Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impacts of learning inventive problem-solving principles: students’ transition from systematic searching to heuristic problem solving

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents the outcomes of teaching an inventive problem-solving course in junior high schools in an attempt to deal with the current relative neglect of fostering students’ creativity and problem-solving capabilities in traditional schooling. The method involves carrying out systematic manipulation with attributes, functions and relationships between existing components and variables in a system. The 2-year research study comprised 112 students in the experimental group and 100 students in the control group. The findings indicated that in the post-course exam, the participants suggested a significantly greater number of original and useful solutions to problems presented to them compared to the pre-course exam and to the control group. The course also increased students’ self-beliefs about creativity. Although at the beginning of the course, the students adhered to ‘systematic searching’ using the inventive problem-solving principles they had learned, later on they moved to ‘semi-structured’ and heuristic problem solving, which deals with using strategies, techniques, rules-of-thumb or educated guessing in the problem-solving process. It is important to note, however, that teaching the proposed method in school should take place in the context of engaging students in challenging tasks and open-ended projects that encourage students to develop their ideas. There is only little benefit in merely teaching students inventive problem-solving principles and letting them solve discrete pre-designed exercises.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Altshuller, G. S. (1984). Creativity as an exact science. New York: Gordon and Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, L. J., Evans, J St B T, Dennis, I., & Ormerod, T. C. (1997). Problem-solving strategies and expertise in engineering design. Thinking and Reasoning, 3(4), 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2006). Teaching methods for systematic inventive problem solving: Evaluation of a course for teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Goffer, N. (2002). Fostering systematic innovative thinking and problem-solving: Lessons education can learn from industry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Mesika, P. (2007). Teaching methods for inventive problem-solving in junior high school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1969). The creative person and the creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berne, R., & Raviv, D. (2004). Eight-dimensional methodology for innovative thinking about the case and ethics of the mount graham, large binocular telescope project. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1990). Lateral thinking. London: Ward Lock Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirkan, H., & Hasirci, D. (2009). Hidden dimensions of creativity elements in design process. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2), 294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, B. (1996). Scamper: Games for imagination development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., & Mazurski, D. (2002). Creativity in product innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., Mazurski, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Creative sparks. Science, 285(5433), 1495–1496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1978). Cognitive psychology thinking and creating. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfman, J. (1992). Analytic inventive thinking model. In J. W. Weber & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 251–270). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, R. (2001). ASIT’s five thinking tools with examples. TRIZ Journal, Sept. http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/09/b/index.htm.

  • Horowitz, R., & Maimon, O. (1997). Creative design methodology and the SIT method. In ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sept. 14–17, Sacramento.

  • Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koichu, B., Berman, A., & Moore, M. (2007). The effect of promoting heuristic literacy on the mathematic aptitude of middle-school students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, A. M. (1989). Reflection on creativity and madness. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 43(1), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moehrle, M. G. (2005). What is TRIZ? From conceptual basics to a framework for research. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raviv, D., & Raviv, T. (2011). Everyone loves speed bumps, don’t you? A guide to innovative thinking. West Berlin, NJ: Townsend Union Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K. (2010). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savransky, S. D. (2000). Engineering of creativity: Introduction to TRIZ methodology of inventive problem-solving. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shihab, K., & Ramadhan, R. (2009). Tuning of computer systems using heuristics and system performance tools. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5230–5239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, developmental, personal, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity loss in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching engineering. New York: Knovel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, R. (2010). The study of creativity: From genius to cognitive science. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Cognitive heuristics in design: Instructional strategies to increase creativity in idea generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(3), 335–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Great thanks are due to Dr. Pnina Mesika for her considerable contribution to this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Technology Education, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 84105, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Moshe Barak

Authors
  1. Moshe Barak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moshe Barak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barak, M. Impacts of learning inventive problem-solving principles: students’ transition from systematic searching to heuristic problem solving. Instr Sci 41, 657–679 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9250-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9250-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation