We’re Creative on a Friday Afternoon: Investigating Children’sPerceptions of their Experience of Design & Technologyin Relation to Creativity

Clare Benson • Julie Lunt

Published online: 26 April 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract In the last 15 years there has been an increased

emphasis in both educational research and curriculum

development upon investigating children’s perspectives of

their experience of learning. Children naturally have very

particular and important insights to offer in helping us to

develop our understanding of teaching and learning.

However, research into children’s perceptions in the field

of primary Design & Technology education is still at a very

early stage (Lunt in International handbook of research and

development in technology education, Sense Publishers,

Utrecht, 2009a). For example, in three reviews of educa-

tional research in Design & Technology (Kimbell in A

guide to educational research, The Woburn Publishers,

London, 1996; Eggleston in Teaching and learning design

and technology: a guide to recent research and its appli-

cations, Continuum, London, 2000; Harris and Wilson in

Designs on the curriculum? A review of the literature on

the impact of design and technology in schools, Depart-

ment for Education and Skills, London, 2003) there are

only passing references made to eliciting and considering

pupils’ views and, in the studies where it does occur, it is

used as a supplementary method of data collection rather

than as a focus of research. The work which exists is small-

scale and the majority of studies relate to secondary-aged

pupils. The research that we have recently undertaken has

tried to redress this gap. It has focused on primary

children’s (aged 9–11 years) perceptions of Design &

Technology in general (Benson and Lunt in PATT 18

international conference on design and technology educa-

tional research: teaching and learning technological liter-

acy in the classroom, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,

2007) and latterly creativity in Design & Technology. It

has been claimed by many that Design & Technology is a

‘creative’ subject which develops children’s creative abil-

ities. This is a bold claim and one that needs careful con-

sideration. This paper sets out a framework for thinking

about creativity drawn from a review of the literature and

uses evidence of children’s perceptions of their experience

of Design & Technology to compare practice with theory

in an attempt to raise questions and issues relevant to both

policy and practice.

Keywords Children’s perceptions � Creativity �Design and Technology � Primary

The Nature of Design and Technology

The term Design and Technology and Technology are used

worldwide to describe a subject that is both similar and

different in nature. It is therefore, important to set the

context of this research in a brief discussion as to the nature

of the subject in England. The subject Design and Tech-

nology became part of the National Curriculum in England

(DES 1990) for both primary (children aged 5–11 years)

and secondary pupils in 1990. Practice in primary schools

before then had mainly focused on craft and art, rather than

engaging children in their own designing, making and

evaluating. Although the 1990 National Curriculum docu-

ment was lengthy and confusing for teachers, the nature of

C. Benson (&) � J. Lunt

Centre for Research in Primary Technology (CRIPT),

Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

e-mail: clare.benson@bcu.ac.uk

J. Lunt

e-mail: julie@julielunt.co.uk

C. Benson � J. Lunt

Faculty of Education, Law and Social Sciences, Birmingham

City University, Perry Barr, Birmingham B42 2SU, UK

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687

DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9304-5

the subject was explained in this and subsequent National

Curriculum documents (1995, 1999). Essentially Design

and Technology is concerned with designing and making a

quality product/s for a specific need with a particular user

in mind. The children develop their capability through

product analysis and evaluation, the development and use

of appropriate knowledge and understanding, the devel-

opment of their practical skills as they work with a variety

of tools, equipment and materials, the links made with

other relevant subjects, and investigating cultural, social

and environmental issues. The children are involved in this

holistic, iterative, not sequential, process, operating in real

life contexts. For younger children these contexts may

relate to the world of fantasy, but to these children they are

real. Designing and making a cloak for Little Red Riding

Hood to wear as she has outgrown her old one seems real,

set in the right context in the classroom. An example of

Design and Technology in practice exemplifies the nature

of the subject. Children involved in a Safety project were

looking at items of clothing to wear in the dark to help

them to be seen when they walked home from school in the

winter. The children examined a range of products on the

market and evaluated them against criteria that they iden-

tified. They drew out strengths and weaknesses and dis-

cussed how this might help them when designing their own

product. The children had access to a range of fabrics and

other materials, tools and equipment as they designed a

product for them to wear. Having changed, adapted, and

‘grown’ their designs, they made their product and evalu-

ation against their original criteria took place after they had

worn the product to and from school for a number of weeks.

The variety of finished products was great; they included

items to wear on heads/arms/waists/legs, vests, and bags as

the children were given time and space to be creative. Had

they been asked to design and make an armband, for

example, creative solutions would have been limited.

Creativity

Creativity has been at the forefront of education in England

twice in recent times. In the 1960s, the Plowden Report

(CACE 1967) was central to the idea that put the child at

the heart of teaching and learning. It suggested that chil-

dren should have opportunities to follow their own inter-

ests, and for teachers to engage with ‘discovery’ rather than

rote teaching and learning. From this followed a period of

experimentation with a range of learning and teaching

strategies that it was hoped would allow children to

develop their own interests and creativity and to engage

with learning in an active way. However, it was the notion

that children should ‘follow their interests’, together with a

less formal structure to the curriculum that contributed to

the backlash against this free approach and ultimately

led to the creation of the National Curriculum in 1990

(Alexander 1995). Whilst the National Curriculum did not

exclude teaching creatively or teaching for creativity,

teachers mainly focused on the delivery of the content at

the expense of a more child-centred approach. During the

late 1990s until the present time, creativity has been

prominent in primary educational debate in England

(DfEE/QCA 1999; Office for Standards in Education 2003;

DfES 2003; Rose 2009). Teachers in England are being

encouraged to review the curricula that are being delivered

in schools after years of focusing on literacy and numeracy,

and to reflect on whether the activities that children

experience allow them the freedom to be creative. For

example Woods’ seminal work (1995) suggests that during

creative learning ‘pupils have control over their own

learning processes, and ownership of the knowledge pro-

duced, which is relevant to their concerns.’ From the ori-

ginal proposals for the first National Curriculum for

England and Wales (DES 1988, para 1.2), it was stated that

Design & Technology involves the development of Design

& Technology capability ‘to operate effectively and crea-

tively in the made world’ and this theme continued in

Design & Technology and was included in the current

version for England that was implemented in 2000

‘…pupils learn to think and intervene creatively to improve

the quality of life. The subject calls for pupils to become

autonomous and creative problem-solvers…’ (DfEE/QCA

(1999: 15).

Identifying Key Elements Linked to Creativity

Creativity has no neat definition and it is not the intention

of this paper to set out a definitive statement but rather to

draw on previous research and to identify key elements that

can be associated with teaching for creativity and teaching

creatively. The ideas of ‘high’ creativity and ‘ordinary’

creativity (Feldman et al. 1994; Rhyammer and Brolin

1999) and ‘Big C’ and ‘little c’ (Craft 2001) were con-

sidered and for this research it was decided to focus on the

‘ordinary’ or ‘little c’—behaviour that could be identified

in every child. Craft (2001) in her analysis of the literature

on Creativity in Education identifies a variety of work that

points to the idea of ordinary or democratic creativity

(National Advisory Committee on Creativity and Culture

(NACCCE) Report 1999) and highlights definitions that

assume that creativity is something that relates to all pupils.

This understanding of creativity seemed to be more useful

for this research for a number of reasons. Firstly the data

gathered would offer much richer information to support

this notion; secondly it would relate to all children rather

than the few exceptional ones and therefore, should be of

680 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687

123

greater use and relevance to all teachers; and thirdly the

researchers were more interested in this aspect—analysing

findings that might be able to offer more opportunities for

general applicability.

From the literature review that was undertaken elements

emerged that were considered key when fostering and

supporting the development of creativity within the school

situation. Other research that has drawn on different

environments such as business and industry has been

excluded as the differing situations may affect how crea-

tivity can be viewed and developed. These four key ele-

ments, which are not organised in hierarchical order, were

used as a framework for analysing the data:

• ownership and control

• relevance and motivation

• space and time

• interaction with others.

Ownership and Control

The need for children to feel that they can take ownership

of the work that they undertake might seem an obvious

educational aim. This ownership, together with the

knowledge that they acquire (Pollard and Filer 1996;

Boden 2001), their ability to take their work in the direc-

tion that interests them, and to use their own ideas to bring

the assignment to a successful conclusion in ‘their eyes’ are

all part of the ownership and control element. They can still

engage in discussion with teachers and other pupils, and

ask appropriate questions but this would be on their

terms—as and when they felt the need for external support

(Woods and Jeffrey 1996). However, with the introduction

of the National Curriculum in 1990, the developing pres-

sure to focus on literacy and numeracy, and the ever

present school inspections, there is evidence to show that

content driven teaching is widespread and children are

given fewer opportunities across the curriculum to feel in

control of the activities that they are undertaking. Kessler

(2000) for example highlights the need to be aware of the

individual and to encourage the child to follow their own

path and Ofsted findings (2010) support this. Kimbell

(2000) in his paper ‘Creativity in crisis’ discusses condi-

tions that promote creativity and stresses the need to allow

students to take ownership of their work and this is a theme

from other researchers (Harrington 1990; Woods 1995;

Emilia 1996; Craft 2003; Ofsted 2010). By taking owner-

ship, the child is able to think critically about his/her

product and to start to innovate by introducing idea/s that

are new to him/her (Woods 1999; DfEE/QCA 1999;

Cropley 2001; Nicholl 2004). Over the last 30 years, there

has been an on-going interest in defining the characteristics

of creative individuals (Spendlove 2005), and whilst this is

not the focus for this research there are obvious links. For

children to take control and ownership of their work, it

would be helpful for them to have certain characteristics

such as independence and a strong sense of self which are

identified by a number of researchers (Gardner 1993;

Sternberg 2001).

Relevance and Motivation

Much has been written about the importance of relevance and

motivation in children’s learning and this has been linked to

the development of creativity (Jeffrey and Craft 2003). This

paper focuses on intrinsic motivation as there is evidence that

extrinsic motivation, such as the offering of rewards, can

result in a negative effect on children’s creativity (Howe et al.

2001). If a child cannot see the relevance of a task or

assignment then he/she is unlikely to be motivated to

investigate, to think around a problem or to develop his/her

original thoughts (Woods 1995). The Reggio Emilia

approach (Edwards and Springate 1995; Abbott and

Nutbrown 2005) promotes ‘Occasions’ as a way of providing

situations that motivate and are relevant to the children

undertaking them and a way of fostering creativity. Hands-on

working is also favoured, for example, by Jeffrey and Woods

(2003), and their research in primary schools led them to

suggest that the ‘hands-on’ approach was a crucial feature in

making learning relevant and encouraging ownership—key

elements in their discussion relating to creativity.

Space and Time

The meaning of space in this context is not just related to

the classroom and school environment but to giving the

child space to think (time) and to work in different ways.

Time needs to be given to enable the children to finish their

assignment, to make any modifications that they feel are

needed, and to evaluate the finished product. To be able to

take part in hands-on activity the children need space to

move around, to be able to explore resources that are

available to use, to be able to see what others are doing,

and to be able to talk to other children and adults as and

when they feel the need. There needs to be space to enable

the children to undertake ‘messy activity’ so that there is no

feeling that their work will be curtailed, and space to

undertake quiet work. Time and space are very much part

of the Reggio Emilia approach to fostering creativity

(Emilia 1996) and one that is supported by Manning and

Sharp (1979) and Benson (2004).

Interaction with Others

Interaction with others can be interpreted in different ways

but in this paper we have taken the meaning to be children

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687 681

123

interacting in a variety of ways with peers and adults

during the whole process of designing and making. At

times it might mean that children discuss with each other

what the next stage might be, or what ideas their peers

might have to help develop their product; it might be a

discussion with an adult to help clarify knowledge or

practical skill they need; or it might be to clarify their

thoughts about a particular issue. It is not then solely group

work; indeed it could be argued that group work could

stifle creativity as children have to make compromises.

Emilia (1996) highlights the importance of giving children

opportunities to discuss and debate not only with an adult

but with others in the class. As part of the ‘talking’ process,

the importance of encouraging children to ask challenging

questions both to others and of themselves is set out in

‘Creativity: find it, promote it’ (QCA 2003). Such ques-

tioning is 1 of the 6 key signs that QCA identified as being

present when children are being creative and this is rein-

forced by the Ofsted report (2010) ‘Learning: creative

approaches that raise standards’.

Methodology

It was decided to draw on children’s perceptions in Years

5 and 6 (aged 9–11 years) for this research for a variety

of reasons. We felt that this group of children would have

had the most opportunities to experience a range of

Design and Technology activity at school and may have

been exposed to the subject through other experiences

such as family connections, homework and external pro-

jects. It was most likely that they would have had time to

reflect on their school experiences and to be able to

articulate their thoughts and feelings. Questionnaires for

both children and teachers were used to gather data.

Consideration was given to time constraints and funding

and consequently it was decided not to gather information

through semi-structured interviews (Oppenheim 2003;

Wellington 2000). Five schools were identified from the

West Midlands, England as the subject leaders for design

& technology in those schools were interested in identi-

fying and using children’s perceptions to develop their

curriculum work and a total of 304 children and 5

teachers completed the questionnaires. The questionnaire

was constructed and trialled in a school that was not

taking part in the research. Teachers were asked to

identify any changes that they would make relating, for

example, to clarity of the question, additional questions

they would add, and questions they would consider

irrelevant. Both quantitative and qualitative data were

collected for analysis. The questionnaire was read aloud

to the children and those who found writing difficult were

given a scribe to ensure their ideas were collected and

that the activity did not become a writing exercise. The

children stated how much they enjoyed the activity and

said that they were pleased that someone was collecting

their views. It is important to note that this is a relatively

small scale study. Whilst the questions asked did pro-

vide a wealth of information relating to the children’s

perceptions of Design and Technology, it has become

apparent from analysing the data for this paper that it

would have been valuable to ask questions particularly

relating to questioning (Did they ask questions of their

peers and adults working with them? Did they feel that

the questions they asked helped them to develop their

work?). In addition the wording of some statements could

be refined so that the children’s answers gave a clearer

indication of their perceptions.

Having decided on the key elements for fostering cre-

ativity, it was possible to identify which of them children

felt they experienced in their Design & Technology

activities and which were not obviously part of their

learning experience.

Confidentiality, consent and a clear understanding as to

the nature of the research were major considerations

(Gregory 2003).

Findings and Discussion

In the questionnaire children were asked to respond to a

number of questions and statements about design & tech-

nology (See Appendix 1).

Children’s Perceptions of a Link Between Design

and Technology and Creativity

In D&T we learn how to be creative (e.g., think up

ideas in different ways, try out different ways of

using materials).

Across the 5 schools a total of 85% of children agreed

with this statement and only 5% disagreed, with the

remaining 10% ‘not sure’. This would suggest a relatively

strong link in children’s perceptions of their experience of

Design & Technology and learning to be creative. There

was some difference between schools which might suggest

that the provision of Design & Technology varied in

respect of the emphasis placed on creativity and the

pedagogical approaches used in Design & Technology.

Although a positive response, one might also be concerned

that across the schools 15% of children disagreed or were

not sure if they learned how to be creative in Design &

Technology. This was particularly evident in Schools 2 and

3. Overall there was no significant difference in the

responses of girls and boys.

682 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687

123

Ownership and Control

One of the key elements of teaching for creativity identified

in our framework concerned children having the opportu-

nity to make their own decisions and to have ownership

and control over their work. A model of Design and

Technology which places designing and making at its heart

is potentially a rich context for developing this element of

creativity. Children are encouraged to make their own

design decisions within a design and make task, often

developed through an appropriate range of teacher ques-

tioning. However, the extent to which children experience

a sense of ownership and control in Design & Technology

has been the subject of discussion by many in the profes-

sion. The children in our survey were asked to respond to

two statements which relate to this element. The first

statement counterpoises the children using their own ideas

with being told what to do by the teacher, recognised as

a feature of weaker practice in design & technology

(OFSTED 2008).

I like D&T because we get to use our own ideas

rather than just being told what to do.

There was a relatively high level of agreement overall to

this statement with 78% of children agreeing and only 7%

disagreeing. More girls than boys acknowledged this as a

characteristic of their experience in Design & Technology,

particularly in School 3 where there was significant gender

variation with 23% of boys disagreeing with the statement

compared to 0% of girls. Fourteen percent of children

overall responded with the ‘not sure’ category which might

suggest that their experience of Design & Technology was

varied.

Other studies of children’s perceptions of their experi-

ence have found that negative comments from children

frequently mention tasks being constraining or being

interrupted by the teacher; positive comments relate to

being able to do things for themselves and making their

own decisions (Lunt 2009b). A sense of autonomy has also

been linked to greater levels of learner engagement in

studies beyond the field of design & technology (e.g.,

Pollard et al. 2000; Rudduck and Flutter 2004).

The second statement related to ownership and control

makes reference to the children setting out and achieving a

goal for themselves.

I like starting a D&T project knowing that we are

going to design and make our own thing before the

end of it.

The successful completion of a product is a powerful

driver for children in design & technology (McCormick

and Davidson 1996; Lunt 2009a). Designing and making is

in itself a creative act with a tangible goal to work towards.

However, it also involves risk-taking, a feature of creative

behaviour which can lead to uncomfortable feelings for

some children. Seventy six percent of children overall

agreed with this statement and 7% disagreed with 16% ‘not

sure’. There was a variation among schools with School 1

having a particularly low score for agreeing and a high

score for disagreeing. There could be a number of possible

explanations for children disagreeing with the statement.

Firstly, children might be given prescriptive tasks in

Design & Technology and not feel that they have owner-

ship and control. Secondly, they might dislike the feelings

of uncertainty and risk involved in designing and making

(Benson and Lunt 2009). Thirdly they might perceive that

there is a lack of time to complete their outcomes

successfully.

Relevance and Motivation

Design & Technology is widely acknowledged as a popular

subject for children (Benson and Lunt 2007). The statement

with the highest level of consensus across the whole

sample of children in our survey related to the personal

fulfillment that children can experience in the creative act

of designing and making.

It puts a smile on your face when you have made

something of your own.

The response to this statement, together with answers to

questions about children’s perceptions of Design and

Technology as enjoyable, fun, boring and interesting,

combine to reinforce the view of other studies which show

that Design & Technology is indeed a highly motivating

classroom experience for most children. Only 4% of chil-

dren in our survey claimed that they never found Design

and Technology enjoyable compared to 81% who always

or usually did. It would appear that most children in our

study were intrinsically motivated by their experience of

the subject. Without this sense of relevance and motivation

it would be difficult to promote creativity which requires a

personal commitment to the task.

The practical nature of Design and Technology is also a

highly motivating factor for children.

I enjoy D&T because we get to do things with our

hands (rather than just write).

Practical, hands-on activity has been found to be the

most popular element of design & technology in various

studies of children’s perspectives (e.g. Twyford and

Burden 2000; Lunt 2009b). In this survey the children

identified that out of all elements of Design & Technol-

ogy they enjoyed making the most (at least 68%) and this

is also supported by data from the teachers’ perceptions

of what their children enjoyed. However, the children’s

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687 683

123

response to this statement was surprisingly low with only

57% of children agreeing, 14% of children disagreeing

and 29% of children not sure. There was a high consensus

overall between girls and boys. The high percentage of

‘not sure’, almost one-third of the children, could have

been due to the limitation of our statement. Some children

might enjoy doing things with their hands and writing in

equal measure; some children might enjoy doing things

with their hands but feel that this is not a significant part

of their particular experience of Design & Technology.

School 2 had a very high percentage of ‘not sures’ in

response to this statement (55%). However, 87% of these

children always or usually enjoyed Design & Technology

which would suggest that the other elements of the sub-

ject also engaged them.

Space and Time

In D&T we get to move around the classroom more

than in most other lessons.

The classroom ethos which supports children’s creativ-

ity in Design & Technology is likely to enable children

moving around in order to explore resources and interact

with others. This is the very antithesis of a tightly con-

strained environment controlled by the teacher. Overall

68% of children in the survey felt this was true of their

experience of design & technology. This was particularly

evident in School 2 in which 90% of boys and 82% of girls

agreed with the statement. This was also the school in

which Design & Technology was most highly valued by

the children in terms of being enjoyable, interesting and

fun. However, 20% of the children overall disagreed which

could mean that they move around the classroom a lot in

other lessons or conversely that there was not that oppor-

tunity to do so in Design & Technology.

I would like more time for D&T because we are often

quite rushed.

Several research studies have found that time is an issue

for children and is perceived by many as a commodity in

short supply. There are often feelings of stress and anxiety

caused by having to rush and not having adequate time to

accomplish work (Doddington et al. 1999; Pollard et al.

2000). These feelings of pressure can work in opposition to

the desired conditions for nurturing creativity (Benson

2004). Overall 62% of children in the survey felt they

would have liked more time. It is not clear from the evi-

dence but this might have involved more time for making;

for developing their ideas; for successful completion of

their products; or for the experience of Design & Tech-

nology in general as an enjoyable activity in its own right.

Interaction with Others

The opportunity to work collaboratively with others is a

frequently cited feature of teaching for creativity. Fox-

Turnbull (2010) highlights the importance of dialogue in

the creative processes of Design and Technology, ‘When

people work together in problem solving situations they do

much more than just talk together. They ‘interthink’ by

combining shared understandings, combining their intel-

lects in creative ways, and often reaching outcomes that are

well above the capability of each individual.’ (p. 26). So

did the children in our survey recognise this as a feature of

their experience in Design & Technology?

We often get to work with other children in D&T

rather than on our own.

There was a large discrepancy between schools on this

issue. It is apparent that the children from School 1 were

having a very different experience of Design & Technol-

ogy from their peers in other schools. In the other schools

81% of children agreed with the statement and only 7%

disagreed, whereas in School 1 only 36% agreed and 40%

disagreed. Other research has shown that children have

varied preferences in terms of working individually or with

one another in design & technology with a minority of

children feeling constrained by their peers (Lunt 2009b).

As teachers we need to be aware of group dynamics and the

difficulties that are sometimes experienced when working

with others—particularly the ‘falling out’ or ‘taking over’

syndromes, both of which are likely to curtail children’s

creativity.

Implications for Policy and Practice

In the changing landscape of creativity in education, cre-

ativity is no longer seen as being the preserve of particular

subjects but as a central concern for all educators (Craft

2007). The four key elements identified in this paper:

ownership and control; relevance and motivation; space

and time; and interaction with others are relevant to

teaching across the curriculum. Design & Technology aims

to develop children’s creativity through designing and

making activity and through creative approaches to

teaching and learning. The evidence from this study how-

ever, suggests that although children can be highly moti-

vated by their experience of Design and Technology, they

do not always experience teaching approaches which best

promote their creativity. Reflection on the findings has led

to the following conclusions with implications for policy

and practice.

684 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687

123

1. Not all the children in this survey identified design &

technology as supporting the development of their

creativity. Highlighting creativity as being fundamen-

tal to design & technological activity could help to

promote children’s understanding and to raise the

profile of the subject. This would however, require

careful consideration of the nature of the classroom

activity which takes place in the name of Design &

Technology as there already exists a mismatch

between rhetoric and practice in the subject.

2. If the number of children experiencing a sense of

ownership and control in Design & Technology is to

increase in order to nurture creativity, many teachers

would require a higher level of expertise and confi-

dence in design & technology than is currently the

case. Creating a classroom environment which enables

children to explore for themselves and to make

authentic choices is demanding and represents an

enormous shift away from a content driven curriculum

and the prescribed pedagogical approaches such as

those of the national literacy and numeracy strategies.

In England the dominance of a national exemplar

scheme of work for Design & Technology (QCA 1998)

is now diminishing but teachers will need support in

developing their subject knowledge if they are to rise

to the challenge of developing their own approaches

to creative teaching and learning in Design &

Technology.

3. The opportunity for hands-on, practical work in Design

& Technology is imperative for promoting creativity

and this means that children require time and resources

to develop their ideas and realise them in the creative

act of designing and making. This survey confirmed

the findings of other studies in that children are highly

motivated by Design & Technology.

4. The development of creativity requires space and time,

and the results of our survey show that this is not the

case for all children in their experience of Design &

Technology. The pressure on curriculum time and the

forced pace of a performative education culture in

schools needs to be relaxed if children’s creativity is to

be nurtured.

5. The value of children’s interaction with others in

developing their creativity needs to be highlighted

in Design & Technology practice for all children. In

recent years there has been a greater focus on

individual work rather than team-working in design

& technology although general primary developments

such as the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander

2009) place speaking and listening at the heart of the

primary curriculum. High quality dialogue needs to be

developed if children’s potential is to be realised in

Design & Technology.

Conclusion

Whilst this is a small scale study, it is hoped that the findings

will provide educators with some ideas to consider whilst

reflecting on whether their teaching environments and les-

sons in design & technology offer opportunities for children

to be creative. Whilst limitations of the research have been

identified it is anticipated that this could form an useful

starting point for further research into children’s perceptions

of Design and Technology and in particular their views that

relate to experiences that can lead to the development of

creativity. It is important to consider why developing chil-

dren’s ability to be creative is a valuable educational aim. It

might be that the child will enter a profession that is thought

of as ‘traditionally’ creative—furniture, interior or clothes

design, the arts, or landscape gardening. However, the focus

for the paper was on the small ‘c’—that is the inclusion of all

children—and hopefully the development of their creativity

will contribute to all their future lives. Craft (2001) points to

a wide range of potential gains from developing children’s

creativity derived from her literature search. These include

economic development which may encourage an entrepre-

neurial culture either at work or within the home environ-

ment; cultural development that supports the understanding

that cultures are different, a vital concept to understand in

everyday lives; social development that helps children to

interact with others, to question, to be flexible, to discuss and

to debate issues; and personal development that includes

taking control and ownership of their own lives. These are

obviously high aspirations but crucial ones to which we can

help children to aspire.

Appendix 1

What do you think of D&T?

Can you help us? We are interested in finding out about

what children in Years 5 and 6 think of D&T. We would

love to hear about what you think. Please let us know using

this questionnaire. Thank you.

Name : Year 5 Year 6

School : Boy Girl

Please tick the column that best fits what you think for

each question—always, usually, sometimes or never.

Always Usually Sometimes Never

1. Do you enjoy D&T?

2. Do you think D&T is

boring?

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687 685

123

16. If a child came to join your school from another

country where they don’t do D&T, how would you

describe it to them?

References

Abbott L, Nutbrown C (eds) (2005) Experiencing Reggio Emilia.

Open University Press, Maidenhead

Alexander R (1995) Versions of primary education. Routledge,

London

Alexander R (ed) (2009) Children, their world, their education: final

report and recommendations of the Cambridge primary review.

Routledge, London

Benson C (2004) Creativity: caught or taught? Des Technol Edu: Int J

9(3):138–145

Benson C, Lunt J (2007) It puts a smile on your face! What do

children actually think of design and technology? Investigating

the attitudes and perceptions of children aged 9–11 years. In:

Dakers J, Dow W, de Vries MJ (eds) PATT 18 international

conference on design and technology educational research:

teaching and learning technological literacy in the classroom.

University of Glasgow, Glasgow

Benson C, Lunt J (2009) Innovation and risk-taking in primary design

and technology: issues arising from the evaluation of the pilot

phase of the curriculum development project ‘butterflies in my

tummy. In: Norman EWL, Spendlove D (eds) D&T: a platform

for success, education and international research conference. The

Design and Technology Association, Wellesbourne, pp 37–46

Boden M (2001) Creativity and knowledge. In: Craft A et al (eds)

Creativity in education. Continuum, London

CE CA (1967) Children and their primary schools. Report of the

central advisory council for education in England (The Plowden

Report). HMSO, London

Craft A (2001) Little c creativity. In: Craft A, Jeffrey B, Leibling M

(eds) Creativity in education. Continuum, London

Craft A (2003) Creativity and education, report to QCA. Open

University Press, Milton Keynes

Craft A (2007) Changes in the landscape of creativity in education.

In: Wilson A (ed) Creativity in primary education, 2nd edn.

Learning Matters, Exeter

Cropley AJ (2001) Creativity in education and learning. Kegan Page,

London

DES (1990) Design and technology for ages 5–16. DES, London

Always Usually Sometimes Never

3. Do you think D&T is

interesting?

4. Do you think D&T is

difficult?

5. Do you think D&T is easy?

6. Do you think you are good

at D&T?

7. Do you think D&T is hard

work?

8. Do you think you learn

much in D&T?

9. Do you think D&T is fun?

10. What do you like most about D&T

11. What do you like least about D&T?

12. Why do you think you have to learn D&T in school?

13. Which 3 subjects do you enjoy most? Please tick your

3 favourites.

Art History P.E.

D&T ICT R.E.

English/literacy Maths Science

Geography Music

14. Which 3 subjects do you think you are best at? Please

tick 3.

Art History P.E.

D&T ICT R.E.

English/literacy Maths Science

Geography Music

15. Here are some things that other people have said

about D&T. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree Disagree Not

sure

(a) I like D&T because it is different from

most other lessons

(b) There is lots of hands on in D&T.

Hands on is cool

(c) I would prefer just to get on and make,

not to design. (e.g., research, thinkabout, plan)

(d) In D&T you have to think really

carefully

(e) I would like more time for D&T

because we are often quite rushed

(f) In D&T we have to use technical words

Agree Disagree Not

sure

(g) It puts a smile on your face when you

have made something of your own

(h) I like D&T because we get to use our

own ideas rather than just being told

what to do

(i) I think designing is really important if

you want to make a good product

(j) In D&T we learn how to be creative.

(e.g., think up ideas in different ways, tryout different ways of using materials)

(k) D&T is important for life because it is

useful in lots of different jobs

686 J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687

123

DFE (1995) Design and technology in the national curriculum. Her

Majesty’s Stationery Office, London

DfEE (1999) All our futures: creativity, culture and education. DfEE,

Suffolk

DfEE/QCA (1999a) Design and technology. DfEE/QCA, London

DfEE/QCA (1999b) Design and technology in the national curricu-

lum. DfEE, London

DfES (2003) Excellence and enjoyment. DfES, Nottingham

Doddington C, Flutter J, Rudduck J (1999) Improving learning: the

pupils’ agenda. A report for primary schools. Homerton College,

Cambridge

Edwards CP, Springate KW (1995) Encouraging creativity in early

childhood classrooms, in ERIC Diges. Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, Washington

Eggleston J (ed) (2000) Teaching and learning design and technology:

a guide to recent research and its applications. Continuum,

London

Emilia R (1996) The 100 languages of children. Ablex Publishing

Corporation, Reggio Emilia

Feldman DH, Csikszentmihalyi M, Gardner H (1994) Changing the

World: a framework for the study of creativity. Praeger

Publishers, London

Fox-Turnbull W (2010) The role of conversation in design and

technology. Des Technol Edu: Int J 15(1):24–30

Gardner H (1993) Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice.

Harper Collins, NY

Gregory I (2003) Ethics in research. Continuum, London

Harrington DM (1990) The ecology of human creativity. In: Runco

MA, Albert RS (eds) Theories of creativity. Sage Publications,

London

Harris M, Wilson V (2003) Designs on the curriculum? A review of

the literature on the impact of design and technology in schools.

Department for Education and Skills, London

Howe A, Davies D, Ritchie R (2001) Primary design and technology

for the future. David Fulton, London

Jeffrey B, Craft A (2003) The universalisation of creativity. In: Craft

A et al (eds) Creativity in education. Continuum, London

Jeffrey B, Wood P (2003) The creative school. Routledge Falmer,

London

Kessler R (2000) The soul of education. Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development, Virginia

Kimbell R (1996) Technology. In: Gordon P (ed) A guide to

educational research. The Woburn Press, London

Kimbell R (2000) Creativity in crisis. A keynote presentation at

D&T international millennium conference, London. DATA,

Wellesbourne

Lunt J (2009a) Primary school children’s perceptions of design and

technology. In: Jones A, de Vries M (eds) International

handbook of research and development in technology education.

Sense Publishers, Utrecht

Lunt J (2009b) In search of authenticity: an investigation into

children’s writing tasks in design and technology at upper key

stage 2. Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham City University,

Birmingham

Manning K, Sharp A (1979) Structuring play in the early years at

school. Schools Council, Sussex

McCormick R, Davidson M (1996) Problem solving and the tyranny

of product outcomes. J Des Technol Edu 1(3):230–241

National Advisory Committee for Culture, Creativity Education

(NACCCE) (1999) All our futures: creativity, culture and

education. DEE, London

National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group (1988)

Design and technology: an interim report. DES/WO, London

Nicholl B (2004) Teaching and learning creativity. In: Norman EWL,

Spendlove D, Grover P, Mitchell A (eds) Creativity and

innovation, DATA international research conference. The

Design and Technology Association, Wellesbourne

OFSTED (2003) Developing creativity in primary and secondary

schools. HMI 1612 E Publication, London

OFSTED (2008) Education for a technologically advanced nation.

Design and technology in schools 2004–2007. OFSTED, London

OFSTED (2010) Learning: creative approaches that raise standards.

OFSTED, London

Oppenheim AN (2003) Questionnaire design and interviewing and

attitude measurement. Continuum, London

Pollard A, Filer A (1996) The social world of children’s learning: case

studies of children from 4 to 7. Cassells, London

Pollard A, Triggs P, with Broadfoot P, McNess E, Osborn M (2000)

What pupils say: changing policy and practice in primary

education. Continuum, London

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1998) Design and

technology: a scheme of work for key stages 1 and 2. QCA,

London

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2003) Creativity:

find it! promote it!. QCA, London

Rhyammer L, Brolin C (1999) Creativity research. Scand J Edu Res

43(3):259–273

Rose J (2009) The independent review of the primary curriculum:

final report. DCSF, Nottingham

Rudduck J, Flutter J (2004) How to improve your school: giving

pupils a voice. Continuum, London

Spendlove D (2005) Creativity in education. Des Technol Edu: Int J

10(2):9–19

Sternberg RJ (2001) What is the common thread of creativity? Am

Psychol 56:360–362

Twyford J, Burden R (2000) Is it really work? Primary school pupils’

conceptions of design and technology as a National curriculum

subject. J Des Technol Edu 5(2):101–105

Wellington J (2000) Educational research: contemporary issues and

practical approaches. Continuum, London

Woods P (1995) Creative teachers in primary schools. Open

University Press, Buckingham

Woods P, Jeffrey B (1996) Teachable moments: the art of teaching in

primary schools. Open University Press, Buckingham

Woods P et al (1999) Multicultural children in the early years.

Trentham Books, Weston super Mare

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:679–687 687

123