Products

GCSE Design and Technology – what next?

Posted by

0

Following on from the curriculum reforms instated by Michael Gove, starting with the National Curriculum programmes of study for Key Stages 1 to 3, GCSE reform is on the way. D&T, which was missed on the second list of subjects for reform, is due to have new specifications in schools for teaching from September 2016. So it’s time to start the conversation about what D&T examinations should look like.

It’s a big question, so here are some thoughts (unrefined as they are!) about problems, solutions and options…

Problems:

  • Impact of prescriptive and categorised assessment criteria on teaching, learning and assessment in schools – initially inferring a linear design process, which many teachers found hard to break with when the Awarding Bodies changed (reduces) the assessment categories and rebalanced the marks for designing and making (back in 2008/9?);
  • Too many GCSE options – looks like a good thing, but it causes some confusion as to what D&T is about (i.e. is it about design and technology or is it about ‘materials’);
  • Lack of clear progression to Level 3 and beyond – i.e. Different qualification names both within and across Awarding bodies (e.g. GCSE Graphic Products to ‘what?’ at A Level?);
  • Lack of clarity/understanding between academic, practical, technical and vocational aspects of design and technological learning – this is a division that our European colleagues don’t seem hold;
  • An (over?) reliance on the single, integrated design and make activity at GCSE and A Level, in the past, and in some cases currently – i.e. design and make at GCSE and design and make at A Level (how many times have I heard teachers comment on pupils ‘still’ not getting what a design portfolio is in A2?);
  • Teacher perceptions of appropriate assessment models – the OCR innovation challenge (GCSE and A Level Product Design), which is built on research by Richard Kimbell and others at Goldsmiths, does not seem to have gained favour with teachers (is this because it is such a radical departure from what we have seen in recent years?);
  • The popularity of problematic D&T GCSEs (e.g. Graphic Products) and vocational courses (e.g. Catering) that divert attention from core D&T practice and activity – I’m not against graphics (by the way), but what is a graphic product? It seems nonsensical to have a qualification that limits possible graphic outcomes to 3D products. Graphic communication is a key skill for designing, but is graphic design better placed within the flexible territory of Art and Design?
  • The popularity of making over designing – this is not negative per se, but does manifest as a desire for craft focused assessments or separate practical making D&T qualifications;
  • Teacher (quite altruistically) try to get the best marks for their pupils, which can result in formulaic projects and limited D&T – we need to recognise the pressures that they are under and the reasons for this practice, rather than condemn it outright.

Solutions:

  • Reduce the number of GCSE options – I am I’m favour of the three part approach, which has been suggested by Andy Mitchell from the D&T Association (see below) – although Andy has gone as far as to suggest on specification that covers all of D&T;
  • Radical rethinking of assessment models and assessed D&T activity (i.e. evaluate the impact and usefulness of the current design and make coursework activity and written exams, commonly used in most GCSE specifications);
  • Consideration of research regarding assessment of designing, design and make, creativity, etc. (national and international) – I’m thinking particularly of Richard Kimbell (et al);
  • Identification of priorities for children (creativity and cognitive, emotional and physical intelligence), education (FE, HE and beyond), society, industry, etc.;
  • Encourage graphics specialists and enthusiasts to adopt existing (or new?) Art and Design: Graphic Design GCSE and A Level options – build on existing links between A&D and D&T in FE and HE;
  • Encourage D&T departments to develop specifically vocational options alongside existing D&T qualifications – in conjunction with other subject departments and teachers (in particular progression routes relating to STEM careers).

Possible GCSE options:

  1. One qualification, called Design and technology, with three options [working titles]: (a) Materials (‘compliant’ and ‘resistive’), (b) Food and (c) Control (electronics, mechanics, programmable, etc.) – avoiding Product Design and Engineering, as these imply a vocational focus (i.e. both are careers that learners might choose – I suspect that we would not consider a D&T Catering, so why these?
  2. Three separate GCSEs with a D&T core: (a) Design and technology: Materials; (b) Design and technology: Food; and (c) Design and technology: Control

Assessment models:

  • Rethink the design and make assignment / project – in particular the design portfolio. Alternatives such as the use of sketchbooks, notebooks, journals (including ICT such as blogging, video diaries), alongside a shorter final presentation of the project which would include an artifact (product, system and or service). Note: this might require two or more different sets of assessment criteria, a little like the Level 2 Project or Level 3 Extended Project;
  • Removal of the controlled assessment restrictions for coursework conducted over weeks or months;
  • Alternative assessments, such as the OCR innovation chalked to assess design creativity;
  • Consider the value and content of written D&T examinations – in particular the ‘designing’ aspects.

Just thinking!…

 

How design acronyms work

Posted by

0

The D&T Framework in 2004 brought together some useful tools for the teaching of design skills, such as ACCESS FM, Winners and Losers, 4X4, SCAMPER, etc (see Module 4: Teaching the subskills of designing). Unfortunately, the roll-out of the training was a bit patchy (to say the least) so there has been a mixed experience in schools. This can manifest in two ways: firstly, in some schools the strategies were not adopted  to help children learn the skills of designing (including exploring, generating, developing, planning and evaluating); secondly, in the breadth of activities being used and the sophistication of use, never mind the confidence to adapt and develop strategies was limited – sometimes causing frustration and rejection! However, some activities have been widely adopted.

I’ve been thinking recently about the use of acronyms, in particular, such as ACCESS FM[1. aesthetics, customer, cost, environment, size, safety, function, materials] and SCAMPER[2. substitute, combine, adapt, modify, purpose, eliminate, rearrange]. There is nothing special about these acronyms, other than the fact that they are memorable (mnemonics) and each ‘heading’ (e.g. ‘customer’ in ACCESS FM) may not be useful or appropriate in each situation. However, they are useful cognitive tools, that can help teachers and children to build design thinking and strategies – as well as highlight links between the material areas in D&T. But like any tools, the require a certain level of skill in use.

So how do I use an acronym (or any of the strategies)?

There are two ‘extremes’ that you will be working between when you adopt and use a design tool like ACCESS FM:

  • Rigid (scaffolded[3. Note: there is an element of scaffolding AND facilitation at both ‘extremes’]) use of all the headings in a teacher lead activity.
  • Flexible (facilitated) adaption by the learner(s) in an independent maker.

When leaning towards the former approach, the teacher needs to consider the learners’ age, ability, prior experience and the context of the activity. Assuming the learners will understand what is expected is a common mistake, as the meanings of the ‘headings’ can be unclear (e.g. aesthetics). So there are at least three choices to make at this point: (a) define the meaning, (b) use examples, and (c) use prompt questions or explanations. There is an excellent opportunity for developing literacy in the use of technical language here, through worksheets, glossaries, word walls etc.

Other choices to make include: changing unfamiliar words to more familiar ones (e.g. ‘aesthetics’ for ‘appearance’); or removing headings to reduce the number (e.g. ACCESS FM could become FACE – function, appearance, customer, environment). The annotated worksheet below, combines the SCAMPER strategy (page 380) with and activity called 4X4 (page 371). Notice how the worksheet includes the SCAMPER acronym (top), with prompts (above) and the main 4X4 activity clearly laid out (main section). This is a scaffolded activity, rather than a style of presenting a design development sheet, but might be an appropriate starting point for Key Stage 3 (KS3) learners. The aim being that as confidence grows, learners employ and adapt a range of strategies independently. So a similar activity with Year 9s or 10s might have an A3 page folded twice to create 4 boxes, with the teacher using examples, a slideshow and/or a poster to remind/prompt about the the strategy.

SCAMPER 4X4

Annotated SCAMPER / 4X4 worksheet

[Click here to download the worksheet above]

The key to using design activities like this is good teacher modelling, when first introducing them to learners. It is also important not to use them as the only form of design activity, so children have to opportunity to apply what they learn (e.g. sketching, combining materials, making a prototype etc.), and are not thrown when they are faced with a ‘blank page’ for the first time. Teacher modelling can include demonstrating, explaining and questioning, each of which can[4. …and should, in most cases.] be achieved ‘live’ in the lesson or through learning resources (worksheet, posters, presentations, videos etc.). When beginning with a new approach, a ‘worked example’ (demonstration) can show learners what is expected. This is most effective when you demonstrate using the same materials and format to the learners, so using a visualiser, video camera or if you don’t have access to either, gather the learners around a table[4. Remember that they can’t see what you can see]. To avoid stifling creativity, you might use a different context to that of the lesson, so that you don’t lead learners to particular solutions[5. i.e. “This is what the teachers must want.”].

When working with older or more confident learners, you could begin to be more flexible. For example, when using the 4X4 activity encourage them to use the strategies that are helpful if and when they need them – i.e. to help to prompt thinking, if they don’t have any immediate ideas. This returns us to the concept at the beginning of this blog post, that the activities are nothing special in themselves and a certainly not ‘designing’, but rather learning aids or scaffolds to developing design skills – enabling learners to become more confident and well rounded design thinkers.

See previous blog post: Quick and dirty product analysis

Towards a philosophy of products?

Posted by

0

I read an interesting article yesterday (26th April 2013) on Google Glass, in the MIT Technology Review (thanks to David Barlex and Torben Stegg). The author (John Pavius) discusses some of the, potential, technical and social issues with the user interface with Google Glass. However, the most interesting part was a reference to the 20th Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who is possibly best know for his writing on tool use.

Pavius takes a slightly dystopian view of the implications of the Google Glass user interface with future ‘technological’ products in the future, which somewhat reflects Heideggar’s leanings. Having said that, I think that he (Heideggar) can teach us something about products. He wrote within a the school of phenomenology, which (very crudely speaking) is concerned with the observation and experience of phenomena (things that occur/happen in human experience).

Taken from: http://www.flickr.com/

Heideggar was interested in objects, or more accurately ‘things’: he actually was not particularly keen of objects as a term, inferring a distance, whereas ‘things’ are experienced and meaningful (think that I’ve got that right!?). Two key concepts regarding tools, in heidegarrian philosophy are readiness to hand and presence at hand. These terms describe human beings relationship to and use of tools. Heideggar used the example of the hammer. When a hammer is in use, it becomes an extension of the arm and withdraws from consciousness: this is readiness to hand. Conversely, if the hammer does not function or functions inefficiently, it comes into consciousness and become less effective as a tool (Heideggar takes about ‘broken’ tools): this is presence at hand.

This got me thinking that often when I have read people explaining this concept, it is in terms of tools being one or the other. But what if tools move between the two states? We experience (use) tools (products and/or technologies) in two different ways (or from two different perspectives). Sometimes products are used instinctively and unconsciously, such as spectacles, and they become an extension to our body (readiness to hand). Many technologies are like this when they become ubiquitous and part of how we live and act within our society/culture. On the other extreme, there are products that are very much in our consciousness, but not necessarily because they are ‘broken’. Take, for example, the iPhone: much loved by many despite its perceived flaws. So appears to be a disruptive element in the design of much-loved products that pulls them into consciousness (presence at hand).

This line of argument suggests that products might be ‘positioned’ at a point along a continuum between readiness at hand and presence to hand. This positioning might be contingent on the technology maturity of or adoption of specific technologies by the local culture (and individual), but complex products, such as smart phones, cars and buildings, move in and out of consciousness; so the ‘position’ is not fixed. When I feel the hardness (resistance, even mild discomfort) of my iPhone in my hand and against my ear, I am reminded that it is not part of me, it remains in my consciousness (presence at hand); at the same time functioning as an extension being used unconsciously (readiness to hand).

Readiness to hand / presence at hand product continuum

So what are the implications for a philosophy of products or product design? Are disruptive ‘imperfections’ part of people’s emotional attachment to products? Can complex products be simultaneously ready to hand and present at hand? Or do they move in and out of consciousness? Does Heideggar suggest a way to avoid the dystopian view of technology and technological determinism?… [to be continued]