Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

Developing an Effective Pedagogy for Creative Problem-Solving in Design and Technology

Marian Davidson,Stephen Lunn, Patricia Murphy, the Open University.

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,

University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002

ABSTRACT

Educators have become increasingly concerned about the need to equip students with the kind of 'knowledge-in-action' that enables creative problem-solving. We address the question of what kind of pedagogy enables students in Design and Technology to become creative problem-solvers.

Research into learning advocates a central role for problem-solving activity, with two distinct educational aims. Problem-solving is seen as a means to construct conceptual meaning, and a process of enculturation into a domain.

The link between problem-solving and creativity also has two aspects: perceiving a problem is a creative act of an agentive mind; and in seeking solutions, students improve their own practice.

The nature of creative problem-solving is summarised and used to examine examples of teachers’ practice. Examples are drawn from both the ‘design and make’ approach and the Young Foresight initiative. Characteristics of the teachers’ pedagogy are identified and linked to the nature of the activities and tasks that the students were engaged in, and the learning opportunities they offer. Effective practice resulting in creative problem solving is identified and the influence of task and pedagogy on this practice discussed. Questions are raised about how insights provided by the Young Foresight initiative can be used to enhance problem solving in the curriculum as a whole.

Introduction

Educators in Britain and across the world have become increasingly concerned about the need to equip students not just with knowledge, but with the kind of 'knowledge-in-action' that enables creative problem-solving. Such concerns apply throughout the school curriculum: in the U.K. they have found expression in recent initiatives directed at the Design and Technology (D&T) curriculum. Using data from two research projects we will address the question of what kind of pedagogy enables students in D&T to become creative problem-solvers.

Research into learning continues to advocate a central role for problem-solving activity. This advocacy embraces two distinct educational aims. First, problem-solving is seen as a crucial means by which students construct conceptual meaning. Second, problem-solving is seen as a goal in itself, i.e. students need to learn how to problem-solve in context as part of the process of enculturation into a domain such as D&T. The link between problem-solving and creativity also has two distinct aspects. First, perceiving a problem is in itself a creative act of an agentive mind. In addition, problems are not given, they are personally experienced and shaped, and in seeking to understand, communicate and solve problems students improve their own practice.

We draw first on two case studies of 'design and make' activities with lower secondary students, eleven to fourteen years old (McCormick et al, 1996). We explore how the chosen tasks provided opportunities for problem-solving and creative responses and illustrate how the teachers’ pedagogy allowed or disallowed such opportunities.

We next draw on our recent work with a current initiative (Murphy et al, 2001). Young Foresight (YF) is an innovation in teaching for creativity and innovative thinking, aimed at Year 9 D&T classes (students aged 14-15 years). The YF materials are intended to help teachers support and develop students’ problem-solving and creativity, and to meet the broader aims of the national curriculum for D&T. YF has shifted the nature of the tasks to focus on designing rather than making, and has an implied pedagogy that should support students to become creative problem-solvers. Again we look at evidence from two case studies to examine tasks. We show how teachers’ pedagogy was the key determinant in producing creative outcomes.

Through this comparative analysis we draw out features of effective practice and consider the nature of tasks and the learning opportunities they offer. Supporting and developing creative problem-solving is central to the rationale of the Design and Technology (D&T) curriculum but is less emphasised in implementations that give more attention to developing design and make skills and teaching the conceptual knowledge required for GCSE examinations. We argue that developing a pedagogy that allows learners to meet the aspirations of the curriculum in terms of developing a capability of creative action can be achieved, but not without challenging and changing the definition of the domain and its assessment.

Background

Our views of the nature of knowledge and learning (discussed more fully elsewhere, see Murphy & McCormick, 1997) lead us to suggest the following conditions for creative problem-solving across the curriculum:

  • students are engaged in activities which are authentic, i.e. relate both to the actions of design in the real world and are personally meaningful;
  • the problems are dilemmas that the students perceive, they cannot be given;
  • the students are active, reflective, purposeful and knowledgeable: the knowledge that they use integrates both procedural and conceptual knowledge;
  • students draw on social resources that develop as they collaborate with each other and the teacher to achieve common goals.

The Robinson report (NACCCE, 1999) defines creativity as ‘imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value'. In a discussion of the meaning of creativity the report amplifies this definition in a number of ways that are pertinent to the D&T context:

  • Creative insights often occur when existing ideas are combined or reinterpreted in unexpected ways.
  • Creativity carries with it the ideas of action and purpose.
  • Creativity always involves originality but this originality may be:
  • individual, that is in relation to previous work;
  • relative, that is in relation to a group such as the peer group;
  • historic, that is uniquely original.
  • Creative thinking always involves critical thinking.
  • Creative insights often occur when new connections are made between ideas or experiences that were not previously related.

The report is careful to explain that creativity is not simply a matter of ‘letting go’. Freedom to experiment is essential but skills, knowledge and understanding are needed to support this. Teaching for creativity will encourage students to develop:

  • autonomy, a feeling of ownership and control;
  • authenticity in initiative and responses;
  • openness to new and unusual ideas;
  • respect for each other and the ideas that emerge;
  • fulfilment and enjoyment of the creative relationship.

In contrast to the widespread focus on the creativity of individuals, we argue that creativity can only be recognised and perhaps can only have meaning in the context of the values and conceptual space of some community of discourse. Martindale (1994) shows that such communities may be more or less cut off from the socio-cultural milieu that surround them - we are interested in the pedagogic strategies that teachers use to create them.

In considering the creativity embodied in problem-solving in D&T activities we are concerned as much with classroom processes as products. There are almost as many definitions of creativity as there are writers on the subject but the one that we find most useful in this context is that of Amabile (1990). She suggests that a product or response will be judged to be creative to the extent that it is both novel, and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable, in the context of the task in hand. She sees creativity being expressed in situations where domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation are interacting.

We would suggest that within the framework for problem-solving outlined above domain-relevant skills will include the procedural and conceptual knowledge that the student can draw on, and creativity-relevant skills will be embodied in both the student's ability to be reflective and the insights developed through collaboration. Task motivation will be supported by the use of authentic activities. We would expect that pedagogy that provides opportunities for creative problem-solving will support the students by providing situations and teaching that meet these criteria.

The Case Studies

We have drawn on two research projects for our analysis: the first was reported in Problem-solving in Technology Education: A Case of Situated Cognition? (McCormick et al, 1996), and the second in a series of reports on the trials of the Young Foresight programme (Murphy et al, 2000, 2001a, 2001b).

Problem-Solving in Technology Education

From the former we consider the actions of two teachers, Martin and Roger, teaching Y8 and Y7 classes respectively. These cases are described in detail elsewhere (Murphy et al, 1995).

Problem-solving impaired

For his Y8 class Martin had chosen the task of making a moisture sensor. The task had two parts, assembling the circuit, and designing and making a box to contain the circuit from sheet styrene.

Martin was committed to the design process as a problem-solving process and was keen that the students should be creative: it is absolutely essential that they learn to design in a creatively developmental way and that they can take an aspect of their design then take a piece from somewhere else and add them together and come up with a design that they are then happy with .... and then they are critical of it .... that is the only way design develops.

There was evidence, particularly while the students were developing their initial ideas, of emergent creativity in their responses. Martin had encouraged the students by saying that there was lots of scope for designing, making nice packaging rather than just a square box. Amy had already decided to make a bath water level detector and a small group of girls shared ideas with her for the box which linked to this use.

Nancy: What about something in the bath? Something to do with water, ‘cos it can go in the sink as well as the bath. You could do it in the shape of a soap, you could have it in the shape of a sponge or in the shape of a bubble, the shape of a ... no, not a tap.

Mary: A drop thing

Nancy:Tear drop

Mary: A drop of water.

As they worked they shared ideas by sketching and talking. They reflected critically on their ideas, rejecting some on the basis of impracticability. For example Nancy suggested that Amy might use a toothbrush shape for her box, but they realised the dimensions needed to hold the circuit board would result in an unrealistic shape.

Although there was evidence that the students were able to engage creatively with the task Martin only had limited success in supporting creative problem-solving because:

(i)His introduction to the task only provided limited conceptual knowledge about use and operation of sensors. The students could only relate the use of the moisture sensor to their own lives and so the authenticity of the task was limited.

(ii)He saw problem-solving to be achieved by following the procedural steps of the design process rather than as dealing with the dilemmas emerging as the students worked on the task. As a result he did not recognise the dilemmas as the most important learning opportunities in the process, or the need to support the students to find solutions to such dilemmas for themselves.

(iii)When students met problems with making their designs it was Martin who became the problem-solver because only he had the necessary knowledge. The students lost their autonomy and became instruction-followers.

Problem-solving supported

The next example shows how a teacher in a similar situation was able to support his students without solving the problem for them. Roger described problem-solving as follows: they can see the need in their mind ... they can then focus their mind on ways of fulfilling that need to solve that problem .... sometimes complicated to make ... but they always come up with ideas: why can’t we do this that and the other. I say well because we haven’t got the facilities here to do that but try and keep it simple …and they are quite good about discussing and bringing their ideas into something realistic. And that's problem-solving.

His comments suggest he understood the need to maintain the students’ autonomy by providing them with support to reflect critically on their ideas.

The task that Roger used was the making of a charity collecting box with either a mechanical or electronic response. Katie and Tania worked together to make a moneybox on which a bird pecked at a tree. This product was judged to be a creative response to the task and they operated as creative problem-solvers of most of the dilemmas that they met. For example they encountered a problem when the mechanism struck the coin collecting box, dampening the pecking movement that was the main feature of their design. They went to Roger and demonstrated the problem:

Roger:Why doesn't it (the woodpecker) continue to wiggle?

Katie: Because of that (pointing to the box).

Roger:Did you want it to sway a bit more? What about this part of the box? (pointing to the side nearest the pendulum)

Katie:You could cut it away.

Roger:If you wanted that (the pendulum) to swing backwards and forwards would you actually need that part of the box? Is that a possibility?

Katie:You could cut down there and it would be able to go further to the side.

Roger demonstrated how Katie's solution could be achieved by drawing on the box to suggest how they could reduce the size. However he couched his suggestion in a way that left the decision to use it with the girls. This is a simple example, but this teacher behaved consistently in this way, rephrasing his questions as necessary to help students frame their solutions.

The key elements of Roger’s pedagogy that enabled him to provide a supportive environment for problem-solving were judged to be:

(i)An effective introduction to the task that included: a discussion of need in the context of charities; the opportunity for the students to share their knowledge of charities and their personal experience of commercial collecting boxes; a critical examination of similar boxes made by earlier classes; and discussion and explanation of how the effects were produced.

(ii)Support for conceptual knowledge by provision of model mechanisms and circuit diagrams which students could adapt to their situation.

(iii)A style of interaction with the students that supported their thinking processes but left decision making with them and so maintained their autonomy.

Young Foresight

The preceding examples are drawn from the Problem Solving in Technology Education project: the following from the Young Foresight project. The Young Foresight (YF) initiative is an innovation in teaching for creativity aimed at Y9. The initiative (discussed here in its trial form) provides materials for use with students and guidance to help teachers support and develop students’ problem-solving and creativity, while meeting the broader aims of the national curriculum for D&T. Outcomes are designs for future products produced by teams of students, and presentations of their designs to their peers. An additional feature is that YF encourages the involvement of an industrial mentor to support the students. We use evidence from two teachers involved in the 2000-2001 trials of the programme, Ken and Jerry. These teachers were considered to be pedagogically effective on the basis of evidence of student engagement, quality of outcome, quality of learning, and the creation of conditions in which students were able to engage in critical thinking and have creative insights. We try to show below how their pedagogy was successful in producing creative processes and outcomes.

The YF activity is designed in three phases over around 18 lessons. Phase 1 addresses conceptual and procedural knowledge, for example learning about sustainability and techniques for generating and developing ideas. In Phases 2 and 3 groups of students collaborate in generating, developing and presenting their ideas. In Phase 2 they create scenarios for the future as contexts in which to think about people's needs and wants, to generate ideas for a range of products to meet them, and to critically evaluate them. These ideas may be presented and discussed in class. In Phase 3 they develop more detailed design ideas for one product and present these to the whole class. Thus while the teacher sets the contexts for the activities in phase 1 it is the students who generate the tasks for phases 2 and 3 and the role of the teacher become one of supporting students’ thinking and decision making.

Evidence of effective practice in YF

In this section we try to give a flavour of the kind of evidence that we used to identify and distinguish effective practice. Evidence of engagement was derived from video-recorded lesson observations and audio- and video-recording of selected student groups, across up to 18 lessons, and from student interviews. Evidence of learning came from pre- and post-implementation questionnaires, interviews and learning probes. Students were reflexively aware of their engagement and learning, and how it differed from their normal experience in D&T, as evidenced by the following statements made in interview: