Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design and Technology Education and Its Curriculum Policy Challenges

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Technology Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

  • 174 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter takes a global perspective on the kinds of issues faced by Design and Technology (D&T) curriculum policy-makers. In doing so, it recognizes both the phenomenon of our intimate human-technology relationship and what is seen as a huge educational irony, namely, that despite the ubiquitous and pervasive nature of technologies in our lives, education systems rarely offer curricula that can engage the phenomenon. This curriculum conundrum is explored using Nel Noddings’ notion of “aims-talk” and William Pinar’s recognition of curriculum as “complicated conversation.” Rather than D&T perpetually reinforcing stereotypical orthodoxies of what technology is or should be in the public eye or pursuing a limited and instrumentalist skilling agenda for students, an aims-led conversation is advocated that engages matters of humanity, politics, ethics, democracy, sustainability, and, indeed, existence.

Much of D&T education is (being) tied to the service of a particular economic model and ignores multiple alternative educational possibilities. Such possibilities are seen here as presenting D&T not as “subject” or being governed by prescribed content but, rather, as a special way of knowing and being – drawing on multiple epistemologies and ontologies. The resultant case is one for a holistic, comprehensive formulation of a critical technological literacy that permeates whole-school curricula and learning. Good D&T curriculum design is core to developing students as global citizens capable of participation in democratic considerations with technological developments. Moreover, good D&T curriculum design is seen as valid and valued contributor to a global common good.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, T. (2016). It will come gradually and seamlessly without us really addressing it. Interview with Nick Bostrom in the new review. The Observer, 14–17. London. 12th June 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god and inequality. New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boomer, G. (1991/1999). Changing curriculum. In B. Green (Ed.), Designs on learning: Essays on curriculum and teaching by Garth Boomer (pp. 113–125). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. (2009). The future of humanity. In J. K. B. Olsen, E. Selinger, & S. Riis (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of technology (pp. 186–215). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A. (2006/2009). The classroom practice of commons education. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 399–424). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P., & O’Riley, P. (2015). In(di)geneity in design and technology education: Animating an ecological cross-cultural conversation. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 67–86). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dakers, J. R. (Ed.). (2006). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P. & Torres, R. D., (Eds.), (2009), The Critical Pedagogy Reader, (2nd Edn.), Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE). (2001). South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework (SACSA). URL: http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au

  • Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Alfred Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). The curriculum studies reader. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. K. (2004/2005). The economics of innocent fraud. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaotlhobogwe, M. (2015). A case study of education for sustainable development: The case of design and technology in Botswana. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 207–218). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (1993/1994). Tool use, sociality and intelligence. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language, and cognition in human evolution (pp. 429–445). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: ITEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2004). Critiquing and designing as keys of technological literacy: Matters arising from the meeting. In H. Middleton, M. Pavlova, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Learning for innovation in technology education: Proceedings of the 3rd biennial international conference on technology education research (Vol. 2, pp. 91–98). Surfers Paradise. 9–11 Dec 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2006). Ethical technological literacy as democratic curriculum keystone. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 81–102). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2009). Seeing technology through five phases: A theoretical framing to articulate holism, ethics and critique in, and for, technological literacy. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(3), 37–46. URL: http://jil.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/article/view/1274/1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2012). Technology education as “controversy celebrated” in the cause of democratic education. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hulten (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century: Proceedings of the PATT 26 conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 26–30 June 2012 (pp. 239–246). Linköping electronic conference proceedings no 73. Linköping University, Sweden. URL: http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/073/028/ecp12073028.pdf

  • Keirl, S. (2015a). Against neoliberalism; for sustainable-democratic curriculum; through design and technology education. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 153–174). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2015b). Global ethics, sustainability, and design and technology education. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 33–52). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2015c). ‘Seeing’ and ‘interpreting’ the human-technology phenomenon. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 13–34). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2016a, Forthcoming). Critiquing as design and technology curriculum journey: History, theory, politics, and potential. In J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in technology education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2016b). Design and technology education as learning agency: And the fourfold of ‘critiquing skills’ In M. J. De Vries, A. Bekker-Holtland, & G. van Dijk (Eds.), Proceedings of the PATT32 international technology education conference: Technology education for 21st century skills (pp. 251–258). Utrecht. 23–26 Aug 2016. URL: https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=39504&v=76e4030

  • Kincheloe, J. L. (2008/2010). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (Ed.). (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. V., pp. 11–28). Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, V. C. (1966/1990). Existentialism in education: What it means. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (2003/2009). The aims of education. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 425–438). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, A., & Collier, S. J. (Eds.). (2005). Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2000a). The political ecology of design and technology education: An inquiry into methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 207–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2000b). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958/1974). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966/2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Print, M. (1988/1993). Curriculum development and design (2nd ed.). St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, A. (2004/2005). Challenging the dominant grammars of an undemocratic curriculum. In C. Marsh (Ed.), Curriculum controversies: Point and counterpoint 1980–2005 (pp. 97–105). Deakin West: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, A., & Johnson, B. (1999). Contesting the curriculum. In B. Johnson & A. Reid (Eds.), Contesting the curriculum (pp. viii–xvii). Katoomba: Social Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949/1973). The concept of mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, T. (2015). Kartogrifa in-flux: A pedagogical tool to challenge eurocentrism in post-compulsory education for sustainable design. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 193–206). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seemann, K. (2003). Basic principles in holistic technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 14(2), 28. Spring.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seemann, K. (2015). Design for cultural groups and humanization: Two ideas from design anthropology. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 101–118). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. G. (2003). Curriculum and teaching face globalization. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 35–51). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. L., & Lovat, T. J. (2006). Curriculum: Action on reflection (4th ed.). South Melbourne: Thomson/Social Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy for social justice. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., & Keirl, S. (Eds.). (2015). Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinge, V. (1993). What is the singularity? URL: http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

    Steve Keirl

Authors
  1. Steve Keirl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Keirl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology , Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marc J. de Vries

Section Editor information

  1. School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    John Williams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Keirl, S. (2017). Design and Technology Education and Its Curriculum Policy Challenges. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_16-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_16-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation