In addition to the development of ‘Creativity Diagnostics’, I have also explored the role that individual learning styles have on the acquisition of challenging content (Dunn, 2000; Sadler-Smith, 2001; Sternberg, 1997; Riding & Rayner, 1998).
As creativity has gathered prominence as an outcome of formal education, in the United Kingdom such ambitions have taken place alongside the expansion of higher education into a mass educational model of provision. For design education, pedagogies forged via the proverbial ‘Sitting with Nellie’ and Atelier model have had to adapt to significantly larger class sizes. However, the intent to foster creative potential in each individual has remained.
The challenge of enhancing individual creativity within the context of larger class sizes has been fundamental to my enquiry. This project and the resulting publication (Jeffries & Hardaker, 2003) whilst discussing the application of creativity diagnostics also highlights the use of learning diagnostics.
The genesis of these diagnostics inventories arose from Prof. Glenn Hardaker’s initial development work, InterMusic European Consortium (iMEC), which among other outcomes developed two specific tools: the User Profile Generator, and the iMEC Creativity Assessment Tool.
Seeing the potential that these tools could be utilised beneficially in creativity training, I led and acquired funding for Enhancing Design Education (EDE). The purpose of the EDE project was to adapt this work, and pilot its use in a creative thinking module for undergraduate product and transport design students.