Introduction
Surface structure | “…concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning, of showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing…” |
Deep structure | “…, a set of assumptions about how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and know-how…” |
Implicit structure | “a moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions…” |
The early 2000s saw General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) entries rise to almost 70% of 16 year olds in the United Kingdom, until 2004 when the subject ceased to be compulsory for 14–16 year olds. This was followed by a steady decline to below 15% in 2019. Whilst design and technology education flourishes around the world, in England it finds itself in a somewhat strange and hostile environment.“To prepare for 2030, people should be able to think creatively, develop new products and services, new jobs, new processes and methods, new ways of thinking and living, new enterprises, new sectors, new business models and new social models. Increasingly, innovation springs not from individuals thinking and working alone, but through cooperation and collaboration with others to draw on existing knowledge to create new knowledge. The constructs that underpin the competency include adaptability, creativity, curiosity and open-mindedness.” (OECD, 2018, p. 5).
Research design
-
RQ1: How do academic disciplines conceptualise signature pedagogies in research literature?
-
RQ2: What can design and technology education learn from how design is taught in higher education?
Location | No. | Citation |
---|---|---|
Title | 6 | |
Abstract | 18 | Love and Barrett (2019), Lynch et al. (2019), Hall and Thomson (2017), Noel and Liub (2017), Caldwell et al. (2016), Parker et al. (2016), Spronken-Smith et al. (2016), Osmond and Tovey (2015), Sowbel and Miller (2015), Thomson and Hall (2015), Domakin (2014), Weiß et al. (2014), Boling et al. (2013), Asghar (2012), Schrand and Eliason (2012), Zambo and Isai (2012), Totterdell et al. (2011) and Hyland and Kilcommins (2009) |
Keywords | 11 | |
None | 1 | Robinson (2015) |
Phase | No. | Citation |
---|---|---|
Primary | 2 | |
Secondary | 2 | |
Higher | 17 | Love and Barrett (2019), Lynch et al. (2019), Kay and Curington (2018), Caldwell et al. (2016), Parker et al. (2016), Spronken-Smith et al. (2016), Osmond and Tovey (2015), Sowbel and Miller (2015), Domakin (2014), Weiß et al. (2014), Boling et al. (2013), Asghar (2012), Schrand and Eliason (2012), Zambo and Isai (2012), Peel (2011), Totterdell et al. (2011) and Hyland and Kilcommins (2009) |
-
explicit mention of ‘signature pedagogy’ (full or truncated) in the title, abstract and keywords [3-points]
-
relevance to compulsory aged schooling in the primary or secondary phases [2-points]
-
disciplinary alignment to design and technology [3-points]
-
qualitative evaluation of relevance to the research questions [2-points]
Key themes from literature
How do academic disciplines conceptualise signature pedagogies in research literature?
Three locations
Capability
Uncertainty
Challenges
In addition to the temporal, spatial and fiscal issues attested to by Boling et al., when considering the role of the design studio in signature pedagogies for design, there are also conceptual challenges to overcome. Caldwell et al. (2016) discuss the difficulties associated with asserting rigour in applied learning and its competing priorities. Similarly, Domakin (2014) highlights the challenges of reconciling practise-based and university-based learning, as discussed above. Furthermore, signature pedagogies should not be automatically accepted as necessarily effective or desirable, without scrutiny and critique. There may be entrenched and siloed practise (Peel, 2011) that may no longer be relevant or current, and practitioners may focus on the means of realising or communicating key ideas rather than the creative content, such as the conventions of musical notation rather than the compositions themselves, in music education (Love & Barrett, 2019). There appears to be a tendency to let cognitive learning dominate practical learning. Additionally, Osmond and Tovey (2015) comment that a focus on assessment over creativity may lead to a lack of confidence.“Studio models of teaching and learning require a lot of time and space, making them difficult to justify in times when budgets and student–teacher ratios are shrinking… and students report difficulties navigating the studio environment.” (Boling et al., 2013, p. 180).“Studio models of teaching and learning require a lot of time and space, making them difficult to justify in times when budgets and student–teacher ratios are shrinking… and students report difficulties navigating the studio environment.” (Boling et al., 2013, p. 180).
What can design and technology education learn from how design is taught in higher education?
Article referenced | Cited by | Type | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
Shreeve (2007) | Osmond and Tovey (2015) | Journal article | Student participation in writing design briefs, organising projects and partnership in assessment |
Shreeve et al. (2010) | Love and Barrett (2019) | Journal article | Learning through dialogue and exchange between students and teachers in design studios |
Shreeve (2011) | Caldwell et al. (2016) | Conference paper | The crit, dialogue and materiality as signature pedagogies in design education |
Shreeve (2015) | Noel and Liub (2017) | Book chapter | Expands signature pedagogies in design education to include the studio, projects and briefs, and research |
Conclusion and implications
“Most design courses are taught through experiential methods that focus around a project or design brief. The design outcomes are open-ended which allows the student the space to be creative in developing a solution, which is unknown at the start of the project.” (Noel & Liub, 2017, p. 6).
-
Where is disciplinary knowledge applied in meaningful ways to develop capability?
-
Where are there tensions evident between theory and practise? Or where/when do learners put theory into practise?
-
Where must students productively engage with uncertainty?
-
Where are specialist content knowledge, teacher expertise and learning environments necessary for authentic disciplinary learning?
-
Where are the most challenging aspects of subject teaching evident?
Surface structure | What teaching methods most effectively promote the fundamental activities of ideating, realising and critiquing? Where is each teaching method positioned on an expansive restrictive continuum? How does scaffolding and fading promote genuine design and technology learning? What types of learning activities promote the fundamental activities? (e.g. designing and making, mainly making, mainly designing or exploring technology in society) |
Deep structure | Is the ‘project’ the deep structure of design and technology signature pedagogy? Why? What are the benefits and limitations of project-based learning in design and technology? Where do learners experience uncertainly in design and technology? And how do were support learners to become resilient and autonomous designers? How do learning environments, activities and feedback combine to promote effective learning through projects? |
Implicit structure | Is design thinking (and acting) central to design and technology education? What is the role of materiality? What beliefs, values and dispositions underpin design and technology education? What does design and technology education offer to related industries, e.g. engineering, design, etc.? What does design and technology education offer to individuals and society, beyond related career opportunities? |