Analysing design and technology as an educational construct: an investigation into its curriculum position and pedagogical identity

Abstract

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.

Towards a signature pedagogy for design and technology education: a literature review

“…The NC identifies the key activity in D&T as designing and making, adding what pupils should be taught about evaluation and technical knowledge. As a relatively new subject, D&T has struggled to reveal its axioms (Bell et al, 2017) and define itself (McLain et al, 2019). The term signature pedagogy has only recently been used in research literature in the field.…”

“…Atkinson, 1990), the challenges it has faced defining itself (e.g. Bell et al, 2017) and the tensions between knowledge and action (e.g. McLain et al, 2019).…”

How technology makes us human: cultural historical roots for design and technology education

“…According to Bell et al (2017), in part because of its complex and interdisciplinary nature, design and technology struggles to reveal its nature as a subject. A contributory factor in the subject's failure to establish itself as a single discipline.…”

Helping new D&T teachers to analyse and develop knowledge and understanding in design and technology (product design)

“…Second, it is important to acknowledge that D&T is perceived to have a less clearly defined knowledge base than subject such as mathematics or science (DfE 2011). Bernstein (1990) explored the nature of school subjects and knowledge boundaries, developing a framework classifying subjects as having strong or weak boundaries, relating to bodies of knowledge (Bell, Morrison-Love, Wooff and McLain 2017). However, one of the great strengths of D&T, and other subjects with so-called weaker boundaries, is the active and applied nature that draws on knowledge from other disciplines, and has a complex and changing nature, as both society and technology evolve.…”