Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond `The Design Process': An Alternative Pedagogy for Technology Education. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 13(2), 117-128.
·
The design process is a foundation of
technology education. This article proposes that the adherence to design
processes are having a negative impact on children’s learning in technology.
The author proposes an alternative pedagogy for teachers that are already
researched in the field, and the author looks at two of them.
·
There has been a trend in Australia for a
structured skills based approach to teaching in technologies, with the author
finding that the main approach is a design-make-appraise approach which is
limiting because it is linear in nature. Mawson suggests that the reason why
design processes have been incorporated is to create effective ways to assess
and to teach because primary teachers are non-specialist teachers of
technology. Mawson discusses open-ended problem solving and the problems that
this can cause schools with managing, assessing and resourcing for students.
·
A creative iterative process, made into a
linear, simple process is the danger. The article suggest that the simple
process is at odds with the complex way in which real designers work.
·
The work of Hill & Anning (2001) looks at
the design processes of professionals and students in classrooms.
·
The author suggests that there is a weak link
between drawing and designing and that students rarely refer to their drawings
when working through a design solution.
·
“When allowed to choose their own
pathway children design orally or in three dimensions, or begin by exploring
the materials and tools available to them.” (Anning 1997a;
Hope 2000 cited in Mawson, 2003, pp.5).
·
Mawson cites Johnsey (1998) as saying that
student behaviour when designing differs from design models; making being the
most important part and should begin before designing and should continue right
through the process.
·
From looking at the problem solving
strategies of children in their first three years of school, Roden (1997, 1999)
developed a taxonomy which identified eleven different strategies. The relative
importance of each strategy varied over time, and each gave rise to a
particular pathway through the design process.
·
Kimbell (1991) studied 10,000 (15 year old)
students. They reject the current design process models and believe the
internal mind’s eye expression in drawings and models.
·
Teachers don’t place enough importance on 2D
representations and don’t model drawing methods or teach about 3D modelling.
The importance of these are rarely made clear to students. Children need
knowledge of the nature of materials and their properties so that they may know
and understand the limitations and skills required to use them (Fleer, 2000
cited in Mawson, 2003, pp.7)
·
The alternative: Children need to understand
the situation from which a problem is derived, immersed in the context of the
task first and explore materials available to them when working towards their
solution, with technical skills being identified as you go and taight at the
appropriate time. Children should be able to choose a starting strategy which
suits their learning style. Design/making occur concurrently and teachers
should make sure students explain/show/discuss their developing solutions with
others so that they can clarify and reformulate problems.
·
Role of the teacher: model technological
practice and manage environment. Identifying the problem clearly, challenging,
counter challenging and explaining.
I am reconsidering my own views on the processes involved in design, after reading this journal. I like the idea of allowing children to use their personal learning styles in the design phase and allowing the openness and flexibility to discern when to explicitly teach a skill in the time that it is needed.
Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity – A framework for the
Design/problem Solving Discourse in Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education,17(1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v17n1/lewis.html
·
This article is conversing about the issue of
creativity in technology education as under-explored area. The ideas that
concepts and processes (standards within the curriculum) are not as important
as what children can learn about themselves through technology engagement.
What
is creativity?
·
Unseen character. Connected to originality,
new and novel ways of thinking that break norms, cannot be assessed, existing
schema impose constraints upon it.
·
Sternberg (1985;1988) says it overlaps with
intelligence, learning style, personality and motivation and is socio-cultural.
Creative
cognitive processes
·
Creative flow involves feedback that produces
enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996 cited in Lewis, 2005). There are a set of
enablers which are:
1. Having
clear goals
2. Balance
between challenge and skill
3. Action
and awareness coming together
4. Not
fearing failure
·
Metaphorical thinking merge the left and
right centers of the brain and can help students deal with ambiguity by relying on association to make connections with unlike things. Exercises in
metaphorical thinking can help students conceive examples of metaphors.
·
Analogical thinking can also be used in the
classroom where designs may come from nature. If students are encouraged to
think of examples, their thinking will improve in design.
·
Combinatorial creations: This is a design
process where two or more concepts are combined to create a new idea. The new
possibilities created with this thinking can be taught and encouraged by
exercises where students have to think of new things they can make from two
completely different things.
·
Divergent thinking: A variety of solutions to
a problem. Students could brainstorm multiple ways to provide solutions to a
problem.
Schooling
and creativity
·
Creativity can be fostered of teachers can
enhance the provision of content knowledge, encouraging risk taking, building
intrinsic motivation, stimulating interest, building confidence, and
stimulating curiosity (Cropley, p. 93).
Creativity
and technology education
·
Open-endedness is the key.
·
Problem posing, problem restructuring,
analogical and metaphorical thinking, and the use of humour are pedagogical
devices that belong in an expanded view of how the creative aspect of design
can be realized (Lewis, 2005).
Implications
for technology education
·
The curriculum is taking its cue from
science, with exactness. Thought, leading to creative expression needs to be
adopted.
·
Assessment of technology is difficult!
·
Absence of explicit treatment of creativity
in the curriculum.
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jones, A., Buntting, C., & Vries, M. (2013). The
developing field of technology education: a review to look forward. International
Journal Of Technology & Design Education, 23(2), 191-212.
doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4
I like how this paper admits that Technology really is an
emerging Curriculum area in its own right. Technology, and its teaching
philosophy has emerged with four main areas of interest; technology as
artefeacts, knowledge, activities and cultural aspect of humanity (Mitcham,
1994 cited in Jones, Buntting & Vries, 2013).
Technology as artefacts: The physical and functional nature
of ‘things’.
Technology as Knowledge: The unique technical language and
knowledge in this KLA is distinct, thus needing ‘distinct strategies to teach
and learn such knowledge’ (Jones et al., 2013).
Technology as activities: This is about design processes,
methods, and the connection between knowledge and design.
Technology as culture: Technology is shaped by us, and
shapes us. There are many theories about how technology affects us. [Phenomenology
(how technology is our own reality, as individuals). Borgmann says it disengages
us from reality) Critical Theorists focus on technology within the social milieu,
putting forward that we can actually shape technology to produce the desired social
outcomes we need. Pragmatists (Hitt and Hickman) look at what technology has
been successful.
The last 20-30 years has seen an incredible change from
being viewed as procedural in nature only, with conceptual knowledge not in the
picture (McCormick, 1997 cited in Jones et al., 2013).
“When teacher understanding of technological capability is
limited there is a tendency for the teacher to focus on the actual production
of a product rather than the thinking skills, creativity, processes, issues,
and key learning involved (e.g., Harlen, 1997; Harlen et al. 1995; Jones and
Compton, 1998 cited in Jones et al., 2013). Teacher attitude has a huge impact
according to Jones, and this is where the TPACK framework plays out.
Formative assessment was important for teachers to adapt
teaching to seen needs.
Discussions on all levels are important for a teacher to ‘notice,
recognise, and respond’ to students (Bell and Cowie, 2011 cited in Jones et
al., 2013).
The thinking, decision-making, evaluating and justifying are
more important than the product! (Moreland, 2009 cited in Jones et al., 2013).
I had these very same ideas that were put forward in the article. Students
should reflect regularly on their work, with critical friends (teacher
conference too) and to take photographs and have reflections as they go along.
