Creative Problem Solving in Engineering Design

ion level: SIT operators operate on a consistent, content-transcending abstraction level. TRIZ’s techniques operate both on a high, content free, abstraction level and on a content expert-system like level. For example one of TRIZ’ techniques is the following “If you need to separate a mixture of two materials in a powder form, CHAPTER 4: THE SIT METHOD 113 use vibration”. Table 4-2 summarizes the main differences between the Brain Storming, Synectics, Triz, and SIT. Table 4-2. A summary of the main differences between the Brain Storming, Synectics, Triz, and SIT Brain Storming Synectics Triz SIT Main creative mechanism Suspension of Judgement Analogies Principles, Standards, Effects Solution techniques Number of techniques No techniques Small (4 types of analogies) Large (hundreds) Small (5 Operators) Is domain knowledge included? No No Yes (especially in standards and effects) No Group or individual Group Individual and Group Individual Individual Criteria for inventiveness No No Conflict elimination Sufficient conditions (CW+QC) Systematic or Non-systematic Non Systematic Systematic Systematic Associative or Non-Associative Associative Associative Non Non 4.6. Summary and conclusions This chapter presented SIT, a method aimed at assisting problem-solvers in arriving at creative, conditions-satisfying, solutions. The SIT method consists of a preparation stage in which the problem is analyzed and its closed world as well as the required qualitative change are determined And a solution stage consisting of two solution strategies and five idea provoking operators. SIT was presented t formally by means of a pseudo-computer code. SIT’s effectiveness in increasing the rate of engineers who arrive at a creative solution has been demonstrated empirically. Although the SIT process is triggered by a description of an engineering system and its associated undesired effects, it can work even when no undesired effect is known, or when no system is given. If no undesired effect is known, it is possible to artificially generate one by hypothetically increasing the system’s performance until undesired effects begin to emerge. If no system is given and only an undesired effect CHAPTER 4: THE SIT METHOD 114 is stated, the closed world condition would allow the creation of a system from objects that naturally reside where the undesired effect has emerged. SIT’s output is a partial solution concept and not a full-fledged solution to a problem. The problem solver remains responsible for elaborating the information supplied by SIT into a detailed solution. SIT, like other known creativity enhancement methods, does not guarantee that all solutions that satisfy the conditions can be derived by the method. Solutions that do not incorporate any of the five idea provoking operators may be missed. Three sets of creative solutions can be defined: solutions derivable by the method ⊆ solutions that satisfy the conditions ⊆ all creative solutions. Like any other problem-solving aid SIT is not free from limitations and this should be stated explicitly. In order to compile the necessary information from the problem statement into the language of the conditions, the mechanism of the problem itself must be relatively well understood, and the problem must be reasonably well delineated in space and time. When the situation is highly complex, ambiguous, and not confined in space and time SIT looses much of its effectiveness. In such cases it is hard to identify both the objects that comprise the relevant closed world and the required qualitative changes. Another limitation is related to the fact that SIT is geared to support the generation of a specific type of solutions, those satisfying the conditions. Obviously, there may be other solutions. Problem solvers must be aware of this fact, especially if SIT fails to produce satisfactory results. The following points summarize the main features if SIT: • SIT is a problem-solving method designed to help engineers develop inventive designs • SIT produces improved solutions within the current domain (and paradigms) that satisfy the Closed World condition and the Qualitative Change condition • SIT is based on five operators that change the current system without violating the CW Condition • SIT is structured in such a way that it can be easily develop into a computer aided inventive design system CHAPTER 4: THE SIT METHOD 115 • Empirical studies proved SIT’s effectiveness in increasing the rate of problem-solvers that produce inventive solutions to engineering problems THE COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS OF ENGINEERING CREATIVITY Chapter five The former chapters focused on objective properties of creative engineering solutions, expressed in terms of two jointly-sufficient conditions, and suggested SIT a step-bystep method that supports the search for creative conditions-satisfying solutions. The issues were presented with almost no reference to their psychological implications. But these are, of course, crucial to the successful application of the method, as it is humans who learn SIT and apply it to creatively solve engineering problems. Several fundamental issues arise in this respect: the identification of the basic cognitive processes that constitute a successful use of SIT; the psychological profile of a successful (as opposed to a non-successful) SIT user; the way thinking styles change in the course of learning SIT; and the correspondence between the level of success in using SIT and the scores in accepted creativity tests such as the Kogan and Wallach test. The successful acquisition and use of a thinking method depends on many factors including, among others, personality traits, motivation, cognitive ability, disposition and style. In this chapter we focus, however, only on cognitive aspects of learning and using the SIT method. Two research tools are used in the study: The Kreitler and Kreitler theory of meaning [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990 a] exposes the main cognitive processes relevant to SIT use and mastery, and the Kogan and Wallach creativity test [Wallach and Kogan, 1965] is used for testing the relations between the theory of the sufficient conditions (and the SIT method derived from them) and the most widely accepted theory of creativity the theory of divergent thinking. The results of the study presented in this chapter show that individuals who tend to find conditions-satisfying solutions are characterized by distinct cognitive factors lacking in those who do not. Furthermore, these cognitive factors are easily explained in relation to what is known about creative processes, for example the importance of CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 117 fluency and flexibility. Theoretically the results support the theory of the sufficient conditions by showing that the conditions constitute a framework of a distinct, creativity-related, and psychologically important set of solutions. Practically, the identification of cognitive processes underpinning the search for creative engineering solutions (using SIT) can serve as the basis for the development of cognitive training programs aimed at preparing individuals for better acquisition and use of SIT. The results of the study also shed light on some fundamental and bewildering questions accompanying creativity study from its early days: is creativity a general competence across domains or is it strongly domain specific; why does the theory of divergent thinking fail to supply reliable predictions of real life creative performance; and finally, is creative thinking a unique thinking process, or just a particular case of problem solving as maintained by the ‘nothing special’ approach? The chapter begins, in Section 5.1, by describing the Kreitler and Kreitler theory of meaning including its definition of meaning, meaning variables, meaning measurement through the meaning questionnaire, and how the theory of meaning has been used in previous studies to expose the underlying processes of cognitive tasks; in Section 5.2 the Kogan and Wallach creativity test is described; the experiment and its (raw) results are described in detail in Section 5.3; The results are analyzed in Section 5.4; Section 5.5 concludes this chapter and suggests some practical implications. 5.1. The Kreitler and Kreitler theory of meaning Meaning has long been viewed by philosophers, linguists, computer scientists and other investigators in the human disciplines as most important in human action. Until the emergence of the Kreitler and Kreitler theory of meaning, however, there were no empirical tools for the characterization and quantification of cognitive content: philosophers treated meaning in unoperational terms, whereas psychological theories such as Osgood’s theory of ‘semantic differential’ [Osgood, 1958] were too limited in their conceptual and methodological scope and therefore in their psychological significance. Kreitler and Kreitler say about meaning that “to grasp the extent of its importance, one has to recognize that cognitive content is not merely a collection of manipulable items that can be inserted into grammatical slots resulting from phraseCHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 118 structure analysis, or the application of transformational rules, but an active agent guiding human thought and affecting emotions and behaviors” [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990, p. 16]. This insight lead them to develop their own theory and system of meaning (called here KTM for convenience) that makes it possible to assess meaning so as to empirically study its effects on cognition and other psychological traits. The major assumptions underlying KTM are first, that meaning is a complex phenomenon with a multiplicity of aspects, which implies that it cannot be wholly reflected in a measure assessed by a single aspect such as actions (in line with the behaviorist tradition). Second, meaning is essentially communicable, because most of the meanings we know have been learned from or through others. Third, meaning can be expressed or communicated by verbal or different non-verbal means. Fourth, there are two types or varieties of meaning the general, interpersonally-shared meaning and the personal-subjective meaning. And fifth, meaning is referent-bound, that is, meaning is always the meaning of something. These assumptions made it possible to construct a standard empirical framework for the development of the meaning system whose underlying principles are the following: (1) Raw data are transcripts of individuals’ meaning communications in response to a great variety of verbal and non-verbal referents (i.e. explaining the meaning of the referent to an imaginary other, who does not know the meaning of the referent but can understand the communication). (2) Meaning is composed of both personal meaning and generally accepted meaning. (3) The system of meaning is expected to be rich and multi-dimensional. Using their empirical framework Kreitler and Kreitler collected a large amount of empirical data from thousands of subjects differing in age (from 2 to over 80 years), gender, cultural background, mental health, intelligence, and education. On the basis of the empirical data and theoretical considerations, meaning was defined as a referent-centered pattern of meaning values. In this definition, the referent is the carrier of meaning, which can be anything, including a word, an object, a situation, an event, or even a whole period, whereas meaning values are cognitive contents assigned (by the ‘meaning processor’ usually a human being) to the referent for the purpose of expressing or communicating its meaning. For example, if the referent is 'table', responses such as 'made of wood' or 'stands in a room' or 'I have one' or 'a piece CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 119 of furniture' are four different meaning values. The referent and the meaning value together form a meaning unit (e.g., table a piece of furniture). It is important to note that in the course of communicating meaning the referent does not necessarily remain identical to the input stimulus. For example, in communicating the meaning of the input ‘table’ someone may shift to communicating the meaning of the term ‘furniture’. When coding the data the referent was identified by asking “What does the subject communicate about ?” whereas the meaning value was identified by asking “What does the subject communicate about the referent”. Kreitler and Kreitler developed a meaning system in which meaning units are characterized in terms of five sets of classification schemes. Each classification scheme consists of 11 to 22 predetermined variables. Each meaning value (and recall that a referent can be assigned several) can thus be assigned a point in a five dimensional space. The following section describes the five sets of meaning variables. 5.1.1. The Meaning Variables Analysis of the empirical data made it possible to define five sets of variables for characterizing the unit of meaning: 22 Meaning Dimensions; 4 Types of Relation; 12 Forms of Relation; 12 Shifts of Referent; and 5 Forms of Expression. These variables are described in the following section(for a more detailed description see [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990, pp. 19-31], for a full list of variables see Appendix A). 5.1.1.1. Meaning Dimensions Meaning Dimensions characterize the contents of the meaning values from the viewpoint of the specific information communicated about the referent. The meaning dimensions were derived by asking, in regard to the subject’s response, questions such as “What does the subject communicate about the referent?”, “What kind of information about the referent is stated ?”. These questions provided a tool for identifying units (i.e. unit = referent (subject) + communicated content (predicate)) within the subject’s response and for categorizing them. Although meaning dimensions divide content into categories of meaning their conception is not limited to that of a static classification scheme, as they can be conceived also, dynamically, as thought processes. For example the meaning dimension Contextual Allocation corresponds to processes of classification and categorization. Meaning values fall into CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 120 22 categories called meaning dimensions. A partial list of meaning dimensions includes: Dim 1. contextual allocation: The superordinate system of items or relations to which the referent belongs or of which it forms part (e.g. car a means of transportation; wall part of a house). Dim 3. Function, Purpose, or Role: The uses to which the referent is usually put, or the usual activity (or activities) that it does or that may be done with it (e.g. book carries information; army defends the independence of a country). Dim 7. Consequences and results: Consequences, results or effects of whatever nature and order that derive directly or indirectly from referent's existence, occurrence or operation (e.g. inflation increases poverty). Dim 10. Structure: The interrelations between the parts or the elements of the referent; the placement or position of the elements relative to each other (e.g. table a flat board on top three or more legs). Dim 15. Locational Qualities: The place, address, or domain in which the referent exists, occurs, lives, operates, is located, can be found and so on (e.g. book can be found in a library). Dim 19. Sensory Qualities: The sensory qualities that characterize the referent, that is, those that others perceive in the referent and the referent experiences or could experience. Sensory qualities include visual (e.g., grass green), form and shape (e.g. table usually a rectangular shape), auditory sensations (e.g. dog barks), tactile sensations (e.g. silk smooth), smell and odor, temperature, internal sensation (e.g. pain, arousal), moisture. Dim 21. Feelings and Emotions: Feelings, emotions, and moods that the referent evokes or may evoke in others and those that the referent experiences or could experience (e.g., Storm scary). Dim 22. Cognitive Qualities and Actions: The cognitive qualities (e.g. bright, witty, silly, interesting) and actions (e.g. thinking, remembering, imagining) evoked by or through the referent in others, and those that characterize the referent. CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 121 5.1.1.2. Types of Relations Types of Relations characterize the manner in which a meaning value is related to the referent. The four types of relations are listed below. TR 1. Attributive relation: the meaning values are related to the referent directly as qualities, features, attributes, properties, events, actions, or other characteristics (e.g., Summer warm). TR 2. Comparative relation: the meaning values are related to the referent indirectly through the mediation of another referent, which is typically on the level of generality or abstractness similar to that of the original referent (e.g., Summer warmer than spring). TR 3. Exemplifying-Illustrative relation: the meaning values are related to the referent as examples (e.g., Country Zimbabwe). TR 4. Metaphoric-Symbolic relation: The meaning values are drawn from domains that do not belong strictly to the referent’s conventional spheres of connotation or denotation but relate to the referent metaphorically, through the intermediation of another referent, mostly more concrete or specific than the original referent (e.g. happiness like a blue sky). Modes of meaning: The four types of relations give rise to a division of meaning values into two modes: lexical mode communicating interpersonal meaning and characterized by the attributive and comparative types of relations; and personal mode communicating personal or subjective meaning and characterized by the exemplifying-illustrative and metaphoric-symbolic types of relations. This distinction is based on empirical findings that the lexical mode predominates when subjects are asked to communicate interpersonally shared conventional meaning, whereas the personal mode predominates when they are asked to communicate subjective meaning. 5.1.1.3. Forms of Relation Forms of Relation characterize the relation of meaning values to referents from a logical-formal point of view how the relation between the referent and the cognitive contents is regulated in terms of its validity (positive or negative), quantification CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 122 (absolute, partial), and form (factual, desired or desirable). A partial list of the forms of relation is: FR 1. Assertion or Positive relation: The meaning value refers positively to the referent. FR 2. Negative relation or Denial: The meaning value refers to the referent negatively (e.g. Iraq is not a democracy). FR 4. Conjunction: At least two stated meaning values apply jointly to the referent (e.g. basketball I like to play and watch) Fr 5. Disjunction: Of two stated meaning values, only one applies to the referent, but not both (e.g. Food is either healthy or tasty). 5.1.1.4. Referent Shifts Referent Shifts characterize the relation between the referent and the presented input (the initial stimulus for the meaning assignment process), or in a chain of responses to some input the relation between the referent and the previous one. Referent shifts occur in the course of meaning communication when the subject assigns meaning values to a referent that is different from the input, or different from the referent that the subject was communicating about in the previous meaning unit. Referent shifts indicate the kind and amount of cognitive flexibility or as strategies for extending the scope of meaning assignment. The whole list of referent shifts is now presented because of the importance of this set of meaning variables to our study: SR 1. Identical: the actual referent is identical to the input or the previous referent. SR 2. Opposite: the actual referent is the negation, the inverse, or opposite of the presented or previous referent (e.g., the referent was “democracy” and the subject speaks of “dictatorship”) SR 3. Partial: the actual referent is part of the presented or previous referent (e.g., when the presented stimulus was "U.S." and the subject responded by saying "I love New York"). Note: It is important, at this point, to emphasize the difference between the meaning dimension Dim 2a in which the subject characterizes the referent in terms of its parts (e.g. a car has four wheels) and the shift of referent SR 3 in which a part of CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 123 a previous referent serves as the subject, the referent, of the current meaning unit (e.g. wheels used to be made of wood). SR 4. Modified by adding another meaning value: the actual referent includes the presented or previous referent and another meaning value (e.g., when the presented stimulus was “dog”, and the subject speaks of “cats and dogs”). SR 5. Previous meaning value: the actual referent includes whole or part of a previous meaning value (e.g., the subject was speaking of New York: “New York is in US”, then turned to speak of the US: “US is the only superpower in the world”). SR 6. Associative: the actual referent is related to the presented or previous referent only by association. SR 7. Unrelated: the actual referent is not related to the presented or previous referent in any obvious way. SR 8. Grammatical variation: the actual referent is a grammatical variation of the presented or previous referent. Variations may involve shifts in terms of parts of speech across the categories of noun, verb, adjective, adverb, gender, number (singular, plural), tense, declension and so on. SR 9. Linguistic label: the actual referent is the presented referent treated as label. This can occur when a subject shifts from communicating about the content denoted by the label to communicating about the characteristics of the label itself. SR 10. Combined previous meaning values: the actual referent is a combination of several previous meaning values. SR 11. Superordinate category: the actual referent is a superordinate category of the presented or previous referent. (e.g., the previous referent was “Jerusalem”, and the current is “city”). SR 12. Synonym: the actual referent is a synonym of the presented or previous referent 5.1.1.5. Forms of Expression Forms of Expression characterize the forms of expression of the meaning units (e.g., verbal, denotation, graphic) and its directness (e.g., actual gesture or verbal description of gesture). CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 124 5.1.2. The Meaning Questionnaire The meaning questionnaire was developed for assessing individuals' tendencies to use the different meaning variables. The test includes 11 standard stimuli (to create, street, life, bicycle, feeling, to take, friendship, art, to murder, ocean, telephone) and requests the subject to communicate the interpersonally-shared and personal meaning of these stimuli to someone who understands language as a means of communication, but does not know the specific meanings, using any means of expression that seem adequate. Coding the responses in terms of meaning variables yields the subject's meaning profile which summarizes the frequency with which the subject used each of the meaning variables. The analysis of the questionnaire consists of the following steps: dividing the material into meaning values; coding each meaning value by assigning to it five scores, one of each type of meaning variables (e.g., when the referent is "Eyes" and the meaning value "blue", the coding on meaning dimensions is Sensory Qualities, on Types of Relation exemplifying-illustrative, on Forms of Relation positive, on Referent Shifts identical to input, and on Forms of Expression verbal); finally computing the frequencies of the occurrence of each meaning variable. The results of the analysis of the meaning questioner constitute the individual’s meaning profile. Kreitler and Kreitler state [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990, p. 32] that students regularly learn to apply the meaning system to the actual coding of materials in a matter of several hours. 5.1.3. The Relations Between Meaning Variables and Cognitive Processes Previous studies by Kreitler and Kreitler showed that meaning plays a crucial role in cognition, in regard to both the processes involved and the domains of contents in which the processes are activated. When individuals assign meaning to a referent, they apply to the task a certain selection of the meaning variables at their disposal. The meaning variables that an individual uses frequently reflect his or her cognitive tendencies and style. Studies showed that there is a good correspondence between the competence of individuals in cognitive tasks, and their preferred, frequently used, meaning variables. It is thus possible to characterize cognitive tasks in terms of the meaning variables that were significantly more frequently used by individuals who score high on some task-related scale (in relation to those who don’t). For example an individual who tends to use Dim15 Locational qualities frequently is expected to CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 125 perform well in cognitive tasks involving location, such as solving Poretus mazes; subjects who use the meaning dimension temporal qualities frequently tend to structure their behavioral plans chronologically more often than those who use this dimension infrequently. The variables frequently used by high scorers in a cognitive task are labeled the meaning profile of the cognitive task. The relations between the meaning profile of a cognitive task and the meaning profile of an individual are, as many studies have shown, bi-directional: training individuals in the frequent use of those variables that constitute a task’s profile improves their performance in this task, while training individuals directly in a cognitive task strengthens specific meaning variables involved in performing it. This practical implication of using KMT for devising basic training programs was one of the main reasons for its selection as a cognitive analysis tool in this study. As mentioned above, the meaning system has been used to study many types of cognitive tasks. Three of these studies involved tasks that are related to creative behavior, and hence are worth describing in some detail here. The first was a study of the cognitive determinants of exploration; the second study tested the effectiveness of a meaning training program aimed at reducing Functional Fixedness effects (see chapter 3 for a description of the phenomenon), and the third dealt with the psychosemantic foundations of creativity and analogical thinking. 5.1.3.1. Meaning and Exploration Exploration plays an important role in creativity as emphasized by Finke [Fink, 1992]. In Finke’s geneplore model creative thinking consists of a generation stage in which pre-inventive forms are elicited, followed by an exploration stage in which the forms are organized and meaning is assigned to them. Kreitler and Kreitler [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1994] summarizes a study aimed at clarifying the cognitive determinants of exploration. Preliminary studies described in the paper showed that exploration is a differentiated rather than a homogenous phenomenon. Five types of exploration processes were identified: manipulatory exploration (focused on exploring by means of motor actions); perceptual exploration (focused on exploring by means of viewing listening or smelling); conceptual exploration (focused on exploring by checking meanings and their interrelations, and by asking questions); exploration of the CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 126 complex or ambiguous (exploring especially the complex aspects); adjustivecompliant exploration (exploring in line with obvious demand characteristics of the situation, and especially when expected or stimulated to do so). In the main study reported in [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1994], the meaning system was used to identify those meaning variables that play an important role in each of the five modes of exploration. The subjects were administered the standard meaning questionnaire and a set of tasks especially designated to measure performance in the five exploration modes. In order to characterize the exploratory modes in terms of meaning variables, correlations were computed between the subjects’ meaning profile and their scores on exploratory variables. The results of the study showed that indeed each exploratory mode was characterized by a different subset of the meaning variables. Interpretation of the results indicated that subjects with high scores on manipulatory exploration are concerned especially with how objects function (Dim 5) , what can be done with them (Dim 4), their weight, quantity, sensory qualities (Dim 12, 13, 19 res.) , but not their cognitive qualities (Dim 22). They focus on concrete examples (TR 3a), dwell on the similarities between referents (TR 2a), and tend to qualify their statements (TR 1a) . They also tend to shift attention form the given referent to a combination of the given and other referents (SR 10). In contrast, high scorers on perceptual exploration have meaning assignment tendencies closely related to perception such as sensory qualities (Dim 19), locational qualities (Dim 15) and size, material, and structure (Dim 13, 9, 10 res.). They tend to focus on differences between referents (TR 2b) and stick closely to the presented referent (with some occasional associative shifts away, SR 6). High scorers on conceptual exploration tend to focus on the conceptual classes the referent includes (Dim 2a), the manner in which it operates or occurs (Dim 5), its causes and results (Dim 7) and other aspects which indicate tendencies for analytical, logical and consistent thinking (e.g. FR 3, 4 and 5). They have tolerance for ambiguities and tend to shift from given to modified referents (SR 5, 10 and 4). High scorers of complexity exploration reveal concern with internal sensations (Dim 19), evaluations (Dim 21), feelings and emotions (Dim 20). They tend to avoid concrete examples (Dim TR3 a neg.) and to redefine input (SR 8, 6, 4, and 9). Finally, high scorers on adjustive-compliant exploration tend to pay attention CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 127 to practical aspects of reality such as belonging of things (Dim 17 b). They reveal tendencies for rigidity, low tolerance for ambiguity, and conformity (this is deduced from the fact that no positive referent shifts were identified). 