Design and Technology Education: Guide

Alison Hardy

Design and Technology (D&T) is a unique subject that teaches pupils how to intervene in the human-made world to create improvements. While different countries may emphasise different aspects of the subject the core purpose remains consistent: developing pupils’ technological literacy and design and technology capability.

Different countries’ design and technology curricula focused on aspects relevant or of importance to their location, culture and economy. For example, some countries have more than one “design and technology” subject - in America and Sweden there are two subjects: Technology, and Career and Technical Education in America and Technology and Sloyd (craft) in Sweden. In New Zealand, the technology curriculum “embraces the significance of Māori culture and world views” (Ministry of Education, 2018) and in Taiwan the subject is called “Living Technology” (Lee and Lee 2020) and is highly valued by politicians because technology is seen as the country’s national power.

Core Purpose

D&T serves two fundamental purposes in education. First, it helps children engage with, understand, and critique the human-made world around them, developing their ability to understand and evaluate designed products and systems. Second, it develops pupils’ ability to resolve design problems and situations, teaching them to think creatively and technically about improvements to the made world.

Knowledge and Capability

In D&T, pupils develop both design knowledge and technological knowledge. Design knowledge relates to understanding the act of designing (and therefore develop design skills) and the work of designers, engineers, and technologists. Technological knowledge focuses on how and why products, services, and systems work, plus the processes used to create them. By accumulating and applying this knowledge, pupils enhance their overall design and technology capability (Hardy 2020).

Working with Artefacts

Pupils engage with two main categories of artefacts in D&T:

• Those they use to design and make their own work (e.g., sewing machines, computers, hammers, saws, pencils, card and so on)
• Those they and others use in everyday life (e.g., clothes, mobile phones, heating systems, furniture)

The specific artefacts used are not prescribed but vary based on resources, location, and pupils’ capacity. What matters is that pupils learn to use and critique an increasing range of designed items. Through doing this, they learn different approaches and reasons for critiquing (Keirl 2020).

Making and Prototyping

When pupils create solutions in D&T, the focus is not on producing professional-quality products but on developing prototypes that demonstrate their thinking and capability. These might be high-quality finished pieces or rough prototypes or “dirty models” that show their design resolution. The emphasis is on the process of development rather than just the final outcome.

Skills Development

Through D&T, pupils develop a wide range of skills that are valuable both in and out of the classroom. These include:

• Critical Thinking: Analysing and evaluating products and systems to understand their functionality and impact.
• Problem-Solving: Identifying issues and developing innovative solutions to design challenges.
• Creativity: Generating original ideas and approaches to design tasks.
• Collaboration: Working effectively with others to achieve common goals.
• Technical Skills: Using tools and technologies to create and test prototypes.

Technological Advances

Modern technology plays a crucial role in D&T education. Tools such as 3D printers, robotics kits, and digital design software allow pupils to bring their ideas to life in ways that were previously unimaginable. These technologies not only enhance the learning experience but also prepare pupils for future careers in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Sustainability, Values and Ethics

Sustainability and ethical considerations are increasingly important in D&T. Pupils are taught to think about the environmental and social impacts of their designs. This includes considering the lifecycle of products, the materials used, and the potential for recycling and reuse. By integrating these principles, D&T education helps to develop responsible citizens, designers and technologists who are mindful of their impact on the world.

Current Context

Today’s D&T education balances several key elements: developing technological literacy, fostering creativity, building problem-solving skills, and encouraging sustainable thinking. While its historical roots in some countries included preparing pupils for work or domestic life, modern D&T focuses on developing capable, informed citizens who can engage thoughtfully with an increasingly technological world.

Summary

Design and Technology combines practical skills with critical thinking, preparing pupils to understand and contribute to the designed world. Through hands-on experience and structured learning, pupils develop both technical competence and design capability. Although materials and technologies may vary across schools and countries, the fundamental aim remains consistent: empowering pupils to engage thoughtfully with the made world and contribute to its improvement.

References and further reading

Hardy, A. ed., 2020. Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. Routledge.

Lee, L.S. and Lee, Y.F. eds., 2020. International Technology Teacher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region. From https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613315.pdf

Keirl, S., 2020. The role of critiquing in design and technology education. In A. Hardy (ed) Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School (pp. 155-168). Routledge.

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Technology: Learning area structure. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Technology

Jason Davies and Alison Hardy

Introduction

Design and Technology (D&T) education in Wales is undergoing a significant transformation as part of a broader curriculum reform. The new curriculum aims to provide a more open, flexible, and authentic learning experience for students, with a focus on developing design thinking skills and problem-solving abilities. This summary will explore the key aspects of the Welsh D&T curriculum, including its content, target audience, and the role of teachers in its delivery.

What the curriculum involves

The Welsh D&T curriculum is designed to be adaptable to local contexts, allowing schools and teachers to tailor their teaching to the needs and interests of their students and communities. Design thinking is a central driver of the curriculum, with students encouraged to develop their creativity, critical thinking, and practical skills through a range of projects and activities. These provide opportunities for pupils to develop a wide range of experiences across D&T including engineering, product and fashion design.

One of the key features of the new curriculum is its emphasis on cross-disciplinary learning. D&T is situated within the Science and Technology Area of Learning and Experience (AoLE), which also includes Science and Computer Science.

Each subject has an identifiable Statement for What Matters. The D&T statement is:

Design thinking and engineering offer technical and creative ways to meet society's needs and wants. By applying their experiences, skills and knowledge, learners can design and shape innovative engineered solutions.

This approach aims to foster a more holistic understanding of the relationships between these subjects and encourage students to apply their knowledge and skills across different contexts and other AoLEs such as Expressive Arts.

At the secondary level, students can choose to specialise in D&T through a range of GCSE and A-level qualifications. These qualifications have recently been revised to align with the new curriculum, with a greater emphasis on practical skills and authentic problem-solving. The revised GCSEs continue to include endorsed routes in product design, engineering design and fashion and textiles. Additional GCSEs in Engineering and the Built Environment are also under development. The assessment structure has also been modified, with a 70% weighting for coursework and a 30% weighting for examinations at GCSE level.

Who it is taught to

D&T is taught to students throughout their primary and secondary education in Wales. In primary schools, D&T is delivered as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, with a focus on developing foundational skills and understanding. Students work through progression steps within the curriculum and engage in a range of practical activities and projects. These can be linked to other areas of the curriculum such as science, mathematics, and art.

In secondary schools, D&T becomes a specialist subject, with students able to choose from a range of qualifications and endorsed routes. The subject is designed to appeal to a wide range of students, with opportunities to engage in both academic and vocational learning. The emphasis on authentic problem-solving and real-world applications aims to make the subject relevant and engaging for students of all abilities and interests.

The teachers

D&T teachers in Wales play a crucial role in delivering the new curriculum and supporting students' learning and development. In primary schools, D&T is often taught by generalist teachers who may not have specialist training in the subject. This can present challenges in terms of ensuring that teachers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and confidence to deliver the curriculum effectively.

In secondary schools, D&T is taught by specialist teachers who have undergone specific training in the subject. These teachers are responsible for designing and delivering engaging and challenging learning experiences that develop students' design thinking skills and practical abilities. They also play a key role in assessing students' progress and providing feedback to support their learning.

The new curriculum has brought about changes to the role of D&T teachers, with a greater emphasis on collaboration and cross-disciplinary working. Teachers are encouraged to work with colleagues from other subjects to develop authentic and meaningful learning experiences for students. They also have greater autonomy in terms of adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of their students and local communities.

Summary

The Welsh D&T curriculum is a dynamic and evolving framework that aims to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and experiences they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world. With its emphasis on design thinking, practical skills, and authentic problem-solving, the curriculum seeks to develop students' creativity, critical thinking, and ability to innovate. The curriculum is designed to be flexible and adaptable, allowing schools and teachers to tailor their teaching to the needs and interests of their students and communities.

While the new curriculum presents challenges in terms of implementation and teacher training, it also offers exciting opportunities for students and teachers alike. By situating D&T within a broader context of science and technology, the curriculum aims to foster a more holistic and integrated approach to learning. Ultimately, the success of the Welsh D&T curriculum will depend on the expertise, enthusiasm, and dedication of the teachers who deliver it, and the engagement and motivation of the students who experience it.

References and further reading

Donaldson, G. (2015) Successful Futures: Independent Review of Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Wales. Cardiff: Crown.

Welsh Government, (2018) Learning about Progression. CAMAU Research Report: Science and Technology. Education Wales.

Adri du Toit and Alison Hardy

Introduction

In an increasingly technology-driven world, the importance of technology education cannot be overstated. Like many other countries, South Africa has incorporated technology education into its school curriculum to equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge for the future. This article provides an in-depth look at technology education in South Africa, including its curriculum structure, purpose, target audience, and the challenges faced by teachers and resources.

Curriculum Overview

Technology education in South Africa is integrated into the school curriculum across different grade levels. In the Intermediate Phase (grades 4-6), a subject a called "Science and Technology" combines elements of both science and applied technology. However, the focus is primarily on science, with technology contributing a smaller component.

As students progress to the Senior Phase (grades 7-9), the subject becomes "Technology Education," with a distinct emphasis on the technological design process (DBE, 2011). Senior Phase Technology aims to provide students with a foundation in problem-solving, creativity, and teamwork and introduces indigenous knowledge through the application of technology (DBE, 2011; Du Toit, 2020; Du Toit & Gaotlhobogwe, 2018).

In the Further Education and Training (FET) Phase (grades 10-12), technology education diversifies into specialised subjects such as Civil Technology, Electrical Technology, Mechanical Technology, and Engineering Graphics and Design (DBE, 2011). These subjects delve deeper into applied technological fields, preparing students for potential careers in engineering and technical industries.

Purpose and Goals

The primary purpose of technology education in South Africa is to develop students' technological literacy and equip them with the skills necessary to thrive in a technology-driven society. By exposing students to various technological concepts and practices, the curriculum aims to foster optimal resource use, problem-solving abilities, critical thinking, and creativity (DBE, 2011; Du Toit, 2020).

Moreover, technology education seeks to provide students with a pathway to pursue careers in engineering, technology, and related fields. By offering specialised subjects in the FET Phase, the curriculum enables students to explore their interests and aptitudes in specific technological domains, preparing them for real life in a modern world and potentially leading to further studies or employment opportunities (DBE, 2011).

Target Audience and Participation

Technology education in South Africa is compulsory for all students in the intermediate and senior phases (Du Toit, 2020). However, in the FET phase, students choose their elective subjects, including technology-related ones. FET Technology subjects usually have fewer students than other electives.

Despite the importance of technology education, there are concerns regarding the participation and perception of the subject, particularly among certain demographic groups. Some students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and some educators may view technology subjects as "blue-collar" and less prestigious than academic subjects. This mindset can lead to a reluctance to pursue technology-related careers, potentially hindering the country's technological advancement (Van Rensburg, Ankiewicz & Myburgh, 1999).

Teachers and Resources

The effectiveness of technology education in South Africa is heavily influenced by the quality of teaching and the availability of resources. In the intermediate phase, where technology is integrated with science, the subject is often assigned to teachers with openings on their timetable, regardless of their expertise. This lack of specialised knowledge can result in a suboptimal learning experience for students.

In the senior phase, although the curriculum provides pedagogical guidance, many teachers still struggle to deliver the content effectively. Limited training opportunities and a lack of practical experience in technology-related fields can hinder teachers' ability to engage students and provide meaningful learning experiences (Du Toit, 2020).

Resource constraints also pose significant challenges to technology education in South Africa. Many schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, lack the necessary equipment, materials, and infrastructure to support hands-on learning experiences. Corruption and mismanagement of funds further exacerbate these issues, leading to a disparity in the quality of technology education across different schools and regions (Ncala, 2022).

Summary

Technology education plays a crucial role in preparing South African students for the demands of a technology-driven future. The curriculum, structured across different grade levels, aims to develop technological literacy, problem-solving skills, and creativity among students. However, the subject faces several challenges, including negative perceptions, teacher preparedness, and resource constraints.

To fully realise the potential of technology education in South Africa, it is essential to address these challenges head-on. This includes promoting the value and relevance of technology-related careers, providing continued and comprehensive teacher training, and ensuring equitable access to and optimal utilisation of resources across all schools. By investing in technology education and creating an enabling environment for students to thrive, South Africa can unlock the potential of its youth and drive technological advancement for the benefit of the entire nation.

References

Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2011. Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement: Senior Phase Technology (Grades 7-9). Department of Basic Education, South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printing Works.

Du Toit, A. (2020). Threading Entrepreneurship Through the Design Process in Technology Education. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(2), 180–191.

Du Toit, A. & Gaotlhobogwe, M. 2018. Unheeded potential: Indigenous knowledge in the intended Technology curricula of Botswana and South Africa. (In M.A. Mokoena & I. Oosthuizen (eds.). A Scholarly Compendium for Teaching and Learning, pp 213-236). Potchefstroom: Ivyline.

Ncala, M. 2022. Sound the Alarm: Corruption in the Education Sector. Report by Corruption Watch South Africa.

Van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudes towards technology by using the PATT (Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology) questionnaire. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 137-151.

Suzanne Gomersall and Alison Hardy

Design and Technology (D&T) has been a part of the primary curriculum in England since the 1990s. While it has faced challenges such as limited teacher training and competition with core subjects like English, Mathematics, and Science, D&T offers valuable learning experiences and should be given due importance in all primary schools.

The nature of D&T in primary schools has been subject to misunderstandings, with some perceiving it as being about computers and technology or merely an application of science knowledge. However, the Design and Technology Association has identified six essential elements that should be included in any D&T project: meeting user needs, having a clear purpose, involving pupil design decisions, functioning properly, being innovative from the pupil's perspective, and being an authentic product.

Primary schools in England have some flexibility in organising their curriculum to include D&T alongside other foundation subjects. Common approaches include teaching subjects separately, using a topic/theme approach, combining subjects, or adopting a skills-based curriculum. D&T can provide relevant contexts for teaching core subjects and other areas like art, computing, geography, and history.

Key areas of learning in primary D&T include mechanisms, electrical systems, structures, textiles, and food. Pupils also develop important designing and evaluative skills. Teaching strategies involve whole-class, group, pair, and individual work, with an emphasis on engaging pupils through authentic, purposeful projects. Assessment, both formative and summative, is an important aspect of teaching D&T.

Primary schools typically do not have specialist D&T facilities, so teaching takes place in the regular classroom. This presents both advantages, such as integration with other subjects, and challenges, like limited resources. The role of the D&T subject leader is crucial in managing the subject within the school.

Transition from primary to secondary school can be challenging in D&T, with some pupils experiencing regression or repetition. Effective liaison between primary and secondary teachers is vital to ensure progression and build on pupils' prior experiences. Strategies include auditing primary D&T, organising joint projects, and sharing teaching.

The National Curriculum in England (DfE, 2013) provides statutory guidance for teaching D&T to children aged 5-11. It builds on the Early Years Framework (EYFS, 2023), which has links to D&T through areas such as 'Understanding the World' and 'Physical Development'. The National Curriculum describes D&T as an "inspiring, rigorous and practical subject" where children use creativity and imagination to "design and make products that solve real and relevant problems" considering "needs, wants and values".

The D&T programmes of study are split into five sections: designing, making, evaluating, technical knowledge, and cooking and nutrition. These elements need to progress and become more complex as children move through primary school. Key areas of technical knowledge include mechanisms, electrical systems, structures, textiles, and food. As part of food and nutrition, children learn about healthy eating to design and make healthy dishes.

High-quality D&T involves designing and making something for someone for some purpose. The Design and Technology Association (2016) recommends three interlinking teaching and learning activities: Investigate and Evaluate Activities (IEAs), Focused Tasks (FTs), and Design, Make and Evaluate Assignments (DMEAs). By providing IEAs and FTs, children are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and understanding to engage successfully in DMEAs.

In primary schools, there is flexibility in organising the teaching of D&T across a term or in a focused week. Strong links can be made with other subjects like Maths, English, Science, and Art. However, links with History and Geography can sometimes lead to poorer model-making activities that do not draw on high-quality D&T pedagogy.

Challenges to delivering high-quality D&T in primary schools include teachers' confidence in their subject knowledge and limited time for pupils to solve design problems or engage in iterative design. When Ofsted reviewed the subject in 2016, primary D&T was found lacking in many settings. Solutions include providing children with opportunities to experience real D&T, design and make functional products, use computer control, and access a well-planned curriculum with sufficient time.

Despite the difficulties faced, primary D&T remains an essential subject that contributes significantly to pupils' learning and development. By providing engaging, authentic projects and fostering creativity and problem-solving skills, primary schools can lay a strong foundation for pupils' future success in D&T and beyond.

References:

Benson, C. (2021). Design and Technology in the Primary School. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School. London: Routledge.

Benson, C. (2012). The development of quality design and technology in English primary schools: issues and solutions. Linköping University Electronic Press.

Department for Education. (2013). National Curriculum Design and Technology Programmes of Study.

Department for Education. (2014). The National Curriculum in England: primary curriculum.

Department for Education. (2023). Early Years Framework: Development Matters.

Design and Technology Association. (2016). Design and Technology Programme of Study – Key messages, advice and explanatory notes for schools. Wellesbourne: DATA.

Gomersall, S. (2023). Healthy Lifestyles Project: A practical food programme for primary schools. In G. S. Lalli et al. (Eds.), Food Futures in Education and Society. London: Routledge.

Ofsted. (2016). The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Services and Skills 2015/16.

Pimley, G. (2014). Are we really teaching D&T? D&T Association.

The National Curriculum Expert Group for D&T. (2013). Characteristics of a genuine D&T experience within the school curriculum: Principles for guiding and evaluative practice.

Suggested Further Reading:

Benson, C., & Lawson, S. (2017). Teaching Design and Technology Creatively. London: Routledge.

Hope, G. (2018). Mastering Primary Design and Technology. London: Bloomsbury.

Ofsted. (2018). Obesity, healthy eating and physical activity in primary schools. A thematic review into what actions schools are taking to reduce childhood obesity.

Spielman, A. (2019). Speech at the V&A Museum Chief Inspector of Ofsted.

Cathy Growney

The transition from primary to secondary school is fraught with educational, sociological and psychological difficulties (Jindal‐Snape et al., 2020 and Galton and McLellan, 2016). It is a wide concern that pupils underachieve in their early stages of secondary education and some even regress (Evans, Borriello and Field, 2018). In England, most initiatives, developed to ease the process, are concerned with pupils’ social and pastoral needs, academic records, and administration. The content of academic records is usually little more than standard attainments and additional teacher assessments of writing, speaking, and listening and science.

The curriculum area of Design and Technology suffers from continuity problems between the primary and secondary stages. It is unlikely that records relating to primary pupils’ experience, capabilities and attainment are conveyed to secondary schools (Benson, 2009 and Dakers and Dow, 2004). Additionally, in D&T in secondary school, pupils experience new differences in culture, curriculum area approaches and learning styles and environments (Kimbell and Stables, 2008).

There are many barriers and pitfalls to effective transition but also effective strategies to address the short-comings and improve the flow of Design and Technology experience, achievement and attainment.

According to Growney (2023), the key strategies depend on primary-secondary partnerships that employ:

• Joint CPD opportunities
• Effective and meaningful liaison
• Interphase collaborative planning and assessment

Growney (2023) discusses the requirement of Year 6 and Year 7 teachers to collaborate to ameliorate primary-secondary design and technology. Suggesting that teachers ask:

• What transition strategies are available?
• Can they be realistically instigated?
• Should strategies favour the pastoral concerns of pupils or academic concerns?

References

Benson, C. (2009) Working together: primary and secondary teacher liaison. In Arien Bekker, Ilja Mottier, Marc J. de Vries (eds) Strengthening the Position of Technology Education in the Curriculum, Proceedings PATT-22 Conference Delft, the Netherlands, August 24-28, 2009

Dakers, J. and Dow, W. (2004) The Problem with Transition in Technology Education: A Scottish Perspective. Journal of Design and Technology Education. 9(2), pp.116-124. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JDTE/article/view/689

Evans, D., Borriello, G. and Field, A (2018) A Review of the Academic and Psychological Impact of the Transition to Secondary Education. Frontiers in Psychology. 9 p.1482. 

Galton, M. and McLellan, R., 2018. A transition Odyssey: Pupils’ experiences of transfer to secondary school across five decades. Research Papers in Education, 33(2), pp.255-277.

Growney, C., 2022. Transition between primary and secondary school. In: A. Hardy (ed) Debates in Design and Technology Education (pp. 178-193). Routledge.

Jindal‐Snape, D., Hannah, E.F., Cantali, D., Barlow, W. and MacGillivray, S., 2020. Systematic literature review of primary‒secondary transitions: International research. Review of Education, 8(2), pp.526-566.

Jindal-Snape, D., Hannah, E.F.S., Cantali, D., Barlow, W. and MacGillivray, S., 2020. Systematic literature review of primary‒secondary transitions: International research. Review of Education, 8 (2), 526-566.

Kimbell, R., and Stables, K., 2008. Researching design learning: issues and findings from two decades of research and development. London: Springer. 

OFSTED (2015) Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years. London: OFSTED

Marion Rutland

Food was first introduced into the English elementary school curriculum in the mid to late 19th Century for philanthropic or utilitarian reasons. Cookery had a low status and was intended to teach working class girls basic cooking skills to improve their standard of living, improve their family health and prepare them for low-paid employment. In the early 20th Century, it became ‘domestic science’ in girls’ grammar schools for more academically able girls. Even then, it focused on nutrition within an essentially practical subject, with little attempt to teach underlying scientific principles (Rutland 1997, 2006; Rutland and Owen-Jackson 2015a).

The Sex Discrimination Act (1975) made sexual discrimination unlawful, and schools were required to ensure that boys and girls had equal curriculum access to both CDT and cookery, then known as home economics. This included cooking, needlework, budget management, child development, health and hygiene. The Nuffield Home Economics project (1982) introduced a more scientific, investigative approach to practical food activities.

Following the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1990 the National Association of Home Economics and Technology (NATHE) and the Design and Technology Association (DATA) amalgamated in 1993. Food technology within D&T was developed by DATA, the newly combined organisation. The new GCSE and A Level Food Technology examinations widened the domestic setting to include knowledge and understanding of food product development as found in the food industry. Changing lifestyles and an increasing consumption of processed foods from industrially designed and manufactured foods necessitated these changes (Rutland 2018, 2024).

Knowledge content of food technology was rigorous and required pupils to combine “thinking and doing” with an ability to make informed design decisions in food product development through a learning style based on problem-solving rather than on rote learning and practice (Rutland 2017). Designing with food is essentially a hands-on-activity where pupils foster and use their knowledge and understanding of the physical, chemical, and nutritional properties of foods by exploring and experimenting when developing their food products (Rutland and Owen-Jackson 2015b).

Concerns were raised regarding the relationship between pupils ‘learning to cook’ and food technology. Ofsted (2006: 5-6) noted confusion about the basic aims of food technology “in essence, a tension exists between teaching about food to develop skills for living and using food as a means to teach the objectives of design and technology”. This illustrated a fundamental difference between those who believe that children should be taught the ‘life skills’ of cooking and those who believe that a wider perspective is required (Rutland, 2018).

‘Licence to Cook’ (DES, 2008) was introduced for pupils aged 11-16 because of rising incidents of obesity in the community. It aimed to teach pupils how to cook and make informed decisions about diet and nutrition, health and safety and wise food shopping. However, it was confusing for some food teachers as it required all pupils to learn basic cooking skills through dedicated lessons in food preparation techniques, diet and nutrition, hygiene and safety and wise food shopping (Rutland, 2008) and appeared to question what was taught in food technology.

These dual, and sometimes conflicting views between food education for well-being and food education as part of an academic curriculum, became key issues in the Review of the National Curriculum for D&T in 2013 (Lawson, Wood-Griffiths, 2022). Food was retained within D&T for pupils aged 5-14 years (DfE a, 2014) and included terms such as ‘ingredients and food’ with pupils expected to design and make with food ingredients while working in the home and wider industrial contexts. A new separate ‘Cooking and Nutrition’ section was included, and ‘learning to cook’ was described as a ‘crucial life skill’.

All GCSE and A Level Examinations were reformed (DfE a, 2014) and a GCSE Cooking and Nutrition was introduced, with a name change later to GCSE Food Preparation and Nutrition (DfE, 2015). This focused on ensuring students acquired a good understanding of food and nutrition together with excellent cooking skills (ibid: 6-7). The draft GCSE Subject Content for D&T (DfEb, 2014) did not include food as material. All the range of former food courses, such as home economics, hospitality, catering and food technology were removed. A new A Food Technology level course, providing progression to higher education degree courses, was not developed as it was argued that there were several high quality vocational qualifications such as ‘confectionary’ and ‘butchery’ available (DfEa, 2014).

Current situation

Food remains within D&T in England for pupils aged 5- 14 years. There is GCSE Food and Nutrition but there is no A Level (post-16) food course available for pupils wanting to progress to higher and further education food-related courses. Though, “there are talks of it being reviewed shortly” (Davies, Ballam, 2023: 3). The Design and Technology Association in ‘Reimagining D&T’ show “some reluctance to let ‘Food and Nutrition go from the D&T suite” (Design and Technology Association, 2023:6).

The Future?

Just teaching children ‘to cook’, though an important aspect of food education, is not sufficient in the mid-21st century; a wider perspective considering food production outside the home is needed. Lifestyles and women’s roles in many countries have changed since food education was first introduced in the mid-19th century. The current lack of progression and an A Level Food examination are major issues for the future of the teaching of food in schools. There is a need to revise the current GCSE and for communication and discussion with Higher Education, as has been done in the past (Rutland, Owen-Jackson, 2014) and Further Education Institutions. This would ensure the development of a new A Level Food examination suitable for progression to food related qualifications (Rutland, 2020).

Such food education courses needed to be taught through an experimental, sequential, and integrated methodology and require a robust, theoretical framework that addresses:

• socio-cultural issues
• product design
• scientific theory (food science)
• technological understanding
• environmental issues
• nutritional knowledge
• the development of basic food preparation and cooking skills.

This will ensure that children develop the important food related knowledge, understanding and skills required for their future health and wellbeing. It also provides a pathway to a wide range of food related career opportunities in the food industry, teaching and food related professional occupations such as hospitality, health and social care and nursing (Rutland, 2024).

References.

Davies, L. & Ballam, R. (2023) Food Education: fit for the future? Food Teachers Centre. Accessed on 19.02.24.

Design and Technology Association. (2023). Reimagining D&T: Because design and innovation matter. Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK. Available from . Accessed on 27.02.24

DES. (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.

DES. (2008) Licence to Cook. (Accessed on 26.02.24).

DfEa, (2014). Reforming GCSE and A Level subject content consultation. London: Department for Education.

DfEb, (2014). Design and Technology: Draft GCSE subject content. London: Department for Education

DfE, (2015). Food Preparation and Nutrition GCSE subject content. London: Department of Education

Nuffield Home Economics Project. (1982). London: Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1079/PNS19840051.

Ofsted. (2006). Food technology in secondary schools (HMI 2633). London: HMSO.

Lawson, A. L. & Wood-Griffiths, S. (2022) ‘Does food fit in design and technology?’. In A. Hardy (Ed) Debates in Design and Technology Education Second Edition: Routledge, London and New York.

Rutland, M. (1997). Teaching food technology in secondary schools. London: David Fulton Press

Rutland, M. (2006). ‘The inclusion of food technology as an aspect of technology education in the English school curriculum’. In M. J. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: The state of the art (pp. 273–284). Rotterdam: Sense.

Rutland, M. (2008). ‘Licence to cook: The death knell for food technology?’ In E. W.L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), The Design and Technology Association International Research Conference), Wellesbourne: Design and Technology Association, Loughborough University, July 2-4^th 2008.

Rutland, M. (2017) ‘Food in the School Curriculum: A Discussion of Alternative Approaches’. In M.J. de Vries (ed) Handbook of Technology Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_25-2.

Rutland, M., (2018) ‘Food Education in the School Curriculum: A discussion of the Issues, Influences and Pressures on the Teaching of Food’. In PATT36 Research and practice in technology education: Perspectives on human capacity and development, pp.461 – 467. Athlone Institute of Technology, Co. Westmeath, Ireland 18 -21st June 2018.

Rutland, M. (2019) ‘The academic study of food in the English curriculum for pupils aged 16-18 years: its demise and prospects’. In PATT 37 - Conference 2019: Developing a knowledge economy through technology and engineering education, pp 373- 380. University of Malta, June 3-6^th 2019

Rutland, M. (2020) ‘Food Teaching in Upper Secondary English Schools: Progression into Food-Related Undergraduate Courses in Higher Education’ In Food Education and Food Technology in School Curricula- International Perspectives, Rutland, M., Turner, A. (eds), Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Rutland, M. (to be published 2024) ‘Food as an aspect of technology education in the 21^st Century’. In J. Dakers (Ed) Festschrift for Marc J de Vries, Brill International Educational Studies.

Rutland, M., & Owen-Jackson, G. (2014). ‘Food technology: an initial exploration into its educational purposes’. In H. Middleton (Ed) Technology Education: Learning for Life (Vol. 2, pp. 62- 70). 8th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Sydney, Australia: Griffith University

Rutland, M. & Owen-Jackson, G. (2015a) ‘Food technology education: preparation for life and work?’  In Plurality and Complementarity of Approaches in Design and Technology Education. PATT 29, pp.349-356 Marseille: France 7-10^th April.

Rutland, M., & Owen-Jackson, G. (2015b). ‘Preparing to teach food technology’. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Available from: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 – Wikipedia

Accessed 10^th May 2024.

Alison Hardy

There is ongoing debate about the classification and relevance of knowledge in design and technology education (for example: recently Beaumont and Steeg 2024 have proposed substantive and disciplinary as classes of knowledge, which this is derived from History’s knowledge classification; for discussions about D&T knowledge early in the development of the subject see McCormick 1997; with a focus more on technology see Morrison-Love 2017). Although “conceptual and procedural” have been identified by McCormick (1997) and “substantive and disciplinarily” by Beaumont and Steeg, these are limited by their lack of uniqueness to the subject and adds strength to the debate that D&T has "sufficient disciplinary coherence," that is, whether it has "a distinct way of investigating, knowing, and making with a particular focus on procedures and theories"  (Hardy 2017).

In summary, the debate about knowledge in design and technology education centers on:

1.  The distinction and relationship between design knowledge and technological knowledge
2.  The epistemological coherence of design and technology as a subject
3.  The interplay and balance between different forms of knowledge within the subject

While some argue that design and technological knowledge can or cannot be distinctly defined (Broens and de Vries 2003), it can be conceptualised from the literature that “design knowledge” and “technological knowledge” can be used as categories helpful for teachers to use when planning their curriculum. These forms are not mutually exclusive but exist on a continuum with interplay between the two.

Design knowledge relates to the knowledge pupils learn about the act of designing and the work of designers, engineers, and technologists.

Technological knowledge is about how and why products, services, and systems work, plus the processes and routines used to create them (Owen-Jackson and Steeg 2007).

Value judgments also play a role in design and technology, as pupils learn about how values inform and are implied in the design of artifacts and systems (Layton 1992).

In summary, the knowledge structure of design and technology education involves the interplay of design knowledge, technological knowledge, and value judgments. As pupils develop these forms of knowledge over time, their design and technology capability develops.

References

Beaumont, H., and Steeg, T., 2024. Design and Technology in Your School: Principles for Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.

Broens, R.C.J.A.M., and de Vries, M.J., 2003. Classifying technological knowledge for presentation to mechanical engineering designers. Design Studies, 24 (5), 457-471.

Hardy, A.L., 2017. How did the expert panel conclude that D&T should be moved to a basic curriculum? In: E.W.L. Norman, and K. Baynes, eds., Design epistemology and curriculum planning. Loughborough: Loughborough Design Press, 2017.

Layton, D., 1992, Values in Design and Technology. In: C. Budgett-Meakin, ed., Make the Future Work. Harlow, England: Longman, 1992, pp. 36-53.

McCormick, R., 1997. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1), 141-159.

Morrison-Love, D., 2017. Towards a Transformative Epistemology of Technology Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51 (1), 23-37.

Owen-Jackson, G., and Steeg, T., 2007, The role of technical knowledge in design and technology. In: D. Barlex, ed., Design and technology for the next generation. Whitchurch, England: Cliffeco Communications, 2007, pp. 170-185.

Alison Hardy

As pupils progress through the design and technology curriculum, they build both design and technological knowledge, leading to the development of their design and technology capability. Pupils’ design and technology capability emerges as they accumulate knowledge over time and have opportunities to put it into action when given design problems and situations to solve (Doherty, Huxtable and Murray 1994).

In England, 'design and technology capability' is an aim of design and technology education, alongside developing pupils' awareness of and ability to use technology (Department of Education 2013). Whilst the construct of ‘design and technology capability’ has been an aim of design and technology in England since its creation as a subject, more recently it has lapsed from mention in curriculum documents. Therefore, a recent definition is difficult to locate. However, in early documents, design and technology capability is described as the interaction of responding to a design and technology context while drawing on the resources of knowledge and experience (Black and Harrison 1985). More recently, Kimbell (2020) and Hardy (2020) maintain that it is the focus of assessment and progression planning in design and technology. Kimbell (2020 and Gibson (2008) argue that it is demonstrated (and can therefore be assessed) when pupils create practical solutions to an authentic context using knowledge and informed by a set of values.

Design and technology capability includes several interrelated aspects (Hardy 2020, p.237). “Pupils can demonstrate, at any stage of their design and technological development, evidence of their capability through their ability to:

• Use developing knowledge and skills in a creative and purposeful way
• Take responsibility for the form and direction of their work
• Make informed judgements
• Handle uncertainty
• Modify their work in the light of personal reflection.”

In summary, design and technology capability is a key aim of design and technology education, which emerges as pupils develop and apply their design and technological knowledge to new and (sometimes) unfamiliar design situation. It is has several aspects that are interrelated.

References

Black, P.J., and Harrison, G., 1985. In place of confusion: technology and science in the school curriculum: a discussion paper. Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust and the National Centre for School.

Department of Education, 2013. The National Curriculum in England Framework Document. London: Department of Education.

Doherty, P., Huxtable, J. and Murray, J., 1994. Planning for capability and progression in design and technology. Teaching Technology.

Gibson, K., 2008. Technology and technological knowledge: a challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching, 14 (1), 3-15.

Hardy, A., 2020, Planning for progression in design and technology. In: Planning for progression in design and technology. Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School. Routledge, 2020, pp. 236-250.

Kimbell, R., 2020, Capability, quality and judgement: Learners’ experiences of assessment. In: Capability, quality and judgement: Learners’ experiences of assessment. Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools. Springer, 2020, pp. 201-217.

Ulrika Sultan

In D&T education, according to Ofqual (2023), a significant gender gap persists, with more boys than girls as the number of candidates in the subject. Despite various interventions such as girls-only engineering or IT activities (Corneliussen, 2024), this gap remains, posing a challenge and a collective setback for our shared future. The gender imbalance in enrolment is not merely a statistical anomaly but a missed opportunity. Society loses girls’ invaluable potential to drive transformation and innovation by not inviting them the chance to learn and contribute. The gender gap in design and technology education is more than an academic concern; it has become a poignant narrative of untapped societal enrichment.

Below is a glossary guide describing concepts that can be found in texts about gender and technology education.

Drawn from research about gender in design and technology education (Sultan 2022), the following factors have been identified that have implications for design and technology teachers:

• The key to gender inclusivity is developing activities engaging both sexes without making content more “girly” or “boyish”.
• Instead of focusing only on the end result, which can limit pupils' need and want to develop their abilities “to make mistakes to be able to learn”, inclusive teaching focusing on the design and technology process can foster a broad-minded and open atmosphere.
• Gender-conscious pedagogy involves reflecting on gender’s impact on learning, knowledge, and teaching, questioning stereotypes and expectations. For example, teachers can reflect on how they first see the pupil as a girl, boy, or person. If we see gender first, it will affect outcomes.
• Gender-inclusive methods encompass diverse problem-solving approaches, tinkering, open-ended problems, and sustainability-related tasks, such as being presented with a specific problem to solve but not being told how. The only tools for problem-solving are prior technological knowledge, materials, and tools. Here, the pupils, working in smaller groups within the classroom, it is key to let the pupils try and try again but also show their solutions to each other and let them explain how they were thinking as they worked closer to a solution. It is not a method of making perfect; it is a method of making, doing, and trying.
• Observing and addressing gender roles during collaborative work, rotating tasks, and challenging traditions promotes inclusivity.
• Boys may approach technical tasks in isolation, but contextual work can enhance girls’ engagement. However, it’s crucial not to stereotype or contradict the curriculum by stepping too far away from it whilst aiming for gender-sensitive lessons.
• Encouraging trial and error, discussion, and planning benefits all pupils, irrespective of gender, fostering self-identity and broadening perceptions.

Summary

In design and technology (D&T) education, a gender gap persists despite interventions. The gender disparity is more than statistical; it is a missed opportunity for societal enrichment. Research suggests ways of addressing gender imbalance in D&T education, emphasising inclusive teaching methods, gender-conscious pedagogy, diverse problem-solving, and challenging gender roles during collaborative work. Encouraging trial and error and fostering open discussions can benefit all students, promoting self-identity and broadening their perceptions of the subject and a future career in subject-related fields.

References 

Corneliussen, H.G. (2024). Women Fighting Gender Stereotypes in a Gender Egalitarian Culture. In: Reconstructions of Gender and Information Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. 

Ofqual (2023) A level outcome

Sultan, U. (2022). Gendering the curriculum | 12 | v2 | Debates in design and technology. Taylor & Francis.

Connected work

Sultan, U., Axell, C. & Hallström, J. (2023). Bringing girls and women into STEM? Girls’ technological activities and conceptions when participating in an all-girl technology camp. International journal of technology and design education

Sultan, U. (2023). Girls’ technological knowledge. In: The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference: Proceedings. Paper presented at The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference (PATT40)

Sultan, U., Axell, C., & Hallström, J. (2020). Technical or not? Investigating the self-image of girls aged 9 to 12 when participating in primary technology education. Design and Technology Education

Further reading, free to read

ASPIRES project: A longitudinal research project studying young people’s science and career aspirations. 

Denz, S., & Eggink, W. (2019). Queer-Sensible Designing. 

Holmlid, S., Montaño, C., & Johansson, K. (2006). Gender and design: Issues in design processes. 

Report: Gendered patterns in use of new technologies. (n.d.). European Institute for Gender Equality.

Louise Davies

In England, food education is a crucial component of the Design and Technology (D&T) curriculum, which is part of the broader National Curriculum. Design and Technology education aims to equip students with the skills and knowledge to creatively engage with real-world problems and design solutions (BNF 2019). Food education within D&T focuses specifically on developing students' understanding of nutrition, cooking techniques, food hygiene, sustainability, and food-related issues.

The inclusion of food education in the National Curriculum reflects the recognition of the importance of promoting healthy eating habits and culinary skills from a young age (Dimbleby and Vincent, 2013). It also addresses concerns about rising rates of obesity and diet-related illnesses among children and adolescents.

Key aspects of food education in England's National Curriculum include (DfE 2013):

1. Nutrition: Students learn about the importance of a balanced diet, understanding the different food groups, and the role of nutrients in maintaining health. They may explore concepts such as portion sizes, recommended daily allowances, and the impact of dietary choices on physical and mental well-being.
2. Cooking Skills: Practical cooking lessons form a significant part of food education. Students learn basic cooking techniques, kitchen safety, and how to follow recipes. They may also explore more advanced culinary skills as they progress through the curriculum.
3. Food Hygiene and Safety: Understanding food hygiene principles is essential to prevent foodbourne illnesses. Students learn about proper food handling, storage, and preparation techniques to maintain hygiene and safety standards in the kitchen.
4. Sustainability: The curriculum often includes discussions on sustainable food production and consumption. Students may explore topics such as food miles, seasonal eating, reducing food waste, and the environmental impact of different food choices.
5. Cultural and Social Aspects: Food education provides opportunities for students to explore the cultural diversity of food, both locally and globally. They may learn about traditional dishes from different cultures, food customs, and the role of food in social gatherings and celebrations.
6. Critical Thinking: Through food education, students develop critical thinking skills by considering ethical dilemmas, such as the treatment of animals in food production, fair trade practices, and the impact of food marketing on consumer choices.
7. Practical Application: Students are encouraged to apply their knowledge and skills outside the classroom, such as planning and preparing meals at home, participating in cooking competitions, or engaging with local food initiatives.

Overall, food education in England's National Curriculum aims to empower students to make informed choices about food, develop practical cooking skills, and cultivate a lifelong appreciation for healthy and sustainable eating habits.

In recent times, the shift towards health as well as education policy can be seen through:

• Publication of key government policy documents, such as the National Food Strategy (DfE 2023) recommendation, exploring how food and diet underpins the health, well-being and potential of our society and expressing concern that too many young people are still leaving education without the skills and knowledge to cook and live healthily
• Government promoting accountability and transparency of school food arrangements (DfE 2023) by encouraging schools to complete a statement on their school websites, which sets out their whole school approach to food
• Growing awareness of the importance of education and training in improving understanding of healthy, sustainable diets in the population, how diet shift can play a role in supporting the achievement of national climate and nature targets and how government and businesses can improve education and information on healthy, sustainable diets by embedding food education in school curriculums (for example: (British Dietetic Association’s One Blue Dot, and WWF’s Eating for Net Zero).

References

British Dietetic Association (BDA), 2020. One Blue Dot- Eating patterns for health and environmental sustainability. 

British Nutrition Foundation (BNF), 2019. Characteristics of good practice in teaching food and nutrition education in secondary schools.

Department for Education (DfE). (2013). Design and technology. Programmes of study for key stages (pp. 1–3). London, UK: Department for Education.

Department for Education (DfE), 2023. School food standards practical guide.

Dimbleby, H., & Vincent, J. (2013). The school food plan.

WWF, 2023. Eating for net zero-how diet shift can enable a nature positive net-zero transition in the UK. (Edited by Halevy, S. and Trewern-, J.)

Further reading

Dimbleby, H., 2021. National Food Strategy: Part One, National Food Strategy. United Kingdom. Retrieved on 23 May 2024. CID: 20.500.12592/k78t52.

Dimbleby, H., 2022. National Food Strategy: The Plan (Part Two: Final Report), National Food Strategy. United Kingdom. 

Food Teachers Centre, 2024.

Public Health England, 2015 Food teaching in secondary schools: knowledge and skills framework

Rutland, M., & Owen-Jackson, G., 2015. Food technology on the school curriculum in England: Is it a curriculum for the twenty-first century?. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 467-482.

Trudi Barrow

AI provides innovative tools and approaches for pupils to use in D&T. This guide delves into how AI applications in text-to-text, text-to-image, and image-to-image transformations can be effectively utilised by pupils within D&T education as a design tool and as an emerging technology (Barlex, Steeg and Given 2020).

The use of AI being taught as subject knowledge is relatively new (for example ChatGPT-3.5 was launched only in 2022) and although Barlex, Steeg and Given have talked about it as a disruptive technology since mid 2010s, contemporaneous research is limited. However, there are examples of practice shared here from teachers and conference papers used here to explain how its place as curriculum content in D&T.

Use of AI in Design and Technology

Text to Image

• Pupils can create work quickly and effectively using text to image generative AI tools such as Midjourney, Dall-E or Adobe Firefly that can produce sketches in specific styles using specific techniques in seconds. They can also produce photographs of 3D prints, and prototypes made from specific materials.
• Students can critically analyse AI-generated visuals, comparing them with human-generated designs to understand the strengths and limitations of AI in design.

Image to image

• AI rendering tools, such as Newarc.ai can be used to experiment with materials and their properties. Students can render a sketch of a product or garment in many different materials quickly to visually test options.
• Students can utilise AI tools for quick generation of design variants in specific sections of a design image helping students to explore multiple iterations of a concept without the need for extensive manual revisions.
• CAD models that have been rendered rudimentarily can be imported into AI image to image tools to augment them into specific locations or render them with more complex materials with specific lighting specified (Charlwood 2024).

References

Barlex, D., Steeg, T. and Givens, N., 2020, Teaching about disruption: A key feature of new and emerging technologies. In: A. Hardy, ed., Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School. Routledge, 2020, pp. 137-154.

Charlwood. E (2024) AI and Computer Aided Design, Futureminds Magazine; CLEAPSS.

Further reading

Futureminds Digital Magazine: AI Special Edition, CLEAPSS, 2024

The AI Educator tool links, Jan 2024

30 Tools for the AI classroom

AI in Education

Alison Hardy

In D&T the concept of ‘value’ has been primarily used in relation to subject content, pedagogy and outcomes, but Layton (1992a, p.1) points out:

If some views on values and technology appear to you as the only possible ones, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the relationship of values and technology, nor the reason why an understanding of this is important.

Layton (1992b) identifies that there are different kinds of values that pupils need to learn about in D&T for use when making judgments, such as technical values, economic values and moral values. Others have considered the role of values in making design decisions  (Trimingham, 2008) or as a framework for understanding new technologies  (Prime, 1993). Martin  (1999, p. 202) categorises these as ‘values within’ D&T, but analysis reveals that there are another two categories (Hardy 2015):

• Values developed through D&T: How a pupil becomes technologically literate because of studying D&T  (Dakers, 2005; Keirl, 2007)
• Values ascribed to D&T: Layton’s  (1992, p.3) second perspective was not as values within D&T but how the values systems of ‘stakeholders involved in the socio-political shaping of school technology’ influence design and technological activity.

In design and technology pupils learn about how values inform, and are implied in, the design of artefacts and systems.

Pupils’ knowledge of values can be applied in different ways, for example:

1. Understanding what is valued by others.
2. Making value judgements themselves when designing, making, and evaluating.
3. Recognising that values are implicit within products and systems.

Table 1 Some different kinds of values in design and technology (Layton 1992:36)

References

Budgett-Meakin, C. (1992). Values to make the future work: the role of the appropriate technology approach in design and technology education (Version1). Loughborough University. 

Dakers, J. R. (2005). The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 111-126.

D Layton, "Values in Design and Technology," in Make the Future Work, edited by C Budgett-Meakin, Longman, 1992, pages 36 to 53.

Hardy, A.L., 2015. What's D&T for? Gathering and comparing the values of design and technology academics and trainee teachers. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20 (2), 10-21.

Keirl, S. (2007). The politics of technology curriculum. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology for the next generation (pp. 60-73). Cliffeco Communications.

Layton, D. (1992). Values and design and technology. Loughborough University.

Martin, M. (1999). Exploring values in design and technology. In D. Lawton, J. Cairns & R. Gardner (Eds.), Values and the curriculum; the school context (pp. 199-207). Curriculum Studies Academic Group.

Prime, G. M. (1993). Values in technology: Approaches to learning. Design & Technology Teaching, 26(1), 30-36.

Trimingham, R. (2008). The role of values in design decision-making. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(2), 37-52.

Matt McLain

Lee Shulman (2005) introduced the term signature pedagogies, in relation to education and learning in the professions, and refers to the commonly used and accepted approaches or “characteristic forms of teaching and learning” (Shulman, 2005, p. 52) with a discipline. If ‘signature’ refers to a unique characteristic, then ‘pedagogy’ can be broadly defined as the “interactions between teachers, students, and the learning environment and the learning tasks” (Murphy, 2008, p. 35). It is also important to point out that signature pedagogies are:

1. not static in nature, but change over time (often with a lag between changes to technology and society and change in pedagogical approaches).
2. not necessarily the most effective or efficient approaches (they are simply the most commonly accepted and used approaches).

Shulman described signature pedagogies as being comprised of three structures (shown visually in Figure 1):

1. surface (concrete and observable acts of teaching and learning).
2. deep (assumptions about how best to teach a body of knowledge).
3. implicit (the underpinning attitudes, values, and dispositions afforded by learning within a discipline). (Shulman, 2005, pp.54-55).

Figure 1 Mapping of critiquing to product analysis and design fiction (McLain, 2022c)

The surface structure of design and technology (D&T) includes – but is not limited to – teacher-led activities such as demonstrations (McLain, 2021, 2018) and learner-led activities such as design fiction (Hardy, 2018; Irving-Bell et al., 2022). The description ‘surface’ in this instance should not be interpreted as ‘superficial’ or inferior, but rather as learning activities and behaviours that are observable in the classroom context (McLain, 2022a).

Project-based learning (PBL) is an educational approach that includes active learning, which facilitates the students’ achievements. Over the years, it has been found that motivation, the effectiveness of learning, and the ability to construct new knowledge and skills increase when they are associated with an authentic problem (Dagan, 2023)The ‘project’ or project-based learning (PBL) is arguably the deep structure of D&T. A review of D&T and related subject curricula around the world reveals that PBL is assumed as the most effective way to learn the curriculum content, as recognised by different countries in their design and technology curricula (see references and further reading for examples). However, the word ‘project’ can often be unhelpfully confused by D&T teachers as what learners produce in lessons, such as the artefacts (products or systems) rather than the process of extended activity in response to a particular problem, need, opportunity, etc.

Finally, the implicit structure of D&T – which sits beneath curriculum activity (figure 1), consists of the attitudes, values and dispositions afforded by the discipline. These include: designing, making, and evaluating (although others, such as communicating and researching, could be included), as the fundamentals that underpin D&T subjects around the world that operate within a design and make paradigm (see the various international curricula listed below).

In the past, the approaches promoted in National Curriculum for England were the focused practical task (FPT), design and make assignment (DMA), and investigate, disassemble, and evaluate activity (IDEA). However, these have been superseded by a four-fold model, which has been developed in the UK by academics including David Barlex and Alison Hardy (cf McLain, 2021, 2022b) and adopted by the D&T Association (D&TA, 2019). The model proposes four different approaches to projects in D&T:

• Designing and Making
• Mainly Designing
• Mainly Making
• Exploring Technology and Society

McLain (2022a, 2022b) proposes the addition of a horizonal dimension to the vertical structure of Shulman’s signature pedagogy, adding an expansive-restrictive continuum – similar to the idea of scaffolding and its complimentary opposite concept of fading. Figure 1 illustrates how signature pedagogies of D&T can be mapped between the surface, deep and implicit structures, with each element positioned relative to their perceived level of restriction or expansiveness. For example, the nature of a demonstration is relatively restrictive as it focuses learners’ attention on a specific process or skill with a shared outcome, whereas design fiction is relatively expansive as it gives leaners’ the opportunity to follow their own ideas with potentially divergent outcomes. The aim of this is to help D&T educators to engage with active and professional dialogues, exploring the benefits and limitations associated with every pedagogical decision that they make.

References and Further Reading

ACARA. (2014). The Australian Curriculum: Technologies Introduction. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/introduction/

Dagan, O. (2023). Project-Based Learning: Authentic and Effective Learning in Technology Education. In Gill, D., Wooff, D., McLain, M. & Irving-Bell, D. (Eds), Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

DfE (2013). National curriculum: the national curriculum for England to be taught in all local-authority-maintained schools. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum

DoE (2002). Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9 (Schools). Pretoria: Department of Education of South Africa Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/natcur0.pdf

D&TA (2019). D&T Key Resources: a bank of teaching resources for key stage 3. Retrieved from https://www.data.org.uk/media/3249/ks3-dt-project-bank-2019.pdf [accessed 21/12/2023]

EB (2016). Curriculum development > Key Learning Areas > Technology Education. Retrieved from https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/kla/technology-edu/index.html

Hardy, A. (2018). Using design fiction to teach new and emerging technologies in England. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 78(4), 16–20. https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/35113/1/12674_Hardy.pdf

Irving-Bell, D., McLain, M. & Woof, D. (2022). 'Shaping Things': Design Fiction as a catalyst for design in design and technology education. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 7 (2021). https://ajte.org/index.php/AJTE/article/view/74

McLain, M. (2022a). Secondary teacher and teacher educator perspectives on ‘demonstration’ as a signature pedagogy for Design and Technology: Implications for initial teacher education [Doctoral thesis, Liverpool John Moores University]. Liverpool, UK. https://doi.org/10.24377/LJMU.t.00018251

McLain, M. (2022b). What’s so special about design and technology anyway? Exploring contemporary and future teaching using a signature pedagogies discursive framework. In A. Hardy (ed.), Debates in Design and Technology Education (2nd Edition). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

McLain, M. (2022c). A framework for discussing signature pedagogies in design and technology education. In K. Seeman & P.J. Williams (Eds), 11^th Biennial International Design and Technology Teacher’s Association Research Conference (DATTArc), Southern Cross University, Australia. 7-10 December

McLain, M. (2021a). Key pedagogies in design and technology. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school: a companion to school experience (4th Edition). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

McLain, M. (2021b). Developing perspectives on ‘the demonstration’ as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), pp.3-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09545-1

McLain, M. (2018). Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), pp.985-1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9425-0

ITEEA. (2021). Technologically Literate Citizens. Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/48897.aspx

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature Pedagogies in the Professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015

Skolverket. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare.  Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682...

TKI. (2017). The New Zealand Curriculum Online: Technology. Retrieved from https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Technology

Matt McLain

Demonstration is arguably one of the most important approaches in the design and technology (D&T) pedagogical toolkit (McLain, 2021b, 2018; Petrina, 2007), and can therefore be considered a surface structure in the subject’s signature pedagogy (see  3.1 Signature Pedagogies in D&T). A demonstration “focuses on knowledge transfer of technical processes and the practical application of knowledge - demonstrated by the teacher and replicated by the learner” (McLain, 2018, p. 986) involving an expert teacher modelling a skill or procedure to novice learners “how to do something and making explicit the thinking involved” (DfES, 2004a, p. 3). The demonstration is typically accompanied by the teacher explaining technical knowledge, the key steps and emphasising the correct sequence (DfES, 2004b).

Research exploring D&T educators views on demonstration express a belief that subject knowledge and classroom management are essential features of effective practice, consolidation of learning, and facilitation of independence as lower priorities. As such, demonstration can be considered as relatively restrictive (heavily scaffolded) and teacher-led and can be approached from either a constructivist (where the learner is involved in co-construction of knowledge) or a behaviourist (where the learner mirrors or replicates what the teacher models) perspective.

Demonstrations can be described as following one of three types:

• frontloaded, where a whole process is presented followed by the learners replicating it in guided practice,
• just-in-time, where the demonstration is staged with learners replicating in lockstep; and
• after-failure, where the teacher demonstrates (or re-demonstrates), having identified learners’ misunderstandings or poor practice during guided practice.

Just-in-time demonstrations take a more behaviourist approach, with the teacher controlling how the learners engage with a process. They help to reduce cognitive load, by breaking down a demonstration on to discrete step, but reduce learners’ autonomy and disrupt their engagement with practical tasks. Whereas frontloaded demonstrations allow learners to see a complete process or procedure, but relies on them remembering the correct techniques and sequence. In contrast, the after-failure demonstration is where learners work things out for themselves and the teacher identifies and corrects any misconceptions, misunderstanding or malpractice, and involves more of a constructivist approach. The after-failure approach is also useful in conjunction with the other two approaches to recap, refocus or remediate.

Figure 1Mapping of critiquing to product analysis and design fiction (McLain, 2022c)

Demonstration is a relatively restrictive teaching method on the expansive-restrictive continuum of pedagogical approaches (Figure 1), and is best suited to the teaching practical skills and procedural knowledge. It is a form of teacher modelling ideally suited to the mainly making and designing and making pedagogical approaches (see Signature Pedagogies in D&T). However, due to the essentially restrictive nature of the method, it is not well suited to situations where learners are being encouraged to be creative or generate different outcomes to their peers, where a more expansive approach (such as modelling various approaches to solving a problem or ideating). As with every pedagogical decision, the D&T teacher should be aware of both the benefits and limitations of every approach or technique, and take into consideration the intended learning outcomes.

References and Further Reading

DfES (2004a). Pedagogy and practice: Teaching and learning in secondary schools - Unit 6: Modelling. Norwich, UK: HMSO.

DfES (2004b). Pedagogy and practice: Teaching and learning in secondary schools - Unit 8: Explaining. Norwich, UK: HMSO.

McLain, M. (2022). Secondary teacher and teacher educator perspectives on ‘demonstration’ as a signature pedagogy for Design and Technology: Implications for initial teacher education [Doctoral thesis, Liverpool John Moores University]. Liverpool, UK. https://doi.org/10.24377/LJMU.t.00018251

McLain, M. (2021a). Key pedagogies in design and technology. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school: a companion to school experience (4th Edition). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

McLain, M. (2021b). Developing perspectives on ‘the demonstration’ as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), pp.3-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09545-1

McLain, M. (2018). Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), pp.985-1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9425-0

Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom. London: Information Science Publishing.

Trudi Barrow

AI provides innovative tools and approaches for teachers to enhance learning experiences. This guide delves into how AI applications in text-to-text, text-to-image, and image-to-image transformations can be effectively utilised by teachers within D&T education.

The use of AI as a pedagogical tool is relatively new (for example ChatGPT-3.5 was launched only in 2022), therefore contemporaneous research is limited. However, there are examples of practice shared here from teachers and conference papers used here to explain its potential within design and technology education.

Use of AI in Design and Technology

Text to text

• Teachers can use text to text AI generators such as GPT-4, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot to create written resource materials, such as briefs, exemplar design specifications, subject knowledge quizzes, ideas for lesson planning (Ballam 2024) and stories about technology (Axell and Boström 2023).
• Teachers can create revision materials such as mnemonics, poems and rhymes to aid retrieval practice using text to text AI tools.
• Long passages of text can be easily summarised or broken down into bite sized chunks using text to text large language models (LLM) to aid with resource creation and differentiation.
• Written materials can be produced that cite secondary sources for research within D&T using tools such as Perplexity.ai.

Text to Image

• Teachers can create exemplar work quickly and effectively using text to image generative AI tools such as Midjourney, Dall-E or Adobe Firefly that can produce sketches in specific styles using specific techniques in seconds. They can also produce photographs of 3D prints, and prototypes made from specific materials.
• Using the term ‘knolling’ in the prompt can enable the creation of birds’ eye view images or flat lay photographs which are excellent for showing product disassembly and ingredients breakdowns in food lessons. These images can be useful resources to aid discussion tasks.
• Text to image tools can be used with students to enhance vocabulary skills through the writing of descriptive prompts to generate iterations for a design idea.
• Whole class prompting activities can take place using Padlet’s ‘I can’t draw’ function. This could be used for literacy/ vocabulary development or could be used to create class discussion and games e.g. ‘who is the target market?’(Barrow 2024a)

Image to image

• Image to image generative AI tools can enable less confident students to render simple sketches in high definition in vast range of materials. This is incredibly valuable in aiding confidence in visual communication and drawing ability.
• Teachers can leverage AI to teach principles of design, such as balance, contrast, and harmony, by visually demonstrating these concepts through image modifications.

There are other more complex uses of AI in D&T currently being explored For example, using Blockade Labs to create immersive spaces integrated with Thinglink can be used to aid revision (Barrow 2024b).

The integration of AI into D&T education can revolutionise how design concepts are taught, understood, and applied. By incorporating AI tools in text-to-text, text-to-image, and image-to-image transformations, teachers can enhance the delivery and pedagogy of D&T. This not only makes the learning process more engaging and efficient but also prepares students for a future where technology is seamlessly integrated into the design and creative processes.

References

Axell, C. and Boström, J. (2023) “Unveiling Biases: An Exploration of ChatGPT-3.5-generated ‘Technology Stories’ ”, The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference Proceedings 2023, 1(October). Available at: https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/PATT40/article/view/1369 (Accessed: 23 February 2024).

Ballam. R (2024) AI in Food Education, Futureminds Magazine; CLEAPSS.

https://sites.google.com/view/cleapss-futureminds/spring-2024/ai-in-food-education

Barrow. T. (2024a) Designing learning opportunities with AI image generation, Futureminds Magazine; CLEAPSS.

https://sites.google.com/view/cleapss-futureminds/spring-2024/ai-image-generation

Barrow. T. (2024b) Immersive Learning Spaces, Futureminds Magazine; CLEAPSS.

https://sites.google.com/view/cleapss-futureminds/spring-2024/immersive-learning-worlds

Charlwood. E (2024) AI and Computer Aided Design, Futureminds Magazine; CLEAPSS.

https://sites.google.com/view/cleapss-futureminds/spring-2024/cad-and-ai

Further reading

Futureminds Digital Magazine: AI Special Edition, CLEAPSS, 2024: https://sites.google.com/view/cleapss-futureminds/spring-2024

The AI Educator tool links, Jan 2024: https://www.theaieducator.io

30 Tools for the AI classroom: https://ditchthattextbook.com/ai-tools/

AI in Education: https://www.ai-in-education.co.uk/ 

Mariana Tamashiro

Technology is evolving at a concerning pace. Not only in technical terms, but also regarding its impact on society. Although there are many initiatives on how to teach students about emerging technologies, such as AI, the majority of them focus on the technical part and only a few highlight the societal aspects of those technologies (Van Mechelen, 2022). Among different pedagogical strategies to teach students about the complex impacts of technology on society, one seems particularly interesting to scaffold students' understanding of complex issues: the use of fiction in learning activities.

Hansen (2021) explains that one of the most relevant benefits of fiction in education is that while it might represent stories, characters, and situations realistically, it is not a direct replica of reality. Vermeule (2010) also states that “narrative can be seen as a vehicle by which people test various scenarios without risking too much”.  Specifically, regarding technology, it is possible to use stories to create curiosity both for technical and societal elements of technology, characters to exercise perspective-taking of different stakeholders, and mischief to spark ethical discussions (Tamashiro, 2021).

Table 1 Examples on how to use fiction in technology education

References and further reading

Bundy, A. et al. (2001) Validity and Reliability of a Test of Playfulness. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 21(4), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920102100405

Hansen, K. (2021) Optimistic Fiction as a Tool for Ethical Reflection, STEM, J. Acad. Ethics. 19 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09405-5.

Hardy, A. (2018) Using design fiction to teach new and emerging technologies in England., in: Technol. Eng. Teach., pp. 16–20. https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/35113

Tamashiro, M. et al. (2021) Introducing teenagers to machine learning through design fiction: an exploratory case study, Interaction Design and Children. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3465193

Van Mechelen, M. (2022), Emerging Technologies in K–12 Education: A Future HCI Research Agenda, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569897.

Vermeule, B. (2010) Why do we care about literary characters?, JHU Press, 2010.

Sarah Davies

The Importance of Effective Lesson Planning

Planning lessons well is a key skill for design and technology teachers to learn. It might look like experienced teachers plan lessons easily, but they are actually using a lot of professional knowledge to create successful learning experiences. The chapter "Planning lessons in design and technology" (Davies 2020), explains that student teachers should see lesson planning as a dynamic, knowledge-based practice that will develop throughout their careers, not just a technical process.

Crafting Clear Learning Intentions

The most important part of every lesson plan is clear learning intentions that say what pupils should know, understand, or be able to do by the end of the lesson. These intentions help teachers choose learning activities, organise the lesson, decide how to measure success, and determine what resources are needed. Learning intentions are important, they identify what pupils will learn, not just what activities they will do. It is too easy when planning lessons in design and technology to focus on what pupils will do rather than what they will learn and how this is helping them progress in the design and technology capability (Hardy 2020). Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) revised taxonomy is helpful guide for exploring ways to write intentions that cover factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge.

Sequencing Learning Activities

To make learning intentions happen, teachers must carefully organise learning activities to connect to prior knowledge, introduce new content, allow practice, and deepen understanding. Davies (2020, p. 197-198) recommends planning lessons in three parts - an introduction, main learning activities, and ending - while keeping individual activities under 20 minutes to keep pupils engaged (Cornish and Dukette 2009). During the lesson, regularly checking success criteria linked to the learning intentions allows teachers to track progress and respond to pupil needs.

Preparing Resources and Evaluating Lessons

Carefully choosing and preparing resources and materials is another important part of lesson planning, especially for the hands-on nature of design and technology. This includes thinking about any health and safety requirements (Leask 2020) and the roles of other adults who may be in the classroom, such as teaching assistants. After the lesson, evaluating how it went informs future planning and teaching.

Supporting Student Teachers

For student teachers who feel overwhelmed by lesson planning, Davies (2020, p. 203 – 204) suggests starting with the detailed template she provides, while remembering that planning will get easier with experience. Capel et al. (2022) and McGill (2017) provide more frameworks and ideas to support this important practice. In addition, the middle section of McGill’s book “Plan” - offers further reading to enhance student teachers’ developing understanding of lesson planning, using seven ideas to structure lesson planning in design and technology.

Key Takeaways

• Lesson planning is a dynamic, knowledge-based practice that evolves throughout a teaching career.
• Clear learning intentions focused on pupils’ learning in design and technology are the foundation of effective lesson plans.
• Carefully sequenced learning activities, well-prepared resources, and lesson evaluation are essential elements of lesson planning.
• By seeing lesson planning as an integral part of teaching, design and technology teachers can increase pupils learning in this important subject.

References and further reading

Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R., 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Longman. https://bit.ly/4as9Ul2

Krathwohl, D. 2002. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41:4, 212-218, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Capel, S., Leask, M. Younie, S., Hudson, E., and Lawrence, J. 2022. Learning to teach in the secondary school: a companion to school experience. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781032062297. https://routledgelearning.com/learningtoteach/.

Calderhead, J., 1996. Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In: D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee eds., Handbook of educational psychology. London, England: Prentice Hall International, pp. 709-725. https://bit.ly/4bmBcLe

Cornish, D, M. and Dukette, D., 2009. The essential 20: Twenty components of an excellent health care team. Dorrance Publishing. https://bit.ly/4awTGaq

Davies, S., 2020. Planning lessons in design and technology. In: A. Hardy, ed., Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. London: Routledge. https://bit.ly/4bLgOTC

Hardy, A., 2020, Planning for progression in design and technology. In: A. Hardy, ed., Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School. Routledge, 2020, pp. 236-250.

Hattie, J., 2012. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge. https://bit.ly/3yoJPGz

Leask, D., 2020. Health and safety in design and technology. In: A. Hardy, ed., Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. London: Routledge. https://bit.ly/4bLgOTC

McGill, R.M., 2017. Mark. Plan. Teach. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. https://bit.ly/3yC2yy8

Mutton, T., Hagger, H. and Burn, K., 2011. Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of Student teacher. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399-416. https://bit.ly/4arDHuf

Helen Brink

Gifted students are a heterogenous group, Dai & Chen, (2013), and Gagné (2004; 2005) describes giftedness as developmental and malleable abilities which need catalysts to develop into talents. These catalysts can be, for example, derived from educational settings. Therefore, it is important that the technology education provides gifted students with opportunities aligning with their needs, so they can develop their abilities.

Gifted students can have specific needs in technology education (D&T). These needs are described in the CAAS framework (Brink, 2023). The CAAS framework was developed through a research literature review and a thematic analysis and consists of four themes: Complexity, Autonomy, Authenticity and Support. The CAAS framework also illustrates how teaching can be organised to meet the needs of gifted students.

Table 1 CAAS framework with examples of gifted students’ needs in technology education and teaching responding to the needs

Teachers can use the CAAS framework when designing technology education as a proactive response to the gifted students needs. Design and or technical activities and learning situations can include complexity, autonomy, authenticity and support in varying degrees and by that, gifted students are given a chance to develop their abilities. One example is design activities using CAD (computer aided design) where students can be doubly challenged, both in the design and in the software (Brink et al., 2022).

It can be a challenge to teach gifted students in mixed-ability classroom settings, however, activities based on the CAAS framework can be argued to benefit all students, not only gifted students.

References and further reading

Brink, H., Kilbrink, N., & Gericke, N. (2022). Teach to use CAD or through using CAD: An interview study with technology teachers.  International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09770-1

Brink, H. (2023). Gifted students’ needs in technology education. In S. Davies, M. McLain, A. Hardy & D. Morrison-Love (Eds.), The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference Proceedings 2023, 31 October-3 November, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/PATT40/article/view/1327

Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168.

Gagné, F. (2004) Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15:2, 119-147. DOI: 10.1080/1359813042000314682

Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: the DMGT as a developmental model. I R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 98-119). Cambridge University Press.

Richard Brown

Wei Long's (2020) research underscores the significant impact of hands-on learning experiences in promoting critical thinking among students, which is particularly relevant to the context of D&T education. There are other researchers that link this metacognitive skill as being synonymous with the subject of D&T, for example Rauscher and Badenhorst (2021).

Whilst other significant studies related to critical thinking (Halpern (2002), Mulnix (2012), Nicholl (2017), Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., & Ortiz, J. (2020)) concur with the positivity of critical thinking in D&T activities, a gap exists in understanding how these theories and findings translate into practice. Furthermore, considering the multitude of differing descriptions of critical thinking, many researchers mentioned above agree that critical thinking is hard to quantify, to define and to assess.

The challenge in defining critical thinking

Critical thinking is a multi-layered construct (Willingham, 2020), and whilst various researchers have offered diverse definitions to capture its complexity and depth, it has been suggested that critical thinking is hard to distinguish with one clear definition (Ab Kadir 2018; Wei 2020; Yang 2009).

Ennis (1987, 1996, 2018) emphasised the importance of fostering critical thinking skills early in education, highlighting its influence on cognitive development and problem-solving abilities. Facione's (1990, 2000) work on critical thinking pedagogy stresses the importance of implementing strategies that encourage active student engagement, reasoning, and problem-solving.

Lai (2011) and Barnett (1997) have the view that defining the concept of critical thinking is dependent upon how it is used.  Lai refers to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of learning, critical thinking being one of the higher-order thinking skills and Barnett identifies four different ways of utilising the skill: as a stand-alone discipline, as knowledge used practically, engaged politically and as strategic thinking (p.10-14).

Separating critical and creative thinking

Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) suggests the difference between the two cognitive skills are that “critical thinking is mainly inquisitive, a detective way of thinking; creative thinking is imaginative, the artist way of thinking” (2019, p.27).

Spuzic et al. (2016) determines that within engineering, criticality and creativity are valuable skills.  Whilst creative thinking can be seen as imaginative and critical thinking more analytical, both have worth in design and engineering (p.3).  The report cites Adriansen (2010) table that attempts to differentiate the two cognitive skills.

Table 1: Idealised differences between criticality and creativity (Spuzic et al (2016, p.5))

Why teach critical thinking

Erikson's (2019) research on the significance of vocational education in fostering a skilled workforce underscores the relevance of aligning D&T education with future career prospects for young learners. This highlights how teaching critical thinking within D&T can equip students with both foundational skills and practical knowledge that are essential for their future endeavours.

Vincent-Lancrin et al. (2019) states that critical and creative thinking are two skills necessary for the future workforce and that critical thinking in particular can “contribute to human well-being and to the good functioning of democratic societies” (2019, p.18). The authors also suggest that critical thinking has become even more vital “in a digital world in which a multiplicity of facts, views, theories and assumptions compete” (2019, p.20).

An independent panel, led by David Sainsbury for the DfE, states that “our education and skills system is failing to develop the skills employers seek” (DfE, 2016, p.22).  Furthermore, Jagannathan et al. (2019), stated that future employers seek employees who demonstrate “critical thinking and design thinking and negotiation skills which contribute to complex problem-solving in the workplace” (2019, p.2).

This can be supported by research from around the world.  Trilling and Foden (2009) in the USA, Ab Kadir (2018) in Australia and a Chilean based study by Cáceres et al. (2020, p.1) cite and agree with Butler et al. (2017) suggesting that “mastering critical thinking is a better predictor of successful life decisions than other factors, such as intelligence.”

Best practice for critical thinking

Whilst the literature may demonstrate the benefits of critical thinking, the ‘how’ to teach it is more challenging.  Willingham (2000) suggests a four-stage strategy to introduce and develop critical thinking skills with children and young people.

• Identify critical thinking skills in each domain: skills are subject and skill dependent.
• Identify the domain content students must know: specific knowledge is required before considering it critically.
• Sequencing critical thinking skills: a sequential development of thinking skills.
• Revisiting critical thinking skills: retention of critical thinking skills.

Conclusion

The above research highlights that just exposing students to opportunities for critical thinking is not enough, it needs to be considered long term and continually revisited. Teachers of D&T therefore need to consider the importance of teaching, modelling and providing opportunities for developing critical thinking skills with students of all abilities and ages.

References

Ab Kadir, M. A. (2018). An inquiry into critical thinking in the Australian curriculum: Examining its conceptual understandings and their implications on developing critical thinking as a “general capability” on teachers’ practice and knowledge. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1535424

Adriansen, Hanne Kirstine. (2010). How criticality affects students' creativity. Teaching creativity - creativity in teaching edited by C. Nygaard, N. Courtney & C. Holtham. 65-84.

Butler, H.A., Pentoney, C. and Bong, M.P., 2017. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, pp.38-46.

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Krathwohl, D.R., 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: the cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co.

Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M. and Ortiz, J., 2020. Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, p.100674.

Department for Education, Sainsbury (2019) retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536046/Report_of_the_Independent_Panel_on_Technical_Education.pdf

Ennis, R.H., 1987. Critical thinking and the curriculum. Thinking skills instruction: Concepts and techniques, pp.40-48.

Ennis, R.H., 1996. Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal logic, 18(2).

Ennis, R.H., 2018. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37, pp.165-184.

Erikson, M. G., & Erikson, M. (2019). Learning outcomes and critical thinking – good intentions in conflict. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2293–2303. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1486813

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Critical Thinking, 31.

Facione, P. A. (2000). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill. Informal Logic, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254

Halpern, D.F. and Riggio, H.R., 2013. Thinking critically about critical thinking: A workbook to accompany Halpern's thought & knowledge. Routledge.

Jagannathan, S., Ra, S. and Maclean, R., 2019. Dominant recent trends impacting on jobs and labor markets-An Overview. International Journal of Training Research, 17(sup1), pp.1-11.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6(1), 40-41.

Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Nicholl, B. (2017). Empathy as an aspect of critical thought and action in design and technology education. In J. Williams & K. Stables, (Eds.), Critique in Design and Technology Education (pp. 157-171). Springer.

Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., & Ortiz, J. (2020). Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, Article 100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100674

Rauscher, W., & Badenhorst, H. (2021). Thinking critically about critical thinking dispositions in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(3), 465–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09564-3

Spuzic, S., Narayanan, R., Abhary, K., Adriansen, H. K., Pignata, S., Uzunovic, F., & Guang, X. (2016). The synergy of creativity and critical thinking in engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation and the fine arts. Technology in Society, 45, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.11.005

Trilling, B. and Fadel, C., 2012. 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What it Means in School. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en

Willingham, D.T. (2020) Ask the Cognitive Scientist: How Can Educators Teach Critical Thinking?" American Educator 44.3: 41. Web.

Wei Leong Leon LOH, (2020) Critical Thinking in Problem Exploration in Design and Technology Design Project. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(1) 35-54

Yang, S. C., & Chung, T.-Y. (2009). Experimental study of teaching critical thinking in civic education in Taiwanese junior high school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X238771

Further reading

Brown, R. (2023). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking skills within primary school design and technology. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 28(2), 22–37. Retrieved from https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1183

Brown, R (2022) Teacher perceptions of Critical Thinking Skills within primary design and technology Proceedings for the 39th Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT39) Conference, Memorial University, Newfoundland, 21-24 June, pp.94-104. https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/50821651/patt39_proceedings_june_17_2022.pdf

Brown, R (2022) ‘Exploring Teacher Perceptions’ D&T Practice (February), p25-27 https://www.designtechnology.org.uk/resource-shop/magazines/dt-practice-22022-pdf-copy/ 

Silveira, V. & Mburu, P. K.

Using biomimicry as an approach in a D&T classroom aligns with the National Curriculum framework DfE (2013, p.2) in England which states:

When designing and making, pupils should be taught to use a variety of approaches. For example, biomimicry and user-centred design, to generate creative ideas and avoid stereotypical responses. 

Biomimicry affords a pedagogical approach which places a pupil as a creative thinker and designer working jointly with others on a  real-life design problem. This way of working gives a Design and Technology learner the opportunity to avoid generating product design ideas that are a direct copy of what they are familiar with.

Originating from the professional fields of design and technology, biomimicry is  a process inspired by nature to drive innovation and improve current methods of product design, manufacturing, and life cycles (Benyus, 1997). In other words, biomimicry is the science and art of emulating nature's best biological and sustainable solutions by mimicking patterns and strategies that have been tested through time in nature (Vierra, 2019; Appio et al., 2017). This has led designers to apply biomimicry in everyday products, for example, in designing high speed trains, designers have used a long beak-shaped front nose that mimics the ability of the kingfisher bird in travelling between air and water with minimal splash. Additionally, George de Mestral invention of the Velcro was inspired after observing the easiness it was for burrs to stick to his dog’s hair. Upon studying burrs under a microscope, he noticed the simple design of tiny hooks at the end of the burr’s spines (Goddard, n.d). Indeed, nature often serves as a wellspring of inspiration for human innovation and progress. As Reed et al. (2009) suggests that nature has the capacity to inspire us with new possibilities, akin to how Leonardo da Vinci's study of birds in flight fostered the idea of human flight. However, it's important to note that our advancements in aviation, enabling us to carry heavier loads at greater speeds than birds, did not hinge on imitating the flapping motion of wings. Rather, our progress stemmed from recognising the importance of wings with adaptable curvature in optimising lift and drag across different velocities. Consequently, this approach of imitating nature can be useful in helping pupils grasp design concepts and provides an authentic learning experience in Design and Technology classrooms.

Pupils can be supported to use a biomimicry approach to solve a real-life problem for a client. An example of such a design context could be ‘to design and prototype a range of nature inspired products to be used to encourage wildlife habitation in their school compound’. Teacher support could be applied in different ways, for example:

• Introducing the concept of biomimicry by using examples of informational texts, images, videos of inventions imitating nature.
• Providing intervention materials such as observations in nature that sparks pupils thinking to identify, comprehend and adapt natures strategies.
• Support decision making when designing and making to avoid design fixation.
• Assessment of learning throughout the unit of work, for example by using interdependent decision making (Barlex and Steeg, 2017) parameters. These are stakeholder, conceptual, aesthetic, technical and constructional parameters.

The interdependence of these five areas is an important component of making design decisions. The change of decision within one area will affect some if not all of design decisions that are made within the others. It is the juggling of these various decisions that leads to a clear design proposal which can be achieved to the point of a fully working prototype.

Table 1. An example of a biomimicry-based unit of work interweaved with Barlex and Steeg (2017) interdependent decision-making parameters.

A biomimicry based approach to design and making could be embraced by pupils to develop a range of original and creative nature inspired products, for they value opportunities that involve questioning solutions presented by nature. In addition, incorporating discussions  (before, during and after interventions) that include questions and answering questions for clarification during a biomimicry-based unit of work would mostly lead to pupils producing a prototype that mimics nature and solves a design problem. As a closing activity, students could share their design solution with the class. The context of the department and the resources available to the teacher could influence the outcome of pupils’ use of biomimicry as a design approach.

References and further reading

Appio, F., Achiche, S., Martini, A., & Beaudry, C. (2017). On designers’ use of biomimicry tools during the new product development process: an empirical investigation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(7), 775-789. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1236190

Barlex, D. & Steeg, T. (2017). Re-building Design & Technology. Retrieved June 26, 2022, from David and Torben for D&T: https://dandtfordandt.wordpress.com/resources/re-building-dt/

Benyus, J. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: William

Morrow.

Department for Education (2013). Design and technology programmes of study: key stage 3. Retrieved on 02/01/2024 from https://www.gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-englan...

Goddard, G. (n.d) Biomimetic design: 10 examples of nature inspiring technology. Retrieved on 25/02/2024 from https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/biomimetic-design-10-exam....

Reed, E. J., Klumb, L., Koobatian, M. and Viney, C. (2009). Biomimicry as a route to new materials: What kinds of lessons are useful? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A., 367 (1893), 1571-1585). http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0010

Vierra, S. (2019, September 21). Biomimicry: Designing To Model Nature. Retrieved on 02/01/2024, from Whole Building Design Guide: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/biomimicry-designing-model-nature

Alison Hardy

Assessment is a crucial aspect of teaching and learning in Design and Technology (D&T) education in England. It serves as a follower, checker, validator, informer, and future director of where learning can be taken next.

Assessment in D&T is not only about measuring pupils' knowledge and skills but also about developing their design and technology capability. There are two things to assess in design and technology:

1. Whether pupils have learned knowledge, skills, and processes.

2. The extent of a pupil’s design and technology capability.

There has been more research done about the assessment of design and technology capability than there is about assessing pupils’ learning of specific aspects of knowledge, skills, and processes. However, the research does show that more than one form of assessment is needed to assess what pupils have learnt and their emerging design and technology capability (Hartell & Strimel 2019).

Assessment in D&T involves various methods, including formative assessment strategies (e.g., starter and plenary activities, question and answer sessions, observing pupils while they work, one-to-one dialogue, exit tickets, self-assessment, and peer assessment) and summative assessment (e.g., internal tests, examinations, and project work). Effective feedback is crucial in communicating assessments to pupils and should focus on what can be done to improve and develop further.

It is essential to assess both individual components of the curriculum and pupils' emerging design and technology capability using a combination of formative and summative assessment methods.

References and Suggested reading

Hartell, E., & Strimel, G. J. (2019) "What is it called and how does it work: examining content validity and item design of teacher-made tests." International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Volume 29, pages 781 to 802.

Moreland, J., Barlex, D., and Jones, A. (2008) "Design and Technology Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning", London: GL Assessment

Schut, A. (2022) Exploring the potential of feedback within the creative processes of a design and technology classroom. In Debates in Design and Technology Education, edited by A L Hardy (2nd edition), Routledge, pages 238 to 251

Schut, A., Klapwijk, R., Gielen, M., and de Vries, M. “Children’s Responses to Divergent and Convergent Design Feedback.” Design and Technology Education Volume 24, 2019, pages 67 to 89.

Wooff, D., Bell, D., and Owen-Jackson, G. (2013) "Assessment questions" in Owen-Jackson, G. (ed.) "Debates in Design and Technology Education", Abingdon: Routledge

Andrew Halliwell

In design and technology, assessment is as crucial as iterative design and critical product analysis. By using self- assessment and peer-assessment, design and technology teachers can make informed decisions about what skills and concepts to teach, and determine whether students are developing, consolidating, or have a secure grasp of their understanding and abilities. This guide focuses on the significance of two key assessment methods in design and technology: self-assessment and peer-assessment.

Self-assessment (SA) involves students evaluating their own work and progress. To facilitate this, teachers must create tasks that enable students to contemplate their performance at different points in the learning process. Peer-assessment (PA), on the other hand, involves students assessing one another's work. For this to occur, students should participate in activities that encourage them to provide constructive feedback on their classmates' assignments. The success of both self- and peer-assessment relies on fostering an environment where students feel self-assured, unafraid of making mistakes, persevere through challenges, and are motivated to improve. These assessment methods can significantly contribute to nurturing a growth mindset among students (Norris 2020; Schut 2022).

Within schools, students engage in learning through peer interactions, collaboratively identifying strengths, addressing weaknesses, and cultivating metacognitive skills. Serving as a framework for facilitating knowledge exchange, self and peer assessment can prove highly advantageous. These pedagogical activities enable students to assess both their own work and that of their peers by offering constructive feedback within a supportive environment. According to Neo (2003), immersing students in learning environments where mutual learning occurs provides optimal opportunities for intellectual and academic development. Knowledge creation, in this context, becomes a result of social negotiation and discussion among peers. Pozzi et al. (2007) further characterise this as 'the primary way to learn,' emphasising the importance of critical thinking and understanding. For designers, sharing knowledge with others enhances their creativity and helps them to produce creative ideas (Elsbach & Flynn, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2012). This is crucial as design and technology in schools must enable students to work creatively (Department for Education, 2015). For teachers, involving students in their own learning has indicated improvements in academic performance, knowledge-sharing capabilities, and cognitive skills (Andrade, 2019; Davies, 2002).

The prominence of SA and PA activities in educational settings are highlighted as effective approaches for engaging students in their own learning and ensuring transparency in assessment criteria (Panadero et al., 2013). SA involves learners making judgments about their progress, aiming to generate feedback that fosters further learning (Andrade, 2019). In the context of collaborative learning, peer assessment is viewed as a valuable strategy where students evaluate their peers' work based on specific criteria and provide feedback or grades (Alt & Raichel, 2018). Teaching students, therefore, how to mark and evaluate project work, when completing an iterative design project, can be of significant academic benefit (Halliwell, 2023).

Topping (2017) argues that effective PA requires training, checklists, examples, and practice for reliable assessments. Immediate practice is essential, with feedback and coaching focusing on students' reasoning and justification, aligning with the findings of Van Zundert et al. (2010), who observed increased domain-specific skills and positive attitudes toward PA when trained and experienced peer assessors provided feedback.

To mitigate interpersonal tensions, Davies (2002) recommends introducing anonymity during peer assessment (PA) to eliminate biases stemming from friendships, uniformity, and race. Lu and Law (2012) endorse online peer assessment as a method for students to evaluate, provide feedback, and critique their peers' work anonymously. Conducting assessments online enables teachers to monitor students' participation and progress in real time, as highlighted by Topping (2018). Ensuring a conducive environment for quality feedback, Bhalerao and Ward (2001) emphasise the importance of allowing students to freely comment on others' work without the fear of reprisal. In order, therefore, for self-assessment and peer-assessment to be set up in the classroom the following is, suggested:

• Anonymity of feedback – this avoids the problems of social tensions and removes the bias from friendships, uniformity and race (Davies, 2002).
• Microsoft OneNote – This enables students to mark, feedback and critique the work of peers easily and anonymously. This also allows teachers to oversee the process and progress of students (Lu & Law , 2012).
• Marked examples – Students should be shown how the mark scheme is used and referred to when justifying marks and evaluating student work. Some authors suggest that the students should help construct the marking criteria for greater clarity (Topping, 2018).
• Assessor training – Students should have the opportunity to practice marking and giving justifying constructive comments for a piece of work. This could then be either assessed by the teacher or compared with the teachers own grading for the same piece of work.

This summary aims to empower educators in implementing effective self and peer assessment strategies by fostering a collaborative and supportive learning environment for students in design and technology. For an example please see Halliwell, (2023).

References and further reading

Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2018). Lifelong Citizenship: Lifelong Learning as a Lever for Moral and Democratic Values. In Lifelong Citizenship (pp. 1–19). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512398_001

Andrade, H. L. (2019). A Critical Review of Research on Student Self-Assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087

Bhalerao, A., & Ward, A. (2001). Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: A case study. ALT-J, 9(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760108656773

Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to Assess Higher-order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom. ASCD.

Davies, P. (2002). Using Student Reflective Self-Assessment for Awarding Degree Classifications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558000210161034

Halliwell, A. J. T. (2023). Exploring the Use of Peer and Self-Assessment as a Pedagogical Tool in UK Secondary Design Education. The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference Proceedings 2023, 1(October), Article October. https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/PATT40/article/view/1406

Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2

Norris, S., 2020, Assessing design and technology. In: A. Hardy, ed., Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the Secondary School. Routledge, 2020, pp. 251-272.

Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Using formative assessment to influence self- and co-regulated learning: The role of evaluative judgement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(3), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0407-8

Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 39, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005

Schut, A., 2022, Exploring the potential of feedback within the creative processes of a design and technology classroom. In: A. Hardy, ed., Debates in Design and Technology Education. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2022, pp. 238-251.

Topping, K. (2017). Peer Assessment: Learning by Judging and Discussing the Work of Other Learners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.31532/InterdiscipEducPsychol.1.1.007

Topping, K. (2018). Using Peer Assessment to Inspire Reflection and Learning. Routledge.

Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004