Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Vol. 46, No. 4, November 2009, 345356

Idea focusing versus idea generating: a course for teachers on

inventive problem solving
Moshe Barak*

Graduate Program for Science & Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Israel
Innovations
10.1080/14703290903301743
RIIE_A_430348.sgm
1470-3297
Original
Taylor
402009
46
Dr
mbarak@bgu.ac.il
000002009
MosheBarak
and
&Article
Francis
(print)/1470-3300
Francis
in Education and Teaching
(online) International

This paper deals with a course intended to teach individuals a method of

convergent thinking, or idea focusing, in seeking inventive solutions to problems
and designing innovative artefacts. The course participants (mathematics, science,
or technology teachers) learned a range of inventive principles often used for
problem-solving in scientific and technological environments. The research
method combined quantitative and qualitative methods, such as observations, pre-
post course quizzes, and interviews, aimed at collecting as much information as
possible on students activities, achievements, and attitudes during the course. The
results indicated that the participants gradually increased their confidence in
utilising the method and combined several techniques in solving a problem. They
also increasingly recognised that many inventive ideas are based on simple
principles that can be learned and applied in diverse contexts. The question of
introducing the learning of inventive problem-solving into the school curriculum,
however, requires additional research.
Keywords: instruction; creativity; inventive problem solving

Introduction
Recently, there has been a growing recognition that one of the major objectives of
education today is to foster pupils creative thinking skills, especially in areas such as
science, technology, economy, and management (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996; Cropley,
2001). It is evident that creative thinking skills, openness to change, flexibility, and
the ability to cope with challenging tasks are essential for integration in todays
society and workplace, whereas specific skills and knowledge are rapidly becoming
obsolete and new fields are emerging every few years.
Since there are thousands of definitions to creativity or creative thinking, and it is
impossible to beat them all, we use here a concise definition according to which
creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (original, unexpected, imag-
inative) and appropriate (useful, adaptive, concerning task constraints) (Guilford,
1967; Sternberg & Lubert, 1996; Simonton, 1988, 1997). This definition, however,
demonstrates the difficulty in teaching people how to think creatively: how can we
teach people to arrive at ideas that are original or unexpected? Historically, there have
been several barriers for turning the teaching of creative thinking into a legitimate
issue in traditional schooling (Sternberg & Lubert, 1996). First, many people regard
creativity as a mysterious ability, something difficult to define, measure, or learn;

*Email: mbarak@bgu.ac.il

ISSN 1470-3297 print/ISSN 1470-3300 online

2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14703290903301743
http://www.informaworld.com
346 M. Barak

second, people often believe that creativity is a natural ability, a God-given talent that
only few people possess; third, creativity is sometimes concerned with unruly, disobe-
dient, careless, imprecise, or just plain naughty behaviour (Cropley, 2001). Creative
thinking, in many peoples eyes, contrasts mathematical and scientific reasoning,
logical thinking, the systematic approach to problem-solving, and the rational
approach to life.
This paper deals with an approach for teaching individuals a method for systematic
inventive problem-solving and the design of new artefacts in scientific and technolog-
ical contexts. The proposed approach combines familiar methods for fostering
creative thinking, such as brainstorming and lateral thinking, with the use of a range
of inventive principles for problem-solving, which are strategies, techniques, tactics,
and heuristics of sorts for seeking innovative solutions to problems. This approach is
based on methods that are used increasingly in industry and academia but are less
known in K-12 education. The study intended to evaluate the process of learning,
achievements, and attitudes of a group of science and technology teachers who studied
the method as part of an academic course. The main questions that guided the study
were: To what extent and how can an inventive problem-solving course raise peoples
competencies in handling challenging problems and design questions? Does such a
course affect an individuals self-belief in inventive problem-solving? Other studies
relating to fostering systematic inventive thinking are mentioned and a direction for
further research in this field is proposed.

Literature review
Creativity as divergent thinking
Guilfords (1963) distinction between convergent thinking and divergent thinking was
genuinely a milestone in the research on creativity during the past half century. Diver-
gent thinking deals with generating many different ideas to solve a given problem;
convergent thinking, in contrast, is the process of analysing ideas, comparing them or
choosing the optimal solution to a problem. While convergent thinking usually
expresses rigidness and orthodoxy in design and problem-solving, divergent thinking
is often equalled with richness and novelty in handling challenging tasks. As a result,
the term divergent thinking has become synonymous with creativity; divergent think-
ing, on the other hand, was often seen as a barrier to creative design and problem-solv-
ing (see, for instance, Ebert & Ebert, 1998). From this perspective, programmes such
as Synectics (Gordon, 1961), Mind-Mapping (Wycoff, 1991) and Brainstorming
(Osborn, 1963) intend mainly to improve an individuals ability to diverge in prob-
lem-solving. These methods adopt a range of common principles, such as facilitating
the free flow of thought, triggering imagination, using associations, using analogies,
avoiding internal and external criticism, postponing judgement, borrowing ideas, and
paying attention to outrageous ideas.

The convergent-after-divergent perception

Lately, there is a growing recognition that creative processes often require the integra-
tion of divergent and convergent thinking. Moreover, one of the characteristics of a
good problem-solver is the ability to use these two types of thinking simultaneously
or to alternate easily between them (Brophy, 1998; Noppe, 1996; Howard-Jones,
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 347

2002). Cropley (2001) stressed that the mere production of variability via divergent
thinking runs the risk of generating only quasi-creativity or pseudo-creativity if it is
not explored and evaluated via convergent thinking.
Several methods or programmes for fostering creative thinking that have been
suggested over recent decades combine the development of divergent thinking and
convergent thinking in diverse approaches. One example is De Bonos Thinking Course
(1992) for fostering creative thinking, which includes tactics such as Consider all
Factors (CAF), Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI), and Other Points of View (OPV).
Another example is the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving model (Parnes, 1992)
that consists of a series of techniques and steps for finding innovative solutions to prob-
lems, including Objective Finding (OF), Fact Finding (FF), Problem Finding (PF),
Idea Finding (IO), Solution Finding (SF), and Acceptance Finding (AF). A third exam-
ple of a framework aimed at fostering creative thinking in problem-solving is SCAM-
PER (Osborn, 1963; Eberle, 1977), which comprises seven techniques for solving a
problem by changing components or functions in a system: Substitute, Combine, Adapt,
Magnify, Put into Other Use, Eliminate, and Reverse. A fourth example is the Creative
Problem Solving (CPS) programme suggested by Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger
(1994), consisting of three main processes: Understanding the Challenge, Generating
Ideas, and Preparing for Action. Finally, Raviv (2002) suggested the Eight-
Dimensional Methodology, presented by the following strategies: Uniqueness, Dimen-
sionality, Directionality, Consolidation, Segmentation, Modification, Similarity, and
Experimentation.
It may be seen that the varied methods mentioned above adopt similar principles
and partially overlap. Many individuals, however, do not regard divergent thinking
and convergent thinking as equal partners in cognition but rather consider a two-stage
process: first comes divergent thinking aimed at generating the largest possible
repertoire of ideas or alternatives for overcoming a given problem or designing a new
product, and only later comes convergent thinking intended to analyse the different
solutions and choose the best one under given restrictions. This model has been criti-
cised lately since problem-solving and design are not linear processes. Furthermore,
there is growing awareness that methods such as brainstorming or its variations may
not be as productive as predicted, and brainstorming groups do not always generate
more or better ideas than individuals working independently (Simonton, 1988;
Goldenberg, Mazurski, & Solomon, 1999).

Systematic inventive thinking

An alternative approach for seeking innovative solutions to problems is to focus on
the problem, closely examine the existing system components, identify contradicting
demands or constraints in the system, or creative new relationships between system
variables. At the centre of the suggested approach lies the notion of idea focusing or
in-box thinking as a complementary approach to idea generating or out-box
thinking, often seen as the essence of creative thinking (Barlow, 2001).
Apparently, one of the well-known methods for systematic innovative problem-
solving is TRIZ, a Russian acronym for the Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving.
This method was developed in the 1960s by Altshuller (1988) and his colleagues, who
studied over a million patents and identified a range of principles and knowledge that
define the process of inventive solutions for engineering problems. Altshullers
method is often presented by the 40 Inventive Principles such as: Segmentation,
348 M. Barak

Extraction, Local Quality, Asymmetry, Combining, Universality, Nesting, Counter-

weight, and Inversion. Moehrle (2005), for example, demonstrates how using TRIZ
helps in finding a range of ideas for extending the usage time of a laptop computer
powered by its internal battery.
TRIZ has gained increased attention in engineering and related areas (Savransky,
2000). The method has been implemented in fostering creativity and problem-solving
in large corporations in the electronics, vehicular, and aviation industries. Since the
1980s, several Israeli researchers have been developing other versions of inventive
problem-solving that use some principles of TRIZ but are intended to be easier to
learn and utilise (Helfman, 1992; Horowitz & Maimon, 1997). Barak and Goffer
(2002), for example, investigated a case in which a consulting company introduced
systematic inventive thinking workshops into a medium-size Israeli tool manufactur-
ing plant for the construction industry. These workshops were found to accelerate the
development of a range of new and innovative products that proved to be very
successful on the international market, and fostered in-house innovative design and
production processes.
In summary, the central notion of systematic inventive problem-solving is that
divergent thinking and convergent thinking are equal alternatives to creative problem-
solving, as shown in Figure 1. Some examples utilising this approach are illustrated
later in this paper.
Figure 1. Convergent thinking and divergent thinking equal partners in inventive problem-solving.

Can inventive thinking be taught?

Any discussion on the effective teaching of methods for inventive thinking in design
and problem-solving must relate to the general question of the direct teaching of think-
ing skills. According to Perkins (1986), thinking skills are a facet of intelligence.
Perkins suggests the following metaphorically intended equation:

Intelligence = Power + Tactics + Content

The Power component relates to those elements of intelligence that depend on neuro-
logical efficiency. The Content component of intelligence expresses the need for a
strong knowledge base in the discussed domain, such as mathematics, physics, or
technology. The Tactics component consists of strategies, tactics, and techniques used
in solving a problem. The systematic inventive problem-solving approach examined

Figure 1. Convergent thinking and divergent thinking equal partners in inventive problem-
solving.
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 349

in this study complies with this viewpoint; it is a kind of strategy aimed at helping
people in such processes as exploring, recognising, organising, and coding ideas and
solutions to scientific-technological problems.

The study
Framework and participants
The study was aimed at evaluating the process of learning a systematic inventive prob-
lem-solving approach based on ideas from TRIZ, SCAMPER, and other inventive
problem-solving methods reviewed earlier in this paper. The course was delivered
twice: a pilot run of 15 academic hours (as part of a broader academic course); and a
full-semester course of 39 academic hours. Thirteen students participated in each
course. These students were mathematics, science, or technology teachers studying
towards masters or doctoral degrees at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. The
participants were characterised by diverse personal backgrounds, professional special-
isations, and teaching experience. Included among them were the following: very
experienced physics teachers teaching mainly high-achieving students in well estab-
lished schools; electronics and computer sciences teachers specialising in technology
education in high schools or technical colleges; science teachers working in junior
high schools located in peripheral areas; mathematics teachers from Bedouin villages,
where the mother tongue of both the teachers and the pupils was Arabic. This richness
of participants background enabled the courses to cope with solving problems in
numerous fields and contexts.

Research method
The study combined quantitative and qualitative methods aimed at collecting as much
information as possible on students activities in the course and scrutinising the
processes they underwent in learning and applying the systematic inventive problem-
solving approach. The teaching assistant in the second course, who had learned the
method as a student in the pilot course, worked together with the instructor to docu-
ment and analyse all of the activities during both courses. This approach is often called
this participant as observer (Adler & Adler, 1994). The main sources for data on
students activities, achievements, and attitudes were:

(1) The results of pre-course and post-course quizzes answered by the students.
(2) A Likert-type attitude questionnaire administrated in the first and last course
meetings.
(3) Recapitulations of most class activities and discussions.
(4) Records in the course on-line forum, including 45 questions and quizzes the
students themselves presented and 138 peer solutions or other comments to
these quizzes.
(5) Mid-term assignments submitted by the students, in which they related to their
own experience in using the methods learned in different contexts.
(6) Telephone interviews with graduates of the second course, held about two
months after the course ended.

Data analysis was aimed at identifying, coding, and categorising patterns found in the
data into meaningful themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Patton, 1990).
350 M. Barak

Findings
A significant amount of data on students activities, achievements, and attitudes
during the two courses was collected and analysed. Only part of the data is presented
here, including: examples of students activities during the course, results of the pre-
and post-course quizzes and questionnaires, students writing in the course forum, and
their reflection in postponed interviews.

Student involvement in class activities

During the first twothree class meetings, the students were rather sceptical about
improving their own creative thinking abilities or fostering these competencies at
school. The students could be observed saying things like:

Creative thinking is something you have or dont have you cant learn it.

Brainstorming is nice it is a little change in the class routine.

This attitude changed significantly when they moved to learning the concept of
systematic inventive problem-solving. Consider the following example taken from the
course:
At the entrance to a small town, several elderly people and children had been hit by cars
since drivers werent slowing down enough when turning off the main road. Suggest a
method to make the drivers slow down when the entering the town.

Examples of conventional solutions to this problem, as proposed by the students,

were to add traffic signs, traffic lights or road-bumpers at the junction. However, the
students learned that an innovative solution to a problem is often based on ingredients
or variations thereof existing naturally in a system. Horowitz (1997) termed this the
Closed World principle. To systematically seek an inventive solution, we first make
a list of the components in the system and its nearby environment, such as: the road,
the car, the driver, and the pedestrian. The next step is systematically considering
making changes in the physical attributes (size, shape, colour, etc.) of each
component, in the relations or the functions between system components, adding or
removing components from the system. One of the useful principles in inventive prob-
lem-solving is introducing into the system a copy, or a slightly changed copy, of an
existing component (the duplication principle). Figure 2 illustrates a surprising solu-
tion to the problem under discussion placing a life-sized doll of a mother and her
child next to the road. This is a true story that was reported in an Israeli newspaper at
the time the course was held, and was discussed in the class; following this case, the
students suggested additional examples for utilising this trick for problem-solving,
for instance, placing demo police patrol-cars or speed-cameras on the roads.
Learning this kind of inventive principle significantly raised students interest in
Figure 2. A life-sized doll of a mother and child is used to cause drivers to slow down. This solution illustrates the use of the inventive principle, often called duplication.

class activities for several reasons: first, the students discovered that the questions in
the pre-course quiz that had appeared very difficult to them earlier could be solved
quite easily using inventive principles; second, the examples of using this technique
for solving real problems or inventing original products in industry fascinated the
participants; third, the instructor and the students themselves presented a range of
examples in the class for finding inventive solutions to real-life problems at home or
in the workplace, such as, how to prevent dogs from digging under a fence and
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 351

Figure 2. A life-sized doll of a mother and child is used to cause drivers to slow down. This
solution illustrates the use of the inventive principle, often called duplication.

escaping from a yard and how to prevent rodents from damaging plastic pipes of an
irrigation system in agricultural areas. Finally, the students increasingly noticed how
the principles they had learned were used in diverse every-day contexts. Additional
examples discussed in the course are presented below.
A very useful principle in inventive problem-solving is adding (or removing) rela-
tionships between variables in a system, for example, a diaper that changes colour on
the outside when it is getting too wet on the inside, or a food-bag that changes colour
when the food inside approaches the expiration date. Consider the following quiz:

Three switches located outside a room are connected to three light bulbs inside the room.
How can one determine which switch is connected to which bulb by entering the room
only once?

The solution is as follows: turn Switch 1 ON, wait few seconds and turn it OFF;
turn Switch 2 ON and enter the room. The bulb that is OFF and is warm is connected
to Switch 1; the bulb that is lit is connected to Switch 2; the remaining bulb is
connected to Switch 3.
In this example, the solution is based on adding a connection between the follow-
ing variables: the temperature, the light, the switch number, and the time. Goldenberg
and Mazurski (2002) demonstrate how using a similar principle entitled attribute
dependency helps in developing innovative products or new services. For example,
wouldnt it be an innovative idea if the price for pizza would depend on delivery time
or the pizzas temperature (Goldenberg & Mazurski, 2002, pp. 6670)?
The following are quotes from students made while learning about the type of
examples mentioned above:

Its amazing to see how simple roles and tactics are so useful or finding inventive solu-
tions everywhere.
352 M. Barak

I increasingly identify that original ideas found in the supermarkets, in the streets, in my
cosmetics and especially in advertisements are based on simple tactics such as duplica-
tion, division or elimination.

Since we learned these inventive principles, I often look at innovative things and
consider: Is it based on duplication? Maybe on division? What is the principle behind
this idea?

During the semester, the students presented in the course forum 45 problems, such
as: how to avoid breaking a cars front windshield during transport to a garage; how
to overcome blockages in a pipe; how to reduce road accidents on a narrow neighbour-
hood road. Out of the students138 free responses or comments about these quizzes,
54 (39%) possessed a glint of originality. Students remarks in the forum, however,
indicated that as the learners gained more experience in using the proposed method,
they were likely to merge different approaches in solving a problem. Also, as the
course progressed, the students were less and less willing to mark in detail the method
or principle they have used in solving a particular problem, since they felt that such a
request was redundant.

Findings in the pre- and post-course quizzes and attitude questionnaire

The pre- and post-course quizzes the students in the two courses filled in (3045
minutes, open time limit) consisted of six items, which could be solved by common
sense or by using the inventive principles learned in the course. These quizzes aimed
at triggering students interest in learning inventive problem-solving and providing
them some feedback about their achievements, rather than for evaluation purposes; the
students therefore responded to these quizzes anonymously.
The following question is one of the items in the pre-course quiz that the students
in both courses answered:

Mr. Bloom must take one Type A pill and one Type B pill daily. The pills are very
expensive. Unintentionally, Mr. Bloom took out two Type A pills and one B Type pill
(the pills are not marked). What should Mr. Bloom do to take the correct dosage of
pills?

The solution to this question is based on the inventive principle called division
or segmentation, which often appears in inventive problem-solving frameworks: Mr.
Bloom should take out another B Type pill, halve all four pills, immediately take four
halves and keep the remaining four halves for the next day. Another solution would
be to smash all four pills and take half of the powder each day. None of the eight
examinees from the pilot group, and only 4 of the 12 examinees from the second class,
solved this question correctly in the pre-course exam.
Although some of the items were slightly modified in the quiz given to the second
group, it is useful to mention that the rate of inventive problem-solving increased from
32% in the pre-course exam to 64% in the final exam for the first group, and from 40%
to 63%, respectively, in the second group. The results of the pre- and post-course
questionnaire (9 items) the students filed indicated a moderated increase in students
attitudes in items like I have a creative thinking ability or It is possible to teach
people creativity and inventiveness.
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 353

Students reflections on learning inventive problem-solving in postponed interviews

Semi-structured telephone interviews (2030 minutes each) were held with 10 out of
the 13 teachers who participated in the second course about two months after the
courses had ended. All of the quotes below were taken from the responses of one inter-
viewee, who answered extensively and expressed others views as well:

The method we learned opened my mind made me see things differently.

One course is not enough this is just a taste in order to internalize the method, more
practice is needed

We should not concentrate solely on adults I would like a further course that would
relate more to young childrens issues

So far I dont see how the method could be introduced into schools.

On the one hand, the best way would be for teachers to use the method in the subject they
are teaching, but this is impossible a separate course for children is required.

A specialist should give the pupils examples and projects in the subject matter they are
learning (with other teachers).

Although most of the participants were content with the course they had learned,
a few felt that the approach proposed did not suit them. For example, one of the teach-
ers (who was often among the first to solve the quizzes presented in class) said:

Generally, the course was interesting, but sometimes it stopped my thinking it was
difficult for me to think according to rules

Probably, a course of this type is pointless for this particular student.

Discussion
The notion that creative thinking requires integrating divergent thinking and convergent
thinking is well-known in the psychological and educational literature (Guilford, 1967).
For many years, however, researchers and educators have equalised creative thinking
mainly with divergent thinking, while convergent thinking was considered as the
second phase in the creative process, in the best case, or as an obstacle for creativity,
on the worse case.
The course discussed in this study was unique in that it perceived convergent
thinking as an equal-rights partner to divergent thinking in seeking an inventive solu-
tion to a problem. The main idea is that by learning a repertoire of strategies, heuris-
tics, techniques, and tactics, people can often arrive at original and effective ideas
better than by using disordered thinking or methods such as brainstorming. Figure 3
illustrates how these two approaches differ from one another by using the titles Ideas
Generating versus Idea Focusing (Goldenberg & Mazurski, 2002).
This study was not aimed at comparing the two methods since these approaches
Figure 3. Idea Generating is concerned with methods such as associative thinking or brainstorming; Idea Focusing uses a systematic search for inventive solutions.

complement rather than contradict one another. Moreover, thinking is a complex

process that cannot be separated into specific actions or stages. The course signalled
to the participants not to ignore or reject ideas that appear unexpectedly, and to pay
attention to accidental discoveries (serendipity). However, the study highlighted that
354 M. Barak

Figure 3. Idea Generating is concerned with methods such as associative thinking or brain-
storming; Idea Focusing uses a systematic search for inventive solutions.

teaching individuals inventive problem-solving methods or principles in scientific,

technological or social environments could help many people improve their problem-
solving capabilities. Several researchers (Perkins, 1986; De Bono, 1990) stress that
strategies for problem-solving, heuristics, or methods for controlling thought are an
integral part of intelligence.
It should be mentioned that the present study relates closely to other efforts in
promoting inventive problem-solving methods in Israel. Since the 1980s, a range of
books and learning materials have been published in academia and other institutions
that offer courses on the subject to engineers, managers, senior employees in the
media industry, and children. For example, in a programme entitled Physics and
Industry (Eylon, 2005), high school pupils who prepared final projects in physics
studied a systematic inventive thinking course given by an expert in the field (Helf-
man, 1992) and used this method in their project work. Barak and Mesika (2007) ran
a pilot course on inventive thinking to junior high school pupils, quite similar to the
course observed in this study. Although the results of these programmes are inspiring,
a great deal of additional research is required to explore, for example, the processes
by which pupils learn methods for ordered and disordered thinking, the stages they
move through in internalising these methods, and the effects of such an experience on
motivation and confidence in tackling challenging tasks.

A concluding remark
An inventive problem-solving course of the type examined in this study must be
viewed as an effort to a create a thinking culture in the classroom, by using the
language of thinking, giving students time to engage in thinking tasks, utilising
unexpected thinking opportunities, and asking students to justify and explain their
ideas.

Note on contributor
Moshe Barak is currently the acting head of the Graduate Program for Science and Technology
Education at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His research interest focuses on curriculum
development, teacher training, and promoting pupils learning skills, in science and technology
education.

References
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 355

Altshuller, G.S. (1988). Creativity as an exact science. New York: Gordon & Breach.
Barak, M., & Goffer, N.G. (2002). Fostering systematic innovative thinking and problem
solving: Lessons education can learn from industry. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 12(3), 227247.
Barak, M., & Mesika, P. (2007). Teaching methods for inventive problem-solving in junior
high school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1929.
Barlow, C.M. (2001, January 36). Insight or ideas: Escaping the idea centered box defining
creativity, Proceedings of the Hawaiis International Conference on System Sciences,
IEEE, Maui.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brophy, D.R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-
solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 123150.
Cropley, A.J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators.
London: Kogan Page.
De Bono, E. (1990). Lateral thinking. London: Ward Lock Educational.
De Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new
ideas. New York: Harper Collins.
Eberle, B.F. (1977). SCAMPER. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K. Publishers.
Ebert, C., & Ebert, E.S. (1998). The inventive mind in science: Creative thinking activities.
Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
Eylon, B. (2005). Physics and industry. Project report. Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of
Science [in Hebrew].
Goldenberg, J., & Mazurski, D. (2002). Creativity in product innovation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goldenberg, J., Mazurski, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). Creative sparks. Science, 285(5433),
14951496.
Gordon, W.J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper &
Row.
Guilford, J.P. (1963). Intellectual resources and their values as seen by scientists, In C.W.
Taylor and F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development
(pp. 101163). New York: Wiley.
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Helfman, J. (1992). Analytic inventive thinking model, In J.W. Weber & D.N. Perkins (Eds.),
Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 251270). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Horowitz, R., & Maimon, O. (1997, September). Creative design methodology and the SIT
method. Paper presented at the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacra-
mento, California.
Howard-Jones, P.A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies
that foster creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 12(3), 215226.
Isaksen, S.G., Dorval, K.B., & Treffinger, D.J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem
solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Moehrle, M.G. (2005). What is TRIZ? From conceptual basics to a framework for research.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 313.
Noppe, L.D. (1996). Progression in the service of the ego, cognitive styles, and creative think-
ing. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 369383.
Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking (3rd
ed.). New York: Scribner.
Parnes, S.J. (1992). Source book for creative problem solving. Buffalo, NY: Creative Foundation
Press.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Perkins, D.N. (1986). Thinking frames. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 410.
Raviv, D. (2002, June). Eight-dimensional methodology for innovative thinking, Proceedings
of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition,
Quebec, Montreal.
356 M. Barak

Savransky, S.D. (2000). Engineering of creativity: Introduction to TRIZ methodology of

inventive problem solving. Boca Raton, LA: CRC Press.
Simonton, D.K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century
of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251267.
Simonton, D.K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career
trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 6689.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7),
677688.
Wycoff, J. (1991). Mindmapping: Your personal guide to exploring creativity and problem-
solving. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.