Published: 2012-06-18
ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
This study presents an analysis of how creativity in students work is related to the role of the key conceptual technological knowledge in four different cross-curricular technology and design projects in Norwegian primary and lower secondary school. All of the school projects examined were intended to be open-ended providing students with opportunities to be creative and develop their own solutions to the given task. The processes in the groups and the outcomes of the groups’ work are analyzed with regards to technological knowledge and how this relates to the students’ creativity in terms of producing genuine solutions. The analysis shows that in some of the projects the variety of solutions produced by the students is limited. In these student groups the solutions and procedures bear a high degree of resemblance to each other. The findings suggest that students’ limited conceptual technological knowledge constrains their ability to be creative and to produce genuine solutions. The findings also suggest that the projects showing less student creativity tend to be more controlled by the teacher and less open-ended than presupposed. A suggestion based on the findings is that the key conceptual technological content should be identified and communicated by the teacher prior to the project start. Discussing explicitly and exploring concepts and principles with the students before or during the project period will enhance their possibility to be more creative.
Conceptual knowledge; creativity; fundamental design concepts; technological knowledge
Amabile; T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the socilal psycology of creativity. Colorado; USA: West View Press.
Amabile; T. M. (1983). The Social Psycology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Arthur; B. (2009). The nature of Technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
Atkinson; S. (2000). Does the Need for High Levels of Performance Curtail the Development of Creativity in Design and Technology Project Work? International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 10(3); 255-281.
Basalla; G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christiaans; H.; & Venselaar; K. (2005). Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 15(3); 217-236.
Christiaans; H. H. C. M. (1992). Creativity in Design. The Role of Domain Knowledge in Designing. Utrecht: Lemma B.V.
Creswell; J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand Oakes; California: Sage Publication Inc.
Cropley; D.; & Cropley; A. (2010). Recognizing and fostering creativity in technological design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 20(3); 345-358.
Hill; A. M. (1998). Problem Solving in Real-Life Contexts: An Alternative for Design in Technology Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 8(3); 203-220.
Lawson; B. (1990). How designers think. London.
Lewis; T. (2005). Creativity- a framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education; 17; 35-52.
Mitcham; C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy: University of Chicago Press.
Pye; D. (1964). The Nature of Design. New York: Reinhold.
Runco; M.; & Albert; R. (1990). Theories of Creativity. London: Sage Publications.
Scott; G.; Leritz; L. E.; & Mumford; M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal; 16; 361-388.
Taylor; I. (1975). An emerging View of Creative Action. In I. Taylor & J. V. Getzels (Eds.); Perspectives in Creativity (pp. 297-325). Aldine; Chicago.
Vincenti; W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wallas; G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt; Brace and Co.
