Perspectives on pupil creativity in design and technology in the lower secondary curriculum in England

Abstract

This paper is based on work carried out as part of a research study into the professional practices of secondary design and technology teachers in England. It focused on fostering creativity or teaching for creativity as defined by the Robinson Report (1999, All our futures: creativity, culture and education. London: Department for Education and Employment (DfEE)) for pupils aged 11-14 years. The overall research question that drove this study was ''to what extent can teachers influence the creativity of pupils aged 11-14 years in design and technology lessons?'' The paper provides the basis used to generate a unique theoretical threefeature model or framework that can be used to explore creativity within an educational context. The findings of three investigations in the study are presented in this paper. The first and second investigations looked at what could be learnt from the professional practices of art and design and design and technology teachers and the views of four 'expert' teachers known for their ability to develop the creative potential of their pupils. The data is discussed under emerging themes and it is used to inform specific criteria in the evolving theoretical three-feature model for creativity. The model is then used to analyse the data from the third classroom based investigation and the findings are discussed under the emerging themes to help identify the issues related to fostering creativity within the design and technology classroom. This paper discusses the implications of the research for classroom practice and suggests that, as creativity is a complex, multi-faceted concept and process, the theoretical three-feature model and related criteria evolved in the study provides a sound framework to explore creativity within an educational context. As a tool it helps identify examples of good practice and highlight areas that require further attention by teachers aiming to foster their pupils' creativity. It is suggested 2007 that design and technology teachers have lessons to learn from the practices of their art and design colleagues and 'expert' design and technology teachers. It is concluded that there is a need for greater understanding by teachers of their implicit theories regarding teaching, learning and creativity. A wider use could be made of the breadth of strategies outlined by the 'expert' teachers. This would help address the weakness identified in the school based study and strengthen classroom practice when teaching for creativity.

Elementary Teachers’ Reflections on Design Failures and Use of Fail Words after Teaching Engineering for Two Years

“…On occasion, teachers' approaches and responses to student design failure, as well as student responses to design failure, are reported. When discussing design failure, reported student responses range from frustration, quitting or giving up, and analyzing the failure for improvement ideas (Barnett, 2005;Kolodner et al, 2003;Rutland & Barlex, 2008). For teachers, response approaches include teachers discussing their own experiences with failure and striving to create ''fail safe'' environments for students (Rutland & Barlex,p.…”

Fostering creativity from an emotional perspective: Do teachers recognise and handle students’ emotions?

“…Design is similar to creativity (Howard et al 2008) in that both involve solving problems and inventing solutions (Middleton 2005;Rutland and Barlex 2008). The output of designers is inherently creative (Barlex 2007;Ho and Siu 2011).…”

Elementary Teachers’ Reported Responses to Student Design Failures

“…Student responses to design failure include getting frustrated and giving up, engaging in failure analysis, and seeking to improve. 10,15,16 Teaching approaches in response to student design failure include creating supportive environments where it is okay to fail, 16 or the teacher sharing his own struggles with the challenge and how he learned from "my mistakes." 17 While these studies provide some evidence of how students and teachers have responded to design failure, most have neither focused on failure nor collected a range of student or teacher responses to design failure.…”