PATT2017 - Philadelphia

This week I've been in Philadelphia with many D&T education colleagues at the PATT2017 conference. Today I'm presenting a paper that takes a sideways look at some of my PhD data.

This research compares special interest groups’ and students’ rhetoric about the value of Design & Technology (D&T) in England, specifically in relation to learning about technology, employment and creative endeavors.

Drawing upon the Design and Technology Association (D&TA) campaigns and interviews with students, I identify the values these two ascribe to D&T. These values will be compared with the values implied in the English National Curriculum for D&T: the current version (Department of Education, 2013b) and previous iterations since its inception into the National Curriculum in 1990.

Analysis of the two groups’ values demonstrates a disparity between the two groups’ views of the value of D&T. Whilst D&TA and students concur on some values, there are noticeable differences. Generally, students place greater emphasis on D&T’s value to their everyday lives, future employment, and personal fulfillment, whereas the D&TA campaigns focus on how D&T engenders both personal and national economic benefits; creativity is valued by both groups but in different ways. These findings imply a discord between them about the contribution D&T makes to an individual’s education and future life.

By comparing the values of these two stakeholder groups, who have no direct power to influence the enactment of government policy (Williams, 2007), this research provides an insight to some of the potential divergences that may occur as D&T teachers, who do have the power, interpret the National Curriculum using D&TA’s materials to advocate the value of D&T to their students. This research could help other special interest groups explore how D&T is valued and how they lobby government for future curriculum change.

The next stage to this study is to explore how the D&TA’s rhetoric about D&T, and the values discovered in this study, are enacted in classrooms.

Engineering =/= D&T

Last night I was out for dinner with two other Brunel alumni, Steve Bicknell and Jason Ward. During the evening we had several heated exchanges about the name of D&T, branding and marketing D&T, what the point of D&T was and so on. Jason was advocating the integration of ‘engineering’ into his department’s title, Steve felt ‘design’ was at the heart of D&T, whilst I was distracted by Twitter (those who know me will not be surprised by this) and saw Jim Smith’s timely tweet:

@nohandsup @hardy_alison @iamparksy the future is bleak. The technical awards will have a negative impact. Engineering is key to growth.

— Jim Smith (@jim1982) November 25, 2016

Jim, Steve Parkinson and Steve Charleston and me were having a Twitter conversation about why only 41% of ITT D&T places had been filled this year.

When Jim asked why I disagreed with his assertion that ‘Engineering is the way forward’ my response was somewhat cryptic:  

@jim1982 @nohandsup @iamparksy simplitstically:
engineering = exclusive
design and technology = inclusive

— Alison Hardy (@hardy_alison) November 26, 2016

Explaining why I think this in 140 characters is difficult so this is my quick reply.

I'm going to give two reasons for why engineering excludes some students and D&T includes all students:

• Firstly a name is symbolic. ‘Engineering' is linked to a vocation, career and profession. No subject on the curriculum has the title of a vocation within it (I’m talking about ‘subjects’ not ‘qualifications’). It is implicit that children do not study geography to become a geographer - the value of the subject lies in the purpose of learning about geography. For me, this is equally true for D&T - the value of D&T lies in what children should be taught in D&T. (Rather than exploring that here I suggest you look at David and Torben’s posts about curriculum and chapters from ‘D&T for the Next Generation’). I’ve written before about the name of D&T - I think the Working Party got it right in 1988 and I still think the argument stands.
• Secondly - focussing on engineering in D&T, whether by changing the name, content or purpose, implies the dominant purpose of education is prepare young people for the a job. In my opinion preparing young people for the world of work is part of education's purpose but not the main purpose.

Engineering is a profession and a career, with opportunities for young people to enter with from different education routes, such as a degree, an A level, or apprenticeship. Only some young people will take this career route, others will venture into arts, finance, design, service industries and so on. If D&T is relabelled with  ‘Engineering’ or its main purpose becomes to prepare young people for a role in engineering then we are excluding some young people sat in D&T lessons.

My heart sinks when I hear D&T teachers say to their students - 'this [knowledge/skill] will be important to you when you become an engineer’ - the vast majority of students in a class will not become an engineer. The language excludes those who will not become engineers from the lesson. I appreciate there is a deficit between engineers needed and engineers in training but even if there wasn’t, there are still other jobs needed by society and the economy - so how is D&T relevant for the young people who fill these non-engineering jobs?

The challenge is to define what the purpose of D&T is as part of a general education for all pupils. I strongly believe that D&T is a fundamental part of a child’s general education; in fact I presented five reasons why D&T is part of a general education in January 2014 for TeachDesign.

Changing D&T's name, focussing on careers or emphasising its purpose and content in relation to engineering is not the way forward in my opinion. 

I've looked at my PhD findings to see what others said the purpose of D&T was.

I conducted 22 interviews for my PhD  to find out what different people thought the value of D&T was and found 30 different reasons in their responses!

Only 13/22 mentioned D&T prepared young people for a D&T-related job. If you believe the purpose of D&T is to prepare them for a D&T-related career you might say this is a sad indictment of the subject.

14/22 thought a purpose of D&T was because in D&T pupils develop a critical understanding about how the design and manufacture of products impacts on themselves and others.

The most common reason given for D&T’s purpose was that pupils learnt skills to help them look after themselves, their home and family.

All publicity is good - right?

Recently there has been a couple of articles about D&T, and whilst its great to see D&T getting a mention after much sidelining (and ignorance) from the media, I do have some reservations.

Last year I wrote an article for The Conversation about the ongoing decline in GCSE D&T entries, which Ross McGill (@TeacherToolkit) eloquently follows up this year highlighting the further decline in numbers. Unfortunately the Schools Week headline misrepresents Ross’ arguments but Ross swiftly corrects in the ‘comments’ section.

Steve Parkinson (@iamparksy), new Assistant Head at UTC Leeds and D&T teacher, explains the five changes to the GCSE D&T: contexts not briefs, appropriate materials not silos, emerging technologies (great blogging by David Barlex and Torbeen Steeg about these), iterative design and equal balance between exam and NEA. Perfectly summarised by Steve. Good D&T teachers and departments will have been doing the first four of these for years.

But it is yesterday’s article that set my alarm bells ringing: 87 MPs demand inclusion of subject in EBacc as a science option. And this makes me twitch for two reasons.

Firstly D&T is not a science subject (nor an art subject for that matter). Whilst this confuses some who want to pigeon-hole knowledge into disciplines, in my opinion it is a strength of D&T. It is a subject that draws on other subjects disciplinary knowledge and uses it to inform design thinking, the appropriate selection materials and understanding contexts, as well as enabling us to consider how and why we might make use of emerging technologies. 

Secondly the letter claims that ‘bolstering the Design and Technology GCSE with inclusion in the EBacc [would be] an important step towards addressing the skills shortage’ - really? This causal link between D&T (and its earlier subject forms),  science and IT has been repeatedly made since the 1962 Crowther Report and Harold Wilson’s technological revolution speech in 1964 (MacCulloch, Jenkins and Layton 1985) yet in all of my literature searching for my PhD I have yet to find any empirical evidence for this. This is not say that there is no correlation (easier to claim than causation) but the MPs claim puts D&T in a conundrum - is GCSE D&T part of a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils? Or is it a specialist qualification for those who want to work in design, manufacturing and engineering industries. 

Whilst considering the MPs letter it is important to remember why the Ebacc exists - three reasons were given but the one relevant here is that the Ebacc gives all pupils access to a broad and academic curriculum (Education Select Committee 2011). The five ‘subjects’ have been set put as providing the essential knowledge all pupils need a part of a general education - an education for all. But the letter justifies GCSE D&T being part of the Ebacc because it will address a skills gap in 'design, manufacturing and engineering’ industries. The implicit argument for GCSE D&T's inclusion is that it will equip young people for jobs in these industries. But not all pupils want to work in these industries, nor does the UK need them to. Therefore the argument for including D&T in the Ebacc is that it is a ‘specialist’ qualification - for some not for all - which is not what the Ebacc is set up to do.

In my view GCSE D&T cannot do both and be in the Ebacc. For me D&T is an essential part of a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils, some of whom may go on to D&T-related occupations. Before we get to excited about the (remote) possibility of GCSE D&T in the Ebac we need to decide and agree what the purpose of D&T is. Maybe this could be a start for the discussion:

D&T’s unique contribution to pupils’ learning is developing their ‘capability to operate effectively and creatively in the made world’ (Parkes Report 1988, p.3)

or you might find this blogpost a useful starting point: What's the point of D&T?

References

Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1988. National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group Interim Report [The Parkes Report]. London: DES.

Education Select Committee, 2011.  The English Baccalaureate. London: House of Commons

McCulloch, G., Jenkins, E.W. and Layton, D., 1985. Technological revolution?: The politics of school science and technology in England and Wales since 1945. Routledge.

#ACRE2016 - abstract accepted: Rhetoric and policy: the values stakeholders attribute to curriculum subjects

Last year I presented at the Edge Hill University Annual Conference for Research in Education, which I thoroughly enjoyed - great key note speakers, making new friends and catching up with old friends. This year the topic, values in education, meshes beautifully with my PhD thesis about the value different people ascribe to design and technology.

This research is important to me as the changes to school measures and the new curriculum begins to be implemented. The conference gave me an opportunity to explore a different angle to my research, I was curious about how government ministers talk about D&T compared with what D&T teachers. I think its important for others to help them understand the tensions between policy that affects D&T and how teachers feel their subject, which they are passionate about, is affected.

My title, abstract and references are below:

Rhetoric and policy: the values stakeholders attribute to curriculum subjects

As recent changes to curriculum policy (DfE 2014) begin to be implemented in schools this research compares government ministers’ and school teachers’ rhetoric about the value of design and technology (D&T), a curriculum subject significantly affected by these changes (Hardy 2015).

A range of factors contributes to the interpretation and enactment of policy (Maguire, Braun and Ball 2015), including a teacher’s values (Priestly, Edwards and Priestly 2012). Drawing upon government ministers’ speeches and interviews with teachers, I identify the values ascribed to D&T by these two stakeholder groups. These values were compared with two sections of the National Curriculum: firstly the National Curriculum’s overarching aims, and secondly the purpose and aims of D&T (DfE 2014).

Following the analysis of the two groups’ values using the two National Curriculum aims as a framework (DfE 2014), I demonstrate a disparity between the two groups’ views of the value of education. Comparison with the D&T National Curriculum reveals that teachers and ministers advocate some of the values ascribed to D&T in the National Curriculum, but there are noticeable differences. Generally, teachers place greater emphasis on D&T’s value to pupils’ learning and development in school, whereas ministers focus on how D&T engenders both personal and national economic benefit. I suggest that these findings imply a discord between these two key stakeholders about the contribution D&T makes to the whole curriculum and a pupil’s education.

By comparing the positionality and political perspectives revealed in the rhetoric of government ministers and teachers about one subject, this research provides a new approach to anticipating different interpretations on curriculum policy. It also offers a way for exploring how different stakeholders value other school subjects and education; it could help those involved in other marginalised subjects explore how policy makers and class teachers value the subject.

The next stage to this study is to explore how the government’s rhetoric about the new curriculum, and the values discovered in this study, are enacted in classrooms.

It also needs to be resolved what the source of stakeholders’ values of school subjects. Eccles and Wigfield  (2002) have demonstrated that a person’s experiences and parental influence shape their values towards subjects such as maths and science; the next stage is to examine whether this is true for other subjects, including D&T.

References

DfE, 2014. National Curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4. London: Department for Education.

Eccles, J.S., and Wigfield, A., 2002. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-132.

Hardy, A., 2015. Why has the number of teenagers taking design and technology GCSE dropped? Available at: http://bit.ly/1JtlOY7 [Accessed 6/2/16]

Maguire, M., Braun, A., and Ball, S., 2015. ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: the social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Policies of Education, 2015. Vol. 36 (4), 485-499.

Priestly, M., Edwards, R., Priestly, A., and Miller, K., 2012. Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making: Agents of Changes and Spaces for Manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, Vol 42 (2), 191-214.

Thanks to Jennifer Jones for the idea for this blogpost

Why universities should take notice to what’s happening at GCSE level in schools: the fly, the spider and the bird

Universities have a key role to play in the secondary school curriculum; with recent announcements about the Ebacc, schools feeling the financial pinch and difficulties in teacher training recruitment I think its essential that they engage with what is happening in schools at subject level. These are my views about the perfect storm that design and technology is findings itself in and what the consequences of this might be at HE level. 

Applying to any course students must have some prior experience or qualification. It’s rather like the old lady who swallowed a menagerie to catch a fly:

• To apply to a design related degree they (usually) must be studying a design-related A level, such as D&T, and have a portfolio to bring to interview (the bird);
• To study A level D&T they (usually) must have studied GCSE D&T an achieved a C grade or above (the spider);
• To study GCSE D&T year 9 pupils must have achieved a certain mark/ behaved in a particular way/ shown a clear aptitude for D&T (the fly).

Although in this situation nothing is being swallowed, but a lack of nourishment could lead to extinction or at least being placed on an endangered list.

The fly

The GCSE D&T ‘fly’ is caught in a perfect storm.

• As was reported in the summer, there has been a dramatic and steady decline in the number of pupils studying D&T at GCSE since 2004. At the time I didn't think the changes to league table measures and the introduction of the Ebacc were a reason for this. but after Nicky Morgan set the target that 90% of pupils will be studying the Ebacc I've changed my mind.
• D&T is not part of the Ebacc (a measure of success for schools and pupils), along with other creative subjects including art and design, music and drama.
• School budgets are being cut and D&T is expensive.
• The national data on pupils’ achievement in D&T, as reported by Diana Choulerton in the summer, reveals that pupils’ achievement in D&T is below of that made in other subjects.
• Recruitment of trainee D&T teachers has been dire this year.

So with no teachers to teach it, no money to teach it, low achievement rates and it’s not part of the new ‘measuring system’ the situation for the fly is looking rather dire.

The spider

With the potential of less pupils studying D&T at GCSE, there will be fewer pupils who are qualified to study A level D&T.

I’m already picking up from D&T teachers that schools are cutting A level D&T from their curriculum, even though the results from these departments is outstanding. 

Not all applicants will study A levels, some will have BTECs, usually studied at further education (FE) colleges. Recent news items about FE’s funding crisis could impact on this route into HE design and creative courses.

The bird

In 2012/13 8.9% of undergraduates were enrolled on a Creative Arts and Design degree. Within this broad category are courses such as product design, fashion, architecture and computer gaming design, many of which  that do require either A level D&T and/or a portfolio to be brought along to interview.

With no A level D&T or portfolio from the coursework this bird could develop some characteristics akin to a dodo. But then these are the creative subjects and they should have a creative solution.

I think it’s time that universities began to look more closely at the potentially far reaching impact of the Ebacc focus in schools, even though these pupils are more than four years away from entering university.

Possible next steps:

• Lobby government via a number of campaigns ‘Bacc for the future’ and ‘Designed and Made in Britain...?’ :

• Get involved in schools, link u with D&T departments;

• Advise on D&T curriculum developments;

• Encourage your undergraduates to Get into Teaching.

Numbers taking GCSE D&T continue to decline - why?

Why has the number of teenagers taking design and technology GCSE dropped?

Alison Hardy, Nottingham Trent University

There has been a worrying decline in recent years in the number of teenagers opting to take design and technology (D&T) at GCSE. While the results of exams in maths, English and science lead the headlines, other, more practical subjects rarely get a mention – even though they are falling towards a crisis.

D&T GCSE entries are down yet again this year. Since 2000, when D&T stopped being a compulsory GCSE subject, there has been a steady decline in the number of pupils achieving a GCSE in the subject.

Once D&T was the most popular optional subject at GCSE, now it is less popular than religious studies, history and geography and with the ascendancy of computing and art and design (which is separate from D&T). Who knows where it might be in 2016?

Some D&T teachers have argued that entry numbers are falling because of the focus on the Ebacc – a performance measure that requires students to take five core GCSE subjects including maths and a science.

But that doesn’t stack up. The downward trend has been happening for more than ten years and other non-Ebacc subjects have not suffered a decline. This year religious studies has nearly 300,000 entries, its highest level since 2002 and music was up by 2.2% to nearly 50,000.

Another possible explanation is how well pupils do in D&T. Diana Choulerton, lead inspector for the subject, reported that typically higher ability pupils make less progress in D&T than most other subjects. As schools are now measured on a pupils' progress in eight subjects, there is a pressure on school leaders to guide pupils to choose GCSE subjects where they will do well – and avoid D&T.

Not just cushion covers and bird boxes

One of the problems it that D&T has an image problem. Is it a practical subject, teaching life skills? A vocational subject? Or is it an academic subject?

It only became known as D&T in 1990 with the introduction of the National Curriculum. Before then it comprised several subjects including cooking, dressmaking, technical drawing, woodwork and metalwork, where children made bird boxes, cushion covers and scones. However, some schools made strides to change this by teaching home economics and craft, design and technology.

My recent research shows there continues to be significant confusion as to the purpose of the subject. Today many parents and adults still see D&T as this practical life-skills subject, and in some schools children are making the same things their parents made at school.

Parents see it as a non-academic subject that doesn’t belong alongside subjects such as science, history, and languages. And this is one the biggest challenges facing D&T: in some schools it hasn’t evolved into a modern subject, fit for the 21st century.

I wrote this article earlier in the week for The Conversation. It only summarises a few of the reasons why the numbers have dropped - it is complex but I think these are the headlines - what do you think?

Does D&T matter?

Both the Royal Academy of Engineers and the Design Council consider D&T to be a vital subject for growth in their industries. The need for those with science, technology, engineering and maths qualifications is regularly in the news and high on the government’s agenda. Companies such as the James Dyson Foundation are trying to influence what is taught in D&T lessons.

Yet the current GCSE is still a disjointed subject made up of different GCSE strands which are described by the materials the pupils use in the lessons: such as food technology, textiles technology, electronic products or resistant materials.

But from 2017, there will be a new D&T GCSE taught in schools. In this reformed “single title” GCSE – which won’t be split up into the different strands – pupils will learn how to use a broader range of materials than they do currently, where they primarily use only their one chosen category of material, such as textiles.

There will also be a brand new food preparation and nutrition GCSE, taught as a life-skill and preparation for a career in the food industry. D&T will be a qualification that provides children with an understanding about how they can bring about change in the world through good design. It will also be an essential qualification for careers and work-related skills, not just life skills.

However, the reduction in school budgets could scupper this attempt to solve the subject’s image problem. D&T is an expensive subject, and the materials, machines and equipment schools need are comparable in cost to science subjects. For a headteacher who is between a rock (league tables) and a hard place (reduced budgets), D&T is an easy target for cuts.

In this context, D&T teachers need to radically rethink what they teach. The new GCSE means that children could be designing products that address modern issues related to health, developing communities and protecting people, using robotics and smart materials. A challenge – but D&T teachers are creative. Hopefully this means we will see an end to the bird box and cushion cover.

David Barlex, educational consultant, and director for design and technology at the Nuffield Foundation, provided advice for this article.

Alison Hardy is Lecturer in Design and Technology Education at Nottingham Trent University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Four scenarios for D&T in 2025

Tomorrow Matt McLain and I are giving a brief presentation about what excellent D&T might look like in 2025 at The Edge Foundation. We don't claim to have the answers but our presentation will hopefully stimulate some fruitful discussion amongst the delegates.
We've created four possible scenarios for D&T in 2025. You might see them as extreme, unlikely, intriguing or predictable, but they are just our ideas (and only that - there are no hidden agendas - we are only speculating). We hope we've been provocative and would be interested to hear what others think.
Do you agree with our 'either/or'? Ours are 'D&T would be available for some/ D&T would be available for all' and 'Established technology/ emerging technology'.
What about the scenario labels? Do they 'fit' the description?
The Edge Foundation will be publishing a report with a summary of this event and other similar ones they are also running.

Fixers, geeks and developers (top left)

In this scenario the subject is about high tech and emerging technologies that only a few selected pupils have access to. In some schools only a handful of pupils do D&T, in others it is all of the pupils in that school.
In the D&T rooms there will be minimal traditional hands-on learning activity; much of the classwork is done using simulations and computers to model their solutions. Computer science has become a subsidiary of D&T because it has been recognised that D&T develops design thinking skills, whereas computer science has a narrow focus.
Some of the work uses design thinking and creativity, investigating practical purposes for new technologies, but primarily the lessons are about using and learning how to use the new technologies.
For the higher ability pupils, who were previously underachieving in D&T, they have either been ‘selected’ or have chosen to do this 'emerging technology' based D&T and they know how this subject will play an important role in their future education choices - D&T has become a gate-keeper to higher education engineering/ health-design/ interactive design courses*.  These pupils are heading towards degrees and engineering, high-tech work. In some excellent D&T departments they are also considering the user, how will people use these new technologies.
For some pupils this D&T will prepare them for careers through a vocational and technical route, leading to them becoming technicians and ‘fixers’.
Primarily this excellent D&T will meet address the economic argument for education. Unfortunately it will mean that because so few pupils do the subject then the loss to society will be the limited number of pupils who are able be democratically** active when the effect of emerging technologies is debated. Also the cultural and social arguments will not be met by D&T through the pupils who study it. 
*Health design and fashion- health courses are new HE degrees combining the Internet of Things with integrated technologies, particularly using textiles. This is a growing area in industry, combining the UK’s creative industries strength in fashion, textiles and programming.
** See my article in TeachDesign (issue 2, pages 5-7) explaining the five arguments for D&T.

Hackers, crafters and tinkerers (bottom left)

D&T is still based on established technologies and processes from the previous decades. However this is recognised as a necessity for society - that some people know how to use these traditional skills, such as 3D printing, laser cutting, using sewing machines and other (very traditional) hand tools. This is partly because of the resurgence of the need for people to make things. We have become so disjointed from the manufacture that this subject now meets the needs of society to ‘craft’, to be in touch with the resources and to make personal decisions.
Here only a select few pupils do D&T, again some have been chosen whilst others have self-opted. The subject has a closer relationship with Art and Design but focusses more on the human needs and practical function that A&D. Pupils who do D&T in this scenario are becoming equipped for self-sufficiency but more than that they are the future entrepreneurs, enabled to meet local needs. They will go to hackspaces, even run them, and also be mobile technicians.
This excellent D&T is about 'inquisitive, creative, practical pursuits'.
Some who do this excellent D&T will still be needed to work using ‘old’ technology and be also able to produce low-technology one-off products.This is where one form of disruptive technology has gone***.
However some might see this as a subject where low ability children can go to be ‘minded’.
A progression from this D&T might be to local industry.
This form of D&T responds to the social argument for D&T education, which is that making products/ items is a social activity, whether we are doing it with someone else (a hackspace) or for someone else (a crafter making unique items to order and fit for a specific person).
*** See Barlex, D. & Stevens, M. (2012 Making by printing – disruption inside and outside school? in Thomas Ginner, Jonas Helstrom and Magnus Hulten (Eds) Technology Education in the 21st Century Proceedings of the PATT 26 Conference 2012, 64 – 73, Stockholm, Linkoping University  available here for more about Disruptive Technologies and 3D printers.

Fab-labers (top right)

In this scenario D&T is available for all and its content is around emerging technologies and the implications of these new technologies on society.
Because all children have a right to be taught this D&T and schools to ensure that every child can study it in their own school, its clearly a subject of high status and value for all, pupils and society. This means that the curriculum is quite diverse, which does challenge teachers but these teachers have been trained in a breadth and not a depth (although some of them will have depth in relevant subject content). In a similar way to the 'fixers geeks and developers' learning spaces there is little here that involves practical hands-on making. In this scenario much of the work is virtual and conceptual. This is a subject that not only makes use of the content from other school subjects**** .
D&T is a subject that thrives on debate in the classroom; pupils develop the skills of critical thinking and argument, where they discus the ethics of new designs, consider the changes to society, locally, nationally and globally and tend to be involved in making design decisions about systems rather than products. The learning space is democratic and there are ‘teaching machines’ used when specialist content is needed about the emerging technologies.  
Pupils are also learning to appreciate and critique designed products and systems, making judgements using their developing moral and ethical ‘compasses’.
In this scenario D&T is supporting the democratic and cultural arguments of education, as well as the economic but in a different way to the fixers etc. Pupils who do this type of D&T are able to apply their design thinking skills to a wide variety of employment situations. 
**** Including, but not exclusive to: geography, computer science (which is now very vocational and only available to some pupils), science and physical health (Physical health has replaced PE and is for all pupils; it has been developed in response to the growing obesity problem and ageing population. Cooking and nutrition also are part of this new subject. PE has become a specialist minority subject for selected pupils identified as having high levels of ability and aspiration in competitive sport).

Menders (bottom right)

Established technologies are dominant in the menders learning spaces. On first view this excellent D&T does now appear to be about global issues or the economy, initially it appears to be about preparing for domestic home life. They learn to use tools, equipment and processes. The subject content is around the home, and pupils learn processes needed for the home and family life (reminiscent of the 2013 ‘make do and mend’ D&T curriculum). Very little here relates to the emerging technologies that they will see in most of their work places.
However this excellent D&T is important. As society and governments became more mindful how resources were being depleted (cf Cradle to Cradle) there has become more interest in reusing, recycling, up cycling etc at home. It is seen that by equipping young people with these domestic, practical life skills then some of the (no longer) imminent resource depletion crises could be addressed by D&T. (And yes you guessed it - horticulture has finally found its way into D&T!)
In a ‘low level’ way D&T is addressing the global issue of sustainability. This is sustainable education.
D&T is responding to the democratic and social arguments of D&T, with a long term potential impact on the economy.

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.

Publishing & reading D&T research in the UK: where next?

Eddie Norman is asked a number of pertinent questions in his blogpost last month, here I will attempt to answer some. Feel free to comment below, Tweet to me, or email with your thoughts and ideas; standing still at the fork in the road is not an option. 

I want to respond to Eddie's questions at the end of his blogpost:

However, who in England (apart from the teacher training survivors in HE) is now conducting research in D&T? And who is reading about the research that has been completed? It has to be time for some serious discussions and meetings of minds, or where will the tradition that John Eggleston started and many have supported go next?

1. What is currently happening in education research that involves teachers?

There are two parts to consider here: where is the research being shared and who is generating it?

Social media users will be familiar with the surgency of Teachmeets and ResearchEd, two movements that I believe are filling gaps created by the decline in HEIs involvement in teacher training and education research, and funding for CPD in schools. 

Teachmeets are fun, interactive and a place to learn new tips and ideas for use in the classroom but very few of the ideas shared are based in rigorous research. ResearchEd's focus is on 'working out what works' in education research; still embryonic in some ways but rapidly growing, gaining voice and authority as it helps teachers make sense of the plethora of education research. Its maybe too early to measure their impact but there is a groundswell of support for them - they are teacher driven, immediate and practical aligning to John Eggleston's call for research that is 'immediate, practical and relevant'.

These two are about sharing education research but where is the research coming from? I think there are three worth considering here. Firstly most university trained teachers now have the opportunity to achieve Masters credits, which will have come from them probably conducting research about their own practice and usually involves action research. Secondly schools are receiving funds for research from the DfE and organisations such as EEF to try out and test ideas. Thirdly there are teachers completing their Masters, groups of like-minded teachers getting together formally and informally in schools, sometimes working with university lecturers, to question and explore what is happening in the classroom. But where does this research go? Where is it published, interrogated and shared?

2. What  is happening in D&T education research?

This week I am attending PATT29 in Marseille listening to over sixty papers presented by researchers (teachers, academics, postgraduate students) from all over the world; all of these papers are about design and technology education in pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary and higher education. Twelve papers are presented by UK based researchers with twenty different named authors. But how many UK D&T teachers know this is happening? Unless you're one of the four teacher-authors or have been following my #patt29 on Twitter you probably don't. You're missing out on some great stuff and I would encourage anyone to access them when they are made freely available on the ITEEA website; the papers have involved pupils, D&T teachers, trainee D&T teachers and senior school leaders, with some great ideas to help D&T teachers in the classroom; ranging from thinking about the history and possible future of food teaching in schools, why pupils should talk about robots in D&T, how demonstrations are used in D&T lessons, global perspectives in D&T, and so on - inspiring. And I haven't mentioned the other 51 papers from places such as Sweden, NZ, Canada, South Africa, Israel and France. 

As I wrote in my comment on Eddie's post, there is also local, small scale, classroom based research happening by D&T practitioners (teachers on MA courses and those who are studying for their PGCE/BSc in D&T ed) but what happens to this work - who hears about it? Their departments, peers and family is the probable answer. This is where I think Teachmeets and ResearchEd have captured teachers' imagination - its quick  and accessible; getting your work published in peer reviewed journals is time consuming, mentally challenging and can seem complex to the uninitiated - if you're a teacher is it worth the effort? Yes. One way a subject gains and retains its credibility is through sharing its research. Research needs to be read, critiqued and used in the classroom or to inform policy. 

So we have the research being done and there are potential traditional (such as DATE:IJ) and new (Teachmeets and ResearchEd) research outlets so how can these be brought together? And who will read the research?

3. What of the future?

This is where my thinking is still developing, I can only consider scenarios and possibilities that I'm happy to discuss, explore & throw away.

Firstly I think it's important to keep the DATE:IJ open access (I.e. Free) but it needs more promotion both by those who publish it and those who feature in it. I'm not sure many D&T teachers even know it exists.  As I wrote in my comment: some work needs to be done to see who reads it now and then social media used to share the research, A quick look on Twitter and I have a list of over 200 D&T teachers who are on Twitter with maybe another 100 D&T departments using it to share their students' work, on Facebook there are 2522 members of the D&T teacher group, D&TA's Facebook page has 3000+ likes - surely this network can be used to promote and share the D&T research?

Secondly I think the research can be inaccessible. The advice we give to students is 'read the abstract to check if it's useful for you' but so many abstracts are inaccessible to not only trainee teachers but also academics. Maybe a synopsis of the research could be published on a Facebook page or blog?

Thirdly face to face sharing is important but where is this done in the UK? With no UK D&T research conference or space at the D&T events there is no outlet for this. Maybe a new approach is needed and the teachmeet, researched or three-minute thesis models could be used at the D&TA and TeachDesign conferences?

I know the impact the research I have read and done has had on my teaching both in schools and higher education, I thrive on the mental stimulation it gives me as I question why and how, so this post is written from a selfish position. I believe in the importance D&T to pupils and society but I particularly value good D&T and I believe D&T is good, and can be even better, if we carry out, publish, read and use research. Eddie's questions must be debated as D&T and teacher training in England goes through significant changes.