Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Puccio parnes tribute
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Puccio parnes tribute

244

Published on

Efficacy of Creative Problem Solving: Oh the Places Deliberate Creativity has Gone …

Efficacy of Creative Problem Solving: Oh the Places Deliberate Creativity has Gone

Parnes Tribute
May 9, 2009
Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D.
International Center for Studies in Creativity

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
244
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 11 weeks 9 to 3:30 each day. One further intervention occurred during one year period.
  • 11 weeks 9 to 3:30 each day. One further intervention occurred during one year period.
  • 11 weeks 9 to 3:30 each day. One further intervention occurred during one year period.
  • Exp group not told to transfer CPS to gameplay. This was left open. One further intervention occurred during one year period.
  • Exp group not told to transfer CPS to gameplay. This was left open. Players were video-tapes at a baseline, then after each CPS session. The first three sessions were 10 minutes, the fourth was 1.5 hours. Analysis organized into exp and control, beginners and advanced. Åuthors note that the most dramatic changes came after session 3 (10min) and session 4 (1.5 hours). They conclude that CPS cannot be totally assimilated after only 2 ten minute sessions.
  • Two judges, Director of Sales and Asst. Director of Sales, rated the ideas on a 100 point scale. Every idea was evaluated and given a score. Judges worked independently. There was high inter-judge reliability. Ideas ended up being organized into five categories. From 5, highest rating, to 1, worst rating.
  • Procedure was survey. CPS does not specifically refer to the Buffalo based tradition, more generic use of CPS.
  • Procedure was survey. CPS does not specifically refer to the Buffalo based tradition, more generic use of CPS.
  • Significant differences on work performance found only for coauthored servie projects. Why? The authors suggest that R&D tasks take a considerable amount of time to produce, it can take several months to several years to complete a research project. It takes even longer to write up research report and have it accepted for publication. Service projects are the primary task of these workers and the principal investigator is assigned. Thus the only realistic area within the 6 to 11 month period to improve one’s performance comes in co-authored service projects, that is to actively seek out participation in more service projects.
  • In regard to second bullet, the authors did note that the results might have occurred because males are more open to taking risks. Also they noted, “Nonetheless, in evaluating this finding, it must be remembered that sizable effects were obtained for women, as well as men, indicating that women do benefit from creativity training” (p. 370).
  • Weak studies, no control group and post-test only, did show stronger results than solid studies. But authors note that significant effects were found across all studies.
  • Regression weights indicated that problem identification, idea generation and conceptual combination made the strongest unique contributions to creativity training effects.
  • In regard to the fourth bullet on application, this should occur in domain related tasks and on more complex and realistic contexts. These authors conclude that evident for these best practices can be found in some of the more successful programs, such as Purdue Creative Training Program and CPS.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Efficacy of Creative Problem Solving: Oh the PlacesDeliberate Creativity has Gone Parnes Tribute May 9, 2009 Gerard J. Puccio, Ph.D. International Center for Studies in Creativity
    • 2. Historical Research on CPS:Pre-CRS Project & CRS Project
    • 3. CPS Research• 1949-1956 Pilot Experimentation and Course Development• 1957-1967 Systematic Research of the Impact of CPS Methods and Programs• 1969-1972 Creative Studies Project, a Experimental Investigation of the Impact of a Sequence of Creativity Courses on College Students
    • 4. 1957-1967 Specific Research Issues• Effects of a Semester long Course on the Development of Creativity• Relative Effects of a Creativity Course used Alone or Taken with an Instructor• Effects of Extended Effort in CPS• Effectiveness of the Principle “Defer Judgment”
    • 5. 1957-1967: Effects of a Creativity Course• Significant increase for two measures of quantity of idea production• Significant increase for three of five measures of quality of ideas• Long-term results seemed to be evident up to four years after the course in creativity
    • 6. 1957-1967: Alone or Taken with an Instructor• On almost all measures the instructor-taught groups outperformed control groups• Students who took program alone were superior to control groups• Instructor-taught groups out performed students who took course alone
    • 7. 1957-1967: Extended Effort• Extended effort resulted in a significantly greater proportion of good ideas among the later ideas generated
    • 8. 1957-1967: Defer Judgment Principle• Significantly more good ideas generated by individuals working under the ‘defer judgment’ principle than those instructed to use concurrent judgment• Groups trained in CPS generated significantly more good ideas than those using discussion
    • 9. Creative Studies Project: An Overview• Pilot study began in 1969• Courses based on CPS, Synectics, and Creative Analysis• Students randomly selected (30%) from the incoming freshman class• Students randomly assigned to groups• Experimental subjects took a sequence of 4 creativity courses• National advisory committee
    • 10. Some Members of the Advisory Committee• John Curtis Gowan, Professor of Education, San Fernando Valley State College• J. P. Guilford, Professor of Psychology, University of Southern California• Donald MacKinnon, Professor of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley• Calvin Taylor, Professor of Psychology, University of Utah• Donald Treffinger, Chairman of Educational Psychology, University of Kansas
    • 11. Creative Studies Project: Overview of Findings• Semantic Tests: Experimental subjects significantly better on 16 of 27.• Figural Tests: No significant differences on 8.• Symbolic Tests: One significant differences in favor of the E’s for 1 of 8 .• Cognition Tests: 7 of 10 significant differences.• Divergent Production Tests: 9 of 14 significantly different.• Convergent Production Tests: 4 of 8 significant.• Evaluation & Memory Tests: No significant differences. Parnes, 1987
    • 12. Creative Studies Project: Additional Findings• E’s significantly out performed C’s on 2 of 5 creativity-related English tests.• Significantly higher scores for E’s on the production of original verbal images.• Numerous anecdotal evidence from BSC instructors on the impact of the creativity program.
    • 13. Recent Research on CPS
    • 14. Ideation and Problem Finding and Solving in an Industrial Research Organization• Focus: To study the transfer of training in a “complete process of creative problem solving”.• Participants: 220 engineers, engineering managers, and technicians in a consumer goods industrial company.• Training Program: Experimental group received two-days of CPS training; control group received placebo treatment (i.e., Koestler film & discussion), an additional group received no training.• Outcomes: Two weeks after training assessed transfer of the CPS course to workplace (e.g., problem finding and problem solving abilities, co-workers observations, supervisor ratings, preferences for ideation, etc). Basadur, Graen, & Green (1982).
    • 15. Ideation and Problem Finding and Solving in an Industrial Research Organization Some Results• Preference for ideation in problem solving increased significantly for CPS trained group.• Placebo and non-training group expressed significantly more negative judgments and spent significantly more time on negative judgments while engaged in a problem-finding task (i.e., explore wishes for new products of the future).• Quality of the product wishes of the CPS trained group was significantly better than the placebo and untrained groups.• Two-weeks after training others rated (blind assessment) the experimental group as significantly more open-minded, less likely to jump to conclusions, and able to take unusual approaches to problems.• See Basadur et al. for further results Basadur, Graen, & Green (1982).
    • 16. Reducing Recidivism Among Native Canadians• Focus: To help at-risk populations make better choices and life decisions.• Participants: 31 inmates with matched control group.• Training Program: Pre-release program focused on life-skills training (designed around CPS, M-F, 11 weeks) and job experience.• Outcomes: Assessed recidivism rates one year after completing job experience. Place, McCluskey, McCluskey, &Treffigner, 2000.
    • 17. Reducing Recidivism Among Native Canadians• More than 98% of control group had subsequent contact with justice system (blue column).• Only 39% of experimental group re- offended (blue column).
    • 18. Gameplay Decisions Among Badminton Players• Focus: To determine the effect of CPS training on game-play decisions.• Participants: 24 physical education students, participants matched on ability in experimental and control groups.• Training Program: Experimental group received three 10-minute mini-sessions and a 1.5 hour session on CPS.• Outcomes: Game-play video coded by ‘blind’ observers for tactical decisions. Everhart, Kernodle, Turner, Harshaw, & Arnold, 1999.
    • 19. Gameplay Decisions Among Badminton Players - Results• Statistical analysis of overall data for experimental and control showed a significant difference in frequency of decisions (tactics used).• Analysis also revealed that the experimental group made more quality decisions.• Experimental group participants engaged in more complex strategies.• The most dramatic shift in tactics occurred after the third 10-minute session and the fourth 1.5 hour CPS session. Everhart, Kernodle, Turner, Harshaw, & Arnold, 1999.
    • 20. CPS & Communication Behaviors: Quality of Ideas Generated Quality Rating Untrained Trained 5 (best) 281 618 4 500 1342 3 352 917 2 253 648 1 (worst) 29 140 Firestien Unpublished
    • 21. CPS & Communication Behaviors Untrained TrainedTotal Responses 26 39Verbal Criticism 2.2 0.09Verbal Support 1.4 3.7Laughter 2.1 6.0Smiles 2.6 6.7Ideas Generated 13 27 Firestien & McCowan, 1988
    • 22. Stimulants to Creative Behavior Among Engineers• Focus: To determine which management philosophies and practices stimulate or inhibit creative behavior among engineers.• Participants: 242 engineers.• Outcomes: Engineers asked to evaluate nine different management practices for relevance to their work and the degree to which they increases the possibility of being more creative at work.• Results: Project groups and Creative Problem Solving methods had the most positive response (88% and 85%, respectively). Evkall, 2000.
    • 23. Effects of CPS Training on R&D Performance• Focus: To assess the extent to which a complete program in CPS would enhance performance at work.• Participants: 106 R&D workers in experimental group, 35 R&D workers in control group.• Training Program: CPS training delivered over a three-month period (18 hours total).• Outcomes: Pre-post test measures administered for creative-thinking ability and work performance (both measured 6 to 11 months after training). Wang & Horng, 2002.
    • 24. Effects of CPS Training on R&D Performance - Results• Significant gains in creative-thinking abilities (e.g., fluency & flexibility).• Only one significant difference found for a performance indicator. Experimental group participants were involved in a greater number of ‘service’ projects (i..e, research projects based on customer complaints or technical problems).• Authors conclude that there was insufficient time to see results on other performance measures (i.e., publications and reports). Wang & Horng, 2002.
    • 25. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
    • 26. World Creativity and Innovation Week Venue
    • 27. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
    • 28. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual Space
    • 29. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual SpaceExcerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)
    • 30. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual SpaceExcerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)
    • 31. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual SpaceExcerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)
    • 32. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual SpaceExcerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)
    • 33. International Center for Studies in Creativity Virtual SpaceExcerpted from Uribe & Cabra (in press, Creativity & Innovation Management)
    • 34. ReferencesBasadur, M., Graen, g. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 41-70Ekvall, G. (2000). Management and organizational philosophies and practices as stimulants or blocks to creative behavior: A study of engineers. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9, 94-99.Everhart, B., Kernodle, M., Turner, E., Harshaw, Cl, & Arnold, D. (1999). Gameplay decisions of univesity badminton students . The Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 138-149.Firestien, R. L., McCowan, R. J. (1988). Creative problem solving and communication behavior in small groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 106-114.Parnes, S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen (ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics (156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project: Part II – Results of the two-year-program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 164-186.Place, D. J., McCluskey, A. L. A., McCluskey, K. W., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). The second chance project: Creative approaches to developing the talents of at-risk native inmates. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 164-186.Wang, C. W., & Horng, R. Y. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32, 35-45.
    • 35. Does Creativity Training Work? A Meta-Analytic Study (a must read for all creativity educators & trainers)
    • 36. Scott, Leritz & Mumford: Purpose of Study 1. To provide reasonably compelling evidence for the effectiveness of creativity training 2. To identify the key characteristics of training that led to the success of the training efforts(Scott, Leritz & Mumford, Creativity Research Journal, 2004, Vol 16, pp 361-388)
    • 37. Criteria for Inclusion of Study in the Meta-Analysis (n=70)1. Expressed focus on creativity2. Clear description of procedures used in training, the population involved and the strategies involved in training delivery.3. Study provided an exact description of measures used to assess creative performance.4. Study provided statistics needed to assess effect size.5. If several studies used the same data, only one publication was used.
    • 38. Design of Studies• Pre-test or posttest control group design or• Pre-test or posttest no control group design (pre-tests used as baseline for comparison)
    • 39. Dependent Variables• Divergent thinking (e.g., fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration)• Problem solving (e.g., production of original solutions to novel problems)• Performance (e.g., behavior)• Attitudes and behavior (e.g., reaction to creative ideas, efforts initiated)
    • 40. External Validity Checks: To What Extent do Training Effects Generalize Across People & Settings• Age (above and below 14 years of age)• Setting (educational vs. organizational)• Academic Achievement of participants• Use of gifted sample• Gender• Year study was conduced (pre/post 1980)
    • 41. Assessment of Course Content: Foundational Models• Cognitive models• Social models• Personality models• Motivational models• Confluence models (i.e., supplemented cognitive models)• Others (e.g., attitudes, blocks to creativity)
    • 42. Assessment of Course Content:Focus of Instructional Material & Exercises• Problem finding• Information gathering• Information organizing• Conceptual combination• Idea generation• Idea evaluation• Implementation planning• Solution monitoring
    • 43. Delivery Method• Classroom Exercise• Field exercises• Group exercises• Realistic, domain based, performance exercises• Computer exercises• Written exercises• Self-paced exercises• Imaginative exercises
    • 44. Results: Impact on Dependent VariablesSizable change was found for all four dependent variables, in the following order:• Divergent thinking• Problem solving• Performance• Attitudes and behavior
    • 45. Results: Impact on Dependent Variables• “The largest effect sizes were obtained in studies employing divergent thinking (∆=.75; SE=.11) and problem solving (∆=.84, SE=.13) criteria” (p. 369).• “Studies applying performance criteria yielded smaller, albeit still sizable, effects (∆=.35; SE=.11)” (p. 369).• “Studies employing attitudes and behavior criteria also produced sizable but somewhat weaker effects (∆=.24; SE=.13)” (p. 369).
    • 46. External Validity Results: Training Effects Across People and Settings• “Not only does creativity training appear useful in various settings and for different age groups, the value of this training holds for populations who differ in their intellectual capabilities” (p. 370).• “Studies that were based on a predominantly male sample yielded larger effects (∆=1.14; SE=.26 vs. ∆=.42; SE=.26) than studies based on a predominantly female sample” (p. 370).
    • 47. Internal Validity Results:Does Lack of Rigor Inflate Training Effects• Study quality: Educational level of author made little difference on the effect of training; peer reviewed studies showed larger effects sizes.• Length of Follow-up: Studies using longer posttest intervals showed same sizable effects as shorter intervals.• Author as Trainer: No difference found for studies in which the author was the trainer versus third-party studies.
    • 48. Course Content: Examination of Training Models “In the overall analysis, use of a cognitiveframework in the development of training content produced the only sizable positive correlation (r=.31) and regression weight (ß=.24). This general conclusion held across all criteria.” (p. 376)
    • 49. Course Content:What Aspects of Cognitive Models are Most Effective Program success was related to: – Problem identification (r=.37) – Idea generation (r=.21) – Implementation planning (r=.19) – Solution monitoring (r=.17) – Conceptual combination (r=.16)
    • 50. Course Content:Other Factors that Led to Positive Outcomes • Aspect of training associated with positive outcomes included: – Practice time – Longer training time – Lecture based instruction – Social modeling – Cooperative learning – Case-based learning techniques
    • 51. Conclusions “Perhaps the most clear-cut conclusion to emerge from this studyis that creativity training is effective.” (p. 381)
    • 52. Conclusions“The results obtained in this study indicate thatwell-designed training can evidence substantial external validity. Creativity training contributed to divergent thinking, problem solving, performance, and attitudes and behavior for younger and older students and working adults, and for high achieving and more ‘run of the mill’ students”. (p. 382)
    • 53. Conclusions “Taken as a whole, these observations lead to a relatively unambiguous conclusion. Creativity training works”. (p. 382)(Scott, Leritz & Mumford, Creativity Research Journal, 2004, Vol 16, pp 361-388)
    • 54. Recommendations:Best Practices for Creativity Training • Training should be based on sound, valid, conceptions of the cognitive activities underlying the creative process. • Training should be lengthy and relatively challenging. • Articulation of creativity principles should be followed by application using material based on real- world cases. • Presentation of material should be followed by exercises that allow participants to apply strategies

    ×