Creativity and critical thinking in Technology teaching Sally Filtness

Sally Filtness Head of Butters House (Senior School), Design and Technology teacher

Abstract

Creativity is an essential skill for 21st Century learners, yet it is often marginalised amidst a crowded curriculum. Stage 4 Mandatory Technology teachers are confronted with new syllabus documents, limited knowledge and experience of dissemination, having to be ‘jack of all trades and a master of none’, think on the run for design projects and solutions, overcome personal and situational limitations, accreditation and reporting requirements, all serve to shape expectations and limit practices and upskilling in the Technology classroom. This article will explore the nature and importance of creativity and make recommendations for cultivating critical and creative thinking in the classroom.

Key terms

Creativity Creativity is the act of turning new and imaginative ideas into reality. Creativity is characterised by the ability to perceive the world in new ways, to find hidden patterns, to make connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, and to generate solutions. Creativity involves two processes: thinking, then producing (Goodwin 2019).

Critical Thinking Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualising, applying, analysing, synthesising and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action (Phan 2010).

Creative Thinking Creative thinking involves students learning to generate and apply new ideas in specific contexts, seeing existing situations in a new way, identifying alternative explanations and seeing or making new links that generate a positive outcome. This includes combining parts to form something original, sifting and refining ideas to discover possibilities, constructing theories and objects, and acting on intuition. The products of creative endeavour can involve complex representations and images, investigations and performances, digital and computer-generated output, or occur as virtual reality (ACARA 2014).

Design Thinking Design thinking is defined as an analytic and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback and redesign (Razzouk & Shute 2012).

Body Creativity is a unique gift of nature, a highly valued human quality that has been known for a long time to have its influence on scientific, technological and artistic spheres of human activity. The rapidly changing demands and challenges existing in the world today have almost necessarily been accompanied by creative expression and contributions from talented persons. When we look critically at the present-day educational practice, one of the voids is a lack of importance given to creativity (Ponnusamy 2019).

Creativity is a dynamic process which generates ideas that are both novel and of value. However, there is little understanding of what drives creativity in students and how to help teachers or educational experts detect creative thinking (Shillo, Hoernle & Gal 2019). It is essential to stimulate the students to be excited about content and project-based learning. Fasciato’s (2002, p.14) findings state that the design process we are currently using could be ‘restrictive, limiting and constraining the student’s natural ways in doing design’. How could we as teachers teach the content to decrease it being ‘restrictive and limiting’ while still addressing the syllabus needs from NESA?

The next step prompted the researcher to go to curriculum, syllabuses and higher Authorities to seek further understanding. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA 2014) states:

In the Australian Curriculum, students develop capability in critical and creative thinking as they learn to generate and evaluate knowledge, clarify concepts and ideas, seek possibilities, consider alternatives and solve problems. Critical and creative thinking involves students thinking broadly and deeply using skills, behaviours, and dispositions such as reason, logic, resourcefulness, imagination and innovation in all learning areas at school and in their lives beyond school.

Thinking that is productive, purposeful and intentional is at the centre of effective learning. By applying a sequence of thinking skills, students develop an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the processes they can use whenever they encounter problems, unfamiliar information, and new ideas. In addition, the progressive development of knowledge about thinking and the practice of using thinking strategies can increase students’ motivation for, and management of, their own learning. They become more confident and autonomous problem-solvers and thinkers.

Responding to the challenges of the twenty-first century – with its complex environmental, social and economic pressures – requires young people to be creative, innovative, enterprising and adaptable, with the motivation, confidence and skills to use critical and creative thinking purposefully.

This capability combines two types of thinking: critical thinking and creative thinking. Though the two are not interchangeable, they are strongly linked, bringing complementary dimensions to thinking and learning.

Critical thinking is at the core of most intellectual activity that involves students learning to recognise or develop an argument, use evidence in support of that argument, draw reasoned conclusions, and use information to solve problems. Examples of critical thinking skills are interpreting, analysing, evaluating, explaining, sequencing, reasoning, comparing, questioning, inferring, hypothesising, appraising, testing and generalising.

