Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Practical modelling and hypothesis testing in primary design and technology education

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bailey, R., & Farrow, S. (1998). Play and problem-solving in a new light. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baynes, K. (1984). A view of design education in Britain. Journal of Art and Design Education, 3(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronowski, J. (1974). The Ascent of Man. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, T. (1991). Time to play in early childhood education. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Craft, A. (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking. Harmonsdsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • DES/ WO. (1988). National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group. London: Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office.

  • DES/ WO (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office.

  • 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 

  • Duckworth, E. (1987). The Having of Wonderful Ideas and other essays on Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennever, L., & Harlen, W. (1972). With Objectives in Mind. Guide to Science 5–13. London: Macdonald Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, S. (1990). Drawing and designing: The case for reappraisal. Journal of Art and Design Education, 9(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, K., & Rawlings, K. (1974). Science-Craft, Vols. 1,2,3,4. London and Basingstoke: Macmilllan Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gholson, B. (1980). The cognitive-developmental basis of human learning studies in hypothesis testing. London: Academic Press.

  • Hartland, J. (1991). Language and Thought. Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Johnsey, R. (1986). Problem solving in school science. London: Macdonald and Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kellner, D. (2001). New technologies/ new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Levine, M. (1975). A cognitive theory of learning. Research on hypothesis testing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • 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 

  • Lewin, R. (1986). Technology. First the Problem. Reading: Berkshire Local Education Authority.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medway, P. (1994). The language component in technological capability: Lessons from architecture. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mills, G., & Aitken, J. (1984). Starting Technology Book 1/ Book 2. Edinburgh: Holmes McDougall Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAAIDT (1998). Quality Through Progression in Design and Technology. Wellesbourne: NAAIDT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, E. (1998). The nature of technology for design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (trans. M. & R. Gabain), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child (trans. D. Coltman). London: Longman Group Limited.

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge—An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1990). A world of propensities. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Smith, F. (1992). To think in language. Routledge, London: Learning and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varley, R., Klessinger, N., Romanowski, C., & Siegal, M. (2005). Agrammatic but numerate. In Proceedings-National Academy of Sciences, USA. 102 (Pt. 9), 3519–3524.

  • 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.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (trans./ ed. A. Kozulin). London: The MIT Press.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers-children learning language and using language to learn. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK

    Eric Parkinson

Authors
  1. Eric Parkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Parkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parkinson, E. Practical modelling and hypothesis testing in primary design and technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 17, 233–251 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9005-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9005-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation