Electronic brainstorming as a tool for enhancing student learning

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 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).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Electronic brainstorming

In an optimal environment, the advantages of brainstorming groups can outperform nominal groups (Coskun 2011). Embracing group systems, such as electronic brainstorming, enables individuals to submit suggestions on a computer that become instantaneously visible, yet anonymously submitted, to the entire group. Hence, this method removes the effect of blocking as ideas can be communicated immediately upon generation. Additionally, electronic brainstorming leads to convergence of ideas, helps to set final specifications, and results in a joint ownership of the solution (Coskun 2011). With respect to disadvantages, electronic brainstorming may breed the illusion of productivity, liken to verbal or traditional brainstorming. Pinsonneault et al. (1999) purports that the process gains of electronic brainstorming may not be as large as expected. Accordingly, the presence of baseline fallacies and perceived individual contributions are inherent to electronic brainstorming technologies that impair its productivity.

Conclusion

Electronic brainstorming may eliminate some perceived barriers encountered with verbal or traditional brainstorming. In spite of perceived barriers with either electronic or traditional brainstorming, it is a popular method of group interaction in both educational and business settings. Although, expert arguments continue about its productivity, brainstorming is still a widely used method for developing creative solutions in a group setting. As variations and improvements evolve, brainstorming research will ensue to study its productivity effectiveness. Within the educational arena, its use will improve student engagement and educator's contribution to enhance and to further academia causes. Insomuch, viable solutions are spawned from uninhibited input, thus resulting in a higher probability of quality problem solving.