Designing for Creative Thinking, Not Just Problem Solving

 In the previous posts in this series, I have been gradually moving from the question of what we want students to learn to the more difficult question of how we design learning that makes it possible.

In #01 - Start With the End, I argued that we need to begin with the learning outcome rather than with the content we want to cover.

In #02 - Build the Foundations, I explored something I have become increasingly convinced of through my years in the classroom: we cannot expect students to think deeply about something they do not yet understand. Higher-order thinking needs foundations.

Then, in #03 - Designing Learning Activities That Require Thinking, I looked at what happens when we deliberately design activities that require students to analyse, compare, investigate, make decisions and justify their reasoning.

But there is another question that has stayed with me throughout my teaching career:

  • Are we teaching students only to solve the problems we give them, or are we also helping them see possibilities that we have not given them?

For me, this is where creative thinking becomes important.

A classroom scenario

Imagine a Computer Science teacher gives the class a familiar problem:

“Design a system that helps students keep track of their assignments.”

The students begin working.

  • One group creates a simple task list.
  • Another creates a calendar.
  • A third designs a notification system.

The teacher moves around the classroom, answering questions and helping groups overcome technical difficulties.

At the end of the lesson, each group has produced a workable solution.

The lesson has been successful.

Students have understood the problem, applied their knowledge and produced something functional.

But I would be tempted to ask one more question:

“How many different ways could we approach this problem?”

That question changes the nature of the activity.

  • One group might ask whether students actually need another application.
  • Another might question whether the real problem is forgetting deadlines.
  • Someone else might think about students who are overwhelmed by having too many competing tasks.
  • Another group might consider a peer-support system rather than a notification system.

The students are no longer simply trying to find a solution.

They are beginning to question the problem itself and explore what might be possible.

That is a very different kind of thinking.



From solving the problem to questioning the problem

This distinction has become increasingly important to me.

In a previous post, I discussed how we can design activities that move students beyond simply remembering and applying knowledge.

For example, instead of asking students to write a program and produce the expected output, we might ask them to compare different approaches, test them and justify their choice.

That is a significant step towards higher-order thinking.

But students can still become very good at solving the problems we define for them.

  • They can analyse.
  • They can evaluate.
  • They can select an appropriate solution.

And yet they may rarely be asked:

“Is there another way of looking at this?”

Or:

“What are we assuming here?”

Or:

“What if we changed the problem?”

Or simply:

“What else might be possible?”

From my experience, these questions can produce some of the most interesting moments in a classroom.

Sometimes a student who struggles with a conventional exercise will suddenly engage when given the opportunity to approach the problem differently.

Sometimes the most interesting idea comes from a student who initially appears to be going in the “wrong” direction.

And sometimes a student's unusual approach reveals that they have understood the underlying concept more deeply than their conventional answer would have shown.

That is one reason I believe we need to create room for creative thinking in our learning activities.

Constraints can actually help creativity

Another thing I have learned is that creativity does not necessarily require complete freedom.

In fact, sometimes a constraint produces better thinking.

Returning to our assignment-management system, imagine telling the students:

  • You cannot rely on constant notifications.
  • The system must work for students with limited digital access.
  • Students should not have to check another application every day.
  • The system must be useful to both students and teachers.

Now the groups have to reconsider their initial ideas.

The constraints have not killed creativity. They have given the students something meaningful to design around.

This is also closer to the problems students are likely to encounter beyond the classroom.

Real-world problems rarely come with unlimited resources and no constraints.

  • There are users.
  • There are budgets.
  • There are technical limitations.
  • There are ethical considerations.
  • There are competing priorities.

Creative thinking is therefore not simply about producing unusual ideas.

It is about generating possibilities within a meaningful context.

Designing the activity differently

So how do we deliberately create opportunities for creative thinking?

Sometimes the change can be very small.

After students complete a programming task, instead of moving immediately to the next exercise, we might ask:

“Can you solve the same problem using a different approach?”

Then:

“Which approach would you choose for a different type of user?”

Or:

“What would you change if the original constraint no longer existed?”

Or:

“Can you combine two approaches that we have already studied?”

Or perhaps the simplest question of all:

“What else could work?”

These questions do not require us to throw away the curriculum.

They do not require a completely open-ended project.

They simply create opportunities for students to generate, modify, combine and reconsider ideas.

And this is where I see a strong connection with #03.

We should design activity that not only requires thinking, but also tells us to go one step further:

Can we design activities that require students to generate possibilities?


 

Creativity needs psychological space

There is another issue that I think we sometimes underestimate.

Students learn what their classroom rewards.

If every question has one expected answer, every assignment is compared against a model solution, and mistakes are treated mainly as failures, students quickly learn to protect themselves.

They begin asking:

“What answer does the teacher want?”

rather than:

“What could I try?”

I have seen how easily students become cautious when they believe that being wrong will cost them marks.

This is understandable.

If the grade is the primary signal of success, experimentation becomes risky.

That connects directly with one of my earlier posts, “When the Grade Becomes the Goal.”

If we want students to explore ideas, but our classroom ultimately rewards only the safest route to the expected answer, then we should not be surprised when students choose safety.

Creative thinking requires some intellectual space to explore.

Students need opportunities to suggest an idea that may not work.

They need to test it. They need to receive feedback. They need to revise it. And they need to understand that being wrong during the learning process is not the same as failing to learn.

Creativity does not mean that every idea is good

At the same time, I would not want to create the opposite misunderstanding.

Creative thinking does not mean that every idea is equally valid.

A creative solution still needs to be examined.

  • Does it work?
  • Is it technically sound?
  • Does it meet the requirements?
  • Is it useful to the intended users?
  • What evidence supports it?
  • What are its limitations?

This is where creative thinking and critical thinking complement each other.

Creative thinking generates possibilities.

Critical thinking helps us examine those possibilities.

The goal is not to replace one with the other.

It is to help students develop both.

From one answer to many possibilities

Looking back at the progression of this series, I see a gradual movement:

#01 - Start With the End
What do we actually want students to learn?

↓

#02 - Build the Foundations
What knowledge do they need before they can think meaningfully?

↓

#03 - Design Activities That Require Thinking
How can the activity make reasoning, analysis and decision-making necessary?

↓

#04 — Design for Creative Thinking
How can we help students move from finding a solution to generating possibilities?

For me, this progression is important because creativity should not be treated as a decorative extra that we add to education when there is time.

It belongs within the learning design itself.

  • A student learns a concept.
  • The student applies it.
  • The student encounters a problem.
  • The student develops a solution.

And then we ask:

“What else could you do with what you have learned?”

That question can open an entirely different door.

Education is not only about helping students solve problems that already exist.

It is also about helping them develop the confidence, knowledge and imagination to see possibilities that were not obvious in the first place.

And that brings us to the next problem.

If we genuinely value thinking, creativity and learner independence, how do we assess them?

Because if our assessment captures only the final answer, we may miss much of the learning that happened along the way.

What do you think? 👇

I'd be interested to hear from teachers, educators, lecturers, academic leaders and other education professionals who have experience with these issues. If you have a different perspective, a classroom experience, or an approach that has worked for you, please feel free to share it in the comments.

Thoughtful disagreement is welcome too. The aim is to learn from one another and keep the conversation going. Thank you!

Next: 05 - Rethinking Assessment: How Do We Capture Thinking?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When the Grade Becomes the Goal

Image
    When Assessment Stops Measuring Learning. A university had begun noticing a growing pattern. Students were becoming increasingly dependent on AI when completing major assignments. The institution's first response was to look at AI use. But one faculty member asked a different question: What if the problem was not only what students were doing with AI, but what the assessment system was asking them to do in the first place? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 04 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case A university had begun noticing a change in student behaviour. Assignments were becoming increasingly polished.  The language was sophisticated.  The structure was often excellent.  Students were producing work that appeared more professional than some of their previous submissions. At the same time, faculty members were becoming increasingly concerned about generative AI. Some students openly acknowledged using AI to improve their writing.  Othe...
Read more

The Student Who Stops Submitting

Image
When Non-Submission Is a Symptom, Not the Problem. A first-year IT student begins missing assignments. Is the problem motivation — or is something breaking down in the learning experience? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 01 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case Meet Arjun! Arjun is a first-year student in a Bachelor of IT programme. He is taking an introductory programming course delivered through a combination of face-to-face classes and an institutional learning management system (LMS). There are about 45 students in the class. During the first four weeks of the semester, there is nothing particularly unusual about Arjun's performance. He attends most classes, follows the programming demonstrations and submits the first two small exercises. His marks are around the class average. Then his pattern begins to change. In Week 5 , one assignment is submitted two days late. In Week 6 , there is no submission. In Week 7, Arjun attends the lecture but does not attend the pr...
Read more

The Classroom Caught Between Two Extremes

Image
   When Technology Becomes the Question, Not the Answer. A school wants to prepare its students for an AI-driven future. Some teachers want stronger restrictions on technology. Parents want more AI exposure. Students are caught between the two. The institution now has to decide: should it teach students to use AI, teach them to work without it, or teach them when each approach is appropriate? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 03 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case A secondary school had begun discussing how it should prepare students for a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. Some teachers were already using AI tools to generate examples, create practice activities and provide students with additional explanations. Others were becoming increasingly concerned that students were using AI to complete work they should be doing themselves. Parents were divided as well. Some believed the school was not doing enough to prepare their children for the ...
Read more