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.   

Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School?

A good read for trainee and early career D&T teachers.
(reblogged from our department blog)

Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School
(Third edition published May 21st 2015)

A new version of this core text used in teacher training and D&T departments is to be published on May 21st 2015. Edited by Gwyneth Owen-Jackson, this updated book has chapters jointly authored by Sarah Davies and me, Alison Hardy, both of us senior lecturers in NTU's School of Education. 

Building on our innovation and research in the fields of D&T, technology-enhanced learning and pedagogy we have written two chapters: Preparing to teach with digital technologies and Planning to teach design and technology. Graduates from D&T at NTU who have been taught by us will recognise many of the ideas in these chapters, and some new ones. In the chapter Preparing to teach with digital technologies you will find ideas how to:

• incorporated digital technologies into teaching in design and technology, 
• plan for their effective use
• develop learning in design and technology using digital technologies
• assess pupils use of digital technologies
• evaluate the benefits and challenges associated with using digital technologies within your teaching. 

The second chapter by us, Planning to teach design and technology, suggests new ways to plan a D&T curriculum, breaking it down into three approaches: mainly designing, mainly making and designing and making. In many ways this isn't new but we've suggested how lessons might look if you plan schemes of work with only one of these focusses. Recent graduates from the undergraduate D&T route will recognise these terms as it is also the structure of their course, reflecting the team at NTU's philosophy to teaching D&T. Additionally we discuss ideas for:

• different teaching approaches suitable for D&T;
• activities that explore technology’s impact on society
• classroom management strategies for practical work
• how to collaborate with support staff
• ways to motivate and engage pupils in D&T.

There is also a new chapter written by good friends and colleagues David Barlex, Torben Steeg and Nick Given about Disruptive Technologies - a timely addition that I think will challenge many D&T teachers to think about their curriculum.

If you are interested in purchasing this book (we don't get royalties!) there is a 20% discount via the Routledge website (code IRK69*).

*This 20% discount is only available to individuals purchasing through our website, until 31st December 2015, and cannot be combined with any other offer or discount.

What is 3D printed textiles?

Laura Cooper, a second year student on the BSc (Hons) Secondary D&T Education, gave a excellent presentation on Monday afternoon about 3D textiles that has received little mention in D&T. Below is a brief synopsis of her talk using images, videos and links she shared with the audience.

Laura's presentation is part of a series led by our students and visitors are welcome to attend. Details of the next two can be found at the end of this post.

Defining 3D printed textiles

3 D printing involves 2D layering a material, usually a plastic, to create a 3D shape. This can be done using a 3D printer where the layers are created using a nozzle that ejects the plastic or selective laser sintering (Figure 1) where layers of powder are fused together with a laser (this is a form of rapid prototyping). These processes allows for complex shapes to be manufactured that are already interlinked rather than individual pieces being made and joining afterwards – a form of chain mail.

Figure 1: interlocking sections designed by Bradley Rothenburg

(Image from http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/10/31/3d-printed-textiles-bradley-rothenberg/)

3D printing with textiles also removes the need for seams and by using a body scanner it has the potential to produce clothing items which fit your body perfectly - assuming this is what we want!

Figure 2: the process of selective laser printing

 (Image from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_melting#Materials)

What’s happening now with 3D printing? The current position

In 2013 the fashion designer Iris van Herpen and architect Professor Neri Oxman designed a cat walk 3D printed item (Figure 3) which demonstrated the versatility of intricate shapes that can be designed using a 3D printer.

Figure 3:Cat walk design by Iris van Herpen and Professor Neri Oxman

(Image from http://www.tedxamsterdam.com/2013/07/3d-printing-the-face-of-future-fashion/)

One of the properties most important in designing garments is the fluidity and flexibility of the materials; some designers from Nervous System have begun to resolve the problems with 3D printers producing very rigid materials by looking at how things can be interlinked.

Another restriction with traditionally produced 3D products is that their size is limited by the printer bed's dimensions. Nervous System resolved this by using a physics computer modelling to have the garment made as a 'crumpled' dress rather than the more traditional idea of being cut out flat (figure 4).

Figure 4: maximising the size of the printer bed

(Image from http://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/blog/?p=6280)

This does begin to push the scope of what is a textile, given that currently most of the designs seem to be made using a plastic but in a more rigid form than might be commonly seen in fashion design.

How might it be in the future?

Joshua Harris has begun to think of a future scenario where we all might have a 3D printer in our home; Barlex and Stevens (2012) have also considered this as a disruptive technology. In this situation with one in our home he imagines the process could be this;

1.  Select clothing designs from a catalogue and purchase the design drawing file, which is sent to you for downloading.

2.  Buy cartridges to print out your clothes using cotton.

3.  Have your body scanned to capture your individual measurements.

4.  Before going to bed select your outfit for the next day, overnight the printer makes your clothes (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Choosing your outfit (step 4)

(Image from http://www.3ders.org/articles/20130315-making-clothes-at-home-with-your-3d-clothing-printer.html)

5.  Next morning you leave the house in your ‘new’ clothes that fit you perfectly

6.  Come home and if you don’t want to wear them again, shred and recycle the cotton ready for making new clothes tomorrow.

What might be some implications of this 'disruptive technology'?

These are some question posed by Laura in the session that are a good starting point for discussion in D&T lessons.

•      If designers are selling the designs and cartridges, what happens to our high street stores? Jobs lost?

•      From own experience I don’t buy clothes to fit exact. Buy larger clothes to change the style of an outfit. Does entering our measurements hinder the individuality of a person?

•      What about the option of buying clothes as a gift for someone's birthday? Would we have to carry around a book of measurements of close family and friends on the off chance we want to surprise them with a garment for their birthday?

•      If you’ve paid for the design will this always be available to you? If so will the consumers build up a catalogue of garments and never need to purchase a design again?

Further into the future

Scientists have begun to investigate how silk worms ‘3D print’ silk fabric with the idea of mimicking this in the design of a new 3D textile printer – biomimicry in action (see video below).

SILK PAVILION from Mediated Matter Group on Vimeo.

Finally - The next stage of Laura's work is to suggest how this topic can be used within a series of D&T lessons, with the hope that she might be able to use some when on school placement next year.

Next presentations:
Monday 19th January - Cultured meat
Monday 26th January - Biomimicry
Both start at 4pm in Maudslay 222, City Campus, Nottingham Trent University, NG1 4BU

If you would like to attend or want some further information please drop me an email: alison.hardy@ntu.ac.uk

Reference
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

Iterative Design: what does it mean?

There's a new phrase in town - 'iterative design' - its in the 2013 D&T curriculum and it must be new because you can attend a CPD course about it. But what does it mean?

Eddie Norman has written an insightful post about it, the key point for me is that the wording in the National Curriculum is wrong, its not 'the iterative design process' but an approach to design within the activities of designing.

Last year a trainee D&T teacher of mine conducted a small research project investigating how she might interpret the term ‘iterative design’ for use in her own classroom practice. She ended up using the Design Council’s Double Diamond as her framework for planning the students’ design activity. Although the Design Council original is as an amalgamation of eleven companies different approaches to managing design in four phases (discover, define, develop and deliver) Emma used mini-double diamonds that were subsets of the whole project. For example the first stage could be to generate design ideas (discover), then refine this to one or two ideas (define), next asking for feedback from peers (develop) and the pupil finishes by their refining ideas through modelling using the feedback (deliver). Emma’s work suggests that the four steps can be used iteratively at a small level within a design and make activity, rather than only for use at a more macro level with the four stages representing the whole process from design to realisation, which is how it is presented in the Design Council paper. 

I think these four stages align with some aspects of ideas suggested from Ken Baynes and Tim Brown in Eddie's post. Personally I respond to the idea of at each step an opening out (exploring/ discover/ develop) and then the focussing through modelling (testing/ experimenting/ define/ deliver), rather than the implication of the word ‘iterative’ where I might just keep going around in circles!

Reflection of my practice: an example of reflection in practice

An aspect of training to be a teacher is becoming a reflective teacher  (Pollard 2014), and as I’ve just started my first round of subject tutor visits its something that is becoming apparent that students are findings difficult. I think there are two primary reasons for them not doing it:

• Firstly getting in the classroom is the most pressured issue for them: tomorrow morning at 8.50 that year 9 group will be there ready for teaching regardless of whether you’ve done your reflection!
• Secondly, reflecting on your practice is hard, and if they’re like me, students will avoid it because it is so hard and at this stage seeing why it would help them is difficult (taking me back to the first point) – so lets not bother!

So yesterday I began to think about what I could do differently to help them engage with reflecting on their practice - I can’t change them, I can only change my approach. The approach I’m trying today is to reflect on my practice using the format and frameworks we give them to use, and then to share it here on my blog.

This reflection comes with health warnings:

• its my reflection about my practice to help me understand and improve my practice
• I am not a student teacher, I am lecturer who has been teaching for over twenty years

Put simply: the reflection content below can’t be copied or used to directly inform a student’s reflection, but the structure might help them write their own.

I’ve used Reflective Writing: a basic introduction by Martin Hampton to structure my reflection.

Description: What happened?

A trainee teacher had written ‘class discussion’ in their lesson plan but the observed practice was teacher-led Q&A. My feedback was about how hard it was to hold a class discussion, and maybe they needed to think about how they could structure the discussion differently, or use questions differently. What followed was a useful conversation (I hope) but I came away remembering similar conversations with trainees in previous years and I was left asking myself ‘Why do I keep having this conversation?’, ‘Does it make sense to the student?’, ‘What are they gaining from it?’.

Interpretation: What is the most interesting idea from this event? How can it be explained with theory? 

For me, the most meaningful aspect of the event was considering the difference and purpose of class discussion and questioning. These have been two aspects of pedagogy that I have struggled with in my own practice (see Hardy 2004), which might be a factor in its significance for me. Alternatively this might be due to my frustration with trainees’ lesson planning, their understanding of classroom talk and the different types. Mortimer and Scott   (in Pollard 2014) identify four types of communicate approaches:

1. Interactive/dialogic

2. Non-interactive/dialogic

3. Interactive/ authoritative

4. Non-interactive/ authoritative

(Mortimer and Scott 2007 in Pollard 2014, p.314)

What I think I usually see in trainee teacher’s lessons is interactive/authoritative talk, where they are asking questions to guide the pupils to a specific point of view, but when planning the trainee calls sees it as interactive/dialogic talk (class discussion).

Outcome: What have I learned from this?

Having read more about these four approaches and used them to analyse my feedback and the students’ lessons it’s helped me recognise that I rely on an interactive/authoritative talk during the post-lesson feedback. I know that a more productive method of helping them understand how they are communicating is by having an exploratory conversation (interactive/dialogic). For example by exploring with the trainee who has written ‘classroom discussion’ but actually asked closed questions we both might come to a new perspective and understanding of what was happening and how this could be different in the future. I think this could be an important process for me to continue practicing because it will help me adapt my approach and also help my trainees see the value in 'engaging in a process of systematic and informed enquiry’  (Philpott 2013, p.20).

References

Hardy, A., 2004. Questioning styles: observations of differences in practice at key stage 2 and key stage 3.  In: Sheffield, 2004. 2004: DATA. Available at: http://bit.ly/11GPpzz [Accessed 20 November 2014]
Philpott, C., 2013. Who has all the answers in education (and why should you believe them)?  In: C. Mercier, C. Philpott and H. Scott, eds.,  Professional issues in secondary teaching [electronic resource]. London: SAGE, 2013, pp. 7-22.
Pollard, A., 2014.  Reflective teaching in schools [electronic resource]. 4th edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Looking for more?

I came across an activity from the companion website for Reflective Teaching in Schools that I think would help student teachers understand how their lessons actually happen:

·       To consider the qualities of interaction in a lesson

Food security: a topic for design and technology

At the beginning of the term my colleague, Beverley Lawe,  led a seminar for year 2 about ‘Food Security’, part of the module Design and Technology in Education and Society; today I followed this up by exploring with the students this topic's potential use in D&T. In this post I’m sharing some of our discussion, beginning with a summary of the topic and then presenting three possible activities in which food security could be used as a starting point. These activities use the NTU D&T curriculum model as a framework.

World diet

As the world population’s diet changes to reflect the perceived affluent diet of western countries, which includes meat as a staple element, there is a greater demand on arable land to produce food for the animals rather than for people to eat. The land needed to feed an animal which will be slaughtered is greater than the land needed to feed a person from vegetation (fruit, veg, wheat etc). Therefore we need to make some changes.

These changes could include:

• people eating less meat (Meat free Mondays campaign is an example of this)
• cultured meat (not meat but a simulation created in a test tube)

Power of the supermarkets

We had some debate as to whether it was the supermarkets driving this, or the consumer but this is the basic premise of our argument:

We focussed on the decreasing variety of different food products available (Aldi and Lidl are masters of this), for example: do you need a ‘finest’, ‘essentials’, and the branded versions of cream crackers? By restricting the choice they make the shopping experience simpler (no more dithering in the aisle) but there are consequences:

1. We come to expect the same ‘type’ of pasta/apple/cracker throughout the year, which forces the supermarkets to source some of these from overseas. This particularly affects fresh fruit and veg being imported and means we tend not to buy seasonal or local.
2. We become accustomed to a particular taste and always buy the same ones; the apple is an example of this. Golden Delicious apples have dominated the market for a while, they are easy to produce with a consistent smell, taste and appearance; consequently there is now an impoverished choice of apples on the supermarket shelves. Work by Hogg (see Kierl 2014, p.80) in 1875 recorded 475 varieties of apples.

