Innovative thinking has been studied in a variety of contexts, including in relation to technology, commerce, social systems, economic development, and policy construction. Innovators change the world by stepping into the “intersection,” a place where ideas from different fields and cultures meet and collide, ultimately igniting an explosion of extraordinary new discoveries (Johansson, 2004). Johansson calls this proliferation of new ideas "the Medici effect" - referring to the remarkable burst of creativity enabled by the Medici banking family during the Renaissance in Italy. He reveals how intersections can be identified in our own lives and how we could turn the ideas we find there into “path-breaking” innovations. Johansson (2004) illustrates how three driving forces - the movement of people, the convergence of scientific disciplines, and the leap in computational power - are increasing the number and types of intersections we can access.
Evidently, there are many approaches to conceptualise innovation in the scholarly literature. Fortunately, however, a consistent theme may be identified: innovation is typically understood as the successful introduction of something new and useful, for example introducing new methods, techniques, or practices or new or altered products and services that are widely used (I. Miles, 2005). It is argued that all innovations begin as creative solutions. But, not all creative solutions become innovations because they are not widely adopted. Some innovations also qualify as inventions (Fobes, 2002).
49
2.7.1 Creative problem-solving
Creative problem-solving is defined as seeking original ways to reach a goal when the means to do so are not readily apparent or previously established. It is also seen as ranging from a short and simple activity to a long and complex activity because of its different stages, causes and uses (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005; Treffinger & McEwen, 1993). Some aspects of creative problem-solving include creative skills (emerging from divergent and critical thinking), creative approaches (emerging from developing new ways and changing the known or producing novelty) and creative products (emerging from a novel solution or many novel solutions and drawing appropriate conclusions that lead to a solution to the problem) (Cropley, 2001c).
Creative problem-solving is linked to both creative and critical thinking. Although creative and critical thinking are seen as incompatible and opposites, Treffinger and Isaksen (2005) viewed them as two complementary mutually important ways of thinking. Creative problem-solving process involves two stages, which are ‘generating’ and ‘focusing’ thoughts. The generating stage involves creative thinking. In this stage gaps, paradoxes, opportunities, challenges or concerns are encountered resulting in a search for meaningful new connections. The focusing stage involves critical thinking. In this stage possibilities are examined carefully, fairly and constructively and then the thoughts and actions are synthesised by organising and analysing possibilities, ranking and prioritising options and then choosing and deciding on certain options (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).
Creative thinking is often described as a divergent process, which begins at a single point or a single question, but extends in different directions generating a wide variety of new possibilities. Critical thinking is often called convergent thinking, which is the process of attempting to take many different ideas and draw them together towards a single goal or a result (Hudson, 1970a, 1970b).
2.7.2 Creativity
Although creativity (a product of creative thinking) has a long history, systematic study of creativity began in 1869. Craft (2001) highlighted that Galton (1869) undertook a study that focussed on the idea of ‘genius’. Creativity was subject to philosophical speculation in the early twentieth century because of the methodological
50 approaches of the traditions in which it was studied. In the psychoanalytic tradition, creativity was seen as the sublimation of drives, which makes it central and intrinsic to human nature. In the cognitive tradition creativity is seen as exploration of divergent production of ideas and products. In the behaviourist tradition, stemming from Skinner’s discussion of chance mutation, creativity is seen as the repertoire of behaviours. In the humanistic tradition, discussions about creativity focussed on the self-realising person acting in harmony with their inner needs and potentialities (Craft, 2001).
A move towards empirical investigation of creativity took place during the 1950s. Empirical work formed the methodological basis for much of the investigative work during this period and researchers focussed on the psychological determinants of individual genius and giftedness (Guilford, 1950). This research led to three major lines of development: work on personality, cognition and how to stimulate creativity. The role of thinking in creativity, the role of personality traits and the strategies that promote creativity are widely discussed in the literature (Craft, 2001; Cropley, 2001b, 2001d).
