The Role of Design and Technology in Schools of England - Essay Example

CURRICULUM CASE STUDY Introduction and Context of Study Identifying the Problem After completing a term studying 'the properties of materials' my students reported that, although they found the subject interesting, they were disappointed that they hadn't has the opportunity to do any practical. They also mentioned that Design and Technology (D&T), ought to be a 'doing' subject. In evaluating and assessing the scheme of teaching works, it became clear that it was necessary to evaluate the needs of the curriculum, colleagues and the needs of my learners. The conclusion will reflect upon the processes and actions taken, or necessary. The Role of D&T: The Government's Perspective. Stenhouse (Cited in Armitage, 195) argues that "Curriculum to many in compulsory education, is understood to be the government planned intentions", or "prescribed intended learning outcomes" This definition lends itself to the planning of specific learning targets which can be translated into specific learning outcomes for individual lessons. However this process is not inclusive, as it does not maximise the potential of immediate learner feedback, and therefore reduces the level of learner participation in the learning process. The aims of this study are therefore focused upon the potential role learner feedback or evaluation can play in developing curriculum, facilitating greater learner participation and ownership. The role of Design and Technology in schools on England is evolving. These changes were announced in the Government Green Paper 14-19: Extending Opportunities Raising Standards (DfES, 2002), which argued that education and instruction of 14-19-year-olds should be delivered by a more flexible curriculum with a broad range of options. Beginning in September 2002, Design and Technology was no longer a compulsory school subject from age 14: the age which marks the end of Key Stage 3 of the National Curriculum in England. Students will have a statutory entitlement at KS4 to opt to study D&T subjects, but also more freedom within what was recognised as a very crowded curriculum to select other subjects of their choice. These changes along with the introduction of league tables have had a considerable impact on D&T provision in secondary schools. Hirst (1974: p 110) argues that the wider context of education 'is affected by the motivations of society'; the advent of league tables has evoked increasingly competitive organisations and teachers, along with an increased organisations and teachers, along with an increased orientation towards accountability both on an organizational and individual level. Design and Technology was introduced into the National Curriculum in England and Wales in 1990 (Under the Technology in the National Curriculum Statutory Order, DES and Welsh Office, 1990). Some suggest that this was a response by the government to the importance of technology to the British economy at that time (Layton, 1995). However, most agree that little research evidence existed before the introduction of D&T into the curriculum, on which to base these decisions (DES/Welsh Office, 1988. Section 1.15. Kimbell, Stables &Green, 1996, 17. Penfold, 1988, 5; Shield, 1996, 10). This is also reflected upon the curriculum of the day that was viewed as being 'product' orientated (Bobbitt 1918, 42; 1928. and Tyler, 1949, 89). The underpinning theme being that learners were taught 'what people needed to know in order to work' (Bobbitt, 1918. 42); this orientation towards knowledge focused upon achieving competences. Today still some practical elements of D&T are and will remain competence or skills focused, and therefore influenced by product orientated curriculum of the 1990's. These elements of the D&T curriculum include the correct and safe used of tools and equipment, which are also assessed competences at GCSE level. Nevertheless, its associated distinctive model of teaching and learning had been evolving over the years (Kimbell and Perry, 2001; Penfold 1988, 23). It is claimed that England and Wales were the first countries in the world to make technology education compulsory for all children between the ages of 5 and 16 (Education Act. DES/WO, 1988, 37). However, since its introduction, it is clear that a range of meanings and usages of the term D&T have manifested. In her letter to the Secretary of State accompanying the Interim Report, the chairman of the National Curriculum, D&T Working Group (DES/WO, 1988, 16), Lady Parkes, explained that: [The Working Group's] aim has been to develop an approach to Design and technology which will enable pupils to achieve competence by engaging in a broad range of activities which are currently undertaken in a number of different school subjects. (Letter accompanying Working Group) Is Teaching D&T a Licence to Cross the Line This approach to D&T is indicative of many who share a similar view that D&T is acknowledged as a multidisciplinary subject with potential for cross-curricular activity. The Programmes of Study (PoS), describes what will be taught in each curricular subject, stated that pupils in D&T should be given opportunities to Apply skills, knowledge and understanding from the Programmes of Study of other subjects, where appropriate, including art, mathematics And science. (DfE/WO. 1995, 6) However, this assumes that knowledge learned in one area of curriculum can be applied or transferred to another area, and that is the same knowledge. The current National Curriculum links D&T with a range of other subjects including science, mathematics, art & design, and ICT. Kimbell & Perry (2001) argue that D&T is designed to be interdisciplinary they also state "It is a creative, restive, itinerant, non-discipline'(Kimbell & Perry, 2001, 19). Evidence perhaps that governmental policy and educational authorities saw an opportunity to introduce a tactile catalyst to other subjects, via a 'doing subject'. D&T in this context can therefore be described as a 'process'. (Stenhouse, sited in Armitage 2003, 202), or in the wider context a 'verb of education' linking and facilitating learning in other subject areas. This inherent generic philosophy of linking D&T with other subjects, may give D&T teachers academic licence to cross boarders or to be a loose cannon that can reinforce learning should therefore be reflected in the scheme of works. To maximise this relationship, a better understanding of other subject matter would not only encourage traffic in both directions, but would also provide the learner with better perspective or the required learning, linking current knowledge with existing knowledge. Cross Curriculum in the Wider Context. The expectation is that D&T will form links providing cross curriculum enrichment, but what curriculum context should D&T follow. As examined earlier, current practical aspects of D&T are competence based, and therefore arguably 'curriculum product' does play an important role, but the design aspect of D&T is concerned with 'problem solving skills', and therefore doesn't suit this theoretical model. Problem solving skills utilises the creative left-hand side of the brain: the American psychologist Bruner devoted a lot of research into the study and analysis of human reasoning. Working with others (Goodnow and Austin, 1956), he undertook a series of experimental studies which convinced him that people do not utilize a single 'method' or 'logic' in reasoning and problem solving; instead they adopt one of a number of strategies which differ in scope, power and efficiency. Evidence perhaps that a flexible 'learner orientated' approach could also incorporate elements of Tyler's behavioural model of objectives (Tyler, 1949. 44); as the objectives in D&T can be measured, but not necessarily predicted. Earlier, D&T was described as a 'doing subject'; therefore, a relevant curriculum theory and practice ought to mirror a curriculum or scheme of works in the form of 'process' (Stenhouse, in Armitage, 2003, 202). In this sense, the curriculum is not a physical thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge, facilitating additional important features of negotiation and evaluation. In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom, and what people do to prepare and evaluate. Stenhouse's definition of 'process' essentially makes the curriculum orientation learner-based. In developing a scheme of works that can accommodate the needs of all parties, it is necessary to try and adopt a broader perspective of curriculum incorporating the following principles: CURRICULUM is a body of Knowledge which is transmitted in order to achieve certain ends in students - product, which requires revision in order to accommodate the need for a dynamic process. Examining and Identifying Key Criteria In developing the scheme of works and feedback from learners another factor soon become apparent: that the information must have some relevance to "our own self-context" in order for the information to be learned. If the intended learning has no relevance to the learner, Nearly every student finds that large portions of his curriculum are for him, meaningless. Thus, education becomes the futile attempt to learn material that has no personal meaning. Rogers (1983, 29) The key to knowledge acquisition therefore is to make the intended learning relevant to the learner's interaction with other subjects, and also relevant on a more personal level for the learner. The National Curriculum (2004, 23) goes one step further, by advising 'linking projects' with the pupil's own interests. This implies that pupils require a degree of flexibility within individual lessons in order to make learning both a personal and emotional, and therefore more rewarding, experience When reviewing the context of proposed schemes of work, and its relationship with colleagues, learners and other departments, it is clear that a static curriculum would become rapidly outdated, as it would not accommodate all three groups at any one time, without constantly needing to be updated and modified. Hirst (1974, 13), also advises considering ethics and social philosophy, implying that taught and imparted knowledge has value, and is therefore part of a teacher's social responsibility. This is turn also advocates a dynamic curriculum: "Most of us continually develop our teaching and training as we learn about it over the years" (Armitage 2003, 198). Conclusions can therefore be drawn that a period of revision and assessment is needed to constantly evaluate proposed schemes of work. Developing a curriculum for a school that functions on three different sites must overcome some unique problems, including reduced staff contact time; reduced lesson preparation time, and being concise without omitting essential aspects of the curriculum. In a recent department meeting, colleagues expressed two concerns: firstly that existing projects needed to be 'tweaked' to accommodate recently published government learning outcomes, and secondly, that a broader scheme of works was needed to form a 'transition catalyst' as the teachers rotate the key stage three classes each term with little knowledge of what was learned in the previous term. Colleagues also stated that they desired 'flexibility' in the curriculum, and the ability to use creativity within a planned scheme of works. They were resistant to more sets of structured lesson plans which were not created with the individual schools in mind. Arguably, what they wanted was ownership of the lesson plans, and their own creative license within D&T. Colleagues suggested a scheme of works which had been developed for A'level Product Design, be used in developing a compatible scheme of works for KS3 students studying materials. Key Critera Must incorporate the government's approved learning outcomes Must make the learning relevant and personal Must provide teaching and learning flexibility Must be inclusive and functional Must include a provision for feedback and assessment. Evaluation, Assessment and Reflection The planning and implementation of the proposed scheme of works was two months in creation, and this meant that there was some sense of ownership and affinity with the work produced. To have the work then scrutinized by colleagues and learners was a difficult and emotional situation. Brookfield (Cited in Hillier, 2003. 7), suggests using the 'critical lenses', as it is sometimes necessary to promote internal or external critical analysis of a particular issue by introducing different perspectives. Rogers (1983, 74), also advises developing a reflective practice through the use of evaluation as part of the assessment processto modify teaching/learning strategies providing pupils with empowerment for their own learning, secondly to develop learner skills in reflective evaluation (Rogers, 74) It can therefore be argued that evaluation is a necessary part of the reflective and creative process. The first draft of the proposed scheme of works was test-marketed upon a group of year seven learners over a period of six weeks. The new scheme was originally planned to coincide with the science department's introduction of metals Initial feedback from learners was conducted at the end of each lesion, in the form or feedback 'sandwiches', and included some surprising comments, such as: A strong desire to do more practical work A positive attitude towards deciding in which order the learning ought to be learnt A strong interest in the scheme of works My colleagues also made the following observations and suggestions: Could the scheme of works be generated on one page (Poster size, for both classroom and office use If so, could it incorporate 'student speak' Could it incorporate tasks for all learning styles Could it be colour coded to identify easily the properties of metals, woods and plastics In private, one colleague confided that the scheme of works provided a continuity in lessons. This disclosure provided some evidence that individual lesson plans were 'linked' which "provides learners with a sense of progression and planned direction" (Ausubel, 1968, and Bruner, 1971). Dunne and Wragg (1997), also ague that lessons should be planned, not only for practical reasons such as organising resources and timing, but also to ensure continuity and progression. More importantly, personal assessment and experience suggests that lessons should be 'linked' so that learners can relate new knowledge to previous knowledge. Encouraging learners to revisit prior knowledge will allow them to achieve 'deep learning' (Marton and Saljo, 1984, 61). To maximise this advice, in order to make the scheme of works a more effective medium of learning, Teachers are obliged to plan lessons in advance, taking into consideration Styles of learning - visual, kinaesthetic and auditory (Merry 1998, 93). To achieve this would mean adding a tactile exercise to each lesson, and to do this would mean a complete review of the scheme of works as traditionally designed. Unspoken department policy is to study the theory first, and then to concentrate upon practical in the second half of the term. To achieve a tactile element on each lesson would mean reinforcing the theory work with small projects. This approach was tested with the same group of learners over a period of two weeks. Their reaction was encouraging, as they 'enjoyed the variation'. Upon reflection this approach connects with other teaching principles studied earlier. Petty (1998, 46), advises that learners self-actualization needs could be achieved by allowing routine tasks to give way to choice, creative work, and other opportunities for students to express their individuality and explore their own interests. This fosters curiosity and opportunities for students to think for themselves. (Petty, 46) When considering the needs of others, it soon became clear that the proposed scheme of works would require a close examination of the curriculum, colleagues and learner needs than was originally expected: "If their needs are not met, they are more likely to drop out than to voice their dissatisfaction" (Grant &Shank 1993). In compulsory school, the learner does not officially have this luxury, so short of truancy, symptoms may be a visual 'switching off', reluctance to participate, or attention-seeking behaviour. Personal limits on accepting and rejecting criticism was also influencing performance, as well as provoking a reluctance to accept advice, or change. This can be demonstrated by an extract from a personal journal: I found criticism of the proposed scheme of works particularly hard, The comments didn't reflect the amount of time and effort put into Them. But to not take the comments on board would in fact be Evidence of my own barriers to learning. Perhaps this would a Barrier to the students learning if I ignored the advice The FEFC (1998) (cited in Kennedy, 1997) states "Widening participation means access, achievements and progression". This inclusive definition of widening participation has some serious implications, not only within my teaching practice, but also on a personal level in relating and socialising with others in a professional setting. Developing a scheme of works in 'student speak' would in effect provide greater access and participation to learners concerning the individual elements of lesson plans, but also how lessons knit together to form the wider picture. "By setting clear, achievable objectives, the purpose of the Learning can be understood by the learners (Burns, 1982; Kelly, 1955; Rogers, 1983; Skinner, 1938). The National Curriculum for Design and Technology (2004) establishes three essential elements when developing an inclusive curriculum: Setting suitable learning challenges Responding to pupil's diverse needs Overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of people. To function therefore effectively at the chalkface, curriculum must reflect an inclusive approach which also celebrates individual potential in 'liberal humanistic' ideology (Boyd, cited in Armitage 2003; 209). A flexible curriculum defined in a slightly broader terminology (by Taylor and Richards) argues that it is: "The course of study to be followed in becoming educated" (Taylor and Richard, also cited in Armitage, 2003, 195). This definition encompasses a wide spectrum, but still relates the curriculum to a fixed set of learning outcomes, implying that the curriculum is static, and lessons must orbit it like the sun, as opposed to a definition that is flexible or dynamic in concept. This later approach would accommodate the need for flexibility in the curriculum and acknowledge that learn is an evolving process. The government, in its publication The National Curriculum for Design and technology, argues that: The focus of the national curriculum, together with the wider school Curriculum, is therefore to provide them a guaranteed, full and rounded Entitlement to learning; to foster their creativity, and to give teachers Discretion to find the best ways to inspire in their pupils a joy and Commitment to learning that will last a lifetime (National Curriculum 2004, 3) Fawbert observes "It (the syllabus) is essentially static and is brought alive by the teacher's interpretation, whereupon it begins to become a curriculum" (2004, 72). Implying curriculum is a derivative of syllabus, and open to interpretation which will vary from teacher to teacher and learner to learner. Hence Curriculum needs to be an inclusive and differentiated educational umbrella to incorporate the needs of the learner, the tutor, the organisation and the wider community. This is mirrored by the National Curriculum for D&T when it mentions 'the wider curriculum'. Creating change in the made world; about understanding the Process of change and becoming capable in the exercise of change-making. D&T described by (Kimbell & Perry, 2001, 3) Conclusion Curriculum, assessment, and evaluation form a network of flexible processes to develop, attain and monitor the learning and teaching practices. One clearly depends upon the other with a need for "commitment to systematic questioning of our teaching as a basis for development" (Stenhouse, cited in Hillier, 2005; 11) As Curriculum, assessment and evaluation are processing which are flexible and always evolving, there will remain difficult standardize because of the constant changes within them. Hence curriculum as well as evaluation and teaching practice should remain dynamic. Hillier (2003, 199), contributes this: How can we know what we have done a good job if we do not evaluate our programmes of learning". We therefore continually need to evaluate to progress. Bibliography Armitage, A., Bryant, R., Dunnill, R., Renwick, M., Hayes, D., Hudson, A., Kent, J., and Lawes, S (2003) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education, 2nd Edition, Maidenhead, Open University Press. Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Bobbitt, F. (1928) How to Make a Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. (2002). 14-19: Extending opportunities, raising standards [Green. Cm.3390]. London: Stationery Office. Department of Education and Science [DES]/Welsh Office [WO]. (1988). National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group: Interim report [The Parkes Report]. London: HMSO. Dunne, R., and Wragg, T. (1997) Effective Teaching, London: Routledge. Fawbert, F. (2003) Teaching in Post-Compulsory Education, Continuum Books, London. Hiller, Y. (2005) Reflective Teaching in Further and Adult Education, Gosport: Ashford Colour Press Kennedy, H (1997) Learning Works - Widening Participation in Further Education, FEFC [online] available from: URL http://www.lscdata.gov.uk/documents/othercouncilpublications/other_pdf/LW-WPIFE.pdf Grant, S., & Shank, C. (1993): Discovering and Responding to Learner Needs: Module for ESL Teacher Training, Arlington, VA: Arlington County Public Schools. (EDRS No. ED 367 196) Hirst, P.H., and Peters, R.S. (1975) The Logic of Education, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul . Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology: Developing science and technology education. Buckingham: Open University. Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council. Layton, D. (1995). Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 89-118. Department for Education and Skills (2004) Design and Technology, The National Curriculum for England, London. Penfold, J. (1988). Craft design and technology: Past, present and future. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Petty, G (1998) Teaching Today 2nd Edition, Stanley Thames, publishers LD Cheltenham Rogers, Carl. (1983) Freedom to Learn for the 80's. USA: Charles Merrill OFSTED (2001) Inspecting Design & Technology; 11-16 with guidance on self -evaluation, Ref No. HMI 249, Office of Standards in Education, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk Shield, G. (1996). Formative influences on technology education: The search for an effective compromise in curriculum innovation. The Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 50-60. Stenhouse (1975) find the page on 'process' Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saljo (1976) Surface and deep Learning Styles, 7407 Handout Merry, R. (1998) Successful Children, Successful Teaching, Buckingham: Open University Press. Read More