I’m not claiming to have all of my facts correct here but I think I’ve captured the essence of what the students have remembered from Beverley’s seminar.

My question to year 2 was: How can this topic be relevant for D&T? We discussed this today and I proposed the following ideas using the NTU D&T curriculum model as a framework.

Mainly designing

A conceptual approach could be taken with the world diet; ask pupils in groups to use data about the increasing world population, its wealth and change in diet (I’m sure geography teachers could help out here). Ask some pertinent ‘What if..?’ questions to try and think about the future.  

From here pupils could identify some positive and negative consequences about the increased demand for meat. You could begin to explore these situations with them:

• How could we increase the amount of land for growing vegetation to feed people (or animals)?
• Why do people want to eat meat? What’s the alternative?
• How could we encourage people on a large scale to change their eating habits? I’ve deliberately suggested large scale as the idea isn’t in this activity to design and make a food product, instead maybe a campaign or programme.

Mainly making

This activity could start with familiarising pupils with the alternatives to meat, some already available (e.g. tofu and quorn), some in development (e.g. cultured meat) or just no-meat food products. To start with pupils could blind taste test food products that do not include any meat product, in groups with focussed questions.

The next stage could be to give groups a non-meat alternative to test and experiment with, e.g. boiling, frying, roasting, raw etc. This is an investigative part of making that is very successful with food.

Finally pupils could be asked to modify an existing recipe that contains meat, removing the meat component and replacing it with a alternative but not compromising on taste or appearance.

In this activity the design decisions pupils make are technical, constructional and aesthetic, they are not being asked to consider the market or the concept; this in my opinion is what makes it a ‘mainly making’ activity.

Designing and making

Starting with the power of the supermarkets as a concept and the ‘impoverished choice’ of different varieties of fruit and veg on the supermarket shelves (e.g. carrots or apples), pupils could design a marketing campaign for a local food supplier that specialises in a particular fruit or veg or a local speciality. This is obviously a seasonal brief, with different food produce being used dependent on locality.

All of these have a central component of Design and Technology in Society, the fourth component of NTU's curriculum model, allowing pupils to explore the consequences and possible solutions to this local, national and international food dilemma.

To many D&T teachers these activities are nothing new, but to some of our undergraduate trainee teachers they are, and a main aim of the module is to challenge them to think about how topics, such as food security, can be used in D&T lessons.

If you want to know more about food security Beverley asked year 2 to listen to a podcast from the BBC Radio 4 Food Programme.

If you want to know more about the NTU D&T curriculum model read the paper I presented with David Barlex in New Zealand last year, pages 214-218.

Reference
Kierl, S., 2014. Ethical Technological Literacy. In: J.R.Dakers, ed. Defining Technological Literacy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

What's in a name? or where's the 'and' in design technology?

Earlier in the week I took to Twitter to ask the provocative question: What is our subject called? This followed an innocent comment on a blog where design and technology was called ‘Design Technology’ and a journalist in the Guardian talking about their experiences in design technology. Both irritated me and by Monday afternoon I couldn’t keep my irritation to myself; but why should it irritate me? I want to cover two points in this post to help answer that question: firstly an explanation of the subject title, and secondly why getting it right is important.

At the inception of the National Curriculum, prior to 1990 (Wakefield and Owen-Jackson 2013), a working party defined the subject (DES1988) and called it design and technololgy.  So there it is: design AND technology. I could end there but its useful to consider why the ‘and’, why ‘design’ not just ‘technology’ and vice versa.

The ‘and’ exists for a purpose. As Tristram Shepard pointed out in a tweet  ‘design technology’ as a noun does not exist, but there is ‘design’ and there is ‘technology’; The ‘and’ brings together two existing nouns, ‘design’ and ‘technology’, as a compound noun and therefore a ‘unitary concept’ (DES1988, p.2). The explanation in the working in the report is so clear I will repeat it here:

‘…most, but not all, design activities will generally include technology and most technology activities will include design… our use of design and technology a unitary concept, to be spoken in one breath as it were, does not therefore embody redundancy. It is intended to emphasis the intimate connection between the two activities as well as to imply a concept, which is broader than either design or technology individual, and the whole of which we believe is educationally important. (Accordingly we use design and technology a compound noun taking the singular form of verbs…) (p.2)

It is not two parts ‘design’ and ‘technology’ as was suggested in the first, and atrocious, rewrite of the new National Curriculum (Department of Education 2013). For the sake of repetition to highlight the importance: it is a unitary concept represented as a compound noun ‘to be spoken in one breath’ (1988, p.2).

This name does have implications for the curriculum delivery, content and epistemology, which lead to my second point: the importance of getting the name right.

Wakefield and Owen-Jackson (2013) remind us that for a brief period design and technology was a subsidiary of a subject called technology; this included business studies and IT. The consequence here was a combination of mismatched subjects, with different types of knowledge and purposes. As a comparison in other countries the subject is called technology or a subsidiary of faculty of subjects (see Dugger Jr 2009, and Ginestié 2009). These scenarios come from or result in different approaches and purposes to (design and) technology* education (de Vries 2012). I think Ginestie (2009) thinks this arises from the ‘lack of clarity of a defined epistemology for (design and) technology*, which is the argument the Expert Panel (Design and Technology Association 2011) for removing D&T as a foundation subject. I am not going to explore the epistemology of our subject here that is for another blog post (once I have delved into work by Kurt Seeman).

I’ve touched on the name change but now I want to question the impact of the changing name. What was design and technology called when you were at school? My history in D&T is this:

·      Primary school: nothing

·      Secondary school:

o   First year (1981): woodwork, metalwork, domestic science, sewing, drawing, painting and pottery;

o   Second and third year (1982-84): all of the above, except woodwork and metalwork;

o   Fourth and fifth years (1984-86): O level Graphical Communication

o   A level (1986-88): Design, Craft and Technology (DCT)

D&T’s history is important; Martin (2013) proposes five design and technology eras. My ideas about these five eras, name/s related to the subject and the approximate years they took place in:

• Era of making: Students in this period studied subjects such as craft, technical drawing and sewing between 1970 and 1986.
• Era of personalizing: this was between 1985 & 1990; a very short period and I relate it to my own experiences when I did DCT (the Welsh version of CDT);
•  Era of designing; during the first iteration of the National Curriculum between 1990 & 1996 with the focus from the four attainment targets ((Wakefield and Owen-Jackson 2013).
• Era of manufacturing; 1995 to 2005 linked to the instigation and implementation of Tomlinson’s report (2004) resulting in Diplomas and GCSEs including Engineering and Manufacturing.
• Era of valuing; 2000 to 2007 saw a greater focus in the whole National Curriculum on values, ethics and citizenship. No changes to the subject name were made but there was a shift in emphasis, which I think led to the ‘Importance Statements’ (2007).

My history in being a student of D&T straddles the eras of making and personalizing, and this probably had an effect on my naming and teaching of the subject. Consequently I probably projected an incorrect image of design and technology to my peers and stakeholders of the subject.

To summarise the name is the subject’s identity, calling it by any other name implies a different subject. The purpose and focus of design and technology is all in its name; call it by another name and it becomes a different subject with a different purpose.

I would welcome your thoughts on the name, how a name defines a subject and any other thoughts you have regarding the comments I have made here.

References

De Vries, M., 2012. Philosophy of Technology.  In: P.J. Williams, ed.,   Technology Education for Teachers. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2012, pp. 15-33.
Department of Education, 2013.  The National Curriculum in England Framework document (February 2013). London: Department of Education.
Design and Technology Association, 2011.  Report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review (DfE, December 2011) [online]. Design and Technology Association. Available at: http://bit.ly/14GHAZv [Accessed July 24 2013].
Dugger Jr, W.E., 2009. Developments in technology education in the United States of America. International Handbook of Research and Development in Technology Education, , 65-84.
Ginestié, J., 2009. Thinking about technology education in France. International Handbook of Research and Development in Technology Education, , 31-40.
Great Britain. Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1988.  
National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group Interim Report. London: DES.
Great Britain. Department for Education and Skills, 2004.  Final Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform. Nottingham: DfES.
Martin, M., 2013. Five Eras of Making and Designing.  In: PATT27 Technology Education for the Future: A Play on Sustainability, Chirstchurch, New Zealand, 2-6 December 2013. pp. 318-324.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2007.  The National Curriculum : statutory requirements for key stages 3 and 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Wakefield, D., and Owen-Jackson, G., 2013. Government policies and design and technology education. Debates in Design and Technology Education, , 7.

*I would prefer to write design and technology here but the authors refer to technology education in their writing.

With thanks to David Barlex for pointing me in the direction of the Parkes report, and Tristram Shepard, Jo Hayes and Matt McLain for their views on the name, which helped clarify my thinking.