The ‘classical’ analysis of the emergence of creative products is the phase model, first introduced into creativity research by Wallas in 1926. In his study “The art of thought” creativity was described as a problem-solving capacity and distinguished it into four phases or stages. In the first phase, referred to as the phase of information, a person becomes thoroughly familiar with a content area. In the incubation phase, the person ‘churns through’ or ‘stews over’ the information obtained in the previous phase. The phase of illumination marked by the emergence of a solution, not infrequently seeming to the person involved to come like a bolt from the blue. Finally comes the phase of verification in which the person tests the solution thrown up in the phases of incubation and illumination (Wallas, 1926).
Empirical studies of the process of creation in people actually engaged in something new, as well as retrospective studies in which acknowledged creators describe how they obtained new ideas have cast doubt on the validity of the phase model (Torrance, Glover, Ronning, & Reynolds, 1989). Such studies have helped to untangle the paradox of creativity.
51 In the 1990s research into creativity became rooted in a social psychological framework which recognises the important role of social structures in fostering individual creativity. Studies that see creativity from a systems perspective emphasise various elements of social and cognitive contexts that are seen as highly relevant to
the activity of creating (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gardner, Goleman,
Csikszentmihalyi, & Salovey, 1998).
Slade (1992) quoted Vygotsky and argued that it is possible for children to think at far higher levels in a group than they would be able to alone. She argued that interaction or dialogue allows development of capacities which students could not achieve in isolation. She also argued that in terms of teacher-student relations, the teacher’s role is to anticipate and provide structures to aid development and thereby scaffold learning. She deemed that the community of enquiry can be seen as a scaffolding device, in which the teacher increasingly hands over the scaffolding techniques to the student themselves and thus promotes creative and critical thinking.
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) emphasised the importance of socio-cultural validation and indicated the need to take account both of communication and novelty for other people and also of their assessment of its effectiveness. In an attempt to incorporate a socio-cultural perspective, Cropley (2001) modified Wallas’ four phase creative problem-solving process by introducing three more stages namely the communication and the validation stages after the verification stage, and the preparation stage before information stage. The creative processes, traits and the phases of production of novelty as indicated by Cropley (2001) are shown in the following Table 2.2.
52
Table 2.2 Creative processes, traits and motives in the phases of production of novelty (Cropley, 2001b, p. 73).
Phase Process Result Motivation Personality Feelings
Preparation • Identifying problem • Goal setting • Convergent thinking • Initial activity • General knowledge • Special knowledge
• Problem solving drive (intrinsic) • Hope of gain (extrinsic)
• Critical attitude • Optimism • Dissatisfaction Information • Perceiving • Learning • Remembering • Convergent thinking
• Focussed special knowledge • Rich supply of cognitive
elements
• Curiosity
• Preference for complexity • Willingness to work hard • Hope of gain
• Knowledgeability
• Willingness to judge and select
• Interest • Curiosity Incubation • Divergent thinking • Making associations • Bisociating • Building networks
• Configurations • Freedom from constraints • Tolerance for ambiguity
• Relaxedness • Acceptance of fantasy • Non-conformity • Adventurousness • Determination • Fascination Illumination • Recognising a promising new configuration
• Novel configuration • Intuition
• Reduction of tension • Sensitivity • Openness • flexibility • Excitement Verification
• Checking relevance and
effectiveness of novel configuration
• Appropriate solution
displaying relevance and effectiveness
• Desire for closure • Desire to achieve quality
• Hard-nosed sense of reality • Self-criticism • Satisfaction • Pride in oneself Communication • Achieving closure • Gaining feedback
• Workable product capable of
being made known to others
• Desire for recognition (intrinsic) • Desire for acclaim or reward
(extrinsic)
• Hard-nosed sense of reality • Self-criticism
• Satisfaction • Pride in oneself
Validation
• Judging relevance and
effectiveness
• Product acclaimed by relevant
judge (e.g. teacher)
• Desire for acclaim • Mastery drive
• Toughness • Flexibility
53
2.7.3 Engineering, creative thinking and PBL
Smith-Bingham (2006) argues that there are social and cultural elements that contribute to the consideration of creativity as a prized asset that stimulates innovation. Creativity is a key resource for individuals and societies that will enable us to make the most out of new opportunities, and to find the most productive response to challenges and threats. Most countries around the world share similar sentiment which underpins strategies that help build a dynamic, competitive, knowledge-based economy. Global resonance for innovation is focussed towards the speed at which the consumer demands and tastes are changing, and the increasing developments in technology and scientific understanding.
Creativity is increasingly being recognised as an essential attribute for engineers. In an engineering workplace, engineers are constantly presented with challenging problems that requires the use of new ideas, critical and creative thinking. The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development defines engineering as:
“The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behaviour under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property (ScienceDaily, 2008)”.
This also applies in Australia. Engineers Australia (Retrieved 13th May, 2005, p. 5) defines capacity for creativity and innovation under professional attributes in its Stage 1 competency requirements. The elements of this competency include:
• Readiness to challenge engineering practices from technical and non- technical viewpoints, to identify opportunities for improvement;
• Ability to apply creative approaches to identify and develop alternative concepts and procedures;
• Awareness of other fields of engineering and technology with which interfaces may develop, and openness to such interactions;
• Propensity to seek out, comprehend and apply new information, from
54
• Readiness to engage in wide-ranging exchanges of ideas, and
receptiveness to change (Engineers Australia, 2005).
Engineering educators are therefore also turning their attention to developing the creativity of their students.
2.7.4 Conditions that help foster creativity
In a recent radio interview, the President of Olin College in the USA argued that most school leavers who enter engineering degree courses often make their decision based on the grades that they obtained in mathematics and science and most of them do not realise that engineers are expected to work in teams and create innovative solutions to problems (ABC, 2008). Olin College therefore emphasises the development of creative thinking in its students by allowing them to undertake passionate pursuits (Kerns et al., 2006).
Most programs that foster creative thinking emphasise taking a holistic approach (Cropley, 2001a). While many techniques are recommended to help students generate new ideas, the most popular approach that is found in literature is the “brainstorming” technique (Osborn, 1963). Optimal brainstorming sessions allow for 15-20 minutes of individual thinking time and for participants to present their ideas to their facilitator anonymously on a piece of paper. All ideas are then openly discussed and in that process students are taught to withhold their judgement. Thus, the most common approach of seeking to criticise an idea or a process to argue why an ideas or process would not work is eliminated (Johansson, 2004; Osborn, 1963).
However, some studies suggest that due to evaluation apprehension and blocking, group creative problem-solving efforts involving brainstorming often led to the generation of fewer ideas in groups when compared to the ideas that were generated by participants in isolation (Borphy, 2006; Johansson, 2004). Other identified causes of failure to generate ideas include perceptual sets, conformity pressure, social loafing, distractions and members wasting time waiting to speak (Borphy, 2006). Collaboration is important for achieving creative outcomes in teams. Group success depends on team members being motivated to contribute what they can. When team
55 members are encouraged to co-operate (share resources and outcomes) with each other, competition between team members is eliminated (Borphy, 2006).
Problem-based approaches are often advocated to promote creative thinking in classrooms (Barell, 2005; Hamza & Griffith, 2006; Treffinger & McEwen, 1993). Despite this, there is little research into the integration of creative problem-solving with PBL. Studies conducted by Lumsdaine, Lumsdaine and Shelnutt (1999) and Treffinger and Isaksen (1994) are notable exceptions. Although there is a strong focus in many PBL programs on developing innovative thinking, teamwork, and communications in response to the needs of industry, there is scant empirical evidence to corroborate that PBL indeed promotes the learning of innovative thinking skills (Conway & Wynder, 2001). The study reported in this thesis is designed to make a contribution to this research area.