Approaches to Planning that Encourage Creativity

  • Mary SouthallEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


Planning is a crucial part of the teaching and learning process yet is often a stage that is either overlooked or deliberately neglected. The research on which this chapter is based investigates the approaches used by technology teachers to plan how teaching, learning and assessment activities work together to ensure students have the opportunities to demonstrate intended learning. Particular focus is placed upon creativity and the development of creative skills in relation to the planning approach.

The research adopted a mixed methodology approach to analyse planned and actual teaching and learning activities and indicated a strong causal relationship between the planning approach used and the creative output. The dominant approach to planning produced learning outcomes that are both easy to measure and easier to teach but did not support teaching and learning of cognitive skills, such as reflection and creativity. In the light of these findings, this chapter considers how reflection and creativity might be supported in the classroom.


  1. Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Barak, M. (2011). Fostering learning in the engineering and technology class. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education. Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 35–53). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary curriculum. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
  4. Barlex, D., and Rutland, M. (2004). ‘Developing trainee teacher’s ability to teach designing within secondary school design and technology in England’. PATT 14 International Conference Proceedings. Albuquerque, USA, March 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, M., & Lofoe, G. (1998). Curriculum design for flexible delivery – Massaging the model. In R. Corderoy (Ed.), Flexibility: The next wave. Wollongong: Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. LTSN Generic Centre: Imaginative Curriculum Project.Google Scholar
  8. Borko, H., Livingston, C., McCaleb, J., & Mauro, L. (1988). Student teachers’ planning and post-lesson reflections: Patterns and implications for teacher preparation. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning. Lewes: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum development. Wollongong: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Calderhead, J. (1984). Teachers’ classroom decision making. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  11. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. A. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  12. Carr, M. (2008). Can assessment unlock and open the doors to resourcefulness and agency? In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment (pp. 36–54). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Clandinin, D. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clandinin, D. (1986). Classroom practice: Teachers images of action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(2), 195–200.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ though processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning. In J. Caldehead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 84–103). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  18. Datta, L. (2001). The wheelbarrow, the mosaic and the double helix: Challenges and strategies for successfully carrying out mixed methods evaluation [online], Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 1(2), 33–40. Available at:;dn=456685309173089;res=IELBUS>ISSN:1035-719X.%5B. Accessed 14 Mar 15%5D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daugherty, R. B., Black, P., Ecclestone, K., James, M., & Newton, P. (2011). The assessment of significant learning outcomes’. In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education (pp. 165–183). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott, J. (2001). Making evidence-based practice educational. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinct methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guest, G. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Social Research Solutions (pp. 1–320).Google Scholar
  26. Hagger, H., & McIntrye, D. (2006). Learning teaching from Tearchers: Realising the potential of school-based teacher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hallgarten, J. B. (Ed.). (2014, November 7). Licensed to create. Ten essays on improving teacher quality. London: RSA.Google Scholar
  28. Hanks, W. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (Eds.), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning: Strategies for the classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Illeris, K. (2009). In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. John, P. (1991). A qualitative study of British student teachers’ lesson planning perspectives. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(3), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. John, P. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes, a practical guide. Cork: Quality Promotion Unit, UCC.Google Scholar
  35. Kimbell, R. (1994). Progression in learning and the assessment of children’s attainment. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  36. Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology, international trends in curriculum and assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: SEAC and the Central Office of Information.Google Scholar
  38. Knight, P. T. (2002). Being a teacher in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Love, T. (2013). Theoretical underpinnings towards assessing science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of technology educators. PATT 27 conference technology education for the future: A play on sustainability (Vol. 27, pp. 291–297). Christchurch: University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
  40. Martin, R. (2011). Innovation in symbolic industries: The geography and organisation of knowledge sourcing. European Planning Studies, 19, 1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, J., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (1999). Building a metacognitive model of reflection. Higher Education, 37, 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Middleton, H. (2008). Researching technology education: Methods and techniques. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Milkova, S. (2014). Strategies for effective lesson planning. [online]. Available from Center for Research on Learning and Teaching: Accessed on 26 Nov 2014.Google Scholar
  44. Moreland, J. (2008). Assessment for learning in primary technology classrooms. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 37–48.Google Scholar
  45. Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Barlex, D. (2008). Design and technology inside the black box – Assessment for learning in the design and technology classroom. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  46. Morgan, R., Jones, L., & Barlex, D. (2013). New Principles for Design & Technology in the National Curriculum. Education for Engineering. E4E2013, London, UK..Google Scholar
  47. Mutton, T. H., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicholl, B., & McLellan, R. (2009). ‘This isn’t my project [work]. It’s…just do it… you just do research’. What student voice reveals about the nature of D&T lesson in English schools and the implications this has on their motivation and learning of complex tasks. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam: SENSE.Google Scholar
  49. Owen-Jackson, G., & Steeg, T. (2007). The role of technical understanding in design and technology. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology – The next generation: A collection of provocative pieces to stimulate reflection and curriculum innovation London, UK. TEP/Nuffield.Google Scholar
  50. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. [online]. Available at: Accessed on 31 Mar 2013.Google Scholar
  51. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters, R. S. (1965). ‘Education as initiation’. Inaugural Lecture, University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  53. Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. Hershey: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. QCDA. (2010). Guidance for senior leaders, Qualification and Curriculum Development Agency, Department of Education, London, UK., Coventry.Google Scholar
  55. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rutland, M. (2009). Art and design and design and technology: Is there creativity in the designing? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
  57. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions, and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sondergeld, T. B. (2010). Understanding how teachers engage in formative assessment. Teaching and Learning, 24(2), 72–86.Google Scholar
  59. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  60. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trebell, D. (2007). A literature review in search of an appropriate theoretical perspective to frame a study of Designerly activity in secondary design and technology. Education and international research conference (pp. 91–95). The Design and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  62. Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740–763.Google Scholar
  63. Tyler, R. (1949). How can learning experiences be organised for effective Instruction? In Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations