Module 104: Design & Technology Education

An Overview of Current Thinking and Practice

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to map current thinking in the area of design & technology education (DTE) in post-primary education. The prevailing model of curriculum at this stage of formal education is characteristically subject-based. This model sees the development of discrete, relatively self-contained subject curricula. Teacher training is also modelled on the preparation of subject experts. Where the goal is to offer the learner a ‘broad’ or ‘balanced’ education, this is typically conceptualised as making available to the student a range of different subjects, each of which is to cater for an identifiable area of human understanding or achievement. Curriculum development is, therefore, invariably shaped by cultural factors.

In Ireland, explicit reference to design and technology based education is a relatively recent occurrence. In recent years, ‘technological education’ has gained currency, influenced in no small part by developments that see ‘technology’ play an increasingly central role in many areas of human activity. Technological education is seen to fulfil two key and related functions: preparing learners for life in a ‘technological era’ and the use of a design & technology context for cognitive development.

Characteristics of Design & Technology Education

Whether they are used in the context of industrial development, epistemology or curriculum development, the terms ‘design’ and ‘technology’ may take on very different meanings. What is apparent is that the emergence of ‘technological’ subjects on school curricula are influenced by, and in many cases are the direct successors of, subjects that were formerly placed in the ‘utilitarian’, ‘vocational’ or ‘practical’ realms of the school curriculum. In England and Wales, the Education Reform Act of 1988 saw ‘technology education’ defined as one of seven core subjects.[1] The importance of design is emphasised by a National Curriculum Working Group with design & technology ‘seen as a unitary concept’, reflecting the belief that this combination has ‘the potential to provide valuable learning’.[2] In practice, design & technology education in schools is centred on the design and manufacture of an artefact that is intended to fulfil a specified purpose.[3] Design & technology education will see the student engage with concepts, processes and, in many instances, materials with a view to the achievement of an identified goal. Looking at student involvement in design from a constructivist perspective, Jonassen suggests that designing, together with problem solving and decision-making, are key elements in an ‘integrated thinking model’ centred on complex thinking skills.[4] More formally, Jonassen see the rationale for constructionism as ‘knowledge as design’, which is predicated on the concept that ‘knowledge acquisition is a process of design.’[5]

Furthermore, Jonassen asserts that

Learners become designers when they focus on the purpose for acquiring information, its underlying structure, generating model cases, and using the arguments entailed by the subject matter to justify the design.[6]

Looking at the rationale for practice in design & technology education, Lindsay[7] identifies changes in how teacher, learner and subject matter must be viewed. He advocates a move away from viewing the teacher as an information giver and a move towards seeing the teacher as a facilitator of learning. This also necessitates a move away from teacher-controlled and teacher-centred learning towards student-centred learning. Learning would also be accommodated by activities that were needs based and were process centred. Lindsay encapsulates his thinking as follows:

With the freedom to expand pupil involvement in the whole process from identification of need through to manufacture, the possibility of pupil ownership of the ideas and processes by which the artefact might be produced was realised. This would however demand a revision of classroom methods and a move away from the didactic model of teaching.[8]

While a design & technology-based approach to teaching and learning has potential to embrace many constructivist pedagogical ideals, there are some deficits in evidence when one looks at current practice. Lewis, Petrian & Hill suggest that one criticism of the ‘technological method’ or ‘design process’ is that students find these processes difficult to use as formal approaches to a task or to learning. The authors report research suggesting that the use of such methods has more to do with ‘ritual’ and ‘classroom culture’ than with the actual solving of a problem:

[T]he notion or methodologically-directed problem solving has been challenged empirically and theoretically. Methods and the choice of their adoption are context bound and situation specific. The technological method and design process frame and limit not only students work, but also the way technology educators think about design and problems in teacher education.[9]

So, while design and technology education may have a potential to facilitate critical learning and thinking in a constructivist setting, the implementation of certain pedagogies may in fact place limits on learning in that context. In effect, technological and design methods may frame and limit the way both teacher and learner thinks about design problems.[10]

Design & Education in Irish Post Primary Curricula

With the introduction of the Junior Certificate, beginning on a phased basis in 1989, syllabi for subjects such as Materials Technology (Wood), Metalwork and Junior Certificate Technology were introduced. ‘Technology’ was a new subject and the other two subjects had their syllabi revised. In particular, assessment requirements for Materials Technology (Wood) and Junior Certificate Technology engaged students in a design and manufacture process. Assessment requirements for Materials Technology (Wood) and for Technology require students to select one design task for a list of prepared tasks. (The capacity for involvement in meaningful design is much restricted within the requirements for assessment in Metalwork. Students are given detailed information regarding the artefact that they are to manufacture. Accordingly, the emphasis is on the skills of manufacture and assembly, with little emphasis on design skills.) At senior cycle, a number of syllabi contain a common preamble for subjects collectively referred to as ‘the technologies’[11]. (These subjects are: Construction Studies, Engineering, Technical Drawing and Technology.) In the preamble, technology is defined as ‘a distinct form of creative activity where human beings interact with their environments in response to needs, wants and opportunities.’[12]

The draft syllabus for the proposed subject Senior Cycle Technology states that ‘technology involves the application of scientific principles to practical problems’; problem-solving is considered to be the central process. Engaging with technology in this context ‘results in the design, manufacture and evaluation of an artefact or system.[13] The draft syllabus also identifies a ‘design-based approach’ as one of the key elements informing the approach to the subject. A simplified design process is illustrated encompassing seven primary elements:

• Identification and analysis of the problem.
• Investigation/speculation/exploration/research.
• Generation of ideas/discussions.
• Sketches, drawings, diagrams, notes, modelling.
• Selection of proposed solution/prototyping/refining.
• Making/testing/modifying.
• Evaluation/critical appraisal.
• Closing of design loop/report.[14]

The programme sees human need as the focus for student engagement. Invariably, there are many cultural factors that will influence what comes to be identified as a legitimate human need. (For example, compare the task of improving irrigation to the fields of a small farm with the design and manufacture of an artefact to store a mobile telephone and related paraphernalia).

Some Issues Arising

An examination of syllabuses, formal assessment procedures and other official documentation gives an insight into the values and priorities that inform the development of the subject. There may be evidence of dissonance between the aspirations outlined in course materials and the realities of classroom practices. This possibility is raised here as an area of further study. The concern is that the goals and objectives outlined in official course materials may take insufficient cognisance of classroom practices. The extent to which new syllabuses that rely upon pedagogies such as self-directed learning, independent research, self-evaluation and teamwork to achieve their objectives impact on day-to-day classroom practices is uncertain. However, it is only with critical evaluation of school practice and learner experiences can questions relating to the engagement of students in meaningful learning be answered with confidence. In the Irish context, there is relatively little research that looks at classroom practices and pedagogy within a design & technology education context. However, some of the general criticisms that have been levelled at formal educational provision in general can be taken to impact on design & technology education. The tasks and subjects traditionally presented to students tend to reflect a rather narrow view of human intelligence informs curriculum development. There is a failure to grant students initiative and freedom, thereby blocking intellectual curiosity. This characteristic of formal educational provision has been called ‘the single greatest constraint in Irish education’.[15] While the desire to grant greater student autonomy is addressed by way of syllabus review, there are many cultural factors that constrain significant changes in the roles played by individual teachers and learners, as well as by the school as an organisation.

Certainly, subjects with a design & technology focus do retain the potential to engage students in exploratory activities. While there is a danger that design education may concentrate on the construction of an artefact, the thought processes central to design activities are important. One element that appears to be limited is the involvement of the student in the identification of the task or problem that is to be addressed. While official syllabuses may espouse the development of critical thinking skill in students, there is insufficient research on classroom practices to suggest that the pedagogies that might realistically achieve these objectives are commonplace in classrooms.

References

Course Profile: Integrated Technology. Curriculum material funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education. URL <http://curriculum.org/occ/profiles/9/html/1POIT.htm> Accessed: 09/12/2000

Fehshaw, Peter J., ‘Science and Technology’ in Handbook of Research on Curriculum’ edited by Jackson, Philip W. (New York: Macmillan 1992) p. 819

Jonassen, David H. Computers as Mindtools for Schools (Ohio: Merrill: 2000) p. 25

Leaving Certificate Technology: Draft Syllabus. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (unpublished document) 1999 p. i

Lewis, T., Petrina, S., & Hill, A. M., ‘Problem Posing: Adding a Creative Increment to Technological Problem Solving’, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education Vol. 36 No. 1 Fall 1998
URL: < http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v36n1/lewis.html > (Accessed 11/11/00)

Lindsay, W. G., ‘Technological Education in the West of Scotland - Evolution and Revolution’,  
URL: <http://www.itim-cj.ro/rilw/RILW98/Bill2.html> (Accessed 09/12/2000)

Lynch, Kathleen, ‘Developing Abilities: What Are We Doing in Second-Level Education at Present? In Compass Vol. 17 (2) 1988 pp. 47-60

Syllabus for Junior Certificate Technology National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (Dublin: NCCA: 1990).

[15] Lynch, Kathleen, ‘Developing Abilities: What Are We Doing in Second-Level Education at Present? In Compass Vol. 17 (2) 1988 pp. 47-60