Problem-Solving and Creativity in Cognitive Science - Research Paper Example

Problem-Solving and Creativity PROBLEM-SOLVING AND CREATIVITY Cognitive science as an interdisciplinary field of inquiry attempts to address issues regarding the nature, development, and deployment of knowledge, consisting of research fields like neuroscience, artificial intelligence, anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. As a branch of the cognitive sciences, cognitive psychology involves the research and study of mental processes, such as how people perceive, think, learn, and remember (Sternberg, 2012). While problem solving has been a core concept in cognitive psychology since its inception, creativity has been a more recent construct within the field. Cognitive psychology research has found practical applications in educational psychology research, including in the increase of accuracy and creativity in decision making, the improvement problem solving, and enhancing memory and learning through structuring of educational curricula. Over the past half-century or so, cognitive psychology have undergone various changes. Psychological research in the 50s was dominated by the study of behaviorism, which was succeeded in the coming 30 years by topics that included problem solving and creativity, as well as memory and attention (Sternberg, 2012). It is only within the last twenty years that educational psychology has emerged as a distinct field within cognitive psychology, dealing especially regarding the relationship between creativity and problem solving. Inquiry and research into the relationship between problem solving and creativity have existed for over forty years in diverse literature on behavioral sciences. Majority of the scholars and researchers try to outline operational, as well as conceptual, relationships and distinctions between the two constructs. One early example is Vinacke (1952) who posits that creative thought was the bridge between imagination and problem solving. He also adds that creativity occurs as a construct that has indistinguishable imagination and problem solving behavior. Russell (1956) argues that the process of problem solving is closely related to creativity, contending that the process of isolating experiences into new patterns and combinations involves the process of creativity, which does not occur during problem solving. However, although he offers evidence of their close relation, he also mentions that, whereas problem solving is directed towards a specific aim, is more objective, and is external, creativity is subjective, less fixed, and attains something new (Russell, 1956). One evident thread in both research findings is that is that learning involves creativity in problem solving. This concept of a relationship between creativity and problem solving is also discussed by Getzels (1959) who proposes two approaches to creativity in relation to problem solving; problem solving as a function of thinking and learning and as a manifestation of personality influenced by motivational and social determinants. The close nature of creativity and problem solving is also supported by Maltzman (1960) who finds that the behavioral principles that determine both problem solving behavior and originality have no essential difference, particularly as both involve relatively uncommon responses and that this is the reason why behaviors are referred to as original and situations referred to as problems. Distinctions within the information processing context made by Newell, Shaw, and Simon (1962) show that creativity occurs as a special function of the problem solving process involving unconventionality, novelty, and issues with formulation of problems. In addition, Rugg (1963) contended that majority of the learning process is creative in nature and that problem solving, learning, and perception are linked inherently with one’s creativity. However, the conception that learning was entirely creative was still in need of more debate, especially as various aspects of problem solving have a more creative element than others. Smith (1966) offered more insight, concluding his research by contending that creative learning is a cooperative-experience relationship that insists on communication via feeling and thought, while creativity as a form of problem solving stretches from simple learning and thinking to complex processes of thought, introducing the creative problem solving theory. In this concept, creative problem solving solves problems with aesthetic qualities, completing an activity that the learner can recognize as their unique contribution to finding a solution (Smith 1966). Research and formulation of theory in creativity and problem solving with regards to educational psychology continued into the 70s, in which Guilford (1977) advances his findings that a close relationship exists between problem solving and creativity, concluding that creativity was part of the larger problem solving conceptual field. The very definitions of creativity and problem solving are closely related with problem solving involving the production of new responses, while creativity resulting in novel outcomes, which indicates that problem solving, possesses creative aspects. On the other hand, MacKinnon (1978) relates the two constructs by stating that creativity occurs when one senses a problem or becomes aware of something being mysterious, lacking, or wrong. However, these early advances in creativity and problem solving with regards to educational, cognitive psychology remained fundamentally unchanged until the mid 80s when Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) added the Mess-Finding stage to the creative problem solving concept. This stage was added to emphasize on the personal orientation of the learner involved in problem solving, which was an explicit and deliberate link that considered the individual involved in learning. The concept of ownership was also emphasized in creative problem solving with the degree of creativity, influence, and interest that the problem solver took under consideration identified as a crucial part for productively using creative problem solving in learning (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985). Pershyn (1992) added onto these findings by analyzing more than 150 drawings of people who satisfied creative challenges, finding that they could be classified and organized on a continuum that stretched from targeted, orderly, and linear processes on one side, to complex, spontaneous, and random process on the other. In addition, it was also observed that these variations in natural creativity and problem solving could be related to cognitive style variations. Isaksen and Pershyn (1994) found that a subset of learners known as Kirton’s innovators described their process as contiguous, random, more complex, and non-linear, while their process of learning had multiple stages and end-points. Adaptive learners, on the other hand, were found to draw targeted, orderly, and linear processes. The conclusion was that effective creativity and problem solving in learning had an array of forms and that, given the dynamic nature of creativity and problem solving, depictions of creative problem solving required more diversity of approaches to problem solving. Isaksen and Pershyn (1994) specifically introduced process planning and task appraisal in responding to requirements of conscious making of decisions about when to use creative problem solving in learning. CPS theory offers a compromise of earlier theories in that information and knowledge in learning are introduced as being critical in effective process application and planning. The relationship between creativity and problem solving and education became more pronounced in the 90s with Sternberg (2012) pointing out that, two groups with varying perceptions existed, especially with regards to their perceptions about problem solving. For cognitive psychologists, formulation of explicit theoretical models involves analytical thinking with a methodology that mirrored the natural sciences in conducting detailed experiments aimed at validating theoretical models. In fact, cognitive psychologists are not normally concerned with direct educational questions and their quest for basic comprehension investigates academic problems that are only related remotely to practical application in education. On the other hand, educators are described as being more concerned with instructional endeavors and realistic teaching that involves human students (Sternberg, 2012). Their tasks are normally approached, in a way, which is more intuitive, preferring the rule of thumb, instead of analytic methods. Educators’ instructional programs and designs are rarely based on explicit or particular theoretical methods. The criteria used by educators for educational success has often been ill-defined and fuzzy, limiting their use of many approaches to assessment productively. In fact, Kaufmann (2012) asserts that the gap that has existed between cognitive psychologists and educators in the last thirty years has been both wide and enduring, contending that, even though the variations in approach can be understood from sociological and historical viewpoints, the persistence of this gap could be detrimental to future educational research progress. The attempt to bridge this gap between problem solving and education in the new century will significantly profit from the bridging of this gap. In this case, those interested in practical education could add onto the methods and insights from cognitive psychologists, while educators could also adopt models of quality standards and analytic thinking of the kind that is used in other diverse sciences like neuroscience (Kaufmann, 2012). Using creative problem solving as a bridge for cognitive psychologists and educators has increasingly narrowed this gap. For the most part, cognitive psychologists have devoted their research to experimental study of problem solving with the assumption that this would illuminate creativity and creative thinking (Kaufmann, 2012). The traditional tasks they used could also be broadened to involve tasks that are of more interests to those trainers and educators focused on the provision of impact programs. Advancements in the future involving the development and design of practical creative, problem solving techniques and methods, in fact, may be based on appropriate prescription levels. In the past, philosophers were involved in the inquiry into the distinctiveness of human minds, how the mental states can be characterized, and existing relationships between the body and mind. In addition to, the manner in which minds learn about the world around them all before the inception of cognitive sciences and the specific field of cognitive psychology (Jaušovec & Žagar, 2008). The advance in technology and its application to cognitive psychology has allowed for the pinpointing of specific mind processes that are involved in mental actions, which are proving essential to educational psychology. This ability has stemmed from the fast-paced developments in imaging technology, including MRIs and positron-emission tomography that, coupled with the ever-increasing power of computers, has enabled the real tome capture of images involving the physiology of mental and thought processes. These are able to show the reaction of specific brain regions involved in problem solving and creativity, especially during learning, as well as how the mind coordinates and organizes the various tasks involved in both actions (Jaušovec & Žagar, 2008). Just as scientific technology has aided cognitive psychologists in illuminating age-old questions, the ability to recognize, understand, develop, and nurture creativity will improve on knowledge, and thinking within the problem-solving domain. One important thing to note with research into creativity and problem solving in educational psychology is that there may be some ethical issues involved. While all psychologists are required to adhere to the APA code of ethics, there are specific ethical standards that are of special relevance in educational psychology. These involve confidentiality, the process of informed consent, professional responsibility, psychological assessments, conflicting demands, record keeping, service provision at the behest of third parties, conflicts of interest, and services to more than one client (Davidson, 2012). Educational psychologists cannot simply schedule students to be tested without seeking for necessary parental consent, for example, just because it forms part of the educational curriculum. In this case, the parents must know about the reasons for the assessment, forms of evaluation and test procedures in use, the use of assessment results, and people with access to the results (Davidson, 2012). In addition, educational psychologists will be required to use test procedures and instruments that are non-biased, while also interpreting them in a manner that is neither culturally or racially discriminatory (Houtz, 2013). Moreover, the use of projective tests that enable emotional intelligence and personality trait assessment in relation to creativity and problem solving are controversial due to privacy concerns for students. Because of their indirect nature, these tests could contain information that does not relate to learning ability, while the test reports could also reveal open personal information that is reviewable by legal professionals, eligible students, guardians, parents, and staff. Another ethical issue has to do with interpreter competency, especially where there are students for whom English is not a native language (Houtz, 2013). Finally, the research undertaken also leads to ethical issues related to test validity. References Davidson, J. E. (2012). The psychology of problem solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guilford, J. P. (1977).  Way beyond the IQ: Guide to improving intelligence and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Houtz, J. C. (2013). The educational psychology of creativity. Cresskill, N.J: Hampton Press. Isaksen, S. G. & Pershyn, G. (1994).  Understanding natural creative process using the KAI. KAI International, 3, 5. Jaušovec, N., & Žagar, D. (2008). Creativity, problem solving and school achievement. Play and Creativity, 129-132. Kaufmann, G. (2012). Problem solving and creativity. Innovation: a Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, 23(1), 123-133 Maltzman, I. (1960).  On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67, 229-242. MacKinnon, D. W. (1978).  In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962).  The process of creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 63-119). New York: Atherton. Pershyn, G. (1992). An investigation into the graphic depictions of natural creative problem solving processes. State University College at Buffalo: Center for Studies in Creativity. Russell, D. (1956). Children’ thinking. New York: Ginn and Company. Rugg, H. (1963).  Imagination: An inquiry into the sources and conditions that stimulate creativity. New York: Harper & Row. Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Thinking and problem solving. San Diego: Academic Press. Smith, J. A. (1966).  Setting conditions for creative teaching in the elementary school. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Vinacke, W. E. (1952).  The psychology of thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More