| Course | EDP 814 The Social Psychology of Groups |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Doctoral creativity paper |
| Length | About 1,021 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 814 Module 5
Why the Whiteboard Session Failed: Rebuilding Group Idea Generation
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 814: The Social Psychology of Groups
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Why the Whiteboard Session Failed: Rebuilding Group Idea Generation
The composite medical device team followed in earlier modules needed ideas: how to make its glucose monitor easier for older patients with limited vision and dexterity. Hana gathered the team for a one-hour whiteboard brainstorming session, with the usual rules: say anything, build on others' ideas and do not criticize. The session produced fourteen ideas, ten of them from two senior engineers, and several members said afterward that they had ideas they never mentioned. The team and company are fictional, built for teaching. This paper explains why the session disappointed and redesigns it.
The Productivity Loss
Diehl and Stroebe (1987) compared real brainstorming groups with nominal groups, the same number of people working alone whose ideas were pooled after removing duplicates. Nominal groups consistently produced more ideas. The researchers then tested three explanations. Evaluation apprehension, fear of judgment, and free riding, relying on others, accounted for little of the loss. Production blocking accounted for most of it: because only one person can speak at a time, others must wait, during which they forget ideas, suppress them as less relevant or stop generating new ones while listening. When the researchers prevented people from speaking when they wanted to, even individuals working alone produced fewer ideas.
Combining Individual and Group Work
Paulus and Yang (2000) tested brainwriting, in which group members write ideas on slips of paper and pass them around the group, adding their own ideas after reading others'. Brainwriting groups generated more ideas than nominal groups, a rare case of a group procedure outperforming individuals working alone. Writing removed production blocking, since everyone could generate ideas at once, while exposure to others' ideas stimulated new ones. Participants who had a period of solitary reflection after the group exchange generated further ideas, suggesting that alternating individual and group work is effective.
Debate and Criticism
Nemeth et al. (2004) compared groups given traditional brainstorming instructions, including not to criticize, with groups instructed to debate and even criticize each other's ideas, and with groups given no rules. The studies were run in the United States and France. Groups encouraged to debate produced more ideas than those following traditional rules, in both countries. The authors argued that dissent stimulates thinking and that the no-criticism rule, meant to reduce evaluation apprehension, may suppress the engagement that generates ideas.
| Phase | Activity | Evidence | Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Individual writing | Ten minutes writing ideas alone | Diehl and Stroebe (1987) | Ideas per person |
| 2. Brainwriting | Pass sheets; add ideas after reading others' | Paulus and Yang (2000) | Total unique ideas |
| 3. Open debate | Discuss and challenge the strongest ideas | Nemeth et al. (2004) | New ideas from debate |
| 4. Selection | Rate ideas separately, then discuss top ones | Separating generation from evaluation | Expert ratings of quality |
The Redesigned Session
The new session runs in four phases over ninety minutes. Members first write ideas alone, so that no one waits to speak. They then brainwrite, passing sheets around the table and adding to each other's ideas. Next, the team debates the most promising ideas openly, with permission to challenge them, following Nemeth and colleagues. Finally, members rate all ideas individually before discussing the top-rated ones, so that the loudest voices do not decide what moves forward. The process also gives Mei and other quieter members the same opportunity to contribute as the senior engineers, addressing the participation problem identified in earlier modules.
Measuring Results
The team will count unique ideas and the share contributed by each member, and two clinicians who work with older patients will rate the best ideas for usefulness and originality without knowing which session produced them. These measures address quantity and quality separately.
Limits
The studies mostly used student groups on short tasks with no stakes. Professional teams with expertise and history may behave differently, and debate may be harder in groups where status differences make criticism risky. The redesign therefore includes individual rating, which protects quieter members even if debate is dominated by senior voices.
The Facilitator's Role
Who runs the session matters. In the whiteboard session, Hana stood at the board and wrote ideas as people called them out, which meant she also decided, implicitly, which ideas were worth recording in full. In the redesign, a facilitator from the company's human factors group, outside the team's hierarchy, will keep time, collect the brainwriting sheets and type every idea into a shared list without editing. Paulus and Yang (2000) emphasized that idea generation in organizations depends on procedures as much as on people, and a neutral facilitator is part of the procedure.
Making Debate Productive
Debate helps only under some conditions. Nemeth et al. (2004) studied groups of peers; in Hana's team, junior members may hesitate to challenge senior engineers. The debate phase will therefore focus on ideas already written and pooled, so that criticism attaches to ideas rather than to the people who proposed them, and the facilitator will ask each member to name one weakness and one strength of a top idea. This keeps the benefits of dissent while reducing the risk that it becomes a contest of status.
After the Session
Many ideas are lost after a session ends. The team will assign each of the five top-rated ideas to a pair of members, one engineer and one non-engineer, who will develop a one-page concept within two weeks. Pairs will present at the next design review. Ownership turns ideas into proposals.
Quantity and Quality
More ideas are not automatically better ideas, though research on idea generation generally finds that groups producing more ideas also produce more good ones, since good ideas are a fraction of the total. The selection phase guards against mistaking volume for value: ideas are rated individually before discussion, and the clinicians' blind ratings give an outside view of quality.
Conclusion
Diehl and Stroebe trace brainstorming's losses to production blocking, Paulus and Yang show that brainwriting can let groups outperform individuals and Nemeth and colleagues show that debate can generate more ideas than the no-criticism rule. A session that alternates writing, exchange, debate and individual rating offers the team more ideas from more of its members.
References
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.210
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888
EDP 814 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
The fifth module of EDP 814 typically asks for a paper on motivation, idea generation and creativity in groups. Use your Aspen course's Module 5 instructions; the team is a composite. Explain why groups often generate fewer ideas than individuals and what research shows about the causes. Review methods that improve group idea generation. Address the role of criticism and debate. Redesign a group's process with evidence. Plan how to measure the quantity and quality of ideas. Cite in APA 7 at doctoral depth, and distinguish the number of ideas from their quality, since methods that raise one do not always raise the other. Consider the conditions that make debate productive rather than discouraging, such as trust and clear focus on ideas rather than people.
How this EDP 814 Module 5 example is built
Hana, the composite team lead, ran a one-hour whiteboard session that produced fourteen ideas, most from two senior engineers. Diehl and Stroebe's experiments compare real and nominal groups and identify production blocking as the main cause of the loss. Paulus and Yang's study shows brainwriting groups outperforming nominal groups. Nemeth and colleagues' study in the United States and France finds that instructions encouraging debate produced more ideas than traditional brainstorming rules. A four-row table redesigns the session into individual writing, brainwriting, open debate and selection, with measures of idea count and expert ratings of quality. Sections address the facilitator's role and what happens after the session, when most ideas are lost.
Reading the EDP 814 Module 5 grading rubric
A strong creativity paper explains the causes of productivity loss with evidence and redesigns the process to address them. This example identifies production blocking as the main cause, following the experiments that tested several explanations. Brainwriting addresses blocking while keeping the stimulation of others' ideas. The debate findings challenge a familiar rule and are applied with care. The new design separates generation from selection and measures both quantity and quality, so the team can see whether the change worked. The paper also attends to the facilitator's role and to what happens after a session, recognizing that ideas often die between generation and implementation. Conditions for productive debate are named so that the recommendation does not backfire in a team with status differences.
EDP 814 Module 5 help from the desk
Creativity papers often recommend brainstorming without noting that groups typically produce fewer ideas than individuals working alone. Explain the causes, especially production blocking. Recommend methods that combine individual and group work, such as brainwriting. Address the no-criticism rule with evidence. Separate generating ideas from selecting them. Measure quantity and quality. Note limits, such as studies using students on short tasks. Plan what happens to ideas after the session, since many are lost when no one owns them. Name the conditions under which debate helps, such as criticism aimed at ideas rather than people. Consider whether a facilitator from outside the hierarchy would help.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 814 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 814 Module 1: The Self and the Self in Groups
- EDP 814 Module 2: Group Formation, Norms and Roles
- EDP 814 Module 3: Group Performance
- EDP 814 Module 4: Culture, Gender and Groups
- EDP 814 Module 6: Obedience: The Milgram Experiment
- EDP 814 Module 7: Prejudice and Intergroup Conflict
- EDP 814 Module 8: Roles, Power and the Stanford Prison Study
- EDP 816 Module 5: Culture, the Self and Personality
- EDN 810 Module 3: Evaluating Resources and Capabilities
- EDN 820 Module 1: EBP, QI and Research Compared
- EDO 820 Module 2: The Moral Psychology of Leaders
EDP 814 Module 5 questions, answered
What does EDP 814 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 814 covers motivation, idea generation and creativity in this module, so a paper redesigning a group's idea process with evidence is typical. Your Module 5 prompt gives the specifics.
Why do brainstorming groups produce fewer ideas?
Diehl and Stroebe found production blocking, where only one person can speak at a time while others wait and forget or suppress ideas, was the main cause.
What is brainwriting?
A method in which group members write ideas and pass them to others, who add their own; Paulus and Yang found it outperformed individuals working alone.
Where can I find a free EDP 814 Module 5 sample paper?
The complete paper appears here: the causes of brainstorming losses, brainwriting and debate as remedies and a redesigned session with measures.
Should brainstorming groups avoid criticism?
Nemeth and colleagues found that instructions encouraging debate and criticism produced more ideas than traditional rules forbidding it.