Daniel Fasko, Jr.
There have been numerous demands in U.S. education for enhanced cre- ative thinking and reasoning skills in our students. Unfortunately, there appears to be a dearth of research regarding the relationship between creative thinking and reasoning. Interestingly, Marzano (1998) reported that Goal3 of The National Educational Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners(National Education Goals Panel,1991) addressed the improve- ment of thinking and reasoning skills. It is suggested, though, that creative thinking and reasoning are essential skills for student achievement and, ultimately, success in school. The purpose of this chapter, then, is to exam- ine the relationship between creative thinking and reasoning. The chapter begins with a discussion of reasoning. This is followed by a discussion of creativity/creative thinking. Next is a discussion of research related to cre- ative thinking and reasoning. Last, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications to research and practice.
reasoning
There are many definitions of reasoning. For the purpose of this chapter, reasoning is defined as “ . . . a deliberating process of working things out to solve problems . . . ” (Calne,1999, p.18). As Calne noted, it may be perceived as a tool. However, he felt that reason does not have the ability to motivate because it has no affective component, which is required for one to attain any “mental rewards” (p.27).
Interestingly, it was Inhelder and Piaget (1958) who first stipulated that there was an invariant sequence of stages of cognitive development that influenced mental/intellectual reasoning. That is, the first two stages of mental reasoning are sensorimotor and preoperational, which occur during infancy and childhood. It is not until preadolescence that children use concrete operations to solve problems. Later, during adolescence, Inhelder and Piaget reported that formal operational reasoning occurred, which 159
allows adolescents and young adults to solve abstract problems. Hastie and Dawes (2001) suggested that Piaget’s stage of formal operations is scientific reasoning “applied to everyday situations” (p.5).
In an analysis of thinking and reasoning skills that were stated either explicitly or implicitly in documents of national standard boards in 12 subject areas,1Marzano (1998) identified six thinking and reasoning skills that were referred to in a majority of the subject areas. The follow- ing are the skills and percentages of subject areas in which they were mentioned:
1. Utilizes mental processes that are based on identifying similarities and differences (100%).
2. Applies problem-solving and troubleshooting techniques (83%).
3. Understands and applies basic principles of argumentation (83%).
4. Applies decision-making techniques (75%).
5. Understands and applies basic principles of hypothesis testing and scientific inquiry (58%).
6. Understands and applies basic principles of logic and reasoning (50%) (p.270)
Marzano suggested that educators should design curricula that address these six skills.
Recently, Lomask and Baron (2003) demonstrated that when assessing students’ academic performance their common reasoning patterns should be understood. In related research, Markovits (2003) found that it is impor- tant to understand the domain of reasoning. He also suggested that it is essential to attempt to reason in unfamiliar contexts, “to the extent that the reasoner is encouraged to go beyond the information that is presented in order to extrapolate potential possibilities” (p.182). He speculated that this could promote the development of more abstract forms of thinking in children and adolescents, which could provide a valuable complement to more concrete information-based strategies.
It has been suggested that analytic, explicit versus intuitive, implicit rea- soning and memory processes are separate (Hastie & Dawes,2001), espe- cially in relation to rational thinking. Logic, which is typically considered abstract, is generally associated with the concept of reasoning. According to Garson (2004), logic is the study of the “laws of thought,” which are the general principles of reasoning. However, Garson noted that individuals do not necessarily reason according to the “rules of logic.”
According to Paul (1993), intellectual products, to be reasonably mea- sured and validated, require some logic that is rationally justifiable. He
1 Science, mathematics, social studies, geography, history, civics, physical education, health, the arts, foreign language, the English language arts, and the world of work.
stated that logic and reasoning have both a narrow and broad use:
In the narrow sense, reasoning is drawing conclusions on the basis of reasons, and, in the narrow sense, logic refers simply to the principles that apply to the assessment of that process. But in a broad sense, reason and reasoning refer to the total process of figuring things out and hence to every intellectual standard relevant to doing that. Parallel to this sense is a broad sense of logic, which refers to the basic structure that one is, in fact, figuring out (when engaged in reasoning something through). (Paul,1993, p.25)
Thus, persons who reason well use good logic in both the narrow and broad sense (Paul,1993). “In the broad sense, all reasoned thinking is thinking within a logic, and when we have not yet learned a given logic . . . we create it” . . . (p.26).
Paul (1993) developed conditions in creative and critical (logical) think- ing. These are as follows:
1. Purpose, goal, or end in view: whenever we reason there is some pur- pose for it.
2. Question at issue (or problem to be solved): there is at least one question or problem to be solved.
3. Point of view or frame of reference: we must reason within some frame of reference.
4. The empirical dimension of our reasoning: there are some data we must use.
5. The conceptual dimension of our reasoning: uses some ideas or concepts.
6. Assumptions: the starting points of reasoning.
7. Inferences: reasoning proceeds with inferences.
8. Implications and consequences: Where our reasoning takes us. (pp.34–
36)
Paul felt that if individuals used these aspects, then their reasoning abilities would be improved.
Practical thinking is also associated with both creative and critical think- ing. Perhaps, also, practical thinking is related to Sternberg’s (1998) concept of “practical intelligence.” According to Peterson and Seligman (2004) to Sternberg, this is “wisdom deployed for social ends” (p.194).
Practical thinkers are willing to “try alternate approaches to think- ing, being open to others’ positions, being prepared to think about issues instead of ignoring or dismissing them, and asking insightful questions”
(Army Research Institute,2003, p.1). Being open to others’ positions is one aspect of open-mindedness. Hare (2003) describes open-mindedness as being “critically receptive to alternative possibilities, to be willing to think again despite having formulated a view, and to be concerned to defuse any factors that constrain one’s thinking in predetermined ways” (pp. 4–5).
According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), open-mindedness is the
“willingness to search actively for evidence against one’s favored beliefs, plans or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available”
(p.144). Interestingly, the characteristic of being “receptive to alternative possibilities” seems quite similar to a characteristic of divergent thinkers.
Peterson and Seligman reported also that very creative people tend to be more open to new experiences and demonstrate more “cognitive flexibil- ity” than do less creative people. In addition, Stanovich and West (1998) found that open-mindedness was related to positive outcomes on logical tasks.
Further, Hare (2003) indicated that John Dewey felt that open- mindedness is an attitude that is important in education because intellec- tual development necessitates an attitude of receptiveness to novel ideas.
It is also necessary to modify our goals and to build up our experiences.
Hare also noted that there are cynics about the idea of open-mindedness, but felt that if this cynicism were overcome then it would be easier for us to become open-minded. To be open-minded to, say, a new claim or idea, Shermer (2003) developed a list of10questions to consider:
1.How reliable is the source of the claim?
2.Does this source often make similar claims?
3.Have the claims been verified by another source?
4.How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
5.Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?
6.Does the preponderance of evidence converge to the claimant’s con- clusion or a different one?
7.Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
8.Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation?
9.If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation?
10.Do the claimants’ personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa? (pp.45–47)
Shermer felt that these questions could assist one in making a determina- tion about an individual’s open-mindedness.
Research on the concept of wisdom appears to suggest a relationship with open-mindedness (e.g., Staudinger, Lopez, & Baltes, 1997), which, as discussed previously, appears to be related to reasoning. Pasupathi, Staudinger, and Baltes (2001) define wisdom as “expert knowledge in the
fundamental pragmatics of life that permits exceptional insight, judgment, and advice about complex and uncertain matters” (p.351). Pasupathi et al.
also developed five criteria, within two levels, of wisdom. They are as follows:
(1)Basic Level
(a) Rich factual knowledge about life (b) Rich procedural knowledge about life (2)Meta Level
(a) Life span contextualism: this is the consideration of past, present, and possible future life contexts.
(b) Value relativism: this is the consideration of various values and life main concerns.
(c) Recognition and management of uncertainty: that is, the considera- tion of the inherent uncertainties of life. (p.352)
Peterson and Seligman (2004) reported also that “pragmatic creativity”
tends to develop into wisdom, especially of the elderly. Interestingly, Sternberg (2001) stated that a wise individual must demonstrate, in some measure, intelligence and creativity, as well as a developing wisdom from that intelligence and creativity. Recently, Sternberg (2003) has proposed the WICS (wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesized) model of giftedness.
In essence, he suggests that wisdom, intelligence, and creativity should be synthesized. This synthesis is needed for anyone to be a significant contributor to any society. (See Sternberg [2003] for further details of this model.) So, it seems that one’s reasoning skills, as well as creativity, may be affected by wisdom and open-mindedness. Some research also suggests that reasoning may also be affected by motivational variables.
Reasoning and Motivation
There has been research on the relationship between motivation and reasoning that may shed some light on the various issues raised above on reasoning. For example, Bullock, Nunner-Winkler, Stern, Lopez, and Ziegler (2003) stated that “[r]easoning in a domain in which one has a ‘hot’
emotional or motivational investment or a personal identification with an opinion, attitude or belief may be less flexible; or one may fail to apply appropriate reasoning schemata” (p.123). This, in turn, might affect one’s open-mindedness.
The connection between reasoning and motivation may be explained by the concept of self-efficacy, which is generally defined as “perceived capa- bilities within a specific domain” (Schunk,1991, p.223). There have been studies of student goals and their relationship to success. Mastery goals focus on wanting to master a subject area, as opposed to performance
goals, which focus on outcomes. Mastery goals are associated with both intrinsic motivation and higher self-efficacy (Green & Miller, 1996). The combination of mastery goals and intrinsic motivation has been found to be connected to higher grades (Church, Elliott, & Gable,2001). There appears, then, to be a connection among self-efficacy, motivation, and learning strategies, which broadly could include problem-solving strate- gies. In fact, positive associations have been found among self-efficacy, motivation, and the use of learning strategies (Corno, 1989). Further, these problem-solving strategies may be influenced by one’s reasoning abilities.
However, it has not been demonstrated definitively that self-efficacy and motivation transfer across different contexts. Interestingly, learning and motivation are involved in transfer of skills (Borkowski,1985). Obvi- ously, these variables would affect a student’s academic behaviors, such as reasoning and problem solving that, in turn, would affect the students’
academic achievement. Some research also suggests that there is a relation- ship between reasoning and creative thinking (e.g., Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999; Vartanian, Martindale, & Kwiatkowski,2003). What follows first is a discussion of creative thinking.
creativity/creative thinking
There have been several definitions of creative thinking that have been proposed. For example, creative thought has been defined as “a process whereby the individual finds, defines, or discovers an idea or problem not predetermined by the situation or task” (Kay,1994, p.117). Halpern (2003) defined creative thinking as “[t]hinking that leads to an outcome that is novel (or unusual) and appropriate (or good)” (p.191). According to Nickerson (1999), “[c]reative thinking is expansive, innovative, inventive, unconstrained thinking. It is associated with exploration and idea gener- ation. It is daring, uninhibited, fanciful, imaginative, free-spirited, unpre- dictable, revolutionary” (p.397). It involves discovering something novel and useful (Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999), as well as connecting ideas per- ceived before as not related (Ansburg & Hill,2003). Bruner (1960) argued that intuitive thinking is the basis for creative thinking.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) noted that “original” ideas and/or behav- iors that are also “adaptive” are two necessary components of creativity.
They also differentiate between two types of creativity: Big C and little c.
Big C creativity is represented by extreme forms of originality, as exhibited by scientists and artists (Gardner,1993; Simonton,2000). Conversely, little c may be considered “everyday” creativity, which Peterson and Seligman (2004) refer to as “ingenuity.” In essence, then, there are two types of cre- ative thinkers or at least two distinct poles of a continuum of creative thinking.
According to Ansburg and Hill (2003), a creative thinker must attend to factors that are pertinent to the current problem while also noting appar- ently irrelevant information that may lead to “insight.” With regard to a possible relationship between attention capabilities and creative and ana- lytical thinking, Ansburg and Hill (2003) assessed 175 college students with several instruments: anagram lists adapted from Mendelsohn and Griswald (1966) and Thorndike and Lorge (1944) and an updated Remote Associates Test (RAT) by Smith and Blankenship (1991) (cited in Ansburg &
Hill,2003). Ansburg and Hill (2003) found that “creative thinkers use a dif- ferent cognitive resource allocation strategy than do analytic thinkers . . . ” (p.1149). These results support Loewen’s (1995) idea that creative problem solving is unlike more traditional types of problem solving.
Further, Shaw (1992) suggested that creative people use “attentional processes” that take place beneath awareness (cited in Ansburg & Hill, 2003). (Sigmund Freud would refer to this place as one’s unconscious.) According to Shaw (1992), it is this unscrutinized flow of information that activates prior knowledge. This, then, may explain the suddenness with which creative thinkers propose solutions to a problem (Ansburg & Hill, 2003); that is, having insight (otherwise known as an “aha!” experience).
Ruscio, Whitney, and Amabile (1998) examined which task behav- iors best predicted creativity in three domains (problem solving, art, and writing). The most important indicator was found to be a participant’s involvement in the task, as measured through behavioral coding and think- aloud protocol analysis. Other predicting factors differed by domain. In the domain of writing, which was measured with a Haiku poem-writing task, the other central indicator of creativity was a factor calledStriving.
Striving was composed of difficulty, transitions, questioning how to do something, repeating something, and positive and negative exclamations.
Striving and, thus, creativity, as suggested later, may also be influenced by motivation.
Creativity and Motivation
There is a considerable literature on the impact of motivation on creativity, much of it focused on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic moti- vation. The research of Amabile and her colleagues (Amabile,1979,1982, 1996; Amabile & Gitomer,1984; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman,1986;
Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe,1994) argues that intrinsic motivation (performing an activity out of enjoyment for that activity) is more con- ducive to producing creative work than extrinsic motivation (performing an activity for an external reason, such as a reward; see Deci & Ryan,1985;
Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett,1973).
Recently, however, some reviews of the motivation research have challenged the assertion that intrinsic motivation is linked to higher
performance and increased creativity (Cameron & Pierce,1994; Eisenberger
& Cameron,1996; Eisenberger & Selbst,1994). In addition, Amabile (1993, 1996) revised her Intrinsic Motivation Principle on the relationship of extrinsic motivation and creativity. She stated that “ . . . informational or enabling extrinsic motivation can be conducive [to creative thinking], par- ticularly if initial levels of intrinsic motivation are high” (Amabile,1996, p.119).
There is another line of research that has emphasized the importance of knowledge, which is a necessity for reasoning, and motivation for creative thinking (e.g., Runco & Chand,1995). Runco and Chand (1995) developed a model of creative thinking to explain the components and interactions of cognitive processes. With regard to this model, Runco and Nemiro (Runco
& Chand,1995) suggested that motivation is important for creative think- ing and that problem finding would enhance intrinsic motivation. Thus, it appears that motivation relies on cognitive processes, which may be extended to reasoning practices.
creative thinking and reasoning
About 40 years ago Hitt (1965) suggested that “original thinking” and
“logical reasoning” were complementary aspects of creative thinking. He stated that original thinking is “intuitive, imaginative, and involves mak- ing guesses [and that] logical reasoning is analytical, systematic, and crit- ical” (p. 127). Interestingly, Hitt’s descriptions of original thinking and logical reasoning are quite similar to current conceptions of creative and critical thinking, respectively. Based on a factor analysis of a sample of 200male physical sciences and engineering researchers, Hitt indicated that creative thinkers, as mentioned above, make guesses and apply logic to ver- ify them. Also, they can generate and evaluate original ideas, as well as engage in spontaneous and systematic communication. Hitt also reported that the environment of creative thinkers fostered freedom and responsi- bility and had open-minded role models (pp.131–132). However, one must consider these results with caution because Hitt’s participants consisted of males who were apparently well educated.
Other researchers (e.g., Cattell,1971; Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999) have connected creativity to reasoning. For example, Cattell (1971) proposed a list of over20“primary” abilities, such as inductive and deductive reason- ing, ideational fluency, originality, and judgment. Sternberg and O’Hara (1999) reported that to Cattell the abilities of originality and ideational fluency were pertinent to creativity/creative thinking. Cattell (1971), how- ever, also posited that there were two intelligences, fluid (Gf) and crystal- lized (Gc), that determined one’s general intelligence. Fluid intelligence embodies an individual’s ability to reason and solve problems in novel or unfamiliar situations (Yekovich, 1994). Crystallized intelligence is the
ability to use previously acquired problem-solving techniques to work on the present problem (Hunt,1995). Cattell’s (1971) model of fluid and crys- tallized intelligence was expanded by Horn (1985), which includes several specific factors that support these two more broad intelligences. These specific factors include visual spatial processes (Gv), auditory process- ing (Ga), processing speed (Gs), response speed or decision making (Gt), short-term memory (Gsm), long-term memory (Glr), reading and writing abilities (Grw), and quantitative knowledge (Gq). Sternberg and O’Hara (1999) noted that fluid intelligence was indicative of one’s basic reason- ing ability, which then influenced one’s creativity. Also, Vartanian et al.
(2003) suggested that creative individuals should perform extremely well on inductive reasoning tasks.
Interestingly, Nickerson (1999) stated that research regarding the rela- tionship between creativity and reasoning skills indicated an association between creativity/creative thinking and problem solving. In this regard, Mumford, Baughman, and Sager (2003) suggested that creative thought denotes a type of multifaceted problem solving. Perhaps, then, one can extend this association to reasoning because this skill/ability is involved in problem solving. If so, then problem solving and reasoning may refer to the same concept, as suggested by Mumford, Connelly, Baughman, and Marks (1994).
In related research, Treffinger (1980) and Treffinger, Isaksen, and Firestein (1983) reported that Creative Problem Solving (CPS) might influ- ence complex thinking. Creative Problem Solving (e.g., Noller & Parnes, 1972; Noller, Parnes, & Biondi, 1976; Parnes & Noller, 1972) consists of three components: (1) understanding the problem, (2) generating ideas, and (3) planning for action (Nickerson,1999). Understanding the problem consists of three stages: (1) mess-finding, (2) data finding, and (3) problem finding. Generating ideas consists of idea finding. Finally, planning for action consists of solution finding and action planning (Nickerson,1999).
(See, for example, Parnes,1972, and Noller & Parnes, 1972, for a more detailed description of the CPS model.) Each stage of the process involves both divergent thinking (to produce a high frequency of responses), which is followed by evaluative thinking (to select the best potential solution) (e.g., Baer,1997; Noller & Parnes,1972; Noller et al.,1976; Parnes & Noller, 1972). In sum, much research (e.g., Baer,1988; Basadur, Graen, & Scandura, 1986; Fontenot,1993; Reese, Parnes, & Treffinger,1976) supports the use of the CPS model of creativity training for improving both individual and group creativity.
Further, to Loewen (1995), traditional problem solving differs from cre- ative problem solving. To him, traditional problem solving is a process whereby an individual resolves a problem from a set of conditions. Accord- ing to Halpern (2003), “A problem exists when there is a ‘gap’ or obsta- cle between the current state (where the problem solver is) and the goal