5.1.3.2. Meaning and Functional Fixedness Functional Fixedness (FF) is a cognitive phenomenon detrimental to problem solving that consists in focusing on a specific function of an object while overlooking another function required for the solution. The concept was introduced by Duncker [Duncker, ,1945]. FF is an important cognitive set that occurs in a great variety of contexts. In terms of the system of meaning FF can be described as focusing on particular meaning values of the meaning dimension function, purpose, or role. Arnon and Kreitler [Arnon and Kreitler, 1984] used meaning training to broaden the range of meanings the subject hitherto assigned to referents in a problem. The meaning training was designed to promote the assignments of 10 meaning dimensions and one type of relation variables. The meaning dimensions were contextual allocation; function, purpose, or role; actions and potentialities for action; range of inclusion; sensory qualities; material; weight and mass; locational qualities; domain of application; The type of relation is comparative type of relation-similarity. The assumption underlying the selection was that each of the selected meaning variables may potentially have a specific contribution to reducing FF. For example, promoting the use of Dim 2, range of inclusion, may compel the problem solver to focus on different parts of the referent, which may be crucial to a solution (Note that this process is very similar to the refinement process of the SIT method described in chapter 4). Arnon and Kreitler’s findings show that meaning training, especially when focusing on problem sphere referents, is effective in overcoming FF. 5.1.3.3. Meaning and Creativity In a study reported in [Kreitler and Kreitler, 1990], the aim was to test meaning impact on analogical thinking (believed to play an important role in creative thinking), and creativity as manifested by scoring on the Kogan and Wallach Creativity Test (see next section). The results showed that scoring on an analogical thinking test was significantly correlated with, TR 2, the comparative type of relation and with the specific meaning dimensions underlying the structure of the analogy (e.g., in the CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 128 analogy ‘A river is related to a brook as an ocean is to...’, the relevant meaning dimension is size). The results concerning the creativity test showed that scoring on flexibility correlated significantly with TR 3, exemplifying-illustrative type of relation; and scores on originality correlated significantly with the metaphoric-symbolic type of relation. The studies were extended to test the effect of meaning training on performance in analogical thinking and creativity test and the results showed positive effects. 5.2. The creativity test The creativity test used in our study was Kogan and Wallach’s version of Guilford's divergent thinking test (see chapter two for the theory of divergent thinking). The test is based on both verbal and visual procedure formats. The verbal tasks consist of a possible uses test in which subjects are requested to suggest many possible uses for a simple object (e.g. find many possible uses for a cork), and a possible similarities test in which subjects are requested to propose possible similarities between two objects (e.g. train and tractor). In the visual task the subjects were requested to propose an interpretation or meaning for each of various abstract visual patterns and line forms. In this study the test consisted of eight tasks: two possible uses; two possible similarities; two visual patterns; and two line forms. The tests were coded on the basis of three out of the four Guilford divergent thinking factors: fluency the total number of responses; flexibility the number of different categories of responses (e.g. a subject suggesting possible uses for a brick build wall, build a ceiling, and use as weight for pendulum, would score 3 on fluency and 2 on flexibility, as only 2 categories of ideas were suggested); originality: the number of unique ideas suggested by less than 5 percent of the subjects. 5.3. A description of the study In the current research the cognitive task was defined as ‘the capacity of an individual to use SIT to find conditions-satisfying solutions to engineering problems’. The subjects were engineering students, in their fourth year, who participated in a onesemester Inventive Thinking course. All subjects were administered the Meaning CHAPTER 5: COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS 129 Questionnaire and the creativity test twice pretest before the course and post-test after the course. 5.3.1. Subjects Subjects were 57 industrial engineering students, 15 girls, 42 boys, aged 21-28, who participated in two fully credited academic ‘Inventive Thinking for Engineers’ course. The subjects voluntarily selected the course. 5.3.2. Method As mentioned above, the subjects were administered the meaning questionnaire and the creativity test twice: at the beginning of the course (pretest) and at the end of the course (posttest). At the beginning of the course they were also asked to suggest creative solutions to two engineering problems presented to them. The assessment of their acquisition and mastery of the SIT method, and their capability to successfully use it to find conditions-satisfying (and hence creative, according to Chapter 2) solutions was based on their final course examination. In this examination they were asked to solve creatively, by using the SIT method, 4 real-life engineering problems (different problems for each of the two groups). Their score was computed on the basis of the number of suggested conditions-satisfying solutions.