Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential

Article

Abstract

This article examines the claims of the school subject technology education (called Design and Technology in some countries) as a vehicle for inculcating creativity in the curriculum, by introducing children to the world of problem solving and invention. Core foundational underpinnings of the subject are explored, including its hands-on nature, its open-endedness, and its encouragement of generative cognitive processes. Issues relating to the teaching of problem solving are discussed. Examples of curricular approaches to the subject are set forth and their merits as bases for encouraging creative thinking are examined. Research on creativity in the subject is reflected upon briefly. The paper concludes by offering problem solving; and analogical, metaphorical, combination, and divergent thinking, as possible bases for pedagogy in technology education, and calls attention to the subject as a possible fruitful area of research based on creativity in the school curriculum.

Keywords

Creativity Inventiveness Analogical thinking Combination Metaphorical thinking Problem solving 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77–87.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, S. (2000). Does the need for high levels of performance curtail the development of creativity in design and technology project work? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, M., & Goffer, N. (2002). Fostering systematic innovative thinking and problem solving: Lessons education can learn from industry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlex, D. (2007). Creativity in school design & technology in England: A discussion of the influences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlex, D. M., & Trebell, D. (2007). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Published Online, February 28, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  8. Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design. A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6–8.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, M. B., & Gorman, M. E. (1992). A cognitive framework to understand technological creativity: Bell, Edison, and the Telephone. In R. J. Weber & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 48–79). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Caroll, D. R. (1997). Bridge engineering for the elementary grades. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(3), 221–226.Google Scholar
  11. Charles, R. E., & Runco, M. A. (2000–2001). Developmental trends in the evaluative and divergent thinking of children. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3&4), 417–437.Google Scholar
  12. Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modeling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cotton, S. E. (2002). Making problem-solving simulations more realistic. The Technology Teacher, 62(3), 29–32.Google Scholar
  15. Court, A. W. (1998). Improving creativity in engineering design education. European Journal of Education, 23(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crouch, T. D. (1992). Why Wilbur and Orville? Some thoughts on the Wright Brothers and the process of invention. In R. J. Weber & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 80–92). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dasgupta, S. (1996). Technology and creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Deal, W.F., III (2001). The great robot beetle challenge. The Technology Teacher, 60(8), 17–20.Google Scholar
  19. Defeyter, M. A., & German, T. P. (2003). Acquiring an understanding of design: Evidence from children’s insight problem solving. Cognition, 89, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (1901). The place of manual training in the elementary course of study. Manual Training Magazine, 11(4), 193–199.Google Scholar
  21. Dillon, R. (1995). Using a robotics contest to enhance student creativity and problem solving skills. The Technology Teacher, 55(1), 11–14.Google Scholar
  22. Doppelt, Y. (2007). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. DOI: 10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y .
  23. Dreistadt, R. (1969). The use of analogies and incubation in obtaining insights in creative problem solving. Journal of Psychology, 71, 159–175.Google Scholar
  24. Druin, A., & Fast, C. (2002). The child as learner, critic, inventor, and technology design painter: An analysis of three years of Swedish Student Journals. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 28(5), Whole Number 270.Google Scholar
  26. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.Google Scholar
  27. Foster, P. N. (2006). Reengineering activities in K-8 classrooms: Focus on formative feedback. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 20–24.Google Scholar
  28. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., Wolff, P., Markman, A. B., & Forbus, K. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T. Ward, S. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought (pp. 403–459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gentner, D., & Jeziorski, M. (1993). The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western Science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 447–480). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D. A., & McGlone, M. S. (1997). Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories. In T. B. Ward, S. N. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 327–350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goel, L. (2006). Engineering a microfluidic device. The Technology Teacher, 66(2), 7–8.Google Scholar
  37. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guilford, J. P. (1959). The three faces of intellect. The American Psychologist, 14(8), 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The measure of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Gustafson, B. J., Rowell, P. M., & Guilbert, S. M. (2000). Elementary children’s awareness of strategies for testing structural strength: A three year study. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 5–22.Google Scholar
  41. Gustafson, B. J., Rowell, P. M., & Rose, D. P. (1999). Elementary children’s conceptions of structural stability: A three year study. Journal of Technology education, 11(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  42. Heywood, J. (2005). Engineering design: Research and development in curriculum and instruction. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  43. Hinrichs, T. R. (1992). Problem solving in open worlds: A case study in design. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Hong, J.-C., Tseng, H.-Y., & Chang, H.-Y. (2006). A study of the creative thinking process of robot combat contest: A case study of robot bug contest. In International Conference on Technology Education in the Asia Pacific Region Conference 2006 Proceedings (pp. 120–127). Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute: Hong Kong Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
  45. Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy—content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  48. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy. A view from case based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity: A framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  52. Liu, Y.-T. (1998). Personal versus cultural cognitive models of design creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCormack, A. J. (1984). Teaching inventiveness. Childhood Education, 60(4), 249–255.Google Scholar
  54. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Middendorf, W. H., & Englemann, R. H. (1998). Design of devices and systems. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Middleton, H. (2005). Creative thinking values and design and technology education. International Journal of Technology Education, 15, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller, A. I. (1996). Metaphors in creative scientific thought. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2&3), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mioduser, D., & Kipperman, D. (2002). Evaluation? Modification cycles in junior high students’ technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. National Advisory Committee on Creative, Cultural Education. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London: Department for Education and Employment (DfEE).Google Scholar
  60. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Nussbaum, B. (2004). The power of design. Business Week Online, May 17, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_20/b3883001_mz001.htm
  62. Peterson, R. E. (2002). Establishing the creative environment in technology education. The Technology Technology, 61(4), 7–10.Google Scholar
  63. Plucker, J. A., & Gorman, M. E. (1999). Invention is in the mind of the adolescent: Effects of a summer course one year later. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 3–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2001). Design and technology. UK: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from see http://www.ncaction.org.uk/subjects/design/index.htm
  66. Rasinen, A. (2003). An analysis of technology education curriculum of six countries. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31–47.Google Scholar
  67. Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shlesinger, B. E., Jr. (1982). An untapped resource of inventors: Gifted and talented children. The Elementary School Journal, 82(3), 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triachic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sticht, T. G., & Hickey, D. T. (1991). Functional context theory, literacy, and electronics training. In R. F. Dillon & J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 82–106). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  71. Thompson, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Super mileage challenge: Combining education and fun. The Technology Teacher, 66(1), 31–35.Google Scholar
  72. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(2), 114–143.Google Scholar
  73. Webster, A., Campbell, C., & Jane, B. (2006). Enhancing the creative process for learning in primary technology education. International Journal of technology and Design Education. doi:10.1007/s10798-005-5633-0.Google Scholar
  74. Welling, H. (2007). Four mental operations in creative cognition: The importance of abstraction. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education. Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25–29.Google Scholar
  76. Wilson, V., & Harris, M., (2004). Creative change? A review of the impact of design and technology in schools in England. Journal of Technology Education, 15(2), 46–65.Google Scholar
  77. Woodward, C. M. (1882). The function of an American training School. The Journal of Proceedings and Addresses, National Educational Association, Session of the Year of 1882.Google Scholar
  78. Yu, K.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2006). Implementation of design and making, interdisciplinary integration, and creativity in technology education curriculum. In International Conference on Technology Education in the Asia Pacific Region Conference 2006 Proceedings (pp. 74–82). Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute: Hong Kong Technology Education Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Work and Human Resource EducationUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations