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.

1
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

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

2
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

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.

3
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

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:

4
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

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

5
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

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:
 We usually have to do sort of all the same and we are shown how and we make it.
 Normally you just get a whole load of worksheets and are told what to do but here you actually
design this and it is better.
 I always thought it [designing] would be a bit boring, like old men sitting at a table going ‘Ah,
we could make this’. But it is actually quite creative and fun to do.
 Learning that you need to use your imagination a lot ... it’s fun.
Evidence that groups of students were engaging in critical thinking was widespread. In the following
example the students were using a prompt from one of the YF activities ('Use less to achieve more')
to help them develop their design of a 'medical hat':
Nancy: Using less to achieve more. Yeah like because then you’d have less on your
head...
Ahmed: So you’ve got less on your head but there’s…
Nancy: Like a little one.
Ahmed: Smaller than that.
Roger: What? Sounds too complicated, yeah?
Nancy: It could have the internet in it and little speakers.
Ahmed: They’ve already got that! IBM have already made it.
Nancy: You could have a little screen that comes down and you get to see your
temperature and that, or hear, like the different...
Roger: But it’s still got to say ‘Take me to Barbados, make me feel better’!
Ahmed: So you could have it connected to like a hospital link-up and the email and
speak…
Nancy: …to your doctor, and it’s voice activated so like a pager.
Ahmed: The style needs to be lighter.
We can also see evidence here of engagement, collaboration, and the application of knowledge
imported from other contexts. Another group in the same class evidenced creative insights, as in the
following discussion with Jerry, their teacher, of their ideas for a credit/debit/charge card aimed
specifically at young people:
Asha: It's called a 'Petite Card', like a telephone card, you would put money onto it. It
would need to be the same size as a credit card. It would avoid having to carry
cash around. It lets you know how much you have left in your card.
Teacher: Could you plug it in at the end of the day, into the PC when you go home and it

6
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

will give you an idea of...

Asha: How much you’ve spent? Yes.
Ghazala: You could reserve [money] for your phone bill, on the credit card.
Asha: Right. And if you go down the shops your parents have got control of how much
you can spend and what you can spend it on.
Ghazala: You need to feel safe, when you’re using the card. Children will feel secure. It
would be security-protected by a fingerprint. And if anyone tried to use it
without that it would be cancelled. If it's lost you just go in a sweet shop and put
your pin number in and your password, they’ll just hand you another card. And
when they hand you another card, all the [information and money]
automatically goes on to that.
We considered that this kind of evidence of engagement, learning, critical thinking and creativity
provided a reliable and valid indication of effective practice in terms of the aims of the YF
programme. In the following section we draw out some examples of that practice.
Characterising effective practice in YF
We illustrate effectiveness by drawing on examples of the practice of two teachers, Ken and Jerry,
both of whom worked in inner city comprehensive schools in the English Midlands.
Ken saw YF as addressing the need for more emphasis on creativity and problem-solving in the
existing curriculum: 'There is a danger with Design and Technology that teachers control how
creative the youngsters can be ... we are creating a more stereotyped, easier to manage curriculum
where the outcomes are more likely to be uniform ... What you don't have is 'Stop, let's look at the
broad context of technology and its impact on society'.
Ken's concern to look at the broader context was demonstrated in a phase 2 lesson when he drew
the diagram shown in figure 1 to support groups' thinking about their product ideas. This diagram
was used again in a Phase 3 lesson in supporting students' thinking about the rationale behind their
designs, when he prompted them: 'I want to hear words like needs and wants ... Who would use
it? ... What specific type of person would the user be? ... What would their salary range be? ... Or
would it be sold to organisations rather than individuals? ... Where could it be sold? ... How long
would it last? ... Or how often would it be used?' This led to issues of marketing, which Ken realised
was a difficult concept for the students. He did not assume the idea was understood, but supported
students in thinking about it, and elicited their understanding. He recorded suggestions from this
discussion on the board, e.g. 'What is the market? How are you going to sell it? Consumer group?
Price?'. Doing this provided a model for the students to use as they worked on their presentation
and so supported development of understanding of the concepts, building their conceptual and
procedural knowledge.
In this classroom we observed high levels of interaction between students and between students,
teacher and mentor. Students' ability to work together with shared understanding developed
noticeably. Progression in students' critical thinking was evident in their work, and the development
of the designs showed creative insights as students combined and reinterpreted existing ideas in new
ways. All of the product ideas were individually creative in the sense of being novel within the
group creating them. The teacher commented on the unusual levels of engagement and
concentration of all students, and the general level of excitement and interest. The students
concurred with this and said they would like to do the programme again.
Jerry was interested in the way the YF programme supported risk-taking in collaborative discussion,
promoted confidence, and helped students to 'recognise that design is wider than 'Here's something
you've got to design, here's something you've got to make'... that requires people to be innovative

7
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

and fresh thinking. Creativity is important but you've also got to have a practical thinking process
as well.'
In a phase 1 session he focused on the key learning issues within it: 'If you look at the trends for
today we can maybe get a clue of how things might be going on in the future.’ He discussed with the
students their experiences of trends in relation to developments in the designs of bicycles and
cameras that were highlighted in an accompanying video, allowing him to establish common ground
between students. He ensured that students were aware of the salient issues so that they could
watch with an informed view and purpose, and afterwards used whole class discussion to make
connections between the video and the past and present industries, history and geography of the
students' home town. He provided a context for their learning that was relevant to their lives.
Jerry: Until the beginning of the century [this city] was the bike capital of the world.
[The city] was the largest producer of bikes in the world ... the [market leader's]
works were just down the road and this area where we are now was dotted with
bike works. You know the Olympic gold medal winning bicycle that you saw on
the video, can anybody tell me where that frame was made?
Student: In this city?
Jerry: Yes.
Student: Around here, V. Street?
Jerry: No a bit further away ... It was made in P. Road that... carbon fibre frame, and
that road.... has been the centre for carbon fibre manufacturing in the world.
The [company's] factory are world leaders so [this city] has kept in the bike
world.
Jerry finished the session by connecting its learning goals with what was to come, allowing students
to see the direction of their learning:
You have been thinking about the way things change by looking at the way things have
changed in the past. It might help us to think a little bit about how things might start to
change in the future.
One of the things someone said here was that things change because customers, clients,
people who use things, demand better products and that is certainly true.
Things change as well because we learn more, because the science is better, because
engineers work out how to make things and how to use their inventions. Things change
because materials change and because society changes.
We'll come back to all these things in the coming weeks.
Jerry's approach is predicated on a view of the learner as an active constructor of meaning, in which
students do not receive information passively but have actively to make sense of it.
In a Phase 2 session Jerry and the mentor were discussing with a group of students their ideas for a
diagnostic 'medical hat'.
Student: We've got this idea for a medical hat and the team has done the needs
assessment... It's got to have contact with the head, it should be comfortable, it’s
got to be fairly lightweight, and it's got to be breathable.
Jerry: Why has it got to be breathable?
Student: Because we thought that your scalp would get sweaty otherwise.

8
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

Student: It's got to be able to tell people that you're ill, we talked about this chameleonic
sort of glow-worm type thing. It's got to be able to take your temperature and
give instant information.
Jerry: Does it have to be acceptable to other people to look at?
Student: It's got to comfort you and give you reassurance, so we imagined people lying
down and it has little speakers and it talks to you.
Mentor: Are there any disadvantages to it actually being a hat that fits over the head? For
example, certain members of the community who have to wear something on their
head all the time wouldn't like to remove it. Or the fact that people have got lots
of different head sizes.
Student: It would just stretch enough.
The discussion raised various considerations about the product's development. The dilemmas that
had been identified by Jerry and the mentor's contributions encouraged the students to engage in
critical thinking about their design but decisions about resolution of the dilemmas remained with the
students. Students, teacher and mentor worked collaboratively in a way that provided a model for
how to act when groups of students were working alone. That students enjoyed working
collaboratively and were aware of its benefits and disciplines is evidenced by the following
comments:
 [Designing] is not just a solo effort ... it is much more effective if you do it in groups.
 Communicating with other people, it will be a better idea than you could have done on your
own. I learnt that working together [we could] come up with ideas I never thought of and make
a difference.
 You can see things from different perspectives.
 You have to trust them … like trust their ideas and not put them down.
 Letting everyone have their say, because even if you think your idea might be the best, because
I thought my ideas were really good, but then [others] came up with ideas and I thought ‘Wait,
part of my ideas are rubbish, we should add these in’. So it is useful to yourself as well.
Ken and Jerry adopted similar pedagogies to deliver the YF programme and as a result their students
were able to engage in problem solving activities throughout their design work. The outcomes were
creative in that the ideas developed were novel to the students but also the process was creative in
the opportunities it provided for students to engage collaboratively and in a reflective and critical
way with each other.

Discussion
In conventional design and make activities the majority of the dilemmas that the students encounter
are within the making stage. Although design is deemed to be important and several ideas may be
produced before making a choice, the majority of a student’s time is spent in making. The Young
Foresight programme shifts the focus of problem solving to the design alone. Freed from the
constraint of needing to make the design, the potential for a variety of creative solutions is much
greater. In addition the YF programme encourages student collaboration through teamwork so
providing a more effective setting for critical review, and provides a number of tools, techniques and
approaches to support the creative process.

9
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

In Ken's and Jerry's classes the key to creative problem solving lay not in choice of design tasks,
since those were dependant on the scenarios developed by the students, but in the way the teachers
were able to provide a successful learning experience. They were particularly effective in:
 making the lesson task and content relevant to the students' experience and concerns;
 building conceptual and procedural knowledge by providing models and frameworks that
students could adapt to their situation;
 making learning explicit and showing how it fitted into the overall experience;
 supporting collaboration;
 enabling students to encounter and deal with their own dilemmas;
 developing interactions that engaged with students' thinking but left decision-making with them
so maintaining their autonomy.
There is nothing radically new in this list: these are all things that many teachers already do, or try to
do, or would at least claim to be trying to do, in some degree. The teachers described as effective
above did them consistently, sensitively and well. Most importantly they consistently positioned the
learner as active and autonomous at the same time as providing sensitive and timely support and
building students' self-esteem. Interestingly, these teachers also shared a willingness to develop the
curriculum and to develop their own professional practice, and had engaged with the YF programme
to these ends.
The YF approach, with its emphasis on collaborative design, is a more authentic representation of
the nature of design in commercial practice than that found in individual design and make activities.
However it also raises major concerns for teachers in that it only partially supports the assessment
criteria for KS 3 (years 7 to 9, ages 11 to 14 years); it only partially supports the development of the
conceptual knowledge needed for KS 4 (years 10-11, ages 14 to 16 years); and it demands a
pedagogy that may not come naturally to those steeped in a design and make tradition. The
challenge then is how to combine the strengths of both approaches. Only apparently modest shifts of
practice would be required for aspects of the effective pedagogy seen in the YF programme to be
applied to design and make activities. For example teachers might:
 make developing creative problem solving an explicit learning outcome;
 enhance the design stage by using collaborative techniques for generation and development of
ideas;
 develop critical thinking by providing opportunities for collaborative reflective review;
 analyse tasks for the knowledge demands and the potential for student autonomy, and plan and
support students accordingly.
Doing so could enable the aims expressed in the National Curriculum order for D&T – that students
should 'learn to think creatively to improve the quality of life ... become autonomous and creative
problem-solvers ... look for wants, needs and opportunities and respond to them ... with an
understanding of ... social and environmental issues, function and industrial practices' (DfEE
1999) - to be achieved. However, though these might look like minor technical changes, whether
they are or are not will depend on a teacher's existing pedagogy and their readiness to embrace
change. For some, implementing them rigorously would represent a fundamental challenge and
change to their definition of the domain, their positioning of and relationship with learners, and their
approach to assessment.

10
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the teachers who took part in this research; their schools, colleagues and
pupils; colleagues at the Open University and elsewhere; and our families.

Address for correspondence: Dr. S. A. Lunn, Centre for Curriculum and Teaching Studies, Faculty
of Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA.
Email s.a.lunn@open.ac.uk

11
 Davidson, Lunn, Murphy – Developing an effective pedagogy for creative problem-solving in D&T

REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1990) Within you, Without you: The Social Psychology of Creativity and Beyond,
in Runco, M. A. and Albert, R. S. (eds) Theories of Creativity, Newberry Park, C.A. Sage.
DfEE (1999) The National Curriculum Handbook for Secondary Teachers in England, Key Stages
3 and 4, London DfEE/QCA (134)
Martindale C (1994), How can we measure a society's creativity? in Boden M (ed) (1994),
Dimensions of Creativity, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts
McCormick, R., Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., and Davidson, M. (1996) Problem-solving in Technology
Education: a case of situated cognition? Final Report to the ESRC
Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., McCormick, R., and Davidson, M. (1995) The Nature of Problem-solving
in Science and Technology Education, Paper presented to the European Conference on Educational
Research, University of Bath.
Murphy, P. and McCormick, R. (1997) Problem-solving in Science and Technology Education,
Research in Science Education, 27 (3)
Murphy, P., Davidson, M., Lunn, S. (2000) Young Foresight Phase One Evaluation Interim Report,
Open University
Murphy, P., Lunn, S., Davidson, M. and Issit, J. (2001a) Young Foresight Summary Evaluation
Report, Open University
Murphy, P., Lunn, S., Davidson, M. and Issit, J. (2001b) Young Foresight Phase Two Evaluation
Case Studies, Open University
NACCCE (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education) (1999) All Our
Futures, London, DfES

Figure 1Ken's diagram to support groups' thinking about and development of product ideas

What will happen
to it when it is
thrown away?
Will it be used
once, a few times
What is it for?
or lots of times?
Who would use it?

New Product Who is it
How will it designed for?
be powered? Range or What needs?
Theme What wants?

Where would What is it made
it be sold? from?
How it works?

12