Developing a Technology Curriculum

Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


This chapter proposes three procedural principles that can inform the development of a technology curriculum: being true to the nature of technology, developing a perspective on technology, and enabling technological capability. It then explores possible futures for technology education curricula using each of these principles as a lens. Drawing on these scenarios, the argument is made that using these principles will result in a curriculum that is a valid and worthwhile endeavour for all students, and that facilitates the introduction of new elements, enabling the curriculum to keep pace with changes outside of school. The chapter concludes by asserting that teachers can use the principles to devise, justify and implement programmes of study that are robust and can withstand scrutiny from those who might question the worth of technology education. In turn, policy makers can benefit from the informed discourse with an articulate and knowledgeable profession.


Technology Education National Curriculum Technological Activity Technological Capability Circular Economy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alexander, R. (1984). Primary teaching. London/New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  3. Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2013). Teaching STEM in secondary schools. Helping teachers meet the challenge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barlex, D. (2007). Assessing capability in design & technology: The case for a minimally invasive approach. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 9–56.Google Scholar
  5. Barlex, D. (2011a). Dear Minister, This is why design & technology is a very important subject in the school curriculum. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 9–18.Google Scholar
  6. Barlex, D. (2011b). Teaching young people about the nature of technology. In K. Stables, C. Benson, & M. de Vries (Eds.), PATT 25: CRIPT 8 Perspectives on learning in design & technology education (pp. 66–75). London: TERU, Goldsmiths.Google Scholar
  7. Barlex, D. (2012). The Young Foresight Project. A UK initiative in design creativity involving mentors from industry. In B. France & V. Compton (Eds.), Bringing communities together: Connecting learners with scientists or technologists (pp. 113–126). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2013, March 7–9). Student teachers’ perceptions of ‘enduring ideas’ in design & technology. Paper presented at PATT ITEEA Conference, Improving Technology and Engineering Education for all students: Research based plans for action. Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Barlex, D., Givens, N., & Steeg, T. (2013) Disruptive technologies: engaging teachers and secondary school students in emerging affordances. In P. J. Williams, & D. Gedera (Eds.), PATT 27 Technology Education for the future: A play on sustainability (pp. 35–43). New Zealand: University of Waikato; University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
  10. Black, P. (2013). Personal communication, 16 July 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Braungart, M., & McDonough, W. (2009). Cradle to cradle. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  12. Bridle, J. (2013). Drone art: James Bridle poses questions in White House's shadow. Accessed 28 June 2013 from:
  13. Brundrett, M., & Silcock, P. (2002). Achieving competence, success and excellence in teaching. London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Bruner, J., & Haset, H. (Eds.). (1987). Making sense. The child’s construction of the world. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  15. Carson, R. (1965). Silent spring. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, C. M. (2012). Disruptive innovation. In M. Soegaard, D. Soegaard, & F. Rikke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Aarhus, Denmark: The Foundation. Accessed 23 Nov 2013 from:
  17. Cilderman, M. (2013). 3D printing needs Apple and Apple needs 3D printing. Accessed 25 June 2013 from:
  18. De Vries, M., Hacker, M., & Rossouw, A. (2009). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology. Delft: Delft University of Technology and Hofstra University.Google Scholar
  19. Department for Education. (2012). Expert panel terms of reference. Accessed 25 June 2013 from:
  20. Department for Education. (2013a). Design & Technology Programme of Study: KS3. Accessed 21 Nov 2013 from:
  21. Department for Education. (2013b). Reforming the accountability system for secondary schools. October 2013. England: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  22. Department for Education and Science and Welsh Office. (1988). National Curriculum Design and Technology working group interim report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. Design & Technology Association. (2010). Information about open starting points. Accessed 25 June 2013 from:
  24. Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  25. Drexler, K. E. (2013). Radical abundance. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  26. Education for Engineering (E4E). (2013). New principles for Design & Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  27. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2012a). Towards the circular economy Volume 1: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Accessed 25 June 2013 from:
  28. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2012b). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 2: opportunities for the consumer goods sector. Accessed 25 June 2013 from:
  29. Esland, G. M. (1971). Teaching and learning as the organization of knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control (pp. 70–115). London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. London/New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  31. Finkelstein, D. (2013). Machines are becoming cheaper than labour. Accessed 22 Nov 2013 from:
  32. Ford, H., with Crowther, S. (1922). My life and work. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  33. Harlen, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  34. IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013. The physical science basis summary for policy makers. Switzerland: IPCC.Google Scholar
  35. Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  37. Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and Technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
  38. Layton, D. (1995). Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  40. Naughton, J. (1994). What is ‘technology’? In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 7–12). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2013). Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, choice and the public good. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  42. Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  43. O’Hear, A. (1992). The Victor Cook memorial lectures. In J. Haldane (Ed.), Education, value and culture: The Victor Cook Memorial Lectures (pp. 40–69). St. Andrews: University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
  44. Pavlova, M., & Pitt, J. (2007). The place of sustainability in design & technology education. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology for the next generation (pp. 72–87). Shropshire: CliffeCo.Google Scholar
  45. Peters, R. S. (1973). The philosophy of education. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  46. Pilloton, E. (2009). Design revolution: 100 products that are changing people’s lives. London: Thanes and Hudson.Google Scholar
  47. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007). National Curriculum for design & technology. Accessed 22 Nov 2013 from:
  48. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  49. Webster, K., & Johnson, C. (2008). Sense & sustainability. Accessed 25 June 2013 from:
  50. White, H. (2012). Harvey White’s website arguing for the involvement of the Arts in STEM can be found at:
  51. Williams, P. J., & Lockley, J. (2012). An analysis of PCK to elaborate the difference between scientific and technological knowledge. In T. Ginner, J. Helstrom, & M. Hulten (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century. Proceedings of the PATT 26 conference 2012 (pp. 468–477). Stockholm: Linkoping University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel UniversityUxbridge, MiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations