problem solving method of teaching for general science

Loading to Problem Solving Methods In Science Teaching Lester C Mills....

Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook (1997)

Chapter: chapter 1: how teachers teach: general principles, 1 how teachers teach: general principles.

How to develop a teaching style that is best suited to your course goals and students' needs.

How to plan a course syllabus that will maximize your students' learning.

What research tells us about effective teaching.

Have you ever observed your students struggling with a particular concept, then revised your presentation of that material the next semester? Have you ever concluded that the only way to reach some students is with a specific strategy, such as using demonstrations or requiring written assignments? Has someone ever told you about a favorite teaching strategy that sounded exciting, but when you tried it in your own class, it did not work for you and your students? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you have been learning about teaching through your experiences with students. In other words, you have been experimenting with ways of teaching, using observations of your students and their learning to draw inferences, make generalizations, and develop your own model of teaching and learning. Teaching is much more difficult than most faculty are willing to acknowledge:

''The assumption that knowledge of a subject implies the ability to teach in that field permeates American higher education, and one result is that our colleagues generally believe that the problems associated with teaching should disappear as the competent scholar eases past the initial nervousness" (Fraher, 1984).

For those interested in going beyond their own experiences, the science education literature provides ideas and information about teaching and learning. Appendices A and B provide a list of organizations that can be contacted for information and journals which can serve as an introduction to this body of scholarship. The successful strategies used by science faculty in many different disciplines are a good source of ideas to adapt for your own classes. Meetings of professional societies often include workshops on teaching in a given discipline. In addition, experts in science education research publish their work in peer-reviewed journals; those of you seeking evidence that a

particular method is effective may find these articles helpful. There are also books on the art of teaching in a specific discipline (Arons, 1990; Herron, 1996). The objective of Chapter 1 and 2 is to acquaint you with the general principles and results of science education research and to provide examples of how these results have been translated into classroom practice so that you can improve your teaching as efficiently as possible.

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Teaching and learning should be inseparable, in that learning is a criterion and product of effective teaching. In essence, learning is the goal of teaching. Someone has not taught unless someone else has learned. After a few years of teaching, many faculty realize that students learn too little of what they teach. Science teaching requires attention to both the content of the course and the process of moving students from their initial state of knowledge and understanding to the desired level. In fact, teaching is part of a whole that comprises the teacher, the learner, the disciplinary content, the teaching/learning process, and the evaluation of both the teacher and the learner.

Undergraduate students value good teaching, and many of those who switch from a science major to another field cite poor teaching as an important factor in their decision (Seymour and Hewitt, 1994). When the data from students who persist in a science major was combined with data from students who switched out of a science major, poor teaching by science faculty was the students' most frequently cited concern. Although students are turned off by poor teaching, they also have identified characteristics of good teaching:

a teacher's enthusiasm and passion for the subject,

rapport between a teacher and a student or group of students during discussions in and out of class,

intellectual challenges from a teacher,

clarity and organization in presenting analytical and conceptual understanding of ideas, and

a teacher's scholarship.

Teaching Styles

Research indicates that teachers teach in a manner consistent with their own way of learning (Shulman, 1990; Tobin et al., 1994). However, it is not necessarily true that student learning can be understood from the teachers' own learning history. What is your style of learning? Do you learn most easily if material is presented to you in a formal and structured manner, or do you learn most easily if you are forced to discover basic principles from a series of exercises and examples? Do you believe that your students will learn best if you use a teaching style that helped you learn as a student? Studies of teaching and learning have led to classification of teaching styles into three general categories: discipline-centered, instructor-centered, and student-centered (Dressel and Marcus, 1982; Woods, 1995).

In discipline-centered teaching, the course has a fixed structure. The needs, concerns, and requirements of teacher and student are not considered because the course is driven by and depends mainly on the disciplinary content that must be presented. The teacher transmits information, but the

content is dictated by some separate authority such as a department syllabus committee or textbook author.

The teacher acts as a model of the educated person in instructor-centered teaching . He or she is regarded as the authoritative expert, the main source of knowledge, and the focal point of all activity. The student is the passive recipient of the information already acquired by the teacher. The teacher selects from the discipline the information to be taught, studied, and learned.

Student-centered teaching focuses on the student and, in particular, on the cognitive development of the student. The teacher's goal is to help students grasp the development of knowledge as a process rather than a product. The focus of classroom activities and assignments is on the student-centered process of inquiry itself, not on the products of inquiry. Students create their own conceptual or cognitive models. Content, teaching style, and methods are adapted to aid the cognitive and intellectual growth of students. Student-centered teaching combines an understanding of the way that humans process information with other factors that affect learning such as attitudes, values, beliefs, and motivation.

Although there are many ways to teach effectively, all require that the teacher have knowledge of three things: 1) the material being taught; 2) the best instructional strategies to teach the material (see Chapter 2 ); and 3 ) how students learn (discussed more fully in Chapter 3 ). New faculty members typically know far more about the content of their discipline than they do about instructional strategies, and therefore tend to use teaching styles similar to those used by their own teachers (Shulman, 1990). In most cases, they use elements of all three general teaching styles. As the teacher gains experience, his or her teaching style is likely to change.

What is the most effective way to teach students? The answer depends on what students are expected to learn. Students taught by lectures, instructor-centered presentations, and student-centered methods achieve similar results on tests that measure factual knowledge. However, student-centered discussions lead to better retention, better transfer of knowledge to other situations, better motivation for further learning, and better problem solving ability (McKeachie, 1994). Active participation by students helps them construct a better framework from which to generalize their knowledge.

Developing a Teaching Style

The first step in preparing to teach a particular course is to decide on a particular style of teaching that is compatible with and appropriate for your students and the goals of your course. It is likely that you will use a combination of the three teaching styles, depending on the circumstances of your course. While developing their own teaching style, science teachers must answer a fundamental question: Is the primary goal of my course for each student to gain specific information, or for each student to master how to organize and apply new information independently to new situations? The primary goal may not be the same for each student in a course, especially when the students come from diverse backgrounds (see Chapter 8 ). In courses that are the foundation for more advanced learning in a subject area, how should the

content be organized and presented? Because science curricula tend to be vertically structured, students' content knowledge is critical for advancement in a field and for understanding the next level of information. In science courses for nonscience majors, how should the content be organized and presented? In any given course, we should ask what should be the balance between specific information, application of that information, and conceptual understanding of basic principles? If the course is truly to be a course for lawyers, citizens, teachers, and other nonscientists, it should provide some of the essence of what science is and the nature of the scientific enterprise.

Most science courses, particularly introductory courses, emphasize discipline-centered teaching. Generations of students have been exposed to science as a subject in which the correct formulas and answers must be memorized, and the material is divided into many different and seemingly unrelated pieces. Problems with this approach have been exacerbated by the explosion of scientific information. Faculty members, wishing to cover the latest results and ideas but reluctant to discard classical material, rush to cover more and more information in the same amount of time.

Those who have studied the learning of science have concluded that students learn best if they are engaged in active learning, if they are forced to deal with observations and concepts before terms and facts, and if they have the sense that they are part of a community of learners in a classroom environment that is very supportive of their learning (Fraser, 1986; Chickering and Gamson, 1987; McDermott et al., 1987; Fraser and Tobin, 1989; McDermott, 1991; McDermott et al., 1994; McKeachie, 1994; Tobin et al., 1994). Instructor-centered and student-centered teaching are more effective than is discipline-centered teaching for students to learn in this way. When the focus is on meaning rather than solely on facts, students develop their conceptual abilities. They assimilate information by incorporating new concepts or by using information to differentiate among already existing concepts. This is not necessarily at the expense of their development of algorithmic abilities, because conceptual understanding gives a context for the application of problem solving methods. A student-centered style is more likely to motivate students by engaging their interest. Several factors can influence your choice of teaching style:

student needs (future course and career requirements, preparation for participatory citizenship, and preparation for careers in science, engineering, technology, or education),

student background (preconceptions and misconceptions; see Chapter 4 ),

familiarity with various teaching methods,

course enrollment (size, students with special needs, the logistics of managing small group activities),

student learning styles,

teaching load (number of contact hours, office hours, time for preparation and grading),

other responsibilities (research, committee work, administrative duties),

support structures (equipment cost, teaching and demonstration assistants),

facilities (laboratory equipment and computers, classroom and laboratory space, and demonstration equipment), and

parallel sections that require some uniformity of coverage and examination.

In some circumstances, teachers must use methods that emphasize the imparting and acquiring of basic information and skills. Time constraints, class size, or course goals may lead to an emphasis on factual knowledge at the expense of developing a conceptual framework. Students are usually encouraged to accept facts from some authority (e.g., the instructor or the text) without questioning. If all their learning is rote learning, however, students seldom associate the new facts with concepts or models already part of their pictures of the world (A Private Universe, 1989). Chapter Two presents some methods teachers can use to promote active learning in a lecture setting.

What can be done about the many options, goals, and competing pressures? Current practice is not to prescribe one teaching style as best for a given course or type of student. Various methods for engaging students are applied successfully in a wide range of institutional settings. Some of these methods are discussed in more detail in the next chapter, and references to others are given to help you make an informed choice of style.

HOW SHOULD YOU PLAN A COURSE SYLLABUS?

How teachers teach is influenced to a great degree by what they teach and by how their courses are organized. The usual focus in organizing a course is the content. A syllabus typically includes the organization of topics into an outline of the course of study, readings, exercises, examinations, and grading scheme. These features are important, but it is equally important to identify the goals of the course (content, student responsibilities, and desired outcomes) and to work both forward (from the starting point of the

students) and backward (from the desired outcome of student understanding) to develop your syllabus. Student behaviors such as developing abilities to work in groups might also be included.

Research on how students learn science offers three fundamental guidelines for course design (Novak and Gowin, 1984):

Become aware of the students' prior knowledge and take it into account (see also Chapters 3 and 4 ).

Identify the major and minor concepts and the connections between different concepts.

Relate new information to a context the student understands. Along with repetition and application, these relationships are extremely important for student retention of the material.

To achieve these goals, a syllabus might include the following (Novak, 1977; Davis, 1993):

overview of the course's purpose, including a rationale for why students should learn the material,

the learning goals or objectives (what students should know or be able to do after completing the course),

the conceptual structure used to organize the course,

the important topics covered by the course,

sequencing of topics so that major concepts are introduced early and can be reinforced through application to new situations,

identification of the methods and accuracy of inquiry used to develop concepts and to identify the major information of the field,

important knowledge, skills, or experience students need to succeed in the course, and

evaluation and feedback strategies.

HOW CAN I BROADEN THE CONTENT IN MY COURSE?

Science should be considered as intrinsically multi-disciplinary. Student learning is enhanced when we are able to help students see the relationships among the sciences, and between science and mathematics, the humanities, social sciences, and the arts. Organizing courses around themes, issues, or projects not only can broaden student thinking and problem solving abilities, but also can enrich the students' view of science as a multi faceted enterprise.

SHOULD YOU TEACH DIFFERENTLY TO FUTURE PRECOLLEGE TEACHERS?

Many lament the quality of science education for children in elementary, middle, and high schools, yet all precollege teachers were once under graduates, and almost all teachers took introductory science classes to learn about the science they now must teach. Some even have argued that one of the main causes of the crisis in science education is the failure of colleges and universities to do an adequate job of preparing future science teachers (McDermott, 1990). The heart of the matter is this: improving undergraduate science education has a direct, positive effect on precollege education. An undergraduate science teacher who models real scientific skills of investigation and critical thinking, and applies those skills to new situations, can make an enormous contribution to the education of those students who will not only use the model, but eventually will teach it.

Should we teach present or future teachers differently from other students in our science classes? Most teachers of undergraduates have students in their classes who will need to share scientific understanding and skills with others, perhaps as a trial lawyer or a track coach, or as a member of a citizen's action group. Some of your students will likely become science teachers at the elementary level and have the opportunity to introduce curious children to important scientific concepts. Others may become secondary science teachers with responsibility for teaching advanced courses for college-bound students. Those who have studied science teaching are divided over how best to teach future science teachers. Some argue that future teachers need distinctly different instruction that is more hands-on, active, and problem oriented than what a future scientist might need. Others argue that future teachers need the same type of instruction as scientists; in other words, the future teacher should be treated like a future scientist while learning. Faculty members who are concerned about the preparation of K-12 teachers may want to meet with their colleagues in departments of education to discuss possible collaborative efforts.

This issue is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Nevertheless, a vision of effective science teaching at the K-12 level has been analyzed and presented in a number of recent reform documents. These include Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990b), The Content Core (National Science Teachers Association, 1992), Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993), and The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). These reports can be helpful to undergraduate science teachers who are concerned about how best to assist future K-12 teachers to become as effective as possible. One overarching theme in all of these reform efforts is the recognition of a need to teach in a manner that engages students in using complex reasoning in authentic contexts.

Effective science teaching requires creativity, imagination, and innovation. In light of concerns about American science literacy, scientists and educators have struggled to teach this discipline more effectively. Science Teaching Reconsidered provides undergraduate science educators with a path to understanding students, accommodating their individual differences, and helping them grasp the methods—and the wonder—of science.

What impact does teaching style have? How do I plan a course curriculum? How do I make lectures, classes, and laboratories more effective? How can I tell what students are thinking? Why don't they understand? This handbook provides productive approaches to these and other questions.

Written by scientists who are also educators, the handbook offers suggestions for having a greater impact in the classroom and provides resources for further research.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Teaching Problem-Solving Skills

Many instructors design opportunities for students to solve “problems”. But are their students solving true problems or merely participating in practice exercises? The former stresses critical thinking and decision­ making skills whereas the latter requires only the application of previously learned procedures.

Problem solving is often broadly defined as "the ability to understand the environment, identify complex problems, review related information to develop, evaluate strategies and implement solutions to build the desired outcome" (Fissore, C. et al, 2021). True problem solving is the process of applying a method – not known in advance – to a problem that is subject to a specific set of conditions and that the problem solver has not seen before, in order to obtain a satisfactory solution.

Below you will find some basic principles for teaching problem solving and one model to implement in your classroom teaching.

Principles for teaching problem solving

• Model a useful problem-solving method . Problem solving can be difficult and sometimes tedious. Show students how to be patient and persistent, and how to follow a structured method, such as Woods’ model described below. Articulate your method as you use it so students see the connections.
• Teach within a specific context . Teach problem-solving skills in the context in which they will be used by students (e.g., mole fraction calculations in a chemistry course). Use real-life problems in explanations, examples, and exams. Do not teach problem solving as an independent, abstract skill.
• Help students understand the problem . In order to solve problems, students need to define the end goal. This step is crucial to successful learning of problem-solving skills. If you succeed at helping students answer the questions “what?” and “why?”, finding the answer to “how?” will be easier.
• Take enough time . When planning a lecture/tutorial, budget enough time for: understanding the problem and defining the goal (both individually and as a class); dealing with questions from you and your students; making, finding, and fixing mistakes; and solving entire problems in a single session.
• Ask questions and make suggestions . Ask students to predict “what would happen if …” or explain why something happened. This will help them to develop analytical and deductive thinking skills. Also, ask questions and make suggestions about strategies to encourage students to reflect on the problem-solving strategies that they use.
• Link errors to misconceptions . Use errors as evidence of misconceptions, not carelessness or random guessing. Make an effort to isolate the misconception and correct it, then teach students to do this by themselves. We can all learn from mistakes.

Woods’ problem-solving model

Define the problem.

• The system . Have students identify the system under study (e.g., a metal bridge subject to certain forces) by interpreting the information provided in the problem statement. Drawing a diagram is a great way to do this.
• Known(s) and concepts . List what is known about the problem, and identify the knowledge needed to understand (and eventually) solve it.
• Unknown(s) . Once you have a list of knowns, identifying the unknown(s) becomes simpler. One unknown is generally the answer to the problem, but there may be other unknowns. Be sure that students understand what they are expected to find.
• Units and symbols . One key aspect in problem solving is teaching students how to select, interpret, and use units and symbols. Emphasize the use of units whenever applicable. Develop a habit of using appropriate units and symbols yourself at all times.
• Constraints . All problems have some stated or implied constraints. Teach students to look for the words "only", "must", "neglect", or "assume" to help identify the constraints.
• Criteria for success . Help students consider, from the beginning, what a logical type of answer would be. What characteristics will it possess? For example, a quantitative problem will require an answer in some form of numerical units (e.g., $/kg product, square cm, etc.) while an optimization problem requires an answer in the form of either a numerical maximum or minimum.

Think about it

• “Let it simmer”.  Use this stage to ponder the problem. Ideally, students will develop a mental image of the problem at hand during this stage.
• Identify specific pieces of knowledge . Students need to determine by themselves the required background knowledge from illustrations, examples and problems covered in the course.
• Collect information . Encourage students to collect pertinent information such as conversion factors, constants, and tables needed to solve the problem.

Plan a solution

• Consider possible strategies . Often, the type of solution will be determined by the type of problem. Some common problem-solving strategies are: compute; simplify; use an equation; make a model, diagram, table, or chart; or work backwards.
• Choose the best strategy . Help students to choose the best strategy by reminding them again what they are required to find or calculate.

Carry out the plan

• Be patient . Most problems are not solved quickly or on the first attempt. In other cases, executing the solution may be the easiest step.
• Be persistent . If a plan does not work immediately, do not let students get discouraged. Encourage them to try a different strategy and keep trying.

Encourage students to reflect. Once a solution has been reached, students should ask themselves the following questions:

• Does the answer make sense?
• Does it fit with the criteria established in step 1?
• Did I answer the question(s)?
• What did I learn by doing this?
• Could I have done the problem another way?

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help.  View the  CTE Support  page to find the most relevant staff member to contact. 

• Fissore, C., Marchisio, M., Roman, F., & Sacchet, M. (2021). Development of problem solving skills with Maple in higher education. In: Corless, R.M., Gerhard, J., Kotsireas, I.S. (eds) Maple in Mathematics Education and Research. MC 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1414. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81698-8_15
• Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. TRO Learning Inc., Edina MN.  (PDF) Principles for Teaching Problem Solving (researchgate.net)
• Hayes, J.R. (1989). The Complete Problem Solver. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Woods, D.R., Wright, J.D., Hoffman, T.W., Swartman, R.K., Doig, I.D. (1975). Teaching Problem solving Skills.
• Engineering Education. Vol 1, No. 1. p. 238. Washington, DC: The American Society for Engineering Education.

Catalog search

Teaching tip categories.

• Assessment and feedback
• Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
• Career Development
• Course Design
• Course Implementation
• Inclusive Teaching and Learning
• Learning activities
• Support for Student Learning
• Support for TAs
• Learning activities ,

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Teaching Creativity and Inventive Problem Solving in Science

• Robert L. DeHaan

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

Search for more papers by this author

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.

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.

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).

Figure 1. 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?

Figure 2. 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. ( 2008 ). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis . Rev. Educ. Res 78 , 1102-1134. Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M. ( 1996 ). Creativity in Context , Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M., Barsade S. G., Mueller J. S., Staw B. M. ( 2005 ). Affect and creativity at work . Admin. Sci. Q 50 , 367-403. Google Scholar
• Ausubel D. ( 1963 ). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning , New York: Grune and Stratton. Google Scholar
• Ausubel B. ( 2000 ). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View , Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
• Banaji S., Burn A., Buckingham D. ( 2006 ). The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the Literature , accessed 29 December 2008 London: Centre for the Study of Children, Youth and Media, www.creativepartnerships.com/data/files/rhetorics-of-creativity-12.pdf . Google Scholar
• Barron F., Harrington D. M. ( 1981 ). Creativity, intelligence and personality . Ann. Rev. Psychol 32 , 439-476. Google Scholar
• Beller M. ( 1999 ). Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Blair C., Razza R. P. ( 2007 ). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten . Child Dev 78 , 647-663. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Bodrova E., Leong D. J. ( 2001 ). The Tool of the Mind: a case study of implementing the Vygotskian approach In: American Early Childhood and Primary Classrooms , Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Google Scholar
• Bransford J. D.Brown A. L.Cocking R. R. ( 2000 ). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Brophy D. R. ( 2006 ). A comparison of individual and group efforts to creatively solve contrasting types of problems . Creativity Res. J 18 , 293-315. Google Scholar
• Bruner J. ( 1965 ). The growth of mind . Am. Psychol 20 , 1007-1017. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Bull K. S., Montgomery D., Baloche L. ( 1995 ). Teaching creativity at the college level: a synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by instructors . Creativity Res. J 8 , 83-90. Google Scholar
• Burton R. ( 2008 ). On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not , New York: St. Martin's Press. Google Scholar
• Cloud-Hanson K. A., Kuehner J. N., Tong L., Miller S., Handelsman J. ( 2008 ). Money, sex and drugs: a case study to teach the genetics of antibiotic resistance . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 302-309. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Craft A. ( 2000 ). Teaching Creativity: Philosophy and Practice , New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Crawford V. M. ( 2007 ). Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teachers' problem solving accessed 1 July 2008 Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Conference Delphi, Greece http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/Crawford_EuroCogSci07Proceedings.pdf . Google Scholar
• Crawford V. M., Brophy S. ( 2006 ). Adaptive Expertise: Theory, Methods, Findings, and Emerging Issues; September 2006 In: accessed 1 July 2008 Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/AESymposiumReportOct06.pdf . Google Scholar
• Crossgrove K., Curran K. L. ( 2008 ). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 146-154. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Crowe A., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. ( 2008 ). Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 368-381. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Davidson M. C., Amso D., Anderson L. C., Diamond A. ( 2006 ). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4–13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching . Neuropsychologia 44 , 2037-2078. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• DeHaan R. L. ( 2005 ). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education . J. Sci. Educ. Technol 14 , 253-270. Google Scholar
• Diamond A., Barnett W. S., Thomas J., Munro S. ( 2007 ). Preschool program improves cognitive control . Science 318 , 1387-1388. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Duch B. J., Groh S. E., Allen D. E. ( 2001 ). The Power of Problem-based Learning , Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers. 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. ( 2003 ). Parametric manipulation of conflict and response competition using rapid mixed-trial event-related fMRI . Neuroimage 20 , 2135-2141. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Ebert-May D., Hodder J. ( 2008 ). Pathways to Scientific Teaching , Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Google Scholar
• Finke R. A., Ward T. B., Smith S. M. ( 1996 ). Creative Cognition: Theory, Research and Applications , Boston, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Freeman S., O'Connor E., Parks J. W., Cunningham M., Hurley D., Haak D., Dirks C., Wenderoth M. P. ( 2007 ). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology . CBE Life Sci. Educ 6 , 132-139. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Gabora L. ( 2002 ). Hewett T.Kavanagh E. Cognitive mechanisms underlying the creative process Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creativity and Cognition 2002 October 13–16 Loughborough University, United Kingdom 126-133. Google Scholar
• Gaffney J.D.H., Richards E., Kustusch M. B., Ding L., Beichner R. ( 2008 ). Scaling up education reform . J. Coll. Sci. Teach 37 , 48-53. Google Scholar
• Gardner H. ( 1993 ). Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi In: New York: Harper Collins. Google Scholar
• Gladwell M. ( 2008 ). In the air; who says big ideas are rare? The New Yorker accessed 19 May 2008 www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell . Google Scholar
• Guilford J. P. ( 1950 ). Creativity . Am. Psychol 5 , 444-454. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Hake R. ( 2005 ). The physics education reform effort: a possible model for higher education . Natl. Teach. Learn. Forum 15 , 1-6. Google Scholar
• Halpern D. E., Hakel M. D. ( 2003 ). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond . Change 35 , 36-42. Google Scholar
• Handelsman J. ( 2004 ). Scientific teaching . Science 304 , 521-522. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Handelsman J, Miller S., Pfund C. ( 2007 ). Scientific Teaching , New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. Google Scholar
• Haring-Smith T. ( 2006 ). Creativity research review: some lessons for higher education. Association of American Colleges and Universities . Peer Rev 8 , 23-27. Google Scholar
• Hatano G., Ouro Y. ( 2003 ). Commentary: reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research . Educ. Res 32 , 26-29. Google Scholar
• Hrepic Z., Zollman D. A., Rebello N. S. ( 2007 ). Comparing students' and experts' understanding of the content of a lecture . J. Sci. Educ. Technol 16 , 213-224. Google Scholar
• Hunsaker S. L. ( 2005 ). Outcomes of creativity training programs . Gifted Child Q 49 , 292-298. Google Scholar
• Kaufman J. C., Baer J. ( 2006 ). Intelligent testing with Torrance . Creativity Res. J 18 , 99-102. Google Scholar
• Kaufman J. C., Beghetto R. A. ( 2008 , Ed. R. L. DeHaanK.M.V. Narayan , Exploring mini-C: creativity across cultures In: Education for Innovation: Implications for India, China and America , Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 165-180. Google Scholar
• Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. ( 2007 ). Creativity . Change 39 , 55-58. Google Scholar
• Kim K. H. ( 2006 ). Can we trust creativity tests: a review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) . Creativity Res. J 18 , 3-14. Google Scholar
• Knight J. K., Wood W. B. ( 2005 ). Teaching more by lecturing less . Cell Biol. Educ 4 , 298-310. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cetina Knorr K. ( 1995 , Ed. S. JasanoffG. MarkleJ. PetersenT. Pinch , Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science In: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 140-166. Google Scholar
• Koestler A. ( 1964 ). The Act of Creation , New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Latour B., Woolgar S. ( 1986 ). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
• MacKinnon D. W. ( 1978 , Ed. D. W. MacKinnon , What makes a person creative? In: In Search of Human Effectiveness , New York: Universe Books, 178-186. Google Scholar
• Martindale C. ( 1999 , Ed. R. J. Sternberg , Biological basis of creativity In: Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 137-152. Google Scholar
• Mazur E. ( 1996 ). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
• McFadzean E. ( 2002 ). Developing and supporting creative problem-solving teams: Part 1—a conceptual model . Manage. Decis 40 , 463-475. Google Scholar
• McGregor G. D. ( 2001 ). Creative thinking instruction for a college study skills program: a case study. . Dissert Abstr. Intl 62 , 3293A UMI No. AAT 3027933. Google Scholar
• McIntyre F. S., Hite R. E., Rickard M. K. ( 2003 ). Individual characteristics and creativity in the marketing classroom: exploratory insights . J. Mark. Educ 25 , 143-149. Google Scholar
• Mestre J. P. ( 2005 ). Transfer of Learning: From a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective , Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
• Mumford M. D., Mobley M. I., Uhlman C. E., Reiter-Palmon R., Doares L. M. ( 1991 ). Process analytic models of creative capacities . Creativity Res. J 4 , 91-122. Google Scholar
• National Research Council ( 2007 ). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy In: Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• Neisser U. ( 1963 ). The multiplicity of thought . Br. J. Psychol 54 , 1-14. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Nelson C. E. ( 2008 ). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access accessed 15 September 2008 http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/icn027v1.pdf . Google Scholar
• Novak G, Gavrin A., Christian W, Patterson E. ( 1999 ). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology , San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings. Google Scholar
• Osborn A. F. ( 1948 ). Your Creative Power , New York: Scribner. Google Scholar
• Osborn A. F. ( 1979 ). Applied Imagination , New York: Scribner. Google Scholar
• Osburn H. K., Mumford M. D. ( 2006 ). Creativity and planning: training interventions to develop creative problem-solving skills . Creativity Res. J 18 , 173-190. Google Scholar
• Paulus P. B., Nijstad B. A. ( 2003 ). Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration , New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Perkins K. K., Wieman C. E. ( 2008 , Ed. R. L. DeHaanK.M.V. Narayan , Innovative teaching to promote innovative thinking In: Education for Innovation: Implications for India, China and America , Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 181-210. Google Scholar
• Plucker J. A., Renzulli J. S. ( 1999 , Ed. R. J. Sternberg , Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity In: Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 35-61. Google Scholar
• Quitadamo I. J., Faiola C. L., Johnson J. E., Kurtz M. J. ( 2008 ). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology . CBE Life Sci. Educ 7 , 327-337. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Runco M. A. ( 2004 ). Creativity . Annu. Rev. Psychol 55 , 657-687. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Runco M. A., Nemiro J. ( 1994 ). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness . Roeper Rev 16 , 235-241. Google Scholar
• Sawyer R. K. ( 2005 ). Educating for Innovation Thinking Skills Creativity accessed 13 August 2008 1 41-48 www.artsci.wustl.edu/∼ksawyer/PDFs/Thinkjournal.pdf . Google Scholar
• Sawyer R. K. ( 2006 ). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation , New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Schwartz D. L., Bransford J. D., Sears D. ( 2005 , Ed. J. P. Mestre , Efficiency and innovation in transfer In: Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective , Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 1-51. Google Scholar
• Scott G., Leritz L. E., Mumford M. D. ( 2004 ). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review . Creativity Res. J 16 , 361-388. Google Scholar
• Simonton D. K. ( 1975 ). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: a transhistorical time-series analysis . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 32 , 1119-1133. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Simonton D. K. ( 2004 ). Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist , Oxford, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Sloman S. ( 1996 ). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning . Psychol. Bull 9 , 3-22. Google Scholar
• Smith G. F. ( 1998 ). Idea generation techniques: a formulary of active ingredients . J. Creative Behav 32 , 107-134. Google Scholar
• Snyder A., Mitchell J., Bossomaier T., Pallier G. ( 2004 ). The creativity quotient: an objective scoring of ideational fluency . Creativity Res. J 16 , 415-420. Google Scholar
• Sternberg R. J. ( 2003 ). What is an “expert student?” . Educ. Res. 32 , 5-9. Google Scholar
• Sternberg R., Williams W. M. ( 1998 ). Teaching for creativity: two dozen tips accessed 25 March 2008 www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/teaching_creativity.php . Google Scholar
• Tardif T. Z., Sternberg R. J. ( 1988 , Ed. R. J. Sternberg , What do we know about creativity? In: The Nature of Creativity , New York: Cambridge University Press, 429-440. Google Scholar
• Torrance E. P. ( 1974 ). Norms and Technical Manual for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking , Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Torrance E. P. ( 1998 ). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms—Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A and B , Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Torrance E. P., Ball O. E., Safter H. T. ( 2008 ). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Streamlined Scoring Guide for Figural Forms A and B , Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Treffinger D. J., Isaksen S. G. ( 2005 ). Creative problem solving: the history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development . Gifted Child Q 49 , 342-357. Google Scholar
• Vandervert L. R., Schimpf P. H., Liu H. ( 2007 ). How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce creativity and innovation . Creativity Res. J 9 , 1-18. Google Scholar
• Wallach M. A., Kogan N. ( 1965 ). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
• Wood W. B. ( 2009 ). Innovations in undergraduate biology teaching and why we need them . Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol in press. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Research-based learning as an innovative approach for teaching students of environmental engineering: a case study of the emerging field of microplastics in soil 15 July 2024 | Discover Education, Vol. 3, No. 1
• ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study 1 Jul 2024 | Computers & Education, Vol. 215
• Are we teaching novice instructional designers to be creative? A qualitative case study 16 January 2024 | Instructional Science, Vol. 52, No. 3
• Educators as agents of breadth-biased learning: using social reconstructionism as rationale for embracing media multitasking and enhancing teaching practices in higher education 3 April 2024 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 15
• Searching for creativity: How people search to generate new ideas 1 December 2023 | Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 75, No. 4
• Fostering creativity in low-engagement students through socratic dialogue: An experiment in an operations class 1 Mar 2024 | The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• Cognitive flexibility and academic performance: Individual and cross-national patterns among adolescents in 57 countries 1 Feb 2024 | Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 217
• What's in a word? Student beliefs and understanding about green chemistry 1 January 2024 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 25, No. 1
• Preservice Physical Education Teachers’ Resistance to Change: The Importance of Occupational Socialization Experiences 26 October 2023 | Trends in Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 4
• How can we measure metacognition in creative problem-solving? Standardization of the MCPS scale 1 Sep 2023 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 49
• TOWARDS ENHANCING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR YOUTH IN HAIL REGION 1 August 2023 | Advanced Education, Vol. 10, No. 22
• Investigating the impact of innovation competence instruction in higher engineering education 12 June 2023 | European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 10
• Regaining creativity in science: insights from conversation 17 May 2023 | Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 10, No. 5
• How transdisciplinary integration, creativity and student motivation interact in three STEAM projects for gifted education? 29 March 2023 | Gifted Education International, Vol. 39, No. 2
• Does creative coursework predict educational, career, and community engagement outcomes for arts alumni? 15 November 2022 | Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2
• Make science disruptive again 27 March 2023 | Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 41, No. 4
• Promoting Creativity in Undergraduate Recreation and Leisure Services Classrooms: An Overview 19 March 2021 | SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, Vol. 38, No. 1
• Students Creativity Through Digital Mind Map 26 July 2023
• Pedagogical and School Practices to Foster Key Competences and Domain-General Literacy 23 August 2023
• A Positive Association between Working Memory Capacity and Human Creativity: A Meta-Analytic Evidence 13 January 2023 | Journal of Intelligence, Vol. 11, No. 1
• Coping with Challenges and Uncertainty in Scientific Research 13 Dec 2022 | Asia-Pacific Science Education, Vol. 8, No. 2
• Teaching design thinking as a tool to address complex public health challenges in public health students: a case study 12 April 2022 | BMC Medical Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• ‘Allowing them to dream’: fostering creativity in mathematics undergraduates 26 May 2022 | Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 46, No. 10
• Interaction with metaphors enhances creative potential 1 July 2022 | Journal of Poetry Therapy, Vol. 35, No. 4
• Creative problem solving in knowledge-rich contexts 1 Oct 2022 | Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 10
• Teaching Protein–Ligand Interactions Using a Case Study on Tau in Alzheimer’s Disease 1 July 2022 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 99, No. 8
• The Effectiveness of Collaborative Learning on Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Metacognitive Skill Ability: Meta-Analysis on Biological Learning 15 July 2022 | European Journal of Educational Research, Vol. volume-11-2022, No. volume-11-issue-3-july-2022
• Student approaches to creative processes when participating in an open-ended project in science 30 June 2022 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 44, No. 10
• Arts, Machines, and Creative Education 24 Jun 2022
• Perceived Learning Effectiveness and Student Satisfaction 6 May 2022
• A Contribution to Scientific Creativity: A Validation Study Measuring Divergent Problem Solving Ability 3 September 2021 | Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2
• Problem Solving and Digital Transformation: Acquiring Skills through Pretend Play in Kindergarten 28 January 2022 | Education Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2
• Growing Innovation and Collaboration Through Assessment and Feedback: A Toolkit for Assessing and Developing Students’ Soft Skills in Biological Experimentation 12 May 2022
• The Role of Creativity in Teaching Mathematics Online 1 December 2022
• Breathing Life Into Marketing Scholarship Through Creativity Learning and Teaching 1 Jan 2022
• Mobilizing Research-Based Learning (RBL) in Higher Education 1 Jan 2022
• Trends and opportunities by fostering creativity in science and engineering: a systematic review 2 September 2021 | European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 46, No. 6
• The effect of a scientific board game on improving creative problem solving skills 1 Sep 2021 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 41
• Create Teaching Creativity through Training Management, Effectiveness Training, and Teacher Quality in the Covid-19 Pandemic 6 August 2021 | Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4
• Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation  11 January 2021 | Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 69, No. 4
• Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Bilimsel Yaratıcılık ve Bilimsel Problem Çözme ile İlgili Öz Değerlendirmeleri 15 July 2021 | Yuzunci Yil Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi
• Cultivating creative thinking in engineering student teams: Can a computer‐mediated virtual laboratory help? 23 November 2020 | Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 37, No. 2
• Entrepreneurial competencies of undergraduate students: The case of universities in Nigeria 1 Mar 2021 | The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• Promoting Creativity in General Education Mathematics Courses 5 August 2019 | PRIMUS, Vol. 31, No. 1
• Methodological Considerations for Understanding Students’ Problem Solving Processes and Affective Trajectories During Game-Based Learning: A Data Fusion Approach 3 July 2021
• The main trends in the process of building the creative potential of engineering students 18 June 2021 | E3S Web of Conferences, Vol. 274
• Research on the Present Situation and Countermeasures of Cultivating Graduate Students’ Innovation Ability under Cooperative Innovation Environment 1 Jan 2021 | Creative Education Studies, Vol. 09, No. 02
• Innovation Centers and the Information Schools: The Influence of LIS Faculty 1 Dec 2020 | Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 61, No. 4
• Biomimetics: teaching the tools of the trade 28 September 2020 | FEBS Open Bio, Vol. 10, No. 11
• STEM academic teachers’ experiences of undertaking authentic assessment-led reform: a mixed method approach 21 March 2019 | Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 9
• Problems of forming marketing competencies in the digital economy 1 Sep 2020 | IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 940, No. 1
• Culturally Responsive Assessment of Physical Science Skills and Abilities: Development, Field Testing, Implementation, and Results 2 June 2020 | Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 31, No. 3
• Culturally Responsive Assessment of Life Science Skills and Abilities: Development, Field Testing, Implementation, and Results 3 June 2020 | Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 31, No. 3
• Curriculum Differentiation’s Capacity to Extend Gifted Students in Secondary Mixed-ability Science Classes 27 June 2020 | Talent, Vol. 10, No. 1
• Student Motivation from and Resistance to Active Learning Rooted in Essential Science Practices 23 December 2017 | Research in Science Education, Vol. 50, No. 1
• Integrating Entrepreneurship and Art to Improve Creative Problem Solving in Fisheries Education 27 February 2020 | Fisheries, Vol. 45, No. 2
• Concepts Re-imagined: Relational Signs Beyond Definitional Rigidity 15 August 2020
• Promoting Student Creativity and Inventiveness in Science and Engineering 24 October 2020
• Teaching for Leadership, Innovation, and Creativity 1 Jan 2020
• Problem Çözme Becerileri Eğitim Programının Çocukların Karar Verme Becerileri Üzerindeki Etkisi 30 December 2019 | Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 21, No. 3
• Mento’s change model in teaching competency-based medical education 27 December 2019 | BMC Medical Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• The Effects of Individual Preparations on Group Creativity 21 January 2020
• The Value of Creativity for Enhancing Translational Ecologies, Insights, and Discoveries 9 July 2019 | Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10
• Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health to Guide Students' Clinical Approach to Aging With Pathology 1 Jul 2019 | Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, Vol. 35, No. 3
• Impact of Brainstorming Strategy in Dealing With Knowledge Retention Skill: An Insight Into Special Learners' Needs In Saudi Arabia 1 January 2021 | MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices
• The potential of students’ creative disposition as a perspective to develop creative teaching and learning for senior high school biological science 12 March 2019 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1157
• Evaluating Remote Experiment from a Divergent Thinking Point of View 25 July 2018
• Exploring Creative Education Practices and Implications: A Case study of National Chengchi University, Taiwan 4 April 2022 | Journal of Business and Economic Analysis, Vol. 02, No. 02
• Exploring Creative Education Practices and Implications: A Case study of National Chengchi University, Taiwan 1 January 2020 | Journal of Business and Economic Analysis, Vol. 02, No. 02
• Diverging from the Dogma: A Call to Train Creative Thinkers in Science 14 September 2018 | The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 100, No. 1
• Comparison of German and Japanese student teachers’ views on creativity in chemistry class 16 May 2018 | Asia-Pacific Science Education, Vol. 4, No. 1
• The use of humour during a collaborative inquiry 27 August 2018 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 40, No. 14
• Connecting creative coursework exposure and college student engagement across academic disciplines 29 August 2019 | Gifted and Talented International, Vol. 33, No. 1-2
• Views of German chemistry teachers on creativity in chemistry classes and in general 1 January 2018 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 3
• Embedding Critical and Creative Thinking in Chemical Engineering Practice 1 Jul 2018
• Introducing storytelling to educational robotic activities 1 Apr 2018
• Investigating Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Science in Courses Taught Using the CREATE Strategy 1 Mar 2018 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• Teachers’ learning on the workshop of STS approach as a way of enhancing inventive thinking skills 1 Jan 2018
• Creativity Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning in Biomedical Sciences 1 Jan 2018
• The right tool for the right task: Structured techniques prove less effective on an ill-defined problem finding task 1 Dec 2017 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 26
• The influential factors and hierarchical structure of college students’ creative capabilities—An empirical study in Taiwan 1 Dec 2017 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 26
• Teacher perceptions of professional role and innovative teaching at elementary schools in Taiwan 10 November 2017 | Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 21
• Evaluation of creative problem-solving abilities in undergraduate structural engineers through interdisciplinary problem-based learning 28 July 2016 | European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 42, No. 6
• What Shall I Write Next? 19 September 2017
• Inquiry-based Laboratory Activities on Drugs Analysis for High School Chemistry Learning 3 October 2017 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 895
• BARRIERS TO STUDENTS’ CREATIVE EVALUATION OF UNEXPECTED EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 25 June 2017 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 16, No. 3
• Kyle J. Frantz ,
• Melissa K. Demetrikopoulos ,
• Shari L. Britner ,
• Laura L. Carruth ,
• Brian A. Williams ,
• John L. Pecore ,
• Robert L. DeHaan , and
• Christopher T. Goode
• Elizabeth Ambos, Monitoring Editor
• A present absence: undergraduate course outlines and the development of student creativity across disciplines 3 October 2016 | Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 2
• Exploring differences in creativity across academic majors for high-ability college students 16 February 2018 | Gifted and Talented International, Vol. 32, No. 1
• Creativity in chemistry class and in general – German student teachers’ views 1 January 2017 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 2
• IMPORTANCE OF CREATIVITY IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1 January 2017
• Accessing the Finest Minds 1 Jan 2017
• Science and Innovative Thinking for Technical and Organizational Development 1 Jan 2017
• Learning High School Biology in a Social Context 1 Jan 2017 | Creative Education, Vol. 08, No. 15
• Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education 6 September 2016 | Instructional Science, Vol. 44, No. 6
• Creative Cognitive Processes in Higher Education 20 November 2014 | The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 50, No. 4
• An Evidence-Based Review of Creative Problem Solving Tools 6 April 2016 | Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 2
• Case-based exams for learning and assessment: Experiences in an information systems course 1 Apr 2016
• Case exams for assessing higher order learning: A comparative social media analytics usage exam 1 Apr 2016
• Beyond belief: Structured techniques prove more effective than a placebo intervention in a problem construction task 1 Mar 2016 | Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 19
• A Belief System at the Core of Learning Science 1 Jan 2016
• Science and Innovative Thinking for Technical and Organizational Development 1 Jan 2016
• Student Research Work and Modeled Situations in Order to Bridge the Gap between Basic Science Concepts and Those from Preventive and Clinical Practice. Meaningful Learning and Informed beneficience 1 Jan 2016 | Creative Education, Vol. 07, No. 07
• FOSTERING FIFTH GRADERS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY THROUGH PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING 25 October 2015 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 14, No. 5
• Scaffolding for Creative Product Possibilities in a Design-Based STEM Activity 16 November 2014 | Research in Science Education, Vol. 45, No. 5
• Intuition and insight: two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education 18 June 2015 | Studies in Science Education, Vol. 51, No. 2
• Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students 28 March 2015 | Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 16, No. 2
• Initiatives Towards an Education for Creativity 1 May 2015 | Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 180
• Brian A. Couch ,
• Tanya L. Brown ,
• Tyler J. Schelpat ,
• Mark J. Graham , and
• Jennifer K. Knight
• Michèle Shuster, Monitoring Editor
• Kim Quillin , and
• Stephen Thomas
• Mary Lee Ledbetter, Monitoring Editor
• The Design of IdeaWorks: Applying Social Learning Networks to Support Tertiary Education 21 July 2015
• References 1 Jan 2015
• Video Games and Malevolent Creativity 1 Jan 2015
• Modelling a Laboratory for Ideas as a New Tool for Fostering Engineering Creativity 1 Jan 2015 | Procedia Engineering, Vol. 100
• “Development of Thinking Skills” Course: Teaching TRIZ in Academic Setting 1 Jan 2015 | Procedia Engineering, Vol. 131
• Leadership in the Future Experts’ Creativity Development with Scientific Research Activities 4 November 2014
• Developing Deaf Children's Conceptual Understanding and Scientific Argumentation Skills: A Literature Review 3 January 2014 | Deafness & Education International, Vol. 16, No. 3
• Leslie M. Stevens , and
• Sally G. Hoskins
• Nancy Pelaez, Monitoring Editor
• 2014 | Cortex, Vol. 51
• A Sociotechnological Theory of Discursive Change and Entrepreneurial Capacity: Novelty and Networks 1 Jan 2014 | SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 3
• GEOverse: An Undergraduate Research Journal: Research Dissemination Within and Beyond the Curriculum 1 August 2013
• Learning by Practice, High-Pressure Student Ateliers 2 August 2013
• Relating Inter-Individual Differences in Verbal Creative Thinking to Cerebral Structures: An Optimal Voxel-Based Morphometry Study 5 November 2013 | PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 11
• 21st Century Biology: An Interdisciplinary Approach of Biology, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education 1 Nov 2013 | Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 102
• Reclaiming creativity in the era of impact: exploring ideas about creative research in science and engineering 1 Nov 2013 | Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 9
• An Evaluation of Alternative Ways of Computing the Creativity Quotient in a Design School Sample 1 Jul 2013 | Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3
• A.-M. Hoskinson ,
• M. D. Caballero , and
• J. K. Knight
• Eric Brewe, Monitoring Editor
• Understanding, attitude and environment 17 May 2013 | International Journal for Researcher Development, Vol. 4, No. 1
• Promoting Student Creativity and Inventiveness in Science and Engineering 1 Jan 2013
• Building creative thinking in the classroom: From research to practice 1 Jan 2013 | International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 62
• A Demonstration of a Mastery Goal Driven Learning Environment to Foster Creativity in Engineering Design 1 Jan 2013 | SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 111
• The development of creative cognition across adolescence: distinct trajectories for insight and divergent thinking 8 October 2012 | Developmental Science, Vol. 16, No. 1
• A CROSS-NATIONAL STUDY OF PROSPECTIVE ELEMENTARY AND SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CREATIVITY STYLES 10 September 2012 | Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 11, No. 3
• Evaluation of fostering students' creativity in preparing aided recalls for revision courses using electronic revision and recapitulation tools 2.0 1 Aug 2012 | Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 31, No. 8
• Scientific Creativity: The Missing Ingredient in Slovenian Science Education 15 April 2012 | European Journal of Educational Research, Vol. volume-1-2012, No. volume1-issue2.html
• Could the ‘evolution’ from biology to life sciences prevent ‘extinction’ of the subject field? 6 March 2012 | Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, Vol. 31, No. 1
• Mobile innovations, executive functions, and educational developments in conflict zones: a case study from Palestine 1 October 2011 | Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 60, No. 1
• Informing Pedagogy Through the Brain-Targeted Teaching Model 1 Jan 2012 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 13, No. 1
• Teaching Creative Science Thinking 16 Dec 2011 | Science, Vol. 334, No. 6062
• Sally G. Hoskins ,
• David Lopatto , and
• Leslie M. Stevens
• Diane K. O'Dowd, Monitoring Editor
• Embedding Research-Based Learning Early in the Undergraduate Geography Curriculum 1 Aug 2011 | Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 3
• Jared L. Taylor ,
• Karen M. Smith ,
• Adrian P. van Stolk , and
• George B. Spiegelman
• Debra Tomanek, Monitoring Editor
• 2010 | IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 43, No. 17
• Critical and Creative Thinking Activities for Engaged Learning in Graphics and Visualization Course
• Creativity Development through Inquiry-Based Learning in Biomedical Sciences

Submitted: 31 December 2008 Revised: 14 May 2009 Accepted: 28 May 2009

© 2009 by The American Society for Cell Biology

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

• Make a Gift
• Join Our Email List
• Problem Solving in STEM

Solving problems is a key component of many science, math, and engineering classes.  If a goal of a class is for students to emerge with the ability to solve new kinds of problems or to use new problem-solving techniques, then students need numerous opportunities to develop the skills necessary to approach and answer different types of problems.  Problem solving during section or class allows students to develop their confidence in these skills under your guidance, better preparing them to succeed on their homework and exams. This page offers advice about strategies for facilitating problem solving during class.

How do I decide which problems to cover in section or class?

In-class problem solving should reinforce the major concepts from the class and provide the opportunity for theoretical concepts to become more concrete. If students have a problem set for homework, then in-class problem solving should prepare students for the types of problems that they will see on their homework. You may wish to include some simpler problems both in the interest of time and to help students gain confidence, but it is ideal if the complexity of at least some of the in-class problems mirrors the level of difficulty of the homework. You may also want to ask your students ahead of time which skills or concepts they find confusing, and include some problems that are directly targeted to their concerns.

You have given your students a problem to solve in class. What are some strategies to work through it?

• Try to give your students a chance to grapple with the problems as much as possible.  Offering them the chance to do the problem themselves allows them to learn from their mistakes in the presence of your expertise as their teacher. (If time is limited, they may not be able to get all the way through multi-step problems, in which case it can help to prioritize giving them a chance to tackle the most challenging steps.)
• When you do want to teach by solving the problem yourself at the board, talk through the logic of how you choose to apply certain approaches to solve certain problems.  This way you can externalize the type of thinking you hope your students internalize when they solve similar problems themselves.
• Start by setting up the problem on the board (e.g you might write down key variables and equations; draw a figure illustrating the question).  Ask students to start solving the problem, either independently or in small groups.  As they are working on the problem, walk around to hear what they are saying and see what they are writing down. If several students seem stuck, it might be a good to collect the whole class again to clarify any confusion.  After students have made progress, bring the everyone back together and have students guide you as to what to write on the board.
• It can help to first ask students to work on the problem by themselves for a minute, and then get into small groups to work on the problem collaboratively.
• If you have ample board space, have students work in small groups at the board while solving the problem.  That way you can monitor their progress by standing back and watching what they put up on the board.
• If you have several problems you would like to have the students practice, but not enough time for everyone to do all of them, you can assign different groups of students to work on different – but related - problems.

When do you want students to work in groups to solve problems?

• Don’t ask students to work in groups for straightforward problems that most students could solve independently in a short amount of time.
• Do have students work in groups for thought-provoking problems, where students will benefit from meaningful collaboration.
• Even in cases where you plan to have students work in groups, it can be useful to give students some time to work on their own before collaborating with others.  This ensures that every student engages with the problem and is ready to contribute to a discussion.

What are some benefits of having students work in groups?

• Students bring different strengths, different knowledge, and different ideas for how to solve a problem; collaboration can help students work through problems that are more challenging than they might be able to tackle on their own.
• In working in a group, students might consider multiple ways to approach a problem, thus enriching their repertoire of strategies.
• Students who think they understand the material will gain a deeper understanding by explaining concepts to their peers.

What are some strategies for helping students to form groups?  

• Instruct students to work with the person (or people) sitting next to them.
• Count off.  (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4; all the 1’s find each other and form a group, etc)
• Hand out playing cards; students need to find the person with the same number card. (There are many variants to this.  For example, you can print pictures of images that go together [rain and umbrella]; each person gets a card and needs to find their partner[s].)
• Based on what you know about the students, assign groups in advance. List the groups on the board.
• Note: Always have students take the time to introduce themselves to each other in a new group.

What should you do while your students are working on problems?

• Walk around and talk to students. Observing their work gives you a sense of what people understand and what they are struggling with. Answer students’ questions, and ask them questions that lead in a productive direction if they are stuck.
• If you discover that many people have the same question—or that someone has a misunderstanding that others might have—you might stop everyone and discuss a key idea with the entire class.

After students work on a problem during class, what are strategies to have them share their answers and their thinking?

• Ask for volunteers to share answers. Depending on the nature of the problem, student might provide answers verbally or by writing on the board. As a variant, for questions where a variety of answers are relevant, ask for at least three volunteers before anyone shares their ideas.
• Use online polling software for students to respond to a multiple-choice question anonymously.
• If students are working in groups, assign reporters ahead of time. For example, the person with the next birthday could be responsible for sharing their group’s work with the class.
• Cold call. To reduce student anxiety about cold calling, it can help to identify students who seem to have the correct answer as you were walking around the class and checking in on their progress solving the assigned problem. You may even want to warn the student ahead of time: "This is a great answer! Do you mind if I call on you when we come back together as a class?"
• Have students write an answer on a notecard that they turn in to you.  If your goal is to understand whether students in general solved a problem correctly, the notecards could be submitted anonymously; if you wish to assess individual students’ work, you would want to ask students to put their names on their notecard.  
• Use a jigsaw strategy, where you rearrange groups such that each new group is comprised of people who came from different initial groups and had solved different problems.  Students now are responsible for teaching the other students in their new group how to solve their problem.
• Have a representative from each group explain their problem to the class.
• Have a representative from each group draw or write the answer on the board.

What happens if a student gives a wrong answer?

• Ask for their reasoning so that you can understand where they went wrong.
• Ask if anyone else has other ideas. You can also ask this sometimes when an answer is right.
• Cultivate an environment where it’s okay to be wrong. Emphasize that you are all learning together, and that you learn through making mistakes.
• Do make sure that you clarify what the correct answer is before moving on.
• Once the correct answer is given, go through some answer-checking techniques that can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers. This can help prepare students to verify their future work.

How can you make your classroom inclusive?

• The goal is that everyone is thinking, talking, and sharing their ideas, and that everyone feels valued and respected. Use a variety of teaching strategies (independent work and group work; allow students to talk to each other before they talk to the class). Create an environment where it is normal to struggle and make mistakes.
• See Kimberly Tanner’s article on strategies to promoste student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. 

A few final notes…

• Make sure that you have worked all of the problems and also thought about alternative approaches to solving them.
• Board work matters. You should have a plan beforehand of what you will write on the board, where, when, what needs to be added, and what can be erased when. If students are going to write their answers on the board, you need to also have a plan for making sure that everyone gets to the correct answer. Students will copy what is on the board and use it as their notes for later study, so correct and logical information must be written there.

For more information...

Tipsheet: Problem Solving in STEM Sections

Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity . CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331.

• Designing Your Course
• A Teaching Timeline: From Pre-Term Planning to the Final Exam
• The First Day of Class
• Group Agreements
• Classroom Debate
• Flipped Classrooms
• Leading Discussions
• Polling & Clickers
• Teaching with Cases
• Engaged Scholarship
• Devices in the Classroom
• Beyond the Classroom
• On Professionalism
• Getting Feedback
• Equitable & Inclusive Teaching
• Advising and Mentoring
• Teaching and Your Career
• Teaching Remotely
• Tools and Platforms
• The Science of Learning
• Bok Publications
• Other Resources Around Campus

Problem-Solving Method in Teaching

The problem-solving method is a highly effective teaching strategy that is designed to help students develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities . It involves providing students with real-world problems and challenges that require them to apply their knowledge, skills, and creativity to find solutions. This method encourages active learning, promotes collaboration, and allows students to take ownership of their learning.

Table of Contents

Definition of problem-solving method.

Problem-solving is a process of identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems. The problem-solving method in teaching involves providing students with real-world problems that they must solve through collaboration and critical thinking. This method encourages students to apply their knowledge and creativity to develop solutions that are effective and practical.

Meaning of Problem-Solving Method

The meaning and Definition of problem-solving are given by different Scholars. These are-

Woodworth and Marquis(1948) : Problem-solving behavior occurs in novel or difficult situations in which a solution is not obtainable by the habitual methods of applying concepts and principles derived from past experience in very similar situations.

Skinner (1968): Problem-solving is a process of overcoming difficulties that appear to interfere with the attainment of a goal. It is the procedure of making adjustments in spite of interference

Benefits of Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method has several benefits for both students and teachers. These benefits include:

• Encourages active learning: The problem-solving method encourages students to actively participate in their own learning by engaging them in real-world problems that require critical thinking and collaboration
• Promotes collaboration: Problem-solving requires students to work together to find solutions. This promotes teamwork, communication, and cooperation.
• Builds critical thinking skills: The problem-solving method helps students develop critical thinking skills by providing them with opportunities to analyze and evaluate problems
• Increases motivation: When students are engaged in solving real-world problems, they are more motivated to learn and apply their knowledge.
• Enhances creativity: The problem-solving method encourages students to be creative in finding solutions to problems.

Steps in Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method involves several steps that teachers can use to guide their students. These steps include

• Identifying the problem: The first step in problem-solving is identifying the problem that needs to be solved. Teachers can present students with a real-world problem or challenge that requires critical thinking and collaboration.
• Analyzing the problem: Once the problem is identified, students should analyze it to determine its scope and underlying causes.
• Generating solutions: After analyzing the problem, students should generate possible solutions. This step requires creativity and critical thinking.
• Evaluating solutions: The next step is to evaluate each solution based on its effectiveness and practicality
• Selecting the best solution: The final step is to select the best solution and implement it.

Verification of the concluded solution or Hypothesis

The solution arrived at or the conclusion drawn must be further verified by utilizing it in solving various other likewise problems. In case, the derived solution helps in solving these problems, then and only then if one is free to agree with his finding regarding the solution. The verified solution may then become a useful product of his problem-solving behavior that can be utilized in solving further problems. The above steps can be utilized in solving various problems thereby fostering creative thinking ability in an individual.

The problem-solving method is an effective teaching strategy that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. It provides students with real-world problems that require them to apply their knowledge and skills to find solutions. By using the problem-solving method, teachers can help their students develop the skills they need to succeed in school and in life.

• Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
• Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.
• Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
• Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01, University of Michigan. Wojcikowski, J. (2013). Solving real-world problems through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 61(4), 153-156

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

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

19k 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

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 ]

Simple Guide to Problem-Solving Method of Teaching

You must be interested to know – What is the problem-solving method of teaching and how it works. We’ve explained its core principles, six-step process, and benefits with real-world examples.

Understand the Problem-Solving Method of Teaching

The basis of this modern teaching approach is to provide students with opportunities to face real-time challenges. It aims to help them understand how the concept behind a solution works in reality.

What is the Problem-Solving Method of Teaching?

The problem-solving method of teaching is a student-centered approach to learning that focuses on developing students’ problem-solving skills. In this method, students have to face real-world problems to solve.

They are encouraged to use their knowledge and skills to provide solutions. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing guidance and support as needed, but ultimately the students are responsible for finding their solutions.

Must Read: How to Tell Me About Yourself in an Interview

5 Most Important Benefits of Problem-Solving Method of Teaching

The new way of teaching primarily helps students develop critical thinking skills and real-world application abilities. It also promotes independence and self-confidence in problem-solving.

The problem-solving method of teaching has several benefits. It helps students to:

#1 Enhances critical thinking

By presenting students with real-world problems to solve, the problem-solving method of teaching forces them:

– To think critically about the situation, and – To come up with their solutions.

This process helps students develop critical thinking skills essential for success in school and life.

#2 Fosters creativity

The problem-solving method of teaching encourages students to be creative in their problem-solving approach. There is often no one right answer to a problem, so students are free to come up with their unique solutions. This process helps students think creatively, an important skill in all areas of life.

#3 Encourages real-world application

The problem-solving method of teaching helps students learn how to apply their knowledge to real-world situations. By solving real-world problems, students can see:

– How their knowledge is relevant to their lives, – And, the world around them.

This helps students to become more motivated and engaged learners.

#4 Builds student confidence

When students can successfully solve problems, they gain confidence in their abilities. This confidence is essential for success in all areas of life, both academic and personal.

#5 Promotes collaborative learning

The problem-solving method of teaching often involves students working together to solve problems. This collaborative learning process helps students to develop their teamwork skills and to learn from each other.

Know 6 Steps in the Problem-Solving Method of Teaching

Also Read: Do You Know the Difference Between ChatGPT and GPT-4?

The problem-solving method of teaching typically involves the following steps:

Step 1: Identifying the problem

The first step is problem identification which students will be working on. This requires students to do the following:

– By presenting students with a real-world problem, or – By asking them to come up with their problems.

Step 2: Understanding the problem

Once students have identified the problem, they need to understand it fully. This may involve:

– Breaking the problem down into smaller parts, or – Gathering more information about the problem.

Step 3: Generating solutions

Once students understand the problem, they need to generate possible solutions. They have to do either of the following:

– By brainstorming, or – By exercising problem-solving techniques such as root cause analysis or the decision matrix.

Step 4: Evaluating solutions

Students need to evaluate the pros and cons of each solution before choosing one to implement.

Step 5: Implementing the solution

Once students have chosen a solution, they need to implement it. This may involve taking action or developing a plan.

Step 6: Evaluating the results

Once students have implemented the solution, they must evaluate the results to see if it was successful.

If the solution fails the expectations, students should re-run step 3 and generate new solutions.

Find Out Examples of the Problem-Solving Method of Teaching

Here are a few examples of how the problem-solving method of teaching applies to different subjects:

• Math: Students face real-world problems such as budgeting for a family or designing a new product. Students would then need to use their math skills to solve the problem.
• Science: Students perform a science experiment or research on a scientific topic to invent a solution to the problem. Students should then use their science knowledge and skills to solve the problem.
• Social studies: Students analyze a historical event or current social issue and devise a solution. After that, students should exercise their social studies knowledge and skills to solve the problem.

How to Use Problem-Solving Methods of Teaching

Here are a few tips for using the problem-solving method of teaching effectively:

• Choose problems that are relevant to students’ lives and interests.
• Select those problems that are challenging but achievable.
• Provide students with ample resources such as books, websites, or experts to solve the problem.
• Motivate them to work collaboratively and to share their ideas.
• Be patient and supportive. Problem-solving can be a challenging process, but it is also a rewarding one.

Also Try: 1-10 Random Number Generator

How to Choose: Let’s Draw a Comparison

The following table compares the different problem-solving methods:

Which Method is the Most Suitable?

The most suitable way of teaching will depend on many factors such as the following:

– Subject matter, – Student’s age and ability level, and – Teacher’s preferences.

However, the problem-solving method of teaching is a valuable approach. It can be used in any subject area and with students of all ages.

Here are some additional tips for using the problem-solving method of teaching effectively:

• Differentiate instruction. Not all students learn at the same pace or in the same way. Teachers can differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners by providing different levels of support and scaffolding.
• Use formative assessment. Formative assessment helps track students’ progress and identify areas where they need additional support. Teachers can then use this information to provide students with targeted instruction.
• Create a positive learning environment. Students need to feel safe and supported to learn effectively. Teachers can create a positive learning environment by providing students with opportunities for collaboration. They can celebrate their successes and create a classroom culture where mistakes are seen as learning opportunities.

Interested in New Tech: 7 IoT Trends to Watch in 2023

Some Unique Examples to Refer to Before We Conclude

Here are a few unique examples of how you incorporate the problem-solving method of teaching with different subjects:

• English: Students analyze a grammar problem, such as a poem or a short story, and share their interpretation.
• Art: Students can get a task to design a new product or to create a piece of art that addresses a social issue.
• Music: Students write a song about a current event or create a new piece of music reflecting their cultural heritage.

Before You Leave

The problem-solving method of teaching is a powerful tool that can help students develop the skills they need to succeed in school and life. By creating a learning environment where students are encouraged to think critically and solve problems, teachers can help students to become lifelong learners.

Lastly, our site needs your support to remain free. Share this post on social media ( Linkedin / Twitter ) if you gained some knowledge from this tutorial.

Enjoy learning, TechBeamers.

You Might Also Like

Top 7 python interpreters to code on the fly, adapt to these 20 free chatgpt alternatives, difference between spring and spring boot, 15 interview questions on leadership for quick prep, python langchain: create a full-fledged app.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Tutorials

Art and Science of Teaching / Problem Solving in Seven Steps

Step 1: Determine whether you have a problem and whether it's worth solving

Step 2: affirm positive beliefs regarding your ability to solve the problem, step 3: clarify the obstacle and identify possible solutions, step 4: determine each solution's likelihood of success and consider the resources required, step 5: try out the solution that has the greatest chance of success, step 6: if your solution doesn't work, try a different one, step 7: if you can't find a solution, identify an alternative goal, make it explicit.

.css-191dech{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;} .css-12z0wuy{margin-right:8px;} • .css-16w6vyg{margin:0;font-family:'Poppins',sans-serif;font-weight:400;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.43;font-size:1rem;font-weight:400;line-height:1.625rem;letter-spacing:0.2px;} 1 See, for example, Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2012). Teaching and assessing 21st century skills . Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory; Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Robert Marzano is the CEO of Marzano Research Laboratory in Centennial, CO, which provides research-based, partner-centered support for educators and education agencies—with the goal of helping teachers improve educational practice.

As strategic advisor, Robert brings over 50 years of experience in action-based education research, professional development, and curriculum design to Marzano Research. He has expertise in standards-based assessment, cognition, school leadership, and competency-based education, among a host of areas.

He is the author of 30 books, 150 articles and chapters in books, and 100 sets of curriculum materials for teachers and students in grades K–12.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., from our issue.

Teaching of General Psychology: Problem Solving

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 July 2022
• Cite this living reference work entry

• David Gibson 5 ,
• Dirk Ifenthaler 5 , 6 &
• Samuel Greiff 7  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

133 Accesses

This chapter defines problem solving and its research history. In addition to this, it introduces data science approaches to research on problem solving for psychology students, educators, and researchers. The chapter describes four new core content and topical areas on the immediate horizon: data science, Internet of things, network analyses, and artificial intelligence. The chapter elucidates implications for data science education in general psychology, focusing on research in problem solving and on how problem solving can be taught in higher education.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reaction: Students, Problem Posing, and Problem Solving

Teaching the foundations of psychological science.

Aktas, M. E., Akbas, E., & Fatmaoui, A. E. (2019). Persistence homology of networks: methods and applications. Applied Network Science, 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-019-0179-3

Berry, D.C., & Broadbent, D.E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A , 209–231.

Google Scholar  

Berry, D.C., & Broadbent, D.E. (1988). Interactive tasks and the implicit–explicit distinction. British Journal of Psychology, 79 , 251–272.

Blei, D., & Smyth, P. (2017). Science and data science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (33), 8689–8692. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702076114

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen, M., Herrera, F., & Hwang, K. (2018). Cognitive computing: Architecture, technologies and intelligent applications. IEEE Access, 6 , 19774–19783. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2791469

Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1 (August), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002

Davis, N. (2012). Leadership for online learning within and across secondary schools: An ecological perspective on change theories . In International federation of information processing working group 3.3 (pp. 1–15).

Davis, N., Eickelmann, B., & Zaka, P. (2013). Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 , 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Diestel, R. (2006). Graph theory . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.085504

Duncker, K. (1935). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens . Berlin: Springer.

Etzion, O., Fournier, F., & Arcushin, S. (2014). Tutorial on the Internet of everything . In Proceedings of the 8th ACM international conference on distributed event-based systems – DEBS ’14 (pp. 236–237). https://doi.org/10.1145/2611286.2611308

Evans, D. (2011, April). The Internet of Things – How the next evolution of the Internet is changing everything . CISCO white paper, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2007.373646

Funke, J. (1992). Wissen über dynamische Systeme: Erwerb, Repräsentation und Anwendung. Berlin: Springer.

Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an illstructured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 21–38.

Gibson, D. C., & Webb, M. (2015). Data science in educational assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 20 (4), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9411-7

Ifenthaler, D., Greiff, S., & Gibson, D. C. (2018). Making use of data for assessments: harnessing analytics and data science. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), International handbook of IT in primary and secondary education (2 ed., pp. 649–663). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_41

Jacobson, M.J. (2000). Problem Solving About Complex Systems: Differences Between Experts and Novices. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences , pp. 14–21. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Krems, J. (1995). Cognitive flexibility and complex problem solving. In P.A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving. The European perspective , pp. 201–218. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Eagan, B. R., & Shaffer, D. W. (2019). SENS: Network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 92 (May), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.003

Goldstone, R. L., Pestilli, F., & Börner, K. (2015). Self-portraits of the brain: Cognitive science, data visualization, and communicating brain structure and function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19 (8), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.012

Gonthier, G. (2008). Formal proof–the four-color theorem. Notices of the AMS, 55 (11), 1382–1393. Retrieved from https://www.ams.org/notices/200811/tx081101382p.pdf

Greiff, S., Scheiter, K., Scherer, R., Borgonovi, F., Britt, A., Graesser, A., Kitajima, M., & Rouet, J. F. (2017). Adaptive problem solving. Moving towards a new assessment domain in the second cycle of PIAAC (OECD education working papers, no. 156). Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/90fde2f4-en

Greiff, S., & Wüstenberg, S. (2014). Assessment with microworlds: Factor structure, invariance, and latent mean comparison of the MicroDYN test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000194

Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of mental models. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2 (4), 317–336.

Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2011). A longitudinal perspective on inductive reasoning tasks. Illuminating the probability of change. Learning and Instruction, 21 (4), 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.004

Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2013). Model-based reasoning. Computers & Education, 64 , 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.014

Ings, T. C., & Hawes, J. E. (2018). The history of ecological networks. In Ecological networks in the tropics (pp. 15–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68228-0_2

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lester, F. K. (1983). Trends and issues in mathematical problem-solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 229–261). Academic Press.

Margulieux, L. (2019). Chapter summary: Mayer & Wittrock (2006) Problem solving | Lauren Margulieux . Retrieved March 22, 2021, from https://laurenmarg.com/2019/04/21/chapter-summary-mayer-wittrock-2006-problem-solving/

Mayer, R., & Wittrock, M. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28 (6), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.

Seel, N. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2009). Mental models and problem solving: Technological solutions for measurement and assessment of the development of expertise. In P. Blumschein, W. Hung, D. H. Jonassen, & J. Strobel (Eds.), Model-based approaches to learning: Using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains (pp. 17–40). Sense Publishers.

Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46 (3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003

Shaffer, D., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., … Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1 (2), 33–53.

Sharkasi, N. (2010). The doctor will be you now: A case study on medical ethics and role. In K. Schrier & D. Gibson (Eds.), Ethics and game design (pp. 275–290). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. T. F. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Mathematical Behavior, 24 , 287–301.

Sporns, O. (2011). Networks of the brain . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stanton, J. (2012). An introduction to data science . Syracuse University.

Swiecki, Z., & Shaffer, D. W. (2020). ISENS: An integrated approach to combining epistemic and social network analyses . In ACM International conference proceeding series, pp. 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375505

van den Heuvel, M. P., & Sporns, O. (2013). Network hubs in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.012

Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking (Enlarged Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science . Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Latchem, C. (2018). Exploring four decades of research in Computers & Education. Computers & Education, 122 , 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.001

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Pant, H. A., & Greiff, S. (Eds.). (2019). Assessing generic and domain-specific academic competencies in higher education. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000236

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Curtin University, Perth, Australia

David Gibson & Dirk Ifenthaler

University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

Dirk Ifenthaler

University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Samuel Greiff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Greiff .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education, Univ of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Joerg Zumbach

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Bonita Springs, FL, USA

Douglas Bernstein

Psychology Learning & Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Sachsen, Germany

Susanne Narciss

DISUFF, University of Salerno, Salerno, Salerno, Italy

Giuseppina Marsico

Section Editor information

University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Douglas A. Bernstein

Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland

University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Gibson, D., Ifenthaler, D., Greiff, S. (2022). Teaching of General Psychology: Problem Solving. In: Zumbach, J., Bernstein, D., Narciss, S., Marsico, G. (eds) International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_8-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_8-1

Received : 18 January 2022

Accepted : 18 January 2022

Published : 09 July 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-26248-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-26248-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Study Notes on Methods of Science Teaching

In this article, we have shared detailed study notes on the Science Teaching method, important to make preparation for teaching exams. The candidates appearing in the upcoming CTET must prepare Methods of Science Teaching to score well.

The “method” is a “Latin Word”, which means the way of mode. So, it can be said that it is the method by which a teacher imparts knowledge and scientific skills to his or her students, and how those students understand and use those skills as they learn science.

Read the following article to get study notes on Science Teaching Method in detail.

Methods of Science Teaching

Every approach has some virtue in it, and no way is entirely good, according to Valtaire and Spancer. Students should be given as little information as possible and encouraged to learn as much as they can.

Below are some methods which are mostly used in teaching, considering the rules of Pedagogy.

Lecture Method

This is among the most well-liked and established pedagogical approaches used in our institutions. A lecture is a speech or discourse used to impart a lesson.

Demonstration Method

To demonstrate means what the word signifies. Students gain practical experiences from experiment demonstration. The use of movies, slides, and projectors is part of it. With this approach, the instructor conducts a theoretical study and validates the results in the classroom.

It has merits and demerits, as listed below:

• Both the teacher and the students participate in this strategy.
• It costs less money and takes less time.
• Students improve their powers of observation, inference, and thought.
• This approach does not give all the students the opportunity to try something new.
• It is not founded on the idea of learning by experience.
• Children do not get an analytical mindset from it.

Problem-Solving Method

This approach is used mainly at the time of necessity. The issue should be presented to the pupils in plain language and in accordance with their comprehension and prior learning. With the assistance of the teacher, the students will be expected to analyse and synthesise the issue and attempt to identify a solution.

• Students get the ability to solve their own challenges.
• They improve their ability to make observations and make arguments.
• Students have the chance to learn about the procedures for gathering, analysing, and deriving conclusions from data.
• It requires a lot of time and effort.
• The lower classes students can not use it.
• Teachers and students with exceptional talent should use this approach.

Laboratory Method

It is also referred to as the experimental approach. It takes more than just lecturing to make science instruction meaningful, efficient, engaging, and understandable. You also need to provide students with the chance to practise what they are learning. Students are provided all the tools they need in the lab, together with the appropriate instruments, to do their experiments on their own initiative and with their own initiative, then they conduct the experiment, record the observation, and deduce their conclusion. Where necessary, the teacher leads the class.

Observation Method

In this method, students learn new things by acquiring knowledge through observing. Students might be able to recognise nature in their surroundings through observations. Careful observation and listening are required during consideration.

• The students efficiently and clearly observe the similarities and differences between objects.
• They can develop confidence, self-reliance, and self-dependence.
• It is not workable, meaning that its practical application is still lacking.
• Language and cultural difficulties might be present.
• Data collecting is really challenging.

Heuristic Method

The Greek term “Heurisco,” which means “to discover,” is the source of the English word “heuristic.” Heuristic methods encourage students to do their own independent investigations in order to come to their own conclusions. This method implies that the students be given the opportunity to pause, reflect, and recommend changes for future experiments. In order to solve the issue, students work together and observe. Here, the teacher’s function is that of a facilitator and guide. Only after the student has exhausted all other options to resolve his or her problems does the teacher offer assistance.

• It fosters in students a spirit of curiosity.
• The learner starts to take an active role in their education.
• It encourages the practice of independent thinking, self-reliance, etc.
• The information gained is more reliable.
• The student’s ability to observe is improved, as is his capacity for thought.
• This strategy is a little challenging when used to instruct younger kids.
• It necessitates remarkable work and meticulous planning on the part of the teacher.
• It takes a lot of time and money.
• A class with a larger number of students should not employ this strategy because it necessitates the teacher giving each student individualised attention.

Project Method

This method involves discovery, and investigation to find out something, which was unknown to the students. Here, the student has the authority to choose which experiments are required and how he would do them. The student will behave scientifically. With this approach, the students are given a challenge and asked to come up with a solution.

• They learn how to be patient, content, and satisfied.
• They’ll be able to establish a connection between the numerous topics.
• Time-consuming and costly
• Whole syllabus cannot be completed
• This approach results in a disorderly, erratic, and discontinuous process of teaching and learning.

Hopefully, this article has shared all the necessary information related to the methods of science teaching. Join BYJU’S to make an effective preparation for the upcoming Government Exams . Here, you will get instant support from exam experts to get your doubts resolved.

Connect with us for Free Preparation

Get access to free crash courses & video lectures for all government exams., register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.