Advertisement

Practical modelling and hypothesis testing in primary design and technology education

  • Eric Parkinson
Original Paper

Abstract

This article explores relationships between designing and making in the work of children within the age range 5–11 when engaged in practical modelling tasks. The notion of the model is explored from the perspective of concrete representations. It is suggested that concrete models may be used as hypotheses from which to test ideas about the nature of the world. From this perspective, models may be seen to provide crucial platforms for learning. A wide range of sources has informed the article, and these embrace ideas on Hypothesis Theory drawn from linguistic research, as well as historical sources which trace the evolution and development of stimuli for model-making activity. A creative basis for modelling is explored such that a conclusion is reached in which design is seen as an expression of the modelling of possibilities.

Keywords

Design Hypothesis Theory Modelling Problem solving 

References

  1. Archer, B. (1992a). As complex as ABC. In P. Roberts, B. Archer, & K. Baynes (Eds.), Design: Occasional Paper No. 1, Modelling: The language of designing (pp. 7–11). Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, B. (1992b). A definition of cognitive modelling in relation to design activity. In P. Roberts, B. Archer, & K. Baynes (Eds.), Design: Occasional Paper No. 1, Modelling: The language of designing (pp. 5–6). Loughborough: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, B, & Roberts, P. (1992). Design and technological awareness in education. In P. Roberts, B. Archer, & K. Baynes (Eds.), Design: Occasional Paper No. 1, Modelling: The language of designing (pp. 3–4). Loughborough: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, R., & Farrow, S. (1998). Play and problem-solving in a new light. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baynes, K. (1984). A view of design education in Britain. Journal of Art and Design Education, 3(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronowski, J. (1974). The Ascent of Man. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  7. Bruce, T. (1991). Time to play in early childhood education. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. T. (1997). From evolutionary epistemology via selection theory to a sociology of scientific validity. In C. Heyes, & B. Frankel (Eds.), Evolution and cognition, 3(1), pp. 5–38.Google Scholar
  9. Craft, A. (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking. Harmonsdsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  11. Denton, H. G. (1993). The Design and Make Task (DMT): Some Reflections on Designing in School, IDATER 93 (pp. 70–73). Loughborough: International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  12. DES/ WO. (1988). National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group. London: Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office.Google Scholar
  13. DES/ WO (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office.Google Scholar
  14. DfEE/QCA (1999). Design and Technology. The National Curriculum for England. Key Stages 1–4. London: Department for Education and Employment/ Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  15. Duckworth, E. (1987). The Having of Wonderful Ideas and other essays on Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ennever, L., & Harlen, W. (1972). With Objectives in Mind. Guide to Science 5–13. London: Macdonald Educational.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, M. (1992). Model or Prototype. Which, When and Why? IDATER 92 (pp. 42–46). Loughborough: International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, M., & Wormald, P. (1993). The Future Role of Virtual and Physical Modelling in Industrial Design, IDATER 93 (pp. 97–101). Loughborough: International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Garner, S. (1990). Drawing and designing: The case for reappraisal. Journal of Art and Design Education, 9(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geary, K., & Rawlings, K. (1974). Science-Craft, Vols. 1,2,3,4. London and Basingstoke: Macmilllan Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Gholson, B. (1980). The cognitive-developmental basis of human learning studies in hypothesis testing. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hartland, J. (1991). Language and Thought. Leicester: The British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  24. Hughes, M. (1987). The relationship between symbolic and manipulative (object) play. In D. Görlitz, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and play (pp. 248–257). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Johnsey, R. (1986). Problem solving in school science. London: Macdonald and Co. (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Johnsey, R. (1999). An examination of a mode of curriculum delivery in which science is integrated with design and technology in the primary school, IDATER 99 (pp. 115–121). Loughborough: International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  27. Kellner, D. (2001). New technologies/ new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: Schools Examinations and Assessment Council, HMSO.Google Scholar
  29. Levine, M. (1975). A cognitive theory of learning. Research on hypothesis testing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Lewin, D. (1986) Engineering philosophy-the third culture? In A. Cross, & B. McCormick (Eds.), Technology in Schools (pp. 10–18). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lewin, R. (1986). Technology. First the Problem. Reading: Berkshire Local Education Authority.Google Scholar
  32. Liddament, T. (1993). Using models in design and technology education: Some conceptual and pedagogic issues. In J. S. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 93, International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 92–96). Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  33. Mantell, J. (2000). Investigating how children use language as a tool for thinking in design and technology at key stage 2. In R. Kimbell (Ed.), Design and Technology International Millennium Conference 2000 (pp. 107–115). Wellesbourne: The Design and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  34. Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  35. Medway, P. (1994). The language component in technological capability: Lessons from architecture. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Middleton, H. (2000). Design and Technology: What is the problem? In R. Kimbell (Ed.), Design and Technology International Millennium Conference 2000 (pp. 116–120). Wellesbourne: The Design and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  37. Mills, G., & Aitken, J. (1984). Starting Technology Book 1/ Book 2. Edinburgh: Holmes McDougall Limited.Google Scholar
  38. NAAIDT (1998). Quality Through Progression in Design and Technology. Wellesbourne: NAAIDT Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  40. Norman, E. (1998). The nature of technology for design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Outterside, Y. (1993). The emergence of design ability: The early years. In IDATER 93, International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 43–49). Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  42. Parkinson, E. F. (2004). An examination of the interaction between modelling and its relationship with construction kits: Lessons from the past and for the future. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(3), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (trans. M. & R. Gabain), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child (trans. D. Coltman). London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
  45. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Pinker, S. (2000). Language acquisition. In L. R. Gleitman, & L. R. Liberman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 1, language, (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge—An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Popper, K. R. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  49. Popper, K. R. (1990). A world of propensities. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
  50. QCA (1998). Design and technology. Teacher’s guide. A scheme of work for key stages 1 and 2. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority/ Department for Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  51. Radford, M. (1999). Co-constructing reality: The child’s understanding of the world. In T. David (Ed.), Young children learning (pp. 107–116). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, F. (1992). To think in language. Routledge, London: Learning and Education.Google Scholar
  53. Varley, R., Klessinger, N., Romanowski, C., & Siegal, M. (2005). Agrammatic but numerate. In Proceedings-National Academy of Sciences, USA. 102 (Pt. 9), 3519–3524.Google Scholar
  54. Veveris, M. (1994). The importance of the use of physical engineering models in design. In IDATER 94, International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 152–155). Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (trans./ ed. A. Kozulin). London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Weininger, O. (1988). “What If” and “As if”: Imagination and pretend play in early childhood. In K. Egan, & D. Nadaner (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 141–149). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Welch, M. (1997). Thinking with the hands: Students’ use of three dimensional modelling while designing and making. In R. Ager, & C. Benson (Eds.), International Primary Design and Technology Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 13–17). Birmingham: Centre for Research in Primary Technology, University of Central England.Google Scholar
  58. Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Welch, M., & Lim, H. S. (1998). The effect of problem type on the strategies used by novice designers. In J. S. Smith, & E. W. L. Norman (Eds.), IDATER 98 (pp. 75–82). Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  60. Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers-children learning language and using language to learn. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Canterbury Christ Church UniversityCanterbury, KentUK

Personalised recommendations