Design and technology in England's national curriculum

This article or section is currently under construction

In principle, someone is working on it and there should be a better version in a not so distant future.
If you want to modify this page, please discuss it with the person working on it (see the "history")

<pageby nominor="false" comments="false"/>

See also:

• Fab labs in education
• Fab lab (Technical and political overview)
• Tour de Fablab (Some ressources for demos/workshops)
• 3D printers in education
• Computerized embroidery in education
• Digital design and fabrication in education

The current keystage 3 design and technology program

The UK National Curriculum web site, retrieved 19:57, 25 November 2011 (CET) defines 2 key stages for the primary curriculum and 2 key stages for the secondary curriculum. For secondary education 15 subjects are listed for key stage 3 and 8 subjects are listed for key stage 4. Design and technology is one of the key stage 3 (11-14 year olds) subjects. The others are: Art and design - Citizenship - English - Geography - History - ICT - Mathematics - Modern foreign languages - Music - Physical education - Science - Personal, social, health and economic education and religious education.

Design and technology key stage 3 (PDF) is mandatory (statutory content) and it is defined as “In design and technology pupils combine practical and technological skills with creative thinking to design and make products and systems that meet human needs. They learn to use current technologies and consider the impact of future technological developments. They learn to think creatively and intervene to improve the quality of life, solving problems as individuals and members of a team.”. Interestingly, there is no explicit link related fields such as ICT, Mathematics or Art and Design, except some vague recommendation in the Curriculum opportunities: “g. make links between design and technology and other subjects and areas of the curriculum.”

For the sake of its novelty, we will reproduce both the set of key processes and the longer practical range and contents list. The former is defined as the essential skills and processes in design and technology that pupils need to learn to make progress.

Pupils should be able to:

1. generate, develop, model and communicate ideas in a range of ways, using appropriate strategies
2. respond creatively to briefs, developing their own proposals and producing specifications for products
3. apply their knowledge and understanding of a range of materials, ingredients and technologies to design and make their products
4. use their understanding of others’ designing to inform their own
5. plan and organise activities and then shape, form, mix, assemble and finish materials, components or ingredients
6. evaluate which hand and machine tools, equipment and computer-aided design/manufacture (CAD/CAM) facilities are the most appropriate to use
7. solve technical problems
8. reflect critically when evaluating and modifying their ideas and proposals to improve products throughout their development and manufacture.

- Key processes, retrieved 19:57, 25 November 2011 (CET)

This list includes mostly rather high-level strategic meta-cognitive skills and as far as we can tell does not guarantee per se any kind of result.

We found the probably less important Range and content list more interesting, since it also identifies more concrete subject areas and activities. This section outlines the breadth of the subject on which teachers should draw when teaching the key concepts and key processes.

a) The curriculum should include resistant materials, systems and control and at least one of food or textiles product areas.

In each product area the study of designing should include understanding of

b) users’ needs and the problems arising from them

c) the criteria used to judge the quality of products, including fitness for purpose, the extent to which they meet a clear need and whether resources have been used appropriately

d) the impact of products beyond meeting their original purpose and how to assess products in terms of sustainability

e) aesthetic, technical, constructional and relevant wider issues that may influence designing, selection of materials, making and product development.

The study of making in food should include

f) a broad range of practical skills, techniques, equipment and standard recipes, and how to use them to develop, plan and cook meals and single or multiple products

g) how to plan and carry out a broad range of practical cooking tasks safely and hygienically

h) healthy eating models relating to a balanced diet, the nutritional needs of different groups in society and the factors affecting food choice and how to take these into account when planning, preparing and cooking meals and products

i) the characteristics of a broad range of ingredients, including their nutritional, functional and sensory properties.

The study of making in resistant materials and textiles should include

j) a broad range of techniques, including handcraft skills and CAD/CAM, and how to use them to ensure consistency and precision when making single and multiple products

k) the behaviour of structural elements in a variety of materials

l) how to use materials, smart materials, technology and aesthetic qualities to design and make products of worth

m) how to prepare and assemble components to achieve functional results.

The study of making in systems and control should include

n) the practical application of systems and control in design proposals

o) electrical, electronic, mechanical, microprocessor and computer control systems and how to use them effectively

p) using systems and control to assemble subsystems into more complex systems

q) feedback and how a variety of inputs can give rise to a variety of outputs.

The reader also might consult the (long) list of key concepts

Interestingly, food plays an important part in the subject list. Again, other design disciplines like music or visual arts are not addressed in the document, i.e. its left to the teachers to integrate or not. We don't see this as a problem, since choices will have to be made anyhow, but we just would like to point out that "design and technology" could be addressed differently. Associations, like The Design and Technology association also advocate "where necessary, reduce prescription, since "too much content can limit teachers‘ ability to exercise their professional autonomy in order to meet the needs of individual pupils and to achieve the required depth in learning". (Response to the national curriculum Review, retrieved 20:33, 25 November 2011 (CET). In addition, the same association also suggests to identify essential content acrosss 'all subjects.

Also, we have the (not supported) suspicion that some teachers may resort to baking cookies, a bit of embroidery or sewing and playing with Legos, i.e. neglect the very difficult task of teaching both difficult technology and creating innovating designs. Such problems could not be overcome by adding more prescriptive elements to the curriculum, but rather through teacher training and teacher-led innovation. The review response of the D&T response we cited above includes a quite extensive literature of good practise.

Bibliography

This bibliography was bootstrapped from The Design and Technology association's Response to the national curriculum Review, retrieved 20:51, 25 November 2011 (CET)

Arthur, W. Brian. (2009) The Nature of Technology. Allen Lane, London, England Baker, K. and Mitchell P. (2010) University Technical Colleges A UTC Curriculum Framework. The Baker Dearing Trust, England

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman

Benson C. And Lunt J. (2009) It puts a smile on your face, What do children actually think of D&T P296 -305 in Dakers J. De Fries M. de Vries, M.J. and Dow W. (eds.) Pupil Attitudes Towards Technology: International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research. Glasgow: University of Glasgow

Bronowski, J. (1973) The Ascent of Man. British Broadcasting Corporation, London

Cable, V. Manufacturing Summit Meeting, January 26 2011

Dyson, J, (2010) Ingenious Britain – making the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe, Dyson

Hayes, J. (26 October 2010) The craft so long to learn – skills and their place in modern Britain - a speech to the RSA

Hutchinson, J. Stagg, P. and Bentley, K. (2009) STEM Careers Awareness Timelines - attitudes and ambitions towards science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM at Key Stage 3), International Centre for Guidance Studies (iCeGS), University of Derby

Kelly, K. (2010) What Technology Wants. Viking New York

Kimbell, R. and Stables, K. (2007) Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development,

Livingstone, I. and Hope, A. (2011) ‗Next Gen - Transforming the UK into the world‘s leading talent hub for the video games and visual effects industries, Nesta LC Research Associates, (2006) Key Stage 3 Review: Students and parents research, draft report for QCA

Ofsted (2008) Education for a technologically advanced nation Design and technology in schools 2004 – 2007, Crown Copyright

Ofsted 2011, Meeting technological challenges? Design and technology in schools 2007–10 March 2011, No. 100121

Pollard et al, (2000) What Pupils Say: Changing Policy and Practice in Primary Education. London: Continuum

Skills for Jobs: Today and Tomorrow: The National Strategic Skills Audit for England, 2010‘ (UK Commission for Employment and Skills, 2010)

Stables, K. & Rogers M., 2001‗Reflective and literate boys: can D&T make a difference‘ in (ed. Roberts, P and Norman E) IDATER 2001: International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University, Loughborough UK, pp 124 – 129)

de Vries, Marc, Hacker, Michael and Rossouw Ammeret, (2009) CCETE Project Concepts and Contexts in Engineering and Technology Education. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, and Hofstra University, USA

Wolf, A. (2011) Review of Vocational Education The Wolf Report, Crown Copyright

Abrahams, I. (2009). Does Practical Work Really Motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31: 17, 2335 — 2353

Barnett , M. (2006). Engaging Inner City Students in Learning Through Designing Remote Operated Vehicles. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14:1 87-100

Claxton, G., Lucas, B. and Webster, R. (2010). Bodies of Knowledge – how the learning sciences could transform practical and vocational education. Winchester: Edge/Centre for Real World Learning

Edwards, J. (2002). Sampson‘s Hair: Denuding the Technology Curriculum? Journal of Technology Studies 28 (1) 8-13

Foster, P. and Wright, N. (2001). How Children Think and Feel About Design and Technology: Two Case Studies. The Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38:2. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/

Hallam, S., Rogers, L. and Rhamie, J (2010). Staff perceptions of the success of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15: 1, 63 — 74

Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem Solving in Real-Life Contexts: An Alternative for Design in Technology Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8, 203–220.

Hughes, M. (2001). Using Students‘ Views on Design and Technology to Inform Curriculum Review at Key Stage 3. The Journal of Design and Technology Education 6:2 167 – 170.

Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.

Koh,C., Wang, C., Tan, O., Liu, W. and Ee-J. (2008). Students' discourse and motivation in project work. In Jeffrey, P AARE 2008 International education research conference : Brisbane : papers collection:(Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 30 November - 4 December 2008). Melbourne : Australian Association for Research in Education.

Leahy, K., Gaughran, W. and Seery, N. (2009). Preferential Learning Styles as an Influencing Factor in Design Pedagogy. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal 14:2 25-44

Lucas, B., Claxton, G. and Webster, R. (2010) Mind the Gap – research and reality in practical and vocational education. Winchester: Edge/Centre for Real World Learning

Lund, D. (1986) CDT in the ‗Special Curriculum‘. British Journal of Special Education; 13:4 166-168

Ofsted. (2001). Improving attendance and behaviour in secondary schools: Strategies to promote educational inclusion. London: TSO.

Ofsted (2007). Education for a technologically advanced nation. London, Ofsted

Ofsted (2008, June 25). Design and technology is the most popular GCSE foundation subject, but a lack of specialist teachers means expensive school equipment sometimes lies idle. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/Press-and-media/2008/June/Design-and-technology-is-the-most-popular-GCSE-foundation-subject-but-a-lack-of-specialist-teachers-means-expensive-school-equipment-sometimes-lies-idle/(language)/eng-GB

Ofsted (2009) Improving primary teachers‟ subject knowledge across the curriculum. London: Ofsted

Silver, A. and Rushton, B.(2008). Primary-school children's attitudes towards science, engineering and technology and their images of scientists and engineers., Education 3-13, 36:1, 51 — 67

Tadich, B., Deed, C., Campbell, C. and Prain, V (2007). Student engagement in the middle years: A year 8 case study. Issues In Educational Research, Vol 17, 2007

Todd, R. (1999). Design and Technology Yields a New Paradigm for Elementary Schooling. Journal of Technology Studies, 25 (2)26-33

Twyford, J. and Burden, R. (2000). Is it Really Work? Primary School Pupils‘ Conceptions of Design and Technology as a National Curriculum Subject. The Journal of Design and Technology Education 5:2 101 – 105

Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, V. and Harris, M. (2004). Creating Change? A Review of the Impact of Design and Technology in Schools in England. Journal of Technology Education 15:2 46-65

Youth Commission (2010) Final Report. Retrieved August 10, 2010 from http://www.edge.co.uk/media/uploads/Downloadable/53d807c7-f8c0-4acb-83d0-884e39d108b6.pdf

Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Stables, K., Shepard, T., Martin, F., Davies, D., Pollitt, A., Whitehouse, G., 2009 e-scape portfolio assessment: a research & development project for the Department of Children & Family Services

(DCFS) and the British Education Communications Technology Agency (Becta) Goldsmiths, University of London http://www.gold.ac.uk/teru/projectinfo/projecttitle,5882,en.php

Lawler, T. (2006a). Design styles and teaching styles: a longitudinal study of pupils‟ ways of doing designing following complementary re-grouping and teaching. Paper presented at the TERC 2006: Values in Technology Education Gold Coast, Australia

Lawler, T., & Howlett, M., 2003, ‗Designing Styles – A new way of looking at design and technology learning and teaching‘ in Norman, E. W. L., & Spendlove, D., Design Matters: DATA International Research Conference, 2003, D&T Association, Wellesbourne