How have D&T departments responded to the new national curriculum?

Can you spare a few moments to complete a questionnaire and maybe a follow up interview?

A group of 6 students at Nottingham Trent University who are studying Childhood Studies have been commissioned by me to undertake some research. I’ve asked them to find out ‘How have D&T departments responded to the new national curriculum?’.

Your responses will help us at NTU prepare our trainee D&T teacher by giving them up to date information on what is happening in schools.

The survey can be found here: http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/6O5OS/

All of your responses will be kept confidential - they won’t even tell me who has replied!

Thanks,

Alison

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.   

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