Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 11–19

Cognitive Bases of Human Creativity

Review Article

Abstract

Cognitive load theory has been concerned primarily with techniques that will facilitate the acquisition by students of knowledge previously generated by others and deemed to be important by society. The initial generation of that knowledge, a creative process, has been largely ignored. The recent expansion of cognitive load theory’s cognitive architectural base to incorporate evolutionary biological principles has opened the possibility of using the theory to consider the generation of knowledge as well as its transmission. It has been suggested that the logical base that underlies evolution by natural selection also underlies human cognitive architecture. The purpose of evolutionary theory is to explain the creation of new biological entities and processes. If human cognitive architecture is organized around the same principles, it should analogically be possible to explain knowledge generation. This paper will outline the relevant theoretical machinery, indicate data that support the theory, and indicate instructional procedures that, based on the theory, should facilitate creativity.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Creativity Human cognitive architecture Evolutionary psychology Instructional processes 

References

  1. Ayres, P. (1993). Why goal-free problems can facilitate learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 376–381. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1994). Demands imposed on primary-school students by geometric models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 108–117. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchard, T. J., & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance and potential in brainstorming groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 51–55. doi:10.1037/h0028621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, B. D., & Vollmeyer, R. (2002). Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 55A, 241–261.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  6. De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton (Original work published 1946).Google Scholar
  7. Dillon, P. C., Graham, W. K., & Aidells, A. L. (1972). Brainstorming on a “hot” problem: Effects of training and practice on individual and group performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 487–490. doi:10.1037/h0033718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J., & Jaastad, K. (1963). The effects of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 10–37. doi:10.1037/h0041308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geary, D. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  11. Geddes, B. W., & Stevenson, R. J. (1997). Explicit learning of a dynamic system with a non-salient pattern. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 742–765.Google Scholar
  12. Guilford, J. P. (1959). The three faces of intellect. The American Psychologist, 14, 469–479. doi:10.1037/h0046827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meadow, A., Parnes, S., & Reese, H. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instruction and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 413–416. doi:10.1037/h0043917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23, 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
  17. Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272–284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Paas, F., Camp, G., & Rikers, R. (2001). Instructional compensation for age-related cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 181–186. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198. doi:10.1037/h0049234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 43 (pp. 215–266). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 463–474. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.Google Scholar
  25. Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 112, 639–661. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.112.4.639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participating when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23–47. doi:10.2307/2390603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel.Google Scholar
  29. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science, 20, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations