Advertisement

Studying the effectiveness of conceptual design in secondary design and technology in England

  • Donna Trebell
Article
  • 415 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of the study reported here was to investigate the effectiveness of a conceptual design unit as part of the Design and Technology curriculum for 14 years old pupils in England. One research question drove this study: What sort of designing do pupils do when they design without having to make what they have designed? Data consisted of the design ideas of a whole class developed during 6 lessons towards the end of an 18 lesson teaching sequence. Findings, which are in line with those of the pilot study, indicate that the pupils’ designing was highly iterative, creative, involved making a wide range of design decisions and revealed understanding of technological concepts.

Keywords

Creativity Design Design and technology Pedagogy 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, S. (2002). Does the need for high levels of performance curtail the development of creativity in design and technology project work? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, D. (2006). Private communication with the authors; David Baker teaches Young Foresight at Latymer Upper School in London.Google Scholar
  4. Balchin, T. (2005). A creativity feedback package for teachers and students of design and technology (in the UK). Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10(2), 31–43.Google Scholar
  5. Barlex, D. (1999). Young foresight. London: Young Foresight.Google Scholar
  6. Barlex, D. (2000). Preparing D & T for 2005—moving beyond the rhetoric. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  7. Barlex, D. (2003). Creativity in education and research. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Creativity in crisis? Design and technology at KS3 and KS4 (pp. 4–5). London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Barlex, D. (2005, April). The centrality of designing: An emerging realization from three curriculum projects. Paper presented at the PATT15 Conference—Technology Education and Research: Twenty Years in Retrospect, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Barlex, D. (2007). Capitalising on the utility embedded in design and technology activity: An exploration of cross-curricular links. DATA International Research Conference 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Barlex, D., & Trebell, D. (2007). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Published online: 28 February 2007, http://www.springerlink.com/content/957663w4787k6123/.
  11. Barlex, D., Welch, M., & O’Donnell, E. (2007). One teacher’s sociocultural constructivist response to the introduction of a curriculum unit. In C. Benson, S. Lawson, J. Lunt, & W. Till (Eds.), Sixth international primary design and technology conference (pp. 7–11). Birmingham, UK: University of Central England.Google Scholar
  12. Benson, C. (2004). Creativity: Caught or Taught? Professor John Egglston Memorial Lecture 2004. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 9(3), 138–144. Autumn 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked problems in design thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The idea of design (pp. 31–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2003). Research methods in education. London: Rouledge/Farmer.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  17. Cummings, C. (2003). Teaching makes a difference. Edmonds, WA: Teaching Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Dakers, J., & Doherty, R. (2003). Technology education. In T. Bryce & W. Humes (Eds.), Scottish education (pp. 611–616). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, T. (1999). Taking risks as a feature of creativity in the teaching and learning of design and technology. The Journal of Design and Technology Educational, 4, 101–108.Google Scholar
  20. Department For Education and Skills. (2004). Key stage 3 national strategy foundation subjects: Design and technology framework and training materials. London: Department For Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  21. Dineen, R., & Collins, E. (2007). Out of the box: The promotion of creativity in learners. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Linking learning: The design and technology association international research conference 2007 (pp. 55–60). Telford: University of Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
  22. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem solving. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ekvall, G. (1996). Organisational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational, 5(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). A protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Haffenden, D. (2004). Compliance and creativity? Compliance or creativity? DATA International Research Conference 2004 Creativity and Innovation, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
  27. Hamilton, J. (2003). Interaction, dialogue and a creative spirit of enquiry. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Design matters: DATA international research conference 2003 (pp. 35–44). Warwickshire, UK: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, J. W. (2004). Enhancing learning through dialogue and reasoning within collaborative problem solving. In E. W. L. Norman, D. Spendlove, P. Grover, & A. Mitchell (Eds.), Creativity and innovation: DATA international research conference 2004 (pp. 89–101). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
  29. Hardy, A. (2004). Questioning styles: Observations of differences in practice in key stage 2 and key stage 3. DATA International Research Conference 2004 Creativity and Innovation, pp. 103–111.Google Scholar
  30. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1996). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts in science and technology. Interchange No. 34, Research and Intelligence Unit.Google Scholar
  31. Hayles, D. (2005). Private communication to author; David Hale teaches Young Foresight at Saltash Community College in Cornwall.Google Scholar
  32. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1999). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  34. Hopper, M. G., & Downie, M. (1998). Developing design and technology capability—rhetoric or reality? In J. S. Smith & E. W. L. Norman (Eds.), IDATER 98 (pp. 54–59). Loughborough: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  35. Howe, A., Davies, D., & Ritchie, R. (2001). Primary design and technology for the future: Creativity, culture and citizenship. London: David Fulton publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (2001). Convergent validity of the situational outlook questionnaire: Discriminating levels of perceived support for creativity. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  37. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kimbell, R. (2000). Creativity in crisis. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(3), 206–211.Google Scholar
  39. Kimbell, R. (2002). Professor John Eggleston Memorial Lecture Assessing design innovation: The famous five and the terrible two. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 7, 172–180.Google Scholar
  40. Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
  41. Kotob, W., Nicholl, B., & McLellan, R. (2008). ‘Technicians’ support: A crucial dimension for implementing creative change in D & T classrooms. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Designing the curriculum—making it work. The design and technology association international research conference 2007 (pp. 17–22). Telford: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  42. Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
  43. McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2008). The importance of classroom climate in fostering student creativity in design & technology lessons. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove, (Eds.), Designing the curriculum—making it work. The design and technology association international research conference 2007 (pp. 29–35). Telford: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, S. (2003). How literature discussion shapes thinking: ZPDs for teaching/leaning habits of the heart and mind. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygosky’s educational theory in cultural context. USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Murphy, P. (2003). The place of pedagogy. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Creativity in crisis? Design & technology in KS3 and KS4 (pp. 14–17). London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (2001). Realising the potential—and lost opportunities—for peer collaboration in a D and T setting. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. NACCCE (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education). (1999). All our futures. Suffolk, DFEE.Google Scholar
  48. Nicholl, B. (2004). Teaching and learning creativity. DATA International Research Conference 2004 Creativity and Innovation, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
  49. Nicholl, B., McLellan, R., & Thomas, M. (2008). A case study illustrating a designer’s use of two creative processes: Conceptual combination and analogical thinking, and the implications for teaching and learning in design and technology. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Designing the curriculum—making it work. The design and technology association international research conference 2007 (pp. 55–61). Telford: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  50. Office for Standards in Education. (2004). Design and technology in secondary schools in Ofsted subject reports series 2002/2003. London, UK: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  51. Owen-Jackson, G., & Steeg, T. (2007). The role of technical knowledge in design and technology. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology for the next generation. Shropshire: Cliffco.Google Scholar
  52. Parker, J. (2003). Weaknesses revealed. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Creativity in crisis? Design & technology in KS3 and KS4 (pp. 6–8). London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  53. Pearson, J. (2003). Private communication with the authors; Sam Pearson was, at the time, the coordinator for Young Foresight professional development in the North East of England.Google Scholar
  54. Peters, M. A. (2002). National education policy constructions of the ‘Knowledge Economy: Towards a Critique’. Journal of Education Enquiry, 2(1), 2001.Google Scholar
  55. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Design and technology: The national curriculum for England. London: Author.Google Scholar
  56. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007). The 11-19 reform programme: Qualifications and curriculum authority. http://www.qca.org.uk/11-19reform.
  57. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007) Design and technology programme of study: key stage 3. Full text available at http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/D-and-T_KS3_PoS.pdf Accessed on 15 Aug 2007.
  58. Robinson, K. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture & education. London: Department for Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  59. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rutland, M. (2002). What can we learn about creativity from professional designers to inform design and technology classroom practice. DATA international research conference 2002. Wellesbourne: Design and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  61. Rutland, M. (2004). Creativity: is it on the key stage 3 (1114 years) Design and technology (D and T) agenda. DATA International Research Conference 2004 Creativity and Innovation, pp. 167–171.Google Scholar
  62. Rutland, M., & Barlex, D. (2006). Developing a conceptual framework for auditing design decisions in food technology: The potential impact on initial teacher education (ITE) and classroom practice. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Designing the future: The design and technology association international research conference 2006 (p. 177). Telford: University of Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
  63. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  64. Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sim, S. K., & Duffy, A. H. B. (2004). Evolving a model of learning in design. Research in Engineering Design, 15, 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spendlove, D. (2003). Gendered perceptions of creativity research and Design and Technology. In E. Norman, & D. Spendlove (Eds.), DATA international research conference 2003. Wellesbourne: DATA.Google Scholar
  67. Spendlove, D. (2005). Creativity in education: A review design and technology education. An International Journal, 10(2), 9–18.Google Scholar
  68. Spendlove, D., & Hopper, M. (2004). Creativity in design and technology and ICT; imagining possibilities in a digital age. In E. Norman, D. Spendlove, P. Grover, & A. Mitchell (Eds.), DATA international research conference 2004. Wellesbourne: DATA.Google Scholar
  69. Steeg, T. (2007a). PICs, CAD & creativity. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Linking learning: The design and technology association international research conference 2007 (pp. 85–90). Telford: University of Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
  70. Steeg, T. (2007b). Embedded control: Spimes, fabs and the future of designing and making. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Tools for change. London: Nuffield Curriculum Centre.Google Scholar
  71. Trebell, D. (2006). Young foresight in kent. DATA Practice, 6, 12–14.Google Scholar
  72. Trebell, D. (2007). A literature review in search of an appropriate theoretical perspective to frame a study of designerly activity in secondary design and technology. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Linking learning: The design and technology association international research conference 2007 (pp. 91–94). Telford: University of Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
  73. Trebell, D. (2008). Focussing on classroom interaction during designerly activity in a secondary design and technology classroom. In E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), Designing the curriculum—making it work: The design and technology association international research conference 2008 (pp. 75–81). Telford: University of Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
  74. Trebell, D. (2009a). Studying classroom interaction during a design-without-make assignment. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(3), 58–71.Google Scholar
  75. Trebell, D. (2009a). Exploring pupil beliefs about designers and designing. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2009. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9105-9.
  76. Van Someren, M., Barnard, R., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The think aloud method: The practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  77. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (trans: M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Welch, M. (2007). The pupils as designer. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology for the next generation. Shropshire: Cliffco.Google Scholar
  79. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research design and methods. Newberry Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough University and WSP EdunovaLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations