Puccikgp PDF

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.
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

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
Project Advisor
Dr. Scott G. Isaksen

Professor and Director
Project Advisor
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
Table of Contents
vi
List of Tables
Section 1: Statement of the Problem
vii
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
72
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
82
83
Table 19: Research Question Four Themes

Table 20: Themes Research Question Four
86
90
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
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,
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,
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).
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
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
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.
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
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) SolutionFinding. 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 ideaproduction 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) IdeaFinding, (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. FactFinding 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 FactFinding 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) MessFinding, (b) Data-Finding, (c) Problem-Finding, (d) Idea-Finding, (e) SolutionFinding, 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
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?
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?
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?
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, 1994). Memoing allowed for continuous
analysis. The writer used post-its and attached the memos to the particular
data being analyzed. In cases where the same thought or idea occurred while
doing analysis of different pieces of data, the writer coded the similar themes
and made references back to prior memos.
Constant comparison also aided in the analysis of the data. Constant
comparison allows the researcher to continuously compare previous data with
new data. LeCompte and Preissle (1993) noted, "As events are constantly
compared with previous events, new typological dimensions as well as new
relationships may be discovered" (p. 256). In this particular project, constant
comparison allowed the writer to go back and forth between all the data
collected from each participant to do analysis across the different lessons and
within each lesson.
Last, the writer developed conclusions and verified those conclusions
through the data analysis. Conclusions were drawn based on the data
reduction, data displays, memoing and constant comparison. The conclusions
drawn related to the research questions posed. The researcher drew
conclusions to describe reoccurring patterns or themes throughout the data,
and used specific data to verify the conclusions drawn.
This part identified specific techniques used for data analysis. The
writer pointed out three main activities that occurred throughout the
analysis: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification.
Quantitative Data
The quantitative data were analyzed in two different ways. The
Student Feedback Form was analyzed using ratios and percentages. The
48
Teacher/Observer Feedback form was analyzed using means and ranges.

Each question contains quantitative data results.
Summary
This section consisted of the methodology used to conduct the
observational study. Specifically the writer addressed the selection of the
participants in the study; the lesson plan format of the lessons used to
conduct the study; the forms and the questions used to collect data; and the
procedures used to analyze the data collected.
49
SECTION 4: THE RESULTS

This section documents the qualitative data of this observational
study. Section Four describes the major themes and sub-themes that
emerged during the data analysis surrounding each question. The writer
defines and describes each major theme and sub-theme, and supports each
one with anecdotal responses from the following sources: the teacher's
response log, the observers' response log, and observable student behavior
from the video tapes. The tables contain the anecdotal responses related to
the themes. Finally, the writer presents quantitative data for each question.
Qualitative Results for Research Question One

In response to the core question: To what extent are primary children
able to engage in real life application of CPS? five major themes emerged.
These themes emerged using the techniques constant comparison, memoing,
and matrices described in Section Three. As a result of the data analysis, 17
themes fit into the major themes. See Table 1 for themes.
Each major theme presented attempts to respond to the research
question: To what extent are primary children able to engage in real life
application of CPS?
The five major themes, and the sub-themes under each, are:
1. Motivation for Using CPS
Ownership
Active participation
Body Language
2. Demonstrating and communicating ability to use CPS
Understanding
Not Understanding
Explaining Thoughts and Ideas
Recognizing Components and Stages
3. Feelings about applying CPS on real problems
Positive Reactions
50
Negative Reactions
4. CPS Process
Mess-Finding
Data-Finding
Problem-Finding
Idea-Finding
Solution-Finding
Acceptance-Finding
5. Quantitative Results
Students responses to survey questions
Teacher/Observer Feedback From responses
Motivation for Using CPS
Motivation for Using CPS refers to the level in which the children
showed excitement and interest in applying CPS. The teacher and observers
noticed student actions that demonstrated an eagerness to participate in
activities. Themes that emerged under this category were ownership, active
participation, and body language (see Table 2). Table 2 and all tables in
Section 4 contain verbatims from the teacher and observers that support the
themes. Observations of the students are also described in the tables.
Ownership
One of the key ingredients for using CPS is ownership. Ownership
refers to having influential power in a given situation. The children applied
CPS more enthusiastically when working on a problem presented by someone
in their class than when working on a contrived issue or "practice" problem.
They seemed less enthusiastic to participate if they did not own the problem.
51
Table 2: Motivation for Using CPS
Ownership
Active
Participation
Teacher
How some
weren't sure they
wanted to help
Shenita
"ownership".
They really
seemed excited to
help someone
with a real
problem.
Students came
up more than 40
ideas.
Observers
Children were
easily distracted real problem for
whom - is this a
party the children
are planning for
themselves?
Children
appeared to
handle this as an
exercise.
Creative in
sharing how they
solved problems
of their own.
The fact that it
was a real
problem.
They were
involved and
participating
especially in
small group
discussion.
How they
seemed directly
on task at the end
on developing a
plan for
implementation.
They wanted to
solve this
problem.
Students
When
classmate shared
the dentist issue
many students
wanted to
immediately
share ideas to
help solve the
problem. Several
hands were
raised.
Active
participation in
braindrawing.
They listened to
each others' ideas
and hitchhiked.
Actively
participating,
talking in pairs
about a problem
they solved.
Lots of children
raised their
hands to share
their own
problems.
52
Body Language Many positive

Used
nonverbals about
having certain
choices.
Applause.
Lots of hands
were raised to
show eagerness to
participate.
Leaning
forward.
Students
quickly "got
ready" to be the
first table to
begin an activity.
Hands raised.
Active Participation
Active participation consists of the involvement of the students in
various activities throughout the study. The students showed motivation for
learning and applying CPS when involving themselves in the activities
presented. Some examples of active participation included responding to
questions, applying the tools presented and sharing thoughts and ideas
through discussion.
Body Language Used

Body language refers to non-verbal gestures. The students used many
different gestures that indicated motivation for using CPS. The children
eagerly raised hands on many occasions. They also would lean forward and
applaud.
Demonstrating and Communicating Ability to use CPS

Demonstrating and communicating ability to use CPS refers to
whether or not the children were able to show that they can use CPS. The
teacher and observers noted several different ways the children indicated the
ability to use CPS. The themes were explaining thoughts and ideas,
recognizing components and stages, understanding and not understanding
(see Table 3).
53
Explaining Thoughts and Ideas

Explaining thoughts and ideas refers to being able to communicate
through words or other means what one is thinking. The children
communicated through discussion, manipulatives and drawings. The
students explained their ideas and choices. They drew and described how
54
Table 3: Demonstrating and Communicating the Ability to
Use CPS
Teacher
Explaining
They could
Thoughts and defend their
Ideas
choices.
Able to draw
the occupation
and explain what
that person does.
Recognizing
They seemed to
Components
understand
and Stages
moving from
Understanding
the Problem to
Generate Ideas
component.
Raised hand to
say what
component to
start in.
Showing on
cube which
component we
were in!
Placing
problem in correct
area on sheet.
Understanding They
understood the
problem and drew
it in such details.
(Intrigued) how
they can read a
matrix.
They could
target their
answers to
assisters and
resisters well to
the questions
asked.
Observers
Able to
articulate parts
of a plan.
Creating and
sharing how they
solved problems
of their own.
Students
Used voted
cards to explain
thoughts.
Used CPS
stage cubes to
explain location
in CPS.
Students used
CPS stage cubes
to demonstrate
they knew they
were in SolutionFinding.
When dealing
with classmates
dentist problem
the children were
able to determine
where to begin in
the process.
Kids yelled out
appropriately
"now we need to
be a doctor.
Answered
questions
regarding the
cleaner, detective,
card collector,
lawyer and
salesperson.
Writing down
ideas to help new
student.
Answered
higher level
questions.
Students
stated divergent
guidelines by
themselves.
Children knew
when to do hits.
Understand we
can choose more
then one solution.
55
Not
(Intrigued) How
Understanding fidgety they can
get.
Inability to
select component
even when give
them the stage
name.
Their body
language as (the
teacher) went
through the
process (not able
to sit still).
Interested in
puppets but when
putting it all
together I think
they got tired and
overwhelmed.
Not sure this
age level
understands
assistance and
resistance.
Difficult for
some to use the
puppets and
express
themselves.
Confused
between ideas
and criteria.
They were unable
to keep them
separate.
they solved a real problem of their own. They used manipulatives that
represented different responses (i. e. three vote cards: green, yellow and red
meaning yes, maybe and no).
Recognizing Components and Stages

Recognizing components and stages refers the ability of the children to
know which component or stage the class is working on. The children
recognized the different functions of the components and stages
i. e. invitational stems, process activities. The children gave messes when
appropriate and ideas when appropriate. The children showed the stage they
were working on by using the CPS stage cubes. Last, the children drew
pictures and discussed which occupation describes each stage.
Understanding
Understanding refers to the items in which the children were capable of
comprehending. The children demonstrated their understanding through
56
words or action. The children drew pictures of past problems they solved.
They wrote down ideas in groups to help solve a problem. They were able to
discuss the results of a criteria matrix by reading it. The children targeted
answers to specific questions. The children aided in writing a plan of action.
Not Understanding
Not understanding looks at the verbal and nonverbal communication
that shows the children do not understand the concept being taught. It also
pertains to the inability to do a given activity. The children needed
continuous reminders of the stage names and functions. Body language
indicated confusion. Level of understanding seemed low during particular
activities (i. e. assisters and resisters).
Feelings about Applying CPS on Real Problems

