This section reports on interview data only. Interviews led off with a series of questions about creative problem-solving. The intentions of these student questions were to introduce the topic of creativity, as conversational icebreakers, and to activate prior knowledge about creativity and creative problem-solving. During interviews, some students were uncertain about what was meant by creativity or they perceived creativity as a singularly artistic endeavour; known as art bias (Runco, 2008). When prompted or necessary, I provided a definition of creativity as “any problem-solving using imagination and past experiences in the creation of original work.”
4.2.1
Creative Problem-Solving in an Area of Personal Strength
Questionnaire data indicated that students displayed high confidence in their ability to come up with creative solutions to a challenge in an area that they identified as a personal strength, as expected. Students were then asked to come up with imaginative ideas in this same area of personal strength, as a means of determining if they had original, outlandish and possibly impractical ideas that were typically dismissed by others; that is, ideas that were extreme and may have been truly creative with relative or historical originality. Overall confidence in their ability to come up with imaginative ideas varied according to site. For the urban site, most students indicated that they were less able to come up with imaginative solutions than creative solutions whereas, for the rural site, an equal number of students indicated that they were able to come up with imaginative solutions as those who indicated that they were less able to do so.
Interview data confirmed this lack of confidence at the urban site. Numerous students indicated enjoying creative problem-solving but low confidence ranged from an incredulous, “we can’t do that” (A18) to questioning the ability to come up with valuable (A13) or original ideas (A11). A18 expressed hope that someone else could take student ideas beyond discussion to “invention.” On the contrary, A12 indicated that student ideas
might be too crazy and be regarded as “joking,” but ultimately believed that these imaginative ideas would develop student creativity.
At the rural school site, two of the three students who indicated on the
questionnaire that they could not come up with imaginative solutions as often as creative solutions had an issue with the term ideas that implied thinking without doing. B01 and B05 both valued hands-on manipulation and learning through trial and error. The exclusion of this active learning led them to indicate less ability to come up with imaginative ideas on their questionnaires. Once they realized that imaginative ideas could also be discovered through active learning, they recognized their own strong creative problem-solving ability.
Almost all students at both sites endorsed that working with a partner of equal strength would allow them to come up with more creative solutions to challenges. Perhaps this endorsement can be attributed to their adolescent stage of development in which they wanted to fit in or that the confidence in their abilities increased when working with a peer or group. The confidence building that may have accrued from partnerships was expressed consistently throughout this study.
4.2.2
Creative Problem-Solving Opportunities
Students were asked to recall opportunities in SHSM-E in which they had engaged in creative problem-solving. Answers varied according to site. Students at the urban school indicated having far more opportunities to creative problem solve than students at the rural school. Similarly, students at the urban site found that all their SHSM-E classes more often helped develop their creative problem-solving abilities whereas at the rural site this skill development occurred much less often. During interviews, students A13 and A17 at the urban site concluded that the class had more creative problem-solving opportunities than other high school courses, citing times in which they had been asked how to solve an issue, to think of alternatives (A12) or to use their imaginations (A13). Of note here is that some student responses implied that, by merely being asked for input or having been given the opportunity to be creative, the students were using creativity. For example, A12 explained that being given the choice of how to present group projects was a chance to be creative and A18 thought creativity
was choosing the topic and information to use in projects and the personal control she had over the script of a class presentation.
Other student responses elicited mixed feelings about creativity. A02 wanted better teacher reception of creativity, expressing disappointment that teachers in general expected concrete rather than “outside the box” thinking. Conversely, A18 thought that there needed to be a limit on creative problem-solving because learning “couldn’t be all about students solving problems.”
The extent of student partiality to partnerships was unanticipated. Students at both sites indicated having worked very often with a partner or group in the past and wanted to work as frequently with a partner or group in the future. Interestingly, raw data showed that no student at either site wanted less partner work: Most students wanted the same amount at the urban site while most rural students wanted to work more often with a partner. My observations revealed that urban students regularly worked in dyads or triads. Rural students far less frequently worked in partnerships or groups and overall seemed much more isolated and disengaged from peers. They spoke quietly to one or two other students while at desktop computers prior to class. Before class started, most urban students gathered on a big couch to socialize, tease and talk about school or activities beyond SHSM-E: They clearly accepted one another and felt comfortable in each others’ company. I concluded from these observations that the urban students had had many opportunities to work together whereas rural students had done so infrequently and, as a result, expressed wanting to work together more often.
Rural student interview comments indicated that partnerships benefitted them through acquiring improved ideas during brainstorming (B04, B05), and gaining additional self-confidence (B04) and independence from the teacher (B01). B04 had difficulty integrating others’ new ideas into his own ideas but this did not diminish his desire to work more often with a partner or group. A11’s concern about what his peers would think of him led him to withhold many imaginative ideas he said he had. During the interview, though, without the fear of judgement, he shared with me many of these ideas as well as an enthusiastic wonderment about others’ imaginative ideas. He clearly had creative ideas and wanted to pursue them further, but felt uncomfortable sharing them even in a class that appeared so accepting of others.