CPS? This study will attempt to answer these questions. The results from this research will answer the questions of the Creative Studies students who are school teachers hoping to use CPS inAlso class. this study may lead to future research opportunities to investigate how to teach various subject matters with CPS. Besides, this study might lead to an opportunity for the ICSC to create a new elective course

85 for teachers on how to utilize CPS for creative teaching. Description of the Method or Process:The general methodological approach will be a qualitative descriptive research. The major source from which information is obtained is the current/former graduate students and the current/former graduate certificate students (who teach at elementary and secondary schools) of the Creative Studies program of the ICSC. Questionnaires will be used to obtain information from informants. The data in this study will be presented with description and data conversion. The study will be conducted through the following steps: 1. Preparation : Decide on the terminology of the CPS tools that will appear in the questionnaire of this study by reviewing the literature on CPS. 2. Select data sour ces: Identify the current/former students who teach in elementary or secondary schools by inquiring at the ICSC about this matter . Collect their postal and email addresses. 3. Structur e a questionnair e: Explore the impact studies of the CPS training of the ICSC in the former projects/theses. Investigate what questions those studies used. Referring to findings from the investigation, compose a questionnaire. Create a consent form and submit it with a human subject form to the Research Foundation of campus. fice on 4. Data collection : Distribute questionnaires to the participants and collect information from them by mail and e-mail. 5. Data analysis : Organize and examine the raw data to assess which CPS tools, principles, concepts the participants use in school. For this purpose, use data conversion. In order to answer the open-ended research questions (e.g., how they use those selected tools), organize and categorize the raw data based on the subject matter that they teach. Present the data verbally . 6. Prepare write up : Identify findings and draw conclusions. Learning Goals: To deepen my understanding of the CPS process To obtain knowledge and skills of conducting a research To acquire skills of acquiring new findings from data analysis To gain knowledge of how CPS is used in class by elementary and secondary school teachers who are currently in or have completed the graduate program at the ICSC. Outcomes: Thesis write up. An Executive Summary of this thesis for CBIR annotation and another Executive Summary of a master project/thesis for ICSC Web Site. Timeline: December 2003: Concept paper approved. Decide on the terminology of CPS. Identify participants and acquire their postal and e-mail addresses. Compose a questionnaire. Submit a consent form and a human subject form to the Research Foundation fice; of they are approved. Begin literature review .

86 January 2004: Distribute questionnaires to the participants by mail and e-mail. Collect the information. (Continue literature review .) Complete collecting the information. Begin or ganizing and analyzing data. (Continue literature review .) Begin thesis write-up. Continue to refine draft. Complete analysis of data
(no later than March 26, Friday

, 04). Continue thesis write-up and r
efinement of draft.

February2004:

March April 2004:

May 2004:Complete write-up: refine and finalize draft.

(no later than May 9, Sunday
, 04) June2004: Masters thesis completes and approved; Graduate.

Principal Investigators: FacultyAdvisor: Dr . Gerard J. Puccio; Student/Advise e: Hideki Muneyoshi Related Literatur e: Davis, A., G. (1999). Creativity is for ever (4thed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company . Hills, P ., M. (1996). The development of an illustrative, inter disciplinary eative pr oblem-sol ving literatur bibliography of cr e fr om 1985- 1995. Unpublished masters project, State University of York New College at Buffalo; International Center for Studies in Creativity , Buf falo, NewYork. Keller -Mathers, S. (1990). Impact of cr eative pr oblem solving training on participants personal andofessional pr A replication and extension. lives: Unpublished masters project, State University of York New College at Buffalo; International Center for Studies in Creativity , Buf falo, NewYork. Kopasz, K., I. (1997). Identifying, examining, and disseminating literatur e relatedto cr eative pr oblem solving (CPS) applications in educational contexts.Unpublished masters project, State University of York New College at Buf , falo; International Center for Studies in Creativity Buffalo, NewYork. Lunken, H., . P(1991).Assessment of long term effects of the Master of Science degr ee in Cr eative Studies on its graduates. Unpublished masters project, State University of New falo; York College at Buf International Center for Studies in Creativity , Buf falo, NewYork. Osborn,A. F . (1963).Applied Imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Charles

87
Scribners Sons. Sosenko, L., O. (1998). Identifying, examining, ganizing, or and disseminating the literatur oblem solving. e related to the impacts ofeative cr pr Unpublished masters project, State University of York New College at Buffalo; International Center for Studies in Creativity , Buf falo, NewYork. Vitagliano , K. (1994). Creative pr oblem solving: A process for Buffalo public schools.[Electronic version]. The International Creativity Network Newsletter , 4, 1.Retrieved October 4, 2003, from http://www .buffalostate.edu/centers/creativity/Resources/Reading_Room/ Vitagliano-94.html

88

APPENDIX B Consent Form

Identifying How School Teachers Use Creative Problem Solving

Consent Form Introduction: As a graduate of the Creative Studies program, you are invited to participate in a research study about howelementary and secondary school teachers use Creative Problem Solving(CPS). Goal: Enhance our understanding of educators use of CPS. Procedure: You will be asked to complete three questions that reflect your use of CPS in your classroom. Benefit: As a result of answering this questionnaire,you may discover additional ways in which CPS might be used in your classroom. Please note: There are no right or wrong answers.Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may quit at any time you want without penalty. All information obtained from you is strictly confidential. Y ou must be 18 years old or older to participate in this study. More information: Please contact Hideki Muneyoshi at muneh23@mail.buf falostate.edu or by phone at 716-873-1653. Please give your consent by completing below.
Name: Grade(s) that you teach and/or taught: Subject(s) that you teach and/or taught: Y ears of your classroom experience:

Thank you for participating!

89

APPENDIX C
Survey

Survey of School Teachers Use of Cr eative Pr oblem Solving

Below you will see three questions. Part I asks you how often you have applied aspects of CPS in your . Part II is about how you have used classroom(i.e., instructional, classroom management, planning, etc) . PartIII asks you about what impact your use of has had on your students. aspects of CPS CPS

<Part I>
Think of how often you use each of the listed CPS components, principles, stages, and tools presented. if you have used it regularly; the letter In front of each of these items, put either the R letter O if you have occasionally used And it. leave blank if you have never used it. R: Regularly O: Occasionally Components
_____ Explore the Challenge (Understanding the Problem) _____ Generate Ideas (Generating Ideas) Action _____ Prepare for (Planning for Action) _____Targeting
_____ Evaluation Matrix (Criteria Matrix)
_____ Paired Comparison
Analysis (PCA) _____ Praise First (ALUo, PPCo,LCOb) _____ Stem Power (e.g. IWBGI ?, H2?, IWWMI ?)

Principles
_____DynamicBalance _____ Diver gentThinking _____ Defer Judgment _____ Strive for Quantity _____ Seek Wild & Unusual Ideas _____ Build on Other Ideas gentThinking _____ Conver _____ Be Affirmative _____ BeDeliberate _____ Check Your Objectives _____ Improve Ideas _____ Consider Novelty

Stages
_____ Identify the Goal, Wish, Challenge (Objective Finding) _____ Gather Data (Data Finding) _____ Clarify the Problem (Problem Finding) e Ideas (Idea Finding) _____ Generat _____ Select & Strengthen Solution (Solution Finding) Action _____ Plan for (Acceptance Finding )

Tools
_____ Brainstorming _____ Brainstorming w/ Post-Its _____ Brainwriting _____ Forced Connections cal Matrix _____ Morphologi _____Attribute Listing _____Word Dance _____ SCAMPER _____Visual Connections Abstraction _____ Ladder of (Why , Why else; Whats stopping you) _____ Excursions _____ Hits _____ Highlighting _____ Card Sort

<Part II>
To help us understand how you have applied aspects of CPS in your classroom, please provide some briefexamples for the items above that you marked with an 'R'.

<Part III>
What impact(s) do you believe your use of the item(s) marked R has had on your students? Please e.g. changes in students provide some brief descriptions of the impact(s). ( behaviors, enhanced motivation of students for learning, etc.)

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey .Y our r esponses to these questions will greatly help add to the r ch of this thesis. esear

91

APPENDIX D Brief Descriptions of CPS Aspects

<Components>
Explore the Challenge (Understanding the Problem): one of the components of CPS to understand the challenge by examining the situation and identify the real problem (Miller , Vehar & Firestien , 2001). Generate Ideas (Generating Ideas): one of the components of CPS to generate many ideas to help one solve his/her well defined problem (Miller et al., 2001). Prepare for Action (Planning for Action): one of the components of CPS to turn promising ideas into workable solutions (Miller et al., 2001). Dynamic Balance: a CPS principle about separatinggent diver thinking and
conver gent thinking in a CP , Dorval &Treffinger , 2000).
S stage (Isaksen Diver gent Thinking: a CPS principle meaning nerating ge lots of options, making lists (Miller et al., 2001). Defer Judgment: a CPS principle about not evaluating ideas while one is generating them (Miller et al., 2001). Strive for Quantity: a CPS principle about laying out all the usual approaches to the problem, then pushing to consider new options (Miller et al., 2001). Seek Wild & Unusual Ideas _ a CPS principle about freewheeling and stretching ones thinking to create some wild ideas. Build on Other Ideas: a CPS principle about building, combining and improving ideas. Conver gent Thinking: a CPS principle meaning judging options, focusing, and
making decisions.
Be Affirmative: a CPS principle about considering positives as well as negatives, looking for the strengths or the positive aspects of options as the first part of a review (Treffinger , Isaksen & Dorval , 2000). Be Deliberate: a CPS principle about knowing and using specific tools or strategies to examine or analyze ideas, and being systematic in conver gence (T reffinger et CheckYour Ob jectives _ a CPS principle about remembering ones al, 2000). original goal to watch out for shining ideas that do not go in the right direction (Miller et al., 2001). Improve Ideas: a CPS principle about taking time to honing and strengthening
promising ideas (Miller et al., 2001).

<Principles>

92
Consider Novelty: a CPS principle about not dismissing original thinking out of hand in conver gence, by considering ways to trim, tailor , or rework _(Miller et al., 2001). Identify the Goal, Wish, Challenge (Objective Finding): One of the CPS stages where one generates a whole series of possible goals, wishes or challenges and then picks up one of them to work on. Explor component. This stage belongs to the
e the Challenge (Miller et al., 2001).
Gather Data (Data Finding): one of the CPS stages where one explores the data
around the goal, wish or challenge and then identifies the most important ones.
This stage belongs to the Explor e the Challenge component. (Miller et al., 2001). Clarify the Problem (Problem Finding): one of the CPS stages where one states the problem as many ways as possible and then picks up the most important problem statement. This stage belongs to the Explor e the Challenge component. (Miller et al., 2001). Generate Ideas (Idea Finding): one of the CPS stages where one thinks up a wide variety of ideas to solve the problem and then chooses the most promising one(s). This stage belongs to the Generate Ideas component. (Miller et al., 2001). Select & Strengthen Solution (Solution Finding): one of the CPS stages where one evaluates and refines the promising ideas selected and then selects the most promising idea(s).This stage belongs to the Prepar e forActioncomponent. (Miller et al., 2001). Plan forAction (Acceptance Finding): one of the CPS ges sta where one lists assistors/resisters and actions for implementation and then forms a specific plan of actions.This stage belongs to the Prepar e forActioncomponent. (Miller et al., 2001). Brainstorming: a diver gent tool to generate many , vari ed, and unusual options. Brainstorming w/ Post-Its: a diver gent tool to generate many , varied, unusual options by writing an option down on a Post-Its, saying the option out loud, and then placing it on the flip chart sheet (T reffinger et al. , 2000). Brainwriting: a modified form of brainstorming in which group members write down their options on a Brainwriting form without talking to each otherexchange their , then forms and generate more options by building on the options on the form (Miller et al., 2001). Forced Connections: a diver gent tool using an object or picture totally unrelated to the problem and forcing a connection between the item and the problem to generate more options (Miller et al., 2001). Morphological Matrix: a diver gent tool wit h which group members name the essential characteristics of the challenge, build columns under each of them, fill them with relevant options, and combine the options, one from each column, to generate original options (Miller et al., 2001).

<Stages>

<Tools>

93 Attribute Listing: a diver gent tool in which group members break an object, problem, or product down into its elements and generate ways to change, modify , or address
the dif ferent elements (Isaksen et al., 2000).
Word Dance: a diver gent tool to expand a problem statem ent by generating a series of possible substitutes for the verb and object of the statement, creating new problem statements (Miller et al., 2001). SCAMPER: a diver gent tool to generate many options by asking and answering various questions to substitute, combine, adapt, modify , put to other uses, eliminate, and/or rearrange options (Miller et al., 2001). Visual Connections: a diver gent tool to generate options by focusing on a visual, gaining thoughts from it, and connect ing them to the challenge _(Miller et al., 2001). Ladder ofAbstraction (Why , Why else;Whats stopping you): a diver gent tool to consider problem statements at various levels, in order to locate the most useful statement for work (T reffingeret al , 2000). Excursions: a set of idea generation tools such as visualization, role-playing, character analogies, and personal analogies (Miller et al., 2001). Hits: a conver gent tool to screen a lar ge
number or a wide variety of options (Treffingeret al. , 2000).
Highlighting: a conver gent tool to take lots of options and narrow them to a few good ones (Miller et al., 2001). Card Sort: a conver gent tool that helps one compares, ranks and prioritizes promising options (Miller et al., 2001). Targeting: a highly visual, conver gent tool to valuate e
and strengthen options (Miller et al., 2001).
Evaluation Matrix (Criteria Matrix): a conver gent tool to evaluate options
systematically against the criteria by using a matrix
_(Isaksen et al., 2000). Paired Comparison Analysis (PCA): a conver gent
tool to compare all of the options against each other
pair at a time, and to make decisions about their importance in , one relationship to each other (Isaksen et al., 2000). PraiseFirst (ALUo, PPCo, LCOb): a four -step conver gent
tool for evaluating and improving new ideas (Miller et al., 2001).
Stem Power (e.g. IWBGI?, H2?, IWWMI?): a specialized word, sentence, or phrase used to guide ones thinking in a particular way through various CPS stages (Isaksen , Dorval &Treffinger , 1994).