Abstract
The paper introduces the highly problematic nature of modelling in design and technology education and examines the relationship between cognitive and concrete modelling. Its aim is to gain insight into what learners do, rather than what others say they ought to do in their learning activities. The variety of purposes that educators have for learners’ modelling are discussed through examining the contested curriculum justification for design and technology education itself. The paper proposes that learners’ modelling cannot be extracted from the social milieu in which they act and it provides some insights of these social influences through the analysis of two case studies. Their settings are a girls’ secondary school and a college of higher education. Each case study is presented independently but organised with a common format to consider a) the impact of assessment on learning intentions and outcomes; b) cultural influences on learning and modelling; c) social influences on learning and modelling. A discussion of the emergent themes considers implications for teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
APU (Assessment of Performance Unit): 1981, Understanding Design and Technology, HMSO, London.
Archer, B.: 1978, Design Education in Schools. Paper presented at conference ‘Design Education & Industry’ organised by Regional Advisory Council for Teacher Education London and Home Counties.
Archer, B.: 1980, ‘The Mind’s Eye: Not So Much Seeing As Thinking’, Designer 8(9), 8–9.
Archer, B.: 1982, ’Cognitive Modelling, Rational Thinking, Language, Designerly Thinking and Imaging’, Internal Paper, Department of Design Research, Royal College of Art, London.
Archer, B.: 1992, ‘Definition of Cognitive Modelling in Relation to Design and Technology’, in P. Roberts, B. Archer & K. Baynes (eds.), Modelling: the Language of Designing, Design, Occasional Paper No. 1. Dept. of Design and Technology, Loughborough, University of Technology.
Barak, M. & Doppelt, Y.: 1999, ‘Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Program for Creative Thinking into a Project-based Technology Curriculum’, Research in Science and Technological Education 17(2), 139–151.
Baynes, K.: 1992, ‘The Ethics of Representation’, in P. Roberts, B. Archer & K. Baynes (eds.), Modelling: the Language of Designing, Designing, Occasional Paper No. 1. Dept. of Design and Technology, University of Technology, Loughborough.
Beetlestone, F.: 1996, Creative Children, Imaginative Teaching, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Brown, S.: 1983, T263 Design: Processes and Products, Block 1, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P.: 1989, ‘Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning’, Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42.
Burden-Teh, P.: 1990, ‘What Form of Modelling?’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 1(2), 111–115.
DFE (Department for Education): 1990, Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO, London.
DFE (Department for Education): 1995, Design and Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO, London.
Davis, A.: 1996, ‘Assessment and Transferable Skills in Art and Design’, NSEAD 15(3), 327–331.
Elmer, R.: 1996, ‘Whose Need?: A Reflective Practice of Eight Students on a BA (Hons). Design and Technology Course’, Unpublished Ph D Thesis, University of Reading.
Elmer, R.: 1998, ‘What Happens when Learning Intentions are Made Explicit in a Design and Technology Project?’, Journal of Design and Technology Education 3(1), 34–40.
Fosnot, C. T. (ed.): 1996, Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice, Teachers College, New York.
Goffman, I.: 1969, The Presentation of Self in Every-day Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Harrison, M.: 1992, ‘Modelling in Key Stages 1 and 2’, in J. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of IDATER 92: International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough.
Hendley, D., Stables, A., Parkinson, J. & Tanner, H.: 1996, ‘Pupils’ Attitudes to Technology in Key Stage 3 of the National Curriculum: A Study of Pupils in South Wales’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 6(1), 15–29.
Kelly, G.: 1955, A Theory of Personality, The Norton Library, New York, USA.
Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R. A., Patterson, V. J. & Stables, K.: 1987, Design and Technological Activity: A Framework For Assessment, Assessment of Performance Unit/HMSO, London.
Kimbell, R. A., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A. & Kelly, V.: 1991, The Assessment of Performance in Design And Technology, Assessment of Performance Unit/HMSO, London.
Kimbell, R. A., Stables, K. & Green, R.: 1996, Understanding Practice in Design and Technology, Milton Keynes, Open University.
McCarthy, A. C. & Moss, D.: 1990, ‘Pupils Perceptions of Technology in the Secondary School Curriculum: A Case Study’, Educational Studies 16(3), 207–216.
Moustakis, C.: 1994, Phenomenological Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Murphy, P.: 1996, ‘Integrating Learning and Assessment-The Role of Learning Theories?’, in P. Woods (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning, Routledge, London.
Polkinghorne, D. E.: 1989, ‘Phenomenological Research Methods’, in R. S. Valle & S. Halling (eds.), Existential-phenomenological Research Methods in Psychology, Plenum, New York.
Pope, M & Denicolo, P.: 1993, ‘The Art and Science of Constructivist Research in Teacher Training’, Teaching and Teacher Education 9.5(6) 529–544.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA): 1999, The Review of the National Curriculum in England: The Secretary of State’s Proposals, QCA Publications, Great Britain.
Salmon, P & Hilary, C. 1984, Classroom Collaboration, Routledge and Kegan Paul plc, London.
Shield, G.: 1996, ‘Learning Technology Through a Process Approach: The Implementation of Curriculum Innovation through the Pragmatic Interventions of the Teacher’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 6(1), 1–14.
Sparkes, J.: 1992, ‘Modelling’, in R. McCormick, C. Newey & J. Sparkes (eds.), Technology for Technology Education, Addison-Wesley and Open University, Wokingham.
Woolnough, B.: 1990, Making Choices? An Enquiry into the Attitudes of Sixth Formers Towards Choice of Science and Technology Courses in Higher Education, Oxford University Department of Educational Studies, Oxford.
Yorke, D. M. 1978. ‘Repertory Grids in Educational Research: Some Methodological Considerations’, British Educational Research Journal 4(2), 63–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davies, T., Elmer, R. Learning in Design and Technology: The Impact of Social and Cultural Influences on Modelling. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 11, 163–180 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011296803717
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011296803717