Practice


The development of creative problem solving in chemistry

Colin Wood

Centre for Science Education, University of Glasgow 1
e-mail: colin@meldr.co.uk

Received 19 January 2006, accepted 13 February 2006

Abstract: The object of this paper is to show how research has gone hand in hand with development
to produce materials for teaching and learning which take problem solving well above the level of
algorithmic manipulation and into the realm of creativity. To combat the common feature of school
science and chemistry in particular, that problems have a unique solution, and to give students an
appreciation of real science, problems of an open kind have been developed, which encourage the
ingenuity, and idiosyncratic contribution of the students involved for their solution. In these, often
there is no correct answer, only a ‘best’ answer, and there may be a variety of possible methods of
finding it. Criteria for success are very different from the more common type of closed problems, but
are much more difficult to define. The second strand of the work described here aims to make
students aware of the benefits of group work and discussion by setting them objectives which are
more likely to be achieved by groups of students working cooperatively together. Discussion is seen
as of two types: task orientated discussion (how to solve the problem), and reflective discussion to
consider in what ways their group was successful, and why; and in what ways it was less successful,
and why. This helps students to realise that their success as a group is more than the sum of their
individual contributions. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2006, 7 (2), 96-113]

Keywords: problem solving, creativity, discussion, teamwork


Introduction

In 1962, a document containing the so-called ‘alternative’ Chemistry syllabuses for use in
Scottish schools was published (SED, 1962), covering O-grade (ordinary grade, age 15/16) and
H-grade (higher grade, age 16/17) Alex Johnstone had made a major contribution to the
development of these syllabuses, which were ‘alternative’ in the sense that teachers could adopt
them or remain with the traditional syllabuses and examinations if they wished. However, they
caught the mood of the moment, and most schools adopted them quickly, allowing the traditional
syllabuses to be phased out. Later, Johnstone developed the groundbreaking Certificate of Sixth
Year Studies (CSYS) syllabus for those post-H-grade students who opted to remain at school for
a further year of secondary education. This was designed with deliberately low factual content to
allow teachers to focus on wider skills of thinking (SEB, 1990). About one third of the marks for
the assessment of this course were allocated to a project and practical work. These projects were
organised and marked in a way similar to that of a final year university degree project, with an
external assessor coming in to examine the students both in the practical work and the projects.

1 Present address: 10 Melfort Drive, Stirling, FK7 0BD, UK
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood





97
Teachers found that this increased students’ maturity and self-confidence, easing the transition to
university or work.
Research on problem solving and on why students find it such a problem was ongoing at the
Centre, with publications starting in 1979. A series of teaching units was developed by Reid for
school pupils (described in Johnstone and Reid, 1979, 1981b). Some of these were in problem
format while many involved the use of small groups. They were designed, among other things, to
take chemistry out of the classroom in a realistic way, and to foster thinking skills. However, the
main aim was the development of positive attitudes to chemistry and to show pupils that
chemistry requires critical thinking and risk taking (Johnstone and Reid, 1981a, 1981b).
Further work resulted in the publication, by the Royal Society of Chemistry, of five booklets
written by school teachers (Johnstone, 1982), designed as an integral part of the Certificate of
Sixth Year Studies course for ages 17/18. These were largely based round industrial processes
(fertiliser production, drug design, zinc uses and extraction, titanium uses and extraction and
properties of oxygen-containing organic liquids). Similar research and development produced
problem-solving materials for students taking standard grade (replacing O-grade; GCSE
equivalent) at 15/16 years of age. These problems were entirely based upon laboratory work.
They were designed to complement normal laboratory work and most of them were intended to
occupy the last twenty minutes of a laboratory period. The clues for their solution were to be
found in the preceding conventional laboratory. The effect was to supplement and reinforce the
main points of the conventional work and to give the students room to exercise their own ideas.
The output from this research was the book ‘Practical Problem Solving for Standard Grade
Chemistry’ which was circulated to all schools in Scotland (Hadden, 1989).
All this represented the starting point of this project. What was new was using group
dynamics as a means of encouraging creativity. The aims agreed with the Royal Society of
Chemistry reflected this. These were refined as work progressed and eventually became the
following.
• To improve students’ ability to work and communicate with others, and to develop an
awareness and control over their own thinking processes;
• to give students the opportunity to develop their problem solving skills;
• to give students the opportunity to be creative and use divergent or lateral thinking;
• to show students that science is more than ‘getting the right answer’, and that it can involve
using one’s judgement, being creative and using lateral or divergent thinking.
We intended to meet these aims by
• presenting problems with a variety of possible solutions;
• getting the young people to work in groups to discuss their solutions critically and present
their agreed solution to their peer group in the form of a mini lecture.
Thirty problems (seventeen of them lab based) were designed to meet these criteria. They
were trialled by 16/17-year-old school students in Central Scotland. Before the problems were
attempted, it was found to be important to explain to students the purposes of these new learning
experiences. They were told that these materials were designed to enhance their ability to solve
new or unusual problems and to give them opportunities to communicate and co-operate with
others in a small group.
Appendix 1 outlines how the problems were to be used while Appendix 2 gives two
examples of the problems.

Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood





98
Problem solving

A problem is sometimes defined as a situation where at present the answer or goal is not
known. For the problems normally encountered in educational situations, the way to that goal is
not known initially. This, of course, assumes that a goal has been specified: ‘find the volume of’;
‘how many ...?’; ‘show that ...’. Some problems of this kind can be reduced to routines or
algorithms in which students can be drilled, meaning that they can eventually become exercises
where one set of numbers is substituted for another. For the student who can recall the method of
tackling the problem, no problem remains.
However, in real life, problems may have quite different shapes which are not amenable to
algorithmic manipulation and which demand a degree of lateral thinking for their solution.
Criteria for success are very different from the more common closed problems. Teachers and
students are so used to getting ‘the correct answer’ in academic problems, that they can be misled
into thinking that in science, there is a unique answer for every problem. There is a danger of
cultivating within our students an ‘all is known’ view of science: a discipline to which students
can make no personal contribution. All too often examination questions are of this type,
reinforcing even more this distorted view of science.
This paper describes problems of an open kind, which invite the ingenuity, and idiosyncratic
contribution of students to their solution. Sometimes there is no correct answer, only a ‘best’
answer judged against the criteria set by the students themselves. Students may end up with their
best answer being within an order of magnitude, realising this is only a useful ‘guesstimate’.
Sometimes, there is a correct answer but a variety of possible methods. Success in others may lie
with economy of time, cost or scale.
The problems attempt to foster process skills such as data seeking and selection, choice of
method, balance of criteria, and awareness of error as well as discussion and presentation skills.
Underpinning our approach is the Information Processing Model of learning. According to this
model, the process of problem solving will more or less cease if too many ‘chunks’ of
information are competing for the students’ attention. Chunks are pieces of information coming
into the mind’s ‘working space’. However, if there are too many of these, there is no space left to
process the information and the problem solving process grinds to a halt. An upper limit of about
five chunks is normal for comfortable manipulation.
The Information Processing Model as outlined by A H Johnstone in Wood (1993) acted as a
theoretical basis for developing the strategies recommended to students attempting to find
solutions to the problems. For example:
• The problems were designed to minimise overload by the way they were structured, and by
using discussion to help students break the problem into processable chunks. Consider ‘Hair’
as an example (Appendix 2). Students are asked to estimate the approximate rate of growth
of human hair, and to use this figure to estimate the number of amino acid molecules which
are incorporated in the growing hair every second.
• The initial instruction to the students points out that for many problems the search for an
exact answer may be a distraction, and tells them that they will have to make approximations
on their way to devising a solution. This initial discussion can focus on familiar words in the
problem like ‘hair’, ‘rate of growth’, ‘units’, helping to define the problem and providing the
important framework (‘perception’) of the problem. The importance of the language used in
framing the problems cannot be overemphasised (Johnstone and Cassels, 1980; Talbi, 1990).
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood





99
• Such discussion often initiated key ideas, which led to a solution of the problem. In this case,
it was words like ‘haircut’, ‘hairdresser’ or phrases like ‘about once a month’, ‘about 1 cm
cut off’ that led to a solution.
• Students are encouraged to ‘brainstorm’ the problem thus giving access to the long-term
memories of several people and their associated mental patterns and chains (Kempa and
Nicolls, 1981; Reid and Yang, 2002).

Types of problem

Originally we saw problems as of four different types -

Type Data
Goal
1 specified
specified
2 insufficient specified
3 specified
not
specified
4 not
specified specified

As work progressed, this classification evolved and expanded into the following (Wood and
Sleet, 1993):

Type Data
Methods Outcomes/goals
Skills
bonus
1
Given
Familiar
Given
Recall of algorithm
2
Given
Unfamiliar
Given
Looking for parallels to known
methods
3
Incomplete
Familiar
Given
Analysis of problems to decide what
further data are required
4
Incomplete
Unfamiliar
Given
Weighing up possible methods and
deciding on data required
5
Given
Familiar
Open
Decision about appropriate goals;
exploration of knowledge networks
6
Given
Unfamiliar
Open
Decision about goals and choice of
appropriate methods; exploration of
knowledge and technique networks
7 Incomplete
Familiar
Open
Once
goals have been specified by the
student, they are seen to be incomplete
8 Incomplete
Unfamiliar
Open
Suggestions of goals and methods to
get there

The ‘normal’ problems usually encountered are of types 1 and 2. Types 3 to 8 represent much
more the skills required for investigative work. Goals may not be absolutely clear at the
beginning, and methods may be unfamiliar. Data may be incomplete and the student will then
have to generate them from experimental work and/or by literature search.
Problems of type 3 would involve the student saying ‘If you want me to do this, I shall need
the following ...’.
Type 4 could be exemplified by “How many copper atoms are there in a 2p coin?”. This
would involve a reasoning chain like: “If I knew the mass of the coin and if I assumed that it was
pure copper and if I had the atomic mass of copper and Avogadro’s number, I could get an
answer, but it would only be approximate. But if I have no balance and only a ruler, I could get
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood 100
its volume (approximately) and if I knew the density of copper, I could get a good estimate”. This
is very different reasoning from that in types 1 and 2.
Type 5 is much more open and is left to the judgement of the student as to what would
constitute a reasonable answer. For example: ‘Given the formula [Co(NH3)4Cl2] deduce from it
as much as you can’. This could yield a range of responses, including the oxidation state of the
cobalt ion and its ‘d’-electron configuration, the name of the complex, its percentage
composition, its isomers, its likely reactions, and so on.
Type 7 would require the students to specify the goals, but to achieve these, extra data would
have to be requested.
Type 8 might be of the kind where the students were given a substance and asked to suggest
uses for it. The students would have to ask for, or find out experimentally, its properties before
deciding upon uses.
Type 6 would be similar to type 8 but the given substance would be familiar to the students.
Types 1 and 2 problems have their place, but students are short-changed if they are not also
exposed to the other types. In all the types, thinking skills are exercised, and flexibility,
branching, open-mindedness and creativity are encouraged. Students who perceive chemistry as a
developing, changing and intellectual adventure with room for individual thought and
contribution will be those who are potentially the creative thinkers we hope to encourage.
All thirty problems in the book were trialled in schools at senior levels (17-19). The
behaviour of the students was observed carefully. All the problems stimulated discussion and/or
promoted the skills previously mentioned. Researchers involved in the trials were pleasantly
surprised by the ability of students to argue and defend their presentations to their peer group and
to the researchers who were total strangers to them.
The aim was to foster the development of the following process skills:
• Lateral thinking
• Balance of criteria
• Choice of method
• Data seeking and selection
• Awareness of error
• Discussion and presentation skills.

Discussion groups

“The importance of problem solving for individual pupils has been widely emphasised ...
However, it is also the case that scientific investigation, as it is practised in the wider scientific
community ... involves teams or groups of workers. Co-operation and teamwork as well as
effective leadership are likely to be qualities important among scientists. If we are to prepare the
next generation of scientists for this, it will be necessary for schools to teach with these points in
mind and not to leave it to chance.” (Gayford, 1992).
A recent article “Graduates unfit for work, say top firms’ reports that Britain’s biggest
companies are finding that ‘many [UK] graduates lack the basic skills needed for employment.
They “are being let down by the [university] system … last year 598 positions were left unfilled
as a third of employers said that they could not find candidates of sufficient quality” (The Times,
2006).
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood 101
Managers cited a series of shortcomings in potential recruits. These include:
• Too much time spent working on degrees and not enough joining clubs and societies, where
students might work in teams;
• Not enough time spent on giving presentations in tutorials, leaving new graduates unable to
communicate ideas in the workplace.
Discussion and presentation skills are important in all walks of life. They are not only
important in their own right but are highly regarded by employers, and indeed in the community
at large. Unfortunately, most students have to have these consciously taught, not necessarily by
formal means, but by example, gentle encouragement and opportunity. Initially, students have to
be encouraged to share tasks in groups, to pool their gathered information, to brainstorm, to
listen, to criticise positively and to accept criticism as being constructive. Once they see the
utility of group methods, even the most diffident of students make contributions in a peer group.
There is a fine judgement needed on the part of the teacher as to when to intervene and when to
remain silent, when to encourage and when to act as a consultant.

The importance of discussion

Discussion in schools
The traditional emphasis on content arising from examination constraints perhaps can mean
that pupils tend to see science as an impersonal body of knowledge to be learned rather than as a
co-operative activity where their knowledge, their skills and their value judgements are important
and relevant. Such a content-driven approach to chemistry learning may well lead students to
miss out on the excitement of chemistry and they may well see their studies merely as an
experience to be endured on their way to some other area of study.
Primary pupils are accustomed to group work and to the associated project planning and
allocation of different tasks within the group. The excitement and enthusiasm with which they
approach the problems can be a great motivating force. This can continue at secondary stages.
Extension material can build upon the success of group work in primary schools and can
encourage groups of pupils to devise solutions to novel problems. They can see their learning as
something generated, at least in part, from within the group rather than being imposed from
outside.

Discussion in higher education
Group projects and presentations are becoming more common (Bell et al., 2002) in university
and college courses, with the marks obtained contributing to the final degree classification. In
addition to assessment by the responsible lecturer, students can assess one another using specific
criteria set by the department concerned.

Discussion can help cultivate critical thinking skills
Engaging in discussion with others develops critical thinking. This can show students that
they do have the ability, and even the obligation, to think critically. Resolving a difficulty,
understanding a difficult topic, a flash of insight: these can and should be satisfying experiences.
(Byrne and Johnstone, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1987).

Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood 102
Discussion can help clarify ideas
Discussion can promote active learning because, in effective discussion, students can:
• express in their own words what they have learned;
• think critically about new knowledge and ideas;
• justify any decisions they make which are based upon the new knowledge and ideas;
• be prepared to admit to uncertainty and lack of knowledge;
• be prepared to admit to incorrect thinking and the superiority of another’s ideas without loss
of self-esteem.

Discussion groups can improve self-esteem
Schools are trying to get pupils to accept more responsibility and become ‘managers of their
own learning’. They are encouraged to become aware of their own learning processes, and as far
as possible to be in control of them. At best this can be successful in helping young people to
grow in self-esteem, to feel good about themselves as learners, and therefore to become more
successful as learners (Higher Still Subject Guide: Chemistry, 1997).

Discussion can utilise group dynamics
Several minds working jointly on a problem can produce solutions that each on its own could
not manage. As the group as a whole comes to realise this, it sees the necessity for encouraging
the shy and the uncertain, stimulating the lazy and restraining the over-talkative.

Types of discussion

Two types of discussion are involved, both of which need a supportive and non-adversarial
atmosphere. The first focuses upon the task itself and the second upon the factors, which
contribute to effective group discussion and teamwork.

1. Task related discussion
a. Discussion before and during the problem
The problems are designed to increase problem-solving skills and to encourage co-operative
working in small groups. In some, students can treat the initial group discussion as a
‘brainstorming’ session where all ideas are encouraged no matter how trivial or unrealistic they
may appear at first sight. Divergent thinking is encouraged, as an apparently unrealistic idea from
one group member can initiate a train of thought in other group members that could lead to the
problem being solved.
Spending sufficient time on this initial discussion can save much time and effort during the
problem itself.

b. Group presentations
In order to allow sufficient time for discussion, it can be better to give one problem to two
groups of students rather than increasing the number of problems beyond the two or three
recommended (Appendix 1). Each group makes its presentation to the whole class, and then
discusses its findings with the class. This worked best when the teacher exercised informal
control as required.


Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood 103
c. The teacher’s role
The teacher’s role during the problems is to provide sufficient support to ensure that the
problem solving is at least partially successful. Students should be allowed to make mistakes and
explore blind alleys provided that this leaves sufficient time for them to accomplish enough to
feel some degree of success. They should be continually reviewing their solutions. Questions
such as, “What are you doing?” “Why are you doing it?” “How will it help you solve the
problem?” help focus the students’ minds and can improve their problem solving performance
dramatically. They also need encouragement: “That sounds like a good idea, but have you
thought about ... ?”

2. Reflective discussion
Once the group have completed the problem, each student and the group as a whole are
encouraged to be introspective and asked to consider -
• in what ways their group was successful, and why;
• in what ways it was less successful, and why.
This discussion follows on from the presentation and the ensuing discussion about the
problem and the chemistry involved. Students are encouraged to look at what they achieved, and
how they achieved their solution. This could give the participants valuable insight into
themselves and could allow them to start to identify some of the elements that make for
successful teamwork.
The aim of this discussion includes encouraging the ability to
• give and accept constructive criticism;
• value one another’s contributions;
• be introspective and to consider one’s own feelings and those of other group members.

Suggested approach to reflective discussion
People are often reticent when talking about factors that affect them on a personal level, and
are more likely to enter into this type of discussion when in small groups. It was suggested that
only a few minutes be spent on this type of discussion when it is first attempted, starting in a low-
key way by asking a small number of questions and building upon success each time it is tried.
The teacher should move the discussion imperceptibly on from task-related discussion to
reflective discussion. Not too much should be expected at the first or even the second attempt.
As the students gain experience of such discussion, they start to realise that they are
developing the skills and the abilities needed for successful teamwork, and that these are useful
when devising solutions to the task in hand. The teacher can assist this process by asking
questions regularly, usually resisting the temptation to offer answers. When asked a question by a
group member the teacher should encourage another member of the group to answer it. The reply
“that’s an interesting question” is much used by leaders of team building courses!
Note that the teacher’s role here is quite different from that during the problem-solving itself
where he/she should give enough help to ensure success in tackling the problem concerned.
The following was suggested to encourage reflective discussion;
a. The group sits roughly in a circle with the teacher acting as informal chairman.

b. Reflective discussion can be started by asking a simple question such as “How did you feel
about the discussion?” perhaps following this with “Did it go well?”, and “Why do you think
it went well?”
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood 104

An alternative is to start from the teacher’s observations of the various groups’ earlier
discussions where the teacher has some idea of the more successful and less successful
aspects. One of the successes could be used as a starting point, for example by asking direct
questions such as “John, would you agree that your group was successful in your discussion
of ... ?”, “Why do you think it was successful?”, “What made it successful?”, “What do the
rest of the group think?”

Once discussion is under way the teacher should ensure that some time is spent focusing on
the feelings of the individuals in the group. This could be done by asking who felt that their
contribution was never made (why?), or didn’t have much heed paid to it, and what their
feelings were at the time. An alternative is to choose a point in the earlier discussion where
someone’s point got lost in the discussion and asking something like “Sheila, did you feel
that your point about ... got sufficient attention?”
c. At the end of the discussion, it is worth re-emphasising to the group the importance of
teamwork and the interpersonal skills needed to work effectively in groups, and how
important these are in industry, commerce and research. Most decisions are made, if not by
committees, on the recommendation of committees.

Reflective discussion is designed to make students aware of their own feelings and emotions
and of those of their peer group, and to make them realise how important these are in group
work. This can boost students’ self-confidence and increase their ability to contribute
positively to group work.

Teamwork

The ability of each individual to function as a team member is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for successful teamwork. Members of a particular team must be able to work
effectively together. While there are certain attributes for all team members that increase the
chances of this happening, members of successful teams usually have both different skills and
different personalities.

1. Different skills
Different skills/ abilities should be represented in a team or in a committee, for example:
• a rugby team, where different balances of skills are required for forwards and for backs;
• a committee to plan a new chemical plant should include engineers, chemists, accountants
and lawyers.
Students with a background in biology can have a different perspective from those who have
studied only physical sciences.

2. Different personalities
Successful teams are likely to include a mixture of personality types. There are many ways of
categorising people. One system (discussed by Johnstone and Al-Naeme, 1991, 1995) that works
well in the science domain categorises by motivational trait -
• The ACHIEVER - sets out to do well, to be top of the class, is competitive, prefers
expository methods of teaching and learning, dislikes being held back by slower students;
• The CONSCIENTIOUS - wishes to do well, content to please teachers or parents or whoever
by working conscientiously within clear cut guide-lines, gains satisfaction from work duly
performed;
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

C. Wood 105
• The CURIOUS - keeps asking questions, enjoys exploring, is the divergent thinker, the
creative person;
• The SOCIAL - enjoys learning cooperatively and is not competitive.
There is overlap between the traits, but many of us show predominantly one or two of them.
Most successful teams have an appropriate mix of these personality types, with some individuals
moving flexibly between roles.
Discussion is a central part of the problem solving process and this suits the ‘social’ learner.
The ‘conscientious’ are often hesitant when tacking the problems initially because no secure
framework of thought is provided and because of the variety of possible methods and/or answers.
Research findings (Johnstone, 1998, 2001) confirm the observations made during the trials that
even this latter group is stimulated by the problems once the initial uncertainty has passed.
Analyses of school science courses (Johnstone and Al-Naeme, 1995) show that they
generally provide opportunities for the achiever, for the conscientious and for the social learner,
but provide little opportunity for the ‘curious’ pupil. Some ‘curious’ pupils consider that there is
little in science for them because they perceive it as only about ‘getting the right answer’. Yet the
‘curious’ person can be the creative thinker, playing a key role in teams designing new products
or devising new solutions to problems. Many of these pupils may gravitate to non-science
courses in senior school and/or college/university; this is great loss to the scientific community.

Continuing work

This work on creative problem solving is not the end of the story. The Certificate of Sixth
Year Studies Chemistry was the second most popular subject in the Scottish Sixth Year (17-18),
coming second only to mathematics. While the projects were never intended to be original
research (although that was done on occasion), it had to be original to the pupil; but the large
number of pupils presented a challenge to teachers to devise valid projects for them all. This
presented a clear logistical problem for teachers to find new problems for the projects and so an
innovative series of ‘Starter Projects’ were devised by final year university chemistry students
working with Johnstone. These were published as small booklets in two sets (Johnstone, 1993,
1995). They provided sufficient information for the pupils to get started on a project. If the pupil
was making little progress, then further information was provided. As a last resort, fairly detailed
instructions were available. The assessment of these projects allowed credit for initiative and
resourcefulness, but students who needed a lot of support were not given this credit.
In 1997, the Certificate of Sixth Year Studies was replaced by Advanced Higher (Higher Still
Development Unit, 1997). This course was more prescriptive than its predecessor, with much
more content (similar to that in English A level) and unfortunately, this left less time for
investigative and problem solving work. However, the project in a shortened form was retained
with fewer marks being available for it, and the use of an external examiner, although retained
initially, has been regrettably discontinued.
When these latest reforms were first proposed, The Royal Society of Chemistry (Scottish
Education Committee) was concerned that the project work and its associated learning
experiences would be marginalised or disappear, and it persuaded the Higher Still Development
Unit to commission (along with The Royal Society of Chemistry) the two original authors of the
Starter Projects along with the author of this paper to update the previous starters and write new
ones. This built upon the knowledge and experience that had been gained when trialling the
problems on creative problem solving described above. These were published jointly by the
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7 (2), 96-113

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry

---

Document Outline

• 
• ﾿
• 
• ﾿
• • 
  • ﾿
• 
• ﾿
• 
  • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿
• • 
  • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿
      • 
• ﾿
  • • 
  • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿
    • 
    • ﾿

---