A decade ago, now-seminal work showed that children are strikingly unskilled at simple tool innovation; since then, a surge of research has replicated these findings across diverse cultures

After a decade of tool innovation, what comes next? Bruce S. Rawlings. Child Development Perspectives, March 24 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12451

Abstract: A decade ago, now-seminal work showed that children are strikingly unskilled at simple tool innovation. Since then, a surge of research has replicated these findings across diverse cultures, which has stimulated evocative yet unanswered questions. Humans are celebrated among the animal kingdom for our proclivity to create and use tools and have the most complex and diverse technology on earth. Our capacity for tool use has altered our ecological environments irrevocably. How can we achieve so much, yet tool innovation be such a difficult and late-developing skill for children? In this article, I briefly summarize what we know about the development of tool innovation, then discuss five outstanding questions in the field. With a focus on different empirical and theoretical perspectives, I argue that addressing these questions is crucial for understanding fully the ontogeny of one of humans’ most notable skills.

DOES FORMAL EDUCATION AFFECT INNOVATION?

In its 2020 Workplace Learning Report, LinkedIn, the global employment company, surveyed professionals in 18 countries, finding that creativity was employees’ most desired soft skill (LinkedIn, 2020). Surveys such as these highlight the increasing demand for innovative and creative skills as valuable economic resources and have motivated global research and educational initiatives exploring whether these skills can be taught in formal education settings (Qian et al., 2019). The impact of formal education on creativity and innovation remains a debated topic. Some argue that the focus of most educational institutions on norm following, rote learning, and standardized teaching and assessments inhibits creative and innovative expression (Goens & Streifer, 2013). Others contend that the experiences afforded by schools, such as wider social interaction, collaboration, and exposure to novel information, promote these skills (Sahlberg, 2009).

To my knowledge, no study has directly assessed the impact of formal education on innovation. However, indirect evidence suggests that exposure to and the quality of formal education may be influential. In one study, 8- to 18-year-olds from the Tsimane population of Amazonian Bolivia who attended high-quality schools outperformed children of the same age and region who went to low-quality schools on abstract reasoning and problem-solving tasks; also, the performance of the children who went to high-quality schools improved significantly more over time (Davis et al., 2021). In developmental studies and research with adults, richer and more diverse social experiences (which attending school presumably promotes) facilitate innovation (Baer et al., 2015; Rawlings, 2018). However, proponents of informal education correctly highlight the cognitive and social benefits of learning outside of school contexts (Sefton-Green, 2012), including how such learning relates to divergent thinking (Dahlman et al., 2013).

These findings are indirect observations, and it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the relation between formal education and innovation without direct assessments. Given the importance of innovation as a major skill of the 21st century, whether schools can foster the next generation of innovative minds is a topic of global interest. Researchers should examine if and how school curricula, attendance, and academic achievement shape innovation. Even within formal educational settings, approaches to education vary, and work is needed to examine whether specific educational philosophies or activities (e.g., engaging in innovative problem solving, peer collaboration) promote innovation, and whether others (e.g., rote learning, standardized assessments) hinder it. Many schools promote convergent problem solving, focusing on single, correct solutions (e.g., in mathematical problem solving); how does this affect tool innovation? Does informal education shape innovation and if so, how? The globalization of formal education provides a unique and time-sensitive opportunity to document the impact of formal and informal education on the next generation of innovators.

CONCLUSION

Humans’ proclivity to make and use tools is one of our most distinguished skills, allowing us to survive and prosper in diverse and harsh environments. Particularly puzzling, then, is that tool innovation is such a difficult and late-developing skill. Although the field has made significant progress over the past decade, many outstanding questions remain, and using theoretically derived empirical research to answer them will allow us to make significant strides in our understanding of the development of tool innovation. However, doing so will require rigorous planning, and addressing each question posed here presents unique challenges.

Understanding why tool innovation is so difficult for children calls for disentangling the contributions of cognitive, social, and environmental factors through carefully designed experiments. It also requires introspection about the definitions and methods we currently use to assess tool innovation. Conducting cross-cultural work requires striking a balance between control and generalizability across populations, versus implementing culturally appropriate tool innovation measures, to draw fair comparative conclusions.

This is a difficult endeavor that can only be tackled by extensive piloting alongside collaboration with local researchers and community members. Understanding the trajectory of tool innovation abilities beyond childhood necessitates designing tasks and paradigms that ostensibly capture the same skills and processes in children, adolescents, and adults—a feat the field has yet to achieve. Studying how tool innovation transfers across domains will involve establishing a variety of appropriate measures of innovation and creativity, ideally with longitudinal data to document consistency over time. Finally, examining the association between formal education and innovative skills requires collating measures of school quality and educational philosophy, which vary meaningfully across samples as well as within and across nations. If these challenges are overcome, the field will move forward in a way not before seen.