Autonomy or independence?

Today I've being reading a paper by Alan Cross and it’s reminded me of one of my bête noire learning outcomes: 'To be successful you will have worked independently to make your widget (change as appropriate)'.

It always puzzles me - what does the teacher mean by 'independent'. It could mean that you want them not to ask you questions or for help but to work it out for themselves or ask a peer: 3B4ME. Or maybe independence is about the child relying on their memory to work out what they need to do next or what decisions they have to take – a sort of recall test. 

But what I think it usually means is a combination of the two:

‘Work it out for yourself, look it up or ask someone else in the group – but not me. If you do this you have successfully met the learning outcome and you are an independent learner’

But what if the consequence of this independence is that ‘widget’ doesn’t fit together or taste right or function as it’s meant to? Where is the child’s success then? What have they learnt as a consequence of being independent? That they aren’t good enough? That they can’t do it on their own?

Constructivist learning and socially-constructed learning is a common theory of learning used by many in D&T (see Fox-Turnbull (2012)) yet this focus in D&T on independent learning undermines this theory. Which brings me back to Alan Cross' paper entitled: 'Teacher Influence on Pupil Autonomy in Primary School Design and Technology'.

Cross quotes Boud (1987), whose view of personal autonomy is '... the ability to make their own decisions about what they think and do' (italics are mine). Surely in D&T this is what we want to develop in pupils? But this cannot be done in one lesson, it is a ‘tortuous path’ to ‘total independence’ (Kimbell in Cross):

'The child will move in small steps from almost total dependence on the teacher to almost total independence...the function of the teacher...is to steer children towards the goal of independent thought and action, along the tortuous path of guided or supported freedom. '

(Kimbell 1982, p.16)

Cross goes onto say that this view is influenced by Vygostkian thinking, linked to the 'Zone of Proximal Development' (ZPD) – back to socially-constructed learning.

By linking Vygotsky's theory with socially-constructed learning I think its clear that a learning outcome for one lesson of 'you will work independently' is unrealistic. 

Effective D&T teaching should plan over time how the teacher will help the child take those 'small steps', at times with their peers or family and others with the teacher. The end-goal of this planning should be that they make their own decisions about how to make that widget function as they have decided it should do, and to autonomously decide whether they need to consult with anyone, including you or three others before you. 

References

Cross, A. 2003. Teacher Influence on Pupil Autonomy in Primary School Design and Technology'. research in Science and Technological Education. Vol 21(1), p,123-135. 

Fox-Turnbull, W. 2012. Learning in Technology. In: P. John Williams (ed). Technology Education For Teachers. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.