journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 51

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like? Dr Mary Southall, Office of PVC Learning Transformations School of Education, Western Sydney, Australia

Abstract teachers’ and students’ achievement, creativity and This paper presents findings from a research study enjoyment in teaching and learning in the classroom. investigating the relationship between intended learning and actual learning in Design and Technology lessons (Southall, 2015). The research focused upon the ‘pre Key words active’ phase of the teaching-learning process, that is the learning intentions, learning outcomes, classroom-based teacher’s planning processes and procedures. The learning, evidence of learning, learning progress planning processes and procedures used by teachers are an essential pre-requisite to ensuring students’ progress their learning and consequently a vital aspect of teaching. Introduction

Unfortunately however, it is an area of teaching often only In 2007 I was asked to work on the Qualification and H

considered in the context of ‘novice’ teachers. With the Curriculum Authority’s (QCA) National Exemplification of C

recent increasing focuses on the production of Standards Project as the Design and Technology R measurable learning ‘outputs’ in education, understanding Coordinator. The key goal of the project was to support A the mechanisms behind effective planning processes that teachers in their standardisation and moderation E S

provide appropriate learning experiences, producing a processes and procedures by providing a wide range of E

range of learning outcomes is challenging for teachers and student work that exemplified the attainment levels, 3-8. R schools. As the coordinator, I was responsible for gathering and collating the information to populate the web-based The concept of being able to identify students’ learning resource with Key Stage 3 examples of teaching and and consequently plan for, capture and then gather learning from students aged 11-14 years, that is, I was learning, is directly related to the notion of learning responsible for gathering work that would demonstrate outcomes, however can learning outcomes demonstrate learning in Design and Technology. It soon became the type of learning required to progress in Design and apparent that demonstrating or even identifying and Technology? The role and function of a learning outcome describing learning and learning progresssion in Design within the teaching-learning process, the influences on and Technology was not as straightforward process. and issues involved in the application of Design and As the project progressed the key questions that emerged Technology learning outcomes will be discussed. was: ‘What does Design and Technology learning actually look like? and ‘what planning approaches can be used to Seventy lesson plans were analysed and the intended ensure the complexities of the subject are effectively learning outcome was identified and compared with the demonstrated’ Such fundamental questions have actual learning outcome produced during the lesson. The significant implications on the teaching-learning process findings from this study reveal that the dominant, and, in particular, how teachers identify the learning they systematic planning model used by many teachers, want their students to achieve and subsequently plan provides only to a limited extent the relational framework learning opportunities to allow students the opportunity to for the intended and actual learning that supports the demonstrate such learning. teaching-learning process. The prevailing focus on learning outcomes identified during this research is, it is argued, Learning and learning outcomes unable to fully support the multidimensionality and Learning presents a complex subject for enquiry involving multimodality integral to Design and Technology learning. a wide variety of interrelated and integrated factors, Instead it is restrictive and promotes a limited approach to created through constant negotiations between the subject in relation to both teaching and learning. The individuals, social environments and broader social study concludes that the planning processes and influences, thus infused with the complexity of learners' procedures in Design and Technology need to be lives. Defining learning is particularly difficult and there are developed with the clear intention of strengthening their various ways of conceptualising it (Hager and Hodkinson, role within the teaching-learning process. This would 2009), as a consequence there are a wide range of encourage the development of the underlying important definitions available. Although there is no single external, principles inherent within the subject and support reified entity that is ‘learning’, people construct and may

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 51 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 52

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

regard certain processes/products/activities as such 1999). In ‘formal’ learning environments, the teacher or (SaljÖ, 2000). As Illeris (2007) suggests, there are three department sets the goals and objectives, whereas different meanings of the term ‘learning’ in everyday generally ‘informal’ learning requires the learner to set speech. Learning can refer to the outcomes of learning, i.e. their own goals and objectives (Cofer, 2000). Winch what has been learnt, the mental processes used by (1998) argues there are many and diverse cases of individuals while learning, or the interactions between learning, each subject to constraints in a variety of individuals and their environment, suggesting that learning contexts. It is, therefore, useful and more appropriate to can either be viewed as a ‘product’, a ‘process’ or a ‘social consider learning as a continuum (Eraut, 2000). Figure activity’ (Illeris, 2007: 3). 1.1 represents a ‘continuum of learning’.

In England, secondary schools, with particular reference to Classroom-based learning is associated with a narrow Key Stage 3 students (aged 11-14 years old), ‘a learning range of learning, often juxtaposed with ‘informal’ learning outcome sets out what a learner is expected to know, and involving aspects of learning considered important in understand and be able to do as the result of a process of secondary education (James, 2005). Classroom-based learning’ , thus, it is a predictive statement of learning learning in school is dominated by the acquisition of

H intention generally written by the teacher. As such, knowledge and skills (Eraut, 2000; Pring, 2000; Illeris,

C learning outcomes and intended learning statements are 2003; James, 2008; Swaffield, 2009), traditionally the R directly related. Generally, advice follows Kelly (2013) who mainstays of the English education system (Perkins, A contends that, for intended learning statements to be 1993). E complete and effective, they must include two elements: S

E they must define what is going to be learnt and, secondly, The dominant model of planning for learning

R they must give an indication of how that learning will be Rationalistic, technical curriculum planning has been the assessed by stating the form of the learning outcome, that dominant model underpinning planning for teaching and is determining the actual product, process or outcome learning for a generation or more in England and Wales (Eisner, 2002). The formulation of an intended learning (Parkay and Hass, 2000) and involves the use of a linear statement generally takes place in the ‘pre active’ phase of approach to planning, which begins with the specification the teaching-learning process and is generally based upon of objectives and ends with a lesson evaluation. With the pedagogical framework set out in the English National reference to students’ aged 11-14, the Key Stage 3 Curriculum. National Strategy for Design and Technology (DfES, 2004b), for instance, suggests the following format as a framework for planning: objective; vocabulary; resources; Classroom-based learning starter; main activity; and plenary. This dominant or Classroom-based learning, often termed ‘formal learning’ ‘rational’ approach to planning is based on Tyler’s (1949) or ‘school-based learning’, can be described as learning model of curriculum theory and practice, comprising a that involves and is generated by a teacher-student systematic approach based upon the formulation of relationship in a classroom environment (Bell and Dale, behavioural objectives, thus providing a clear notion of

Figure 1.1 a ‘continuum of learning’

52 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 53

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

outcome, so that content and method may be organised that ‘understanding’ is a matter of ‘being able to do a and the results evaluated. It considers education to be a variety of thought-provoking things with a topic, such as technical exercise of organising the outcomes or products explaining, finding evidence in examples, generalising, of learning, whereby objectives are set, a plan drawn up applying, making analogies, and representing the topic in and applied and the outcomes (products) measured. new ways’. The advantage of performance is that the Snape (2013) provides an example of what he defines as learning outcomes are generally visible (Kimbell, 2003). ‘quality learning’ through such a technical, sequenced Whilst understanding demonstrated through performances linear pathway, including: the intended learning; teaching may support the production of accessible learning episodes; opportunities for tangibly evidenced student outcomes, restricting the form through which learning work; and criteria for successful achievement. relating to understanding is demonstrated limits the planning processes and ultimately restricts the teaching- In order to make progress at school, students are learning process further. expected to deepen and broaden their knowledge and skill base. In regards to classroom-based learning, the Alternative models of planning teacher is responsible for controlling and managing the Several alternative and adapted planning approaches are

learning, albeit within a set pedagogical framework, present in the current literature, which are particularly H

through formulating the learning intention and identifying pertinent to Design and Technology education. The C the learning outcome. James (2005) argues that one of ‘naturalistic’ or ‘organic’ model, based on the work of R the key virtues of focusing on knowledge and skills is the Stenhouse (1975) and Egan (1992; 1997), was A E relationship to learning outcomes. Learning that involves developed from the apparent conflict between the need S

developing knowledge and/or skills provides ‘easily to carefully specify learning intentions and the dynamic E

measurable’ learning outcomes in the form of either nature of classrooms, and was an attempt to emulate a R written texts in relation to knowing, or performances in realistic planning process based on the ‘natural’ relation to acquiring skills (Moreland and Jones, 2000). interactions in a classroom. Naturalistic planning involves starting with activities and the ideas that flow from them As well as being required ‘to know’ and ‘to be able to’, the before assigning learning objectives (John, 2006). requirement ‘to understand’ has developed as an Although lacking detail in terms of pedagogical important aspect of classroom-based learning and is often requirements and consideration, this model does resonate described as the application of knowledge and skills with Perkins, Tishman, Ritchart, Donis and Andrade’s (CUREE, 2012). ‘Understanding’ is an abstract concept (2000) notion of ‘learning in the wild’, when learning that is challenging to define and difficult to study from a settings are recognised as ‘messy and complex’ (Carr, scientific perspective (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2008: 36). Perkins and Saloman (1992) argue for the 2000). Nickerson (1985: 217) described understanding need for learners to experience more ‘natural’ learning as an ‘active process’ that requires connecting facts or environments, with teachers’ planning procedures relating new information to what is already known into an supporting this notion. integral and cohesive whole, such that understanding is seen to require having knowledge and then doing Within a Design and Technology context, ‘wicked problems something with it. However, learning or learning outcomes or tasks’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973) described as based around understanding are difficult to plan for, teach, ‘problems of deciding what is better when the situation is and, most noticeably, identify and assess by a teacher. ambiguous at best’ (Marback, 2009: 399), support the Understanding is often neither visible (Hallgarten, 2014) ‘naturalistic’ model, as wicked problems are not solvable; nor immediate (Nuthall, 2011) and can often be transient they are contingent problems of deciding what to do that and therefore the process of demonstrating, capturing, require continual evolution and, as such, are based upon gathering and measuring learning, is potentially the continual morphing of ideas and idea development, challenging. Bransford, Browning and Cocking (2000) through a problem- solving process (Kimbell, Saxton and argue that, although understanding is considered a Miller, 2000). Such a ‘naturalistic’ model requires teachers necessary element of curricula, the focus on content and to plan and create realistic design scenarios in order for the memorisation of content knowledge is often over- students to learn the authentic nature of design activity, emphasised in modern curricula, presumably due to the thus allowing students to experience environments where challenges related to developing ‘understanding’. experimentation and exploration are dominant approaches. Blythe and Perkins (1998: 12) developed a definition of understanding from a performance perspective, explaining

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 53 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 54

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

The ‘interactional method’ of planning, another alternative Design and Technology learning not only distinguished it to the dominant model, stresses from other subjects (Davies, 2000), but helped define the the interactive nature of learning and, therefore, learning discipline (Kimbell, Stables and Green, 1996; Wilson and objectives (Brady, 1995; Bell and Harris, 2004). The ‘unique’ nature of Design and Lofoe,1998). Whilst the ‘interaction’ model specifies the Technology, in terms of developing capability to operate same design elements as the linear effectively and creatively in the made world, is frequently objectives model the ‘interactional method’ planning conceptualised within the current literature (see process can begin with any of the elements. Based on this Holdsworth and Conway, 1999; Middleton, 2005; Kimbell, model, all curriculum elements interact with each other 2006; Green and Steers, 2006; Barlex and Welch, 2007) during the design/planning process and, therefore, the and the process-based nature is a common justification of design of one element will influence and possibly change this ‘uniqueness’. the design decisions for other elements. For example, method might be specified first, but altered later as a A focus on the application of ‘knowledge’ has always been result of an assessment decision. From a practical present in Design and Technology learning and the ‘active’ perspective, this model makes it possible to specify use of knowledge and skills is evident in the various

H learning objectives after all other elements have been ‘thinking-centered processes’ such as designing, evaluating

C decided (Bell and Lefoe, 1998). skills and problem solving associated with the subject. R These cognitive processes often involve ‘tacit’ knowledge, A The ‘articulated curriculum’ (Hussey and Smith, 2003: that is, ‘a range of conceptual and sensory information and E 360) provides a similar approach to the ‘interactional images that can be brought to bear in an attempt to make S

E model’, where the respective elements exist in a state of sense of something’ (Hodkin, 1991: 256). Introduced by

R mutual interaction and influence. Alexander (2000) Michael Polanyi in 1967, ‘tacit’ knowledge refers to a ‘pre- compares this ‘articulated curriculum’ approach to logical phase of knowing’ (Polanyi, 1967: 4) and is planning to the structure of a musical performance, where described as the informed guesses or hunches that are the composition is analogous to the lesson plan, and the part of an exploratory act, motivated by what Polanyi performance shifts according to interpretation and describes as ‘passions’. ‘Tacit’ knowledge is inherently improvisation. This ‘responsive’ approach to planning personal, and requires pedagogical methods and requires the teacher to be vigilant of the learning strategies that reveal the processes associated with such progression within the class and respond accordingly, and knowledge. is synonymous with the formative assessment principles of ‘feedback’ (Ramaprasad, 1983). Biggs (1999) notion of Such cognitive or metacognitive skills associated with this constructive alignment also supports this way of type of learning are not only difficult to plan for, but approaching planning for teaching and learning. problematic to capture and gather and thus do not easily provide learning outcomes. Consequently such types of Design and Technology education in England learning are often overlooked by Design and Technology In relation to the English education system, the Design teachers (Kimbell, 2003; Richardson, 2010), resulting in and Technology National Curriculum Programmes of Study further limiting the range of types of learning provided by for Key Stage 3 (students’ aged 11-14 years) sets out the teachers and produced by students. knowledge, skills and understanding needed to progress learning in the subject. Arguably, the 2014 revised Aspects of learning associated with Design and curriculum is a reaction to the recent focus on how Technology children learn as opposed to what they learn, which had The learning associated with Design and Technology is been firmly on the education agenda for several years complex; the various material-focus areas, the designing (Lambert, 2007). However the explicit focus has shifted and making aspects, and contextual needs require learning and is now upon the ‘product of learning’ and not the to be considered as both multimodal and processes involved in learning; in this sense, it is ‘learning- multidimensional. The relationship between the different output’ focused. However, the concept of ‘process-driven aspects of learning, namely knowledge, skill, task-centered learning’ is driven by an associated ‘process’ understanding and process, is complex in all subjects, but rather than ‘content’ based pedagogical framework. no more so than in relation to Design and Technology Although the development of a proactive, process- teaching and learning. Planning to ensure different centered view of Design and Technology has been seen in aspects of the subject are developed and then other areas of the curriculum, for example process science demonstrated is far from easy. and process mathematics, the processes associated with

54 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 55

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

In 1949, Ryle argued that knowledge could be divided and when knowledge is required, and not on the into ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’ (Ryle, 1949). Often knowledge students may one day need (Owen-Jackson used to describe the categories of propositional or and Steeg, 2007). Unlike other subject disciplines, this declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, these ‘Just in Time ’ learning makes the defining of any specific forms exist in order to ‘learn about’ and ‘learn to’ knowledge boundary difficult (Martin, 2011), while outcomes in Design and Technology classrooms creating a subject that is unique both in terms of teaching (Goodwin, 2013), providing learning outcomes that can and learning (Middleton, 2008; Barlex and Pitt, 2000; be planned for, taught, learnt and assessed (James, Kimbell, 1997). This emphasis requires a clear view of the 2008). However, Kimbell (2005) contends that Design role of knowledge in Design and Technology teaching and and Technology learning is more than just ‘knowing that’ learning and has implications for the planning, as well as or ‘knowing how’ and is often associated with a different the acquisition of knowledge, through suitable learning type of knowledge, ‘knowing why’. ‘Knowing why’ extends activities. either the proficiency in a skill or the accumulation of knowledge (Baynes, 2010) and is fundamental to Design and Technology teaching approaches problem-solving and product development. ‘Knowing why’ Designing and design development is often described as a

forms the basis of design decisions and justifications holistic process (Banks, 1996; Owen-Jackson, 2002), one H

throughout the process of Design and Technology and is a which requires the student to be mindful of the ‘bigger C crucial aspect of Design and Technology (Kimbell, 2005). picture’ irrespective of the particular phase or stage they R Research findings highlight that this form of knowledge is are currently focusing on. Given this, as Kimbell and Miller A E

often neglected in terms of learning outcomes in Design argue, ‘designers need to keep the task at the forefront of S

and Technology (Southall, 2015). their thinking and continually revisit it, refining and E

redefining their understanding of it and consequently their R Issues are compounded when you consider that the design proposals to meet it’ (Kimbell and Miller, 2000: nature of Design and Technology activity requires 123). As with any atomisation process, be it atomisation knowledge, skills and understanding on a ‘need-to-know’ of knowledge, skills or process, the separation into distinct basis (Kimbell et al., 1991) and are difficult to plan for. or smaller units creates confusion in regard to the Gershenfeld (2005) termed this type of knowledge, ‘ Just inevitable interaction of those units (Kimbell, 1997). Both in Time ’ learning as opposed to, ‘ Just in Case ’ learning. ‘assimilative’ and behaviourist learning processes involve Professional practice in design allows the task or brief to ‘atomisation’ of knowledge or skills into distinct or smaller dictate both the most appropriate processes required and units of knowledge/learning and both can be criticised for the necessary knowledge and skills needed to progress to isolating learning. Sadler (2007: 6) explains that, the more an effective solution. Key Stage 3 classroom-based a process is atomised, ‘the harder it is to make the bits learning requires the teacher and the learning work together as a coherent learning experience’ and the environment to support, through careful planning, the ‘whole’ is often neglected. Moreland and Jones’ (2000) development of the essential knowledge, skills, research into teacher knowledge and Design and understanding and processes, as students or novice Technology education and highlight ‘atomising’ as a designers (Welch, 2000) do not have a wide range of common issue with current assessment procedures, previous knowledge or skills. The task context provides concluding that, ‘although tasks are meant to be reflective guidance on the right depth and the right form of of technology, they appear to be somewhat isolated knowledge (Atkinson, 2013). With truly opened-ended experiences, rather than cumulative and purposeful’ context-dependent designing and making, the knowledge (Moreland and Jones, 2000: 230). In this regard, there is used is specific to that particular situation. At Key Stage 3, compelling evidence that teachers need to identify and the teacher supports the learning by providing the plan for specific and overall Design and Technology teaching opportunities needed for the required activity, outcomes rather than just activities (Jones and Moreland, thus balancing the level of prescription in order to achieve 2005; Moreland et al., 2008). learning progress. At Key Stages 4 and 5, the student is increasingly expected to identify and gather the required An ‘integrated approach’ to Design and Technology is knowledge, skills and understanding relative to the context clearly represented in the Assessment of Performance (Nicholl and McLellan, 2009). Unit’s (APU) (Kelly, A.V., Kimbell, R., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, J. and Stables, K., 1987) model of ‘interaction between Such an approach, which develops knowledge and skills mind and hand’, which focuses upon the thinking and on a ‘need-to-know’ basis, places an emphasis on decision-making processes involved in ‘designing and teaching students a process that involves identifying how making’. The APU model rejected the dominant linear

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 55 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 56

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

model of the design process instead promoting a view of reveal the cognitive aspects of the subject. Project e-scape activity that took the development of a speculative or (Kimbell, 2006, 2008) provides an innovative way of ‘hazy’ initial idea to the point of becoming an effective accessing ‘design thinking’ and ‘cognitive thinking working reality through an iterative process of thought and processes’ were by the learner’s portfolio is used as a action. The ‘integrated approach’ to Design and device to ‘underpin the learner’s metacognitive growth Technology has a significant influence on the choice of throughout the Design and Technology process’ (Kimbell teaching strategy, the learning opportunities and the and Stables, 2007: 217). Hope (2009) describes the learning outcomes and aligns with a constructivist process as a cognitive journey. Similarly, Barlex’s (2008) approach, namely facilitation of learning, learner- minimally invasive approach to assessing Design and centeredness, active and participative learning, creative Technology learning also relies on revealing ‘design and critical thinking and problem solving (Reddy et al., decision-making’, which Barlex believes lies at the heart of 2003). However, the APU model raised several issues in Design and Technology education. Opportunities for relation to assessment, not least the fact that some see students to reflect on, and reveal, their progress in making the ‘thinking and decision-making processes’ inherent in design decisions as the task progresses would be planned the approach to be both invisible and, thus, often into the project; therefore, as Barlex argues, ‘essentially the

H inaccessible (Kimbell, 2003). The APU model was never assessment exercise has to probe and record

C thoroughly embraced by the teaching community due to a chronologically the pupil’s thinking’ (Barlex, 2008: 53). R lack of clarity regarding the form of learning outcomes and Arguably, the minimally invasive approach removes the A the absence of a practical assessment framework (Fox- focus from the various stages of the design process and E Turnbull and Snape, 2011). places it firmly on the student’s personal learning journey. S

E Barlex argues the process of designing needs to provide

R Several models have been proposed that attempt to evidence of learning, a natural by-product of the learning, captured and gathered in an unobtrusive a way as possible, in order to retain their validity and reliability. Both approaches to assessing an ‘integrated approach’ to Design and Technology would provide distinctly different learning outcomes when compared to the dominant design process model.

The concept of a learning outcome Current educational practice surrounding the concept of a learning outcome is dependent upon the rather simplistic notion that learning outcomes can demonstrate learning (Swaffield, 2009); furthermore, that learning outcomes can demonstrate the range of learning set out in the National Curriculum. Although the process of formulating learning into statements that involve indication of the learning outcome, appears to be relatively simple, it relies on two key aspects. Firstly, the teacher understands the complexities involved in learning and particularly, Design and Technology learning and secondly, the concept of learning can be demonstrated through learning outcomes.

Design and Technology learning outcomes Learning outcomes are intended to provide the evidence of learning progress, a key indicator of successful teaching (Ofsted, 2014), which can Figure 1.2 Design and Technology intended learning statements then be used for either summative or formative classified into learning categories purposes. Research into the nature, scope, or type (learning categories taken from James and Brown, 2005: 10-11)

56 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 57

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

Methods used to capture learning are presented in Figure 1.4, which shows the ‘tangible’ learning outcomes identified by the teachers in the lesson plans. Practical outcomes were considered the most appropriate method and support the dominance of practical activities used in Design and Technology learning journeys. It is interesting to note that written tests were considered suitable methods of capturing learning in 9% of the 47 lesson plans analysed.

Figure 1.3. Methods used to gather learning outcomes It can be argued that, in order for students to refine their learning outcomes and determine appropriate assessment of Design and Technology learning outcomes has been criteria, ‘deeper cognitive, metacognitive and self- seriously neglected, and in particular how practical regulatory resources must be brought to bear in a outcomes contribute to the theoretical perspective deliberate and focused manner’ (Zimmerman, 2008: 23).

associated with Design and Technology. In practice, the By placing the focus on the individual ‘cognitive journey’, H

learning outcomes commonly associated with Design and students – and not teachers – develop the declarative, C Technology learning tend to involve aspects of either procedural, and contextual knowledge required in Design R ‘designing’ or ‘making, having either a written, sketched or and Technology learning. This raises questions about the A E drawn, or 3D/ realised form’. Findings from this research

type of knowledge that is missing from the school S

project support this contention; learning outcomes were curriculum and, consequently, the forms of knowledge E

associated with either ‘designing’ or ‘making’ activities or a from teaching and learning experiences in the Design and R stage of the design process (see figure 1.2 below). There Technology classrooms. Self-regulated expert students was no evidence of learning outcomes that attempted to possess conditional, strategic and metacognitive forms of demonstrate ‘higher-order’ learning. knowledge in order that they can solve problems in authentic contexts (Paris, 2001). Yet, as Goodwin (2013) The methods used to gather the learning took one of argues, Design and Technology rarely acknowledge and/or three forms, the results of which are presented in Figure nurture the development of these forms of knowledge. By 1.3. The results indicated that the typical method of ignoring certain knowledge forms or by focusing only on a gathering learning was either through practical outcomes specific sub-set of knowledge within a general category, and products or through worksheet-based activities. e.g. procedural knowledge, the processes that are necessary to develop flexible and adaptable thinking are greatly constrained and devalued (Goodwin, 2013).

Conclusion and recommendations The processes involved in Design and Technology activities, requisite procedural knowledge, practical skills, thinking skills and creative skills establish a complex inter- relationship between conceptual/content knowledge and procedural knowledge (Reddy, Ankiewicz, Swardt and Gross, 2003). The teacher is required to establish a balance between methods that effectively deliver content and develop skills (Owen-Jackson, 2013), allowing students to develop and use both content knowledge and procedural knowledge, consequently learning outcomes need to focus upon and demonstrate this inter- relationship. As Moreland, Jones and Barlex (2008) argue it is through the application of knowledge, skill and understanding that students’ ability in Design and Technology is actually revealed and as such, this interplay is the point where learning can be demonstrated, Figure 1.4 Methods used to capture the learning captured and gathered. outcomes

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 57 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 58

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

This article has highlighted some of the issues involved in authentic tasks, collaboration and the processes involved planning and subsequently identifying learning in Design in designing and making. Both the iterative and user- and Technology. The use of the dominant model of centred design approaches, if employed effectively, planning needs to be questioned and alternatives produce solutions that are neither predetermined nor approaches to planning developed that support the foreseen. Both models require design development to be teaching and learning in Design and Technology based upon ‘authentic’ feedback, either from prototyping education. Various models exist that could be modified to and modelling or from user testing; consequently, both support the planning process, emphasising and/or approaches can be described as ‘designer-led’ or, indeed, reinforcing certain aspects or concepts of the subject and ‘student-led’ activities. Student ownership of learning potentially providing the focus for a variety of planning outcomes would help address the narrow band of learning processes. Morgan, Jones and Barlex’s (2013: 4) outcomes that currently exist in classrooms, improve approach involves the notion of ‘a Design and Technology creativity, reduce issues with validity and learning Toolbox’. This approach splits Design and Technology into outcomes and provide authentic responses to intended four groups: design, technology, critique and data. A series learning statements. of key concepts and principles is associated with each

H group and aims to provide a coherent curriculum for

C Design and Technology, which involves an integrated References: R understanding of the key concepts across all material Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and Pedagogy . Oxford, UK: A areas. Barlex and Rutland (2004) introduced the ‘design Blackwell. E decisions pentagon’, a conceptual model designed to S

E develop insights into the requirements of teaching Atkinson, S. (2013). Increasing a D&T Student Teacher's

R designing. The model involved five conceptual Understanding of Designing through a New Self- considerations: conceptual; marketing; technical; Assessment and Feedback Appraoch. PATT27: Technology constructional; and aesthetic (Rutland, 2009; Barlex and Education for the Future: A Play of Sustainability, 19-26. Rutland, 2004). Moreland’s (2008) primary planning tool Christchurch, New Zealand. focused specifically on the multidimensionality of Design and Technology, providing teachers with the opportunity to Banks, F. (1996). Teaching Technology . Oxon, Routledge. consider conceptual learning outcomes, procedural learning outcomes, societal learning outcomes and Barlex, D. (2008). Assessing Capability in Design and technical learning outcomes during the planning process. Technology: The case for a minimally invasive approach. By providing or developing alternative teaching and Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, learning frameworks for Design and Technology pedagogy, 12 (2) , 49-56. teachers are provided with a range of approaches to planning processes that may be better suited or Barlex, D., and Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: The relationship supportive of the intended learning experience. between science and design and technology in the secondary curriculum. London: Engineering Council. In order to develop the skills, knowledge and understanding associated with Design and Technology Barlex, D., and Rutland, M. (2004). ‘ Developing trainee ‘teacher-dominated’ outcomes of learning cannot be the teacher’s ability to teach designing within secondary school standard approach (Nicholl and McLellan, 2009). design and technology in England ’. PATT 14 International Although beneficial in relation to skills acquisition and Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, USA, March 2004. providing evidence of learning progress, ‘teacher- dominated’ learning outcomes tend to neglect deep Barlex, D., and Welch, M. (2007). Learning to design . learning experiences, whilst promoting replication of Social Sciences and Humanities knowledge and skills through a procedural approach. Research Council. Progression through Key Stage 3 needs to provide a variety of teaching-learning opportunities, ranging from Baynes, K. (2010). Models of Change: The future of ‘teacher-controlled’ units to ‘mix authority’ teaching to design education. John Eggleston Memorial Lecture 2010, ‘student-led’ activities. In response to the design brief or 10-17. Loughborough University Design School. problem, the degree of freedom given to the students is inversely proportional to the control of the variables, such Bell, J., and Dale, M. (1999). "Informal Learning in the as materials and time, by the teacher. ‘Student-led’ or Workplace". Department for Education and Employment, ‘student-managed’ activities need to be based upon DfEE Research Report, Research Brief No 134, London.

58 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 59

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

Bell, M., and Lofoe, G. (1998). Curriculum Design for Fox-Turnbull, W. and Snape, P. (2011). Technology teacher Flexible Delivery - Massaging the Model. In R. Corderoy education through a constructivist approach. Design and (ed), Flexibility: The Next Wave. Wollongong, Australia: Technology Education: an International Journal, 16 (2) . Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education . Gershenfeld, N. (2005). Fab: The Coming Revolution on Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at Your Desktop - from Personal Computers to Personal University . Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Fabrication. Basic Books.

Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum Development . Australia: Goodwin, N. (2013). Unpacking the thinking behind Prentice Hall. sustainability: A macrocognitive perspective. PATT27: Technology Education for the Future: A Play on Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. (2000). How Sustainability. People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice . USA: The National Academy Press. Green, R., and Steers, J. (2006). Design Education - now you see it; now you don't. A position paper prepared by

Blythe, J., and Perkins, D. (1998). Understanding the Design and Technology Association and the National H

understanding. In T. Blythe (ed.), The teaching for Society for Education in Art and Design. Corsham, UK: C understanding guide , 9-16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. NSEAD. R A E Carr, M. (2008). Can assessment unlock and open the Hagger, P., and Hodkinson, P. (2009). Moving beyond the S

doors to resourcefulness and agency? In S. Swaffield (ed.), Metaphor of Transfer of Learning. British Educational E

Unlocking Assessment , 36-54, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Research Journal, 35 (4) , 619-638. R

Cofer, D. (2000). Informal Workplace Learning. Hallgarten, J. B. (Ed.). (2014). Licensed To Create. Ten Department of Education. Clearinghouse on Adult, Career essays on improving teacher quality. November 7 2014, and Vocational Education. London, UK: RSA.

CUREE. (2012). Evaluation of Learning Away: Hypothesis Hodkin, D. (1991). Micro computers in an art department. 2: knowledge, understanding and skills in a range of The Journal of the Design and Technology Association, 22 curriculum areas. Centre for the Use of Research and (3) . Evidence in Education. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Holdsworth, I., and Conway, B. (1999). 'Investigating Davies, L. T. (2000). Confidence! Its all in the creative values in secondary design and technology education'. teaching and learning of design and technology. Journal of The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4 (3) , Technology Education,12 (1) , 18-31. 205-214.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2004a). Hope, G. (2009). Beyond Knowing How to Make it Work: Design and technology: Framework and training materials. The conceptual foundations of designing. Design and Key Stage 3 National Strategy, Module 3: Planning to Technology Education: An International Journal, 14 (1) , 49- teach the Framework, handouts, 1-10. London, UK: DfES. 55.

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in Teaching and Learning . Hussey, T., and Smith, P. (2003). The Uses of Learning Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8 (3) , 357-368.

Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and Shape Our Understanding . Chicago: University of Chicago. comprehensive theory of learning. I nternational Journal of Lifelong Education, 22 (4) , 396-406. Eisner, E. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven and London, UK and US: Yale University Press. Illeris, K. (2007). Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning theorists...in their own words . (K. Illeris, Ed.) Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge London: Routledge. in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 , 113-136.

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 59 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 60

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

James, M. (2005). Researching Learning Outcomes: Kimbell, R., and Miller, S. (2000). Attitudes of potential building confidence in our conclusions. Curriculum Journal, teachers of Design and Technology. Goldsmiths University 16 (1) . of London, Technology Education Research Unit, TERU. London: DfEE. James, M. (2008). Assessment and Learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking Assessment: Understanding for Kimbell, R., and Stables, K. (2007). Researching Design reflection and application , 20-35. NY, US: A David Fulton Learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research Book. and development . UK: Springer.

John, P. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Kimbell, R., Saxton, J., and Miller, S. (2000). Distinctive re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Skills and Implicit Practices. In J. Eggleston (ed.), Teaching Studies, 38 (4) , 483-498. and Learning Design and Technology , 116-133. UK: Continuum. Jones, A. and Moreland, J. (2005). The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in assessment for learning Kimbell, R., Stables, K., and Green, R. (1996).

H practices: a case-study of a whole-school approach. The Understanding practice in design and technology:

C Curriculum Journal, 16 (2) , 193-206. Developing science and technology education . R Buckingham, UK: Open A Kelly, M. (2013). About.com Secondary Education. University. E (About.com, Producer) [online]. Available at: About.com: S

E 712educators.about.com/od/curriculumandlessonplans/a/ Lambert, L. T. (2007). Standards-based assessment of

R Writing-Excellent-Lesson-Objectives.htm [Accessed on Dec student learning: a comprehensive approach . (2nd Ed.) 2, 2013]. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R. A., Patterson, V. J., and Stables, K. (1987). Design and Technology Activity: A Framework for Marback, R. (2009). Embracing Wicked Problems: The Assessment . Assessment of Performance Unit, HMSO. Turn to Design in Composition Studies. National Council of London, UK., 28. Teachers of English, 61 (2).

Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing Technology, International Martin, R. (2011). Innovation in symbolic industries: the trends in curriculum and assessment . Buckingham, UK: geography and organisation of knowledge sourcing. Open University Press. European Planning Studies .

Kimbell, R. (2003). Beyond the Exam: Innovative McCormick, R. (2002). The coming of technology Approaches to Learning and Assessment . education in England and Wales . UK: Falmer Routledge. Futurelab Conference transcript. November 19-20, Bristol, UK: Futurelab. Middleton, H. (2005). Creative Thinking, Values and Design and Technology Education. International Journal of Kimbell, R. (2005). Indigenous Knowledge, Know-how, Technology and Design Education, 15 , 61-71. and Design and Technology. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10 (3) , 8-10. Middleton, H. (2008). Researching Technology Education: Methods and Techniques . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Kimbell, R. (2006). Innovative performance and virtual portfolios-a tale of two projects. International Journal of Moreland, J. (2008). Assessment for Learning in Primary Technology and Design Education, 11 (1) . Technology Classrooms. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12 (2) , 37- 48. Kimbell, R. (2008) e-assessment in project e-scape. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, Moreland, J., and Jones, A. (2000). ‘Emerging Assessment 12 , 66-76. Practices in the Emergent Curriculum: Implications for Technology’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10 (3) , 283-395.

60 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 61

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

Moreland, J., Jones, A., and Barlex, D. (2008). Design and Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for Understanding. The Technology inside the black box - Assessment for learning Professional Journal of the American Federation of in the design and technology classroom . London: GL Teachers, 17 (3) , 28-35. assessment. Perkins, D. N., and Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of Nicholl, B., and McLellan, R. (2009). 'This isn't my project learning. International Encyclopedia of [work]. It’s...just do it... you just do research'. What student Education, Second Edition. Oxford, UK. Pergamon Press. voice reveals about the nature of D&T lesson in English [online]. Available at: schools and the implications this has on their motivation http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Ideas/iot18.htm [Accessed on and learning of complex tasks. In M. J. de Vries, 31 March, 2013] International Handbook of Research and Development in Technology Education . UK: SENSE. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchart, R., Donis, K., and Andrade, A. (2000). 'Intelligence in the Nickerson, R. (1985). Understanding understanding. wild: a dispositional view of intellectual traits'. Educational American Journal of Education, 93 , 201- 239. Psychology Review, 12 (3) , 269-93. H

Nuthall, G. (2011). Commentary: of learning and language Polanyi, M. (1967). The Growth of Science in Society (Vol. C and understanding the complexity of the classroom. 5). Minerva. R Educational Psychologist . June 22, 2011. A E Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of Educational Research . S

Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2014). Ofsted London, UK: Continuum. E

inspections – clarification for schools. No. 140169. R October 2014. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback . government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil Behavioural Science, 28, 4-13. e/379528/Ofsted_20inspections_20- _20clarification_20for_20schools.pdf. [Accessed on 11 Richardson, M. (2010). Assessing the assessment of July 2014]. citizenship. Research Papers in Education , 25 (4).

Owen-Jackson, G. (2002). Teaching Design and Reddy, V. A., Ankiewicz, P., Swardt, de, E., and Gross, E. Technology in Secondary Schools . London: Routledge (2003). The Essential Features of Technology and Falmer. Technology Educaiton: A Conceptual Framework for the Development of OBE (Outcome Based Education) Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Debates in Design and Related Programmes in Technology Education. Technology Education . Abingdon, UK: Routledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Educaiton, 13, 27-45. Owen-Jackson, G., and Steeg, T. (2007). The role of technical understanding in design and technology. In D. Rittel, H. J., and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in General Barlex (ed.), Design and Technology - The Next Generation: Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4 , 155-169. a collection of provocative pieces to stimulate reflection and curriculum innovation . UK: TEP/Nuffield. Rutland, M. (2009). Art and Design and Design and Technology: Is there creativity in the designing? Design and Parkay, F. W., and Hass, G. (2000). Curriculum Planning. Technology Education: An International Journal , 14 (1), 56- (7th, Ed.) Needham Heights, MA, 67. USA: Allyn and Bacon. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind . NY: Barnes and Paris, G. (2001). The Role of Self-Regulated Learning in Noble. Contextual Teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. A commissioned paper . Michigan, US: US Sadler, D. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of Department of Education Project. goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14 (3) , 387-392.

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3 61 journal 21.3.qxp_Layout 1 10/10/2016 16:23 Page 62

What Does Design and Technology Learning Really Look Like?

Saljo, R. (2000). Learning in practice: a sociocultural perspective . Stockholm: Prisma.

Snape, P. (2013). Quality Learning for Technology Education: An Effective Approach to Target Achievement and Deeper Learning. PATT conference, 137-145. Canterbury: University of Canterbury.

Southall, M. (2015). An Investigation of the relationship between intended learning and actual learning in Key Stage 3 Design and Technology classrooms. [online]. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10142/595536. [Accessed on Dec 2, 2013].

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum

H Research and Development . London: Heinemann. C

R Swaffield, S. (2009). The misrepresentation of Assessment A for Learning- and the woeful waste of a wonderful E opportunity. Association for Achievement and Improvement S

E through Assessment . Bournemouth: UK. R Tyler, R. (1949). "How Can Learning Experiences be Organised for Effective Instruction?" Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction . Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Welch, M. (2000). The Strategic Thinking of Novice Designers: Discontinuity Between Theory and Practice. The Journal of Technology studies, 26 (2) .

Winch, C. (1998). The philosophy of human learning . London, UK: Routledge.

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

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Moviation: An Essential Dimension of Self-Regulated Learning. In D. Schunk and B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning . Taylor and Francis.

62 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.3