Accepted Manuscript

Title: A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher

Education

Authors: Hosam Al-Samarraie, Shuhaila Hurmuzan

PII: S1871-1871(17)30272-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002
Reference: TSC 467

To appear in: Thinking Skills and Creativity

Received date: 19-10-2017

Revised date: 29-11-2017
Accepted date: 17-12-2017

Please cite this article as: Al-Samarraie, Hosam., & Hurmuzan, Shuhaila., A Review
of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education.Thinking Skills and Creativity
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
A Review of Brainstorming Techniques in Higher Education

Hosam Al-Samarraie, Shuhaila Hurmuzan

Centre for Instructional Technology & Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang
hosam@usm.my, shuhailahurmuzan@gmail.com

Corresponding author: Hosam Al-Samarraie, hosam@usm.my Or myclasy@gmail.com

T
Highlights
 A review of brainstorming (BS) techniques in higher education was conducted.

IP
 The purpose of using traditional, nominal, and electronic BS techniques was compared.
 The opportunities and challenges of these techniques were addressed across disciplines.

R
 Other proposed solutions to these challenges were discussed.
 Electronic BS is the most realistic solution for carrying out BS sessions in a university setting.

SC
Abstract
Various Brainstorming (BS) techniques have been proposed specifically to develop individuals’ creativity and

U
productivity during idea-generation sessions. Yet, the available knowledge about the potential of certain BS
techniques seem very limited in higher education. Thus, a review of previous studies on some BS types such as
N
the traditional brainstorming (TBS), nominal brainstorming (NBS), and electronic brainstorming (EBS) was
conducted. A total of 42 well-grounded studies about the use of these techniques in a university context were
reviewed. The classification of these studies was based on four key schemes related to the purpose of use,
A
opportunities, challenges, and proposed solutions in a discipline-specific context. The review results revealed a
set of evidences supporting the use of TBS, NBS, and EBS in specific areas. We also provided a comprehensive
M

view of why certain interventions can be more effective in some contexts than others. The insights gained from
this review can be used to guide educational decision makers to identify the best BS practices/conditions within
a university setting. It also shed light on the potential opportunities and challenges that students may experience
when using certain BS rules and techniques.
D

Keywords: brainstorming, higher education, group discussion, idea generation, creativity

TE

Introduction
Many researchers focus on creativity as the primary catalyst for stimulating students’ thinking and decisions. In
higher education, it is seen as an essential element that students must develop in order to understand and
contribute to their existing knowledge in ways that underpin the extension of that knowledge (Egan, Maguire,
EP

Christophers, & Rooney, 2017; Paul & Elder, 2004). This has led many studies to apply various methods in
order to foster creative thinking among university students through idea generation (Kelly, 2016; Montag-Smit
& Maertz, 2017).
CC

Brainstorming (BS) is one of the techniques for fostering group creativity by which ideas and thoughts
are shared among members spontaneously in order to reach solutions to practical problems (Gogus, 2012).
Osborn (1957) was the first person who introduced group BS as a means for increasing creativity in corporate
settings. Later, its application has been expanded to various areas and settings, including higher education where
it has been commonly used to generate ideas, clarifications, and solutions. As a result, the BS sessions became
A

more appropriate for increasing productivity in a learning-specific situation (Unin & Bearing, 2016). Many
previous studies (e.g., Drapeau, 2014; Michinov, Jamet, Métayer, & Le Hénaff, 2015; Schlee & Harich, 2014)
have claimed that the process involved in the idea generation task may potentially play an exceptional role in
stimulating individuals’ ability to produce creative solutions that can be further evaluated and, eventually,
applied in practice. Very commonly, the individuals’ ability during the BS session is measured based on the
quantity or uniqueness of the generated ideas (Fu et al., 2015). Quantity of ideas is estimated based on the
number of solutions delivered by a group or individual students. The uniqueness of ideas, however, is estimated
based on certain dimensions related to novelty, workability, relevance, and specificity of ideas (Hong & Chiu,
2016).

1
 In general, BS techniques are delivered in three main ways: verbal/traditional brainstorming (TBS),
nominal brainstorming (NBS), and electronic brainstorming (EBS). TBS is the first form of idea generation
where group members actively participate in active dialogue and interaction by verbally sharing their ideas one
at a time. It helps stimulate the production of a large quantity of ideas, ruling out criticism, freewheeling, and
combining ideas throughout the sessions. Despite these benefits, the literature (e.g., Miller, 2009; Putman &
Paulus, 2009) has reported that the TBS groups may still produce fewer ideas than an equivalent number of
individuals working alone. This has resulted in a considerable use of the NBS technique where group members
can generate ideas individually without communicating with other members of the same group (Henningsen &
Henningsen, 2013). Possible reason for this preference can be attributed to the NBS’s role as a mediator in
meeting the demands of the additive task through producing the largest number of ideas. To date, previous
studies are still vague about the potential of NBS to help students generate a flow of good quality ideas (Kramer,
Kuo, & Dailey, 1997; Sutton & Arnold, 2013). As such, EBS has been introduced as a means for group
members to facilitate idea generation simultaneously. It involves the use of online resources and tools such as e-

T
mail, browser-based systems, chat, and discussion forums to support the discussion process (Baruah & Paulus,
2016).

IP
However, it is still arguable whether or not EBS can increase students’ performance in idea generation
more than TBS and NBS. Group and individual performances with regards to these interventions may vary from
one context to another , based on the nature of the imposed creativity task and individuals’ knowledge of the

R
subject matter (Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015). In some situations, when using certain BS techniques,
individuals/teams may tend to generate a large quantity of ideas (Levine, Alexander, Wright, & Higgins, 2016),

SC
whereas using other techniques in the same situation may result in generating few highly creative ideas. This led
us to wonder the reason for these variations across disciplines. It is also apparent from the literature that there is
still a lack of studies that differentiate between the different effects of BS techniques on students’ idea
generation in various conditions and contexts. On the other hand, it is assumed that different disciplines may

U
imply different content requirements/preferences, criteria and approaches to learning, and epistemological
standards (Casalino & D’Atri, 2005). According to Brandies and Dotzauer (2016), certain methods successfully
used in research of a certain discipline, may fail when used by researchers of another discipline, due to different
N
methodologies existing within different disciplines. Based on these observations, we were motivated to explore
how different BS techniques important for developing idea generation skills for groups and individuals are used
A
across university disciplines. A review of previous studies on TBS, NBS, and EBS was carried out to underline
these concerns. Precisely, we identified the effectiveness of using these techniques in specific discipline areas.
We then described the key opportunities and challenges of BS techniques in context-specific disciplines,
M

followed by description of previous efforts made towards managing or averting some of these challenges. It is
assumed that outcomes from this study could guide educational decision makers to clearly identify the best
utilization of BS practices in higher education. This is mainly to ensure that students are equipped with the skills
D

necessary to be creative and innovative in their university studies and after graduation.

