Framing the constructive alignment of design within technology subjects in general education

Abstract

Design is core element of general technology education internationally. While there is a degree of contention with regards to its treatment, there is general consensus that the inclusion of design in some form is important, if not characteristic, of the subject area. Acknowledging that design is important, there are many questions which need to be considered in order to guide policy and practice, such as whether a singular general design ability can be explicitly defined empirically beyond an implicit verbal definition, and whether it can be taught and assessed. In order to address these questions in a systematic fashion, a framework is needed in order to guide relevant investigations. Having such a framework would allow for theory to be generated, hypotheses to be tested, and assumptions to be challenged. In response to this apparent need, this article presents a theoretical discussion pertaining to the constructive alignment of learning to design, wherein theories of knowledge, variation theory, knowledge transfer, and assessment validity and reliability are reflected upon.

Making tacit knowledge explicit: the case for online peer feedback in the studio critique

“…Various conceptual frameworks for tacit knowledge construction in design education have been proposed (e.g., van Dooren et al, 2014;Venkatesh & Ma, 2021b), and there is ongoing debate regarding which elements of design are "learnable" and "teachable" (Buckley et al, 2021). Despite this debate, the pedagogical foundations of design have remained largely unchanged over the years.…”

Design and Make—and Code?

“…Today, therefore, there is a strong focus on designing and making products in technology education, even though there are different emphases in different countries. For example, in the UK there is emphasis on design and manufacturing of products, while in the USA engineering design in the context of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education has gained traction (Buckley, Seery, Gumaelius, Canty, Doyle, & Pears, 2021;ITEEA, 2020;Rossouw, Hacker, & de Vries, 2011;Williams, 2018). Unsurprisingly, much earlier research shows that students primarily equate technology with artefacts in general and modern products such as TVs, cell phones and computers in particular (e.g.…”

A Review of the Valid Methodological Use of Adaptive Comparative Judgment in Technology Education Research

“…Technology education is relatively new to national curricula at primary and secondary levels in comparison to subjects such as mathematics, the natural sciences, and modern and classic languages. Broadly, technology education relates to subjects focused on thinking and teaching about technology (de Vries, 2016), with subjects taking different formats internationally (cf., Buckley et al, 2020b). For example, in Ireland there are four technology subjects at lower secondary level and four at upper secondary level.…”

“…With pedagogical approaches in technology education growing in empirical support (cf., McLain, 2018(cf., McLain, , 2021, the integration of design has been problematized from the perspective of constructive alignment (Buckley et al, 2020b). A critical challenge remains in how, given the variety of ways through which technology learners can demonstrate capability (Kimbell, 2011), such as through varied portfolios, educators can validly and reliably assess open-ended, designerly outputs, without imposing an assessment architecture which infringes on the validity and meaningfulness of the associated learning processes.…”