Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training

By Gayle T. Dow, Richard E. Mayer. 2004

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4df6e531bca6f6f2f1d0e36e465985017358250f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Wangbing Shen
2. Chi-Ying Cheng
3. R. Hargrove
4. Yuan Yuan
5. Bernhard Hommel
6. Chang Liu
7. Jing Luo
8. Keith Sawyer

Citations in the corpus

• Future thought and behaviour change (2012, methodology): “Mental contrasting turns positive feedback into goal commitment In two studies employing a creativity test (i.e., solving insight problems; Dow & Mayer, 2004), Oettingen et al. (2011) tested whether mental contrasting after positive feedback would translate into strong goal commitment as inferred…”
• Revisiting the Multicultural Experience–Creativity Link (2013, methodology): “Creativity was measured by two commonly used insight problem-solving tasks: the four dots task (Dow & Mayer, 2004) and the tumor task (Gick & Holyoak, 1980).”
• Development and Validity of a Dutch Version of the Remote Associates Task: An Item-Response Theory Approach. (2012, background): “According to the domain-specific theory (see Baer in Runco, 1999), insight problems can be divided into coherent subcategories such as verbal, mathematical, and spatial insight problems (Dow & Mayer, 2004).”
• The Creative Process (2005, unknown): “…problems, where the scientist immediately recognizes and applies a method that he/she already knows to find a solution, and to non-routine problems, where the appropriate method is a priori unknown, and a new way must be found, typically requiring a phenomenon of insight (Dow & Mayer, 2004).”
• The Impact of Metacognitive Instruction on Creative Problem Solving (2015, background): “For example, Dow and Mayer (2004) had college students individually read training packets for 15 min to prepare them to solve insight problems on verbal, mathematical, and spatial tasks.”
• The Importance of Domain-Specific Expertise in Creativity (2015, background): “Their results were entirely “consistent with the domain-specific theory of insight problem solving, namely, the idea that insight problems are not a unitary general category but rather should be thought of as a collection of distinct types of problems” (Dow & Mayer, 2004, p. 397).”
• Convergent Thinking Moderates the Relationship between Divergent Thinking and Scientific Creativity (2019, methodology): “In Insight problem-solving test, participants were required to solve 13 classic, genuine insight problems, which were adapted from prior published studies (Chiu, Chen, Hsu, Wu, & Cho, 2008; DeYoung, Flanders, & Peterson, 2008; Dow & Mayer, 2004).”
• The roles of the temporal lobe in creative insight: an integrated review (2017, background): “…were limited to those that used remote associates test (RAT)/compound remote associates (CRA) problem-solving or classic insight problems, such as the nine-dot problem, at least once to assess creative insight (see Cunningham, MacGregor, Gibb, & Haar, 2009; Dow & Mayer, 2004; Weisberg, 2015).”
• The power of play: The effects of Portal 2 and Lumosity on cognitive and noncognitive skills (2015, background): “Dow and Mayer (2004) concluded that insight problems are domain specific and three major domains are mathematical, verbal, and spatial.”
• A Call to Action: The Challenges of Creative Teaching and Learning (2015, background): “Dow and Mayer (2004) found that the most effective training was domain specific.”