This was part of my original PhD Proposal (building on my PATT26 paper), but was sacrificed to the word count!
D&T: Cultural Learning or STEM Education?
Within Design and Technology education there are a number of strands of thought, which influence the purpose and rationale for the subject. Broadly speaking these could be described under two distinct, but interrelated, camps: Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and cultural learning. The former focuses on the tangible and industrial (or industrious) output, whereas the latter on the wider human activity. To view the two strands as separate entities would, possibly, be a false distinction as the ‘cultural wake’ of human activity could be argued to be a combination of social and technology activity (Figure 1; McLain, 2012). Also the relationship between human development and technology is intertwined. For example, links have been drawn between tool use in early man and the development of language (McCormack, Hoerl, and Butterfill, 2011; Csibra and Gergely, 2006; Baber, 2003; Wolpert, 2003). Research in the cognitive sciences suggest that the mind and body are inextricably linked (Greif, 2011: 39; Johnson-Frey, 2004; Greenfield, 1991), challenging philosophies that separate mind and body, exemplified in what Ryle calls “Decartes Myth” (1949; 2009),
Similarly, there are differing opinions of the nature of culture. Ward Goodenough stated that “culture [is located] in the minds and hearts of men” (cited in Geertz, 1973: 10), a view that has some resonance with contemporary thinking and education. Geertz challenges this view as misconceived dualism between idealist and materials perspectives and Sennett (2008: 124) describes a deep-seated view within western society of the superiority of ideas over material culture. However, within the constructivist paradigm distinctions between idealist and materialist, inside and outside, abstract and concrete, experience are considered as connected (Ilyenkov, 2009). The use of terms abstract and concrete express a practical or pragmatic dualism, or part of a continuum. Within this context cultural artefacts, or tools, can be physical, psychological or both.
Wartofsky (1979: 202) describes three levels of artefact (Figure 2) where technological and societal tools are parallel as primary artefacts. Similarly, Brunner describes the “technical-social way of life” (2009) focusing on how culture is embodied: body and mind actively contribute to cultural and cognitive evolution (Barrett, Henzi and Lusseau, 2011). Design and Technology, both as human activity and as a curriculum area, engages mind and body in the process of creating artefacts in the form of objects: products, systems (QCA, 2007) and (historically) environments (NCC, 1990).
Habermas (1981: 3-14) proposed a ‘dynamic holism’ and challenged the tendency of modernist thinking to view as distinct and separable what he described as the spheres of culture: science, morality and art. There is an irony that the factor that created the role of the designer as distinct from the craftsman (Sennett, 2008), may have been a result of the division of labour (Engeström, 2009) through the professionalization of culture. Rather than to denounce the intentions and impact of the Enlightenment he calls for an “unconstrained interaction” (p.11), similar philosophy envisaged in the beginnings of D&T, where knowledge was viewed as “resource to be used” (DES/WO, 1988:29). This is in contrast to the curriculum being conceived of as “essential knowledge [and] fundamental operations” (DFE, 2011: 6).
Technological activity, viewed as a Habermasian “moral-practical” culture, plays a key role in the three spheres of culture, although an argument could be made that D&T interacts with all three. This is an interesting concept to juxtapose with Archer’s (Figure 3; Archer, Baynes and Roberts, 2005; Archer 1979) model of the relationship between the two cultures or science and humanities, alongside the proposed third culture of design.
References
Archer, L.B., Baynes, K. and Roberts, P. (2005). A framework for Design and Design Education. Wellesbourne, UK: The Design and Technology Association.
Archer, B. (1979). The Three Rs. Design Studies, 1(1), pp 18-20.
Baber, C. (2003). Cognition and Tool Use: Forms of engagement in human and animal use of tools. London: Taylor & Francis.
Barrett, L., Henzi, P. and Lusseau, D. (2011) Embodiment: Taking Sociality Seriously [Video online]. In: New Thinking: Advances in the Study of Human Cognitive Evolution, An interdisciplinary workshop supported by All Souls College, The British Academy, Guarantors of Brain, and Magdalen College’s Calleva Centre, 23rd and 24th June 2011. University of Oxford. Available at: http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/people/cecilia-heyes [last accessed 12th March 2012]
Bruner, J.S. (2009) Culture, Mind, and education. In: Illeris, K. (2009) Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists … In Their Own Words. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Csibra, C. and Gergely, G. (2006) Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. In: Y. Munakata & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Processes of Change in Brain and Cognitive Development. Attention and Performance, XXI. (pp. 249-274). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
DES/WO (1988) National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group: Interim Report. London: Department for Education and Science/Welsh Office.
DFE (2011) The Framework for the National Curriculum. A report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review. London: Department for Education. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk [last accessed 14th March 2012]
Engeström, Y. (2009) Expansive learning: towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualisation. In: Illeris, K. (2009). Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists … In Their Own Words. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973) Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Greenfield, P.M. (1991) Language, tools and brain: The ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1991) 14: 531-595
Greif , M.L. (2011) Book Review: A Fresh Look at the Cognitive Origins of Man the Tool-Maker. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1): 38-44. Available at: www.epjournal.net [last accessed 12th March 2012]
Habermas, J. (1981). Modernity versus Postmodernity. New German Critique, 22, Special Issue on Modernism. (Winter, 1981), pp. 3-14.
Ilyenkov, E. (2009) The Ideal in Human Activity: a collection of the writings of Evald Vasilyevich Ilyencov. [online] Marxists Internet Archive Publications. Available at http://www2.cddc.vt.edu [last accessed 10th October 2012]
Johnson-Frey, S., H. (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.2 February 2004. Available at: www.sciencedirect.com [last accessed 4th December 2011]
McCormack, T., Hoerl, C., and Butterfill, S. (eds) (2011) Tool Use and Causal Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McLain, M. (2012) The importance of technological activity and designing and making activity, a historical perspective. PATT 26 Conference, Technology Education in the 21st Century. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström & M. Hultén (Eds.). http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_home/index.en.aspx?issue=073 (pp. 330-340). Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet.
NCC (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office.
QCA (2007) Design and Technology: programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Ryle, (1949; 2009). The Concept of Mind (60th Anniversary Edition). London: Taylor & Francis.
Sennett, R. (2008) The Craftsman. London: Penguin.
Wartofsky, M.W. (1979). Models: representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. Publishing Company.
Wolpert, L. (2003) Causal belief and the origins of technology. Philosophical Transfers of the Royal Society London A 2003 361, 1709-1719. Available at: rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org [last accessed 4th December 2011]