problem solving and creativity education

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

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

Business Insights

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

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

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

• 01 Feb 2022

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

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

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

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

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

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

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

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

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

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

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

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

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

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

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

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

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

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

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

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

The four stages are:

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

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

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

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

Creating a Problem Story

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

1. Identify a UDP

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

2. Move Forward in Time

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

3. Move Backward in Time

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

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

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

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

4. Break the Chains

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

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

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

Brainstorming

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

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

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

Alternate Worlds

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

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

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

Continue Developing Your Skills

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

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

About the Author

No products in the cart.

Creative problem solving tools and skills for students and teachers

Creative Problem Solving: What Is It?

Creative Problem Solving, or CPS ,  refers to the use of imagination and innovation to find solutions to problems when formulaic or conventional processes have failed.

Despite its rather dry definition – creative problem-solving in its application can be a lot of fun for learners and teachers alike.

Why Are Creative Problem-Solving Skills Important?

By definition, creative problem-solving challenges students to think beyond the conventional and to avoid well-trodden, sterile paths of thinking.

Not only does this motivate student learning, encourage engagement, and inspire deeper learning, but the practical applications of this higher-level thinking skill are virtually inexhaustible.

For example, given the rapidly changing world of work, it is hard to conceive of a skill that will be more valuable than the ability to generate innovative solutions to the unique problems that will arise and that are impossible to predict ahead of time.

Outside the world of work, in our busy daily lives, the endless problems arising from day-to-day living can also be overcome by a creative problem-solving approach.

When students have developed their creative problem-solving abilities effectively, they will have added a powerful tool to attack problems that they will encounter, whether in school, work, or in their personal lives.

Due to its at times nebulous nature, teaching creative problem-solving in the classroom poses its own challenges. However, developing a culture of approaching problem-solving in a creative manner is possible.

In this article, we will take a look at a variety of strategies, tools, and activities that can help students improve their creative problem-solving skills.

The Underlying Principles of CPS

Before we take a look at a process for implementing creative problem solving, it is helpful to examine a few of the underlying principles of CPS. These core principles should be encouraged in the classroom. They are:

●       Assume Nothing

Assumptions are the enemy of creativity and original thinking. If students assume they already have the answer, they will not be creative in their approach to solving a problem.

●       Problems Are Opportunities

Rather than seeing problems as difficulties to endure, a shift in perspective can instead view problems as challenges that offer new opportunities. Encourage your students to shift their perspectives to see opportunities where they once saw problems.

●       Suspend Judgment

Making immediate judgments closes down the creative response and the formation of new ideas. There is a time to make judgments, but making a judgment too early in the process can be very detrimental to finding a creative solution.

Cognitive Approaches: Convergent vs Divergent Thinking

“It is easier to tame a wild idea than it is to push a closer-in idea further out.”

— Alex Osborn

The terms divergent and convergent thinking, coined by psychologist J.P. Guilford in 1956, refer to two contrasting cognitive approaches to problem-solving.

Convergent Thinking can be thought of as linear and systematic in its approach. It attempts to find a solution to a problem by narrowing down multiple ideas into a single solution. If convergent thinking can be thought of as asking a single question, that question would be ‘ Why ?’

Divergent Thinking focuses more on the generation of multiple ideas and on the connections between those ideas. It sees problems as design opportunities and encourages the use of resources and materials in original ways. Divergent thinking encourages the taking of creative risks and is flexible rather than analytical in its approach. If it was a single question, it’d be ‘ Why not ?’

While it may appear that these two modes of thinking about a problem have an essentially competitive relationship, in CPS they can work together in a complementary manner.

When students have a problem to solve and they’re looking for innovative solutions, they can employ divergent thinking initially to generate multiple ideas, then convergent thinking to analyze and narrow down those ideas.

Students can repeat this process to continue to filter and refine their ideas and perspectives until they arrive at an innovative and satisfactory solution to the initial problem.

Let’s now take a closer look at the creative problem-solving process.

The Creative Problem-Solving Process

CPS helps students arrive at innovative and novel solutions to the problems that arise in life. Having a process to follow helps to keep students focused and to reach a point where action can be taken to implement creative ideas.

Originally developed by Alex Osborn and Sid Parnes, the CPS process has gone through a number of revisions over the last 50 or so years and, as a result, there are a number of variations of this model in existence.

The version described below is one of the more recent models and is well-suited to the classroom environment.

However, things can sometimes get a little complex for some of the younger students. So, in this case, it may be beneficial to teach the individual parts of the process in isolation first.

1. Clarify:

Before beginning to seek creative solutions to a problem, it is important to clarify the exact nature of that problem. To do this, students should do the following three things:

i. Identify the Problem

The first step in bringing creativity to problem-solving is to identify the problem, challenge, opportunity, or goal and clearly define it.

ii. Gather Data

Gather data and research information and background to ensure a clear understanding.

iii. Formulate Questions

Enhance awareness of the nature of the problem by creating questions that invite solutions.

Explore new ideas to answer the questions raised. It’s time to get creative here. The more ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a novel and useful idea. At this stage in particular, students should be engaged in divergent thinking as described above.

The focus here shifts from ideas to solutions. Once multiple ideas have been generated, convergent thinking can be used to narrow these down to the most suitable solution. The best idea should be closely analyzed in all its aspects and further ideas generated to make subsequent improvements. This is the stage to refine the initial idea and make it into a really workable solution.

4. Implement

Create a plan to implement the chosen solution. Students need to identify the required resources for the successful implementation of the solution. They need to plan for the actions that need to be taken, when they need to be taken, and who needs to take them.

Summary of Creative Problem Solving Process

In each stage of the CPS Process, students should be encouraged to employ divergent and convergent thinking in turn. Divergent thinking should be used to generate multiple ideas with convergent thinking then used to narrow these ideas down to the most feasible options. We will discuss how students go about this, but let’s first take a quick look at the role of a group facilitator.

The Importance of Group Facilitator

CPS is best undertaken in groups and, for larger and more complex projects, it’s even more effective when a facilitator can be appointed for the group.

The facilitator performs a number of useful purposes and helps the group to:

• Stay focused on the task at hand
• Move through the various stages efficiently
• Select appropriate tools and strategies

 A good facilitator does not generate ideas themselves but instead keeps the group focused on each step of the process.

Facilitators should be objective and possess a good understanding of the process outlined above, as well as the other tools and strategies that we will look at below.

The Creative Problem-Solving Process: Tools and Strategies

There are several activities available to help students move through each stage. These will help students to stay on track, remove barriers and blocks, be creative, and reach a consensus as they progress through the CPS process.

  The following tools and strategies can help provide groups with some structure and can be applied at various stages of the problem-solving process. For convenience, they have been categorized according to whether they make demands on divergent or convergent thinking as discussed earlier.

Divergent Thinking Tools:

  ●       Brainstorming

Defined by Alex Osborn as “a group’s attempt to find a solution for a specific problem by amassing ideas ”, this is perhaps the best-known tool in the arsenal of the creative problem solver.

To promote a creative collaboration in a group setting, simply share the challenge with everyone and challenge them to come up with as many ideas as possible. Ideas should be concise and specific. For this reason, it may be worth setting a word limit for recording each idea e.g. express in headline form in no more than 5 words. Post-it notes are perfect for this.

You may also set a quota on the number of ideas to generate or introduce a time limit to further encourage focus. When completed, members of the group can share and compare all the ideas in search of the most suitable.

●       5 W’s and an H

The 5 W’s and an H are Who , What , Where , Why , and How . This strategy is useful to effectively gather data. Students brainstorm questions to ask that begin with each of the question words above in turn. They then seek to gather the necessary information to answer these questions through research and discussion.

●       Reverse Assumptions

This activity is a great way to explore new ideas. Have the students begin by generating a list of up to 10 basic assumptions about the idea or concept. For each of these, students then explore the reverse of the assumption listing new insights and perspectives in the process.

The students can then use these insights and perspectives to generate fresh ideas. For example, an assumption about the concept of a restaurant might be that the food is cooked for you. The reverse of that assumption could be a restaurant where you cook the food yourself. So, how about a restaurant where patrons select their own recipes and cook their own food aided by a trained chef?

Convergent Thinking Tools

●       How-How Diagram

This is the perfect activity to use when figuring out the steps required to implement a solution.

Students write the solution on the left-hand side of a page turned landscape. Working together, they identify the individual steps required to achieve this solution and write these to the right of the solution.

When they have written these steps, they go through each step one-by-one identifying in detail each stage of achieving that step. These are written branching to the right of each step.

Students repeat this process until they have exhausted the process and ended up with a comprehensive branch diagram detailing each step necessary for the implementation of the solution.

●       The Evaluation Matrix

Making an evaluation matrix creates a systematic way of analyzing and comparing multiple solutions. It allows for a group to evaluate options against various criteria to help build consensus.

An evaluation matrix begins with the listing of criteria to evaluate potential solutions against. These can then be turned into the form of a positive question that allows for a Yes or No answer. For example, if the budget is the criteria, the evaluation question could be ‘ Is it within budget? ’

Make a matrix grid with a separate column for each of the key criteria. Write the positive question form of these criteria as headings for these columns. The different options can then be detailed and listed down the left-most column.

Students then work through each of the criteria for each option and record whether it fulfills, or doesn’t fulfill, each criteria. For more complex solutions, students could record their responses to each of the criteria on a scale from 0 to 5.

For example:

Using the example matrix above, it becomes very clear that Option 1 is the superior solution given that it completely fulfills all the criteria, whereas Option 2 and Option 3 fulfill only 2 out of the 3 criteria each.

 ●       Pair & Share

This activity is suitable to help develop promising ideas. After making a list of possible solutions or questions to pursue, each individual student writes down their top 3 ideas.

Once each student has their list of their 3 best ideas, organize students into pairs. In their pairs, students discuss their combined 6 ideas to decide on the top 3 out of the 6. Once they have agreed on these, they write the new top 3 ideas on a piece of paper.

Now, direct the pairs of students to join up with another pair to make groups of 4. In these groups of 4, students discuss their collective 6 ideas to come up with a new list of the top 3 ideas.

Repeat this process until the whole class comes together as one big group to agree on the top 3 ideas overall.

Establish a Culture of Creative Problem Solving in the Classroom

Approaching problems creatively is about establishing a classroom culture that welcomes innovation and the trial and error that innovation demands. Too often our students are so focused on finding the ‘right‘ answer that they miss opportunities to explore new ideas.

It is up to us as teachers to help create a classroom culture that encourages experimentation and creative playfulness.

To do this we need to ensure our students understand the benefits of a creative approach to problem-solving.

We must ensure too that they are aware of the personal, social, and organizational benefits of CPS.

CPS should become an integral part of their approach to solving problems whether at school, work, or in their personal lives.

As teachers, it is up to us to help create a classroom culture that encourages experimentation and creative playfulness.

To do this, we must ensure our students understand the benefits of a creative approach to problem-solving.

CPS should become an integral part of their approach to solving problems, whether at school, work or in their personal lives.

Empowering Tomorrow’s Leaders: The Crucial Role of Computational and Systems Thinking in Education

the importance of systems thinking and computational thinking strategies for students cannot be overstated, as these skills are integral to navigating the complexities of our rapidly evolving digital landscape. Computational thinking, characterized by algorithmic problem-solving and logical reasoning, equips students with the ability to approach challenges systematically. In an era dominated by technology, these skills are not limited to coding but extend to critical thinking, enabling students to dissect problems, identify patterns, and devise efficient solutions. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected and data-driven, computational thinking provides a foundational framework for students to make sense of information, fostering a generation adept at leveraging technology for innovation.

Simultaneously, systems thinking is indispensable in comprehending the intricate web of relationships within various contexts. It encourages students to view issues holistically, understanding the interdependence of components and the ripple effects of decisions. In an era marked by global challenges, such as climate change and socio-economic disparities, systems thinking instills a proactive mindset. Students equipped with these skills are better prepared to analyze multifaceted problems, appreciate diverse perspectives, and collaborate on sustainable solutions.

Together, computational and systems thinking empower students to navigate an ever-changing world with confidence, adaptability, and a profound understanding of the interconnected systems that shape our future. These skills are not just academic; they are the building blocks of a resilient, innovative, and forward-thinking society.

be sure to check out our great video guides to teaching systems thinking and computational thinking below.

Similar Posts

101 Excellent Educational Quotes for teachers and students

Sometimes, as a teacher, you need something brilliant to say to inspire and motivate yourself and those around you.   And, if…

10 great activities to break the ice with your students

Starting the school year or walking into a new room daily as a substitute can become pretty draining and confronting for…

5-amazing-classroom-decoration-ideas-for-creative-learning-and-teaching

Amazing learning happens in inviting classrooms As teachers we have no control over whether students go home to a happy, stimulating…

Higher order thinking skills for students and teachers.

What Is Higher Order Thinking? In days gone by, rote learning was where it was at. Latin? Learn your grammar off…

Critical thinking for teachers and students

What Do We Mean by the Term ‘Critical Thinking?’ Firstly, there is no single, commonly agreed definition of the term ‘critical…

FREE PRINTABLE GRAPH AND GRID PAPER OF ALL SIZES

It can be hard to find a simple graph or grid paper when you need it in the classroom or if…

• Back to All Programs /

Creative Thinking: Innovative Solutions to Complex Challenges

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

October 16, 2024

8:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET

2 consecutive days

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

Registration Deadline

October 8, 2024

Overview: Creative Thinking Skills Course

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

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

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

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

Who Should Take Creative Thinking Skills Training?

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

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

Benefits of Creative Thinking Skills Training

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

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

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

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

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

Considering this program?

Send yourself the details.

Related Programs

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

October Schedule

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

Instructors

Anne manning, susan robertson.

I really enjoyed the way the instructors facilitated the program. The combination of theory and practical exercises was powerful and effectively reinforced the concepts.

Innovation and Educational Research, Director, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Certificates of Leadership Excellence

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

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

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

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

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

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

• Education Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

1. Creativity motivates kids to learn.

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

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

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

2. Creativity lights up the brain.

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

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

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

3. Creativity spurs emotional development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• artificial intelligence

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.8(3); Fall 2009

Teaching Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving in Science

Robert l. dehaan.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creativity Is a Multicomponent Process

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

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

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

Creativity Is Widely Distributed and Occurs in a Social Context

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

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

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

LITERATURE REVIEW

What do we know about how to teach creativity.

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

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

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

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

Promoting Creative Problem Solving in the College Classroom

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

What explicit instructional strategies are available to promote creative problem solving? In addition to brainstorming, McFadzean (2002) discusses several “paradigm-stretching” techniques that can encourage creative ideas. One method, known as heuristic ideation, encourages participants to force together two unrelated concepts to discover novel relationships, a modern version of Koestler's bisociation ( Koestler, 1964 ). On the website of the Center for Development and Learning, Robert Sternberg and Wendy M. Williams offer 24 “tips” for teachers wishing to promote creativity in their students ( Sternberg and Williams, 1998 ). Among them, the following techniques might apply to a science classroom:

• Model creativity—students develop creativity when instructors model creative thinking and inventiveness.
• Repeatedly encourage idea generation—students need to be reminded to generate their own ideas and solutions in an environment free of criticism.
• Cross-fertilize ideas—where possible, avoid teaching in subject-area boxes: a math box, a social studies box, etc; students' creative ideas and insights often result from learning to integrate material across subject areas.
• Build self-efficacy—all students have the capacity to create and to experience the joy of having new ideas, but they must be helped to believe in their own capacity to be creative.
• Constantly question assumptions—make questioning a part of the daily classroom exchange; it is more important for students to learn what questions to ask and how to ask them than to learn the answers.
• Imagine other viewpoints—students broaden their perspectives by learning to reflect upon ideas and concepts from different points of view.

Although these strategies are all consistent with the knowledge about creativity that I have reviewed above, evidence from well-designed investigations to warrant the claim that they can enhance measurable indicators of creativity in college students is only recently beginning to materialize. If creativity most often occurs in “a mental state where attention is defocused, thought is associative, and a large number of mental representations are simultaneously activated” ( Martindale, 1999 , p. 149), the question arises whether instructional strategies designed to enhance the HOCS also foster such a mental state? Do valid tests exist to show that creative problem solving can be enhanced by such instruction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment of Creativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENTIFIC TEACHING TO PROMOTE CREATIVITY

How could creativity instruction be integrated into scientific teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Abrami P. C., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Wadem A., Surkes M. A., Tamim R., Zhang D. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2008; 78 :1102–1134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M., Barsade S. G., Mueller J. S., Staw B. M. Affect and creativity at work. Admin. Sci. Q. 2005; 50 :367–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ausubel D. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ausubel B. The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banaji S., Burn A., Buckingham D. The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the Literature. London: Centre for the Study of Children, Youth and Media; 2006. [accessed 29 December 2008]. www.creativepartnerships.com/data/files/rhetorics-of-creativity-12.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Barron F., Harrington D. M. Creativity, intelligence and personality. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 1981; 32 :439–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beller M. Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair C., Razza R. P. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Dev. 2007; 78 :647–663. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bodrova E., Leong D. J. American Early Childhood and Primary Classrooms. Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO International Bureau of Education; 2001. The Tool of the Mind: a case study of implementing the Vygotskian approach. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford J. D., Brown A. L., Cocking R. R., editors. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brophy D. R. A comparison of individual and group efforts to creatively solve contrasting types of problems. Creativity Res. J. 2006; 18 :293–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J. The growth of mind. Am. Psychol. 1965; 20 :1007–1017. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bull K. S., Montgomery D., Baloche L. Teaching creativity at the college level: a synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by instructors. Creativity Res. J. 1995; 8 :83–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burton R. On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not. New York: St. Martin's Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cloud-Hanson K. A., Kuehner J. N., Tong L., Miller S., Handelsman J. Money, sex and drugs: a case study to teach the genetics of antibiotic resistance. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008; 7 :302–309. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Craft A. Teaching Creativity: Philosophy and Practice. New York: Routledge; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford V. M. Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teachers' problem solving. Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Conference; Delphi, Greece. 2007. [accessed 1 July 2008]. http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/Crawford_EuroCogSci07Proceedings.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Crawford V. M., Brophy S. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International; 2006. [accessed 1 July 2008]. Adaptive Expertise: Theory, Methods, Findings, and Emerging Issues; September 2006. http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/AESymposiumReportOct06.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Crossgrove K., Curran K. L. Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008; 7 :146–154. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe A., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008; 7 :368–381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson M. C., Amso D., Anderson L. C., Diamond A. Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4–13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia. 2006; 44 :2037–2078. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan R. L. The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2005; 14 :253–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond A., Barnett W. S., Thomas J., Munro S. Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science. 2007; 318 :1387–1388. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duch B. J., Groh S. E., Allen D. E. The Power of Problem-based Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durston S., Davidson M. C., Thomas K. M., Worden M. S., Tottenham N., Martinez A., Watts R., Ulug A. M., Caseya B. J. Parametric manipulation of conflict and response competition using rapid mixed-trial event-related fMRI. Neuroimage. 2003; 20 :2135–2141. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May D., Hodder J. Pathways to Scientific Teaching. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Finke R. A., Ward T. B., Smith S. M. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Applications. Boston, MA: MIT Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman S., O'Connor E., Parks J. W., Cunningham M., Hurley D., Haak D., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2007; 6 :132–139. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabora L. Cognitive mechanisms underlying the creative process. In: Hewett T., Kavanagh E., editors. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creativity and Cognition; 2002 October 13–16; Loughborough University, United Kingdom. 2002. pp. 126–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaffney J.D.H., Richards E., Kustusch M. B., Ding L., Beichner R. Scaling up education reform. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2008; 37 :48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner H. New York: Harper Collins; 1993. Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladwell M. In the air; who says big ideas are rare? The New Yorker. 2008. [accessed 19 May 2008]. www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell .
• Guilford J. P. Creativity. Am. Psychol. 1950; 5 :444–454. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hake R. The physics education reform effort: a possible model for higher education. Natl. Teach. Learn. Forum. 2005; 15 :1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D. E., Hakel M. D. Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond. Change. 2003; 35 :36–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Handelsman J. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004; 304 :521–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Handelsman J, Miller S., Pfund C. Scientific Teaching. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co; 2007. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haring-Smith T. Creativity research review: some lessons for higher education. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Peer Rev. 2006; 8 :23–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatano G., Ouro Y. Commentary: reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educ. Res. 2003; 32 :26–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hrepic Z., Zollman D. A., Rebello N. S. Comparing students' and experts' understanding of the content of a lecture. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007; 16 :213–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunsaker S. L. Outcomes of creativity training programs. Gifted Child Q. 2005; 49 :292–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman J. C., Baer J. Intelligent testing with Torrance. Creativity Res. J. 2006; 18 :99–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman J. C., Beghetto R. A. Exploring mini-C: creativity across cultures. In: DeHaan R. L., Narayan K.M.V., editors. Education for Innovation: Implications for India, China and America. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; 2008. pp. 165–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. Creativity. Change. 2007; 39 :55–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. H. Can we trust creativity tests: a review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Creativity Res. J. 2006; 18 :3–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight J. K., Wood W. B. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 2005; 4 :298–310. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cetina Knorr K. Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science. In: Jasanoff S., Markle G., Petersen J., Pinch T., editors. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995. pp. 140–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koestler A. The Act of Creation. New York: Macmillan; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latour B., Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon D. W. What makes a person creative? In: MacKinnon D. W., editor. In Search of Human Effectiveness. New York: Universe Books; 1978. pp. 178–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martindale C. Biological basis of creativity. In: Sternberg R. J., editor. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 137–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur E. Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• McFadzean E. Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: Part 1—a conceptual model. Manage. Decis. 2002; 40 :463–475. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGregor G. D., Jr Creative thinking instruction for a college study skills program: a case study. Dissert Abstr. Intl. 2001; 62 :3293A. UMI No. AAT 3027933. [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre F. S., Hite R. E., Rickard M. K. Individual characteristics and creativity in the marketing classroom: exploratory insights. J. Mark. Educ. 2003; 25 :143–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mestre J. P., editor. Transfer of Learning: From a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford M. D., Mobley M. I., Uhlman C. E., Reiter-Palmon R., Doares L. M. Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Res. J. 1991; 4 :91–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neisser U. The multiplicity of thought. Br. J. Psychol. 1963; 54 :1–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson C. E. Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access. 2008. [accessed 15 September 2008]. http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/icn027v1.pdf . [ PubMed ]
• Novak G, Gavrin A., Christian W, Patterson E. Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborn A. F. Your Creative Power. New York: Scribner; 1948. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborn A. F. Applied Imagination. New York: Scribner; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osburn H. K., Mumford M. D. Creativity and planning: training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills. Creativity Res. J. 2006; 18 :173–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulus P. B., Nijstad B. A. Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins K. K., Wieman C. E. Innovative teaching to promote innovative thinking. In: DeHaan R. L., Narayan K.M.V., editors. Education for Innovation: Implications for India, China and America. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; 2008. pp. 181–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plucker J. A., Renzulli J. S. Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In: Sternberg R. J., editor. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 35–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quitadamo I. J., Faiola C. L., Johnson J. E., Kurtz M. J. Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008; 7 :327–337. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runco M. A. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004; 55 :657–687. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runco M. A., Nemiro J. Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Rev. 1994; 16 :235–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sawyer R. K. Educating for Innovation. [accessed 13 August 2008]; Thinking Skills Creativity. 2005 1 :41–48. www.artsci.wustl.edu/∼ksawyer/PDFs/Thinkjournal.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Sawyer R. K. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz D. L., Bransford J. D., Sears D. Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In: Mestre J. P., editor. Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2005. pp. 1–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott G., Leritz L. E., Mumford M. D. The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creativity Res. J. 2004; 16 :361–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonton D. K. Sociocultural context of individual creativity: a transhistorical time-series analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1975; 32 :1119–1133. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonton D. K. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Oxford, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sloman S. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1996; 9 :3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith G. F. Idea generation techniques: a formulary of active ingredients. J. Creative Behav. 1998; 32 :107–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder A., Mitchell J., Bossomaier T., Pallier G. The creativity quotient: an objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Res. J. 2004; 16 :415–420. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J. What is an “expert student?” Educ. Res. 2003; 32 :5–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R., Williams W. M. Teaching for creativity: two dozen tips. 1998. [accessed 25 March 2008]. www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/teaching_creativity.php .
• Tardif T. Z., Sternberg R. J. What do we know about creativity? In: Sternberg R. J., editor. The Nature of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. pp. 429–440. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P. Norms and Technical Manual for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms—Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torrance E. P., Ball O. E., Safter H. T. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Streamlined Scoring Guide for Figural Forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Treffinger D. J., Isaksen S. G. Creative problem solving: the history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted Child Q. 2005; 49 :342–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandervert L. R., Schimpf P. H., Liu H. How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation. Creativity Res. J. 2007; 9 :1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallach M. A., Kogan N. Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1965. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood W. B. Innovations in undergraduate biology teaching and why we need them. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2009 in press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Cognitive Psychology
• Creative Problem Solving

Creativity and problem-solving: Implications for classroom assessment

• January 2005

• University of Hamburg

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Nils Neuber

• Mine Canan Durmuşoğlu

• Laksmi Evasufi Widi Fajari
• Puput Nikmaturrohmah

• Eric Bonetto

• رانیا عطیه سلام محمد
• العزب محمد زهران
• أبوهاشم عبد العزیز سلیم
• J Soc Evol Syst
• Aharon Kantorovich
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Problem Solving and Creativity: Complementing Programming Education with Robotics

New citation alert added.

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

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

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

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations.

• ElSayary A (2024) Empowering the Future—The Integral Role of Programming in Educational Innovation and Cognitive Development Interdisciplinary Approaches for Educators' and Learners’ Well-being 10.1007/978-3-031-65215-8_11 (135-145) Online publication date: 26-Jul-2024 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65215-8_11
• ÇAKIROĞLU Ü ER B (2023) A model to develop activities for teaching programming through metacognitive strategies Thinking Skills and Creativity 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101279 48 (101279) Online publication date: Jun-2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101279
• Anderhag P Salomonsson N Bürgers A Estay Espinola C Fahrman B Seifeddine Ehdwall D Sundler M (2023) What strategies do students use when they are programming a robot to follow a curved line? International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10.1007/s10798-023-09841-x 34 :2 (691-710) Online publication date: 14-Jul-2023 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09841-x
• Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Applied computing

Digital libraries and archives

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Computing education

Computational thinking

Computing education programs

Computer science education

• K-12 education

Recommendations

Teaching how to teach computational thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

Information

Published in.

• General Chairs:

NTNU, Norway

Excited/NTNU, Norway

• Program Chairs:

University of Auckland, NZ

• SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, author tags.

• computer science education
• Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Contributors, other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 5 Total Citations View Citations
• 390 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 44
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 3
• Kiesler N (2022) Reviewing Constructivist Theories to Help Foster Creativity in Programming Education 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) 10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962699 (1-5) Online publication date: 8-Oct-2022 https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962699
• Branco A Dutra C Zumpichiatti D Campos F SantClair G Mello J Moreira J Godinho J Marotti J Gomide J Sherriff M Merkle L Cutter P Monge A Sheard J (2021) Programming for Children and Teenagers in Brazil Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 10.1145/3408877.3432554 (411-417) Online publication date: 3-Mar-2021 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3408877.3432554

View Options

Login options.

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

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

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

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Board of Directors

CPS for Educators

Transform your students into creative leaders, according to the world economic forum, creativity is a top skill needed for the 21st century workforce to succeed. as franklin d. roosevelt said, “we may not be able to prepare the future for our children, but we can prepare our children for the future.”.

Creative Problem Solving (CPS) unlocks creative thinking and teaches critical thinking processes that transform creativity into action. The CPS process also builds confidence, resilience, and tolerance for ambiguity because once learned, students know that whatever they face, they have clear steps to apply to get through any challenge.

CEF trains educators from K through College in the mindset, tool set, and skill set of CPS. A creative mindset improves communication, fosters positive engagement, and is fun. The tools and skills of CPS easily overlay any other initiative or curriculum because they enact a way of thinking and processing. Further, CPS fosters effective collaboration and team-building — all skills students need to have as part of a 21st Century workforce.

Bring Deliberate Creativity to Your School

To schedule your CPS Professional Development Training or to inquire about bringing CPSI to your school or campus, contact us today for more information.

CPS Professional Development   for Educators

Custom cps educator pd programs.

CEF can design workshops for your teaching teams as short as 90 minutes or for multiple days. We can provide virtual workshops, live workshops, one-on-one teacher coaching, and we can work with hundreds of teachers at once. Let us customize a CPS Educator PD program for you that fits your needs and budget.

Click below to learn more or schedule your CPS Professional Development Training or to inquire about bringing CPSI to your school or campus.

CPSI Conference

The Creative Problem Solving Institute (CPSI, “SIP-see”) is our signature, 4-Day creativity, innovation, and leadership conference held each June. We can also take our CPSI show on the road and bring it to your school for students, faculty, and administrators. We will design and run a virtual or on-campus CPSI conference for one day or multiple days and can include CPS and other creativity and innovation workshops. 

Foundations in CPS session descriptions

Session 1: setting the stage.

• How we solve problems everyday
• How we might solve problems faster
• Developing the mindset for deliberate creativity

Session 2: Introducing Creative Process

• Foursight preferences
• Introduce Clarify stage of CPS

Session 3: Formulating Challenges

• Gather data
• Formulate challenge statements
• Identify problem owner

Session 4: Exploring Ideas

• Ideation tools and methods
• Seeking outside perspectives

Session 5: Developing Solutions

• Convergence
• Find and formulate solutions

Session 6: Formulating a Plan

• Action planning
• Ownership of action steps
• Debriefing experiences

Session 7: Reviewing and Implementation

• Review of CPS process

Session 8: Coaching

• Unstructured time with course facilitators to review, practice, and personalize the learning

Creative Problem Solving generates break-through ideas, improves teamwork, and energizes the classroom. CPS professional development will help you and your students:

• Recognize and overcome blocks to creativity. 
• Identify attitudes and behaviors conducive to creative thinking. 
• Apply core concepts of creative thinking. 
• Use a variety of divergent and convergent thinking tools. 
• Apply the CPS method to many simulated or real situations. 
• Consciously be creative when facing problems and opportunities.

Register today and complete continuing education hours that will inspire you for the new school year!

Why is creative problem solving important for students.

The world is changing at breakneck speed, and we must prepare students for this reality. In fact, we need to prepare children to be the inventors of this new and fast-changing world.

According to Forbes , people will change jobs 15-20 times and have as many as 7 careers. The US Department of Labor predicts that 65% of students will become adults holding jobs that don’t exist yet. Schools that teach deliberate creativity prepare students for the imminent unknown.

We work with schools that recognize the creativity gap and that seek to reclaim teachers’ and students’ natural creativity to develop integrated and dynamic systems that improve school culture and community, all while fostering breakthrough academic success.

Why should teachers and students learn Creative Problem Solving?

CPS fosters skills and abilities that represent an array of 21st Century outcomes. Educators and students will learn to:

• Value inquiry and curiosity, and how to use the tools and techniques to develop these intuitive inclinations.
• Embrace creativity, risk-taking, and imagination – qualities essential to revealing new ideas and solutions.
• Couple creative thinking with critical analysis to both unlock possibility and to define actionable activities.
• Collaborate as part of a team and communicate complex ideas.

CPS is an essential practice that helps students become nimble, fluent, and innovative thinkers.

Thinking Inside the Educational Box

Creativity often flourishes within restricted environments. CPS can cultivate creativity no matter what restrictions or barriers you may have. Our professional development generates break-through ideas, improves teamwork, and energizes participants.  Learn to:

• Recognize and overcome blocks to creativity.
• Identify attitudes and behaviors conducive to creative thinking.
• Apply core concepts of creative thinking.
• Use a variety of thinking tools.
• Apply the CPS process to simulated or real situations.
• Make deliberate creativity a regular way to engage the world.

What educators have to say about our professional development:

Creativity and problem solving are essential skills for students in this century. We use these skills in a variety of ways in our school. First, the CPS process is an excellent tool for students to understand, and implement, as they engage in and lead a more complex and demanding world. Second, at our school, we use the process to define and implement growth!

Head of School , Inly School

Creative Education Foundation is providing teachers in Stamford Public Schools ways to think differently about instructional practice; to allow students to understand there are many ways to solve problems and different answers to the same questions. As we educate in the 21st century and beyond and prepare students for college and careers we need to continue to reflect on how we teach but also on how students learn.

Superintendent , Stamford Public Schools

In education it is imperative that we consider not only the what (CPS) but the why and the how. Creative thinking and Creative Problem Solving foster and promote metacognition. Creative thinking enables a student to come to awareness. After teaching a very short unit on Learning Styles to a fourth-grade classroom, one student went home and told his Mom, “Mom, I am not stupid! I’m kinesthetic!”. That student went from a learning challenged student in elementary school to an honor student when he graduated from high school. He was able to learn and process information in his learning style without interfering with the teacher’s teaching and promote metacognition. Creative thinking enables a student to come to awareness.

Fourth Grade Teacher

As an academic, I have found that the CPS process provides a well- researched, grounded process to facilitate creativity and innovation. At our Center, we use the CPS process and tools to help students, faculty, and businesses identify new solutions to challenging problems in their communities and beyond. The CPS tools and techniques provide flexibility and structure for those we work with and help give them permission to bring their ideas forward, create new ones and approach their challenge from a different perspective.

Director , Center for Innovation, University of North Dakota

The challenges within Higher Education demand that universities and colleges control costs, Increase completion rates, and address inequities within institutional resources. Creative Problems Solving (CPS) provides a framework for identifying opportunities and solving problems when conventional thinking has failed.  The mindset of CPS encourages you to adopt creative thinking in order to find fresh perspectives and come up with innovative solutions. 

Whether deploying CPS within the academic or administrative divisions, CPS pulls on the strengths of teams by engaging the team in clarifying the challenge, generating potential Solutions and executing the action plan.

COO Boys and Girls Clubs of St. Joseph County , Formerly ND Innovates Program Director and Adjunct Faculty at the University of Notre Dame

Contact us today to schedule your CPS Professional Development Training or to inquire about bringing CPSI to your school or campus.

Advertisement

College education: Problem-solving creativity in an interactive learning environment

• Published: 27 June 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 217–236, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Tingting Gao 1  

586 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The purpose of this research is to study the effectiveness of using the specialized interactive environment Revit Architecture for creativity development. The study methodology relies on an empirical approach, including a sample of students from three Chinese colleges ( n  = 319) divided into two groups based on learning approach. Accordingly, the first group consisted of students who practiced their design skills under the conventional program (Group A) and the second group included students who additionally used Revit Architecture for their practice (Group B). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) facilitated the identification of the creative thinking development level among participants. The present paper also seeks to determine if there is a connection between creative thinking and design training program effectiveness in architecture education (null hypothesis). According to the final assessment results, Group B performed better than Group A; the difference in the average performance score was 10.9% between the two groups. As a result, it proves that interactive learning environments have a positive impact on the level of creativity skills development. Consequently, this study proves that using interactive learning environments in architectural design education contributes to better learning outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Consequential creativity.

Improvisation Impact on Creativity Strands in Architecture Education

Effect of first-semester basic design studio on architecture students’ creative skills: a pre-and post-test assessment

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data, Materials and/or Code availability

Data will be available on request.