Creative thinking involves students learning to generate and apply new ideas in specific contexts, seeing existing situations in a new way, identifying alternative explanations, and seeing or making new links that generate a positive outcome. This includes combining parts to form something original, sifting and refining ideas to discover possibilities, constructing

theories and objects, and acting on intuition. The products of creative endeavour can involve complex representations and images, investigations and performances, digital and computer-generated output, or occur as virtual reality.

Goodwin (2019) states:

It is interesting to note that ACARA link creative and critical thinking together under the general capabilities section. In this case, creativity is not seen as being embedded, but an add-on to curricula. Schools decide when and how the general capabilities will be introduced. (Lamb, Maire, & Doecke 2017)

Taboada & Coombs (2014) set the context and consider the current environment around teaching and learning in general and around design education specifically. Literature shows that creativity is strongly related to trust and diversity (Atkinson 2002; Goldschmidt & Tatsa 2005; Myers & Torrance, 1967; Polanyi 1967; Torrance 1967 cited in Taboada & Coombs 2014). Trust, however, is something that takes time and effort to build and it does not exist if it is not authentic (Cole-Edelstein 2004; Healey 1997; Marzano 2006; Palmer 1997; Polanyi 1967 cited in Taboada & Coombs 2014). One cannot be ‘forced’ into trusting someone else. As is well described by Brookfield (1995), it is the very subtle actions of the teacher that will make students feel secure enough to trust, or that can easily undermine any possibility for trust to happen. Taboada & Coombs (2014, p. 32) state that:

Therefore, the ultimate transformative experience in design teaching will come from a solid bonding of creative trust between students and tutors, which should provide stronger engagement with more abstract issues and reinforce and inform connections to the needs of the industry. We believe design thinking combined with process-based learning can help engage students in their self-transformation.

In New South Wales, Mandatory Technology is a subject taught at the Secondary School level, Stage 4 (Years 7 and 8). The syllabus is determined by the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) and it recommends:

Technology and an understanding of design processes enable people to manage, interpret, shape and alter their environment to improve their quality of life at home, school, in workplaces and in the broader community. The rapid rate of technological change in an increasingly knowledge-based society highlights the need for flexible technological capability, innovative thinking, creativity and effective communication skills. (p. 8)

And further, NESA’s Annual Report 2018-19 (p.98) stated one of their values and operating principles as ‘Research, evaluation and innovation: Encourage and promote innovation and creativity to encourage new strategies, ideas, products and processes.’

Goodwin (2019) also looks at the Technology Mandatory course and states:

In common with most technology syllabi around the world, the NSW syllabus in Technology Mandatory Years 7-8 requires learners to ‘express themselves through creative activity…’ (p. 5), and ‘understand and apply a variety of analytical and creative techniques to solve problems’ (p. 5). Assessment of creativity ‘involves the generation of ideas and the degree of difference from existing ideas’ (p. 17), and the methods used to develop creative works include ‘mind mapping, brain storming, sketching, drawing and modelling’ (p. 30). These specifications commonly reflect definitions of creativity concerned with being different or novel and appropriate. (p. 30)

Friedman (2003) advocates the need to think of the design solution as a series of skills, tasks and planning processes that come before the production of the artefact. Design courses should focus

on developing design thinking skills rather than focus mainly on production. Buchanan (1998) agrees by stating that the focus on developing skills to solve problems of the present through a stronger flow of communication between industry practitioners and educators is valid, but that this should evolve into a different relationship between theory and practice. He believes that theory should go beyond practice developing ideas and solutions for problems yet to be felt by the industry, through studio practice and design research.

Brown (2009) crafts the term ‘Design Thinking’ to represent the strategic role of design in igniting ideas and the identification of issues at very Liminal Moments: Designing, thinking and learning early stages of development of a ‘solution’, as opposed to the common view of design as a ‘tactic’ activity that ‘builds on what exists and usually moves it (only) one step further. Designers then have their roles shifted from simply solving an aesthetic problem to become the core strategists and thinkers, helping not only to solve, but also to better outline the problems (Brown 2008; Brown 2009; Lockwood 2010). These arguments easily underpin the idea of aiming for a transformative design education, where the higher levels of reflection and transformation are achieved through the act of learning how to become a designer. As teachers of design we strive for our students to be achieving the ‘higher levels of reflection and transformation’.

Fasciato (2002) cited in Lim, Lim-Ratnam and Atencio, (2013) compared a few design processes and creativity/ design thinking models used in schools to explain and solve problems. Although the three models were termed as linear, cyclic and iterative in nature, the design stages were flowing in a linear fashion. It was found that there are “certain elements in common” (Fasciato, 2002, p.31) even though the three design process models appeared to look different. This commonality is reflected in the comment below:

Having identified a problem, the student established the needs to be met by the final solution, carries out research and generates ideas, details a specification, and plans and makes the final design, while evaluating at each stage. (p. 31)

This perspective detailed by Fasciato (2002) parallels the prescriptive, linear stage-model that the NSW Technology teachers have adapted. Fasciato views such design models as being restrictive, limiting and constraining the student’s natural ways in doing design.

What does this research mean and what are the implications for teaching and learning at Barker College? The Design and Technology Department seek to plan their 2021 design model without it ‘being restrictive, limiting and constraining (to) the student’s natural way of doing design’. The charge is also to build on a synthesis of research on teaching and learning in Design and Technology to address this as a department for programming into 2021. This study has implications for the work of educators in schools, particularly those who teach at a Stage 4 level and teach Mandatory Technology. Also, how to embed critical thinking, creativity and creative design thinking into our classrooms is a continual and concentrated focus so that we are addressing 21st Century essential skills.

References

ACARA (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority) 2014, General capabilities in the Australian curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/generalcapabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/.

Brookfield, SD 1995, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brown, T 2008, ‘Design Thinking’ , Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.

Brown, T 2009, Change by design: How design thinking transforms organisations and inspires innovation, NY, Harper Collins.

Buchanan, R 1998, ‘Education and Professional Practice in Design’, Design Issues, 14, 63-66.

Fasciato, M 2002, ‘Designing – what does it mean at Key Stages 2 and 3’? In B. Barnes, J. Morley and S. Sayers (eds), Issues in design and technology teaching, London: Routledge Falmer.

Friedman, K 2003, ‘Design Education in the University: A Philosophical & Socio-Economic Inquiry’, Design Philosophy Papers.

Goodwin, T 2019, ‘Creativity in the classroom: Chasing the tiger’s tail.’ Technology Education New Zealand TENZ Conference, October 1 – 3, Auckland, New Zealand, 978-0-473-50485-4 First published in New Zealand in November 2019 by Technology Education New Zealand (TENZ)(October 1 – 3, 2019), 40–53. Retrieved from https://tenz.org.nz/2019-conference/.

Lamb, S, Maire, Q & Doecke, E 2017, Education future frontiers: Analytical report, Key skills for the 21st century: An evidence-based review, NSW: NSW Department of Education.

Lim, SSH, Lim-Ratnam, C & Atencio, M 2013, ‘Understanding the Processes Behind Student Designing: Cases from Singapore’, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 18.1, 18.1, 20–29. Retrieved from https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1797

Lockwood, T 2010, ‘Foreword’, In: LOCKWOOD, T. (ed.) Design Thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. NY: Allworth Press. NESA 2019, NSW Education Standards Authority Annual Report 2018-19, retrieved from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/f106c0be-0b8f-4642-b08caa59e83b2b24/NESA-annual-report-2018-19.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

Phan, HP 2010, ‘Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning’, Psicothema, vol. 22, no.2, pp. 284–292.

Ponnusamy, P 2019, ‘Creativity of Student-Teachers with Reference to Their Gender and Locality’, Shanlax International Journal of Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019, pp. 48–53.

Razzouk, R & Shute, V 2012, ‘What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important?’ Review of Educational Research. September 2012, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 330–348.

Shillo, R, Hoernle, N & Gal, K 2019, ‘Detecting Creativity in an Open-Ended Geometry Environment’, EDM 2019 Montreal - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining Collin F. Lynch, Agathe Merceron, Michel Desmarais, Roger Nkambou (eds). July 2nd, 5th 2019 Montreal Canada (ISBN: 978-17336736-0-0), 408–413. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599096.

Taboada, M & Coombs, G 2014, ‘Liminal Moments: Designing, thinking and learning’, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 19.1, 19.1(1), 30–39. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/63030/15/TaboadaCoombs_LiminalMoments_21FEB2013_submission.pdf.