Signature Pedagogies in D&T

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), 11th 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

Tags: