Theoretical Approaches to Creative Problem Solving - Essay Example

Theoretical Approaches to Creative Problem Solving Name: Student Number: Course Code: Word Count: Date of Submission: Introduction Problem solving, especially creative problem solving has become an essential skill or tool for amicably resolving challenging situation. Such situations could be experienced in a social life, in one’s career as well as in a political or economic undertaking. The situation is almost general but what really matters is the effectiveness of the problem solving skills and the approach adopted. Many models and theoretical approaches of creative problem solving have been designed, some by nature and others by professional design, to provide solutions to problems creatively. This essay paper seeks to give a critical analysis as an end result comparison and evaluation of two theoretical approaches to creative problem solving processes. Both in real life scenarios and educational courses, learning of problems solving is a necessity since it is a process that requires application of knowledge and principles. The difference approaches therefore, recognize commonly that creative thinking is part of the creative problem solving process. This creative thinking is conditioned by receptivity, immersion into the process, devotion to resolution, getting answers to foreseen questions and utilization of errors to improve (Titus 2000). The creative bit stands out in the process and so this paper compares as well as evaluates Wallas’ Model of the creative process alongside The CLARION Cognitive Architecture. It is essential to consider and understand individual differences in problem solving so as to enhance an adequate comprehension of the dynamic process of creative problem solving. To appreciable extents, these differences are as a result of the varied choices of models and theoretical approaches that are put into practice. Wallas’ Model of the Creative Process The knowledge and principles are basis of evidence in support of learning and applying Creative Problem Solving (CPS). Conceptual, theoretical and philosophical viewpoints have a wealth of evident to support the teaching and learning of CPS. A category of theoretical approaches consider creativity as a rational process that incorporates phases or semantic concepts as well as associations. In this group is Wallas’ model that was postulated by Graham Wallas in 1926 (Isaksen 2012). According to Wallas, any successful complete thought goes through particular stages or phases necessary to make it viable for application in problem solving. The thought, of course, has to be triggered by the problem and driven by the desire to solve the problem. The phases in Wallas’ model include preparation, incubation, illuminations and verification. The first phase of preparation involves accumulation of knowledge that will enable resolution of the problem at hand. This stage involves definition of the problem and needs for which information is gathered to account for the solution. Most of the information accumulated is done in relation to the problem without consideration of anything without. Such information includes the probable cause of the problem, possibility of recurrence, adequate response, viable long term and short term solutions among others. The second phase is incubation in which the seekers of a solution step back from confining themselves to the problem and lets the mind digest the information gathered. It is in the incubation stage that any connections or realizations are made and the problem is more often solve consciously (Miller 2000). The gathered information is processed linearly and logically. The third level is illumination where ideas arise from the mind as a result of brain activity and to act as a basis for creativity in response. At this point one can see the entire concept in a single mental picture. At this stage, there are insights realized and the solution seeker is convinced about the possibility of solving the problem when the insights enables them to see the necessary questions and make use of possible errors. At the illumination stage, one’s anticipation leads to a realization that suddenly makes the solution quite clear. The fourth phase is verification where one sees the necessity to verify appropriateness of what has been done so far. It includes an evaluation where a decision has to be made on the value of used insights and if they are worthy to pursue. It is a conscious stage where ideas and insights from the illumination phase are verified, elaborated and applied to realize a solution to the problem (Evans 2006). A practical example that can be used to demonstrate an application of Wallas’ Model of Creativity is that of a content developer for a publishing institution. In this case, the person’s responsibility requires them to conceptualize and visualize examples used in a course to be developed, as appropriate instructionally. In preparation, there is the reading of the content with the audience profile in mind. This enables refreshment of knowledge about the audience and gets the mind into a prepared state for the creative process. The person then gets to the incubation stage where he or she engages in some unrelated activity like a coffee break and a little chat to allow the mind internalizes the gathered information. In the third stage of illumination, there is the feeling that a solution to the problem has been found and one does not want to miss the idea so then one becomes impatient to get back to try solving the problem. At this stage, the content developer rushes back to their work with a stronger feeling and now their anticipation is replaced by realizations and insights. The way to a solution becomes clear and the start to write down what the mind forms for the content to be published. Finally for the stage of verification, the content developer experiences the need to verify the appropriateness of the content developed in relation to the audience profile. Therefore, a connection is built between the content, example used and the audience. The CLARION Cognitive Architecture The CLARION theory is a cognitive architecture that partly has basis on representational differences and learning differences which are its basic assumptions regarding to implicit and explicit knowledge (Sun 2006). Similar to Wallas’ model, this theory also appreciates that creativity in problem solving involves a cognitive process that puts the mind to creative work. Wallas’ model has the incubation and illumination stages which use principles and explicit as well as implicit knowledge. These types of knowledge are the basis for CLARION theory. To this, a more comprehensive critical comparison would include the Explicit-Implicit Interaction theory. However, even this is derived from the CLARION theory thus keeping to the scope of this discussion, explicit and implicit knowledge in the CLARION theory differ with respect to accessibility of knowledge itself and requirements of attention to actually acquire the knowledge. The CLARION theory contains explicit knowledge at the top level due to its ease of accessibility and that it has more attention requirements while implicit knowledge is at the bottom level since it is harder to access but with less attention requirements. It is evident that in this theory there is a categorization of knowledge used in the process, different from the Wallas’ model where all necessary information is gathered and accumulated for internalizing to aid problems solving. Nevertheless, just like in a social perspective where every contribution comes with varied knowledge to the uniting table of discussion, the CLARION theory involves and interaction of all levels of knowledge. This is ideal since an integration of knowledge in different levels promotes an interaction of implicit and explicit mental processes of the creative process (Hewish 2001). Equipped with the appropriate type and amount of information, as in the Wallas’ model, what follows is the application of the insights and solution designs. However, there is more to what follows as indicated by the CLARION theory (Sun, Peterson and Sessions 2001). The CLARION Cognitive Architecture divides the progressive process into Action-Centred Subsystem and the Non-Action-Centred Subsystem. Both subsystems have all the two levels of knowledge with the Action-Centred Subsystem coining this integration into a procedural knowledge with emphasis on action and application of that knowledge. On the other hand, Non-Action-Centred Subsystem interpolates implicit and explicit knowledge levels to result into a declarative knowledge. Implicit to the CLARION theory is the idea of different learning processes whose differences are determined by the level knowledge used in the learning process. There is, therefore, a bottom-up learning process that involves transformation implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge and this is the distinguishing aspect that the CLARION theory has over other cognitive theoretical approaches to creative problem solving (Sun, Mathews & Lane 2007). Conclusion Problem solving is an everyday life experience given that problems arise repeatedly and they require solutions if development is to be realised in any aspect. The creative bit of the process calls for creative thinking which requires acquisition of knowledge. It is for this reason that it has been seen necessary that problem solving skills be included in educational courses in learning institutions. Apart from knowledge for problem solving, it is also important to have knowledge on how to choose the appropriate theoretical approach. Relative to this, this paper achieves the objective of comparing two models of the creative process, which are Wallas’ Model of the creative process and CLARION Cognitive Architecture. The discussion finds notable differences between the two models but also finds grounds of commonality like the aspect of both theories appreciating that creative problems solving is a cognitive process, most of which happens in the mind, hence, creative thinking. References Evans, J. B. T. 2006. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning. Extension and evaluation, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1). Hewish, A. 2001. Prelude to discovery. The Kenyon Review, 23(2). p.147-157. Isaksen, S. G. 2012. A Compendium of Evidence for Creative Problem Solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Miller, A. I. 2000. Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sun, R. 2006. The CLARION cognitive architecture: Extending cognitive modelling to social simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sun, R. Mathews, R. and Lane, S. 2007. Implicit and explicit processes in the development of cognitive skills: A theoretical interpretation with some practical implications for science education. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Sun, R. Peterson, T. and Sessions, C. 2001. Beyond simple rule extraction: acquiring planning knowledge from neural networks. Proceedings of WIRN'01, Salermo, Italy: Springer-Verlag Titus, P. A. 2000. Marketing and the creative problem-solving process. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(3). Read More