Alimisis, D., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2017). Educational robotics in the makers era (Vol. 560) . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity . Harvard Business School Press.

Google Scholar  

Anastasiades, P. (2017). ICT and collaborative creativity in modern school towards knowledge society. In P. Anastasiades, & N. Zaranis (Eds.), Research on e-learning and ICT in education: Technological, pedagogical and instructional perspectives (pp. 17–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34127-9

Archistar. (2021). Top ten design software for architects. Which pieces of software will make your designs stand out? Retrieved December 20, 2021, from https://academy.archistar.ai/top-ten-design-software-for-architects

Avila, C., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2020). Evaluation of a learning analytics tool for supporting teachers in the creation and evaluation of accessible and quality open educational resources. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (4), 1019–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12940

Article   Google Scholar  

Bannan, B., Cook, J., & Pachler, N. (2016). Reconceptualizing design research in the age of mobile learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (5), 938–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1018911

Bhakti, Y. B., Astuti, I. A. D., & Agustina, I. (2018). The influence process of science skill and motivation learning with creativity learn. Journal of Education and Learning, 12 (1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i1.6912

Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3 (2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.32.11

Buckingham, D. (2013). Teaching the creative class? Media education and the media industries in the age of “participatory culture.” Journal of Media Practice, 14 , 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.14.1.25_1

Chantarasombat, C., & Sirisuthi, C. (2021). The development module of leader teacher in creative thinking for enhancement the doctor of philosophy in educational administration and leadership program. Multicultural Education, 7 (11), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5652261

Chen, S.-Y., Lai, C.-F., Lai, Y.-H., & Su, Y.-S. (2019). Effect of project-based learning on development of students’ creative thinking. The International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Education, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720919846808

Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of m-learning: Toward learner-centred education. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3–15). Routledge.

Doheim, R. M., & Yusof, N. (2020). Creativity in architecture design studio. Assessing students’ and instructors’ perception. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249 , 119418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119418

Doleck, T., Lemay, D. J., & Brinton, C. G. (2021). Evaluating the efficiency of social learning networks: Perspectives for harnessing learning analytics to improve discussions. Computers & Education, 164 (2021), 104124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104124

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17 , 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001

Gilsanz Díaz, A., Gutiérrez-Mozo, M. E., & Parra-Martinez, J. (2018). The education of the architect: Learning from the Black Mountain College experience. Reactive proactive architecture (pp. 56–61). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.

Gorbunova, I., & Hiner, H. (2019). Music computer technologies and interactive systems of education in digital age school. In Proceedings of the International Conference Communicative Strategies of Information Society (pp. 124–128). CSIS 2018.

Guan, M. (2021). The role of classical music in the creative thinking of university students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41 , 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100925

Ifinedo, P. (2017). Examining students’ intention to continue using blogs for learning: Perspectives from technology acceptance, motivational, and social-cognitive frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior, 72 , 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.049

Irouke, V., & Ahianba, J. E. (2013). Advancement of creativity in architectural design education. Journal of Environmental Studies, 1 (1), 78–82.

Juan, Y., & Xinhui, Z. (2021). The effect of creative thinking on academic performance: Mechanisms, heterogeneity, and implication. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42 , 100831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100831

Kačerauskas, T., & Tamošauskas, P. (2015). Sport as factor of creativity. Filosofija. Sociologija, 26 (1), 64–71.

Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 97 , 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.002

Khaddage, F., Müller, W., & Flintoff, K. (2016). Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: Where to from here, and how? Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 16–27.

Khan Academy. (2021). What does an architectural designer do? Retrieved December 20, 2021, from https://www.khanacademy.org/college-careers-more/career-content/career-profiles-build-and-fix-things/career-profile-architectural-designer/a/what-does-an-architectural-designer-do

Lin, C.-H., Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48 (3), 730–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12457

Lin, C.-S., & Ying-Wei Wu, R. (2016). Effects of web-based creative thinking teaching on students’ creativity and learning outcome. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12 (6), 1675–1684. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1558a

Mahmoud, N. E., Kamel, S., & Hamza, T. S. (2020). The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and creativity in architectural design studio. Creativity Studies, 13 (1), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.9628

Mohammed, S., & AbouBakr, D. (2018). Towards better educational process: Integrating creativity in the design process to enhance students’ thinking ability. In Green Heritage International Conference (pp. 1–19). British University.

Mubarak, A. A., Han, C., & Ahmed, S. (2020). Predictive learning analytics using deep learning model in MOOCS’ courses videos. Education and Information Technologies, 26 , 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10273-6

Nikolopoulou, K. (2018). Creativity and ICT: Theoretical approaches and perspectives in school education. In T. A. Mikropoulos (Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in education (pp. 87–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95059-4_5

Prabhu, R., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., & Meisel, N. A. (2018). Teaching design freedom: Exploring the effects of design for additive manufacturing education on the cognitive components of students’ creativity. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (Vol. 51784, p. V003T04A009). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2018-85938

Psotka, J. (2012). Interactive learning environments. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1604–1606) . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_321

Quadir, B., Yang, J. C., & Chen, N.-S. (2022). The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 30 (2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1652835

Revit. (2021). Architectural design. What you can do with Revit. Retrieved December 20, 2021, from https://www.autodesk.com/products/revit/architecture

Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1 (3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3

Rodríguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2016). What leads people to keep on e-learning? An empirical analysis of users’ experiences and their effects on continuance intention. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (6), 1030–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.926275

Sáez-López, J.-M., & Sevillano-García, M.-L. (2017). Sensors, programming and devices in Art Education sessions. One case in the context of primary education. Cultura y Educación, 29 (2), 350–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2017.1305075

Shuaib, A. A. (2018). The importance of creative skills in architectural design education. University of Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14133.73446

Starčič, A. I., & Vukan, M. (2019). Teachers' perception of data-driven school ecosystem and data analytics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning (pp. 245–249). Association for Computer Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306500.3306573

Sullivan, F. R., & Keith, P. K. (2019). Exploring the potential of natural language processing to support microgenetic analysis of collaborative learning discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (6), 3047–3063. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12875

Torrance, P. E. (2018). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Retrieved December 20, 2021, from https://www.ststesting.com/gift/TTCT_InterpMOD.2018.pdf

Wang, B., & Li, P. P. (2021). Interdisciplinary approaches to arts education: Exploring the link between creative thinking and mastering exact sciences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42 , 100968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100968

Wong, J., Baars, M., de Koning, B. B., van der Zee, T., & Paas, F. (2019). Educational theories and learning analytics: From data to knowledge: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In D. Ifenthaler, D.-K. Mah, & J. Y.-K. Yau (Eds.), Utilizing learning analytics to support study success (Vol. 26, pp. 3–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64792-0_1

Xia, X. (2020). Learning behavior mining and decision recommendation based on association rules in interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799028

Xia, X. (2021). Decision application mechanism of regression analysis of multi-category learning behaviors in interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, in Press . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1916767

Zalloom, B. (2019). Increasing creativity and community responsibility through the interactive learning at the schools of architecture in Jordan. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 471, No. 8, p. 082065). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/8/082065

Download references

The author wish to acknowledge the support of the 2021 Graduate Education and Teaching Reform Funding Project of Chang an University (300103112501), the Research Project Planning of Building the Consciousness of the Chinese Nation Community in Shaanxi (2022MZW018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Construction Machinery, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China

Tingting Gao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Tingting Gao done all research processes.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tingting Gao .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The institutional supervisory boards from the School of Construction Machinery (Changan University), Qingdao Technological University (Qindao College), and Antai College of Economics and Management (Shanghai Jiao Tong University) also approved the program.

All participants gave their written informed consent.

Competing interests

There are no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gao, T. College education: Problem-solving creativity in an interactive learning environment. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 217–236 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11150-0

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2022

Accepted : 02 June 2022

Published : 27 June 2022

Issue Date : January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11150-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Architecture
• Creative skills
• Creative thinking
• Interactive environment
• Learning systems
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

More From Forbes

How wordle and other games can improve your leadership skills.

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

By Dominique Harroch

Research suggests that word games and puzzles have measurable cognitive benefits.

Are you one of the millions of people who start or end their day with brain teasers or puzzles? It turns out this is a fantastic way to help you become a great leader. In today's fast-paced business world, the qualities that define strong leaders and successful entrepreneurs extend beyond traditional skills and knowledge. The ability to think critically, solve complex problems, and remain mentally agile are just as crucial—and these are precisely the skills honed through the daily practice of solving puzzles like The New York Times’ Wordle, Connections, Crossword, and Spelling Bee games.

While hundreds of thousands (and in the case of Wordle, millions) of people enjoy playing these games every day, they are not just a source of entertainment. They are also powerful tools for sharpening the mind, enhancing strategic thinking, and fostering the persistence and creativity necessary for leadership and entrepreneurial success.

8 ways games help strengthen your leadership skills

Engaging in these very popular word puzzles can be a daily exercise in developing the cognitive and problem-solving skills that are essential for anyone looking to lead or innovate in their field. Here’s how these games hone qualities essential for entrepreneurs.

1. They teach you to gather information to make an informed decision

In a business environment, just as in the game Wordle, solutions can be right in front of you, hidden in plain sight. Wordle is a popular daily word puzzle where players have six attempts to guess a five-letter word. Players use feedback clues to refine their choices and work towards identifying the correct word. Wordle combines elements of logic, deduction, and vocabulary skills.

These brain game puzzles teach you to pay attention to clues, a skill that is invaluable in managing teams, projects, and even crises. Just as you must use deductive reasoning based on the letters you’ve chosen in order to determine the correct word, leaders must analyze the data, feedback, and environment around them to make informed decisions. In the Wordle game, sometimes you have the right letter in the wrong space. As a leader, you may have great team members who are in the wrong role or simply do not belong in your organization. Recognizing these relationships in the big picture are important to a successful team.

2. They challenge you to take a different perspective–and a break, if necessary

The Spelling Bee game from The New York Times challenges players to create as many words as possible from a set of seven letters. The game gives you the option to scramble the letters to see them from different perspectives.

Finding all the possible words in a Spelling Bee puzzle can be time-consuming and frustrating, much like solving a real-world business problem. The game reinforces the importance of persistence, teaching leaders that the best solutions usually require time and repeated effort.

Often, the most obvious words aren't immediately visible. You can shuffle the letters, rearranging your perspective, and suddenly, what was seemingly hidden comes into view. This is akin to problem-solving in leadership. When faced with a challenge, the first solution isn't always the best or most creative. By taking a step back and "scrambling" your approach, you can often find innovative solutions that weren’t initially apparent.

Sometimes, you just need a break. By waiting a few hours and revisiting the puzzle, words and solutions become obvious. In business, too, you may just need some time in between the issue and the solution. How often does a new idea come to you in the shower or the middle of the night? New perspectives can help you solve problems that may seem overwhelming at first.

3. They force you to focus on the important things and avoid distraction

In puzzles, just as in leadership, solutions aren't always clear at first. Wordle, for instance, involves a process of elimination—removing wrong guesses to hone in on the right word. Similarly, effective leaders must sift through data, discard irrelevant information, and focus on what truly matters. This process sharpens your ability to discern patterns, understand relationships, and make better decisions. Like playing a game, leading a business to success requires leaders to eliminate distraction and focus on key goals.

4. They encourage creative problem-solving

The New York Times game Connections challenges players to find relationships between seemingly unrelated words. In this game, players are presented with a grid of 16 words, and their task is to group the words into sets of four based on shared themes or connections. The connections can be straightforward or subtle, requiring players to think critically and draw associations that aren't immediately obvious.

The Connections game forces you to think about relationships between ideas, words, and thoughts in new ways. This mirrors the creative and strategic thinking required in leadership. Leaders must be able to connect seemingly disparate ideas, identify underlying patterns, and communicate these connections to inspire and guide their teams.

More from AllBusiness :

• How to Encourage Brainstorming at Your Business: 10 Tips for Spurring Employee Creativity
• How to Increase Website Traffic: 25 Expert Tips

5. They push you to be more time-efficient

The Mini crossword offered by the The New York Times , unlike the other puzzles, has a timer on it and challenges solvers to complete the puzzle in under 45 seconds. Speed matters in many work environments, so training your brain to work on clues quickly is as valuable as making space for thinking through solutions over a longer period of time.

These exercises also foster adaptability and the capacity to approach problems from various angles while doing so in as efficient a way as possible. Leaders who engage in regular mental exercises like Wordle, Spelling Bee or Connections are often better equipped to handle uncertainty, adapt to changing circumstances, and think on their feet.

6. They introduce new vocabulary words

Crossword puzzles often contain a wide range of vocabulary, subjects, and ideas challenging individuals to expand their mastery of all of these areas. A strong vocabulary provides leaders with the ability to communicate more effectively in both written and verbal forms.

In the business world, clear and concise communication is essential when pitching new business ideas, building a strong team, and resolving conflicts. By consistently solving crossword puzzles, individuals can improve their vocabulary and enhance their communication skills, leading to better problem-solving outcomes.

7. They have measurable cognitive benefits

There is scientific evidence supporting the value of puzzles and brain games for enhancing cognitive abilities, which can be particularly beneficial for leadership and business performance. For instance, a study published in PLOS ONE in 2022 found that brain training games significantly improved executive functions, working memory, and processing speed in healthy young adults. These cognitive skills are crucial for leaders who need to make quick decisions, adapt to new situations, and manage complex tasks efficiently​.

Another study published in Heliyon in 2023 highlighted that puzzle games can significantly enhance memory and concentration levels in older adults, bringing their cognitive performance on par with younger individuals. This research supports the idea that regular engagement with brain games can maintain and even improve cognitive flexibility, a key attribute for effective leadership in dynamic environments​.

An article in Psychology Today discusses how games, including crosswords, Sudoku, and logic puzzles, engage both imaginative association and memory and have long been suggested as a way to exercise the brain. These cognitive processes are essential for leaders, as they enhance the ability to see patterns, solve complex problems, and think outside the box. The article suggests that regularly engaging in such puzzles can improve mental agility, which is crucial for leaders who need to adapt to unexpected challenges and make quick, informed decisions​.

These studies collectively underscore the value of brain games in bolstering the cognitive functions necessary for effective leadership.

Puzzle-solving is fun, but it also has serious benefits

While it may initially seem like a stretch to connect a daily Wordle, Spelling Bee or crossword habit to leadership prowess, the parallels are clear (as well as the research). Both require attention to detail, a willingness to explore different angles, and the ability to make connections that aren’t immediately obvious. So, the next time you find yourself stuck on a word puzzle, remember—you’re not just playing a game, you are training your brain to be a better, more effective leader.

About the Author

Dominique Harroch has acted as a Chief of Staff or Operations Leader for multiple companies where she leveraged her extensive experience in operations management, strategic planning, and team leadership to drive organizational success. Her background spans over two decades in operations leadership, event planning at her own startup, and marketing at various financial and retail companies. She can be reached via LinkedIn .

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

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

Forbes Community Guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how can you be a power user?

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

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

Maintenance work is planned from 21:00 BST on Tuesday 20th August 2024 to 21:00 BST on Wednesday 21st August 2024, and on Thursday 29th August 2024 from 11:00 to 12:00 BST.

During this time the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly, some pages may be temporarily unavailable, and you may be unable to log in or to access content. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Metacognitive problem solving: exploration of students’ perspectives through the lens of multi-dimensional engagement.

Solving chemical problems entails content knowledge and mastery of problem-solving processes. However, students sometimes lack metacognitive processes required for problem solving in chemistry. This study investigated how first-year chemistry students engaged with the metacognitive problem-solving scaffold Goldilocks Help. Data was collected from an activity, which involved students reflectively comparing their problem-solving attempts to an expert solution. These comparative reflections (N = 373) were thematically analysed to investigate scaffold engagement in three dimensions: cognitive, emotional, and behavioural. Finding showed that scaffold use, coupled with self-reflection, allowed students to identify flaws in their solutions that were either problem specific or related to their problem-solving skills. Students were able to propose improvement strategies, such as posing prompting questions to themselves and finding multiple alternatives for evaluating an answer. Students, who initially lacked structured problem-solving skills, found that scaffolding helped them to slow down metacognitive processes that would otherwise be rushed through or engaged with on a surface level. Students’ resistance to the scaffold was due to fear of making a mistake or viewing the scaffold as requiring extra time and effort. Within a semester, many students demonstrated an improvement in successful and structured problem solving but some required more practice to internalise the scaffold. Our findings also indicated that students’ reflections on problem solving became more sophisticated as a result of continued exposure to the scaffold and iterative opportunities to compare their work to expert solutions, to self-assess, and to reflect. Further research on reflective writing in chemistry education should focus on the ipsative nature of such assessments, i.e. processes focussing on students’ own progress, growth, and improvement, compared to their previous performance, while recognising the power relations operationalised in course-embedded reflections. From the teaching practice perspective, having an awareness of students’ thoughts, emotions, and actions can help instructors differentiate between levels of student capabilities, mindsets, and needs for extra support, allowing teaching efforts to be directed at promoting metacognitive and structured problem solving.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (125K)

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

K. Vo, M. Sarkar, P. J. White and E. Yuriev, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4RP00096J

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

• India Today
• Business Today
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• India Today Hindi
• Reader’s Digest
• Aaj Tak Campus

Download App

Virtual autism is on rise among growing children: Problem and solution

Virtual autism continues to challenge our era of technology but note the emerging innovative solution— stem-based toys. they offer an alternative by developing a child's attention from screens to interactive educational play and thus not only solving the problem at hand but ensuring that we have a future generation of individuals who are: curious, creative, capable..

Listen to Story

Have you ever observed how agitated children become when you take away their phones while they are using them?

Over the past few years, virtual autism has become a major concern for parents, teachers, and health providers. A condition believed to result from excessive screen time, this unexplained epidemic impairs children's development and leads to problems with social engagement, much like actual autism. As kids spend more time with gadgets and digital media, many develop addictive behaviours that seriously affect their cognitive and social well-being. The effects can be drastic: from speech and language delays to problems with social interaction and emotional self-control.

USE OF STEM TOYS

The use of STEM toys can lead to fighting against the downsides that arise due to excessive screen time by motivating children to play with tangible items that breed hands-on experiences — where users are involved. Instead of being passive consumers of what is displayed on a screen, children get actively involved in playing with toys; they use their hands and brains to come up with designs and later investigate them. Cognitive growth can be encouraged by active involvement in such thinking activities that trigger the development of the brain, thereby increasing the retention of what is learned.

The toys offer benefits such as educational value which goes beyond personal use. They are great tools for collaborative learning because when children play with these toys, they have to work together, come up with ideas and solve problems as a team. Developing social skills and teamwork through this cooperative play helps in fighting against loneliness— which is common with too much individual play.

The toys have an educational value that goes beyond personal use; which makes them great tools for group learning. Children are motivated to work together and come up with solutions as a team while playing with these toys— this aspect of cooperation during play helps in developing social skills and teamwork. It also helps in curbing the effects of loneliness (which is usually connected to) too much individualistic play.

FINAL WORDS

Thus, to summarise, virtual autism continues to challenge our era of technology but note the emerging innovative solution— STEM-based toys. They offer an alternative by developing a child's attention from screens to interactive educational play and thus not only solving the problem at hand but ensuring that we have a future generation of individuals who are: curious, creative, capable. "We aim to make learning a joyful journey, where children develop a lifelong love for exploration," says one educational toy company.

ASCP 2024: Artificial Intelligence is Here to Stay. Learn How it May Impact Patient Care

August 09, 2024

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is making its way into laboratory medicine. A special workshop at the ASCP 2024 Annual Meeting will provide attendees with comprehensive insights into the emerging areas of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) and their potential positive impact on the practice of anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine. The  workshop  will cover a range of topics including AP and CP practice, logistics, management, billing, operations. 

These are among the outstanding education attendees will discover at the ASCP Annual Meeting, Sept. 3-6 in Chicago. The Annual Meeting education program is designed to meet the individual needs of laboratory professionals, pathologists, as well as residents and medical students. The field of diagnostic medicine is constantly changing, and there is no better place to discover, embrace, and embody those changes than here, where attendees can share and connect with colleagues.

The ASCP 2024 Annual Meeting offers a new feature that will appeal to all attendees are the two Deep Dive Workshops on Tuesday, Sept. 3. Another Deep Dive Workshop is   Leading with Impact: Elevating Your Leadership Skills,  a four-hour session, catering specifically to laboratory professionals and pathologists. Through interactive discussions, case-based teaching, and practical tips, participants will delve into essential topics of communication and feedback, boundary setting and negotiation, and problem-solving and innovation. Participants will explore communication techniques and effective feedback mechanisms to enhance team dynamics and productivity. They will learn strategies for setting and maintaining healthy boundaries, navigating negotiations, and fostering collaborative environments.

The ultimate aim of "Elevate: Mastering Leadership Excellence" is to cultivate a culture of leadership excellence, empowering participants to drive positive change within their organizations. Attendees will leave with an enhanced toolset and mindset to enact meaningful transformations in their professional spheres.

Meanwhile, laboratory professionals can take advantage of 12 continuous sessions over the four days developed and presented by leading laboratory professionals. The core topic areas are hematology / coagulation; blood banking / transfusion medicine; microbiology; and chemistry.

There is so much more education to explore. Get started now and plan your ASCP 2024 Annual Meeting experience by clicking   here.

ADVERTISEMENT