Feelings about applying CPS on real problems consists of the
children's reactions to CPS. It focuses on whether or not the children felt
applying CPS was enjoyable or not very exciting. In particular, the data
looked at if they liked using CPS. The children showed both positive and
negative reactions (see Table 4).
Positive Reactions
Positive reactions consist of feelings shared verbally or through actions.
It looks specifically at the excitement and enjoyment level. The children
enjoyed several of the activities, particularly, the activities that involved
manipulatives.
Use of manipulatives raised their excitement level. The
children reacted positively when working on real problems that were

important to them. They particularly enjoyed Idea-Finding.
57
Negative Reactions
Negative reactions focus on any verbal or nonverbal action that clearly
points out the dislike or discomfort in using CPS. It specifically looks at the
attention span of the children. The children showed a need to move. They
were fidgety. The children began talking and focusing on things other than the
lesson. The children seemed to indicate that the lessons were too long.
58
Table 4: Feelings about Applying CPS on Real Problems
Positive
Reactions
Negative
Reactions
Teacher
They liked the
puppets.
They liked it.
It gave them
movement with
cares.
They loved
drawing the
problem solved.
Many
expressed that it
made them feel
good to work on a
real problem.
Observers
They liked the
activity of
walking on the
mat.
They enjoyed
Idea-finding.
Interested in
puppets.
The
atmosphere was
positive. Kids
were thinking.
Children
seemed to enjoy
the activities.
Some were less Children were
interested, not a easily distracted.
real exciting
Children
lesson.
appeared to
Fidgety but
handle this as an
able to stay on
exercise.
task.
Students
appeared to be
bored. Their
heads were down
on the table.
Started to
wiggle when
lesson went too
long.
Trouble staying
on task.
Students
Very excited
about sharing
their own
problems.
Loved touching
and moving
puppets.
Kids loved to
play with and use
the CPS stage
cubes.
One child
moved away from
the group.
three children
yelled in middle
of lesson.
Some kids with
heads down not
really paying
attention.
59
CPS Process
The fourth major theme, CPS process, refers to all of the stages and
components of CPS. The writer forced the framework of CPS over the data
and found specific responses that pertained to each stage. Six themes
emerged: Mess-Finding, Data-Finding, Problem-Finding, Idea-Finding,
Solution-Finding and Acceptance-Finding (see Table 5). There was evidence
that the children did participate in each of the CPS stages during the
observational study.
Mess-Finding
Mess-Finding refers to the ability to generate broad challenges that
need attention and to appropriately choose one challenge to focus on. The
children targeted their mess statements appropriately and generated several
messes from different points of view. They described how a mess is like the
occupation of a cleaner.
Data-Finding
Data-Finding consists of generating information and feelings around a
particular mess. It also entails understanding which information is most
pertinent to the challenge. The children generated pertinent data. They
engaged in both the divergent and convergent phases of Data-Finding
successfully, and understood how to use the key data.
Problem-Finding
Problem-Finding looks at all the possible challenges one might
encounter. Once all of the challenges are generated, one must choose a
problem statement that describes the true problem. The children generated
60
Table 5: CPS Process
Mess-Finding
Teacher
Observers
Targeting mess
statements
toward Shenita's
concern.
Describing how
mess is like a
cleaner.
Looked at mess
form different
perspective.
Data-Finding
Generated
pertinent data.
Able to follow
what (client) said
about the key
data.
ProblemFinding
Explaining
what a problem
was.
Used clients
mess and key
data and targeted
that for problem
statements.
Many stated in
"how to".
Client said
"now I need ideas
form the group".
Many seem to be
catching on where
we are.
Generated
many ideas.
Idea-Finding
Students
Students able
to say what they
do as a cleaner
"we clean up
messes".
children were
able to identify
what a mess was.
Most children
started mess
statements with
WIBNI.
Good Data Knew that
Finding.
detective had to
do with data.
Shared data
about feelings,
information,
impressions,
observations and
questions.
They feel
Kids came up
confident in
with several
stating "how to". problem
statements
starting with "hot
to".
Identified that
they did pick a
problem
statement.
They enjoyed
Students able
Idea-Finding.
to do highlighting
Wrote down
on the ideas when
ideas to help new teacher provided
student.
the groups.
Students came Children were
up with over 40
able to identify
ideas.
divergent
guidelines.
61
SolutionFinding
AcceptanceFinding
(intrigued) How
they can read a
matrix.
Able to explain
why might be a
poor choice
(straight face or
frown).
The children
were able to
decide whether or
not the criteria
fit.
It meant
something to
them. It was
evident in their
choice of criteria.
Able to
They seemed
articulate parts
directly on task
of a plan.
at the end in
Plan became
developing plan
much clearer with for
class' input.
implementation.
They loved
(intrigued)
drawing the
Their enthusiasm
problem solved.
in the final
solution.
Kids were able

to generate
criteria but very
difficult.
Understood
that the matrix
helps us to make
a decision.
Children easily
did assisters and
resisters when
prompted with
questions.
Generated
several steps for
a plan then put
them in order.
several problem statements, and target them towards the mess and data
provided. They formed the problem statements with the invitational stem
"how to".
Idea-Finding
Idea-Finding focuses on generating many ideas, then choosing novel and
useful ones to form a solution. The children seemed to enjoy Idea-Finding.
They generated several ideas, and at times wrote down their own ideas. They
seemed to particularly understand the function of the Idea-Finding stage, and
knew when to apply Idea-Finding.
62
Solution-Finding
Solution-Finding looks at analyzing possible solutions. This is done
through the use of criteria or making the solution stronger by refining the
idea. One may choose one or a few solutions for implementation. The children
analyzed different possible solutions based on criteria, and discussed if the
criteria fit the solution. They read the criteria matrix and determined if a
solution would be a good choice or a choice that needed refinement. The
children explained how the criteria matrix worked.
Acceptance-Finding
Acceptance-Finding refers to considering all possible assisters and
resisters to the solution. Then one writes a plan of action to implement the
final solution. The children targeted their answers to specific questions asked
to them about assisters and resisters. They helped to write a final plan of
action, and drew a picture of what they thought the final solution would look
like implemented.
Quantitative Results
Quantitative data were used to answer the research question: To what
extent are primary age children able to engage in real life application of CPS?.
The quantitative results came from to different forms: (a) The Student
Feedback Form; or (b) the Teacher/Observer Feedback Form. The results shown
consist of only the statements that refer to this research question.
Student Feedback Form

The Student Feedback Form contained five statements that referred to
this research question. The statements were: (a) I helped to solve one of my
own or classmates' problem; (b) It was helpful to be a cleaner, a doctor and a
63
detective; (c) It was helpful to be a collector; (d) It was helpful to be a teacher

and a salesperson; and (e) I can solve my own problems. Table 6 gives the ratio
and percentage of children responding yes, I don't know and no.
The results indicated that seventy-eight percent (18/23) believed that
they helped solve one of their own or classmates problem, while five children
did not know if they helped. Eighteen out of twenty-three children noted that
it was helpful to be a cleaner, detective and doctor, five did not know and no
one said it did not help. Most children (17/23) stated that being a sports card
collector was helpful, while one said they did not know if it was helpful and
five children believed it was not helpful. Being a teacher and salesperson
rated as the least effective. Seven children commented that they did not know
if it was helpful and three children said it was not helpful. The remaining
thirteen children noted being a teacher and a salesperson was helpful. Last,
the fifteen students responded that they
64
______________________________________________________
Table 6: Student Feedback Form
Ratios and Percentages
Statement
Ratio
Percentages
Yes
I don't
No
Yes
I don't
No
know
know
I helped to solve one of
18/23
5/23
0/23 78.3
21.7
0.0
my own or classmate's
problem.
It was helpful to be a
cleaner, a doctor and a
detective.
18/23
5/23
0/23
78.3
21.7
0.0
collector.
17/23
1/23
5/23
73.9
4.3
21.7
teacher and a
salesperson.
13/23
7/23
3/23
56.5
30.4
13.0
I can solve my own

problems.
15/23
2/23
6/23
65.2
8.7
26.1
could solve their own problems, while two did not know if they could and six
children felt they could not solve their own problems.
Teacher/Observer Feedback Form

Teacher/Observer Form contained four statements that referred to this
research question. The statements were: (a) The students were able to
recognize the six CPS stages; (b) I saw a change in the problem solving
behavior of the children; (c) The students were able to recognize and express
their own real problems; and (d) The students were able to solve at least on
real problem using CPS. The scale of responses was 1 = rarely, 2 =
65
occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = always. See Table 7 for the

mean and range scores.
The teacher and the observers responded that sometimes to often the
children were able to recognize the six CPS stages. They sometimes to often
saw a change in the students' problem-solving behavior. The teacher and the
observers commented that sometimes to always the students were able to
recognize and express their own real problems. Last, they stated that often to
always the students were able to solve at least one real problem using CPS.
Summary
Overall, the results for question one showed that the teacher and the
observers believe primary students can apply CPS to solve real problems but
not to the extent of adults. Yet, there were some occasions when the children
responded negatively and confused. At these times, CPS was still applied but
the teacher lead the children through the process and the children followed.
66
______________________________________________________
Table 7: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form
Means and Range
Statement
Mean
Range
The students were able

to recognize the six CPS
stages.
3.7
3-4
I saw a change in the

problem solving
behavior of the children.
3.7
3-4
4.3
3-5
4.7
4-5

to recognize and express
their own real problems.
to solve at least one real
problem using CPS.
Theoretical Range 1 - 5
______________________________________________________
Qualitative Results for Research Question Two

In response to the research question: Can we document that the
primary students know and apply the four divergent and four convergent basic
tools of CPS? six themes emerged (see Table 8). The four divergent tools
looked at were brainstorming, brainwriting (drawing), forced relationships,
and SCAMPER. The four convergent tools were hits, highlighting, ALU, and
criteria matrix. The writer describes each theme and supports it with
anecdotal responses from the teacher and the observer. Observable student
behavior is also listed to support the themes (see Table 9).
67
Applied the Tools

Applied the Tools noted the tools that the children applied during the
observational study. The teacher and observers placed check marks next to
the tools that the children used or commented on the reaction of the students
to the tools. One can also see the children using the tools on the video tapes.
All tools were applied at least once with the exception of SCAMPER.
Demonstrated the Ability to Use the Tools

The theme, demonstrated the ability to use the tools, consists of
showing through actions or words the ability to use the tools. The children
deferred judgment and hitchhiked while engaged in brainstorming and
brainwriting/drawing. They did well applying forced relationships. They were
able to place dots and participate while doing hits and highlighting. The
children engaged themselves in a discussion using the criteria matrix
68
Table 9: Themes Surrounding Research Question Two
Applied the
Tools
Demonstrating
the Ability to
Use the Tools
Teacher
Teacher
written
comments about
all the tools that
they have been
applied except for
SCAMPER.
BrainstormingThey definitely
know #1 rule is
don't judge.
BrianwritingBetter at doing
fast.
Forced
RelationshipsGood.
ALU- Able to
come up with
advantages and
unique
connections.
Matrix- Able to
dialog using
information.
Positive
BrainstormingReactions to the Love it.
Tools
Matrix- Liked it.
Observers
The following
tools were
applied
Brainstorming
Brainwriting
Hits
Highlighting
ALU
Matrix
BrainstormingHitchhiked.
Hits- Placed dots.
HighlightingChildren were
helping.
Students
Video tapes
show the children
applying all the
tools except for
SCAMPER.
BrainstormingEnthusiasm.
BrainwritingEnjoyed it.
Hits- Responded
well.
HighlightingResponded well.
Very engaged
in brainwriting.
Listened to
each other's
ideas.
Very attentive
and right on task
using the vote
cards with the
criteria matrix.
Able to do
forced
relationships
connecting a
plant to a dentist.
did hits for
Data-Finding.
Were able to
state guidelines
for brainstorming
without teacher's
help.
Understood
how to use
brainwriting
form.
69
Assistance
when Using the
Tools
HighlightingAble to put in
categories when
given.
Seemed to make
sense to many of
them when
explained.
ALU- Limitation
was already
overcome - just
had to point it
out.
Hits- Modeled by
the facilitator.
HighlightingModeled by the
facilitator.
Not
Understanding
HighlightingDidn't have good

indication of their
comprehension.
Brainwriting- Not
sure they had the
meaning behind
some of the
forms.
Hits- Unclear.
MatrixSomewhat
confused.
ALU- Confused.
Overcame
limitation but
teacher very
directive in
process. Kids
were just
following
directions.
When
generated criteria
the teacher had to
ask several
prompting
questions to get
criteria from the
children.
Able to do hits
but not
necessarily
choosing ones
that fit the
situation.
Very difficult
to come up with
criteria for the
matrix.
70
as a vehicle for the discussion. Finally, they were able to generate all parts of
the ALU.
Positive Reactions to the Tools

The theme, positive reaction to the tools, refers to the level of
excitement and interest in applying the tools. The teacher and observer noted
that the students enjoyed five tools out of eight. The tools mentioned were
brainstorming, brainwriting/drawing, hits, highlighting and matrix.
Assistance when Using the Tools

Assistance when using the tools looks at the involvement of the teacher
when the children were applying the tools. Did the teacher guide or lead the
students while using the different tools? Was more assistance given to the
children than the "normal" help of a CPS facilitator? The children needed
assistance while engaged in applying highlighting, and ALU. The teacher
gave the categories for grouping items when highlighting, and needed to point
out that during the ALU they had already overcome their limitations.
Not Understanding
Not understanding refers to the inability to comprehend the tool being
applied.
The children did not comprehend parts of highlighting, and they
were somewhat confused about the criteria matrix. The children could not
always make good decisions about their hits because they could not figure out
what the drawn ideas were or did not choose ideas that referred to the
problem.
71
The last source of data collected to answer the research question: Can
we document that the primary students know and apply the four divergent
and four convergent basic tools of CPS? is quantitative. The quantitative
results came from the Student Feedback Form, the Teacher/Observer
Feedback Form and the Criteria Checklist.

The Student Feedback Form had one statement that referred to the
application of tools. The statement was, "I could use some of the tools taught
on my own, for example brainstorming and ALU." More than half of the
children believed they could apply the tools on their own (12/23). Six children
out of 23 believed they could not apply the tools on their own. The remaining
five children did not know if they could or could not (see Table 10).

The Teacher/Observer Feedback Form contained four statements that
directly related to this research question. The results showed that the
teacher and the observers believed the students could almost always use the
creative and critical thinking tools but they only sometimes understood the
creative and critical thinking tools they applied (see table 11).
Criteria Checklist
The Criteria Checklist consisted of a rating scale that indicated the
ability of the children to follow the guidelines for each tool. The scale on the
72
______________________________________________________
Statement
Ratio
Percentages
Yes
I don't
No
Yes
I don't
No
know
know
I could use some of the
tools taught on my own,
for example
brainstorming and
ALU.
12/23
5/23
6/23
52.2
21.7
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Means and Range
Statement
Mean
Range
The students used the

creative thinking skills
tools.
4.7
4-5
The students used the

critical thinking skills
tools.
4.7
4-5
The students
understand creative
thinking skills.
3.0
The students
understand critical
thinking skills.
3.0
______________________________________________________
26.1
73
Criteria Checklist is 1 = rarely; 2 = occasionally; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; and

5 = always. The teacher filled out the criteria checklist prior to the first
lesson of this observational study. The teacher taught all of the tools,
excluding SCAMPER and the criteria matrix, before the study took place.
The data showed that applying the divergent tools is easier than
applying the convergent tools. During brainstorming, the students most often
to always can follow the guidelines. The students can often follow the
guidelines to brainwriting/drawing. They often can apply the guidelines
during forced relationships. For the convergent tools, the students often apply
the guidelines to hits. During highlighting, they sometimes were successful at
applying the guidelines. Last, when using the ALU, the students sometimes
to often applied the guidelines (see Table 12).
Summary
The results from research question two identified that the children applied
seven out of eight tools. The teacher gave varying amounts of assistance while
applying the tools. The teacher and the observers noted that the children sometimes
understood the tools being applied.
74
Table 12: Criteria Checklist Data

1=rarely; 2=occasionally; 3=sometimes; 4=often; 5=always
Divergent Tools
Convergent Tools
Brainstorming
Mean 4.5
Range 4 - 5
Hits
Mean 4.0
Range 4
1. 4 able not to judge others and self;

2. 5 able to generate unique options;
3. 4 able to build on other's ideas;
and
4. 5 able to generate many ideas.
1. 4 able to look at things

positively;
2. 4 able to decide likes or dislikes
for self; and
3. 4 able to select promising options
from group of many.
Brainwriting/drawing
Mean 4.1
Range 3 -5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4 able not to judge others and self;

5 able to generate unique options;
4 able to build on other's ideas;
5 able to generate many ideas;
5 able to communicate ideas
through drawings;
6. 3 able to effectively work with
group in non-verbal manner;
and
7. 3 able to exchange paper in center
of group when ready to do so.
SCAMPER
1.NAable not to judge others and self;
2.NAable to generate unique options;
3.NAable to build on other's ideas;
4.NAable to generate many ideas;
and
5.NAable to use all idea stimulating
words associated with tool.
Forced Relationships
Mean 3.8
Range 3 - 4
1. 4 able not to judge others and self;
2. 4 able to generate unique options;
3. 4 able to build on other's ideas;
4. 4 able to generate many ideas;
and
5. 5 able to connect random objects
to problems.
Highlighting
Mean 3.2
Range 1 - 4
positively;
2. 4 able to decide likes or dislikes
for self;
3. 4 able to select promising
options from group of many;
4. 3 able to group options by
similarities; and
5. 1 able to label groups by themes.
Matrix
1.NAable to look at things
positively;
2.NAable to define criteria; and
3.NAable to apply criteria to
evaluate specific ideas.
ALU
Mean 3.6
Range 3 - 5
positively;
2. 3 able to determine the good
points of an option;
3. 3 able to determine areas that
need improvement;
4. 3 able to see future possibilities
for ideas (It might...); and
5. 5 able to overcome limitations by generating
ideas.
75
Qualitative Results for Research Question Three

In response to the research question: How can the materials provided
aid in teaching primary age students application of CPS to real problems?
seven themes emerged (see Table 13). The themes related to all the
materials including manipulatives, activities, and the lessons. The teacher
and observers' data discuss how these items helped the children to apply CPS
on real problems. See Table 14 for anecdotal responses that support the
findings.
Understanding the Concepts

The theme, Understanding the Concepts, refers to all the materials
that aided the teacher in presenting a concept clearly for the children when
first being exposed to it. Several materials, such as puppets, life size
Shenita, and shoes, helped the children understand the concepts. The teacher
and the observers noted the shoes as essential in presenting the first concept.
The puppets made the process more concrete. CPS stage cubes helped the
children visually see what stage the class worked on. Transparencies allowed
a lesson to flow. Worksheets made the concepts clear.
Keeping Attention
The theme, Keeping Attention, pertains to materials that directed the
students' attention to the task at hand. It consists of materials that involved
active participation such as CPS stage cubes, cut and paste activities,
worksheets, puppets, and the walking mat. The mat was a kinesthetic
activity. The cubes kept them involved with the components. Also, the
76
Table 14: Themes Research Question Three
Understanding the
Concepts
Keeping Attention
Assessing the
Children
Teacher
Shenita visual very
helpful - life size person.
Placing pictures
below corresponding
stage helped kids
identify with it.
Puppets are great and
graphics very useful.
Observers
Shoes were necessary
for introduction.
They (the materials)
enhanced the lesson,
transparency matrix,
planning of action sheet
and birthday scenario
sheet made the lesson
move along more
quickly.
Great, all materials
were essential.
All materials were
very well planned
utilized.
Dittos were clear.
Mat provided
Cut and paste
experiential activity.
excellent.
Materials kept kids
focused on the task.
The cubes were great.
They got really involved
with them. Materials
drew kids back to task.
Cube easy way to see (Material) Kept a
if students were with
record of what student's
me.
did.
Having the
It was necessary to
assessment blocks on
keep ideas on charts for
the tables with the
students reference and
correct components up
to see their
at all times was helpful. accomplishments.
At end gave all their
booklets to finish
getting WIBNI
statements in it. Took
apart and let them
illustrate on problem.
77
Motivating the
Children
Not Helpful
Puppets were great

manipulatives for kids.
Graphic good.
The puppets were

great motivators.
(Materials)
Maintaining interest.
Super as
manipulative (dots were
great).
The cubes were great.
They got really involved
with them.
Maybe even less
materials.
(Materials) Not very
helpful.
observers mentioned in general the materials for several of the lessons

(lessons 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) kept the children on task.
Assessing the Children

The observers and the teacher noted that one may use some of the
materials as a way to assess the students' learning. This theme indicates the
materials that aided in assessing the students. The CPS stage cubes helped
determine if the children knew the particular stage they worked on. The
charts with the children's ideas noted the ability to generate ideas and
documented what the children did. The drawings of their own problem
illustrated that the children had solved a real problem.
Motivating Students
Some of the materials motivated the students. This theme looks at the
materials that inspired the children to use them. The cubes kept the children
involved. The children responded greatly to the puppets and the dots. An
observer noted lesson 8 as keeping the interest of the children.
78
Not Helping Students

This theme incorporates the materials that did not aid the students in
applying CPS to real problems. The observers stated one lesson in which the
materials did not help. An observer suggested to delete the materials in this
particular lesson.
Suggestions
The theme, Suggestions, presents different ideas given by the teacher
and the observers for improving the materials including the manipulatives,
and the lessons. General suggestions include additions and deletions to the
materials. Table 15 and 16 share specific additions and deletions.
Additions
The additions contain four categories. These categories describe the
type of additions suggested. The categories are: (a) Physical Materials; (b)
Techniques for Teaching; (c) Interactive Experiences; and (d) Time. Physical
materials suggest different worksheets and manipulatives to add.
Techniques for teaching present different strategies to use that would
enhance the children's understanding. Interactive experiences offer ways to
keep the children actively involved during the lessons. Time refers to the
extension of time for the lessons (see Table 15).
Deletions
The deletions consist of four categories. The categories define the types
of deletions suggested. The categories are: (a) Physical Materials; (b)
Activities; (c) Teacher Talk; and (d) Parts of the Lessons. Again, physical
79
materials refer to worksheets or manipulatives to be deleted. Activities

suggest the deletion of some activities that are not effective. Teacher talk
focuses on less teaching through lecture. Last, parts of the lessons describe
the need to shorten some of the lessons (see Table 16).
The quantitative results contain data from the Student Feedback
Forms (see Table 17) or the Materials Feedback Form (see Table 18). The
compiled data indicates only the results that pertain to the research
Table 15: Additions Research Question Three

Physical Materials
Techniques for
Teaching
Teacher
Choice of shoes.
Tape recorder.
ALU worksheet.
Give scenarios or
additional questions,
describe situations
where work together.
How they solved it
(their own problem).
Criteria for selection
of a good mess broad,
brief, beneficial.
Observers
Literature.
Map form classroom
to cafeteria.
Better questioning
techniques.
Ownership for kids.
Breaking it up.
Symbols for how they
might feel first day (of
school).
Mindmapping of
components.
Practice with hits, hot
spots and clustering.
More "build up" of
concept in simpler
terms.
More and repeated
examples to familiarize
and help internalize.
80
Interactive
Experiences
More discussion
around roles.
More role with
puppet.
Time
More time to debrief.

Time was short it
(booklets containing
messes) has
possibilities if had
longer time with groups.
Student involvement
talking, sharing,
throughout.
Role playing.
Puppet show.
Student movement.
Small group work.
Plan a "real" party.
More group work.
More active
participation with
"gamey" techniques.
Time to develop each
of the goals and
objectives.
More time (divide
lessons).
Table 16: Deletions Research Question Three
Physical Materials
Activities
Teacher Talk
Teacher
Large area map (do a
simpler map).
Diagnosing by
children (maybe call it
Component/Stage
identification).
Words.
Too much listening,

pace wasn't good.
Observers
Map from school to
home.
Debrief, kids were
over tired.
Sitting at the tables
get them closer.
Extrinsic motivation
"promising something if
they are good".
So much total group.
Less teacher talking.
Large amount of
talking.
81
Parts of the Lessons
Time is still a factor.
Seems too long.

An entire lesson could
be built around each
objective.
Too much information
for one lesson.
Content (simplify).
Terminology too much
to it.
Length of lesson.
question: How did the materials provided aid in teaching primary age
students application of CPS to real problems?

The Student Feedback Form consisted of four statements that
pertained to this research question (see Table 17). The results indicated that
more than three-fourths of the students thought that CPS was fun. Four said
they did not know if CPS was fun and one child stated it was not fun.
Thirteen children out of twenty-three said they used the charts and poster
material to help solve problems, while five students noted that they did not
use the charts to help solve problems and five children said they did not know.
Thirteen children stated they understood the charts, while seven children did
not know if they understood the charts and three said they did not understand
the charts. Almost seventy percent of the children liked to play with the toys
we used when doing CPS, five children did not know if they liked to play with
the toys and two did not like playing with the toys.
Materials Feedback Form

The Materials Feedback Form contained only questions referring to the
materials used to teach CPS including all manipulatives, worksheets and
82
lessons. The teacher and the observers responded to nine quantitative

questions based on the scale: 1 = rarely; 2 = occasionally; 3 = sometimes; 4 =
often; and 5 = always (see Table 18).
All the results ranged from sometimes to always. The teacher and the
observers believed the students often to always responded favorably to the
materials. They indicated the children sometimes to often understood
______________________________________________________
Statement
Ratio
Percentages
Yes
I don't
No
Yes
I don't
No
know
know
CPS is fun.
18/23
4/23
1/23
78.3
17.4
4.3
I used the charts and

posters to help solve
problems.
13/23
5/23
5/23
56.5
21.7
21.7
I understand the charts

the teacher used for
CPS.
13/23
7/23
3/23
56.5
30.4
13.0
I like to play with the

16/23
toys we use when we are
doing CPS.
5/23
2/23
69.6
21.7
8.7
______________________________________________________
83
______________________________________________________
Table 18: Materials Feedback Form
Means and Range
Statement
Mean
Range
Did the students

respond favorably to the
materials.
4.3
4-5
Did the charts aid in

understanding CPS?
3.7
3-4
Did the kit supplies aid

in understanding CPS?
4.3
4-5
Did the worksheets aid

in understanding CPS?
3.7
3-4
Was the teacher

instructional material
easy to follow?
4.7
4-5
Were the lessons easy to

follow?
4.3
4-5
Were the materials at

the appropriate age
level?
3.7
3-4
Did the lessons follow

an accurate scope and
sequence?
3.7
3-4
Were the materials

successful in teaching
the students CPS?
4.3
4-5
______________________________________________________
84
the charts, and worksheets, while the children often to always understood the
manipulatives. The teacher and the observers stated that the instructional
material and lessons were often to always easy to follow. They felt
sometimes to often the material was at the appropriate age level and the
lessons followed an accurate scope and sequence. Last, the teacher and
observers noted that often to always the materials were successful in teaching
the students CPS.
Summary
The results from research question three indicated that the materials
helped in keeping the attention of the students, in understanding the
concepts, in motivating the students, and in assessing the children. The
materials also failed at times to be helpful in teaching CPS with primary
children. The teacher and the observers shared specific additions and
deletions that would improve the materials, particularly the lessons.
Qualitative Results for Research Question Four

Research question four was In what ways are CPS facilitation
strategies modified when working with primary age children? The answer to
this question describes the changes needed in comparison to facilitation with
adults. In response to this question six themes emerged along with some
quantitative results (see Table 19). The emerged themes were Changing
Semantics, Presenting Difficult Concepts, Using Symbols or Visuals,
Including More Involvement, Assessing for Understanding, and Time. The
writer describes the themes and how they relate to the question. Then the
writer uses anecdotal responses to support each theme (see Table 20).
85
Changing Semantics
Changing Semantics entails making CPS language more
understandable for primary children, in particular, using clear, simple and
concise language. The teacher and observers identified the need to bring the
language including the CPS terminology down to the first grade level. They
found it necessary to be clear when describing different concepts (i. e. messes,
and the components). The children needed practice articulating their
thoughts and ideas. The teacher and the observers indicated that the lessons
were too semantically based. The lessons needed to be less verbal.
Presenting Difficult Concepts

Presenting Difficult Concepts refers to the need to present difficult
material in a different way. The teacher and observers stated several parts of
CPS as very difficult to facilitate young children (i. e. assisters and
86
Table 20: Themes Research Question Four
Changing Semantics
Presenting Difficult
Concepts
Using Symbols or
Visuals
Including More
Involvement
Teacher
Having kids
articulate role with
puppet.
Very verbal lesson.
Terminology I used
was unclear.
How to verbally
present names of
components so it's
clearer.
Getting client to come
up with concerns.
Can they come up
with the categories of
highlighting?
Observers
Bring content down to
a first grade level.
Keep vocabulary to a
first grade level.
Better question
techniques.
Modeling what
students were to do.
Teaching assisters
and resisters.
Choosing criteria is a
tough process to
understand. I'm not
sure it's even important.
Having children
continue drawing while
others were on the mat.
Perhaps having a
graphic of chosen one
separated from all
others would have
helped.
Share back what they
drew or wrote.
Having students
More student
engaged in activity
involvement.
throughout.
A more experiential
approach.
How to keep all or
most children involved
while recording ideas on
chart paper?
87
Assessing for
Understanding
Time
Making sure they still

understood that
brainwriting was still
about the same problem
statement.
Seeing if they actually
knew what components
we had been in and were
in.
Holding their
attention for a long
period of time.
Time (took a long
time).
How to be sure
children understood the
content.
How to assess
learning?
Be sure students
understand process.
Maintain interest for

that length of time.
Knowing how long to
keep asking 5 w's and h
so children keep
involved.
resisters, and criteria). The presentation of material needs to be different.

Some suggestions were to use literature, or model the activities. The teacher
suggested giving the categories during highlighting and then having the
students fit the hits into the categories. An observer questioned the
importance of a primary student to choose criteria, and suggested the
facilitator should provide it.
Using Visual or Symbols

Using Visuals or Symbols presents a way for young children to read or
communicate thoughts and ideas. Facilitation suggestions included having
the children draw pictures to communicate their ideas, to remember ideas, or
use the drawing as a reading device to share ideas. In addition, the teacher
suggested to add more graphics to the lessons.
88
Including More Involvement

The theme, Including More Involvement, represents the need to use
more activities when facilitating primary age students. The teacher and the
observers suggested using more interaction, and experiential activities. They
recommended cutting out much the talking done by the facilitator. More
specifically, an observer stated the need to involve the other students while
children shared their ideas.
Assessing for Understanding

Assessing for Understanding states the need to ensure the students
understanding of CPS. The teacher and the observers expressed concern for
not truly knowing if the children understood the material presented. The
facilitator needs strategies or techniques for assessing the level of
understanding of the students. They did not present specific suggestions for
how to assess the understanding of the primary students.
Time
Time takes into account the attention span of primary age children.
The teacher and the observers expressed how difficult it was to keep the
attention of the students for the duration of the lessons. Specifically, an
observer recommended watching student behavior to determine their
attention span. Once their attention span is determined, tailor the lessons to
fit their span.
The qualitative results includes one statement from the Student
Feedback Form and the Teacher/Observer Feedback Form. Each statement
89
refers to the research questions: In what ways are the facilitation strategies
modified when working with primary age children?

The Student Feedback Form contains the statement: My teacher
helped me with CPS and real problems. Most students (20/23) stated that
they believed their teacher helped them when applying CPS, and the
remaining did not know if their teacher was helpful (see Table 21).

The Teacher/Observer Feedback Form contained one statement that
referred to this research question. The teacher and the observers responded
that sometimes to often the teacher adapted her facilitating to meet the
needs of the primary age group (see Table 22).
Summary
The result from question four showed that the way to facilitate primary
children is different from how one might facilitate adults. The teacher and
the observers suggested some modifications in facilitating by: changing
semantics; presenting difficult concepts differently; using more symbols or
visuals; including more involvement; creating tools to assess for
understanding; and shortening the length of time of the lessons.
Summary
Section Four presented the results of the observational study. The
writer presented the findings for all of the research questions individually,
including both qualitative and quantitative results.
90
______________________________________________________
Statement
Ratio
Percentages
Yes
I don't
No
Yes
I don't
No
know
know
My teacher helped me
with CPS and real
problems.
20/23
3/23
0/23
87.0
13.0
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Means and Range
Statement
Mean
Range
The teacher adapted her

facilitating to meet the
needs of the primary age
group.
3.3
______________________________________________________
3-4
0.0
91
SECTION 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This section overviews the findings for each research question. The writer
discusses the results and shares the implications. The writer notes the
limitations of the study and makes recommendations for future work. The
recommendations focus on the future study of primary children and CPS.
Conclusions and Implications

The purpose of this study was to determine if primary age children could
use CPS to solve real problems and to look at how one teaches CPS to this age
group. The results of the study indicated that primary children can use CPS to
solve real problems. Yet their understanding of CPS is limited, and because of
this limitation the facilitation of primary children differs from the facilitation of
adults.
The writer addresses each question separately and discusses the
conclusions and the implications.
Research Question One

To what extent are primary children able to engage in real life application of
CPS?
The teacher and the observers felt the children could use CPS to solve real
problems. They noted that the children did solve at least one real problem using
CPS. The extent in which the children could use CPS varied depending on the
component, stage or tool being applied; or the involvement of the children with
the issue.
The children seemed more involved when the problem was real as opposed
to contrived. Their interest level and participation increased. They seemed to
feel their participation had a purpose.
92
The teacher and the observers stated that the children usually , but not
always, demonstrated the ability to apply CPS. The children could share their
thoughts and ideas through drawings and manipulatives. They recognized the
components and stages.
They were able to use most of the CPS language. They were involved in
applying all the stages and components of CPS but at varying levels. The
children found it easier to apply the components Understanding the Problems
and Idea Generating than Planning for Action. They applied the stages in IdeaFinding and Problem-Finding with less help from the teacher. The children
needed precise step by step instructions during Solution-Finding and AcceptanceFinding.
These findings indicate that young children do have real problems and can
apply CPS to solve them. Also, primary children are not capable of applying CPS
by themselves. Their understanding of how CPS works and functions is very
limited. They can do what the teacher tells them to successfully, but it seems as
though they do not yet fully understand or internalize these activities.
They appeared to recognize CPS and understand that we can use CPS to
solve problems. Most of them could recognize what stage they were applying but
could not identify the stage they needed to use next. Their ability did not go
beyond the recognition stage. As practice occurred, the children began to
memorize the stages and their functions. For example, the children practiced
applying the generating options guidelines a lot and possibly could have become
very good at applying them. This may be the reason they had the least difficulty
applying Idea-Finding. With more practice it seems it would become easier for
the children to apply all parts of CPS, but their understanding of why we are
choosing to apply different components or tools may come more slowly.
93
Research Question Two

Can we document that the primary students know and apply the four divergent
and four convergent basic tools of CPS?
The teacher and the observers documented that seven out of the eight tools
were applied at least once. The teacher did not introduce the tool SCAMPER.
The tool SCAMPER was not explicitly written into any of the lessons to use as a
divergent tool during the use of CPS. The teacher overlooked the need to use and
apply SCAMPER for this study. The teacher and the observers felt the children
could apply the seven tools: brainstorming, brainwriting, forced relationships,
hits, highlighting, ALU and criteria matrix, but determining if the children knew
the tools was difficult. When applying each tools, the students needed varying
degrees of assistance. With some tools the children did not understand parts of
the application. With other tools the children could state how to apply it and
demonstrate how to use the tool. The teacher and the observers recognized that
the students tended to need more assistance when applying the convergent tools
as opposed to the divergent tools.
These results suggest that primary children could apply basic divergent
and convergent tools, and that the divergent tools were easier to apply than the
convergent tools. This may indicate that the students did not practice the
convergent tools as much, or that, in general, convergent tools are more difficult
to apply. The children were not as able to apply most of the tools independently;
they were familiar enough with the tools to apply them with assistance, but they
did not necessary understand the tools and the tools' functions sufficiently to
enable them to use them without the teacher's support.
Research Question Three
How can the materials provided aid in teaching primary age students application
of CPS to real problems?
94
The teacher and the observers noted that the materials aided in
introducing and helping understand the stages and components of CPS. Some
parts of the lessons, particularly the experiential activities truly kept the
attention of the students and motivated them. The materials aided in assessing
whether or not the students understood the content of the lessons. Some
materials were found not to help at all. Through the suggestions of the additions
and deletions, the teacher and the observers found the materials, particularly the
lessons, to be too long. Also, the lessons did not contain enough experiential
activities to keep the children engaged as much as possible.
These findings reinforce the need to use experiential activities to teach
primary children. If the children are engaged in the more activities, levels of
participation may increase. The materials did aid in several ways in teaching
CPS, but they also hindered the teaching in other ways. The lessons were too
long and contained too much listening for this age level. These findings also
highlight the need to make CPS, a traditionally semantically based process, less
dependent on verbal proficiency. The teacher may need to model the different
applications of CPS continuously particularly focusing on the stages and
components. Teachers also need to develop assessment tools to gain the
understanding of the students.
Research Question Four
In what ways are CPS facilitation strategies modified when working with
primary age children?
The teacher and the observers found that there needed to be several
changes in the way one facilitates primary children as opposed to adults.
Semantics was a major concern. They suggested that the language needs to be
clearer, more concise, and simpler. The teacher indicated the need to use less
talk and replace it with more symbols and visuals. The teacher and the
95
observers found the children were participating and actively involved if activities
were done that allowed the children to participate.
These findings imply that a facilitator working with primary children
needs to play a more active role during the application of CPS. The facilitator
may need to develop more and varied support materials that captures the
essence of different stages' or components' functions in non-verbal formats. The
facilitator must create different activities that will keep the participants actively
involved. The facilitator must give clearer instructions, perhaps step by step
directions when applying different tools or stages to a problem. The facilitator
may even have to provide more clarification of the children's ideas and thoughts
than a facilitator would do in a CPS session with older participants.
Summary
The conclusions suggested that primary children were able to engage in
CPS to solve real problems, but in varying degrees, and were capable of applying
seven out of the eight basic divergent and convergent tools. Further, the results
suggested that the materials aided in teaching CPS in several ways but could be
more helpful, and that facilitating strategies needed to be changed in several
ways when working with primary children. The writer discussed the implications
of these conclusions.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Study

The limitations are not presented in any particular order. Each limitation
pertains to the set up of the observational study including the lessons, and
feedback forms.
96
Limitations
1. The teacher taught one lesson a week for twelve weeks. The frequency
of the lessons may not have been sufficient to sustain the motivation and
attention of primary students.
2. The lessons were approximately 50 minutes each. This is too long for
primary students because of their short attention span. Lessons 20 - 30 minutes
long would be a more effective length of time than 50 minutes.
3. The observers viewed each lesson by video tape instead of viewing each
lesson as it occurred. It was difficult for the observers to see all of the activity
going on and to hear all of the children's responses.
4. The teacher did not teach two of the convergent tools prior to the first
lesson of this study as planned, and did not introduce one tool at all. This may
have hindered the learning of CPS and its application to real problems, and the
writer did not collect data about one tool.
5. The video tapes recorded student behavior during the study but the
students did not provide any feedback during the study, only after the study. A
feedback form for the students to respond to each individual lesson would have
been helpful.
6. The teacher and students addressed and solved two real problems
during the study. It would have been advantageous to have more data about
several different real problems the children solved. With more experience in
working with real problems the students might have gained competence and
confidence. Another possibility is to provide more work at Level II with practice
problems which might have prepared the students to work on real problems.
7. A few questions on the Teacher/Observer Feedback Form did not yield
the information the writer was asking about. Future efforts maybe made to
rephrase unclear questions. Particularly, the question What were some
97
behavioral indicators that showed the children were engaged in real life
applications? This question was unclear in that the observers responded to only
the parts of the lessons that included real life applications as opposed to
indicating behaviors that showed the students could use various parts of CPS to
solve real problems. Making the question more specific would clarify the
responses. For example, What were some behavioral indicators that showed the
children could use CPS to solve real problems?
Another unclear question was How did the children react to the lesson?
The observers responded to this question by indicating whether or not the
students liked the lesson as opposed to the students reactions to CPS. It would
be advantageous to make the question more specific in that the observers
respond to How did the children react to CPS during this lesson?
8. The teacher introduced all the divergent and convergent tools but two
prior to the first lesson of the study. The students practiced the tools
approximately one time each. If the study began later in the year, the tools would
have been practiced more and may not have effected the ability of the students to
apply CPS as much.
9. Two observers and one teacher submitted data for this study. All of
them were trained in CPS. It would have be advantageous to obtain the
viewpoint of a person not formally trained in CPS.
10. Again, only three people submitted data, other than the students.
More observers would have validated the findings.
Recommendations
The recommendations are randomly presented. The recommendations
refer to possible future studies or questions that need research. Each
recommendation pertains to the study overall.
98
1. This study provided data to support that young children are capable of
applying CPS to help solve real problems. Yet, this study did not involve looking
at whether or not primary children are capable of using CPS by themselves to
solve problems. The writer recommends that a study to be conducted which
assesses the ability of primary children to apply CPS on their own; and that
several strategies and tools be developed and studied for assessing primary
children's ability to apply CPS.
2. The study provided some evidence to suggest that convergent tools
seemed more difficult to apply for primary children than divergent tools.
The
writer suggests that a study be done to replicate this result. Subsequent

research might explore why primary children may find it more difficult to apply
convergent tools than divergent tools.
3. The results of this study noted that the lessons were too long and did
not contain enough experiential activities. The writer recommends that the
lessons be revised to include several experiential activities and that the lessons
be cut down to 20 - 30 minute lessons.
4. The study also indicated the need to use less talk and simpler
language. The writer suggests the development of a less language-reliant version
of CPS. Prior to the study several adaptions were made to make CPS less
language-reliant. For example, Puccio and Keller-Mathers (in preparation)
developed charts that used symbols and colors to represent CPS. On the charts
only the stage name and the occupation that related to the stages were indicated.
In addition, several of the tools were adapted for use with pictures or drawing
instead of writing (i.e. braindrawing instead of brainwriting). Most of these
adaptions seemed to work with the children. Manipulatives, such as puppets,
cubes, and vote cards, were added to allow for tactile learning as opposed to
auditory. These manipulatives worked well, but the puppets were not used to
99
their potential. More role playing with the puppets may lead to a better
understanding of the concepts of each stage.
In particular, the study identified a few areas that needed less languagereliant activities and more hands on, or kinesthetic type activities to aid in
learning of the concepts. Most convergent tools need manipulatives to focus
learning. Solution-Finding is a stage where the language is not clear for young
children. Even the analogy between the teacher and what occurs during Solutionfinding does not capture the necessary functions. The language, the
manipulatives or activities used during application of convergent tools or
Solution-Finding needs to be very carefully and deliberately planned. For
example, during the application of the ALU the symbols +, -, and * may be used
to indicate the functions. The children are very familiar with these symbols and
can relate them to the functions of the ALU.
Another recommendation is to introduce the language of CPS differently.
The writer suggests presenting an experiential activity before any language that
will allow the children to experience a metacognitive function. Once the children
experience what the metacognitive function feels like, the teacher can develop the
children's language by labeling the activity. Therefore, the children have an
awareness of what particular metacognitive functions are like and can retrieve
them by name.
5. When applying CPS, the facilitator works closely with the client.
During this study, the facilitator worked with the client while the class was
present. The writer recommends pre-planning be done with the facilitator and
the client prior to the lessons involving the students, or stopping a lesson when
the facilitator needs to work only with the client. This would shorten the length
of the lessons.
100
6. The study did not yield time to continue the use of CPS to solve several
of the students real problems. Practice continues the learning of CPS. Should
the learning continue through contrived problems or while applying CPS to solve
real problems? The writer suggests that further research investigates if children
need more Level II practice or do they need continuing use in Level III.
Summary
In summary, this study noted that primary age children are able to use the
current approach to CPS to solve real problems. This section draws conclusions
for each research question and states the implications of these findings. Next,
the writer indicated several limitations and gave suggestions on overcoming
those limitations, and presented recommendations for the future.
101
REFERENCES
Bomba, A. K., Moran III, J. D., & Goble, C. B. (1991). Relationship between
familial style and creative potential of preschool children. Psychological
Reports, 68, 1323-1326.
Broomell, B. E., & Griffin, D. W. (1984). What if? East Aurora, NY:
D.O.K.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1979). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Expanded
Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carnevale, A. P., Gainer, L. J., & Meltzer, A. S. (1991). Workplace
basics: The essential skills employers want. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Clapham, M. M., & Schuster, D. H. (1992). Can engineering students be
trained to think more creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior 26 (3),
156-162.
Colucci, L. (1990). Integrating critical and creative thinking skills
in a fourth grade science class. Unpublished Master's Project,
Buffalo State College. Buffalo, NY.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985) Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F.
Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills: Relating
instruction to research (Vol. 1) (pp. 209-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, G. A. (1992).Creativity is forever. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective
thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath and
Company.
Deutsch, G. (1985). Creative Problem Solving for young people. East
Aurora, NY: D.O.K.
Duckworth, E. (1964). Piaget rediscovered. In R. E. Ripple & V. N.
102
Rockcastle (Eds.) Piaget Rediscovered (pp. 1-5). Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University.
Duling, G. (1989). The hare and the tortoise. East Aurora, NY:
D. O. K.
Duling, G. (1988). The eency wency spider. East Aurora, NY:
D. O. K.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Treffinger, D. (1992). Bringing out the giftedness in
your child: Nurturing every child's unique strengths, talents, and
potential. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eberle, B. (1977).Scamper: Games for imagination development.
Buffalo, NY: D.O.K.
Eberle, B., & Stanish, B. (1985). CPS for Kids. East Aurora, NY:
D.O.K.
Eberle, B., & Stanish, B. (1984). Be a problem solver. East Aurora,
NY: D. O. K.
Elwell, P. (1990). CPS for teenagers. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K./United.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative thinking and
problem solving in gifted education (3rd. Ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall-Hunt.
Firestien, R. L. (1988). From basics to breakthroughs: A guide to
better thinking and decision making. East Aurora, NY: United
Educational Services.
Goble, C. B., Moran, III, J. D., & Bomba, A. K. (1991). Maternal teaching
techniques and preschool children's ideational fluency. Creativity
Research Journal 4 (3), 273-279.
Isaksen, S. G. (1992). Current approaches and applications of
Creative Problem Solving. Amherst, NY: Creative Problem
Solving Group Buffalo.
Isaksen, S. G. (1991). Conceptions of creativity. Unpublished manuscript,
State University College as Buffalo NY, Center for Studies in Creativity,
Buffalo.
103
Isaksen, S. G. (1987). Introduction: An orientation to the frontiers of

creativity research. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers in creativity
research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. T. (1994). Creative
approaches to problem solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Isaksen, S. G., Puccio, G. J., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). An ecological
approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving.
Journal of Creative Behavior 27 (3), 149-170.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving:
The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1991). Creative learning and problem
solving. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: Programs for teaching
thinking (Volume 2, pp. 89-93). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design
in educational research (2nd. Ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
Incorporated.
Linderman, C. M. (1992). Incorporating creative and critical
thinking skills into a holiday curriculum for elementary children.
Unpublished Master's Project, Buffalo State College. Buffalo, NY.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., Arredondo, D. E., Blackburn, G. J.,
Brandt, R. S., & Moffett, C. A. (1992). Dimensions of learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Massialas, B. G., & Cox, C. B. (1966). Inquiry in social studies. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill. p. 40.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An
expanded sourcebook (2nd. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood. Notre Dame, IN:
104
Fides Publishers, Inc.

Noller, R. B., Parnes, S. J., & Biondi, A. M. (1976). Creative Actionbook.
New York: NY. Charles Scribner's Sons.
Ojemann, R. H. (1968). Developmental factors related to productive
thinking. In M. J. Aschner & C. E. Bish (Eds.) Productive thinking in
education (pp. 73-90). Washington, D. C: National Education
Association.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Charles
Scribner's Sons.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of
creative problem solving. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior workbook. New York, NY:
Scribners.
Parnes, S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen
(Ed.), Frontiers in creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156188). 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. Journal of Creative
Behavior 6 (3), 164-186.
Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1973). Applied creativity: The creative studies
project: Part IV--Personality findings and conclusions. Journal of
Creative Behavior 7 (1), 15-36.
Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Guide to Creative
Action. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Persyn, G. (1992). An investigation into the graphical depictions of natural
creative problem solving. Unpublished master's thesis, State University
College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. N.
Rockcastle (Eds.) Piaget Rediscovered (pp. 7-20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University.
Piaget, J. (1973). The language and thought of the child. New York, NY:
World Publishing.
105
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget's sampler: An introduction to Jean Piaget through

his own words. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Polson, P. G., & Jeffries, R. (1985). Analysis--Instruction in general
problem-solving skills: An analysis of four approaches. In J. W. Segal,
S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills:
Relating instruction to research (Volume 1, pp. 417-455). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Puccio, K. G., & Keller-Mathers, S. (in preparation).
Renzulli, J. S. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the illusive
meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 26 (4), 147-156.
Renzulli, M. J., Ford, B. G., Smith, L., & Renzulli, J. S. (1976). New
directions in creativity: Mark A. New York, NY: Harper & Row,
Publishers.
Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L.
B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially
shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum:
An overview. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the
thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 1-18). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, L. H., & Lin H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term
creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior 18 (1),
11-22.
Rosen, H. (1977). Pathway to Piaget. Cherry Hill, NJ: Postgraduate
International, Incorporated.
Segal, J. W., & Chipman, S. F. (1985). Higher cognitive goals for education:
An introduction. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.)
Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to research (Vol. 1)
(pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shaklee, B. D. (1985). The effectiveness of teaching creative problem
solving techniques to enhance the problem solving ability of
106
kindergarten students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Mississippi State University, MS.
Smolucha, F. (1992). The relevance of Vygotsky's theory of creative

imagination for contemporary play. Creativity Research Journal, 5 (1),
69-76.
Stanish, B, (1978). CPS for Kids
The Bureau of Curriculum Development, (1982). First grade social
studies program. Albany, NY: The State Education Department.
The Bureau of Curriculum Development, (1982). Kindergarten social
The Bureau of Curriculum Development, (1982). Second grade social
The University of the State of New York, (1991). A new compact for
learning: Improving public elementary, middle, and secondary
education results in the 1990s, Albany, NY: the State Education
Department.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively?
Journal of Creative Behavior, 6 (2), 114-143.
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo,
NY: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement.

Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.),
Frontiers in creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156-188).
Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1990). The incubation model of teaching:
Getting beyond the aha! Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Treffinger, D. J., Cross, J. A. Jr., Feldhusen, J. F., Isaksen, S. G., Remle,
R. C., & Sortore, M. R. (1993). Productive thinking volume 1:
Foundations, criteria, and reviews. Sarasota, FL: Center for
107
Creative Learning.
Treffinger, D. J., Feldhusen, J. F., & Isaksen, S. G. (1990).
Organization and structure of productive thinking. Creative
Learning Today, 4 (2), 6-8.
Treffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (1992). Creative Problem Solving:
An introduction. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
Wernstein, C. E., & Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies: The how
of learning. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking
and learning skills: Relating instruction to research (Vol. 1)
(pp. 241-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York, NY: Harper and
Row, Publishers.
Wertsch, J. V. & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary
developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V.
Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188).
Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
108
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Integrating CPS with New York State Primary Social
Studies Curricula
NY Curriculum Topics
Kindergarten
Applications of CPS
109
Each person has needs and wants, Using Data-Finding have the
abilities, skills, interests, and
children generate data about
feelings.
themselves from all the sources of
data. Using highlighting have the
children evaluate their data to
group their needs and wants,
abilities, skills, interests, and
feelings.
Rules affect children and adults
Use the Generating Ideas
in homes and families, in schools,
component to have the children
in friendships and relationships,
think about and generate ideas on
in the community, and
How might our school be different
everywhere.
if there were no rules? or How
might the United States be
different if there were no rules?
Then have them evaluate their
ideas to determine which ones
would effect them most.
People make decisions about the
money they earn.
Give the children a list of things

they can spend their money on.
Using Solution-Finding together
decide the best way to spend the
money. Present criteria to the
children and use the criteria
matrix to make a decision.
People celebrate important dates

and events of the past.
Use the Generating Ideas and

Planning for Action components
and allow the children an
opportunity to create their own
important date as a class and
celebrate it.
110
First Grade
Families may observe different
festivals and celebrations in
different ways. Customs may
include food and eating customs
Applications of CPS
For any or all holidays the
children learn about have the
them create and make their own
recipe to celebrate that day. Use
the Generating Ideas component
to come up with ideas. Then use
the Planning for Action
component to refine the idea and
create a plan for making the new
food.
People can make and change rules At any appropriate time when a
as problem solvers.
problem arises in the classroom
use CPS to solve it. It may even
lead to making or changing
classroom rules.
Communities are organized to
provide services to people.
Use CPS (all components may be

necessary) to have the children
determine a service they can
supply to the community, or
others in their school. Make sure
they come up with a plan to
provide the service and
implement it.
People, places, and things change

over time. Change can have
positive and negative
consequences.
Discuss a recent change, for

example personal computers,
have the children determine the
positive and negative
consequences of it. Use the ALU
technique to lead the discussion.
111
Second Grade
Families are found in all
communities as a basic unit of
society in urban, rural, or
suburban.
Applications of CPS
Depending on the type of
community you live in have the
children develop an ideal
community for kids. Have them
use CPS to determine the parts of
the community, what it would
look like, and what services would
be offered.
Every community has rules and

laws to govern and protect
community members.
Start the year off by using the

Generating Ideas and the
Planning for Action components of
CPS to have the children develop
the classroom rules. The children
can generate lots of rules. They
can decide which rules are most
appropriate for their classroom.
Last they may write and
implement a plan for following
the rules.
People in rural, urban, and

suburban communities are
producers of goods and services.
Wouldn't it be nice if the children

became producers of goods and
services. Use CPS as the process
to help the children produce a
good and to create a commercial
that would potentially help sell
the product.
Schools change over time.
Direct this question to the

children: How might school
change in the future? Use
Generating Ideas component to
brainstorm several ways the
schools may change. Use the
Planning for Action component to
help make a plan of a model of
what a school may look like in the
future. Take time to create the
model.
112
Appendix B
September 15, 1993
Dear Parent or Guardian,
My name is Kristin Puccio and I am currently working on my Master's
project in creativity and innovation at Buffalo State College. I am also the
IDEAS teacher at Country Parkway Elementary. Several years ago, Sue KellerMathers, the gifted specialist at Campus West, and I worked together with
second grade students developing their problem-solving skills at Campus West.
Since, that time Sue and I have been developing materials (including
manipulatives, charts and worksheets) which provide primary age children
with the opportunity to solve their own problems.
After surveying many children in the Western New York area , we have
discovered that there are real life problems that young children need and
want to solve. A problem is not necessarily something negative, but can be
seen as an opportunity. For young children, it is often something they are
curious about, interested in, or want to be able to do. We would like to provide
your child with the opportunity to become better creative and critical
thinkers through Creative Problem Solving training. Therefore, as part of the
challenge program, the teacher will be teaching Creative Problem Solving to
the first grade class.
To successfully complete this project we would like your permission to
videotape each lesson taught. Approximately eleven lessons will be taught
once a week from October through December. At the end of the unit your child
will be asked to give their reactions about the lessons and activities to the
teacher in order to improve the materials.
Participation in this study will not affect your child's grades or work in
other subject areas. It does not focus on individual profiling or assessment.
This study does not evaluate your child in any way. No individual or group
testing will be conducted. No children will be identified by name in any part
of the project work or in subsequent reports.
Our experiences with these activities in many schools tells us that
children find them enjoyable and valuable. The activities have been designed
to fit easily into your child's regular school curriculum and daily program.
This project will be evaluating the new materials we have developed. If you
have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact myself at 839-9370.
Please complete the attached permission form and return to the teacher
by September 21.
Sincerely,
Kristin Puccio
113
Permission Slip
Creative Problem Solving Training for First Graders
____Yes, I give my child, _____________________,
permission to participate in this study and be videotaped.
____No, I do not give my child, __________________,
permission to participate to participate in this study and be
videotaped.
Guardian' s Signature ___________________
Date: ____________
Please return to the teacher by September 21.
114
Appendix C
Lesson 1: Shoes to fit every walk of life
Materials:
1. various different types of shoes
2. number cards
3. index cards (enough for each child)
4. definition of style
Goals:
1. To examine style preferences in various areas.
2. To reinforce that style represents preferences which are value
neutral.
Objectives:
1. The student will describe preferences in areas such as shoes,
clothing, music, and hairstyle.
2. The student will examine how his/her style is similar and/or
different than other students preferred style.
3. The student will evaluate how he/she can work better with others
of a different style.
Warm-up:
1. Set up many various different styles of shoes in the front of the
room.
2. Have each pair of shoes labeled with a number card.
3. Allow children to time to look, touch, and explore the shoes
115
without any teacher input.

4. Then students secretly select and write the number of their
favorite shoe on an index card without sharing (be sure to emphasize
that the shoe will come in their shoe size and the shoe will be brand
new).
Digging Deeper:
1. In a circle have students talk about the shoes (goal is to get some
kind of consensus that all the shoes are functional shoes but are
different in style).
2. Lead discussion with prompting questions:
Are the shoes different?
How are they different?
What makes them different?
Do you like some shoes more than others (don't tell me which
explain why)?
What are shoes suppose to do?
Do you think all the shoes work?
Are any of the shoes better than another?
3. Reinforce that all shoes are the same in that they get the job done.
4. Also explain that they are different in style.
5. Allow students to share their preferred style of shoes (have them
explain why they chose that particular shoe; for example it is red,
it is the sandal for summer, it is a sneaker I like to play sports). 6.
Next define style. Style is a way of doing things (writing,
dressing, talking, building, thinking).
Extension:
1. Share styles beyond shoes (goal is to get students to understand
that different activities can be done in many different ways which are
116
not right or wrong; just different in your choices and the way you do
something).
style choices--dress, hairstyle
way of doing things--handwriting, how you presented during
show and tell
2. Relate style issue to future CPS lessons (relate it to group activity,
working differently with others, and who are different than you).
117
Appendix D
Teacher/Observer-----Lesson Log
Name of Lesson:
Goals:
Objectives:
List of Materials:
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 applications?
3. What were some of the facilitating challenges?
4. How did the children react to the lesson?
In particular, what were their reactions to the tools or techniques presented?

Divergent Tools
brainstorming _______________________________________
brainwriting/drawing __________________________________
forced relationships____________________________________
SCAMPER____________________________________________
Convergent Tools
hits _______________________________________________
highlighting_________________________________________
matrix_____________________________________________
ALU ______________________________________________
5. To what extent and in what specific ways, do you feel the lesson's goals
were accomplished?
118
6. In what ways were the materials useful?
7. What would you add to or delete from this lesson to improve it?
Add
Delete
119
Appendix E
Please circle the best response.
1=rarely
2=occasionally
3=sometimes
4=often
5=always
1. The students were able to grasp CPS language.

1
2a. The students used the creative thinking skills tools.

1
2b. The students used the critical thinking skills tools.

1
2c. The students understand creative thinking skills

1
2d. The students understand critical thinking skills.

1
2
3
4
3. The students were able to recognize the six CPS stages.

1
2
3
4
4. I saw a change in the problem solving behavior of the children.

1
2
3
4
5
5. The students were able to recognize and express their own real
problems.
1
2
3
4
5
6. The students were able to solve at least one real problems using CPS.
1
2
3
4
5
120
7. The teacher adapted her facilitating to meet the needs of the primary age
group.
1
Please respond to the following questions.

1. How well do the children understand CPS?
2. Did the students use CPS successfully to solve their own real
problems (Level III)? Why or why not?
3. If necessary please respond. How did you adapt your facilitating

to meet the needs of the primary age students?
121
Appendix F
Materials Feedback Form
Unit beginning date ____________
Unit completion date ____________
Did you complete the unit?
yes
no
Circle the appropriate response.

1=rarely
2=occasionally
3=sometimes
4=often
5=always
1. Did the students respond favorably to the materials?

1
2. Did the charts aid in understanding CPS?

1
3. Did the kit's supplies aid in understanding CPS?

1
4. Did the worksheets aid in understanding CPS?

1
5. Was the teacher instructional material easy to follow?

1
6. Were the lessons easy to follow?

1
7. Were the materials at the appropriate age level?

1
122
8. Did the lessons follow an accurate scope and sequence?

1
9. Were the materials successful in teaching the students CPS?

1
Number the materials from 1-3 that helped the most to least in facilitating
CPS at Level III
____ charts
____ kit supplies (manipulatives)
____ worksheets
Please respond to each of the following questions.
1. What improvements might be made in the teacher instruction material?
2. How would you modify any of the lessons? (Add additional pages if
necessary.)
Lesson # ____
3. Were there any materials that were not supplied that you added to the
lessons? Please describe them.
Lesson # ____
Materials added:___________________
123
Appendix G
Criteria Checklist: 1=rarely; 2=occasionally; 3=sometimes; 4=often; 5=always
124
Divergent Tools
Brainstorming
1.__able not to judge others and self;
2.__able to generate unique options;
3.__able to build on other's ideas;
and
4.__able to generate many ideas.
Brainwriting/drawing
4.__able to generate many ideas;
5.__able to communicate ideas
through drawings;
6.__able to effectively work with
group in non-verbal manner;
and
7.__able to exchange paper in center
of group when ready to do so.
SCAMPER
and
5.__able to use all idea stimulating
words associated with tool.
substitute
combine
adapt
modify, magnify, minify
put to other uses
eliminate
rearrange
Forced Relationships
and
5.__able to connect random objects
to problems
Convergent Tools
Hits
1.__able to look at things
positively;
2.__able to decide likes or dislikes
for self; and
3.__able to select promising options
from group of many.
Highlighting
positively;
2.__able to decide likes or dislikes
for self;
3.__able to select promising
options from group of many;
4.__able to group options by
similarities; and
5.__able to label groups by themes.
Matrix
positively;
2.__able to define criteria; and
3.__able to apply criteria to
evaluate specific ideas.
ALU
positively;
2.__able to determine the good
points of an option;
3.__able to determine areas that
need improvement;
4.__able to see future possibilities
for ideas (It might...); and
5.__able to overcome limitations by
generating ideas.
125
Appendix H

The teacher will read the following questions to the students and
they will respond by circling the appropriate faces. The following
faces will be explained to the students.
= I agree
= I don't know
= I disagree
1. Creative Problem Solving is fun.
2. I helped to solve one of my own or classmates' problems.
3. I understand the charts the teacher used for CPS.
4. I could use some of the tools taught on my own. For

example brainstorming and ALU.
5a. It was helpful to be a cleaner, a doctor and a detective.
126
5b. It was helpful to be a collector.
5c. It was helpful to be a judge and a salesperson.
6. My teacher helped me with CPS and real problems.
7. I used the charts and posters to help solve problems.
8. I like to play with the toys we use when we are doing CPS.
9. I can solve my own problems.
127
Please draw a picture of the problem you worked on. (Teacher

please label the drawing if necessary.)

Puccikgp PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Puccikgp PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

State University College

State University College

An Analysis of an Observational Study of

Dr. Donnald J. Treffinger

Dr. Scott G. Isaksen

Section 2: Review of the Literature

Section 4: The Results

Section 5: Summary and Conclusions

Table 3: Demonstrating and Communicating Ability to Use CPS

Table 4: Feelings about Applying CPS on Real Problems

Table 5: CPS Process

Table 6: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages

Table 7: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range

Table 8: Research Question Two Themes

Table 9: Themes Surrounding Research Question Two

Table 10: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages

Table 11: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range

Table 12: Criteria Checklist Data

Table 13: Research Question Three Themes

Table 15: Additions Research Question Three

Table 16: Deletions Research Question Three

Table 17: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages

Table 18: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range

Table 19: Research Question Four Themes

Table 21: Students Feedback Form Ratios and Percentages

Table 22: Teacher/Observer Feedback Form Means and Range

SECTION 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

individuals than other programs. Therefore, past research has clearly

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).

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

we (the class) could go outside and play (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 could get my brother off my back (Grade 2); and

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

we hugged one another (Grade 1);

everybody helped each other (Grade 1);

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

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

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

Importance of CPS Instruction

Formal Statement of the Problem

SECTION 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE