Electronic Brainstorming in Education Coined

Electronic Brainstorming in Education

Coined in 1953 by Alex Faickney Osborn in a book called Applied Imagination, brainstorming has become a popular group technique that has aroused attention in academia (Holubova 2010). Brainstorming is a group creativity technique by which a group tries to find a solution for a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by its members. Multiple studies have been conducted to test Osborn's postulation that brainstorming is more effective than individuals working alone in generating ideas. Some researchers have concluded that brainstorming is not effective, whilst others uncovered flaws in the research and determined that the results are inconclusive. Nevertheless, several variations have been designed to improve the productivity of brainstorming. One such variation is called electronic brainstorming, whereby its use may eliminate some perceived barriers encountered with traditional (verbal) brainstorming.

Electronic Brainstorming Defined

Electronic brainstorming is a computerized version of the traditional (verbal) brainstorming technique typically supported by an electronic meeting system (EMS); however, simpler forms may be conducted via email, browser-based, or peer-to-peer software. With an electronic meeting system (EMS), participants share a list of ideas over a network (Easton 1992). Ideas are entered independently and may be entered simultaneously, without having to wait their turn. Hence, individual contributions become immediately visible to everyone and responses are anonymous to encourage openness and reduce personal biasness. Modern EMS also support asynchronous brainstorming sessions over extended periods of time, as well as typical follow-up activities in the creative problem solving process such as categorization of ideas, elimination of duplicates, assessment and discussion of prioritized or controversial ideas (Gallupe et al. 1992).

Gallupe et al. (1992) purports that electronic brainstorming eliminates many of the problems of standard brainstorming, including production blocking and evaluation apprehension. A perceived advantage of this format is that all ideas can be archived electronically in their original form, and then retrieved later for further thought and discussion. Electronic brainstorming also enables much larger groups to brainstorm on a topic than would normally be productive in a traditional brainstorming session (Gallupe et al. 1992).

Some web-based brainstorming techniques allow contributors to post their comments anonymously via avatars. This technique also allows users to log on over a certain period of time, typically one or two weeks, to allow participants some "soak time" before posting their ideas and feedback (Easton 1992). This technique has been used particularly in the field of new product development, but can be applied in any number of areas requiring collection and evaluation of ideas, such as education.

Electronic Brainstorming in Education

In an educational setting, the pressure to perform is ever-present, thus creating stress among students and educators. When educators introduce new concepts for student mastery, they invoke various teaching methods to reach various learning styles. To engage students without fear or retribution from their peers, they would benefit from electronic brainstorming to enhance their learning the material and information sharing (Holubova 2010). Students are hesitant to render their ideas for fear of premature judgment and peer ridicule; therefore, potentially great ideas are suppressed. While conducting whole class discussions about a particular subject, educators may include electronic brainstorming as a teaching tool, whereby each student may fully participate anonymously (Easton 1992). In another illustration, this tool may be used in small group settings in which students who are working on projects together become intimidated by certain members of the group. Consequently, productivity is hampered because of team dynamics; students become reluctant to share their thoughts and feelings about a topic, thus affecting creativity.

Additionally, electronic brainstorming may prove beneficial with the educators, too. In-service meetings are professional duty educational requirements. Oftentimes, brainstorming sessions are integral to the process, rendering suggestions to improve student learning, teaching techniques, or school policies. Such educators are experts in their respective fields; unfortunately, in this open discussion forums, productivity is hindered because of inadequacies with verbal brainstorming, such as free riding, evaluation apprehension, blocking, social matching effect, and the illusion of group productivity (Gallupe et al. 1992). To bypass such inadequacies, a computer-aided approach for dealing with multiple experts would be prudent. In illustration, each educator will have a laptop at the meeting, with the posed issue or question visible on the computer projection. Subsequently, each educator presents his or her opinions through their laptops without having to wait for his or her turn. Comments or suggestions are displayed electronically on a large screen without identifying the source. Moreover, this approach protects the introvert experts and prevents tagging comments to individuals (Coskun 2011). The benefit includes improved communication, effective discussion regarding issues that warrant input from all stakeholders.

Electronic Brainstorming vs. Verbal Brainstorming

Ultimately, the goal of brainstorming is to solicit potential creative solutions to a problem or issue. Osborn's central hypothesis was that listening to the ideas of others should spur the generation of new ideas. However, creativity may be affected when employing verbal or traditional brainstorming methods. Osborn postulated four general rules of brainstorming with intention to reduce social inhibitions among group members, stimulate idea generation, and increase overall creativity of the group (Cooper et al. 1990): focus on quantity, withhold criticism, welcome new ideas, combine & improve ideas. However, verbal brainstorming inadequacies emerged.

Stroebe et al. (1992) identified five processes that derailed brainstorming efforts. These processes were free riding, evaluation apprehension, and blocking. Other processes, such as the social matching effect and the illusion of group productivity, can also undermine brainstorming efforts. With free riding, individuals may feel that their ideas are less valuable when combined with the ideas of the group at large. Indeed, Stroebe et al. (1992) demonstrated that even when individuals worked alone, they produced fewer ideas if told that their output would be judged in a group with others than if told that their output would be judged individually. Evaluation Apprehension was determined to occur when personal evaluation was warranted. However, if the expectation was to gather a collective assessment, then evaluation apprehension had a marginal effect. However, blocking had a profound effect on brainstorming. Blocking describes the reality that only one person may gainfully voice his or her ideas in a group at any given time. In essence, one person would have to wait to render a suggestion, and during this time, another person may forget his or her response by the time the other participant has given his or her input. Such delayed effect could reduce generation of ideas, which are suppressed and subsequently forgotten. Furthermore, with social matching effect, individuals have a tendency to match the level of productivity by others in the group. When one or a few group members feel that they are contributing more to the brainstorming process than others are, they express a tendency to reduce their overall contributions to the group. Last, illusion of group productivity is evident when groups often overestimate their productivity. Unfortunately, groups rarely have objective standards to determine group performance, thus resulting in individual members to guesstimate at the group's effectiveness and individual contribution levels. Moreover, such brainstorming inadequacies refute the central hypothesis held by Osborn. In fact, research indicates that the act of listening to others might stifle creativity (Cooper et al. 1990).