Prepared for the new design and technology GCSE?

This is the unedited draft of an article that I have written for the AQA D&T customer magazine due to be sent out to schools soon…

 

“The GCSE specifications in design and technology should enable students to understand and apply iterative design processes through which they explore, create and evaluate a range of outcomes. They should enable students to use creativity and imagination to design and make prototypes… that solve real and relevant problems, considering their own and others’ needs, wants and values…” (DFE, 2015: 3)

 

Over the past 12 months, I have had the privilege to work alongside stakeholders in the development of the subject content documents for the GCSE and A Level courses. Since the publication of the subject content, I’ve also had the opportunity to meet with teachers at network meetings, as well as current and past trainee teachers. As a result, I have a particular perspective on the opportunities and threats ahead for design and technology. One of the main topics for discussion in teacher networks has been the new GCSE, with A Level not really factoring into discussions. This may indicate either general acceptance of the content, or that it impacts on fewer teachers. I’d suggest, however, that the GCSE isn’t the biggest threat on the horizon for design and technology, but issues around the impact teacher recruitment and the eBacc on our subject are beyond the boundaries of this article.

At the outset, it is worth commenting on the subject content documents themselves. First a question: Have you read the subject content documents for GCSE and A Level? When I have been talking with teachers, they fall into three general categories: (a) those how have read the documents and been to meetings with groups, like the D&T Association or AQA, and have a good idea of what is coming; (b) those who have read the document, but read it like a specification and wonder where the detail is; and (c) those who haven’t read the documents, but have participated in discussion groups, online or in network meetings. There is a fourth category, those who are blissfully unaware of the changes ahead, but if you are reading this article you are probably not in this group!

The best way to read the documents is to, first and foremost, consider it as a ‘specification for the specifications’, which the Awarding Organisations are in the process of writing. If you compare the current subject content documents with the previous ones, you will notice that they are more detailed. A key factor that contributed to this change was the requirement, from DFE and OFQUAL, for clear and explicit identification of the breadth and depth of subject knowledge. Another factor being the failure of the first version of the subject content to gain general support at the consultation in September 2014. We have the dubious accolade of being the first subject where this has happen! An impact of this was the delay on first delivery from 2016 to 2017; although it demonstrates that we have an active professional community, both within and outside of schools, which I take as a positive.

One of the key areas for development in response to consultation feedback was the detail in the ‘technical principle’ section of the subject content. This had been the topic of much debate with stakeholders at the time, which resulted in 9 bullet points, as opposed to the 20 in the current and final version! Pinning down design and technology knowledge is challenging, as knowledge our knowledge base is not static, with technology and society changing constantly; and the nature the subject is to borrow knowledge from other disciplines, as acknowledged in the introduction to the document. It also provide opportunities to both build clearer progression from the National Curriculum programme of study and develop a general consensus to what is important in design and technology.

The consultation process for the final version, published in November 2015, included a wide range of stakeholders, including the Awarding Organisations, the D&T Association, teachers and teacher networks, teacher educators and sector organisations, such as the IET, RAEng, Design Council and Textiles Institute (to name but a few). It also involved almost 100 iterations of the final document, to the point that I was heard to comment “don’t talk to me about iterative design!” on several occasions!

Two significant changes in the new GCSE will be the introduction to the single design and technology title and the use of contextual challenges; both of which have been the focus of concern and potential mis- or over-interpretation. At the root of some of the concerns about the removal of specialist titles, like textiles technology or resistant materials, is the view that these are often referred to as subject title. However, the subject has been design and technology – since it was named as a National Curriculum subject in the 1990s – with the ‘material areas’ being specialisms that were drawn together from the pre-National Curriculum craft subjects from which the subject has evolved. Where a teacher’s identity is constructed around an apparently discreet set of skills and knowledge, any threat to this disciple will be magnified. There are two areas to challenge in this thinking. The first being that the subject content does not seek to define the specifics of D&T specialism, but to identify broad common knowledge and specialist areas for study in-depth. The second being the fact that the purpose of our subject, up to KS3 at least, is the educate every child and young person for life and society, not to train them as designers or technologist – although we aim to inspire and equip some to, increasingly as they study D&T at GCSE and beyond.

When you think about it, what on earth are ‘resistant materials’ or ‘graphic products’, and where (other than in schools) are they terms that are used? There are some advantages of limiting the range of materials (for us as teachers, at least), but for graphic products in particular, in my time as a teacher, we’ve seen architectural modeling in and out of fashion in specifications, as well as the preclusion of the use of resistant materials, like MDF, for modeling. How do these abstract limits reflect either design thinking or industrial practice? Similarly, resistant materials sounds like a committee originated working title, which got forgotten about and slipped through. And when do resistant materials cease to be ‘resistant’ – for example is metal rope a resistant or a compliant material. Materials properties can be altered by the way that they are combined or adapted, so on closer examination the line between (so called) resistant and compliant materials becomes increasingly blurred.

There was a clear mandate from stakeholders for the new GCSE to remove artificial barriers between material, freeing learners to select the most appropriate materials and components to solve a real design problem. This means that they should develop a broad knowledge of materials and components, which builds on the key stage 3 programme of study, and develop in-depth knowledge and practical skills in at least one. A logical approach, which many good subject leaders have always done, is to treat GCSE as a 5-year course – i.e. the KS3 curriculum develops the broader knowledge that is built on at GCSE. Taking this a curriculum model could help departments to address some of the tensions between breadth and depth, as well as issues around facilities and teacher expertise, in the short term, at least.

As a community we have long debated whether the subject is academic, practical, vocational or creative. I’d suggest that it is all of the above, and we should get on with facilitating young minds to engage with and transform the made world rather than try to squeeze it into one category. This might be a grand aim, but what does D&T offer the curriculum if not the opportunity for learners to develop thinking and action capacity through designing and making. Forget about whether every learner can use a tenon saw, solder or pin and tack correctly (as useful as these skills are, in context). It’s the ability to thinking, solve problems and have a broad knowledge of materials and components, and some of the possibilities that technology, tools and equipment afford us.

At this time of curriculum change, I end with a question that we now ask every candidate who comes to be interviewed for initial teacher training at Liverpool John Moores University: What is the purpose of design and technology teaching in secondary schools? There are challenges ahead for the subject, but it is a time for us to reassess it’s role within the curriculum and demonstrate how good D&T has a positive impact on children and young people, and society as a whole.

Reference:

DFE (2015). Design and technology: GCSE subject content (November 2015). Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-design-and-technology [Last accessed 9th March 2016]