Does Teaching Creative Thinking Skills Work in Practice?

Nick Morley, Macao

Nick Morley has taught in Asia since 2000 and is now an Associate Professor based in Macao; he holds an MA TESOL and an M Ed (Applied Linguistics). He intends to pursue a Doctorate in Education by investigating aspects of creativity. He has an interest in helping learners notice language they use and discover how to improve it themselves. He has recently worked on a joint project with the Center for Educational Policy in Kazakhstan and University College London on a full time professional development programme for EAL/EFL and CLIL teachers. E-mail: xyiq@yahoo.com

Menu

Introduction
Core example studies on classroom use
Why these two articles were chosen
Relevance of research
Assumptions the authors hold
What successfully supports creative thinking skills use?
Key brainstorming stages
Creative thinking skills training
Factors directly influencing productive outcomes
Creative thinking skills work but how widely applicable are they?
What factors hinder group brainstorming and creativity work?
Problematic aspects which could be mitigated by classroom management
Methodological choices
Conclusion
References

Introduction

This discussion explores the question; ‘Does teaching brainstorming or creative thinking skills work in practice? What factors help or hinder this?’ The following factors relevant to teaching or training are discussed; why brainstorming works, factors which enhance its use and those which inhibit its effectiveness such as gender differences, social anxiety, personality traits, group interaction patterns and clarity of instruction. Practical teaching considerations are considered in light of two core research reports by Rao (2007) and Karpova et al (2011). The findings are evaluated in the context of multi-disciplinary evidence from cognitive and social psychology, creativity research and industrial training. Problematic areas for classroom or training use are identified and suggestions for practical solutions are provided. Brainstorming and creativity training have been shown to benefit all types of learner groups and are applicable to all types of settings when practitioners are aware of strategies supporting successful and productive use.

A potential problem

More teachers are using brainstorming or creativity training to support speaking activities and scaffold consolidation stages such as writing or speaking. There are times when people can be heard to say that learners either did not seem to enjoy the activities or were unable to come up with any original, fun or worthwhile ideas, meaning that part of the lesson was rather flat. Structured brainstorming or creative thinking exercises might then be dropped in favour of a more direct teacher led approach, where something, at least gets produced, even if that something might be externally imposed by the teacher or tend to be rather predictable in nature.

A common problem

This above scenario is not an uncommon one, especially when working with more reticent learners such as teenagers or groups of Asian learners and unfortunately this does not do justice to the potential of brainstorming or creative thinking activities. This typical outcome is doubly unfortunate, as the teachers concerned have been willing to experiment, go out on a limb and try something new to engage and develop their learners.

Likely causes

Lack of success could be partly due to wholesale implementation of new techniques without critical evaluation or awareness of what contributes to their success and is also possibly due to how brainstorming or creative thinking is often presented. For example, unless one undertakes a broad multi-disciplinary literature review covering the domains of social psychology, group process and dynamics, management and industrial training or cognitive psychology; it can be difficult to unearth any guidance relating to classroom management and teaching techniques which would imply that brainstorming and creativity training is anything other than successful and beneficial. A perusal of one well known site offering creative developmental tools revealed no mention of cautions that brainstorming or creative thinking skills may not be the most effective use of lesson or training time under certain conditions.

A balanced approach to implementation

An awareness of what teaching strategies work well, engage learners while promoting thinking skills is beneficial and something for practitioners to have in their repertoires. However, the same could also be said of trouble shooting abilities and the resources to persist and overcome potential obstacles in this highly rewarding and engaging area which can support many aspects of language learning. These aspects include; improved idea generation, increased interaction, learning valuable thinking skills, learning to evaluate and assess ideas in relation to each other, categorizing and prioritizing ideas and improving writing skills (Rao 2007) or increasing overall creativity (Karpova et al 2011).

There are also sound pedagogical reasons supporting this approach to language learning, such as, increasing opportunities for active language use and from a second language acquisition perspective; allowing learners to notice gaps between what they want to do and the limits of their current abilities.

Being aware of and dealing with potential problems before they develop further is an essential aspect of facilitating and classroom management, therefore, this discussion considers the effectiveness of teaching creative thinking skills and addresses potentially problematic factors shown to inhibit group creativity.

Core example studies on classroom use

How practitioners have used creativity training effectively

The discussion evaluates two core studies; firstly, Rao's (2007) study with Chinese sophomore EFL learners using brainstorming to move away from a teacher centered, 'writing as product approach, ' predominant in the transmission model of teaching and potentially responsible for learners becoming overly reliant on memorization and route learning of model texts, rather than developing valuable independent thinking skills, Ponniah ca. (2007). Ponniah raises the notion that independent thinking skills are important for learners of all and rightly points out, that language learning is essentially a thinking driven process. The author suggests language learners are not only developing linguistic skills sets but experiencing personal growth. This period of growth can be a shared process as using creative thinking skills, such as, brainstorming helps students overcome limitations as they become the source of their own shared ideas which can be further shared and built upon.

The second core article, Karpova et al's (2011) work on teaching a range of creative thinking skills to American university students in order to help increase their overall creativity, regards creative thinking as an essential modern life skill for young adults entering into increasingly demanding and diversified workplaces.

Cross cultural and varied learner group support

Support for high levels of effectiveness, productiveness and learner engagement is provided by cross cultural educational research from Simister 's (2004) UK study on introducing pupils to thinking skills and Troia and Graham's (2002) US study on supporting learning disabled students with improving their writing. Further evidence is provided by researchers working across multi-disciplinary settings, discussed later.

Why these two articles were chosen

The main consideration was potential transferability to my teaching context, teaching teenagers and adults in Asia, who often need to develop their writing skills. Learner reticence can be problematic, due to the predominant transmission model, whereby, learners generally internalize models rather than generating, evaluating and developing ideas.

Articles by Rao (2007) and Karpova et al (2011) were also selected for their foci on developing Asian learners’ writing through brainstorming and understanding how to increase creative thinking in university classrooms respectively. Multi-disciplinary sources provided input on factors potentially affecting group brainstorming processes, such as influences of personality on group dynamics or training in brainstorming.

In terms of comparing like with like, all articles cited used sound experimental design reflecting a positivist approach, (that it is possible to discover causes and effects in social and learning processes and to use the findings to support prediction and intervention). This is highly relevant regarding trends towards becoming ‘research informed’ practitioners who are able to draw on examples of best practice.

Relevance of research

Both articles report significant performance improvements after brainstorming/creativity skills training, which were measured by comparing results from pre and post skills instruction. Of the two articles, Rao (2007) offers more detailed description of methodology regarding group interaction patterns and the rationale for creating them in a language learning context. Such detailed reporting enables comparisons with other experimental studies regarding specific effects of group dynamics on creative processes. Karpova et al (2011), however, offer a broader data set and range of variables, providing richer analytic examples.

Both studies were conducted with university students and featured similar numbers of participants, n = 118 and n = 114. Furthermore, both used experimental models featuring control groups, quantified results in numerical form and operationalised key terms; brainstorming and creativity effectively (ensured that brainstorming/creativity was measurable). Both studies also included learners’ feedback on their brainstorming/creativity training experiences. As a result, readers can be confident that the findings and recommendations are as sound and reliable as they can be.

Assumptions the authors hold

Both studies reflect a positivist perspective through predictions that a form of intervention; teaching brainstorming/creativity exercises produces measurable outcomes. Measurement is possible because aspects of creativity are successfully operationalised (made measurable or quantifiable), so quantifying the results makes comparisons possible and supports moving towards explanatory claims in educational settings. For example, because creative thinking improves student performance, students lacking these skills are likely to perform less well.

How learners are regarded

The studies use cognitivist interventions, whereby, learners are expected to reflect on and adapt learning strategies.

‘This study built on an emerging interest in a cognitive perspective in ESL/EFL acquisition research.’

Rao (2007:100)

Here, learning is regarded as an active person driven process, whereby learners reflect on efforts and results; positioning them as active agents in their development.

Karpova et al (2011:53) also demonstrate a cognitivist approach to defining and enhancing creativity,

‘…concepts of the creative process or the mental routines that are operative in creative ideas…’

Karpova et al (2011:53)

This position implies a set of structures accessible to learners; furthermore, the authors regard creativity as a discrete cognitive process, accessible to and amenable to intervention. ‘…teach or nurture such cognitive skills.’ Karpova et al (2011:54).

How creativity is perceived

However, creativity is also perceived as, ‘…a complex phenomenon and a multifaceted skill that is not easily taught…’ Karpova et al (2011:53). This perspective reflects multi-disciplinary findings on factors inhibiting idea generation, such as, extraversion/introversion amongst group members, Bonner (2000).

One point of relevance to language teaching is that Karpova et al (2011) regard creative thinking as best taught in combination with existing courses and this integrative approach is suitable for many teaching contexts, especially CLIL, as it does not disrupt syllabi and can be implemented with the existing course book topics or target language.

What successfully supports creative thinking skills use?

As the two core studies show, explicit training in brainstorming and creative thinking exercises really pays off in terms of improvements in learners’ writing or all-round creativity.

Brainstorming to support writing

Rao (2007) used the following approach; experimental groups completed the following process: 1) thinking individually 2) verbalizing in pairs or groups 3) brainstorming orally or in note form 4) classifying ideas and 5) completing a writing task in 30 minutes.

The experimental groups’ writing showed significant improvements as scored on the ESL composition score profile, with results showing post-training mean score changes significantly higher than control group performance. The lowest experimental group mean gains are above 2, while control group gains were 0.825 or (1.252 less). These improvements are significant because control group pre-study writing scores were initially higher.

Key brainstorming stages

With Rao’s (2007) study, learners’ writing was assessed before and after they were taught to use brainstorming and specifically to share ideas publically and then to evaluate and organize ideas for the express purpose of creating a structure for writing. Therefore, the main stages supporting successful writing outcomes were; thinking individually, sharing and discussing ideas, evaluating the ideas and finally organizing them into a coherent framework. As we can see, learners progressed through clearly defined stages, which are recognizable as discrete skills sets forming part of the brainstorming process. Paradoxically, using creative thinking skills effectively and productively requires users to follow the procedures for their use exactly.

Creative thinking skills training

Karpova et al (2011) used a more complex experiment, teaching a total of twelve creativity exercises, with two subsets relevant to generating and evaluating ideas to five university student groups from freshmen to seniors, majoring in different subjects, (n=114). Relevant exercises for comparison with Rao’s study are; 1) candle exercise, 2) dynamic framing, 3) challenging assumptions 4) what –iffing, 5) stimulus exercise (for idea generation) and 6) pluses, minuses and interesting aspects (for evaluating ideas). All groups were measured pre and post intervention by external raters on The Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), ‘...the most widely used creativity test in the educational field...’ Karpova et al (2011:57). Creativity exercises were taught across five groups, in the same order over an 8 to 12 week period.

Success is independent of individual teaching style

Karpova et al (2011) took considerable time to introduce and practice the skills, which were presented to different groups by a range of teachers. Improvements indicate that individual teaching style alone was not a significant factor. This is worthy of consideration before recommending a new technique, if we ask; “Is this transferable to my setting and teaching style?’ Creativity training effects are general; therefore, effective results can be obtained across diverse subjects. Such universal use is supported by Rao’s results with EFL learners and by Troia and Graham’s (2002) work with learning disabled pupils.

Factors directly influencing productive outcomes

Group support

While brainstorming alone might yield superior results and eliminate non-contribution or social loafing. Group brainstormers reported higher levels of satisfaction, possibly due to reduced experiences of failure when generating ideas, Nijstad et al (2006). Learner satisfaction is an important affective factor to consider when designing motivating and achievable tasks.

Task procedure

Further to task design, it might be preferable to divide a group up and allocate topic areas to smaller sub-groups; as exchanging ideas in group settings was shown to reduce the number of domain or topic areas covered, Kohn and Smith (2011). Therefore, approaching this by firstly allocating topic areas and then pooling the whole group’s results at the end would overcome this effect. A significant variation on this theme is the use of parallel groups (small groups working on the same topics) and then sharing the results at the end. Vreede et al (2010) found that this approach produced more unique ideas; therefore, parallel groups would be more suitable for tasks requiring variety and originality. In contrast, when serial groups (sets of subgroups continuing and improving the ideas of previous groups) are used they produce more elaborate and in depth results. Of course, there is nothing to say that both types of approach cannot be used for the added benefits of developing and refining unique ideas from an initial round of parallel group work.

Creative thinking skills work but how widely applicable are they?

While the two core studies were chosen for similarities with numbers of participants, educational levels and ages; wider literature indicates training in brainstorming benefits all age groups and abilities, Baruah and Paulus (2008), worked with adults and Troia and Graham (2002) with learning disabled pupils.

What kinds of learning tasks could the skills support?

As the sample studies show, creative thinking directly benefits academic writing in terms of idea generation, evaluating and organising ideas, which is further supported by Troia and Graham’s (2002) work with learning disabled pupils. However, if we consider a more structured and principled application, using Blooms Taxonomy, we can see that if working with a new topic or reading comprehension, brainstorming and mind-mapping can be used to activate existing knowledge at the remember stage. Making links between existing ideas and examples from the text takes us through the understand stage. Furthermore, specific creative thinking exercises, such as, plus minus and interesting (PMI) can help with Analyse and Evaluate stages.

What factors hinder group brainstorming and creativity work?

While creative thinking skills undoubtedly benefit learners, a diverse range of factors inhibit performance and achievement, such as, gender, anxiety and group dynamics, documented by Nijstad et al (op.cit.), Nijstad et al (2004) and Camacho and Paulus (1995). Challenges also arise from suggestions that brainstorming alone produces superior results, Girotra et al (2009).

Problematic aspects which could be mitigated by classroom management

Gender

Karpova et al (2011) suggest that regarding an individual’s dispositions, persistence in idea generation is crucial to improving creative performance. However, this overlooks research by Nijstad et al (2004:197), demonstrating males perform best when working toward an expectancy –stop rule, (ceasing when they run out of ideas), whereas, females perform best working to a satisfaction-stop rule, (ceasing when satisfied with their ideas). Gender difference carries implications for single and mixed group work as male and female learners show different levels of persistence. It also has implications for developing critical thinking, as female learners working to a satisfaction-stop rule are likely to evaluate ideas more, which is a higher level skill. One option with male only groups would be to explicitly teach that ideas be evaluated once learners had completed the production stage.

Anxiety

Karpova et al (2011) mention current levels of academic ability as being one factor influencing performance, however, this overlooks anxiety. Anxiety might at times be associated with teenage learners, through self –consciousness in the face of peer group evaluation. This factor can be almost painful in some settings, when learners only meet once a week to study English and do not have time to develop high levels of rapport.

However, anxiety documented by Camacho and Paulus (1995) also affects older learners. The authors predicted anxious individuals would underperform in a group settings but not when working alone. Their anxiety and inhibition would also seem to be contagious as these individuals influenced the group to reduce its performance towards their own inhibited levels.

Class management options in instances like these might include having some work alone time, jotting ideas down on sticky notes and sharing by posting on a wall or adding ideas to a set of mind maps circulating between the groups in order to reduce the amount of personal exposure and risk taking.

Group dynamics and personality factors

Group dynamics and personality are highly complex multi-dimensional aspects but those potentially problematic for interaction and group work are:

Levels of introversion and extraversion

Bonner (2000), documents the role of personality in group decision making processes, noting extraversion levels of group members as a key variable. Perhaps, predictably so, more extravert members exerted more influence on group decision making, possibly at the expense of quality contributions from less forward members. This is clearly an area for group management skills as the teacher/trainer might need to intervene in order to ensure full participation from quieter members, possibly by nominating turns.

One particularly useful factor Bonner (2000) noticed was that the more open ended or ambiguous tasks reduced the amount of dominance by more extravert personalities, which presents the option of adapting the task to the group’s make up.

Personal motivation and ability

Litchfield et al (2011), claim that goal commitment is integral to performance, implying making learning activities as personally relevant and engaging as possible increases participation and commitment. Further to this, Karpova et al’s (2011) study claimed university students who showed least levels of improvement were from an academically weaker group. Therefore, ability levels carry implications for how much topic support might be needed for less able groups to ensure lesson content as well as the creative thinking skills tasks are achievable.

Alone time for creative thinking is better

Nijstad et al (2004) confirm that individual creative thinking is more productive than group efforts. However, for language teaching purposes this is only part of the picture as opportunities for interaction may well outweigh the disadvantages. However, if truly concerned with maximising quantity and quality of ideas, the authors suggest a hybrid approach, combining brainstorming alone time with subsequent group brainstorming.

Methodological choices

Other factors which might hinder the creative process have more to do with how the teacher/trainer implements creative skills work. Methodological choices can affect learners’ performance negatively. For example, when learning disabled students were instructed in brainstorming strategies to help improve their written work, evidence of greater planning was immediately apparent, however, greater and sustainable gains could have been made if learners had also been instructed to evaluate ideas before using them, Trioa and Graham (2002).

Lack of learner training

Another factor is the amount of pre-task learner training time invested to ensure learners use all processes for optimal performance. This aspect cannot be over-emphasised, because as paradoxical as it may seem, following the rules of brainstorming or creative thinking skills stages has shown to produce superior results in terms of quantity and quality, Paulus (2008).

Not allowing learners enough time

If learners are new to creative thinking skills it is best to allow them more time to complete the tasks. However, as Kelly and Karu (1993) found, with more experienced learners, decreasing the amount of time available produced more creative ideas as experienced learners responded well to time pressure.

Conclusion

To conclude this brief evaluative tour through the pros and cons of using creative thinking skills to support and enhance learning; we can see that while their use is undoubtedly beneficial they can be used much more effectively when there is an awareness of a range of factors which can help or inhibit performance.

References

Baruah, J. and Paulus, P.B. (2008). ‘Effects of training on idea generation in groups.’ Small Group Research 39/5: 523 -541.

Bonner, B.L. (2000). ‘Effects of extroversion on influence in ambiguous group tasks.’ Small Group Research 31/2: 225 -244.

Camacho, L.M. and Paulus, P.B. (1995). ‘The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .68/6: 1071-1080.

Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C.and Ulrich, K.T. (2009). ‘Alone time is better for brainstorming: Idea generation and the quality of the best idea.’ INSEAD Working Papers Collection, 65/1-A5.

Karpova, E., Marcketti, S.B. and Barker, J. (2011). ‘The efficacy of teaching creativity: assessment of student creative thinking before and after exercises’. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 29/1: 52-66.

Kelly, J.R. and Karau, S.J. (1993). ‘Entrainment of creativity in small groups.’ Small Group Research, 24/.2:179 -198.

Kohn, N.W. and Smith, S.M. (2011). ‘Collaborative fixation: effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming.’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25/3: 359-371.

Litchfield, R.C. (2009). ‘Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: does brainstorming really improve idea quantity?’ Motivation and Emotion, 33/1: 25–31.

Nijstad, B.A. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (20040. ‘Persistence in brainstorming: exploring stop rules in same-sex groups.’ Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7/3:195-206.

Nijstad, B.A., Stroebe, W. and Lodewikx, F.M. (2006). ‘The illusion of group productivity: a reduction of failures explanation.’ European Journal of Social Psychology, 36/1: 31-48.

Ponniah, R.J. ca. (2007). ‘Memorization a constraint for integrating thinking skills into Indian ESL classrooms.’ Available at : www.languageinindia.com. Accessed 2 June 2011.

Rao, Z. (2007). ‘Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills.’ ELT Journal, 61/2: 100-106.

Simister, J. (2004). ‘To think or not to think: a preliminary investigation into the effects of teaching thinking.’ Improving Schools, 7/3: 243–254.

Troia, G. A. and Graham, S. (2002). ‘Writing performance of students with learning disabilities the effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: changing the writing performance of children with learning disabilities.’ Journal of Learning Disabilities,35/4: 290 – 305.

Vreede, G. Jan de, Briggs,R.O. and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2010). ‘Exploring Asynchronous Brainstorming in Large Groups: A Field Comparison of Serial and Parallel Subgroups.’ Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52/2: 189-202

Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Dealing with Difficult Learners course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.