Review methodology
TE

The aim of this study is to summarize the potential impact of certain BS techniques on university students’
idea generation experiences and creativity development. With many studies having examined/compared the
effects of TBS, NBS, and EBS in different contexts, we considered the literature to provide us with the main
source to achieve this study’s aim. Our process of analysis was based on the recommendations of Srivastava
EP

(2007) which comprises the following steps:

1) Defining unit of analysis: Previous research papers, chapters, and theses on the utilization of BS in
higher education were defined and used in this review. The argument as to why higher education ought
to be more concerned with the utilization of BS techniques is mainly to encourage active learner-
CC

centered education. This includes the changing learning needs of society and the impact of new
technologies on educational policies. In addition, the continuing growth of efforts to develop
individuals’ creativity and thinking abilities requiring an in-depth understanding of techniques for
stimulating such skills. Based on these, it was assumed that reviewing the utilization of BS techniques in
A

higher education is essential to helping students to put their ideas into practice.
2) Collecting publications: Our literature review focuses upon English-speaking peer-reviewed journals,
since they are the most common resources for information exchange among researchers. To establish a
time span, the period for this review was set from January 1958 (where the earliest and prominent
studies on BS have been noted) up to September 2017. Google scholar, Scopus and ISI Web of
Knowledge databases were used for searching the relevant articles on BS in higher education. Various
combinations of keywords were performed in the search: (‘verbal/traditional brainstorming’ OR
‘nominal brainstorming’ OR ‘electronic brainstorming’ OR ‘e-brainstorming’ OR ‘web-based
brainstorming’ OR ‘online brainstorming’) AND (‘higher education’ OR ‘university level’ OR

2
 ‘undergraduate/postgraduate students’). In total, we identified 1677 papers published and dispersed over
several journals.
3) Classification context: This review comprised of four key schemes. The first scheme reports on the
feasibility of BS interventions in developing students’ creativity through idea generation and other
means. The second scheme describes the major opportunities that can be obtained from using certain BS
techniques. The third scheme addresses the potential challenges that students may face when using these
techniques. The fourth scheme underlines proposed solutions to overcome these challenges.
4) Material evaluation: The material used to address the impact of TBS, NBS, and EBS was analysed and
sorted according to the proposed schemes. In this phase, a number of criteria were followed to ensure
the suitability of the studies. To adhere to the prime objective of this study, our review was limited to
previous works that measured the impact of BS on certain learning outcomes within the context of
higher education, which, as a result, led to the exclusion of 1427 studies. Studies that investigated the
impact of internal and external attributes within the BS group were not considered in this study. From

T
the remained 250 articles, only 162 articles measured the impact of certain BS techniques. For example,
we excluded previous works that put more emphasis on “border cognitive and social aspects” when

IP
students participate in a BS session. In addition, studies that used BS in contexts other than higher
education, such as primary and secondary education, special education, government training, and other
non-academic domains were also not included in this review. This left us with 88 studies, which were

R
further inspected for quality to draw a final conclusion on the proposed schemes. The overall quality of
these studies was identified by four experienced experts in the educational field (score from 1-3, low-

SC
high) based on: 1) appropriateness of the method, 2) relevance to the context of focus, and 3) whether
the findings are credible and valid. We measured the weight of each study by summing scores on each
of the three dimensions. Then, we performed the inter-rater reliability (r) test which resulted in 0.974
agreement between the experts. Based on this, a total of 42 well-grounded studies were identified.

Results
U
This section presents the results from the finalized 42 studies used to draw valid conclusions on the
N
effectiveness of BS in relation to the proposed schemes (purpose of use, opportunities, challenges, and proposed
solutions). The selected studies were reviewed with the intention to identify the use of TBS, NBS, and EBS in
A
idea generation, creative thinking, and other relevant activities in higher education. The next subsection includes
a discussion of these studies in a discipline specific context.
M

The purpose of using BS techniques in higher education

Table 1 provides a periodic presentation, of the major works that have been carried out on TBS, NBS, and
EBS in five study disciplines such as business, psychology, industry, language, and education.
D

BS techniques in Business
In business, BS was commonly found to be useful for increasing students’ ability to generate more ideas
TE

that are both unique and novel. EBS was reported to be the most frequently used technique for stimulating
students’ production in terms of the number of uniqueness and quality of ideas (Aiken, Vanjani, & Paolillo,
1996; Roy, Gauvin, & Limayem, 1996). The use of EBS over NBS and TBS have been claimed to imply a
shared set of simultaneous interactions among members of the group by allowing them to produce ideas that are
EP

relevant to the topic under discussion (Cooper, Gallupe, Pollard, & Cadsby, 1998; Dennis & Valacich, 1994). In
addition, EBS was also found to play a key role in increasing individual group members’ creativity and reducing
the social anxiety placed on generating novel or higher order conclusions (Johnson & D’Lauro, 2017). This can
be due to a number of factors such as free association and constant collision of opinions which helped
CC

ideas to circulate freely among the group members. Yet, this comes at the cost of an increase in cognitive load
for individuals who lack knowledge and communication skills to participate in shared decision-making, which
may limit the quality of the produced solutions (Hender, Dean, Rodgers, & Nunamaker, 2002). NBS, however,
was used as an alternative solution for EBS, particularly to increase the number of non-redundant ideas (Barki &
A

Pinsonneault, 2001). The general belief is that NBS can help individuals adjust to the BS session which, as a
result, increase group’s decision quality and the individual decision-making processes (Herbert & Yost, 1979).
It may also develop individuals’ fluency and flexibility levels of their reasoning (Althuizen, 2017). However,
this assumption contradicts findings from other previous studies , like Benbasat and Lim (2000), which
reported that group member s may find it more feasible to generate more non-redundant ideas when using EBS
than NBS. This can be explained by the role of EBS in reducing availability bias during the session (Kerr &
Murthy, 2004). Our review of the literature showed that the effect of TBS on group members’ performance is
substantial to improving idea quantity only when combined with a specific, difficult quantity goals (Litchfield,
2009). Interestingly, when comparing with EBS and NBS, TBS appears to be less sufficient for the idea
generation process (Gallupe et al., 1992), whereas its use has been mostly restricted to the stimulation of

3
creative thinking and problem solving among students (Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, 1959; Parnes & Meadow,
1959). This assumption was not supported by Tsai (2013) who demonstrated that the standard classroom setting
with no material aid could still increase students’ creativity more than the TBS method. In addition, the potential
of TBS in contrast to other BS techniques is not well validated in the literature. From these observations, it can
clearly be seen that EBS appear to be the most suitable technique for carrying out BS sessions in business-
related fields, followed by the NBS technique.

BS techniques in Psychology
In psychology, BS was widely used to increase the quantity and quality of ideas generated by students
during the session. In the literature, a number of studies have repeatedly remarked the potential of NBS to
promote students’ positive perception and satisfaction over other BS techniques (McGlynn, McGurk, Effland,
Johll, & Harding, 2004; Miller, 2009; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2006). This is possibly because, group
members during the NBS session generate ideas individually without communicating with other members of the

T
group (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001). Ziegler, Diehl, and Zijlstra (2000) argued that NBS can effectively
increase individuals’ creative idea production more than the EBS technique. The review showed a little evidence

IP
in support of EBS to lead to mutual cognitive stimulation, thereby enhancing creative productivity. Hence, the
use of EBS as a means of enhancing idea production in BS groups seems unwarranted. Instead, EBS can be used
to increase students’ general performance and attention as the superiority effect does not appear when they

R
spend more effort to explore other solutions (Michinov, 2012). From these views, it is evident that NBS is more
efficient for producing quality and non-redundant ideas in psychology discussion groups than any other BS

SC
techniques. This may also be attributed to the role of NBS in supporting students to attain more combinations
(Kohn, Paulus, & Choi, 2011) and be more capable of producing more original and less frequent ideas than EBS
and TBS groups (Putman & Paulus, 2009; Rietzschel, 2005).

BS techniques in Industry

U
In industry (design and engineering), TBS use in general was more frequent than other techniques. Previous
studies (e.g., Tang, Chen, & Gero, 2012; Zainol, Yusof, Mastor, Sanusi, & Ramli, 2012) reasoned it to the
N
beneficial effect of the procedural guidelines, which make the TBS more oriented towards functional thinking
by promoting creative thinking among group members through ownership of the topic and evaluation
A
apprehension. However, very limited works in the literature on BS have shown that the use of TBS may provide
less creative solutions for engineering problems than NBS does (Lewis, Sadosky, & Connolly, 1975). This
assumption is evident from the finding of Park-Gates (2001) that using TBS and NBS do not result in any
M

significant differences in creativity scores whereas TBS may neither enhance nor interfere with the creative
process. Thus, it can be opined that TBS and NBS might still be used to provide the required resources for
aiding students’ creative thinking experience during the BS session.
D

BS techniques in Language
In the language discipline, various BS techniques were found to serve different purposes other than
TE

generating ideas. For instance, we found that most previous studies (e.g., Ghabanchi & Behrooznia, 2014; Rao,
2007) have been exceptionally encouraging the use of TBS as the most efficient BS technique within this
context. So far, several advantages have been reported on the use of this technique, mainly to develop students’
motivation and writing skills by sharing resources essential for constructing meaningful conclusions
EP

(Mohammad & Hussein, 2013). Amoush (2015) found that using TBS can be beneficial for improving the
writing scores of the group. The comparison of different BS techniques (see Table 2) showed how TBS can
potentially empower students to apply and review different writing strategies (Shengming, 2008) that can lead to
facilitating their comprehension and critical thinking (Ghabanchi & Behrooznia, 2014). Based on these
CC

observations, we are convinced to conclude that using TBS would definitely offer valuable opportunities to
students when learning languages (especially English) as it helps to reduce negative social influences and
convey the actual situations under discussion so as to increase idea generation and group creativity.
A

BS techniques in Education
Some previous studies in the discipline of education have suggested that BS interventions can facilitate the
idea-generation process by ensuring the selection of the most appropriate combinations of ideas. For example,
Al-khatib (2012) used TBS as an attempt to foster students’ problem-solving skills by creating an educational
climate that is conducive to learning and critical thinking. We found that both EBS and NBS can be more
effective than TBS in developing individuals’ selection of ideas (Lynch, Murthy, & Engle, 2009). Johnson and
D’Lauro (2017) claimed that EBS may offer access to early ideas that can help students to generate better
quality scenarios. Within this context, shorter EBS sessions are deemed appropriate to select an idea that is
feasible and unoriginal.

4
 Our observation from the previous studies, led us to conclude that applying certain BS techniques may
potentially have an impact on certain learning outcomes of individual group members. By looking at the
distribution of the number of times BS techniques have been used in previous studies (see Table 2), it can be
easily asserted that EBS is an efficient solution for stimulating students’ ability to generate good quality ideas,
particularly in business programs. NBS, however, can still be used as an alternative for EBS in discussing
psychological issues in different settings. Nevertheless, the use of TBS might be more useful for language
learners and teachers. When it comes to the development of productivity and creativity among university
students, we conclude, based on the critical analysis of the literature, that both EBS and NBS can be more
appealing than TBS.

Further analysis of our review, provided evidence that, apart from the specific contexts within which unique

T
BS techniques could be employed, the general utilization of the various BS techniques also offers some
opportunities to higher education coupled with a number of identified challenges. In view of this, some key

IP
opportunities and challenges are enumerated below.

Opportunities and challenges of BS techniques

R
A successful BS session normally leads to productive participation, thus extensive generation of ideas
during the discussion. A number of potential opportunities from using different BS techniques have been

SC
addressed in previous research along with other potential challenges. Table 3 and Table 4 present a summary of
the key opportunities and challenges related to the use of BS in the discipline of higher education.
From Table 3, we found that the use of TBS discussions can foster shared thinking among members by
allowing them to produce more workable ideas and improve their perception of task attraction (Comadena,

U
1984). TBS may also help students to actively participate in informed discussions through increasing the rate of
positive and negative responses that are essential to generate good quality ideas (Kramer et al., 1997). It can
N
increase the likelihood of idea selection from different viewpoints, important for overcoming productivity losses
(Rietzschel et al., 2006). This is by depleting cognitive resources for creative thinking, which may enable
members of the group to effectively deal with changes in viewpoints. It can also be observed that the use of TBS
A
may play a key role in increasing students’ control of the production process and help them organize ideas in a
logical but not rigid structure (Rao, 2007). This include maintaining individual’s focus on each aspect of the
M

discussion at a time (Mohammad & Hussein, 2013). In addition, TBS could contribute to the alteration of
cognitive processes as a result of the critical thinking and sharing of resources among members of the group
(Ghabanchi & Behrooznia, 2014). Other opportunities lie in reducing critics and interference that members may
experience during the BS session.
D

Our review of the literature on NBS revealed its potential application for ensuring a sufficient use of
resources among members, thus making better quality decisions (Herbert & Yost, 1979). Both TBS and NBS
TE

techniques are believed to create feasible sharing rules that can stimulate students’ positive behaviour to
creatively solve complex problems.
EBS was found to offer better opportunities than TBS and NBS techniques. It lowers production blocking
and evaluation apprehension among group’s members (Valacich et al., 1994; Ziegler et al., 2000). It also
EP

provides the atmosphere for building competency among individuals that, as a result, would greatly contribute
to the quantity and quality of ideas (Aiken et al., 1996). We found that both feedback and the use of multiple
dialogues in the EBS session would facilitate the development of self-evaluation and thus reduce social loafing
(Roy et al., 1996), especially when members experience unregulated behaviour due to the absence of social cues
CC

during the group discussion (Cooper et al., 1998). When the EBS group’s members engage in active sharing of
resources, they can definitely see the benefit of free association and frequent collision of ideas by forcing them
to explore and reason out each other’s viewpoints (Hender et al., 2002). In addition, the use of EBS may offer
simultaneous and uninterrupted production of ideas by increasing the synergy (Gallupe et al., 1992) and
introducing few process losses while enabling process gains (Dennis & Valacich, 1993). It can also help in
A

solving ill-defined problems and reduce time pressure that usually occur when many ideas are generated
(Johnson & D’Lauro, 2017). Based on these, it can reasonably be inferred that EBS may increase the exposure
of individuals to a flow of ideas and outcomes (Michinov, 2012) that, as a result, reduce production blocking
and thereby increase the group’s creative thinking.

On the other hand, several key challenges from using TBS, NBS, and EBS techniques across disciplines are
presented in Table 4. The common challenge faced by students in the BS session is the lack of an informed
instruction for students to be able to apply the hypotheses produced during the discussion. Other aspects related

5
to waiting time (Roy et al., 1996) and bad ideas (Briggs et al., 1997) may potentially create uncertainty among
students when attempting to produce solutions.
Although TBS has been reported to be an exceptional tool for stimulating students’ comprehension,
scheduling the TBS sessions and maintaining active participation are the two common challenges for the idea
generation process. This is where students tend to lose focus during the discussion and so they might feel
disorganized (Mohammad & Hussein, 2013). In addition, when students adhere to the TBS procedures, it may
restrict them from selecting the best workable solutions during the BS process (Amoush, 2015). Specifically,
previous studies highlighted that using TBS may lead group members to engage in a mental framework that is
not conducive to freedom and divergence.
As for the challenges related to EBS, we noted that not all good ideas can be freely expressed during the
discussion session due to the members’ fear of having their reputation harmed (Cooper et al., 1998). This
initially appears to introduce more process losses than gains. EBS groups also require more effort to type ideas
or comments than to say them which makes it not appropriate for highly ambiguous tasks (Gallupe et al., 1992).

T
This is mostly true when the group size is small (Valacich et al., 1994). It may pose some restrictions on the
development of authentic ideas (Michinov, 2012) where there is a possibility that accessing other members’

IP
ideas may not result in sufficient mutual understanding needed to generate good solutions due to the production
blocking (Ziegler et al., 2000).
Our review of the challenges associated with the use of NBS leads us to some conclusions, for example,

R
NBS could limit students’ generation of ideas when the BS activity starts late as it could prevent one from
accessing the total group’s ideas (Rietzschel et al., 2006). This is due to the fact that it is difficult to coordinate

SC
the BS schedules, whereas an idea generated early in the session may not be selected as the best idea (Johnson
& D’Lauro, 2017). In addition, possible interruptions in the production process and lack of explicit selection
criteria may hinder the final selection of workable ideas for further consideration (Miller, 2009).
Other shared challenges from using different BS techniques were also observed in the literature. For

U
example, the use of TBS and EBS could result in adding up more fear among members who have been criticised
by others, and potentially reduce the production of quality ideas (Dennis et al., 1997a; Parnes & Meadow,
1959). In addition, both TBS and NBS may impose low equity of interaction among students, in which they
N
need to spend more time to become acquainted with one another (Tsai, 2013). Thus, it could be difficult for
students to quantify elusive and qualitative concepts when using these techniques. This can be attributed to the
A
large amount of conceptual ideas that need to be assessed by individual group members, which leaves less time
for them to deliver the final solutions (Tang et al., 2012).
Finally, we observed that some of these challenges in a discipline-specific context do not necessarily arise
M

when certain BS techniques fail to provide opportunities for developing students’ ideation skills in other
contexts. Therefore, one may conclude that the characteristics of the academic program and profession may
somehow play a key role in altering students’ perception about the appropriateness of these techniques in a
D

learning situation.

Proposed solutions to the BS challenges

TE

Our review of the literature showed that engaging students in active discussion may empower the overall
idea generation process by increasing the quantity of ideas being shared. However, several challenges may still
be besetting to students (teams and individuals) during the BS sessions. Therefore, various solutions have been
introduced and examined as an attempt to overcome some of the challenges mentioned above (see Table 4).
EP

Previous efforts on BS have been somewhat concerned about extending the current practices of TBS by
stimulating members’ cognitive and interaction experiences. For example, Shih, Nguyen, Hirano, Redmiles, and
Hayes (2009) proposed a collaborative Group-Mind design as an attempt to foster creative problem solving in a
collaborative setting. This tool was based on mapping students’ ideas as an alternative way for the TBS
CC

whiteboard. The tool was used for subjects that require memory recall and more abstract conceptualization. It
was expected that Group-Mind can overcome structure and process constraints issues that may hinder the
organization and dynamism of ideas during the BS session. Clayphan, Collins, Ackad, Kummerfeld, and Kay
(2011) introduced the use of tabletop system as an extension to the TBS’s format. The aim was basically to
A

eliminate any particular orientation that may occur during the discussion. This was achieved by allowing
members to review and modify all ideas generated by self and others. It is claimed that this type of presentation
would direct the focus of collaborators on the ideas and entering them with the keyboards. Later, Clayphan,
Kay, and Weinberger (2014) carried out another study to adapt scripted collaboration approach in order to
enhance the effectiveness of the tabletop BS method. This combination was named as Script-Storm based on the
use of fixed scripts through which the table is used to present these scripts that the group’s members cannot alter
by themselves; and participant-defined script to stimulate members’ control over the script settings. We assume
that the use of Script-Storm might decrease confusion among TBS groups especially when they end up with
many ideas. Korde (2012), on the other hand, examined the potential of providing review sessions during a BS
task. The main idea behind Korde’s work was to involve members in generating ideas either as a pair or

6
individually. It was expected that when providing the group’s members with enough time to review one
another’s thoughts, they will be able to produce more ideas than those who did not use a separate review
session. Thus, Script-Storm may help overcome challenges related to the variation in group size and fear of
criticism found in the TBS session. Another solution was proposed by Tausch, Hausen, Kosan, Raltchev, and
Hussmann (2014), who suggested the use of metaphorical group mirror to influence the peripheral feedback
during the discussions. This concept was developed based on combining the qualitative and metaphorical
feedback with the individual and aggregated feedback. The use of such combination may offer a balanced
number of ideas that can help the students to decide quickly and accurately. In addition, Hsu, Wang, Lin, and
Chang (2017) proposed combining the 635 BS and the C-Sketch to aid designers in generating creative ideas
through passing pictures and words in the divergent thinking phase. It was expected that using such combination
would provide a way for designers to review ideas from multiple perspectives and help them develop more
innovative solutions. Another study was conducted by Helquist, Kruse, and Diller (2017) on the use of peer-
reviewed BS with a predetermined number of anonymous peers, after which the original views are submitted to

T
another random and anonymous peer for selection of the “best” version. This method may have the potential to
increase the equity of interaction among the groups as compared to the TBS technique.

IP
A very few studies on extending the NBS design were found in the literature, for example, Villanueva,
Chacón, Artazcoz, Lizarraga, and Baquedano (2011) who suggested the use of Wikideas and creativity
connector for altering the generation of ideas and originality among students. The use of these tools was to

R
advance the NBS environment through exposing individuals to relevant clues. We believe that this method may
enable the students to generate, evaluate and select the most relevant ideas and to form teams for project

SC
execution.
We also documented other notable solutions to the EBS design from the literature. Some of these solutions
were devoted to fostering the distribution of ideas from a design-driven perspective. Potter and Balthazard
(2004), for example, proposed the use of global matching model of memory cognition to form what they call
cause cueing during the EBS session. The aim of this design was to direct members’ attention to the causes of

U
the target problem that they themselves have identified, and increase the number of ideas that an individual
generates. Jung (2006) introduced Verbal-EBS that works based on the properties of both speaking and reading
N
through the integration of speech recognition technology with group memory so to reduce the time when writing
ideas with keyboard. Another work by Krieger and Wang (2008) presented IDEAS2IDEAS as an alternative
A
EBS tool to promote constructive and collaborative ideation behaviour among the group members. A study by
Faste, Rachmel, Essary, and Sheehan (2013) proposed Chainstorming method based on passing ideas (and rules)
along communication chains to offer a fast and enjoyable means of creative ideation in the EBS environment. It
M

can be said that both IDEAS2IDEAS and Chainstorming have the potential to overcome challenges related to
reducing process losses and simplifying the introduction of highly ambiguous tasks. Moradian, Nasir, Lyons,
Leung, and Sim (2014) introduced the use of game elements to increase members’ participation in a
D

collaborative creative idea generation processes. The use of games was typically to stimulate interaction among
members which was found to help teams produce more ideas and engage in more discussions. We assume that
using games in EBS is a promising solution to direct groups to the relevant ideas during a subsequent
TE

convergence activity, without negatively affecting the quality of ideas. Despite these efforts, the effectiveness of
these solutions is yet to be validated across disciplines.

Final remarks
EP

Promoting individuals’ ability to generate quality and novel ideas in order to solve complex problems are
considered a valuable asset in any organization. BS has been practically applied in various fields with the prime
purpose to enhance the overall idea generation when members are actively engaged in discussion. The extensive
review on the BS applications in higher education allowed us to uncover some interesting aspects resulting from
CC

using TBS, NBS, and EBS in a discipline-specific context. In depth, we were able to underline the key
challenges and opportunities of these techniques in the emerging university disciplines of business, psychology,
industry, language, and other relevant ones. Previous efforts on extending the current formation of BS
techniques were also looked at in this study. The classification of factors in which TBS, NBS, and EBS
A

techniques have been utilized by previous studies is presented in Figure 1. It is anticipated that the discussion of
these factors in a discipline specific context will provide a basis for future strategies to promote effective group
BS practices and also provide a useful reference for studies aiming to develop certain creativity-relevant skills in
higher education.

From the figure, it can be said that the main purpose of using TBS, NBS, and EBS techniques is to increase
the quantity and quality of ideas, satisfaction, positive perception, and performance individual group members.
Precisely, we found that:
1) TBS can promote group members’ creative thinking practices and writing skills through copying
letters/vocabulary and demonstration, in order to generate more sufficient decisions. We think that the

7
 coherence of ideas drafted by students in the TBS group could enable them to produce in writing. It helps
create an atmosphere of cooperation by enabling students to share and review their ideas throughout the
session. In principle, we think that university students can benefit from the repetition of drills or
memorization of dialogue found in the TBS activity.
2) NBS can facilitate ideas generation, through significant improvement in the quantity and quality of ideas.
For example, NBS can increase students’ participation in free riding and allowing them to list all ideas
that come to mind without being interrupted. It also contributes to the way individuals and groups
construct ideas by enabling them to sufficiently use the available resources to construct more workable
decisions.
3) EBS can offer an alternative way for learners to engage themselves in interactive and lively discussion
which helps to encourage them to think creatively and openly. EBS can effectively assess students in the
ideas generation process that are novel and non-redundant. We think that the process for constructing
ideas in the EBS environment requires less cognitive and social resources which play a role in decreasing

T
the production blocking that may occur when the group participate in anonymous discussion. As such,
students are assumed to express their thoughts freely with less apprehensiveness when finalizing the final

IP
ideas. Furthermore, voice messages can be used as an alternative for the keyboard when documenting
ideas in the EBS environment. By doing so, students will be more able to organize their thoughts, so they
can refer back to them at anytime. We believe that using EBS in the higher education context will help

R
increase the synergy of students through peer learning, assessing the current level of knowledge,
participation in online discussion, organizing thoughts, and reaching group consensus.

SC
In addition, larger group size can be used to support decision-making processes, while small group size can
be used to provide creative and formative discussions. Still, more efforts are needed to improve the processes
within the TBS, NBS, and EBS environments in a way that ensures the delivery of the best attainable ideas and
production of intermediate feedback. This may be achieved by using more informed approaches and guidelines

U
that could direct group members and individuals through the activity cycle. Future studies may also consider
exploring how the varying length of brainstorming sessions and complexity can influence individuals’ and
teams’ productivity. The insights addressed in this study about different BS techniques in higher education can
N
guide educational decision makers to identify the best BS practice within specific contexts. The study also shed
light on some challenges that students may face when using these techniques to develop their creativity-relevant
A
skills. With the increase utilization of technology within a university context, EBS is seemed to be the most
reliable and realistic solution for carrying out BS sessions.
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

8
References
Aiken, M., Vanjani, M., & Paolillo, J. (1996). A comparison of two electronic idea generation techniques.
Information & Management, 30(2), 91-99.
Al-khatib, B.A. (2012). The effect of using brainstorming strategy in developing creative problem solving skills
among female students in princess alia university college. American International Journal of
Contemporary Research, 2(10), 29-38.
Althuizen, N. (2017). Communicating a key benefit claim creatively and effectively through five conveyor
properties. Psychology & Marketing, 34(1), 5-18.
Amoush, K.H. (2015). The impact of employing brainstorming strategy on improving writing performance of
english major students at balqa applied university in jordan. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35),
88-92.
Barki, H., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Small group brainstorming and idea quality: Is electronic brainstorming
the most effective approach? Small Group Research, 32(2), 158-205.

T
Baruah, J., & Paulus, P.B. (2016). The role of time and category relatedness in electronic brainstorming. Small
Group Research, 47(3), 333-342.

IP
Benbasat, I., & Lim, J. (2000). Information technology support for debiasing group judgments: An empirical
evaluation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 83(1), 167-183.
Brandies, A., & Dotzauer, M. (2016). Transdisciplinary approaches in practice-oriented research projects as

R
combination of method and methodology: Consideration of need as well as requirement analysis and
integration. Swiss Inter-and Transdisciplinarity Day 2016.

SC
Briggs, R.O., Reinig, B.A., Shepherd, M.M., Yen, J., & Nunameker, J. (1997). Quality as a function of quantity
in electronic brainstorming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Casalino, N., & D’ATRI, A. (2005). E-learning vs is education and research: The luiss university experience.

ICMTL.
U
Paper presented at the Proc. of International Conference on Methods and Technologies for Learning-

Clayphan, A., Collins, A., Ackad, C., Kummerfeld, B., & Kay, J. (2011). Firestorm: A brainstorming
N
application for collaborative group work at tabletops. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM
international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces.
A
Clayphan, A., Kay, J., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Scriptstorm: Scripting to enhance tabletop brainstorming.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1433-1453.
Comadena, M.E. (1984). Brainstorming groups: Ambiguity tolerance, communication apprehension, task
M

attraction, and individual productivity. Small Group Behavior, 15(2), 251-264.

Cooper, W.H., Gallupe, R.B., Pollard, S., & Cadsby, J. (1998). Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic
brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(2), 147-178.
D

Dennis, A., Aronson, J., Heninger, B., & Walker, E. (1996). Task and time decomposition in electronic
brainstorming. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 1996., Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth
Hawaii International Conference on.
TE

Dennis, A.R., & Valacich, J.S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of
applied psychology, 78(4), 531.
Dennis, A.R., & Valacich, J.S. (1994). Group, sub-group, and nominal group idea generation: New rules for a
new media? Journal of management, 20(4), 723-736.
EP

Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Carte, T.A., Garfield, M.J., Haley, B.J., & Aronson, J.E. (1997a). The
effectiveness of multiple dialogues in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research, 8(2),
203-211.
Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Carte, T.A., Garfield, M.J., Haley, B.J., & Aronson, J.E. (1997b). Research report:
CC

The effectiveness of multiple dialogues in electronic brainstorming. Information Systems Research,

8(2), 203-211.
Drapeau, P. (2014). Sparking student creativity: Practical ways to promote innovative thinking and problem
solving: ASCD.
A

Egan, A., Maguire, R., Christophers, L., & Rooney, B. (2017). Developing creativity in higher education for
21st century learners: A protocol for a scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research,
82, 21-27.
Faste, H., Rachmel, N., Essary, R., & Sheehan, E. (2013). Brainstorm, chainstorm, cheatstorm, tweetstorm:
New ideation strategies for distributed hci design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Feinberg, M., & Nemeth, C. (2008). The" rules" of brainstorming: An impediment to creativity? Institute for
Research on Labor and Employment.

9
Fu, K., Murphy, J., Yang, M., Otto, K., Jensen, D., & Wood, K. (2015). Design-by-analogy: Experimental
evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation improvement. Research
in Engineering Design, 26(1), 77-95.
Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M., & Nunamaker, J.F. (1992).
Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350-369.
Ghabanchi, Z., & Behrooznia, S. (2014). The impact of brainstorming on reading comprehension and critical
thinking ability of efl learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 513-521.
Gogus, A. (2012). Brainstorming and learning Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 484-488): Springer.
Helquist, J., Kruse, J., & Diller, C. (2017). Peer-reviewed brainstorming to facilitate large group collaboration.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Hender, J.M., Dean, D.L., Rodgers, T.L., & Nunamaker Jr, J.F. (2002). An examination of the impact of stimuli
type and gss structure on creativity: Brainstorming versus non-brainstorming techniques in a gss
environment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 59-85.

T
Henningsen, D.D., & Henningsen, M.L.M. (2013). Generating ideas about the uses of brainstorming:
Reconsidering the losses and gains of brainstorming groups relative to nominal groups. Southern

IP
Communication Journal, 78(1), 42-55.
Herbert, T.T., & Yost, E.B. (1979). A comparison of decision quality under nominal and interacting consensus
group formats: The case of the structured problem. Decision Sciences, 10(3), 358-370.

R
Hong, H.-Y., & Chiu, C.-H. (2016). Understanding how students perceive the role of ideas for their knowledge
work in a knowledge-building environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1).

SC
Hsu, C.-C., Wang, T.-I., Lin, K.-J., & Chang, J.-W. (2017). The effects of fusing 635 brainstorming and c-sketch
methods on the creativity of industrial design. Paper presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT), 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on.
Johnson, B.R., & D’Lauro, C.J. (2017). After brainstorming, groups select an early generated idea as their best
idea. Small Group Research, 1046496417720285.

U
Jung, J.J. (2006). A new approach to enhance group ideation: The effect of verbal-ebs on cognitive stimulation.
Kelly, R. (2016). Engaging in creative practice: From design thinking to design doing. Creative Development:
N
Transforming Education through Design Thinking, Innovation, and Invention, 57.
Kerr, D.S., & Murthy, U.S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of
A
computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(4), 381-399.
Kohn, N.W., Paulus, P.B., & Choi, Y. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea
combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 554-561.
M

Korde, R. (2012). Asynchronous idea generation. (Master of Science in Psychology), The University of Texas
at Arlington.
Kramer, M.W., Kuo, C.L., & Dailey, J.C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group
D

processes beyond generating ideas. Small group research, 28(2), 218-242.

Krieger, M., & Wang, Y. (2008). Ideas2ideas: Encouraging constructive ideation in an online, mass-
participation brainstorming system. UIST, Poster session.
TE

Levine, J.M., Alexander, K.M., Wright, A.G., & Higgins, E.T. (2016). Group brainstorming: When regulatory
non fit enhances performance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 257-271.
Lewis, A.C., Sadosky, T.L., & Connolly, T. (1975). The effectiveness of group brainstorming in engineering
problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management(3), 119-124.
EP

Litchfield, R.C. (2009). Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: Does brainstorming really improve idea
quantity? Motivation and Emotion, 33(1), 25-31.
Lynch, A.L., Murthy, U.S., & Engle, T.J. (2009). Fraud brainstorming using computer-mediated
communication: The effects of brainstorming technique and facilitation. The Accounting Review, 84(4),
CC

1209-1232.
McGlynn, R.P., McGurk, D., Effland, V.S., Johll, N.L., & Harding, D.J. (2004). Brainstorming and task
performance in groups constrained by evidence. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 93(1), 75-87.
A

Meadow, A., Parnes, S.J., & Reese, H. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on
a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(6), 413.
Michinov, N. (2012). Is electronic brainstorming or brainwriting the best way to improve creative performance
in groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea‐ generation techniques. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(S1), E222-E243.
Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social
comparison and individual creativity on performance and attention to others’ ideas during electronic
brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 57-67.
Miller, L.E. (2009). Evidence-based instruction: A classroom experiment comparing nominal and brainstorming
groups. Organization Management Journal, 6(4), 229-238.

10
Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous
learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53-65.
Mohammad, M.F., & Hussein, A.A. (2013). Enhancing students‟ motivation to write essays through
brainstorming: A comparative study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(9),
191-196.
Montag-Smit, T., & Maertz, C.P. (2017). Searching outside the box in creative problem solving: The role of
creative thinking skills and domain knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 81, 1-10.
Moradian, A., Nasir, M., Lyons, K., Leung, R., & Sim, S.E. (2014). Gamification of collaborative idea
generation and convergence. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the extended abstracts of the 32nd
annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Osborn, A.F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.
Park-Gates, S.L. (2001). Effects of group interactive brainstorming on creativity. (Doctor of phylosophy),

T
Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Parnes, S.J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of" brainstorming" instructions on creative problem solving by

IP
trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). Critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical
Thinking.

R
Potter, R.E., & Balthazard, P. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic
brainstorming. Mis Quarterly, 621-643.

SC
Putman, V.L., & Paulus, P.B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. The Journal of
creative behavior, 43(1), 29-40.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT journal, 61(2), 100-106.
Rietzschel, E., Nijstad, B., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and

Psychology, 42(2), 244-251.

U
nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social

Rietzschel, E.F. (2005). From quantity to quality: Cognitive, motivational and social aspects of creative idea
N
generation and selection. Utrecht University.
Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive
A
and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42(2), 244-251.
Roy, M.C., Gauvin, S., & Limayem, M. (1996). Electronic group brainstorming: The role of feedback on
M

productivity. Small Group Research, 27(2), 215-247.

Schlee, R.P., & Harich, K.R. (2014). Teaching creativity to business students: How well are we doing? Journal
of Education for Business, 89(3), 133-141.
D

Shengming, Y. (2008). The effects of brainstorming on english writing [j]. Foreign Language World, 4, 011.
Shih, P.C., Nguyen, D.H., Hirano, S.H., Redmiles, D.F., & Hayes, G.R. (2009). Groupmind: Supporting idea
generation through a collaborative mind-mapping tool. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM
TE

2009 international conference on Supporting group work.

Srivastava, S.K. (2007). Green supply‐ chain management: A state‐ of‐ the‐ art literature review. International
journal of management reviews, 9(1), 53-80.
Sutton, S.G., & Arnold, V. (2013). Focus group methods: Using interactive and nominal groups to explore
EP

emerging technology-driven phenomena in accounting and information systems. International Journal

of Accounting Information Systems, 14(2), 81-88.
Tang, H., Chen, Y., & Gero, J. (2012). The influence of design methods on the design process: Effect of use of
scenario, brainstorming, and synectics on designing. Proceedings of design research society (DRS),
CC

1824-1838.
Tausch, S., Hausen, D., Kosan, I., Raltchev, A., & Hussmann, H. (2014). Groupgarden: Supporting
brainstorming through a metaphorical group mirror on table or wall. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational.
A

Tsai, K.C. (2013). Facilitating creativity in adult learners through brainstorming and play. Higher Education of
Social Science, 4(3), 1-8.
Unin, N., & Bearing, P. (2016). Brainstorming as a way to approach student-centered learning in the esl
classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 605-612.
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending
to an old story. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 57(3), 448-467.
Villanueva, O., Chacón, X., Artazcoz, O., Lizarraga, S., & Baquedano, S. (2011). Evaluation of computer tools
for idea generation and team formation in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 56(3), 700-
711.

11
Zainol, A.S., Yusof, W.Z.M., Mastor, K.A., Sanusi, Z.M., & Ramli, N.M. (2012). Using group brainstorming in
industrial design context: Factors inhibit and exhibit. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49,
106-119.
Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Zijlstra, G. (2000). Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: Does computer-
mediated communication improve group brainstorming? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
3(2), 141-158.

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

12
 EBS TBS

Nonredundant ideas Creative thinking

Cognitive load Ideas quantity Resource utilization

Attention Comprehension
Perception
Motivation
Ideas quality

T
IP
Satisfaction
Id e in g
o lv

R
a sn
ov
elty
Performance
le ms
b
Pro

SC
Idea combination
U
N
NBS
A
Figure 1. BS factors across disciplines
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

13
Table 1
A comparison of previous studies on BS in higher education
No Studies BS Purpose Group size Outcomes
Examined the effects of TBS on the
Parnes and Meadow TBS increased the number of
1 TBS development of students’ creative 17 students
(1959) creative ideas among students.
thinking.
Tested the potential of TBS in
Meadow et al. TBS increased students’ creativity in
2 TBS facilitating creative problem solving 32 students
(1959) various thinking tasks.
among students.
The TBS group was less productive
TBS & Compared between TBS and NBS in 1, 2, 4, 6 per than the NBS group when it came to
3 Lewis et al. (1975)
NBS solving engineering problems. group provide creative solutions for
engineering problems.
NBS increased group’s decision
Herbert and Yost NBS & Compared the effects of NBS and
4 16 students quality and the best individual
(1979) TBS TBS in decision-making settings.
decision.

5 Comadena (1984)
T
Students who produced more ideas
Investigated the effect of TBS on
19 groups of 4 perceived TBS to be more attractive
TBS students’ performance based on idea

IP
students than those who had low ideational
outcomes.
productivity.
Examined the effects of TBS and
Gallupe et al. TBS & EBS groups outperformed TBS
6 EBD on students’ ability to produce 100 students

R
(1992) EBS groups.
unique ideas.
Dennis and EBS & Compared the impact of EBS and EBS groups generated more ideas
7 276 students
Valacich (1993) NBS NBS on students’ performance. than NBS groups.

SC
Examined the differences in students’ EBS groups generated more ideas
Dennis and EBS &
8 ability to generate ideas when using 420 students (with higher quality) than NBS
Valacich (1994) NBS
EBS and NBS. groups.
Valacich, Dennis, EBS groups outperformed NBS
NBS & Compared the potential of NBS and
9 and Connolly 199 students groups by generating more
(1994)
EBS EBS in different idea generation tasks.
Studied the effects of EBS on
students’ satisfaction based on the U
9 groups of 9-
nonredundant ideas.

EBS promoted students’ satisfaction.

N
10 Aiken et al. (1996) EBS
10 students
number of unique/quality comments.
Investigated the effect of EBS on
students’ motivation and performance EBS increased students’ overall
A
15 groups of
11 Roy et al. (1996) EBS
based on the quantity and novelty of 5-6 students productivity.
ideas.
Studied the effect of EBS on students’
M

A. Dennis,
EBS allowed students to generate
12 Aronson, Heninger, EBS performance and ability to generate 400 students
more ideas of greater total quality.
and Walker (1996) quality and novel ideas.
Briggs, Reinig, Investigated the effects of EBS on EBS increased the quantity and
13 Shepherd, Yen, and EBS students’ ability to generate more 290 students quality of ideas generated by
D

Nunameker (1997) quality ideas. students.

Examined the impact of EBS with
Dennis et al. EBS groups generated more ideas
14 EBS single and multiple dialogues on 200 students
TE

(1997b) both high-quality and novel.

ideation outcomes.
The decision quality of the TBS
Determined the effect of TBS and
TBS & group was better than the NBS
15 Kramer et al. (1997) NBS on students’ decision quality and 200 students
NBS group. Students’ satisfaction in both
satisfaction.
groups was positive.
EP

EBS, Explored the effects of three BS EBS groups were more productive in
16 Cooper et al. (1998) TBS & groups on members’ production of 360 students generating ideas related to the topic
NBS ideas. of interest.
EBS helped students to produce
Investigated the effects of NBS and
NBS & fewer redundant ideas than NBS. As
CC

17 Ziegler et al. (2000) EBS on students’ ability to generate 60 students

EBS for the quality, no differences were
quality ideas irredundant.
found when using the two methods.
No significant differences were
TBS & Compared the effects of TBS and
18 Park-Gates (2001) 36 students found in students’ creativity when
NBS NBS on students’ creativity.
using TBS and NBS.
A

Investigated the effects of EBS and

Barki and EBS & NBS with regards to the anonymous NBS groups generated ideas at least
19 192 students
Pinsonneault (2001) NBS condition on students’ ability to as good as EBS groups.
generate ideas.
Compared the impact of EBS versus EBS increased the quantity and
20 Hender et al. (2002) EBS non-brainstorming techniques on 135 students creativity of ideas among students
students’ creativity. with lower cognitive load.
NBS increased the quantity. quality
Compared the effects of TBS and
McGlynn et al. TBS & of ideas and overall performance.
21 NBS on the productivity and task 384 students
(2004) NBS Both methods were positively
performance of students.
perceived by students.
Kerr and Murthy Investigated the effectiveness of EBS The use of EBS improved students’
22 EBS 46 students
(2004) in increasing students’ performance. ability to produce a greater number

14
 of ideas.
NBS & Compared the effects of NBS and NBS groups generated more original
23 Rietzschel (2005) 138 students
TBS TBS on students’ idea selection. ideas than TBS groups.
NBS increased students’ productivity
Rietzschel, B. A. Compared the effects of TBS and
TBS & and ideas quality more than TBS.
24 Nijstad, and W. NBS on students’ abilities to generate 138 students
NBS Students were more satisfied with the
Stroebe (2006) and select ideas.
use of TBS.
Examined the effects of TBS on TBS stimulated students’ writing
25 Rao (2007) TBS learners’ writing performance and 38-40 students skills by increasing their
perception. performance and creative thinking.
TBS & Investigated the effects of TBS and TBS improved students’ writing
26 Shengming (2008) 192 students
NBS NBS on students’ English writing. more than NBS.
Feinberg and Studied the effectiveness of TBS in TBS limited students’ productivity of
27 TBS 141 students
Nemeth (2008) creative idea generation. creative ideas.
NBS groups generated more original
Putman and Paulus TBS & Investigated the effects of TBS and and less frequent ideas than TBS
28 120 students

T
(2009) NBS NBS on students’ generation of ideas. groups, which resulted in better
decisions.
EBS and NBS were more effective

IP
EBS, Compared the effectiveness of
than TBS in terms of increasing
29 Lynch et al. (2009) TBS & different BS techniques in fraud risk 188 students
students’ capabilities to assess fraud
NBS assessments.
cases.

R
Demonstrated the superiority of NBS
NBS & NBS increased students’ ability to
30 Miller (2009) over TBS groups during ideas 105 students
TBS generate more ideas than TBS.
generation process.

SC
Investigated the effects of TBS and TBS improved idea quantity only
31 Litchfield (2009) TBS non-TBS on the number of ideas 264 students when combined with a specific and
generated by students. difficult quantity goal.
NBS & Studied the effects of NBS and EBS EBS groups generated fewer
32 Kohn et al. (2011) 108 students
EBS on students’ idea combination. combinations than NBS groups.

33 Al-khatib (2012) TBS

Investigated the effects of using TBS
in developing creative problem-
solving skills among students. U
47 students
TBS improved students’ problem-
solving skills.
N
EBS increased group’s members
Studied the impact of EBS on the
34 Michinov (2012) EBS 80 students performance, attention and
generation of ideas in groups.
satisfaction.
A
The TBS group was more oriented
Studied the effects of TBS, scenario,
35 Tang et al. (2012) TBS 27 students toward functional thinking.
and synectics on students’ design.
M

TBS promoted students’ design

Investigated the potential of using
performance through ownership of
36 Zainol et al. (2012) TBS TBS in stimulating students’ 460 students
the topic and evaluation
performance.
apprehension.
D

Investigated the effect of TBS and

The classroom setting increased
37 Tsai (2013) TBS classroom setting on students’ 10 students
students’ creativity more than TBS.
creativity performance.
TE

Compared between TBS and guided

Mohammad and 4 groups of 3-4
38 TBS to increase students’ motivation TBS improved students’ motivation.
Hussein (2013) TBS students
to write essays.
Investigated the effects of TBS on
Ghabanchi and TBS improved students’ reading
39 TBS reading comprehension ability and 54 students
Behrooznia (2014) comprehension and critical thinking.
EP

critical thinking of students.

Students’ writing scores were
Investigated the impact of TBS on
40 Amoush (2015) TBS 80 students improved with the application of
students’ writing performance.
TBS strategy.
Compared the potential of introducing Providing early ideas in EBS helped
Johnson and
CC

41 EBS early and late ideas in EBS in 36 students students to generate better quality
D’Lauro (2017)
increasing the quality of ideas. solutions.
Investigated the effects of presence Providing information in NBS helped
42 Althuizen (2017) NBS and absence of information in the 20 students to increase members’ fluency and
NBS task. flexibility.
A

15
 Table 2
BS interventions across disciplines
Disciplines
Outcomes
Business Psychology Industrial Language Education Overall
TBS (2+/2-)
Creative thinking TBS (1+/1-) TBS (0+/1-)
X TBS (1+/0-) X NBS (0+/1-)
NBS (0+/1-)

Problem solving TBS (1+/0-) TBS (0+/1-) TBS (2+/1-)

X X TBS (1+/0-)
NBS (1+/0-) NBS (1+/0-)

TBS (4+/0-)
TBS (0+/1-)
TBS (0+/1-) TBS (3+/0-) NBS (1+/1-)
Performance NBS (1+/0-) TBS (1+/0-) TBS (1+/0-)
EBS (2+/0-) NBS (0+/1-) EBS (3+/0-)

T
EBS (1+/0-)
TBS (3+/0-)
TBS (1+/0-) TBS (2+/0-)

IP
NBS (2+/1-)
Satisfaction NBS (1+/0-) NBS (1+/1-) X X X
EBS (2+/0-)
EBS (1+/0-) EBS (1+/0-)
TBS (2+/6-)

R
TBS (1+/1-) TBS (0+/1-)
TBS (0+/4-) NBS (7+/2-)
Quantity of ideas NBS (1+/2-) TBS (1+/0-) X NBS (1+/0-)
NBS (5+/0-) EBS (11+/0-)
EBS (10+/0-) EBS (1+/0-)

SC
TBS (1+/5-)
TBS (1+/1-) TBS (0+/4-)
NBS (6+/2-)
Quality of ideas NBS (2+/1-) NBS (4+/1-) X X EBS (1+/0-)
EBS (7+/1-)
EBS (6+/0-) EBS (0+/1-)
TBS (2+/0-)
Novelty of ideas
TBS (0+/2-)
NBS (2+/0-)
EBS (4+/0-)
X
TBS (0+/1-)
NBS (0+/1-)
X
U X
NBS (1+/1-)
EBS (1+/0-)
N
TBS (4+/0-)
TBS (1+/0-)
TBS (1+/0-) NBS (2+/0-)
Perceptions NBS (1+/0-) TBS (1+/0-) TBS (1+/0-) X
A
NBS (1+/0-) EBS (1+/0-)
EBS (1+/0-)
EBS (1+/0-)
Cognitive load EBS (1+/0-) X X X X
M

EBS (1+/0-)
Attention EBS (1+/0-) X X X

Motivation X X X TBS (1+/0-) X TBS (1+/0-)

D

TBS (1+/0-)
Comprehension X X X TBS (1+/0-) X
TE

TBS (0+/1-)
Ideas TBS (0+/1-)
X X X X NBS (0+/1-)
appropriateness NBS (0+/1-)

TBS (0+/1-) TBS (0+/1-)

EP

Nonredundant NBS (0+/1-)

NBS (0+/2-) X X X NBS (0+/3-)
ideas EBS (1+/0-)
EBS (3+/0-) EBS (4+/0-)

TBS (1+/0-)
Resource TBS (1+/0-)
X X X X NBS (0+/1-)
CC

utilization NBS (0+/1-)

NBS (1+/0-)
NBS (1+/0-)
Idea combination X X X X EBS (0+/1-)
EBS (0+/1-)
Note. + positive; - negative; BS (frequency of positive effect / frequency of negative effect)
A

16
Table 3
Opportunities of BS techniques across disciplines
BS Disciplines
Techniques
Business Psychology Industrial Language Education

TBS  Promote shared  Facilitate idea  Allow students  Allow students to

thinking to produce selection from to organize the move from one step
more workable ideas. different materials in a to another freely
 Increase students’ viewpoints that logical order. without any critics
perception of task overcome  Enable students and interference.
attraction. productivity loss. to focus more on
 Increase the rate of  Deplete cognitive each aspect of
positive and negative resources for the topic at a
N/A
responses to the group creative thinking. time.

T
activity.  Stimulate prior
knowledge

IP
activation for
critical thinking.
 Facilitate sharing
of writing skills

R
among learners.

NBS  Enable students to

SC
make better use of
resources to arrive to N/A N/A N/A N/A
the final decision.

EBS  Provide the atmosphere  Provide continuous  Help solving ill-

for
competency
group members.
building
among

exposure to a flow
of ideas.
Free students from U defined problems
under time pressure.
N
 Feedback received production
from the session allow blocking and offer
for self-evaluation and the possibility of
A
thus reduce social mutual stimulation.
loafing.
 Multiple dialogues help
M

overcome the
cognitive, social, and
procedural factors for
better idea generation.

D

Lower production
blocking and
evaluation
TE

apprehension.
 Encourage unregulated
N/A N/A
behaviour due of the
absence of the social
cues.
 Allow using free
EP

association and
frequent collision of
ideas that force
movement among
CC

fewer dialogues.
 Refocus members’
attention more evenly.
 Increase synergy with
larger group size.
 Introduce few process
A

losses while enabling

process gains.
 Offer simultaneous and
uninterrupted
production of ideas.

17
Table 4. Challenges of BS techniques across disciplines

BS Disciplines
Techniques
Business Psychology Industrial Language Education

TBS  Increase fear of criticism by  Lack instructions to  Require  The lack of

self or others. use the hypotheses experienced maintaining
 Lack of previous experience during the session. group leader active
may influence members’  Establish a mental and extensive participation.
productivity during the framework that is not training of  Potential loss
session. conducive to freedom participants. of focus
 Not designed for certain and divergent.  Do not support during the
personality and social quantifying a process.

T
characteristics. concept.  Difficulty to
 Low equity of interaction  Difficult to adhere to the

IP
among members. assess the procedures
 Require more time for students usefulness of may restrict
to be exposed. ideas when the best N/A
 Limit the utilization of the best there is a large result.

R
resources. amount of
 Require specific and difficult goals. conceptual
ideas.

SC
U
N
NBS  Low equity of interaction  Difficult to generate  Do not support
among members. ideas when the BS quantifying a
take place late in the concept.
A
task.  The present of
 Students have no blocking
access to the total production
M

group’s production.
 Difficulty listening to
the group’s discussion N/A N/A
while producing own
ideas.
D

 Lack explicit selection

criteria.
TE

EBS  Lack of proper guides.  Restrict the  Coordination

 Waiting time may create development of difficulties.
EP

uncertainty among students. authentic ideas.  Early ideas

 Participants fear of criticism  Reading the ideas of may not be
by others may stop them from other members may used.
sharing all the ideas that they not produce any
have. mutual stimulation.
CC

 Fear of harm to individual  The present of

reputations. blocking production.
 Irrelevant ideas may distract
students from producing
effective solutions.
A

 Multiple time period condition N/A N/A

may not encourage members
to work faster and generate
more ideas.
 Introduce more process losses
initially.
 Lack of support for through
the manipulation of group
history, contextual cues, and
topic sensitivity.
 Require more effort to type
ideas than to say them.
 Not appropriate for highly

18
 ambiguous tasks.
 Small group size may
influence the idea generation
process.

T
IP
R
SC
U
N
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

19