Knowledge Structure of Design and Technology Education
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:
- The distinction and relationship between design knowledge and technological knowledge
- The epistemological coherence of design and technology as a subject
- 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.
