2017) STEM education in the twenty-first century: learning at work -an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices.STEM education in the 21st century: learning at work -an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices STEM education in the 21st century: learning at work -an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices

In the context of curriculum change within English education, and beyond, this paper explores the cultural historical roots of design and technology as an educational construct, distinct from design or engineering, which exist as career paths outside of the school curriculum. It is a position piece, drawing on literature from a wide range of sources from writing, largely, outside of the discipline. The authors revisit the original intentions of design and technology as a National Curriculum subject and, within the contemporary challenges, discuss the importance of technology, including designing and making, as an essentially human and humanising activity. The aim being to contribute to the theorisation and philosophy of the subject, where typically practitioners focus on practical and potentially mundane concerns. This paper asserts that technological human activity is rooted in technological innovation and determinism, inextricably linked to social human activity. The aim is to add to the literature and provoke debate around the place and value of design and technology. The argument for retention of the subject, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, is presented from a social and technological perspective; recognising the value of the subject as cultural rather than a merely technical or economic imperative.

Love, D. (2017) Analysing design and technology as an educational construct: an investigation into its curriculum position and pedagogical identity. Curriculum Journal, (doi:10.1080/09585176.2017.1286995) This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. Amidst concerns of an academic decline, tackling the culture of low expectation and anti-intellectualism, the need to address social justice, and its by-product of cultural reproduction, is the focus of current education policy. Set within the UK, this paper presents a critical review of the literature relating to disciplinary knowledge and teaching and learning regimes, specifically seeking to explore the subcultures which exist between design and technology and its associated curricula counterparts that combine to produce science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The purpose being to proffer an explanation that is supportive in developing an understanding as to why design and technology is perceived by many to be of less value than its STEM counterparts. Situation within a functionalist approach to STEM education policy, findings are discussed in relation to design and technology, which as a subject is caught between the identities of academic and vocational exponents, and it is from this perspective that complex nature and perceived value of design and technology is explored.

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) areas are integral content disciplines in all economies. Although most countries have and continue to ensure quality science (S) and Mathematics (M) education for primary (elementary) and secondary school students, the technology (T) and engineering (E) content areas tend not to be regarded as core to national curricula in the same way that science and mathematics are regarded as essential. This article discusses efforts in various countries to better promote and integrate Technology and Engineering Education (TEE) in schools. This paper highlights common themes and argues that we can learn from each other’s efforts in TEE. We argue that dialogue across nations can help us to build international STEM education collaboration networks, better understand the nature of STEM and how to better engage pupils and students in STEM subjects, and work towards gaining inputs to national TEE policy that can leverage positive change.

Technology Education offers an authentic and invaluable range of skills, knowledge, capabilities, contexts and ways of thinking for learners in the 21st century. However, it is recognised that it occupies a comparatively less defined and more fragile curricular position than associated, but longer established, subjects such as Mathematics and Science. While recognising that no single factor lies behind such a condition, this paper draws upon thinking in the philosophy of technology, technology education and the ontology of artefacts to argue that transformation may be considered as an epistemic source for technology in a similar way to ‘proof’ within Mathematics and ‘interpretation’ within Science. Encapsulating technology's intimate relationship with materials, it is ultimately argued that the transformation of a technical artefact from an ill‐defined into a well‐defined ontological state constitutes a prime source of technological knowledge for pupils. Moreover, it provides an alternative route into further consideration about the nature of the domain, epistemology and curricular identity of the subject.