Stimulating Creativity and Innovation in Children: The Young Designers on Location (YDoL) Project

Dan Davies and Alan Howe, Bath Spa University College

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, 13-15 September 2001

Abstract

Background

Ron Ritchie, then of Bath Spa University College, was approached by the National Primary Trust (NPT) in February 2000 to carry out a feasibility study and make proposals for a pilot project, funded by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) related to ‘children as innovators’. Ron, the authors and Kendra McMahon carried out the study between May and September 2000, resulting in funding for two projects to run in Bath and Telford during 2001. Under the name ‘Young Designers on Location’ these brought together selected groups of 11 year-olds with professional artists and designers to work together intensively for a week and then subsequently in participants’ schools. This paper details some of the preliminary findings from YDoL concerning the conditions for ‘unlocking’ children’s creativity.

Creativity and Innovation in Children

The publication of All Our Futures (NACCE 1999) and establishment of NESTA (1998) signaled renewed interest in children’s creativity and innovation amongst UK government circles. It is not our purpose here to engage in lengthy discussion of these terms, though we are drawn to the following as a definition of creativity developed for educational contexts:

“ Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value”

(NACCCE 1999 p29)

Imagination can be seen as a process of ‘mental play’, of ‘playing around with ideas’ yet a mode of thought that goes beyond fantasising or recalling. It is the process of generating original thought and in so doing, consciously going beyond the ‘conventional agreed’ (Craft1999). We would use the term post-conventionality, which recognises that conventions are understood, but that the creative individual has chosen to go beyond them, though not too far as to move out of the domain concerned. A creative architect might design a house incorporating huge innovation, but it still has to keep the rain off. It is at the boundaries of disciplines that creativity causes controversy.

Is re-inventing the wheel creative? It is if you have never seen a wheel before. Creativity is an ability and a willingness to produce something that is new to the individual. It is often the ability to make connections between previously unconnected ideas. Koestler (1969 in Ashcoft and James 1999) identifies the paradox inherent in making such connections:

“The creative act is not an act of creation in the sense of the Old Testament. It does not create something out of nothing; it uncovers, selects, re-shuffles, combines, synthesises, already existing facts, ideas, faculties, skills. The more familiar the parts, the more striking the whole.” (p.120)

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) uses the term gatekeepers to denote those members of a ‘creative’ field that make judgements about work claiming to be of value. In educational contexts we consider it desirable for these judgements to be agreed upon through negotiation between the gatekeepers and those being judged – in school this will be teachers and perhaps, children’s peers, making judgements about children’s work based on shared values. Feldman (1986) identifies the 10-13 age range as that at which “…true signs of talent(s) begin to emerge as a child experiences models, mentors and apprenticeships and reads or sees career-related talents displayed in the world around him/her”.

Dust (1999) summarises a body of literature that has break down the ‘creative process’ into stages or phases. She suggests that four such phases are commonly identified:

  • Preparation – investigating the problem and gathering of data (e.g. The long and detailed research undertaken by James Dyson before developing a novel approach to domestic vacuum cleaners)
  • Incubation – usually an unconscious/subconscious phase (e.g. Darwin’s 25 year gap between data-gathering and publication)
  • Illumination/revelation – the insight, the moment of creation (e.g. Mendeleyev’s insights in the periodic table of elements)
  • Verification/re-framing – the ‘testing’, usually through communicating the outcome to peers or 'gatekeepers’ or 'field’ of the domain (e.g. art critics would be co-gatekeepers or members of the ‘field’, fine art the domain)

The above research does not, however, shed light on how an individual child might embark upon the process, or how this process might be supported. Harrington (in Runco and Albert, 1990) brings the factors of process, people and physical environment together within a theoretical framework of the ‘Creative Ecosystem’. He uses the biological ecosystem as an analogy. Just as a balanced ecosystem can sustain life, so a creative ecosystem could be said to sustain creative output. The attributes of the individual, the relationship between the individual and members of the system (peers/mentors) and the physical factors (resources and facilities, even comfortable circumstances) will all contribute to the likelihood of creativity flourishing. The ideal conditions for such an ‘ecosystem’ are summarised as:

  • An atmosphere or ‘ambience’ of creativity
  • Stimulation
  • Opportunities for ‘play’
  • Easy access to resources
  • Mentors and role models
  • Permission/support
  • Motivation/Encouragement
  • Information
  • Open-ended assignments (Harrington 1990)

Evaluations of projects in which children have worked with artists or designers to develop aspects of their creativity are numerous (e.g. Harland, Kinder and Hartley (1995),Selwood, Clive and Irvine (1995) and Sharp & Dust (1997)). These reports refer to a range of activities both school-based and outside school. They describe benefits and frustrations for all concerned. A number of strong messages emerge: the need for shared goals and ownership of projects; the need for clear communication and defined responsibilities; the importance of positive and supportive relationships. Both Harland et al. and Selwood et al. conclude that a successful project will be both focused and sustained. Continued support beyond the ‘main event’ is desirable, yet curiously has been a feature of very few such residencies.

Our review of the literature, together with other significant findings from our initial discussions with designers, educators and children, informed the planning for the YDoL project as described below in table 1:

Table 1: How findings from the initial research phase of the project informed planning

Key Finding

/

Key Feature of Project

Recognition of adults as having a key role in children’s developing creativity. Design-related professionals, educators, researchers and young people themselves have cited the tremendous impact encounters with adults can have. It is also important to note how powerful an effect criticism can have on emerging self-image. / Development of person specification, selection, training and monitoring of project team.
Adult(s) perform the role of supporter/permission giver. / Support from uncritical, open-minded, knowledgeable adults, including parents.
Adult(s) perform the role of mentor/role model. / Adults who can demonstrate creativity and appreciation of the creative process and provide information about creative processes with new knowledge, techniques and skills offered on a need-to-know basis.
Creativity is closely associated with play and experimentation. / Opportunities for play, and strategies to generate chance discoveries are required.
Young people have a relatively narrow view of that which ‘counts’ as creative, yet they are also aware of the importance of widening experience. / A project which provides participants with a range of novel encounters or experiences, opportunities to gain experience in a range of creative domains.
Socio-economic background and gender have in some cases had influence on access to creative domains. / Careful attention paid to selection of participants to strive for equality of opportunity, and support offered to disadvantaged to enable participation.
Thorough planning and follow-up are crucial to the success of projects such as that envisaged. / Significant lead-in time and a planned follow-up strategy should be allowed.
Participants must perceive that projects are related to interests and aptitudes. / Participants should be involved in planning with flexibility and choice available.
Attention must be paid to a stimulating and non-threatening environment. / Careful consideration is needed in the identification of suitable project venue(s).
An atmosphere or ‘ambience’ of creativity should be generated. / Adult initiated atmosphere through example, verbal and non-verbal interaction. Peer group need to understand their responsibility to support each other.
Creativity is associated with making connections, and is more likely to happen in interdisciplinary or ‘boundary breaking’ situations. / The project team needs to be multidisciplinary and open-minded.
Creativity is facilitated by open-ended assignments with freedom from tight constraints and externally determined outcomes, yet deadlines can focus minds. / Careful structuring of projects is required.
Innovation relies on support for participants in developing ideas beyond an initial stage. / Participant to receive support of tutor/mentor and sufficient time for innovation.
Access to quality resources is vital. / Appropriate budget for resource needs.
Full evaluation of project is needed. / Evaluation planned as integral to proposal.

Implementing the YDoL Project

Since the physical environment of our two project locations appeared to be of considerable importance (there was general consensus from our focus groups that it should be ‘out of school’) we selected the campus of Bath Spa University College for one and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum for the other. Both locations had the advantage of being visually stimulating (natural beauty and interesting architecture) and of having considerable space and resources with which children could work. The timing of the ‘main event’ for each project, and the age group of participants, were selected on the basis of minimum disruption to schooling. Therefore, children in Y6 (aged 11) who had recently completed Statutory Assessment Tasks (SATs) were invited for the summer half-term week (29th May – 2nd June 2001), plus several follow-up days in schools during the second half of the summer term. In both areas, invitations were sent to local primary schools, asking Y6 teachers to nominate three children (2 participants and a reserve) for the project. The basis upon which these nominations were made forms the focus for one of our research questions and is discussed below. The adults engaged to work with the children were given the umbrella label ‘design-related professionals’, since they included practising artists, designers and teachers with particular skills. The aims for these pilot projects were as follows:

  • to provide out of school opportunities for Y6 children to engage in activities intended to foster their creative abilities;
  • to develop the self-esteem of the children involved and to help them explore their potential as creative individuals;
  • to foster positive attitudes in children to creative activities;
  • to allow children to work on activities that are ‘open ended’ and that respond to needs or opportunities that they have identified;
  • to involve design-related professionals from a range of disciplines who can help the children understand the nature of designing and creating/making and support the children in their own designing and creating;
  • to support children in using and understanding processes that enable them to be creative in their designing and making;
  • to provide support to ensure children can pursue their projects over a period of time to ensure that, wherever possible, they can move beyond the investigative or prototyping stage;
  • to increase the children’s awareness of the opportunities for continued creative activities beyond and within school;
  • to evaluate and promote a holistic view of design, technology and the arts;
  • to provide insights into children’s learning and creativity which can inform approaches teachers and other educators may choose to adopt in educational settings;
  • to identify potential blocks/barriers to children’s creativity and seek to develop strategies to remove these;
  • to foster public understanding of children’s learning in arts and design and technology and their potential for creativity;
  • to identify ways, as a result of evaluation, in which the pilot projects can be built upon through NESTA funding.

Structure of the Project

Our initial research phase had suggested a structure or sequence. This structure needed to be flexible and adaptable, not only to accommodate participants’ interests and chosen directions, but to ensure that the pilot projects were transferable to different locations. The sequence was as follows: a preliminary phase during which the personnel, participants and venue(s) were identified; four stages when the participants take increasing control over the project direction (namely: preparation, incubation realisation and evaluation – see above) then finally a planned follow-up. This structure is expanded upon in table 2 below:

1

BERA 2001 Davies and Howe

Table 2: Young Designers on Location Pilot Project Structure

Phases

/

Preliminary

/

Preparation

/ Incubation and Illumination /

Realisation

/ Verification and Evaluation /

Follow-up

Time allocation / 16 weeks lead-in / 1.5 days / 4 days / .5 day / 4 days total
Content/activities / Appointment of Creative Director
Assembly of project personnel and participants
Planning / Initial meeting of team and cast
Group building and bonding.
Stimuli provision such as visits and encounters with design-related professionals.
Exposure to ways of working.
Introduction to contexts and possible briefs. / Time away.
Time with group – consolidation of group dynamic.
Opportunities for play with materials and ideas.
Discussion.
Designing.
Planning.
Modelling.
Development of criteria.
Input on design processes.
Support on need to know basis. / Making.
Support with problem-solving including technical input.
Disciplined use of time. / Review of outcomes such as exhibition or event.
Review of process, eg video diary.
Sharing of experiences.
Self-evaluation.
Celebration. / Maintenance of group through communication and meeting.
Possible second cycle.
Further support from NESTA and other organisations.

1

BERA 2001 Davies and Howe

Research Questions and Methodology

In addition to our evaluation against the pilot project aims (see above), we felt that it was important for the project to have a research focus, to inform our own and others’ understanding of the development of children’s creativity. We selected the following research questions as potential areas for enquiry within this field that were likely to be of direct relevance to the projects:

  1. What is the relationship between teachers’ judgements of children’s creative potential and their performance in an out-of-school creative project?
  1. In what ways do 10 and 11-year-old children interact with ‘design-related professionals’ during a collaborative creative activity?
  1. Are there forms of interaction, which are more productive than others in stimulating children’s creativity?
  1. What roles does the immediate environment play in stimulating children’s creativity?
  1. What are the medium-term effects upon children’s attitudes towards their own creativity of an out-of-school creative project?

The research methodology employed at each location was somewhat different. At Bath Spa we chose an ‘ethnographic case study’ approach (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983), focussing on three children in their social and physical environments before, during and after the project. This complemented the more evaluative, survey-based approach adopted by the University of Wolverhampton at Ironbridge, since:

  1. It allowed us to take into account important factors in a child’s background (e.g. culture, neighbourhood, class, ethnicity and gender) which may have affected their response to the project.
  2. The ‘tight’ focus for observations during the week enabled us to capture the ‘minutiae of everyday interaction’ between the focus children, their peers and the design-related professionals.
  3. It was possible to track these children back into school, collecting further information about their self-image as creative individuals - their confidence, motivation and willingness to take risks as a result of the project.

We used the following methods of data collection:

  • Participant observations of case-study children before, during and after the project (in school and on location)
  • Unstructured (informal conversations) and semi-structured interviews with case-study children before, during and after the project
  • Maps, descriptions and digital photographs of the ‘natural’ (school) and ‘location’ environments in which children are observed
  • Copies of sketches, notes etc. made by children during the project, and (if possible) during design and technology activities in school before and after the project.
  • Digital photographs of the process and product of the activity(ies) children engage in during the project
  • Semi-structured interviews with the design-related professionals working with case-study children during the project
  • Semi-structured interviews with the class teacher (and/or headteacher if appropriate) for each case-study child, before and after the project
  • Semi-structured interviews with each case-study child’s parent/carer before and after the project

These data were collected by a group of three co-researchers from the department of primary education at Bath Spa.

Preliminary Findings

Our data analysis is still at an early stage, therefore the findings presented below need to be treated with some caution. They are informed by field notes and limited interview transcriptions, together with observations of other children and the designers involved (including visits to the Ironbridge project). At Bath Spa, one of the initial stimulus activities (making giant shelters/structures using willow ‘withies’ and using tissue, paint and digital images to personalise them) was taken up by the children as their major project. The end-point of the main event was an exhibition of these structures, in which children were briefed to ‘communicate a message about your creativity’ to their parents. In subsequent follow up days they worked with wire and clay, passing on their understandings of creativity to other children in their schools. At Ironbridge, the industrial heritage of the area was used as a stimulus for developing food, textile and ceramic products. Images of the process and products will be presented at BERA. Some initial responses to our research questions have begun to emerge, as outlined below. Children’s names have been changed to preserve anonymity.