Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaches to Planning that Encourage Creativity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Explorations in Technology Education Research

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Technology Education ((CITE))

  • 534 Accesses

Abstract

Planning is a crucial part of the teaching and learning process yet is often a stage that is either overlooked or deliberately neglected. The research on which this chapter is based investigates the approaches used by technology teachers to plan how teaching, learning and assessment activities work together to ensure students have the opportunities to demonstrate intended learning. Particular focus is placed upon creativity and the development of creative skills in relation to the planning approach.

The research adopted a mixed methodology approach to analyse planned and actual teaching and learning activities and indicated a strong causal relationship between the planning approach used and the creative output. The dominant approach to planning produced learning outcomes that are both easy to measure and easier to teach but did not support teaching and learning of cognitive skills, such as reflection and creativity. In the light of these findings, this chapter considers how reflection and creativity might be supported in the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2011). Fostering learning in the engineering and technology class. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education. Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 35–53). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary curriculum. London: Engineering Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D., and Rutland, M. (2004). ‘Developing trainee teacher’s ability to teach designing within secondary school design and technology in England’. PATT 14 International Conference Proceedings. Albuquerque, USA, March 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M., & Lofoe, G. (1998). Curriculum design for flexible delivery – Massaging the model. In R. Corderoy (Ed.), Flexibility: The next wave. Wollongong: Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. LTSN Generic Centre: Imaginative Curriculum Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Livingston, C., McCaleb, J., & Mauro, L. (1988). Student teachers’ planning and post-lesson reflections: Patterns and implications for teacher preparation. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning. Lewes: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum development. Wollongong: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderhead, J. (1984). Teachers’ classroom decision making. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. A. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, M. (2008). Can assessment unlock and open the doors to resourcefulness and agency? In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment (pp. 36–54). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. (1986). Classroom practice: Teachers images of action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(2), 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ though processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning. In J. Caldehead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 84–103). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, L. (2001). The wheelbarrow, the mosaic and the double helix: Challenges and strategies for successfully carrying out mixed methods evaluation [online], Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 1(2), 33–40. Available at: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=456685309173089;res=IELBUS>ISSN:1035-719X.%5B. Accessed 14 Mar 15%5D.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugherty, R. B., Black, P., Ecclestone, K., James, M., & Newton, P. (2011). The assessment of significant learning outcomes’. In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education (pp. 165–183). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. (2001). Making evidence-based practice educational. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinct methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, G. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Social Research Solutions (pp. 1–320).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagger, H., & McIntrye, D. (2006). Learning teaching from Tearchers: Realising the potential of school-based teacher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallgarten, J. B. (Ed.). (2014, November 7). Licensed to create. Ten essays on improving teacher quality. London: RSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks, W. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (Eds.), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning: Strategies for the classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illeris, K. (2009). In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (1991). A qualitative study of British student teachers’ lesson planning perspectives. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(3), 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes, a practical guide. Cork: Quality Promotion Unit, UCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (1994). Progression in learning and the assessment of children’s attainment. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology, international trends in curriculum and assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: SEAC and the Central Office of Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, P. T. (2002). Being a teacher in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, T. (2013). Theoretical underpinnings towards assessing science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of technology educators. PATT 27 conference technology education for the future: A play on sustainability (Vol. 27, pp. 291–297). Christchurch: University of Canterbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2011). Innovation in symbolic industries: The geography and organisation of knowledge sourcing. European Planning Studies, 19, 1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, J., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (1999). Building a metacognitive model of reflection. Higher Education, 37, 105–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, H. (2008). Researching technology education: Methods and techniques. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Milkova, S. (2014). Strategies for effective lesson planning. [online]. Available from Center for Research on Learning and Teaching: crit.umich.edu. Accessed on 26 Nov 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, J. (2008). Assessment for learning in primary technology classrooms. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Barlex, D. (2008). Design and technology inside the black box – Assessment for learning in the design and technology classroom. London: GL Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., Jones, L., & Barlex, D. (2013). New Principles for Design & Technology in the National Curriculum. Education for Engineering. E4E2013, London, UK..

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutton, T. H., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholl, B., & McLellan, R. (2009). ‘This isn’t my project [work]. It’s…just do it… you just do research’. What student voice reveals about the nature of D&T lesson in English schools and the implications this has on their motivation and learning of complex tasks. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam: SENSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Jackson, G., & Steeg, T. (2007). The role of technical understanding in design and technology. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology – The next generation: A collection of provocative pieces to stimulate reflection and curriculum innovation London, UK. TEP/Nuffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. [online]. Available at: http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Ideas/iot18.htm. Accessed on 31 Mar 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R. S. (1965). ‘Education as initiation’. Inaugural Lecture, University of London, Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. Hershey: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • QCDA. (2010). Guidance for senior leaders, Qualification and Curriculum Development Agency, Department of Education, London, UK., Coventry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28, 110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutland, M. (2009). Art and design and design and technology: Is there creativity in the designing? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions, and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sondergeld, T. B. (2010). Understanding how teachers engage in formative assessment. Teaching and Learning, 24(2), 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(3), 281–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trebell, D. (2007). A literature review in search of an appropriate theoretical perspective to frame a study of Designerly activity in secondary design and technology. Education and international research conference (pp. 91–95). The Design and Technology Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. (1949). How can learning experiences be organised for effective Instruction? In Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

    Mary Southall

Authors
  1. Mary Southall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Southall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    P John Williams

  2. University of Exeter Associate, Brighton, UK

    David Barlex

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Southall, M. (2019). Approaches to Planning that Encourage Creativity. In: Williams, P.J., Barlex, D. (eds) Explorations in Technology Education Research. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3010-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3010-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3009-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3010-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation