"Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential"
Lewis, T. (2009)
This article discusses the importance of creativity in schools, linking to various theorists and other sources to justify their argument. He has discussed how Design and Technology allow for creativity without being touched by other subjects such as maths and science is continual battle. When referring to the decline in creativity for ages between 9-10 and onto adolescence, Lewis (2008) offered the theory that this was because of "insufficient opportunity for open-ended pursuits that are joyful, that draw on endowments not otherwise tapped, and where teachers do not always have the answers".
Focus on Design
This section of the article discusses the merits of 'problem solving' and 'challenges', mentioning the positives and negativities of Design Technologies, using it as a basis for Education. Some negatives points included that Students do not learn in a linear way as 'problem solving' suggests. Another belief was that the subject allows students to create what doesn't exist yet and therefore helps them further develop their higher order thinking. Whilst, Atkinson's study on the relationship between the creativity of student projects and their overall performance on the GSCE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) examination found that a lot of students that didn't perform well on the exam can design very creative projects. I found this interesting, as I did an assignment previously about this topic and found myself agreeing that students need more creativity allowance in Schools and that although some children aren't good at maths for example, they could be very creative and do extremely well in other subjects. We cant focus all our emphasis on 'main stream' subjects.
Emergent classroom practice
Lewis discusses how classrooms shouldn't be as strict, that students need to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them and to be playful and humorous without getting in trouble for it. He also discusses the design process including a few examples with a wide variety of subject matter, going into much detail about each step. Many children enjoy technology education as it allows them the freedom to create without restrictions, which is a worry if other subjects begin to influence technology education to much it may not be as enjoyable for children anymore. There is theories about how children may not be interested in both phases of education technology (idea generation and evaluation) and how Teachers can further enhance their enthusiasm for both. He goes on to discuss how children that might be poor academic achievers might improve with more creativity incorporated in the curriculum including technology education.
Emergent on children designing
This heading discusses the difficulty in grading creativity and through various examples, discusses how each person is an individual and views things differently, how everyone is creative in their own ways but always different. Through observation of children developing challenges, it helps us to further develop technology education which allows students to "draw upon their creative urges" (Lewis, 2008). Allowing us to better understand how children think when posed with technological challenges.
Inventiveness and the curriculum
Discusses how inventiveness and design work hand-in-hand and more needs to be done across countries to make others more aware of the potential of this subject. It also provides examples of techniques used to include inventiveness in the classroom such as getting students to reinvent old inventions such as household appliances or mouse traps etc. There are three types of cognitive strategies used when inventing: mental models, mechanical representations and heuristics. Lewis (2008) states that:
"Mental models are constructions that can be animated in the mind of the inventor. Mechanical representations link thought with devices. Inventors have a set of stock solutions that are part of their cognitive resources. Heuristics are strategies including rules of thumb that inventors use to manipulate models and representations."
Dasgupta's framework "suggests that the act of inventing is (a) purposive (goal oriented), (b) opportunistic (relying on sub-goals), (c) gradualistic—large insights being composed of a network of small steps, (d) a reasoning processes involving application of rules, (e) knowledge intensive (science, theory heuristics, and (f) involves searching freely and associatively for knowledge" (Lewis, 2008).
For invention to become a stronger feature in technology education it is important for Teachers to become more familiar with its terms and modes of thought.
Coming to grips with creativity and invention
Following processes are more likely to occur in technology education then in other areas of the curriculum: "problem solving, divergent thinking, combination, metaphorical thinking, and analogical thinking" (Lewis, 2008).
Problem solving
It is discussed how their are many steps involved with problem solving, beginning with a problem or goal that cannot be reached. That problem solving is a manifestation of intelligence and there is metacomponents of intelligence: "problem solving, selection of a solution strategy, allocation of mental and other resources (such as time) to the problem, solution monitoring, and sensitivity to feedback" (Lewis, 2008).
It is also suggested that children's prior knowledge of how things work prevent the considerations of new possibilities, which I find interesting and could agree with.
Divergent thinking
Meaning more then one solution to a problem is possible. Guildford states four categories: "fluency (ability to produce a number of ideas), originality (ability to produce unusual ideas), flexibility (production of a variety of ideas), and elaboration (ability to embellish ideas)" (Lewis, 2008). These categories are useful in divergent thinking studies. Problem solving requires being open minded about possible solutions and other problems that may arise etc., divergent thinking plays a large roll in the beginning of the problem solving stages.
Combination thinking
Combination thinking involves the merging of two ideas into a third idea. It is believed that creative people will find this easier then people that are less creative e.g. " An engineer may find it necessary to marry electrical and mechanical systems" (Lewis, 2008).
Metaphorical thinking
Metaphorical thinking is described by Lewis (2008) as allowing "one to make conceptual leaps across domains from a source to a target, such that a new situation can be characterized and understood by reference to a familiar one".
It is believed that metaphors help us bring realism to a problem space. Teachers should demonstrate the use of metaphorical thinking in technology classes which will encourage students to arrive at their own. Using metaphorical prompts will help push students towards their solution.
Analogical thinking
"Analogies are special types of metaphors, where a structural feature from a base domain is mapped onto a new domain" (Lewis, 2008).
It is possible to solve a problem in one area by using an analogical problem from another area. Children should be engaging in solving real world problems, in keeping with the aims and practices of the education of technology.
Reference
Springer Science+Business Media B.V.: Theodore Lewis. (2008). Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3922a349-01ef-40db-adfe-4df213d42855%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4209
Summary by Becky Lewis-Smith - CQU Student
“Beyond ‘The Design Process’: An Alternative Pedagogy for Technology Education.”
Mawson, B. (2003)This article was about the Design Process that is implemented throughout the schooling system and how when the Design and Technology Curriculum was first introduced in England, that they had a lineal approach which has proven to be problematic in our schooling system today.
“. . . teachers often undertook a linear process that emphasised the stages of planning and drawing, then construction and finally testing. These stages followed each other successively and were often discrete . . . (Moreland et al. 2000, p. 292). “
Emergence of the Design Process-
Johnsey (1995) identified that there were many different attempts to define the design process in England between 1971 and 1995. Although there were many different designs, he identified many common process skills. One common reoccurrence was the persistence of teachers in teaching a lineal design process.
Challenges-
Using a lineal model (end-on-end process orientated) approach has been problematic. Some of the issues are that students using a design-make-appraise model require students developing a design before the process begins.
Although the design process and the different components used are effective in the role of creating a two-dimensional drawing in creating the design, the literature indicates that this is not the preferred method for students. Children are known to design orally and by exploring materials available to them. Johnsey (1995) believes that the most important part of the design-making process for students is the “making” part and the “design” part does not naturally come first.
When faced with the requirement to follow pre-scribed, linear model students tend to subvert the design process by adopting their own strategies to get the job done, but ritualistically use the teachers approach to satisfy assessment requirements (Williams 2000).
Student Technological Practice-
Gustafson and Rowell (1998) identify five different types of initial problem solving strategies.
1. Guidance/direction
2. Modelling handling
3. Imaging
4. Social beginning
5. Reflecting beginning
Through their studies, they realised that the students initial course of action was influenced by the perception of where ideas to solve the problem might lie. Lewis (1998) suggests that the focus needs to shift from a problem solving approach to one that fosters problem-posing by the students.
Teaching approaches-
With our new understanding of technological practices, there are a number of current teaching practices that no longer fit.
Alternative approach-
Children should be able to explore the range of materials available to them during the exploration of general knowledge and relevant information to the particular context. There should be a scenario to introduce the topic that is authentic to their experience and environment. The scenario should allow for many solutions to be created by students which fit to their own learning styles. There should be open discussions about each student’s process in small groups and with the teacher to clarify the problem. Students should then be able to present their solutions to suit their learning styles.
The role of the teacher in this alternative approach is to manage the learning environment and model technological practices. They will also promote discussion, offer supportive and critical feedback and model strategies so that students have a clear outline of the problem and challenges.
According to a study done by Video Campus (2001) says that some challenges that have presented themselves in this approach is that some students did not achieve their potential outcome because some groups were held up due to the high demand of materials and equipment needed that weren’t originally available. But with this alternative approach, studies have shown that students had a great deal of enthusiasm and involvement in creating solutions. There is a noticeable amount of collaboration between students and their peers as well as their teachers.
Discussion-
This section of the article was summarising about how New Zealand is still trying to make Technology a compulsory subject. Although the design-process has been useful to teachers, it is time for teachers to have a wider understanding of technological processes and the implementation of class room pedagogy using these processes.
The attention of the design process should be down played and more attention given to design skills and technological practices. This enables students to have an approach that suits their individual learning styles.
Reference-
Mawson, B. (2003). BeyondThe Design Process': An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117-128.
