Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of "brainstorming" instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects.

Parnes, Sidney J., Meadow, Arnold·1959·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Two initial papers have reported the results of an investigation of the effects of the brainstonning method on creative thinking (Meadow & Parnes, 1959; Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, in press). In this method, a subject is instructed to attempt to solve problems by recording all tentative solutions which occur to him, postponing judicial evaluation of those solutions to a subsequent time period (Osborn, 1957). The results of the first experiment indicated that a class group instructed for one semester in creative problem solving methods (which emphasized brainstorming) increased its productivity in five of seven tests of creative ability as compared with a control group (Meadow & Parnes, 1959). The second study investigated the effects (in two creative ability problems) of the brainstonning method as compared with a good ideas, penalty for bad instruction, utilizing the same subjects for each instruction. Results again indicated a superior performance for the brainstorming instructions (Meadow et al., in press). Both of these experiments employed subjects who were taking the course in creative problem solving which emphasized brainstorming methods (Parnes, 1958). The present study was designed to determine whether the brainstonning instructions would be effective with untrained students who had never received previous instruction in the method. Three hypotheses were formulated: (a) With a group of untrained subjects, the brainstorming as compared with nonbrainstorming instructions will produce a significant increment in absolute number of good quality ideas 1 This research was financed by a grant from the Creative Education Foundation. on two creative ability problems. (6) The interaction effects found in a previous experiment (Meadow et al., in press) will be confirmed. Specifically, a nonbrainstorming instruction administered first will inhibit the absolute number of good quality ideas produced under a brainstorming instruction which follows. Similarly, a difficult problem administered first will inhibit the absolute number of good quality ideas produced in a relatively easy problem presented in a test period which follows, (c) If the brainstorming instructions are administered to a group of students who have taken a one-semester course in creative problem solving emphasizing this technique, and to a group of students who have not taken the course, the former group will produce a significantly greater absolute number of good quality ideas than the latter group. METHOD

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0047223

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
1959-08
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
171-176
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2125140607
Cited by
323
References
0
FWCI
14.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.