How design acronyms work

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

What is Design and Technology knowledge?

Thoughts on knowledge in Design and Technology…

With the National Curriculum review underway between February and April 2013, there has been a lot of talk about what knowledge is in Design and Technology. With the focus on “essential knowledge [and] fundamental operations” (DFE, 2011: 6) the relationship between D&T and knowledge has been under the spotlight. When the subject was originally conceived, knowledge was viewed as a “resource to be used” (DES/WO, 1988:29) in design and technology activity.

Education for Engineering (E4E) have presented their New Principles for Design and Technology in the Curriculum, which take a ‘tool kit’ approach, identifying design, technology, critiquing and data tools. Whilst there is work to be done if this was to be developed as a programme of study, it does provide a set of ‘lenses’ to evaluate and plan design and technology. It certainly provides a (more) rigorous framework than the DFE’s draft programme of study.

Similarly, the Design Council released their 5 Principles of Design Education: Build a design literate society; Apply user-centred design methods; Ensure a multidisciplinary approach is at the heart of learning; Develop technical skills; Be embedded within an industrial, academic and cultural framework.

Both E4E and the Design Council’s ‘principles’ have merit and value, demanding further discussion and analysis (which I’m not going to do here!). What I’ve been thinking of recently is knowledge areas in D&T. This has been influenced by a number discussions that I have been involved with amongst teachers and teacher educators. The current political ideology informing the curriculum ‘reforms’ undervalues process and activity, which have been the areas that we have been most comfortable with in D&T.

What is Design and Technology?

The mindmap above, shows my first attempt at trying to unpick the knowledge that contributes to the D&T processes. Initially (as you can see above) my thinking was around internal (design) and external (material) knowledge. However, there is another area that this doesn’t take into consideration; that of knowledge of products (see below), which in some aspects is a synthesis between design and materials areas. However, this does not account for the social and cultural aspects of D&T, such as fitness for purpose and designing for real human contexts.

knowledge in D&T

Bodies of knowledge in design and technology (annotated and updated 28th April 2013)

On further analysis, ‘materials’ as an area of knowledge begins to break down, as in D&T we can also be working with components, ingredients and (even) ideas/concepts. So how about ‘technologies’ as the third area? This viewing technology as human interaction with the material world, rather than specific ‘artefacts’ of technology.

So does this lead use to be in a position to develop a taxonomy of design and technology activity? This is something that Mike Martin, my colleague at LJMU, has been thinking about as well. In other words, defining broad categories (albeit overlapping) of knowledge. What is below is my first attempt at drawing together the conversations and past versions of the D&T programmes of study, with D&T being built on knowledge of designing, knowledge of products and knowledge of technologies

A taxonomy of Design and Technology?

Designing

Design thinking & designing

Investigating:

  • Identify and gather primary and secondary data appropriate to each design context/project
  • Analyse data for specific contexts and briefs (and specifications)

Ideation:

  • Use appropriate ‘tools’ for generating ideas
  • Record ideas using words and drawings (2D and 3D) appropriate to the technological domain

Modelling:

  • 2D and 3D modelling and development of ideas (representational and prototyping)
  • Use ICT for simulation and design

Communicating:

  • Presenting ideas visually and aurally
  • Drawings, diagrams and models

Planning:

  • Managing design projects and manufacturing processes

Critiquing:

  • Analysing, synthesising and evaluating ideas, products and systems
  • Understand the impact of design decisions and evaluate against design specifications

Products

Products, systems & environments

Fitness for purpose:

  • Functionality / fitness for purpose / authenticity
  • User and market

Creativity and innovation:

  • Market and technological push and pull
  • Comparing and evaluating products

Cultural/historical:

  • Cultural aspects of design, e.g. aesthetics, function
  • Knowledge of British and global designers/innovators

Technologies

Materials, components & ingredients

Domains:

  • Electronics and control
  • Food
  • Materials (resistant & compliant)
    • Wood, metal, plastic, textiles, (ceramics)

Properties of materials:

  • Physical/chemical
  • Working
  • Natural, man-made (including smart and modern) materials

Processing of materials:

  • Addition
  • Subtraction/wastage
  • Forming/moulding
  • Combining/joining

Origins of materials:

  • Sustainability, sourcing and selecting of materials, components and ingredients
  • Life Cycle Analysis

Control Systems:

  • Knowledge of open and closed systems

Information and Communication Technologies:

  • Use ICT to design, manufacture and evaluate
  • Use collaborative technologies to work creatively as individuals and teams

Note: this is a starting point for conversation and ‘thinking aloud’. 

References

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: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00135-2011 [last accessed 14th April 2013]