An Analysis of an Observational Study of

Creative Problem Solving for Primary Children

Copyright 1994 Kristin G. Puccio.

Used with permission of Kristin G. Puccio.

An Analysis of an Observational Study of

Creative Problem Solving

for Primary Children

by

Kristin G. Puccio

An Abstract of a Project in

Creativity and Innovation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

December 1994

State University College at Buffalo

Center for Studies in Creativity

ii

ABSTRACT OF PROJECT

The purpose of this project was to engage primary age children in real

life problem solving using CPS. This project field tested 12 lessons which

taught children CPS, then allowed them to use CPS to solve their own real

problems. This observational study addressed the following core question and

three sub-questions: (a) To what extent are primary grade children able to

engage in real life application (Level III) of CPS? (b) How might we document

that primary students know and apply four basic divergent tools and four

convergent tools of CPS? (c) How did the materials provided aid in teaching

primary grade students the application of CPS to real problems? and (d) In

what ways are CPS facilitation strategies modified when working with

primary grade children?

In order to answer these questions, qualitative data were collected from

the teacher, two observers, and the first grade students. The data came from

various feedback forms, logs, and video tapes. The data were analyzed

through qualitative tools and techniques i.e. memoing, matrices, and constant

comparisons.

The qualitative outcomes contained many themes which pertained to

each question. The research showed that the children were able to apply CPS

on real problems at varying degrees; children could apply seven out of the

eight divergent and convergent tools; the experiential materials were more

iii

successful than the lecture type activities; and the teacher needs to guide the

young children more than facilitate during the use of CPS.

Indicated are several limitations and recommendations for future

research. Key recommendations include involving the primary students in

research that will determine if the children can apply CPS on their own; and

gathering research to support the conclusion that it is more difficult for

primary children to apply convergent tools as opposed to divergent tools.

iv

State University College at Buffalo

Center for Studies in Creativity

An Analysis of an Observational Study of Creative Problem Solving

for Primary Children

by

Kristin G. Puccio

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science December 1994

Dates of Submission

Kristin G. Puccio

Dr. Donnald J. Treffinger Professor Center for Studies in Creativity Project Advisor

Dr. Scott G. Isaksen Professor and Director Center for Studies in Creativity Project Advisor

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project could not have been completed without the dedication of

several people. I especially would like to thank my advisors, Don Treffinger

and Scott Isaksen for their willingness to flex. They gave me an opportunity

to truly think and learn and pushed me when I needed it. Their expertise

added a tremendous amount to this project.

A special thank you to Mary Murdock. She gave of her time and advice.

She helped me to problem solve several of my challenges surrounding

qualitative analysis.

To my life long partner, Gerard, I thank you for your sacrifices. You

listened to my frustrations and gently encouraged me. I cherish your support.

Mom and dad, I am finally done. I love you both.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract of Prpject ii

Acknowledgments v

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables vii

Section 1: Statement of the Problem 1

Section 2: Review of the Literature 12

Section 3: Methodology 38

Section 4: The Results 49

Section 5: Summary and Conclusions 91

References 101

Appendix 108

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Research Question One Themes

Table 2: Motivation for using CPS 51

Table 3: Demonstrating and Communicating Ability to Use CPS 54

Table 4: Feelings about Applying CPS on Real Problems 58

Table 5: CPS Process 60

Table 6: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages 64

Table 7: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range 66

Table 8: Research Question Two Themes

Table 9: Themes Surrounding Research Question Two 68

Table 10: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages 72

Table 11: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range 72

Table 12: Criteria Checklist Data 74

Table 13: Research Question Three Themes

Table 14: Themes Research Question Three 76

Table 15: Additions Research Question Three 79

Table 16: Deletions Research Question Three 80

Table 17: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages 82

Table 18: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range 83

Table 19: Research Question Four Themes

Table 20: Themes Research Question Four 86

Table 21: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages 90

Table 22: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range 90

SECTION 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The overall goal of the project is to engage primary grade level children

in using Creative Problem Solving (CPS; Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 1994)

on real problems. This section presents the rationale for this project. The

rationale documents CPS as an effective problem solving process, considers

the need for real problem solving, presents evidence that primary children

have real problems, outlines ways to integrate CPS into school curricula, and

describes the importance of CPS instruction. This section ends with a

presentation of the formal statement of the problem.

Rationale

The rationale focuses on the effectiveness of CPS, the need for children

to engage in CPS to solve real problems, and provides evidence that children

have real problems. It introduces ways to integrate CPS into existing

curricula, so that introducing these skills does not require expanding the

curriculum. Last, the rationale discusses the importance of CPS instruction.

CPS is a well established and a widely used process. Torrance (1972)

reviewed 142 studies and concluded that CPS was one of the most effective

programs for teaching creative thinking. Later, Torrance (1987) reviewed 166

elementary/secondary and 76 college/adult studies and concluded again that

CPS was more successful than other creative thinking programs. Parnes

(1987) stated that students involved in an extensive educational program

based on CPS, called the Creative Studies Project (Parnes & Noller, 1972;

1973), were more capable of producing ideas and evaluating them than

subjects in a control group. Rose and Lin (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of

many studies and forecasted that CPS would produce better creative thinking

2

individuals than other programs. Therefore, past research has clearly

documented the effectiveness of CPS.

A review of instructional materials for primary grade children did not

identify any process framework for solving real problems. There is an

extensive array of published material for creative and critical thinking skills.

Existing resources, such as Eberle (1977) and Broomell and Griffin (1984),

present creative and critical thinking tools and techniques without a process

framework. Feldhusen and Treffinger (1985) and Treffinger, Cross,

Feldhusen, Isaksen, Remle and Sortore (1993) reviewed a number of

published thinking skills resources. Going beyond the creative and critical

thinking skills is necessary for decision-making and problem solving. Once

students are able to use thinking skills' tools to solve real problems and make

decisions, productive thinking is occurring (Treffinger, Feldhusen, & Isaksen,

1990). Some sources have been created to introduce primary students to CPS

(e.g., Duling, 1988; Eberle & Stanish, 1985). No published resources were

identified to help primary students deal with real problems using CPS.

Shaklee (1985) stated, "the review of the literature has also shown a lack of

problem solving curricula that are suitable for use with Kindergarten

students" (p. 6).

Knowing that there is a lack of instructional or curriculum resources

does not change the fact that in today's society children must deal with many

real situations that require problem solving. The experiences of the adult

caretaker sometimes dominate the child's life (Montessori, 1966); what

affects the adult affects the child. Examples of adult problems that may

affect the child are: divorce, alcoholism, poverty, mental or physical abuse,

and depression. Children also encounter personal opportunities that require

them to solve real problems, such as family relocation, starting school,

3

making friends and getting things they want or need. Although the primary

grade child does not experience situations at the same developmental level as

the adult, the child learns either to cope with the problem at his or her own

intellectual and social developmental level, or to refuse to deal with the

problem or ignore it (Bruner, 1966). Children may benefit from efforts to

teach them how to cope with these problems in ways that are developmentally

appropriate and realistic. If a child fails to understand the problem and

chooses to ignore it, she or he will not be able to solve it. Therefore, there is a

need to provide children with a process that will help them manage real

problems effectively.

Young children also experience their own real challenges. These

problems might involve the children themselves, their friends and family, or

experiences in their school, neighborhood, and community. Children's

concerns are usually with their immediate environment, how it affects them,

how they fit in, and how they can use the environment to get the things they

need or want. Montessori (1966) noted, "No one as of yet described the

obstacles which a child encounters of his conflicts with adults stronger than

himself who rule but fail to understand him" (p. 14).

Everyone has real problems. Real problems are challenges that delay

people from obtaining what they want or need in the future. Real problems

can also be opportunities for the future. Problems have owners. Owners of

problems are people affected by the decisions made to solve the problems.

Owners have the decision making power and responsibility in solving real

problems (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985; Treffinger & Isaksen, 1992; Isaksen,

Dorval & Treffinger, 1994). Real challenges rarely have set answers. Since

these problems do not have ready made answers, children cannot simply use

research skills to find solutions in books and other resources. Therefore,

4

children must become problem solvers. CPS provides a model that helps

people solve unstructured or open-ended problems (Treffinger & Isaksen,

1992; Isaksen, Dorval & Treffinger 1994). Thus, if primary grade children can

learn to use CPS, they will acquire a set of thinking skills within a structured

process that will help them to solve their problems.

Several children from grades K-2, in schools in Western New York

shared the following list of real challenges that they face themselves, with

their friends or family, at home or at school. Each challenge begins with the

stem, "Wouldn't it be nice if...".

Self

I could go to the zoo (K);

I could improve my drawing (Grade 1);

I could ride my bike (Grade 1);

I was able to read (Grade 1);

I was an artist (Grade 1);

I was better at school (Grade 1);

I had more time to play outside (Grade 1);

I could clean up my room in a flash (Grade 2);

I could read better (Grade 2); and

I could get super nintendo (Grade 2).

Friends

I could go to my friend's house (K);

I could run faster than another classmate (Grade 1); and

I could get along better with Kelly and Jill (fellow classmates)

(Grade 2).

5

School

we could go home now (during the school day) (K); and

we (the class) could go outside and play (K).

Family

I could get a dog (K);

I stopped fighting with my brothers (Grade 1);

I had my room all cleaned (Grade 1);

I did not have to do things for my brother (Grade 1);

I could love my mom more (Grade 1);

I could make my brothers be nice to me (Grade 2);

I could pick up my baby brother (Grade 2);

I did not get blamed for what my brother does (Grade 2);

I could get my brother off my back (Grade 2); and

I could help take care of my baby sister (Grade 2).

Neighborhood/Community

we could share (Grade 1);

we hugged one another (Grade 1);

everybody helped each other (Grade 1);

I could be safe (from city living) (Grade 2); and

I could learn karate (so people would stop beating me up) (Grade 2).

The categories (self, friends, school, family, neighborhood and

community) describe situations that are real problems for the students.

These real problems relate to the K-2 social studies curricula. These real

issues present an opportunity for the teacher to integrate CPS into the

existing social studies curriculum. CPS can help to enhance student learning

6

in established social studies curriculum outcomes, not only in the social

studies content but in the social studies skills also.

Ways to Integrate CPS into Curricula

There are a number of ways in which CPS can be integrated with

existing curricula. The teacher can use CPS as a tool for planning units or

lessons. Another use of CPS is as an organizational framework particularly

when the children are doing research projects. The children can use CPS to

organize, analyze and communicate their information throughout their

research project. Students can also apply CPS to help solve their own real

problems outside of the classroom. Individual students can use CPS with

cooperative groups in planning and completing class projects (Colucci, 1990;

Linderman, 1992).

An example of how to use CPS in a particular subject matter can be

taken from the New York State social studies curricula for the primary grade

levels. First, the kindergarten social studies curriculum focuses on self as a

growing individual (Bureau of Curriculum Development, 1982). The teacher

can aid the children in the use of CPS for individual purposes. The children

can discuss their concerns, aspirations and desires, or things they want to do

better. They can apply CPS successfully to all of these personal issues.

The first grade social studies curriculum deals with understanding

students' roles as members in a family unit and members of the school

community (Bureau of Curriculum Development, 1987). A sample lesson for

the first grade curriculum may start with an explanation of various roles in

the family unit. The instructor may follow this lesson by asking the children

to take a look at families in general. The children can share many things that

they think would help families in general work together better. As studies of

the family continue, the students can continue to use CPS as a way to discuss

7

family issues in general. This can lead directly into applications of CPS. By

applying CPS on a regular basis the children learn to find their own solutions

to different family issues.

In second grade, New York state expects children to broaden their

community understanding to rural, suburban and urban communities

(Bureau of Curriculum Development, 1987). The instructor could provide the

students with the necessary content information about different communities

and an understanding of numerous challenges many communities are facing

today. Then the class can discuss many of the challenges that their own

community is facing. The class continues to work together or in small groups

to decide which community issue they can take an active role in. At this point

the children are ready to use CPS. In the end the children are then

responsible (along with the teacher) for implementing their plan.

One may use CPS for developing skills. The New York State social

studies curriculum suggests that each lesson contain a skills component as

well as a content component. The broad skills noted by New York State are:

(a) getting information, (b) using information, (c) presenting information, (d)

participating in interpersonal and group relations, and (e) self-management

skills (Bureau of Curriculum Development, 1987). The state suggests the use

of a problem solving process as one way to assess or evaluate the students'

involvement.

The preceding examples illustrate several ways in which application of

CPS in the primary level curricula is possible. See appendix A for more

examples on how to tie CPS into the existing social studies curricula.

8

Importance of CPS Instruction

The importance of CPS instruction needs to be made explicit. There

are several reasons why it is important to teach CPS. CPS provides a

problem solving process which incorporates thinking skills. CPS provides a

common problem solving process language. CPS avoids confusion in thinking.

CPS strengthens metacognitive skills. Finally, CPS builds confidence in

children.

First, CPS provides a problem solving process which incorporates

thinking skills. More emphasis is placed on the importance of process skills

today. This is evident in New York State's New Compact for Learning (1991).

The teachers are now responsible "to model for children reasoned approaches

to problem solving..." (p. 9, The State Education Department, 1991). As the

notion of "basic skills" is expanding, educators will need to learn how to get

these skills into the curriculum. Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer (1991)

addressed the issue of what corporations and society are looking for in a new

employee. A few items added to the expanded list of needed "basic skills"

were creative thinking, problem solving, goal setting-motivation, and

teamwork (Carnevale, Gainer, & Meltzer, 1991). CPS is one example of how

to incorporate the added "basic skills" into the classroom. These added "basic

skills" are noted as being essential by society for individuals to succeed in the

work force.

CPS provides a common language on which to build problem-solving

skills. A common language is important for growth within the child's

environment to assist in solving problems (Bruner, 1966). The common

language provided by CPS presents two clear benefits. First, it provides clear

definitions and labels for problem-solving operations so that the child can

retrieve them when necessary. Second, the common language allows for easy

9

transition from grade level to grade level and on through adulthood. Teachers

may then easily monitor the children's progress. Maintaining consistency in

language terminology through the years supports a whole language approach

that eliminates the necessity to reteach the standard vocabulary associated

with CPS from year to year.

CPS helps avoid confusion in children's thinking. Not only is the

language for their thinking consistent but the process is consistent as well.

CPS may act as a process organizer for problem-solving skills. Once the

involvement of children is on various CPS challenges or opportunities, they

can organize their thoughts.

When children apply CPS to different problems, they are thinking

about their thinking. Children then begin to recognize situations that would

benefit from the use of CPS. They can monitor themselves and their own

problem solving. Children may then choose to use particular tools or

techniques associated with CPS. At this point CPS strengthens children's

metacognitive skills.

Last, CPS builds confidence in children. Problem solving can be

troublesome. Successful use of CPS by children can build confidence in

children's problem-solving skills.

The rationale presented that children do have real problems, and that

they would benefit from the use of CPS to help them solve some of their real

problems. The writer provided examples of how to incorporate CPS into the

existing curricula, and noted that New York State agreed with the need to

include these skills. The writer also addressed the importance of CPS

instruction.

10

Formal Statement of the Problem

CPS has been used successfully with adults, high school grade children

and intermediate grade children. Not much is known about the use of CPS

with primary grade children, especially in relation to using CPS to solve real

problems. Development efforts have been minimal in the area of helping

primary children learn and apply CPS. Research and development efforts in

this area will contribute to continuous improvement of the CPS process.

This project addressed the following research questions about primary

grade children and CPS:

Core Question

To what extent are primary grade children able to engage in real life

application (Level III) of CPS?

Related Sub-Questions

1. How might we document that primary students know and apply four

basic divergent tools and four convergent tools of CPS?

2. How did the materials provided aid in teaching primary grade

students the application of CPS to real problems?

3. In what ways are CPS facilitation strategies modified when

working with primary grade children?

Puccio and Keller-Mathers (in preparation) developed materials to help

teachers facilitate CPS successfully with primary children. The materials are

appropriate for the developmental level of primary children. This project

involved the field-testing and evaluation of those materials, assessing the

ability of primary children to understand the CPS process, and to help the

teacher facilitate CPS with young children. Based on the feedback from the

11

participants in the study, the current materials will be further developed and

refined.

There were four research questions. There was one core question and

three sub-questions all related to primary grade children and their ability to

engage in real problem solving.

Summary

This section presented the rationale for engaging primary children in

real problem solving. The writer summarized evidence that primary children

do experience real problems, presented ways to integrate CPS into the

existing curricula, and described the importance of CPS instruction. Finally,

the writer stated the specific research questions for this project.

12

SECTION 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This section reviews the definition of productive thinking,

metacognition, and learning strategies, discusses programs available for

teaching productive thinking, and presents the historical background of

Creative Problem Solving (CPS). Next this section discusses the link between

CPS and productive thinking, metacognition and learning strategies. This

link shows how the use of CPS with primary children may enhance children's

productive thinking. Finally, the writer reviews literature pertaining to the

development of productive thinking in general and in primary grade children.

This review demonstrates that CPS, as linked to productive thinking, helps

children solve real problems.

What is Productive Thinking?

This subsection defines productive thinking, metacognition, and

learning strategies. It also demonstrates how metacognition and learning

strategies are a part of productive thinking. In particular, it provides an

understanding of the terms used throughout this study.

Productive thinking is a term used to encompass a variety of thinking

functions. Treffinger, Cross, Feldhusen, Isaksen, Remle, and Sortore (1993)

stated:

Productive thinking includes: gathering, organizing and analyzing information; generating ideas; refining and testing ideas; making inferences, deductions, choices and decisions; finding and solving problems; continuously monitoring, reflecting and evaluating; and implementing decisions and action plans (p.15).

13

Productive thinking takes into account the need for positive attitudes

and behavior geared towards thinking (Treffinger, et al. 1993). Marzano,

Pickering, Arredondo, Blackburn, Brandt, and Moffett (1992) also addressed

the importance of productive habits of mind in the Dimensions of Learning

program. Marzano et. al. developed five dimensions of thinking termed the

five dimensions of learning. The fifth dimension is productive habits of mind.

Productive habits of mind include creative thinking, critical thinking and self

regulation. They deemed productive habits of mind to be the most important

dimension of thinking because it intermixes with all of the dimensions.

The organization and structure of productive thinking (Treffinger,

Feldhusen, & Isaksen, 1990) has three levels. The three levels are the

foundations, the "tool" skills, and the complex methods. The complex

methods level represents the highest level of productive thinking.

Each level of productive thinking includes two or more sub-parts. The

foundation includes knowledge base, motivational elements, and

metacognitive controls. The second level, the "tool" skills, includes creative

thinking and critical thinking. The last level, complex methods, incorporates

problem solving and decision-making.

Wertheimer (1959) explained productive thinking as going beyond

recall, drill, and trail and error responses. Wertheimer suggested that

productive thinking is thinking and producing genuine ideas that help to solve

problems. He also noted that one would recognize productive thinking when it

was occurring. It would be different from the tradition view of thought.

Ojemann (1965) reviewed Wertheimer's work and stated, "It appears

Wertheimer was using the phrase 'productive thinking' to refer to that kind of

attack on a problem which results in something that proves helpful in solving

14

it or that proves to be a direct, significant step toward ultimate solution" (p.

73-74).

Developing productive thinking also involves learning and using

metacognitive skills. Metacognition is part of the first component of

productive thinking. It is thinking about one's thinking. Chipman and Segal

(1985) wrote, "...metacognition (is) the study of individuals' knowledge of,

awareness of, and control of their own cognitive processes" (p. 7). Polson and

Jeffries (1985) defined metacognition as "...conscious awareness of oneself as

a problem solver" (p. 425). Metacognition is being able to make appropriate

decisions of what cognitive process would be advantageous to use during a

given situation. Productive thinking includes the continuous understanding of

individual thought processes.

Another topic needing discussion when focusing on productive thinking

is learning strategies. Dansereau (1985) defined learning strategies as "a set

of processes or steps that can facilitate the acquisition, storage, and/or

utilization of information" (p. 210). Dansereau further characterized learning

strategies into four dimensions:

1. A strategy may have direct impact on the target information, or it

may have an indirect impact by generally improving the level of the learner's

cognitive functioning.

2. A strategy may be algorithmic or it may be heuristic.

3. Strategies may differ with respect to the scope of the task they are

designed to accomplish.

4. Strategies may differ in the degree to which they are specialized for

particular tasks (p.210).

Weinstein and Underwood (1985) argued that, "the term learning

strategies is used in a very broad sense to identify a number of different

15

competencies that researchers and practitioners have postulated as

necessary, or helpful, for effective learning and retention of information for

later use" (p. 241). Productive thinking includes the organization and use of

information, and so includes learning strategies.

This subsection defined productive thinking, and related metacognition

and learning strategies to productive thinking. The writer will relate

productive thinking to problem solving subsequently in this section. The next

section will look at productive thinking programs particularly the published

material that focuses on basic creative and critical thinking strategies.

Productive Thinking Instructional Programs

for Varied Age Levels

Productive thinking programs may be found for use with students of all

ages. This subsection will focus on published productive thinking programs

available. Although there are many programs available for the primary age

group, there appears to be a lack of material for teaching problem solving

processes with primary children.

The 55 programs evaluated by Treffinger et. al. (1992) ranged from

Kindergarten level to senior high. Many of the programs reviewed were

developed for use across multiple grade levels. Twenty-two programs were

intended for primary children, 47 programs for the intermediate level, and 47

programs geared at junior and senior high. There were only 12 programs that

were either entirely or in major part focused on primary grades including

kindergarten, first grade and second grade. Some of these 12 programs

include third and fourth grade. Most authors developed programs for use

across all grades, K - 12. This means that instructors must adapt the

16

program to fit their particular age group. Adaptation of programs for specific

grade levels can be time consuming and very difficult.

Most programs focus principally on aspects of productive thinking other

than real problem solving; few reach the complex methods level. The writer's

present focus is on problem solving, with emphasis on real life problem

solving with primary children.

In the current literature, many books support the teaching and learning

of CPS for adults, high school grade children and intermediate grade children

but very few for primary grade children. For example; Firestien (1988);

Isaksen (1992); Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger (1994); Isaksen and Treffinger

(1985); and Treffinger and Isaksen (1992) addressed all Levels of the Creative

Learning Model for adults, while Davis (1992) shared Level I tools within a

broad introduction to creativity.

Examples of Level II activities for the intermediate and secondary

grades include Deutsch (1985); Duling (1989); Eberle and Stanish (1984);

Elwell (1990); and Stanish and Eberle (1978).

No existing resources were located for engaging young children in real

problem solving. Materials are needed in the primary area that deal with

specific skills for facilitating and teaching CPS at Level III.

This subsection contended that although many programs were

available to aid in developing productive thinking, there has been a lack of

programs designed for specific age groups and of adaptions of CPS for primary

use to solve real problems.

Historical Background of the Componential View of CPS

This subsection reviews the development of CPS, its historical

background and the changes made throughout the years.

17

Osborn (1953) introduced CPS as a seven step process: (a) Orientation,

(b) Preparation, (c) Analysis, (d) Hypothesis, (e) Incubation, (f) Synthesis, and

(g) verification. Later, Osborn (1963) revised the seven step process into a

three step process: (a) Fact-Finding, (b) Idea-Finding, and (c) Solution-

Finding. Osborn described CPS as a process that needed imagination, and

effort to produce creative solutions. Fact-Finding contained two elements,

problem-definition and preparation. Problems were formed in many different

ways and from varied sources. At times certain occupations raised problems.

Sometimes problems fell upon people. Occasionally, people looked for

problems to solve. It was during Fact-Finding, whatever the problem, that the

problem solver determined if creative effort was necessary to find a solution.

Osborn (1963) argued, "It must be remembered that while every problem for

creative attack is expressed as a question, not every question poses a problem

for creative attack" (p. 97). Once a problem was well defined, collection of the

data surrounding the problem needed to be analyzed.

The next stage in CPS was Idea-Finding. Osborn believed that this

was the stage that most people ignored. He defined Idea-Finding as idea-

production and idea-development. Osborn suggested that producing ideas

was difficult, he believed there was a need to spend deliberate time

generating ideas. If one generated ideas deliberately it would reduce the

production of ideas by accident. Because idea-production was difficult,

Osborn created a technique called brainstorming to aid in producing ideas.

After producing the ideas, development of the ideas that needed refining or

improvement began.

Solution-Finding followed Idea-Finding. Solution-Finding contained

two elements. The first was evaluation. When evaluating a solution, the

problem solver tested to see if the solutions worked. Next, the problem solver

18

made a decision on which solution to implement. Osborn named this

adoption.

During the 1960s Parnes extended and developed Osborn's CPS

process. Parnes (1967) elaborated on Osborn's model. He added two stages,

Problem-Finding and Acceptance-Finding. The CPS process then contained

the five following stages: (a) Fact-Finding, (b) Problem-Finding (c) Idea-

Finding, (d) Solution-Finding, and (e) Acceptance-Finding (Noller, Parnes, &

Biondi, 1976). This approach came to be known as the Osborn-Parnes CPS

Model.

The Problem-Finding stage was part of the Fact-Finding stage in the

original Osborn model. Parnes noted that Problem-Finding was significant

enough to add a stage dedicated to problem definition exclusively. Fact-

Finding now pertained only to collecting data.

Acceptance-Finding derived from Osborn's original Solution-Finding.

Again Parnes noted that it was a crucial part of the CPS process; therefore he

made the implementation of solutions a separate stage. Parnes also

highlighted the need for acceptance of the solution by others, and thus created

Acceptance-Finding. Solution-Finding remained as refining and further

developing ideas into workable solutions.

Parnes, Noller, and Biondi (1977) noted the need for dynamic balance

in the CPS process, referring to the dynamic balance between imagination

and judgment. This dynamic balance sparked an important refinement in the

CPS process made by Isaksen and Treffinger (1985): the explicit inclusion of

diverging and converging in each CPS stage.

Isaksen and Treffinger further refined CPS to include another stage.

They added an initial stage called Mess-Finding and renamed the Fact-

Finding stage, Data-Finding. Thus the CPS process now included six stages

19

with a diverging and converging phase in each. The six stages were: (a) Mess-

Finding, (b) Data-Finding, (c) Problem-Finding, (d) Idea-Finding, (e) Solution-

Finding, and (f) Acceptance-Finding.

Mess-Finding consisted of determining a challenge or challenges in

which CPS would be an effective process to use. Mess-Finding focused on

influence, interest, and imagination of the problem solver for specific

challenges. Making Mess-Finding an explicit stage allowed for individuals to

determine messes that would be appropriate to apply CPS.

Data-Finding now followed Mess-Finding. Isaksen and Treffinger

changed "fact" to "data" for several reasons. Most prominently, the term

"data" suggested the collection of information around a challenge. The

language barrier produced by Fact-Finding ("is it really a fact?") constrained

the information search. The word data helped problem solvers to include all

types of information more freely, including feelings and emotions.

Subsequently, Isaksen and Treffinger separated the stages into

components (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1991). Mess-Finding, Data-Finding and

Problem-Finding were grouped into a component called Understanding the

Problem. An Idea Generating component included the Idea-Finding stage.

Solution-Finding and Acceptance-Finding were grouped to form the

component Planning for Action. This organization of the stages into

components helped people in describing the major actions that took place

during the CPS stages.

After the development of the components and stages, researchers began

identifying challenges concerning the linear graphic representation of the CPS

process. Through practice, they also observed that people did not always use

every component or stage for every challenge. This lead to further research on

the use of CPS. Pershyn (1992) conducted a study on the natural problem

20

solving process of individuals in which subjects drew or diagrammed their

natural problem solving process. The study showed that most of the

processes were not always linear. When using a process, people often pursued

unique and varied pathways. Consequently, Isaksen, Dorval and Treffinger

(1994) identified the need to depict CPS as a more natural, flexible process.

Isaksen et. al. (1994) noted that problem solving does not always occur in the

same manner for different problems. This new approach to CPS allows for

greater flexibility in selecting and using CPS components and stages. It

depicts CPS as a descriptive framework rather than as a prescriptive model.

In a prescriptive model each stage must be used in its entirety from start to

finish. A descriptive approach allows individuals or groups to apply the

appropriate component, or stage within a component, that will best help to

solve the problem at hand. This approach can be described as a

Componential View of CPS (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 1994).

Additionally, the Componential View of CPS led to clarification of a

preparatory stage of work. The preparation period, called "Task Appraisal"

allows the problem solver to identify when and where problem solving may be

necessary (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 1994). Task appraisal is

"identifying the important and relevant dimensions of a task to determine

your approach and appropriateness for using CPS" (Isaksen, Dorval, &

Treffinger, 1994 p. 390).

Summary

The CPS framework used in this study originated with Osborn's three

step process. The writer also reviewed the Osborn-Parnes model, along with

developments by Parnes, Noller, and Biondi. Isaksen and Treffinger further

refined and expanded the CPS model. Most recently, Isaksen, Dorval and

Treffinger contributed new directions to help CPS to be used as a flexible,

21

descriptive problem solving process. The overview provided gives an

understanding of CPS and how it relates to productive thinking. The next

section will describe relationships among CPS, productive thinking,

metacognition, and learning strategies.

Link Between CPS, Productive Thinking, Metacognition,

and Learning Strategies

This subsection relates CPS, productive thinking, metacognition, and

learning strategies. The purpose of describing the links among these concepts

is to create a foundation for exploring the use of CPS with primary grade

children.

Problem solving is one major focus of the highest level of productive

thinking, complex methods. CPS can enhance productive thinking,

particularly in the component complex methods of the Productive Thinking

Model. Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger (1994) referred to CPS "as a specific

problem-solving framework...or as the Componential Approach to Creative

Problem Solving" (p. 31). CPS requires creative and critical thinking-skills;

involves generating ideas; refining and testing ideas; finding and solving

problems; continuously monitoring, reflecting and evaluating; and

implementing decisions and action plans. These functions of CPS are parts of

productive thinking. In comparing the two, some parallels appear. Each

function in productive thinking matched with a stage or component of the CPS

process.

22

Productive Thinking Creative Problem Solving

finding problems; Mess Finding, Understanding the

Problem;

gathering, organizing, and analyzing Data Finding, Understanding the

information; Problem;

generating ideas; Idea Finding, Generating Ideas;

Solution Finding, Planning for Action;

refining and testing ideas; Acceptance Finding, Planning for

Action;

implementing decisions and action Convergent phase of each stage; and

plans. Creative Problem Solving process.

continuously evaluating; and

solving problems.

The Componential View of CPS makes explicit the need for task

appraisal. Task appraisal entails metacognition; it refers to the initial

decision of whether or not the use of CPS would be advantageous. When

conducting task appraisal , one looks at four elements which will best aid in

making this decision: the personal orientation, the desired outcomes, the

situational outlook, and CPS methodology (p. 137, Isaksen, Dorval, &

Treffinger; 1994). If using CPS is appropriate the next step is to do process

planning. Process planning involves making decisions about which component

and stage would be best for the given situation. Without clearly thinking

about one's thinking CPS would not be as helpful. CPS, in particular task

appraisal and process planning , clearly entails metacognition.

23

The last link is between CPS and learning strategies. Dansereau

(1985) defined learning strategies as "a set of processes or steps that can

facilitate the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of information" (p. 210).

One may use CPS as a learning strategy. First and foremost CPS is a process

framework that aids people in solving problems. Second, CPS can help

organize data, and facilitate the utilization of information for research

projects. CPS may function as a process that helps children acquire and

organize data, particularly in the Understanding the Problem component.

This review described productive thinking and learning strategies, and

demonstrated the relevance of CPS as a useful way of representing those

constructs for children in the primary grades.

Developing Productive Thinking

Evidence of the ability to teach productive thinking is available. There

are many techniques available to develop thinking. These techniques are

conscious, knowable and teachable (Davis, 1992).

Treffinger et. al. (1993) evaluated 55 instructional programs used to

develop productive thinking, using 15 specific criteria to analyze each

program. The criteria were developed to help consumers analyze or evaluate

programs and choose appropriate resources for their setting. The programs

reviewed many different aspects of productive thinking.

Productive thinking involves many skills. Some researchers contested

that one must and can develop skills. Torrance (1979) noted, "all skills have

to be developed by direct, deliberate attention. The best type of attention is

practice" (p. 14). Dewey (1933) suggested development of reflective thinking

skills. Treffinger, Feldhusen and Isaksen (1990) noted "...effective thinking is

24

much more than just mechanically carrying out a single action or a string of

actions - it is complex, deliberate, and purposeful" (p. 6).

Since creativity is a part of productive thinking, one concludes that

creativity research supports the development of productive thinking. Osborn

(1953) stated, that "this talent (creativity) can be developed is beyond

question. Psychologists long ago accepted the tenet that any primary ability

can be trained..." (p. 69). Isaksen (1987) contended, "much of the emphasis

regarding the creative process involves the teaching or training of explicit

methods and techniques in order to help solve problems and think more

effectively" (p.12). Isaksen, Puccio, and Treffinger (1993) argued, "creativity is

not just something that happens to people; it is actively and deliberately

employed, monitored, and managed. Creativity can be enhanced and

nurtured" (p. 158).

Torrance believed that creativity could be taught and developed.

Torrance contended that creativity involved skills and anyone can use or

practice any skill. Torrance (1972) stated, "I know that it is possible to teach

children to think creatively and that it can be done in a variety of ways" (p.

114). Torrance reviewed 142 studies of various programs used to develop

creativity skills. He determined the success rate of the various programs on

teaching creativity. Many programs gained a successful rating in teaching

creativity. The CPS approach and/or modifications of the program rated the

most successful. Thus, Torrance concluded that one could teach and learn

creativity.

A recent study conducted with 56 engineering students determined if

they could be trained to think more creatively. Clapham and Schuster (1992)

discovered "...that creativity training can be effective beyond childhood" (p.

160).

25

Several researchers have conducted studies to test the effectiveness of

teaching productive thinking, particularly CPS. Parnes and Noller (1972)

carried out an extensive study of CPS, called the Creative Studies Project,

that supports this theory. At the end of the Creative Studies Project,

participants commented that they increased their creative production as a

result of the college courses. The statistical findings showed significant

increases in creative potential for the experimental subjects over the control

subjects on a number of creativity measures. In particular, students in the

course were able to deal with real-life situations better than the control group,

and students enrolled in the course used their creative abilities significantly

better than controls on tests in English courses. Parnes (1987) noted,

"...creative abilities can be developed by deliberate programs and methods"

(p. 156).

One model used to develop CPS is the Creative Learning Model

(Treffinger & Isaksen, 1992). The Creative Learning Model is a metacognitive

model that deals with specific skills, processes and the application of these

skills and processes within real life challenges. Movement may occur between

and among the following three levels: (a) Level I: Learn and use basic

thinking "tools"; (b) Level II: Learning and practicing CPS; and (c) Level III:

Working with real problems (problems that exist for the individual involved).

Each level has specific goals and roles for the learner and the teacher.

The basis for Level I activities is the teaching of basic tools and

techniques that may assist the learner in creative and critical thinking.

Creative thinking is generating many options; a term often used

synonymously with divergent thinking. Critical thinking is the analysis,

refinement, and evaluation of ideas. A term often used synonymously with

26

convergent thinking is critical thinking, analyzing and refining possibilities.

One teaches these tools and skills one at a time and outside of real problems.

Some examples of Level I creative thinking skills are: brainstorming,

brainwriting, forced relationships, attribute listings, and visual identifying

relationships.

Some examples of Level I critical thinking skills are: highlighting,

ALU, Paired Compared Analysis, solution finding matrix, and assisters and

resisters.

During Level I, the role of the teacher emphasizes direct instruction in

the skills and making sure the guidelines are being followed. The teacher is

also responsible for ensuring that the learner understands whether the tool or

technique is a creative thinking skill or a critical thinking skill. The teacher

directs the students in relation to content and process decisions, in order to

promote the learning of the tools and techniques. Once the teacher presents

the basic skills, he/she may provide an array of activities that will allow the

students to practice the use of the tools and techniques. The individual

students then have the opportunity to choose an activity that will be of

interest to them.

The role of the learner is participating in activities that will

experientially provide the directions and guidelines for each tool or technique.

The learner needs to practice and eventually know how to use each tool or

technique independently. The teacher needs to be a part of this evaluation.

Once it is apparent that the child can use the skills independently, the

teacher and the learner may proceed to Level II.

Level II activities introduce the components, stages, and language of

CPS and present the CPS process through practice. Application of CPS occurs

27

through practice problems either make-believe or realistic. It is during Level

II that the learner begins to apply and practice CPS for the first time.

During Level II, the learner's role involves commitment, understanding

and responsibility. The learner starts to recognize his/her strengths in using

specific tools or techniques within the CPS process.

The teacher leads the learner through the CPS process and stages. It is

during Level II that the teacher introduces the three component, six stage CPS

process. At this point, the teacher connects the tools and techniques learned

in Level I to the CPS process. The learner begins to use the tools and

techniques within the components and stages of CPS through contrived

practice problems.

A contrived problem consists of a starting point that needs work. This

example already provides the Understanding the Problem component. Here

is an example of a contrived primary grade problem: Mess: Wouldn't it be

nice if you were not afraid to ride the bus to school? Data: Your parents work

daily and cannot drive you to school. You live six miles from school. Several

boys pick on you on the bus. Problem: In what ways might you make riding

the bus easier? The teacher now allows the learners to practice using the

different components and stages.

Discussions about the components and stages are common.

Discussions may include what tools are appropriate to use, how to determine

which component or stage would be best to use, when does one diverge or

converge, who is responsible for doing what while using CPS, and why

particular tools, stages, or components work best for different situations.

After the teacher presents the process and discusses the many facets of CPS,

the teacher now leads the learners through the process many times using

many different contrived situations. These discussions and the practice

28

problems give the learners the opportunity to become familiar with and

understand each component and stage.

Once the teacher assesses that the learners are familiar enough with

the CPS process, and the children have enough practice in all components, the

transition to Level III begins. What will occur is a change in the content used

in the process. The problem is no longer contrived. The challenge now

becomes twofold: (a) content is a real problem of the individual learners, and

(b) the CPS process is being facilitated.

The goal for the learner is to be able to use CPS effectively , and to

become independent Creative Problem Solvers -- people who can apply the

CPS process to real life challenges. Level III focuses on bringing the learner to

that level. The learner is able to solve his/her own problems. This is not to

say that the learner must work alone, without the teacher or other resources;

rather the learner understands where he/she is within the CPS process when

a real situation arises. He/she also knows what tools or techniques to use in

order to help solve that problem.

The teacher now must take on the role of facilitator. This will alleviate

the responsibility of the process for the student. The facilitator is responsible

for making the decisions about how to use the CPS process, while the learner

provides the real life problem that needs attention. The facilitator guides the

learner in choosing various creative or critical thinking tools effectively and in

assessing the appropriate components to use.

The role of the learner is as a client or resource group member.

Treffinger and Isaksen (1992) identified a client as "the person (or,

sometimes, the group) who owns the problem" (p. 88). The client is then

responsible for implementing the plan developed in the CPS session.

Treffinger and Isaksen (1992) defined the resource group members as "all the

29

people who have agreed to participate in the CPS session ...Their primary role

is to participate actively in the diverging phase of each CPS stage" (p. 88).

Treffinger and Isaksen (1992) defined real problems as "situations that

you really care about; you feel strongly about them, and you want to be able to

solve. You intend, without any doubt, to put the solutions to work and carry

out your Plan of Action" (p. 94). Renzulli (1982) proposed the following four

characteristics of a real problem:

1. A real problem must have a personal frame of reference, since it

involves an emotional or affective commitment as well as an intellectual or

cognitive one.

2. A real problem does not have an existing or unique solution.

3. Calling something a problem does not necessarily make it a real

problem for a given person or group.

4. The purpose of pursuing a real problem is to bring about some form

of change and/or to contribute something new to the sciences, the arts, or the

humanities (p. 149).

The writer cited numerous theorists as supporting the ability of people

to develop productive thinking. Specific studies confirmed that productive

thinking can be developed. The writer defined the Creative Learning Model

and real problems. These definitions set a framework the teaching and

learning of CPS with primary grade children.

Unique Challenges at the Primary Level

Can we develop all levels of productive thinking with primary children?

This question raises some issues. Some theorists claim that primary

children are not developmentally capable of conducting productive thinking.

Other theorists propose that children of a primary grade are very capable

30

particularly when they work with others. The writer presents research and

theory that supports the notion that primary grade children can indeed

develop productive thinking.

Some prior researchers conducted studies to determine whether or not

young children are developmentally capable of productive thinking. Shaklee

(1985) reviewed a number of studies and found that problem-solving behavior

existed in young children.

Specifically, Shaklee conducted a study to determine if using CPS with

kindergarten students increased their problem solving ability. She set up two

experimental groups of 43 children and 2 control groups of 40 children. The

kindergarten experimental groups received 30 minute lessons three times a

week for six weeks on CPS. Shaklee gave pre- and posttests to all groups.

The results showed the experimental group had more gains in problem solving

in comparison with the control group. The Shaklee (1985) indicated, "...an

educationally significant impact on problem solving skill acquisition when

using creative problem solving techniques with kindergarten children" (p. 60).

Three other researchers addressed the relationship between the family,

specifically the mothers, and the creative potential of preschool children

(Bomba, Moran, & Goble, 1991; Goble, Moran, & Bomba, 1991). They

conducted two different studies. One study focused on the effects of the family

on the creative potential of their preschool children (Bomba, Moran, & Goble,

1991). Bomba et. al. found that families with the preschool children who were

less structured tended to have preschool children who used more original

thinking than families with preschool children who have more structure. The

other study focused on the effects of the mothers on the development of

ideational fluency in their preschool children (Goble, Moran, & Bomba, 1991).

The Goble et. al. concluded that the mothers who controlled their children's

31

physical movement less and gave less visual cues had children with more

ideational fluency.

Both of these studies noted that preschool children's development of

creative potential can be influenced by the family.

There are disagreements among theorists regarding whether or not one

can accelerate the development of mental functions of young children in social

situations, and if so, how, and by how much.

Piaget, a developmental theorist, held the view that young children

develop productive thinking at their own pace, and should be permitted to do

so naturally. He was skeptical of the possibility of accelerating development

in an meaningful way, and moreover, found very little need or justification in

efforts to do so.

Piaget (1964) asserted that development came before learning. The

question: "whether or not the development of stages in children's thinking

could be accelerated by practice, training and exercise in perception and

memory?" (1964, p. 20) was posed to Piaget.

Piaget (1964) responded, "In exercising perception and memory, I feel

that you will reinforce the figurative aspect without touching the operative

aspect. Consequently, I'm not sure that this will accelerate the development

of cognitive structures" (p. 20). Again Piaget noted that accelerating

development was not possible.

Piaget's (1976) developmental theory contained four stages: (a)

sensori-motor stage, (b) pre-operational stage, (c) concrete operations, and (d)

formal operations. These four stages happen in order and each new stage

encompassed the previous stage's components (Rosen, 1977).

The preoperational stage represents the level of most children in the

primary grades. Children in primary school usually range from age five to

32

seven. He approximated the span of the preoperational stage to range

generally between the ages of two through age six and one-half or seven.

Although substantial variability will always be found; chronological age and

development stages are not identical. In describing the preoperational stage,

Piaget noted several skills that children between two and seven were able to

do. The children used imitation; used symbolic acts; applied thought about

far away spaces (beyond their existing space); and accounted for the past and

future (Piaget, 1976).

Piaget's focus was on the child as an individual. According to Piaget

(1973), his developmental theory depended on the notion that children learn

the various functions at particular stages through solitary play.

Bruner was also a developmental theorist, yet he believed that one

could accelerate development. In fact, Bruner contended that development

could be accelerated if children were exposed to the necessary language tools.

Bruner's (1966) theory was comprised of three developmental stages:

enactive, iconic and symbolic. Bruner concerned himself with the

representation of stimuli. The enactive stage referred to representation

through action. Bruner (1966) noted, "In earliest childhood events and objects

are defined in terms of the action taken toward them" (p. 13). Thus the child

who was in the enactive stage could develop representation of objects by

seeing them or interacting with the objects. The iconic stage referred to

development through the use of pictures or diagrams. "Images develop an

autonomous status, they become great summarizers of action" (p.13, Bruner,

1966). The child who was in the iconic stage could represent stimuli and

understand it not only by seeing it but by using pictures or diagrams. The

child could now recognize objects and things that were not physically present.

In the final stage, symbolic, the child was able to represent thoughts, objects,

33

and stimuli through the use of language. Representation was through

symbols, (commonly words). So the stages formed a sequence: physical

representation first, next pictorial representation, and last linguistic

representation. Development occurred to the point where children were

capable of representing things that they could not see either physically or

from a picture.

Therefore, it was through the use of language that Bruner saw the

possibility of children accelerating their learning. Intellectual growth

depended on the interaction of children with the adults of the same culture

(Bruner, 1966). Within this interaction the children could develop the

language necessary to grow. This language came from the adult. Bruner

stated, "What I have said suggests that mental growth is in very considerable

measure dependent upon growth from the outside in -- a mastering of

techniques that are embodied in the culture and that are passed on in a

contingent dialogue by agents of the culture" (p. 21).

Out of Dewey's Pedagogic Creed, Bruner (1979) noted, "All education

proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of

the race. This process begins unconsciously almost at birth, and is

continually shaping the individual's powers, saturating his consciousness,

forming his habits, training his ideas, and arousing his feelings and

emotions" (p. 113). This social interaction began prior to the primary grades

and was necessary for accelerating growth.

Vygotsky was another theorist who dealt with social origins and social

nature of higher mental functioning and his uses of culture. Vygotsky

believed that understanding mental functioning of an individual could only be

done by studying the social context in which the functioning occurred (Wertsch

& Tulviste, 1992).

34

Vygotsky produced a "general genetic law of cultural development".

This law held that children learn higher mental functions first in social

contexts, than in individual contexts. Vygotsky (1981) wrote, "Any function in

the child's cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it

appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it

appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within

the child as an intrapsychological category...Social relations or relations

among people genetically underlie all higher functions and their

relationships" (p. 163). He viewed these mental functions as processes that

groups could do collectively.

Vygotsky proceeded to identify the concept of the zone of proximal

development. This zone defined a child's problem-solving skills development

within in the context of a social setting. Wertsch and Tulviste (1992) stated,

"This zone is defined as the distance between a child's 'actual developmental

level as determined by independent problem solving' and the higher level of

'potential development as determined through problem solving under adult

guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers' (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)"

(p. 549).

In relation to the zone of proximal development Vygotsky argued that it

was more important to aim the teaching of children at what their potential

mental functions were than their actual mental functions. He also

emphasized the need to measure children's potential development (Wertsch &

Tulviste, 1992). Using the zone of proximal development allowed the

instructor to aid in the future development of the child. It allowed for possible

acceleration of development.

In more contemporary language, one can relate the zone of proximal

development to having a vision. If a person holds a vision they first assess

35

where they are and then where they want to be. Within the zone, the

instructor first knows where each individual child is in relation to mental

functioning, but also knows where potential growth is accessible. If one

continually practices that potential growth with peers and teachers, in time

the child may add specific mental functions to his/her actual development.

Thus if the child adds the mental function to a his/her actual development,

the proximal development must change.

Resnick also supported the notion that primary grade children can

engage in productive thinking specifically when done socially and with the use

of language. Resnick addressed language as one example of a tool that can

aid in socially shared cognition. One could not separate one's environment

from what goes on in the mind. Resnick (1991) pointed out, "People also build

their knowledge structures on the basis of what they are told by others, orally,

in writing, in pictures and in gestures. Our daily lives are filled with

instances in which we influence each other's constructive processes by

providing information, pointing things out to one another, asking questions,

and arguing with and elaborating on each other's ideas" (p. 2).

In another work Resnick (1989) argued, "The Thinking Curriculum calls

for a recognition that all real learning involves thinking, that thinking ability

can be nurtured and cultivated in everyone, and that the entire educational

program must be received and revitalized so that thinking pervades students'

lives from kindergarten onward..." (p. 2).

Resnick's view concurred with Wertheimer's position that children

could engage in productive thinking. Wertheimer (1959) noted that

particularly one can find productive thinking in children and that while

engaged in productive thinking that children actually enjoyed it. He

suggested that children are already engaged in productive thinking. He

36

contested that the earlier the introduction of these tools and techniques the

better the productive thinkers.

The present writer described the ability to develop productive thinking

in primary children . Programs and books were listed that aided in teaching

and developing productive thinking, some of these directly related to CPS.

The writer provided varying viewpoints about the development of productive

thinking in primary children. The first viewpoint focused on Piaget and the

notion that children develop mental functions when they are ready. Later,

Bruner, Vygotsky, and Resnick focused on how language and the social context

affect the child in developing higher mental functions. Last, Wertheimer

reassured that children are already doing productive thinking.

Summary

In this section, the writer defined productive thinking; discussed were

programs available to teach productive thinking; and provided was an

overview of CPS development. Next, the writer linked CPS with productive

thinking, metacognition, and learning strategies; shared results of studies

concerned young children; and presented research to support that one can

develop productive thinking. More specific research pointed out the varying

theoretical views of the ability to develop productive thinking in primary

children. Considering both theory and research, the writer provided research

to support the conclusion that primary children can develop productive

thinking. This review of the productive thinking literature was pertinent in

proving that primary grade children can develop the skills necessary to use

CPS.

37

This was necessary because this project attempted to field test and

support the notion that primary grade children could develop productive

thinking through the use of CPS to solve real problems.

38

SECTION 3: METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this study was primarily qualitative. It focused on

observation, description and summarization of the data. The following

sections summarize (a) the procedure for selection of the participants

(students, teacher and observers); (b) the lesson plan format; (c) procedures

for data collection; and (d) data analysis both qualitative and quantitative.

Participants and Location

The study involved three sets of participants: students, teacher, and

observers. This part describes the selection process of each participant. The

writer provided the criteria used to help in the identification of the teacher

and the observers.

The Students. The writer conducted the observational study in one first

grade classroom. The classroom consisted of 23 first grade students. The

students ranged in age between six and seven. All were students who

attended Campus West, a school in the Buffalo City School District. The

teacher chose this particular first grade classroom from the six available

classes, based on the commitment of the classroom teacher to participate in

this study. All parents gave permission for their child to participate in this

study (see Appendix B).

The Teacher. The classroom teacher completed graduate training in

CPS. Currently, she is the gifted specialist teaching at the elementary level

at Campus West. The writer specifically chose the teacher because of her

formal training in CPS, her interest in using CPS with primary children, and

her willingness to participate. It was essential to have someone formally

trained in CPS to answer the core research question. This question required

efforts by a teacher who has training and experience in using and applying

39

CPS, and the Creative Learning Model. She delivered the CPS training to the

first grade children. Her experience allowed for meaningful feedback on the

CPS process, the Creative Learning Model and the questions being asked

through this project.

The Observers. The following criteria helped choose the two observers:

graduate training in CPS, graduate training in facilitation, experience in

using CPS with children, and willingness to participate. The observers

viewed each lesson on videotape and responded to each tape using a feedback

form. The observers gave feedback about the students to further inform the

writer about what occurred during the observational study.

Lesson Plans

This project focused on Level III of the Creative Learning Model, solving

real problems. All 24 children who participated were presented with 12

lessons. The goal of these twelve lessons was to engage primary children in

real problem solving through the use of CPS.

The 12 lessons began with Level II activities and progressed through

Level III. The focus for each lesson was as follows:

1. Style and working in groups. The students focused on different

preferences in relation to their thinking and learning.

2. Level II: Drawing their own process in problem solving. The

students identified their personal problem solving processes and recognized

that there are many different ways to solve a problem.

3. Level II: Introduction to CPS charts and Component Diagnosis.

This lesson introduced the CPS process and six occupations that related to

each stage.

40

4. Level II: Realistic Problem (Mess and Data). The children

practiced Mess Finding and Data Finding on a realistic problem about a new

student at school.

5. Level II: Realistic Problem (Problem and Idea). The children

continued to use the realistic problem to practice CPS through Problem

Finding and Idea Finding.

6. Level II: Realistic Problem (Solution). A new realistic problem

about a birthday party allowed the children to experience Solution Finding.

7. Level II: Realistic Problem (Acceptance). The children continued

their learning by creating a plan for the birthday party. They focused on

Acceptance Finding.

8. Level III: Real Problem (Mess, Data, and Problem). This lesson

allowed the children the opportunity to work on a real problem of a fellow

student. They used the Understanding the Problem component.

9. Level III: Real Problem (Idea). A different student shared a real

problem that needed ideas. The students applied Idea Finding to generate

ideas for their classmate.

10. Level III: Real Problem (Solution). To further assist their

classmate the children used Solution Finding to help evaluate and refine the

ideas.

11. Level III: Real Problem (Acceptance). Last, the students aided in

identifying the assisters and resisters for the solution and created a plan to

be implemented. They used Acceptance Finding.

12. Closure: Taking it Forward. The teacher closed down the children's

learning and debriefed their experience.

The format used for each lesson followed the Incubation Model of

Teaching (Torrance & Safter, 1990). Torrance and Safter (1990) used the

41

words warm up, digging deeper, and extension for three elements of a lesson.

The warm up provided an opportunity for student interest to peak. Digging

deeper allowed for new information to be introduced and used. Last, the

extension provided an opportunity for students to apply the information just

acquired. The lessons for this project included these three elements and some

other information. For this project each lesson included: a title, a list of

materials, the goals, the objectives, a warm up, digging deeper, and an

extension. A sample lesson is included in Appendix C.

Data Collection

During the observational study, data were collected for triangulation

among three sets of participants (the teacher, the observers, and the

students). Data were collected through a teacher/observer lesson log,

teacher/observer feedback form, student feedback form, drawings, materials

feedback form, criteria checklist and videotapes.

Teacher and Observer Data. The teacher and the observer completed 12

lesson logs each (see Appendix D). They responded to all the questions in the

lesson log after each lesson, if applicable, and based their responses on their

individual perceptions of the lessons.

After completion of all the lessons, the teacher and the observer

completed one summative teacher/observer feedback form (see Appendix E).

The teacher and the observers answered these questions based on their

overall judgments for all the lessons as a set.

In addition to the summative feedback form, data collection included a

materials feedback form (see Appendix F). The teacher and the observers

completed the materials feedback form after completion of all the lessons.

This form contained only questions related to the materials.

42

Last, the teacher evaluated the children's ability to apply all the CPS

tools on the criteria checklist (se Appendix G). The teacher completed the

form prior to any of the observational study lessons.

Student Data. Finally, after completion of all the lessons, the students

filled out the student feedback form (see Appendix H). The teacher read the

statements on the feedback form to the students. The students then rated

each statement, by choosing a smiley face (yes), a question mark (I don't

know), or a frowning face (no). In addition the students also drew pictures to

represent the specific real problems they helped solve.

A video camera was used as another way of collecting data about the

students. Approximately 10 hours of instruction were recorded. Two

observers reviewed each classroom lesson through the video tapes. The writer

used the tapes to verify data collected.

Feedback Forms. All of the questions on the feedback forms provided

data related to each research question. Each research question and the

questions or statements directed at helping to answer them are listed below.

Research Question:

To what extent are primary age children able to engage in real life application

(Level III) of CPS?

Questions or statements directed at answering the research question:

1. What intrigued you about the children during this lesson?

2. What were some behavioral indicators that showed the children were

engaged in real life application?

3. How did the children react to the lesson? In particular, what were

their reactions to the tools or techniques presented?

43

4. To what extent and in what specific ways, do you feel the lesson's

goals were accomplished?

5. The students were able to recognize and express their own real

problems.

6. The students were able to solve at least one real problem using CPS.

7. Did the students use CPS successfully to solve their own real

problems (Level III)? Why or why not?

6. The students were able to recognize the six CPS stages.

7. I saw a change in the problem solving behavior of the children.

8. How well do the children understand CPS?

9. I helped to solve one of my own or classmates' problems.

10. It was helpful to be a cleaner, a doctor and a detective.

11. It was helpful to be a collector.

12. It was helpful to be a teacher and a salesperson.

13.I can solve my own problems.

14. The drawings of the problems the children helped to solve.

Research Question:

Can we document that the primary students know and apply the four

divergent and four convergent basic tools of CPS?

Questions or statements directed at answering the research question:

1. How did the children react to the lesson? In particular, what were

their reactions to the tools or techniques presented?

2. The students used the creative thinking skills tools.

3. The students used the critical thinking skills tools.

4. The students understand creative thinking skills.

5. The students understand critical thinking skills.

44

6. I could use some of the tools taught on my own. For example

brainstorming and ALU.

7. All of the Criteria Checklist.

Research Question:

How can the materials provided aid in teaching primary age students

application of CPS to real problems?

Questions or statements directed at answering the research question:

1. In what ways were the materials useful?

2. What would you add to or delete from this lesson to improve it?

3. Did the students respond favorably to the materials?

4. Did the charts aid in understanding CPS?

5. Did the kit's supplies aid in understanding CPS?

6. Did the worksheets aid in understanding CPS?

7. Was the teacher instructional material easy to follow?

8. Were the lessons easy to follow?

9. Were the materials at the appropriate age level?

10. Did the lessons follow an accurate scope and sequence?

11. Were the materials successful in teaching the students CPS?

12. Number the materials from 1-3 that helped the most to least in

facilitating CPS at Level III. (charts, kit supplies and worksheets)

13. What improvements might be made in the teacher instruction

material?

14. How would you modify any of the lessons?

15. Were there any materials that were not supplied that you added to

the lessons? Please describe them.

16. Creative Problem Solving is fun.

45

17. I used the charts and posters to help solve problems.

18. I understand the charts the teacher used for CPS.

19. I like to play with the toys we use when we are doing CPS.

Research Question:

In what ways are CPS facilitation strategies modified when working with

primary age children?

Questions or statements directed at answering the research question:

1. What were some of the facilitating challenges?

2. The teacher adapted her facilitating to meet the needs of the primary

age group.

3. If necessary please respond. How did you adapt your facilitating to

meet the needs of the primary age students?

4. My teacher helped me with CPS and real problems.

This part specified the forms used by each participant to collect data,

and the questions or statements directed at collecting data for the specific

research questions. In addition to the feedback forms was the use of video

tapes. Next, the writer addresses the procedure for data analysis.

Data Analysis

Qualitative Data

Data were analyzed using a triangulated design and collection

approach (Miles & Huberman, 1984), for which the three points of view were:

(a) the teacher, (b) the observers, and (c) the students.

The writer's qualitative analysis consisted of three main activities.

Miles and Huberman (1984) stated, "We consider that analysis consists of

three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and

46

conclusion drawing/verification" (p. 21). These three elements occurred

continuously throughout the data analysis.

"Data reduction refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying,

abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in written-up field notes

or transcriptions" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10). Data reduction consisted

of taking the collected data and pulling out specific information directed at

understanding the point of view of the students. The writer extracted

information that would allow insight into the students' perspective. The

students' perspective was chosen as most significant because of the core

research question: "To what extent are primary children able to engage in

real life application of Creative Problem Solving?" The writer attempted to

discover what learning occurred for the students during the lessons. The

writer started with the person closest to the students, the teacher. The writer

reduced the teacher's data from questions asked that involved information

about the students. The writer then reduced the data of the observers from

the same questions to verify the students' perspective. To complete the

triangulation the writer reduced the data of the students. The data were

reduced by selecting specific questions that would directly answer each

research question.

The writer produced data displays throughout the analysis when

necessary, using matrices. These matrices allowed for visually organizing and

comparing the reoccurring themes presented in the teacher's, the observers'

and the students' data. Miles and Huberman (1994) stated, "...a display is

an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion

drawing and action" (p. 11).

Along with data displays, memoing was used to keep thoughts,

observations and ideas organized. Memoing refers to writing down at any

47

point during analysis thoughts or ideas that the researcher notices as being

important (Miles & Huberman, 199