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.

#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

D&T in schools: its value to children today and tomorrow

Yesterday’s Ebacc announcement from Nicky Morgan could be seen as another nail in the coffin for design and technology (D&T); on top of the reducing budgets, teacher recruitment crisis and changing exam specifications this means that D&T teachers are having to defend their subject to parents, pupils, head teachers and MPs.

So why is D&T an essential part of a broad and balanced curriculum?

This seems a simple opening question to ask new trainee teachers, but it is less straightforward to answer. Even in official documents and within the D&T community there is disagreement and contention. I’ve come to the conclusion that these different perspectives about the value of D&T are part of the subject’s vibrancy, but we need to harness them into a cohesive structure that defines the value of D&T.

Defending D&T

Over the past two years I’ve interviewed people about why they think D&T is a valuable school subject. In my initial study I talked with D&T teacher trainers (people like me) and trainee D&T teachers, and from these two groups I was able to integrate their values into a list of 22 different values of D&T (in the table below).

The two groups agreed that D&T is a subject that can be of value to an individual child whilst in school and studying D&T, and when they leave school. But they also said that D&T is of value to society.

In the table I’ve split the values into two types and compared which values each group had. The two types are:

·       the value to children whilst they are at school

·       the value to children and society outside (and after) school.

I’m not claiming these values are the definitive values of D&T but they do show the variety of values people have of D&T. It also shows the different values just two groups have of D&T.

	Values	D&T teacher educators	Trainees
The value of D&T for children whilst they are at school
1	Activity of designing	✓
2	Alternative to academic subjects		✓
3	Designing for future needs and opportunities	✓	✓
4	Examination and questioning of the made world		✓
5	Freedom to take risks and experiment	✓	✓
6	Helps the understanding of human beings' position & existence	✓	✓
7	Identifying problems to be solved	✓
8	It is fun and enjoyable		✓
9	Learn from evaluating personal success and failure	✓	✓
10	Learning happens through using brains and hands together	✓	✓
11	Meaningful activity of solving real problems with real solutions	✓	✓
12	Personal ownership of decisions and actions	✓	✓
13	Provides a practical purpose for other school subjects		✓
14	Using raw materials to make a product	✓	✓
The value of D&T to children (and society) outside school and when they have left school
15	Become aware of the economic impact of technological developments	✓	✓
16	Considers the ethics of technological development	✓	✓
17	Contributes to the nation's industrial and economic competitiveness		✓
18	Develops the skill of creativity	✓	✓
19	Develops the skills of autonomy and collaboration		✓
20	Empowers society to act to improve the world	✓	✓
21	Learn practical life skills		✓
22	Learning of vocational skills and techniques that open doors to careers	✓	✓

Table 1: Comparing values of D&T teacher educators and trainee teachers by type

Using these values to defend D&T

Steve Keirl (2007) reminds us that ‘D&T teachers periodically find themselves offering some sort of defence of the subject’ (p.550) - my research could help D&T teachers, and its many advocates, celebrate D&T’s strength and defend its contribution to a school’s curriculum.

As D&T implements changes to the curriculum, GCSE and A level, I think it is important that we have continue to debate the value of D&T. This series of values could form part of that discussion and provide a framework for that debate.

In D&T departments each teacher could rate these values in order of importance and compare. Departments could discuss their agreements and disagreements. Further conversations could ask ‘How do pupils know why we think is important?’ ‘How do we show our values of D&T in our lessons? School senior leaders could also join in the discussion, comparing their values with the D&T teachers.

By understanding the values held about D&T by different groups of people, such as parents and senior leaders, we may come to a collective understanding about the many reasons why D&T should be taught in schools.

This series of values does have a limitation; currently it only represents the values of the two groups discussed here. The next version will include the opinions of others including pupils, D&T teachers, school senior leaders and parents.

References

Keirl, S., 2007. The politics of technology curriculum. In: D.Barlex, ed., Design and technology for the next generation. Whitchurch, England: Cliffeco Communications, pp. 60-73

This blog post is a shortened version of an article in Design and Technology Education: An International Journal –

Hardy, A. 2015. What’s D&T For? Gathering and Comparing the Values of Design and Technology Academics and Trainee Teachers. Vol. 20, No. 2