PATT2017 - Philadelphia

This week I've been in Philadelphia with many D&T education colleagues at the PATT2017 conference. Today I'm presenting a paper that takes a sideways look at some of my PhD data.

This research compares special interest groups’ and students’ rhetoric about the value of Design & Technology (D&T) in England, specifically in relation to learning about technology, employment and creative endeavors.

Drawing upon the Design and Technology Association (D&TA) campaigns and interviews with students, I identify the values these two ascribe to D&T. These values will be compared with the values implied in the English National Curriculum for D&T: the current version (Department of Education, 2013b) and previous iterations since its inception into the National Curriculum in 1990.

Analysis of the two groups’ values demonstrates a disparity between the two groups’ views of the value of D&T. Whilst D&TA and students concur on some values, there are noticeable differences. Generally, students place greater emphasis on D&T’s value to their everyday lives, future employment, and personal fulfillment, whereas the D&TA campaigns focus on how D&T engenders both personal and national economic benefits; creativity is valued by both groups but in different ways. These findings imply a discord between them about the contribution D&T makes to an individual’s education and future life.

By comparing the values of these two stakeholder groups, who have no direct power to influence the enactment of government policy (Williams, 2007), this research provides an insight to some of the potential divergences that may occur as D&T teachers, who do have the power, interpret the National Curriculum using D&TA’s materials to advocate the value of D&T to their students. This research could help other special interest groups explore how D&T is valued and how they lobby government for future curriculum change.

The next stage to this study is to explore how the D&TA’s rhetoric about D&T, and the values discovered in this study, are enacted in classrooms.

Putting the case to senior leaders for D&T

This post came about after a discussion on Facebook about the decline in the number of pupils studying D&T to GCSE. Another teacher has also been asking - how do we convince senior leaders that D&T is an essential part of a child's education?

So this is my response - its not a solution because I don't think there is a quick fix. But, whilst I've been sat listening to Diana Choulerton's key note at the D&TA Summer School this morning she has raised some valid points about what D&T is for (I"m hoping her presentation will be uploaded to SlideShare soon & I'll add a link when it is). 

(Thanks for the shout out Paul Woodward on Facebook which prompted this post). 

There are a number of things edu-politically at play here that have directly and indirectly affected D&T which have led to the decline in number of students taking GCSE D&T (be careful not to equate decline in D&T with less student numbers at GCSE - that's a whole other area for discussion). There are some exceptions (well done to James Smith for the increased in numbers - it would be good to know what's led to this. I suspect its a combination of good GCSE D&T results, a senior leadership who recognise how D&T benefits a child's education (not just about getting a job) and a well managed school budget (b/c D&T can be an expensive budget & austerity is biting school subjects)). I've recently written about progress 8 and D&T (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317689722_The_consequence_of_school_performance_measures_Inequality_of_access_and_opportunity) and the Ebacc and D&T (soon to be published by Loughborough Press). 

Fighting to get D&T as part of the Ebacc is a distraction in my opinion because of the reasons why the Ebacc came into being and why some subjects were 'in' and others 'out'. The 'in' arguments from the government will always exclude D&T; this is not because D&T is not valuable but because of the conservative government's view of social justice and cultural literacy (read E.D. Hirsch if you want to know more - Gibb and Gove did). So we have to look at D&T being 'in' progress 8.But ... D&T will only be 'in' progress 8 if the GCSE results are good. And as Diana Choulerton has reported for the last 2 years at the D&T summer school - the national picture for D&T GCSE results is not great. There are all sorts of reasons for this (budgets, difficulties with getting D&T teachers) but this is the position.

Also, the arguments for D&T being part of the National Curriculum tend to focus on the economic (helps you get a job) or instrumental (looking after yourself) rather than about becoming an educated citizen (look at the NC aims). Plus, there is only anecdotal evidence that D&T does help the country's economy or without D&T children would not be able to DIY or cook (the government likes 'evidence' (look at the ascendency of ResearchEd) and there's not a lot of that about for D&T). So - is there a way to reverse the trend? Yes, I think there is.  But, I think it has many parts - its not a simple solution. 

Firstly, I think its important to know why you think D&T should be taught because this informs how you talk about it SLT, students and parents. I believe D&T is an essential component of a child's general education - its not just about the economy or learning skills to look after yourself. It's about the intrinsic value and being part of a community (and more).  

Secondly, if I was still a head of department I'd be looking for strong cases studies of former students who had succeeded because of D&T. I'd be looking becoming them getting a D&T related job. This would give me concrete examples to share with senior leaders.

Then I'd be looking longer term at my curriculum. What is the long/ medium term plan in my department that reflects what we as a team value about D&T that benefits all pupils, not just some?

None of this is a simple answer, and will take a long time (2-3 years to work through). I appreciate its easy for me to write this and as I'm no longer working in a school I don't have to face the devaluation of D&T as a consequence of the Ebacc and other policies. 

But, if I can help, I'm happy to be work with D&T colleagues to put together persuasive arguments and case studies. 

Engineering =/= D&T

Last night I was out for dinner with two other Brunel alumni, Steve Bicknell and Jason Ward. During the evening we had several heated exchanges about the name of D&T, branding and marketing D&T, what the point of D&T was and so on. Jason was advocating the integration of ‘engineering’ into his department’s title, Steve felt ‘design’ was at the heart of D&T, whilst I was distracted by Twitter (those who know me will not be surprised by this) and saw Jim Smith’s timely tweet:

@nohandsup @hardy_alison @iamparksy the future is bleak. The technical awards will have a negative impact. Engineering is key to growth.

— Jim Smith (@jim1982) November 25, 2016

Jim, Steve Parkinson and Steve Charleston and me were having a Twitter conversation about why only 41% of ITT D&T places had been filled this year.

When Jim asked why I disagreed with his assertion that ‘Engineering is the way forward’ my response was somewhat cryptic:  

@jim1982 @nohandsup @iamparksy simplitstically:
engineering = exclusive
design and technology = inclusive

— Alison Hardy (@hardy_alison) November 26, 2016

Explaining why I think this in 140 characters is difficult so this is my quick reply.

I'm going to give two reasons for why engineering excludes some students and D&T includes all students:

• Firstly a name is symbolic. ‘Engineering' is linked to a vocation, career and profession. No subject on the curriculum has the title of a vocation within it (I’m talking about ‘subjects’ not ‘qualifications’). It is implicit that children do not study geography to become a geographer - the value of the subject lies in the purpose of learning about geography. For me, this is equally true for D&T - the value of D&T lies in what children should be taught in D&T. (Rather than exploring that here I suggest you look at David and Torben’s posts about curriculum and chapters from ‘D&T for the Next Generation’). I’ve written before about the name of D&T - I think the Working Party got it right in 1988 and I still think the argument stands.
• Secondly - focussing on engineering in D&T, whether by changing the name, content or purpose, implies the dominant purpose of education is prepare young people for the a job. In my opinion preparing young people for the world of work is part of education's purpose but not the main purpose.

Engineering is a profession and a career, with opportunities for young people to enter with from different education routes, such as a degree, an A level, or apprenticeship. Only some young people will take this career route, others will venture into arts, finance, design, service industries and so on. If D&T is relabelled with  ‘Engineering’ or its main purpose becomes to prepare young people for a role in engineering then we are excluding some young people sat in D&T lessons.

My heart sinks when I hear D&T teachers say to their students - 'this [knowledge/skill] will be important to you when you become an engineer’ - the vast majority of students in a class will not become an engineer. The language excludes those who will not become engineers from the lesson. I appreciate there is a deficit between engineers needed and engineers in training but even if there wasn’t, there are still other jobs needed by society and the economy - so how is D&T relevant for the young people who fill these non-engineering jobs?

The challenge is to define what the purpose of D&T is as part of a general education for all pupils. I strongly believe that D&T is a fundamental part of a child’s general education; in fact I presented five reasons why D&T is part of a general education in January 2014 for TeachDesign.

Changing D&T's name, focussing on careers or emphasising its purpose and content in relation to engineering is not the way forward in my opinion. 

I've looked at my PhD findings to see what others said the purpose of D&T was.

I conducted 22 interviews for my PhD  to find out what different people thought the value of D&T was and found 30 different reasons in their responses!

Only 13/22 mentioned D&T prepared young people for a D&T-related job. If you believe the purpose of D&T is to prepare them for a D&T-related career you might say this is a sad indictment of the subject.

14/22 thought a purpose of D&T was because in D&T pupils develop a critical understanding about how the design and manufacture of products impacts on themselves and others.

The most common reason given for D&T’s purpose was that pupils learnt skills to help them look after themselves, their home and family.

An assortment box of views: different perceptions of D&T’s purpose and structure

Tomorrow I head off to Utrecht for the PATT2016 conference: Technology Education for 21st Century skills. I'm presenting a paper that is taking a sideways look at some of my PhD data in the context of D&T's marginalisation and D&TA's campaigns.

Image: CoCreatr

Abstract

Views about the value of Design and Technology (D&T) to students, the economy and society are diverse, occasionally exaggerated, and usually conflicting (for examples see Department of Education, 2013; Design and Technology Association, 2011 and 2015; Hardy, Gyekye, & Wainwright, 2015). For example: is D&T a subject with specialised knowledge? A subject that applies knowledge from other subjects? A vocational subject? A subject to meet the country’s economic needs? Or a subject to develop good citizens?

These conflicting views were brought to the fore when the review of the English National Curriculum proclaimed that D&T has an insufficient disciplinary coherence (Department for Education, 2011). Strong, disciplinary coherent subjects have a clear form of knowledge and are favoured by the current UK government. Subjects with disciplinary coherence have strongly defined boundary between itself and other subjects (Bernstein, 2000), and strongly defined knowledge that is ‘sacred … not ordinary or mundane’ (Bernstein, 2003, p.73).

In response to this review, and other challenges, the Design and Technology Association (D&TA) has run two campaigns to ‘fight’ for D&T to be recognised as an important and essential part of the school curriculum (Design and Technology Association, 2011; 2015).

But D&TA has not systematically investigated how D&T teachers and their students, the activators and receivers of D&T, perceive the subject’s purpose and coherence. This paper uses Bernstein’s (2000; 2003) concepts of classification and framing to analyse the perceptions of these two groups. Their assorted views are different to D&TA’s campaign messages but as conflicting, and they concur with the curriculum review that D&T does not have a strong disciplinary coherence.

The conclusion suggests how this analysis could inform future D&TA campaigns and suggests that by addressing D&T’s specialised knowledge and the contribution D&T makes to students 21st Century Skills is not lost but strengthened.

Key words: Bernstein, classification, design, knowledge, skills, technology education.

Hardy Patt2016: An assortment box of D&T values from Alison Hardy

Structured Writing Retreats at Launde Abbey - additional date for 2017

Students and academic can find it difficult to plan writing time - and even when the time is planned, distractions occur and time is lost to other more immediate tasks and meetings. Writing retreats are one way of providing opportunity to prioritise writing and progress with research outputs.

This year, alongside the day retreats I run for NTU and other universities, I am also organising more residential retreats at Launde Abbey in Leicestershire.These are 48-hour retreats with several writing slots, good food and fresh air.

Last year I attended Rowena Murray's Training for Retreat Facilitators and the structure of these retreats is modelled on Rowena's research.  

Click dates to book now for:

Wednesday 15th - Friday 17th March 2017 

Friday 15th - Sunday 17th September 2017

The aim of the retreat is to use dedicated writing time to progress our writing. The retreat is designed to support students and lecturers in their writing projects such as thesis, articles or reports. This is a supportive environment, where we use most of the time for writing, all of us in the same room. There is time during the retreat to discuss papers and share ideas. This will be a useful event for colleagues to meet up and talk in a relaxed environment. 

How is the retreat structured?

The retreat starts on day 1 at 4pm and ends on day 3 at 4pm. All writing sessions, meetings and meals are in Launde Abbey. We use most of the time for writing, all of us in the same room. Brief scheduled discussions between writing slots often generate solutions to writing problems, develop drafts, lead to research-oriented conversations and provide feedback on writing-in-progress.

