- 50 -
strategies used to execute a particular process (e.g., conceptual combination, idea evaluation).
- 51 -
training programs as assessed by judges’ appraisals of program content. They identified eleven different types of training programs: (1) analogy training (e.g., Antonietti, 2000), (2) open idea production training (e.g., Clapham, 1997), (3) interactive idea production training (e.g., Glover, 1980), (4) creative process training (e.g., Baer, 1988), (5) imagery training (e.g., Flaherty, 1992), (6) computer-based production training (e.g., Clements, 1991), (7) structured idea production training (e.g., Clapham & Schuster, 1992), (8) analytical training (e.g., Houtz & Feldhusen, 1976), (9) critical/creative thinking training (e.g., Hudgins & Edelman, 1988), (10) situated idea production training (e.g., Speedie, Treffinger, & Feldhusen, 1971), and (11) conceptual combination training. Of these approaches, the strongest effects were produced by creative process training, analytical training, and critical/creative thinking training––all relatively uncommon trainings. The weakest effects were produced by the two most common training program approaches––open idea production training and imagery training. Thus, effective training programs focused on disciplined application of creative thinking processes as opposed to open exploration.
Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, Mecca, Gibson, & Giorgini, 2012) have argued this pattern of effects can be traced to providing people with effective strategies for executing the key processes held to contribute to creative thought. Thus, based on the findings of Baughman and Mumford (1995), one might attempt to improve conceptual combination by training various strategies for feature search and mapping. For example, look for and elaborate shared features among relevant concepts, or employ metaphors when asked to work with highly diverse concepts. Alternatively, in idea evaluation, one might encourage people to first look for the strengths of ideas and then seek to identify and compensate for deficiencies (Lonergan, Scott, &
Mumford, 2004). Mumford, Mecca, Gibson, and Giorgini (2012) argue that five basic approaches are available for strategy training: (1) strategy demonstration, (2) strategy modeling, (3) strategy activation, (4) appraisal of products from strategy application, and (5) analysis of errors in strategy application.
- 52 -
An illustration of strategy demonstration has been provided by Marcy and Mumford (2007). In this study, the focus was on causal analysis with strategies being trained such as working with causes that can be manipulated, working with causes that effect multiple outcomes, and working with causes that have large effects. The instructional program for each strategy consisted of four modules: (1) define the strategy in concrete operational terms, describe its impact on creative problem solving, and illustrate its application in solving a day-to-day problem, (2) provide a more complex problem and ask participants questions about how this strategy could be applied with feedback being provided, (3) provide another problem calling for application of this strategy and answer questions bearing on strategy application with no feedback, and (4) ask participants to apply this strategy in solving a complex creative problem.
Following training, Marcy and Mumford (2007) asked participants to provide solutions to six creative problems, three educational and three business problems, where problem solutions were evaluated for quality and originality. It was found that training resulted in the production of higher quality and more original solutions when students deliberated on the problems.
Scott, Lonergan, and Mumford (2005) employed a strategy modeling approach. In this study, participants were asked to solve a creative problem drawn from the educational domain which was appraised by judges for quality and originality. Prior to starting work on this problem, an educational problem, participants were presented with a three-module instructional program: (1) describe the conceptual combination strategy at hand, (2) present a case drawn from another domain which models conceptual combination strategy application in a real-world context where students are asked to attend to key steps in strategy application, and (3) present another case, again a case drawn from a different domain, where students were asked to write down, actively analyze, the case with respect to conceptual combination strategy application. It was found that this strategy modeling training resulted in the production of higher quality and more original solutions to the educational transfer problem.
- 53 -
In another study of conceptual combination strategies, Scott, Lonergan, and Mumford (2005) employed a different training approach. Here, it was assumed that the use of a strategy could be encouraged by asking people to answer probe questions intended to encourage application of a targeted strategy. Here, again, participants were asked to provide solutions to a complex, novel, ill-defined educational problem where solutions were appraised for quality and originality. Prior to starting work on this problem, however, participants were presented with a series of probe questions intended to encourage strategy application: (1) identify critical features of each concept, (2) analyze shared and unshared features, (3) define a new concept based on shared and unshared features, (4) think about other examples of this new concept, and (5) consider how this concept might be extended or elaborated. It was found that when these probe questions were presented with respect to a set of educational concepts, higher quality and more original solutions were obtained to this educational problem.
Still another way one might encourage strategy application is by providing standards for appraising strategy execution. This training approach was employed in a study by Dailey and Mumford (2006) focused on the strategies contributing to idea evaluation. In this study, participants were asked to assume the role of a panel member evaluating proposals for funding by a non-profit organization. Participants were given the standards to be used in appraising creative ideas focused on the general strategies used in idea evaluation: (1) what resources will be required to develop and execute the idea? and (2) what will be the outcomes of idea evaluation?
Participants were asked to appraise the ideas presented for quality and originality where the quality and originality of ideas had been established using actual historical data. It was found that providing viable appraisal standards resulted in more accurate appraisals of the ideas presented in the proposals.
A final approach that has proven promising in encouraging the use of viable strategies may be found in error analysis. Licuanan, Dailey, and Mumford (2007)
- 54 -
examined the merits of error analysis with respect to the strategies involved in idea evaluation. The critical outcome variable of concern was the accuracy of people in identifying original ideas. Prior to evaluating these ideas, participants were presented, or not presented, with a training program containing four modules: (1) description of the variables that contribute to or inhibit creativity, (2) presentation of questions, with feedback provided, concerning facilitators and inhibitors of creativity, (3) presentation of three cases where participants were asked to indicate relevant facilitators and inhibitors of creativity––again with feedback provided, and (4) presentation of a more complex case where participants were asked to appraised relevant facilitators and inhibitors but no feedback was provided. It was found that this training program led to more accurate identification and evaluation of original ideas.
This evidence is available for strategy demonstration, strategy modeling, strategy activities, standards for appraising strategy application, and analyses of errors in a strategy application as viable approaches for involving application of creating thinking strategies. However, these studies typically focused on strategies underlying application of a particular creative thinking process––conceptual combination, idea evaluation, etc.
This observation in turn, broaches another question: can more process specific procedures be developed for strategy training?
This issue has been addressed in a recent series of studies by Mumford and his colleagues (Barrett, Peterson, Hester, Robledo, Day, Hougen & Mumford, 2013;
Hester, Robledo, Barrett, Peterson, Hougen, Day & Mumford, 2012; Mumford, Hester, Robledo, Peterson, Day, Hougen & Barrett, 2012; Peterson, Barrett, Hester, Robledo, Hougen, Day & Mumford, 2013; Robledo Hester, Peterson, Barrett, Day, Hougen &
Mumford, 2012). In these studies, an attempt was made to train cross-process strategies that might contribute to creative problem solving. Thus, Hester et al. (2012) attempted to train critical causal analysis strategies, thinking about critical causes, contingencies on causes, negative effects of acting on causes, and the effects of causes on multiple outcomes. In contrast, Barrett et al. (2013) focused on strategies
- 55 -
for thinking about applications, thinking about effects on user groups, preparation of user groups, sustainability of applications, and effects of ideas on setting. Each study focused on cross-process strategies applying in one of four areas: causal analysis, applications, error management, and constraint management. The approach to training strategy application was Marcy and Mumford’s (2007) strategy demonstration approach.
In some studies, participants were asked to solve a creative marketing problem (developing an advertising campaign for a high energy root beer), and in other studies participants were asked to solve a creative educational problem (developing a plan for leading an experimental secondary school). In all studies, the quality, originality, and elegance of problem solutions was assessed. In addition, the effects of training on participants’ mental models on their understanding of the problem domain were assessed. It was found that training in strategies for causal analysis, applications analysis, constraint management, and error management resulted in production of higher quality, more original, and more elegant solutions to the marketing and educational problems. It was also found that these training interventions resulted in the acquisition of better mental models for understanding the problem at hand. Finally, it has been found that providing training in application of these strategies results in the production of more creative software system designs in computer science courses.
Clearly, the available evidence indicates that strategy based training interventions contribute to creative problem-solving. Moreover, techniques have been developed for training these strategies––that is, strategy demonstration, strategy modeling, strategy activation, product appraisal, and error analysis. In this regard, however, the observations of Mumford, Antes, Caughron, Connelly, and Beeler (2010) and Mumford, Lonergan, and Scott (2002) should be borne in mind. More specifically, in different fields, different forms of knowledge, and thus presumably different strategies, may be used in creative problem-solving. Moreover, different fields stress the need for different processes in creative problem-solving. As a result, the question arises as to how critical process, requisite knowledge, and viable creative problem-solving strategies
- 56 - can be identified.
In fact, procedures are available for identifying critical processes, requisite processing strategies, and relevant knowledge in the various fields where creative problem solving is sought. For example, one might conduct think aloud protocol studies contrasting creative experts and less creative experts or novices on a sample of creative problems to identify relevant processes, strategies, and knowledge (Ericsson, 2009). Alternatively, one might conduct a cognitive task analysis as people working in a field attempt to solve creative problems (Schraagen, 2009). Still another approach might involve modeling creative problem-solving (Vanlehn & van de Sande, 2009).
Regardless of the approach applied, it should be clear that techniques are available for identifying requisite knowledge, viable strategies, and critical processes applying in various domains of creative work As a result, development of strategy based training for improving creative problem-solving is, in fact, feasible.