Retreat Programme

Day 1

4 - 4.30          Arrive at Launde Abbey

4.30 - 5          Refreshments and setting up

5 - 5.30          Introductions, writing warm up, setting goals

5.30 - 6.30     Writing 

Day 2

9.15 - 9.30     Planning 

9.30 - 11        Writing

11 - 11.30      Break 

11.30 - 12.30 Writing 

12.30 - 2        Lunch and a walk to stretch out legs

2 - 3.30          Writing 

3.30 - 4          Break 

4 - 5.30          Writing

Day 3

9.15 - 9.30     Planning 

9.30 - 11        Writing

11 - 11.30      Break 

11.30 - 12.30 Writing 

12.30 - 2        Lunch and a walk

2 - 3.30          Writing

3.30 - 4.00     Break, taking stock, outputs, feedback, next moves

Where is the venue?

Launde Abbey  is a residential retreat centre in Leicestershire, 6 miles from Oakham and 13 from Leicester. Its a few miles off the A47, the link road between the M1 (Leicester) and A1 (Peterborough).

Launde Abbey - Launde Road East Norton, LE7 9XB - View Map

What refreshments are included?

Full board: all meals, morning coffee and afternoon tea

Non-residential: morning coffee, lunch and afternoon tea. If you would like to have dinner on the first evening please email Alison for details. 

Want to know more about writing retreats?

Read: Murray R & Newton M (2009) Writing retreat as structured intervention: Margin or mainstream?, Higher Education Research and Development, 28(5): 527-39.

For more information

Contact: Alison Hardy alison.hardy@hotmail.co.uk

Alison has attended Rowena Murray's Training for Retreat Facilitators and the structure of this retreat is modelled on Rowena's research.  

All publicity is good - right?

Recently there has been a couple of articles about D&T, and whilst its great to see D&T getting a mention after much sidelining (and ignorance) from the media, I do have some reservations.

Last year I wrote an article for The Conversation about the ongoing decline in GCSE D&T entries, which Ross McGill (@TeacherToolkit) eloquently follows up this year highlighting the further decline in numbers. Unfortunately the Schools Week headline misrepresents Ross’ arguments but Ross swiftly corrects in the ‘comments’ section.

Steve Parkinson (@iamparksy), new Assistant Head at UTC Leeds and D&T teacher, explains the five changes to the GCSE D&T: contexts not briefs, appropriate materials not silos, emerging technologies (great blogging by David Barlex and Torbeen Steeg about these), iterative design and equal balance between exam and NEA. Perfectly summarised by Steve. Good D&T teachers and departments will have been doing the first four of these for years.

But it is yesterday’s article that set my alarm bells ringing: 87 MPs demand inclusion of subject in EBacc as a science option. And this makes me twitch for two reasons.

Firstly D&T is not a science subject (nor an art subject for that matter). Whilst this confuses some who want to pigeon-hole knowledge into disciplines, in my opinion it is a strength of D&T. It is a subject that draws on other subjects disciplinary knowledge and uses it to inform design thinking, the appropriate selection materials and understanding contexts, as well as enabling us to consider how and why we might make use of emerging technologies. 

Secondly the letter claims that ‘bolstering the Design and Technology GCSE with inclusion in the EBacc [would be] an important step towards addressing the skills shortage’ - really? This causal link between D&T (and its earlier subject forms),  science and IT has been repeatedly made since the 1962 Crowther Report and Harold Wilson’s technological revolution speech in 1964 (MacCulloch, Jenkins and Layton 1985) yet in all of my literature searching for my PhD I have yet to find any empirical evidence for this. This is not say that there is no correlation (easier to claim than causation) but the MPs claim puts D&T in a conundrum - is GCSE D&T part of a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils? Or is it a specialist qualification for those who want to work in design, manufacturing and engineering industries. 

Whilst considering the MPs letter it is important to remember why the Ebacc exists - three reasons were given but the one relevant here is that the Ebacc gives all pupils access to a broad and academic curriculum (Education Select Committee 2011). The five ‘subjects’ have been set put as providing the essential knowledge all pupils need a part of a general education - an education for all. But the letter justifies GCSE D&T being part of the Ebacc because it will address a skills gap in 'design, manufacturing and engineering’ industries. The implicit argument for GCSE D&T's inclusion is that it will equip young people for jobs in these industries. But not all pupils want to work in these industries, nor does the UK need them to. Therefore the argument for including D&T in the Ebacc is that it is a ‘specialist’ qualification - for some not for all - which is not what the Ebacc is set up to do.

In my view GCSE D&T cannot do both and be in the Ebacc. For me D&T is an essential part of a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils, some of whom may go on to D&T-related occupations. Before we get to excited about the (remote) possibility of GCSE D&T in the Ebac we need to decide and agree what the purpose of D&T is. Maybe this could be a start for the discussion:

D&T’s unique contribution to pupils’ learning is developing their ‘capability to operate effectively and creatively in the made world’ (Parkes Report 1988, p.3)

or you might find this blogpost a useful starting point: What's the point of D&T?

References

Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office, 1988. National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group Interim Report [The Parkes Report]. London: DES.

Education Select Committee, 2011.  The English Baccalaureate. London: House of Commons

McCulloch, G., Jenkins, E.W. and Layton, D., 1985. Technological revolution?: The politics of school science and technology in England and Wales since 1945. Routledge.

#ACRE2016 - abstract accepted: Rhetoric and policy: the values stakeholders attribute to curriculum subjects

Last year I presented at the Edge Hill University Annual Conference for Research in Education, which I thoroughly enjoyed - great key note speakers, making new friends and catching up with old friends. This year the topic, values in education, meshes beautifully with my PhD thesis about the value different people ascribe to design and technology.

This research is important to me as the changes to school measures and the new curriculum begins to be implemented. The conference gave me an opportunity to explore a different angle to my research, I was curious about how government ministers talk about D&T compared with what D&T teachers. I think its important for others to help them understand the tensions between policy that affects D&T and how teachers feel their subject, which they are passionate about, is affected.

My title, abstract and references are below:

Rhetoric and policy: the values stakeholders attribute to curriculum subjects

As recent changes to curriculum policy (DfE 2014) begin to be implemented in schools this research compares government ministers’ and school teachers’ rhetoric about the value of design and technology (D&T), a curriculum subject significantly affected by these changes (Hardy 2015).

A range of factors contributes to the interpretation and enactment of policy (Maguire, Braun and Ball 2015), including a teacher’s values (Priestly, Edwards and Priestly 2012). Drawing upon government ministers’ speeches and interviews with teachers, I identify the values ascribed to D&T by these two stakeholder groups. These values were compared with two sections of the National Curriculum: firstly the National Curriculum’s overarching aims, and secondly the purpose and aims of D&T (DfE 2014).

Following the analysis of the two groups’ values using the two National Curriculum aims as a framework (DfE 2014), I demonstrate a disparity between the two groups’ views of the value of education. Comparison with the D&T National Curriculum reveals that teachers and ministers advocate some of the values ascribed to D&T in the National Curriculum, but there are noticeable differences. Generally, teachers place greater emphasis on D&T’s value to pupils’ learning and development in school, whereas ministers focus on how D&T engenders both personal and national economic benefit. I suggest that these findings imply a discord between these two key stakeholders about the contribution D&T makes to the whole curriculum and a pupil’s education.

By comparing the positionality and political perspectives revealed in the rhetoric of government ministers and teachers about one subject, this research provides a new approach to anticipating different interpretations on curriculum policy. It also offers a way for exploring how different stakeholders value other school subjects and education; it could help those involved in other marginalised subjects explore how policy makers and class teachers value the subject.

The next stage to this study is to explore how the government’s rhetoric about the new curriculum, and the values discovered in this study, are enacted in classrooms.

It also needs to be resolved what the source of stakeholders’ values of school subjects. Eccles and Wigfield  (2002) have demonstrated that a person’s experiences and parental influence shape their values towards subjects such as maths and science; the next stage is to examine whether this is true for other subjects, including D&T.

References

DfE, 2014. National Curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4. London: Department for Education.

Eccles, J.S., and Wigfield, A., 2002. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-132.

Hardy, A., 2015. Why has the number of teenagers taking design and technology GCSE dropped? Available at: http://bit.ly/1JtlOY7 [Accessed 6/2/16]

Maguire, M., Braun, A., and Ball, S., 2015. ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: the social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Policies of Education, 2015. Vol. 36 (4), 485-499.

Priestly, M., Edwards, R., Priestly, A., and Miller, K., 2012. Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making: Agents of Changes and Spaces for Manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, Vol 42 (2), 191-214.

Thanks to Jennifer Jones for the idea for this blogpost