Can we promote more interest in Design & Technology by having more relevant projects.
Abstract
To define Design and Technology and what students need to know in education is complex, and drawing directly on real world practices may provide educators with confidence and guidance in teaching design. This should give clear definitions and descriptions on how design works in practice, thus enabling educators to select which features of these practices can be translated into the encouragement of designer thinking and behaviour in educational contexts. This paper considers the encouragement of interest required to enhance and motivate a higher interest in Design & Technology by having more relevant projects. Where realisation of concepts empowers fantasies, freeing the imaginations from reality into design. Creating the desired from the perceived. Resulting in keeping the process sharp.
This paper will discuss considerations on the way a pupil perceives and processes information, for design in terms of
action, reflection and
appraisal and for technology in respect to solutions to technological problems through the process of invention.
Evaluation will be made of performance in respect to previous research highlighting the teaching strategies used and the managing of the project.
Above all, the undertaking of the project and the design process involved will set out to be a successful evaluation of teaching / learning experience.
Review of Literature
The work of Denton (1993) discussed the relevance of the design process in schools and whether it has merely a 'stylised ritual', more to do with the production of endless sheets of over decorated artwork with elaborate borders than a design tool. He discusses how the ritual of designing has arisen in education, the origins predating the National Curriculum, around the time when Craft, Design & Technology was introduced into the Curriculum. Furthermore, Denton states that it appears to be centred on an 'incomplete understanding of the process of designing' and the functions of modelling and drawing. The formal design process, as used in industry certainly does flow from initial ideas, research, questionnaires and so on, and Denton is not being overcritical of the design process as such, instead he points to the obvious primary function in design activity being the practical outcome rather than a neat visual presentation of the design activity. Commercial designers have a rough idea of the outcome before they actually start designing and they model a progression of refinements and variations in their ideas. By modelling, Denton makes reference to three types that are useful design tools:
Drawing: These range from rapid sketches of the design to 'externalise' design ideas to formal rendered pictorial representations of the finished product, complete engineering drawings and exploded diagrams.
Models: These range from 3D 'lash ups' to demonstrate he principles, give a better idea of proportion and, again, to externalise design ideas. The other end of the scale is the professional presentation scale model that we are familiar with.
CAD: These can also range from doodles in ProDesktop (or something similar), which enables the designer to get an idea of scale, right through to professionally produced rendered CAD designs.
Most of these final coloured, rendered, anatomically correct models (and drawings) are used to communicate with clients, who will have no interest in rough sketches. It is these rough sketches and doodles that are at the heart of the design process and should be of prime importance to teachers as they are better indicators of the child's design thinking. Denton asserts that most schools prefer exquisitely finished and attractively presented work, complete with borders, in contrast with the rudimentary initial sketches of the design process. This preference is communicated to the pupils, who then spend time reworking their initial drawings, wasting time and efficiency in the process, and slowing down the exploration of fresh ideas. Much of this folder work is finished to such a standard that it is indicative of it being produced after the artefact has actually been made.
In this paper, he proposes that it may be a more useful strategy to break away from the current strategy: starting at AT1:
Investigating & Making - generating ideas, and instead start by evaluating something in order to make proposals on how it may be made better. I find that this proposal makes perfect sense, after all most designs are a redesign of an earlier design. The first cars were redesigned carriages, and subsequent cars were simply evolutionary changes, besides, one can empathise with pupils that have limited life experiences, trying to design an artefact starting with a virgin sheet of paper.
Another proposal that, I think, has merit is changing the ratio of designing to making in favour of making, since it is the making that takes the most time. A disproportionate amount of time is spent 'doing research' or more accurately, collating images. Entire lessons devoted to cutting pictures out of Argos catalogues have little merit and a minor influence on the final design. Denton suggests that 'efficiency and effectiveness' may also be developed 'by the use of informal groupwork in the early stages coupled with the use of short deadlines can also promote motivation and possibly the generation of ideas (Denton, 1992).
Kimbell
et al explores the results derived from the APU (Assessment of Performance Unit) study of 1991, that described the capability in Design and Technology in terms of
action, reflectionand
appraisal. He explains, in graphical terms, how boys and girls differ in the results of their coursework. According to the APU, girls consistently outperform boys right across the range of abilities, ie, high achieving girls perform better than high achieving boys and low achieving girls perform better than low achieving boys. While this study is fruitful, it doesn't explain why this should be the case.
Lawler (1999) examines this disparity in results between genders by setting a group of pupils in the final year of primary school two separate tasks, recording the results and making comparisons. This age group were chosen because they had had minimal exposure to the procedural methodology imposed on them by their teachers.
The paper hasevolved from research into ways of describing the process of designing. Two possible descriptors to show the effects of introducing project work have been called 'Big pictures' and 'Small steps'.
'Big pictures' designing is future focussed, inspirational, and results in statements of complete ideas. Concerned with the mental process rather than the procedural, self directed, metacognitive process of design.
'Smallsteps' designing is reflective, sequential, analytical, and descriptive.
'Good' designing is evidenced as a combination of these two styles. Some pupils may have a preference for one approach that, if it conflicts with the way their teacher manages the project work, may restrict their progress. Raising the awareness of the teacher to the effects that the strategy that they impose on the project work has on the pupils, could be an important factor in increased student success. The study compared two different contextualised designing approaches to the presentation and management of project work. It shows the effects that each approach had on the performance of a group of seventy-five 11 year olds, and highlights the different responses of boys and girls to the same design situations. The results indicate that the strategy adopted by the teacher for the sequencing of practical project work had a greater effect on 'good designer' boys, than it did on 'good designer' girls and had a greater negative effect on less able girls than it did on less able boys (Lawler, 1999)
In a different attempt to relate pupils' thinking styles to performance in Design and Technology, Atkinson (1995) used a test of Cognitive Style, shown to be intimately related in ideas and attitudes, to examine the performance of pupils in their GCSE coursework, utilizing a test devised by Riding and Cheema (1991) The Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA). The test was a result of over thirty methods of defining cognitive style being reviewed had it was concluded that most could be grouped within two fundamental independent cognitive style dimensions. These descriptors used in that test were seen along two axes (x, y) each subject being placed along the two continua of
Wholist to Analyst (x axis) and
Verbaliser to Imager (y axis).
Analytic
Verbaliser Imager
Wholist
A pupils position in the
Wholist to Analytic dimension reflects whether they understand situations as a whole or see things in parts, while their position in the
Verbal to Imagerydimension reflects the manner in which they represent information while thinking, either as words or mental pictures. In psychological terms analysts were defined as being field dependent, being affected by the world around them (in their perceptions) and wholists as being the opposite and field independent.
By combining these two concepts, using wholist and analyst to examine pupils' style of designing, new descriptors for 'designing styles' were proposed.
The CSA was produced as a computerised test that automatically calculates and plots a pupils position on both dimensions. The results reflect the way a pupil perceives and processes information. The relative speed in which a pupil answers different styles of questions, reveals their cognitive style (Riding & Staley, 1998)
Methodology
Whilst on school placement, I noticed another teacher suggesting ideas to a year-12 pupil. Within minutes, the teacher had filled up a side of A3 with quickfire sketches and doodles. If pupils have a short time to focus their minds on quick sketches, it can be more productive than spending an entire lesson producing coloured drawings.
I had an opportunity to try this approach at my last school placement when teaching a class of mixed ability Year 9's. The class were stuck, having spent the previous lesson producing 1 or 2 designs. I suggested that they all swap papers in their groups of four and improve on the original idea. After 10 minutes, the papers were swapped again, and again after another 10 minutes. This resulted in each pupil with three additional ideas to work with.
From this placement experience, I have decided that the best way to establish what Key Stage 3 pupils gain from the
Design & Make tasks would be to revisit the two schools in which I taught whilst on teaching practice. The purpose of my visits would be as follows:
To examine the projects that are made by Key Stage 3 pupils and taking one example note the following; the tools required to make the task, the processes involved, and the amount of the pupils' own design input.
Subject to approval by the head of department, ask pupils to complete my questionnaires. This will be an indication of whether the pupils have enjoyed making the project, what the pupils have learned from making the project and, if the pupil is in Year 9, whether that pupil is considering taking up Design & Technology in Key Stage 4.
Finally, I will also ask pupils if they have any suggestions that will improve the project.
The purpose of undertaking design is the development of outcomes of various types. Each design project has stages of construction: these are the components of the final object, in which each stage contains
action, reflection and
appraisal. As an example: to build a car, there are stages of construction for the engine, transmission, wheels, bodywork, doors, windows, and interior etc. Each of these components has an initial concept, in which
action, reflection and
appraisal takes place for choice, material and size before it is offered into the final construction of the car, where once again
action, reflection and
appraisal will take place. Then once all the components are fitted and the car is complete, then reflection and appraisal takes place. Final changes are made and appraisal takes place. The car is completed.
The degree of
action, reflection and
appraisal that each pupil with undertake is governed by the leadership of their long-term teacher, the teachers experience of design in general and knowledge of design in the real world, and most importantly their confidence and competence within their specialism.
This performance of the teacher: and their use of rapid sketches, pictorial presentations and engineering assembly drawings all go towards efficient modelling techniques. The final piece may be a scaled version or may only exist on a computer screen, but regardless its value is in the development of design ideas and the extent of the pupil's thinking.
I will visit each school every two weeks to evaluate and discuss pupil progress. The project being set for the
Design and Make task for Key Stage 3 will be in the context of control, which allows pupils to appreciate the final significance of their work. My direction will be focused towards: the efficiency & effectiveness of design, and a good quality product within a short deadline. These factors I will encourage, as they are the foundation towards the promoting of motivation and the generation of ideas (Denton, 1992).
My direction of evaluating for the projects research will be concise as possible, giving the pupil the high-level skill opportunity, looking for the right amount of information that allows them to realise the aim.
Following completion of my evaluation, I will give verbal feedback to everyone, with a more detailed written appraisal sent within a reasonable time period. The written assessment is an important factor, for the pupils' motivation and long-term progression of development for both designerly thinking and behaviour.
My aim will be to make clear links between the knowledge and skills the pupils need and the sequences of learning activities they are being taught. In my preparation before the visits I will have a clear direction for the design problem: who is it for, what are their needs, where will it be used, number of units to be produced etc., and which design solution of: particular materials, technologies, or products can be identified and taught (Anning
et al, 1996)
During each visit I will look for the teaching of technology to be presented in a clear manner that shows a real understanding of technology can be obtained. This understanding will be of the processes of design as well as elements of technological knowledge and essential technological principles. I will look for pupil seeking solutions to technological problems through the process of invention, showing a deeper, fuller understanding of technology by result. Throughout I shall look for encouragement in the use of independent strategies, methods and principles of development, for out of this process of technological development by the pupil can be examined (Hill, 1996).
During my visits, through a brief allocated period, by way of this time constraint test I will evaluate their design performance by way of the
Big Picture and
Small Step descriptors. I will encourage the pupils towards professional designers practices for inspiration, and seek evidence for emphasis the importance and need for the following in professional design: discussion at all stages of the design process, to continually refer back to the project aims, to continually evaluate progress, and to use sketching as
visual notetaking (Hill, 1996, p.3)
Throughout the allocated time for completion of the project, the pupils will be able to access their normal range of information sources made available to them. Therefore I can gain the pupils comments with regard to their depth of to investigation, discussion and resulting informed decisions on the quality, purpose and function required.
On completion of the task I will ask each pupil to complete the questionnaire (see Appendix) from which the responses will be assessed.
Above all, the undertaking of the project and the design process involved should be a successful teaching / learning experience for all.
Results & Discussions
The project was to complete the design and construct a fuse tester. From the results in table1 it is clear that from the two schools visited, School A shows that there are more stages involved in designing and making the fuse tester. Pupils from School A also had greater scope for individualising their designs, although many pupils copied each other because of lack of creativity.
School A |
School B |
|
|
Circuit theory |
Circuit theory |
Draw circuit using livewire |
Spider diagram to identify end user |
Solder Components into PCB |
Initial ideas |
Test Circuit |
Final ideas |
Research into hand-held devices |
Mark out acrylic |
Spider diagram to identify end user |
Cut out design |
Initial ideas |
Bend acrylic to shape |
Final ideas |
Stick copper tape on acrylic |
Make prototype from foam |
Solder the joins |
Make Mould (two halves) |
Test and Evaluate |
Vacuum form case from Moulds |
|
Test & Evaluate |
|
Table 1
My aim to make clear links between the knowledge and skills the pupils needed and the sequences of learning activities was successful. With my preparation before the visits I had a clear direction for the design problem:
- Who is it for: General consumer
- What are their needs: To test general household fuses
- Where will it be used: In home and office
- Number of units produced: 250,000
- Which design solution-
particular materials:
Plastic,
technologies:
True or false indicator, Circuit board
and products:
Connector(s), Battery
On each visit, on initially addressing the class I checked with those pupils furthest away that all could hear me, and that my voice was not too quiet. I then briefly explained the task, whilst handing out extra information sheets, which I then covered in details and finished by asking for any questions. I had taken with me large print versions on the task in case there was pupil(s) present with sight difficulties.
My teaching of technology was presented in a clear manner, where good listening and learning regarding the processes of design as well as elements of technological knowledge and essential technological principles took place. It was clear that individual pupils on the whole, sought solutions to the technological problems through the process of invention, where a fuller understanding of technology followed. I encourage the use of independent strategies, methods and principles of development, from which the process of technological development by the pupil could be examined.
I successfully informed the pupils towards professional designers practices for inspiration at a reasonable pace, checking that all pupils understood, and emphasised the need for discussion at all stages of the design process, to make sure to continually refer back to the project aims, to continually evaluate progress, and to always use sketching as
visual notetaking. All of which was successful in varying degrees.
It was seen that some pupils were stronger in relating to some production concepts than others, and in using a varying degree of
photographic memory in their detailed sketches whilst seeking their solutions.
Not all designers in the real world are specialists in all fields, therefore it was not expected that a pupil would excel in all areas. And that was confirmed with some pupils being stronger in relating to some design and production concepts than others, a degree of
photographic memory being one example where a pupil showed promise in solving a problem with a detailed sketch of a related or unrelated object as the solution.
The completed questionnaire results confirmed the finding of Atkinson (1995) that showed no significant gender difference regarding the pupils perceived ability or their enjoyment of the design process. From the total sample
a large number of the pupils believed that they were poor at designing and did not enjoy the task.
|
Boys % |
Girls % |
Enjoyed and achieved |
|
|
Enjoyed but could not achieved |
|
|
Did not enjoy but achieved |
|
|
Did not enjoy and could not achieve |
|
|
Totals |
100% ( ) |
100% ( ) |
|
|
|
Table 2: Pupils perceived enjoyment and capability to achieve good results.
As outlined in Atkinson (1995) the skill and teaching strategies used confirm a clear comparison of collaborator (School A) and interventionist mode (School B). The concept of collaborative learning brings to mind the image of a 'circle of learners', in which the pupils learn with each other by co-constructing knowledge. Collaboration means that people labor together to construct something that did not exist before the collaboration. From this it was seen that the input by the teacher: their personal technological capabilities; their understanding on how each idea could or could not be manufactured by the available resources; the time available; and the knowledge of the pupils manufacturing capability.
Whilst the interventionist mode a faster pace is dictated, not much time was spent on the design, it was draw initial ideas and straight to manufacturing. Very few detailed sketches and their development took place, the project development took place during the manufacturing. Pupils tended to get out of their depth with their technological ability, and showed that here the pupil lost ownership of their idea to the teacher. At this point even capable pupils would be waiting for further instruction as the next step was beyond their capability, which resulted in the teacher becoming frustrated with the pupil's demands.
Regardless of which teaching strategy was adopted the findings confirm that of Atkinson (1995, p.40) at the projects start they both followed a similar pattern. The project was explained, then work began on the specifications and analysis of research required. It was observed that girls were at ease working in a reflective, evaluative research and analysis phase, whilst a large number of the boys were intent on looking forward, past this important design period, on to the manufacturing period ahead.
In respect to the assessment of
Big Pictures and
Small Steps the process of control and achievement of the pupil by the teacher. Observed over the duration of the project it proves that the creative thinking and project management of
Small Steps in School A was clearly passed on to the pupils, as opposed to the linear model of
Big Pictures used in School B, yet on an individual level, pupils being offered a combination of both processes produced 'Good' designing capabilities.
From the undertaking of the time constrain test the results confirmed the findings of Lawler (1999) in that a large proportion of the boys achieved better results when the project was introduced through
Big Picture designing, and that a large proportion of the girls achieved better results when the project was introduced through
Small Step designing.
It was interesting to see a confirmation of data as found by Lawler (1999, p.136) in that the boys did better with a
Big Picture designing approach rather than
Small Steps, yet girls were spread more evenly between the two.
Conclusions & Recommendations
It is clear through this investigation that to answer the question of: can we promote more interest in Design & Technology by having more relevant projects, the answer is yes.
Teaching of Design & Technology, like most creative subjects, has to be lead by the industry in the real world. The methods of design: from the initial concept, through development to the client, is an important area that cannot be ignored. The various materials and structures that are used in modern construction have to be described, discussed and evaluated to inform the pupil. For without the correct delivery and strategies adopted, progression with Design and Make is slow and inhibited.
Neither, the Collaborative or the Interventionist strategies allow pupils to develop valid approaches to designing, where both compromise progress in different ways. The former being slow with great detail in the process at the expense of well designed outcomes, and the latter being all speed at the expense of development, and complete innovative designs. Yet both strategies are required by the pupil in Key Stage 4 as the progress is always that both boys and girls work beyond their technological capability.
Despite the quality of School A's fuse tester being far superior to that of School B, the end result is the same; a device to test whether a fuse has blown. There cannot be many pupils that can be enthused about making a fuse tester. Electrical appliances are fairly reliable nowadays and a blown fuse is a rarity. The fuse tester will, more than likely, end up in the junk drawer with its battery robbed to power something else. A battery tester would have been a far more useful project altogether.
A somewhat more involved idea for a project would be to make a Peripheral Interface Controller (PIC) orientated project using the PICAXE PIC chip, a UK sourced microcontroller system that is a computer-on-a-chip which is used to control devices, a type of microprocessor that highlights self-sufficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Microcontrollers are exciting new electronic 'single chip computers' that are rapidly being used in industry and education. The 'PICAXE' system is an extremely powerful, yet low cost, microcontroller programming system designed to simplify educational and hobbyist use of microcontrollers (Picaxe, 2006)
These Interface Controllers are being used increasingly in schools for all kinds of projects: electronic dice, mobile phone ringtone generators, cyber pets, all kinds of alarms and sensors, simple electronic games or flashing LED circuits can be made. The possibilities are endless.
Although the pupils wouldn't understand 100% how the circuits work, this isn't necessary. There is sufficient scope for designing and making to fulfil the national curriculum requirements and, perhaps more importantly, to enthuse the pupils into wanting to complete them and take well deserved pride in their achievements. There is more potential for individualising these projects, where creativity could be fostered to offer the pupil high motivation, a positive progression and excellent achievement to encourage further education in the subject, and into Design and Technology in Key Stage 4.
Bibliography
Anning, A, Jenkins, E., Whitelaw, S. (1996) Bodies of Knowledge and Design Based Activities. In [Ed.] IDATER'96: International Conference of Design & Technology Education & Research & Curriculum Development. Loughborough University, UK
Atkinson, E.S. (1995) Approaches to Designing at Key Stage 4. University of Sunderland, UK
Denton, H.G. (1992) Towards maximising pupil endeavour: An enquiry into a learning approach centred on teamwork and stimulation in the context of Technology education. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Loughborough, UK. In Denton, H.G. (1993) The Design and Make Task (DMT): some reflections on the designing in schools. Dept. of Design & Technology, Loughborough University, UK
Denton, H.G. (1993) The Design and Make Task (DMT): some reflections on the designing in schools. Dept. of Design & Technology, Loughborough University, UK
Hill, B. (1996) Exploring the Process of Inventive Learning in Technology Education. In [Ed.] IDATER '96: International Conference of Design & Technology Education & Research & Curriculum Development. Loughborough University, UK
John, D., Boucouvalas, A. Multimedia Tasks and User Cognitive Styles. Multimedia Research Group, Bournemouth University, UK
Kimbell, R. A., Stables, K., Wheeler, A.D., Wozniak, A.V., Kelly, A.V. (1991) The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology, Schools Examinations and Assessment Council. HMSO, London, UK
Lawler, T. (1999) Exposing the Gender Effects if Design and Technology Project work by Comparing Strategies for Presenting and Managing Pupils Work. In [Ed.] J. Smith, IDATER'99: International Conference of Design & Technology Education & Research & Curriculum Development. Loughborough University, UK
Picaxe (2006) PICAXE Microcontroller. Revolution Educational [Internet] Available from: <http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/ [Accessed on: 29 April 2006]
Riding, R.J., Cheema, I. (1991) Cognitive Styles: an overview and integration. Education Pyychology, Vol.11 Nos 3 & 4, pp 193-215. In Atkinson, E.S. (1995) Approaches to Designing at Key Stage 4. University of Sunderland, UK
Riding, R.J., Staley, A. (1998) Self Perception as Learner: cognitive style and business studies students' course performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp 41-58. In John, D., Boucouvalas, A. Multimedia Tasks and User Cognitive Styles. Multimedia Research Group, Bournemouth University, UK
Stables, K. Kimbell, R. (2005) Unorthodox Methodologies: approaches to understanding Design and Technology.
我们可以有更多的相关项目,促进更多的利益,在设计与科技。
抽象
要定义设计和技术,以及在教育学生需要知道什么是复杂的,直接绘制在现实世界中的做法可能为教育工作者提供信心和指导教学设计。设计作品如何在实践中,应给予明确的定义和描述,从而使教育选择功能,这些做法可以被翻译成鼓励设计师在教育环境中的思维方式和行为。本文认为需要加强和激励有更多的相关项目,在设计与科技的兴趣更高利息鼓励。概念实现授权的幻想,从现实到设计释放的想象力。创建所需的感知。在饲养过程中的尖锐。
本文将讨论考虑一个学生感知和处理信息,设计方面的行动,反思和评价,并在发明过程中的技术问题,通过解决方案方面的技术。
评价将在前人的研究,突出的教学策略和项目管理方面的表现。
总之,该项目,并在设计过程中涉及的承诺将成为一个成功的评估,教学/学习经验。
文献回顾
丹顿( 1993年)的工作,讨论了相关学校的设计过程中,是否有只是程式化的仪式“ ,做无尽的张在艺术品装饰与精心边界比设计工具与生产。他讨论了如何设计的仪式也出现在教育的起源早于国家课程,围绕工艺,设计与科技的时候被引入到课程。此外, Denton的状态,它似乎集中在一个不完整的理解,设计和功能的建模和绘图的过程中。正式的设计过程中,用于工业的确流从最初的想法,研究,问卷调查等,和丹顿是不是被这样的设计过程品头论足,而不是他指出,在设计活动的实际明显的主要功能结果,而不是一个整洁的视觉呈现的设计活动。商业设计师有一个粗略的结果才真正开始设计和建模进展的改进和变化在他们的想法。通过建模,顿使三种类型,有用的设计工具:
图:快速的设计草图,这些范围从'外化'的设计理念,以正式呈现的成品,完整的工程图和爆炸图的图案交涉。
型号:这些范围从3D睫毛跌宕的“展示他的原则,提供一个更好的主意的比例,并再次,外化的设计理念。秤的另一端是专业的演示规模的模型,我们所熟悉的。
CAD :这些范围也可以从涂鸦在ProDesktop (或类似的东西),这使设计者能够得到一个想法的权利,通过规模化,专业制作渲染的CAD设计。
这些最终的彩色渲染,解剖学正确的模型(图)是用来沟通与客户,谁就会没有兴趣在草图。它是在设计过程中的心脏,应该是最重要的老师,孩子的设计思想,因为他们是更好的指标是这些粗糙的草图和涂鸦。丹顿称,大部分学校喜欢玲珑精美,完成的工作,完成与国界,在对比的设计过程与基本的最初的草图。这的偏好传达给学生,然后再花时间来改写他们最初的图纸,浪费时间和效率的过程中,放缓的探索新鲜的想法。将此文件夹的工作完成,它表示生产后,加工过的食品实际上已经作出这样的标准。
在本文中,他提出,这可能是一个更加有用的策略,以摆脱目前的战略:起始于AT1 :调查制作 - 产生的想法,而是为了使提案怎么可能作出评估的东西开始越好。我觉得这个建议非常有意义,毕竟大多数设计是早期的设计的重新设计。第一辆汽车是重新设计的车,随后车只是进化的变化,此外,可以具有有限的人生经历与学生产生共鸣,试图设计与处女的纸张开始的假象。
另一项建议,我认为,有可取之处的改变比设计赞成进行,因为它是决策最需要的时候。过多的时间花在“做研究”或更准确地,整理图像。整个课程专门切割图片阿尔戈斯目录有小的优点,最终设计的影响较小。丹顿建议的效率和有效性也可能被开发的“使用期限短,再加上还可以促进动机和可能产生的想法(丹顿,1992)在早期阶段所使用的非正式小组活动。
金贝尔等人探讨得出的结果从APU的(评估绩效单位) 1991年的研究,在设计和技术方面的行动,反思和评价的能力描述。他解释说,在图形方面,男孩和女孩不同的结果,他们的课程。据到APU ,女孩始终优于男生对面的能力范围,即高达到女孩的表现优于高实现男生和女孩实现低执行优于低成就男孩。虽然这项研究是卓有成效的,它并不能解释为什么这应该是案件。
劳勒(1999 )探讨两性之间的业绩差距,通过设置一组学生在小学两个独立的任务的最后一年,记录结果,并作出比较。这个年龄组的选择,因为他们不得不承受极低的程序方法强加给他们的,他们的老师。
本文研究hasevolved从描述设计过程中的方法。两种可能的描述显示引进项目工作的影响已被称为'大图'和'小步骤。
“大图的设计是未来重点突出,鼓舞人心,结果在报表的完整思路。关注心理过程,而不是程序,自我定向,元认知过程设计。
' Smallsteps的设计是反光,顺序,分析,和描述。
'好'的设计证明这两种风格的组合。有些学生可能有偏好的一种方法,如果有冲突时,他们的老师的方式管理项目工作,可能会限制他们的进步。提高认识的老师,项目工作施加的策略,他们对学生的影响,可能是一个重要的因素在增加学生的成功。研究比较了两种不同情境的设计方法的介绍和管理项目工作。它显示了每一种方法的效果,对一组75 11岁的年轻人的表现,并强调男孩和女孩的不同反应相同的设计情况。结果表明,老师通过实际项目工作的测序策略'设计师'男孩有较大的影响,比“优秀的设计师”的女孩,并做了较大的负面影响能力稍逊的女孩的确要比对能力稍逊的男生(劳勒,1999年)
阿特金森(1995 )在不同的尝试与学生的思维方式,在设计和技术性能,使用了一个测试,认知风格所示,在思想和态度有密切的关系,以检查学生的表现在他们的GCSE课程,利用骑马和吉玛(1991)的认知风格分析( CSA )制定的测试。测试结果是超过30方法定义认知风格正在审查已经得出的结论是最可分为两个基本独立的认知风格尺寸内。每个主题被放置,沿两个连续Wholist分析师(x轴)和Verbaliser仪(y轴)沿着两个轴(X,Y )在该测试中使用这些描述符。
分析
Verbaliser成像仪
Wholist
à学生位置分析维度Wholist中反映他们是否了解的情况下,作为一个整体或部分看到的东西,而他们的位置在口头影像尺寸的方式反映在他们所代表的信息,而思维,无论是作为词或精神的图片。被定义为在心理方面分析,受着他们周围的世界(的看法)和wholists相反,场独立场依存。
通过这两个概念相结合,使用wholist和分析师来检查学生的设计风格,设计风格的新的描述提出了建议。
CSA作为一个电脑测试,自动计算并绘制一个学生在两个维度上的位置。结果反映了一个学生感知和处理信息的方式。一个学生回答问题的不同风格的相对速度,揭示了他们的认知风格(骑马斯特利,1998年)
方法论
虽然入学时,我注意到另一个老师建议想法,去年12瞳孔。几分钟之内,老师充满了A3一侧的Quickfire的草图和涂鸦。如果学生有很短的时间,他们集中精神速写,也可以是生产彩色图纸花费整堂课更富有成效。
混合能力9年级的教一堂课时,我有机会尝试这种方法,在我的最后一所学校安置。这个类被卡住,花上一课产生1或2设计。我建议他们都交换试卷四组,并改善了原来的想法。 10分钟后,试卷被调换一次,再过10分钟后再次。这导致每个学生有三个额外的想法来工作。
从本次配股的经验,我已经决定,最好的办法建立关键阶段3名学生从设计增益和任务将是重新审视我教的,而实践教学两所学校。我访问的目的如下:
要检查的项目是由关键阶段3名学生,并采取一个例子,注意以下几点,作任务所需的工具,过程,以及学生自己设计输入的金额。
除由部门负责人批准,要求学生来完成我的调查问卷。这将是一个迹象的学生是否得到了项目,使得项目学到什么样的学生,如果学生在9年级,该学生是否考虑了设计与科技的关键阶段4 。
最后,我也会问学生,如果他们有任何的建议,这将提高该项目。
承诺设计的目的是各类成果的发展。每一个设计项目的施工阶段:这是最终目标的组成部分,其中每个阶段包含行动,反思和评价。作为一个例子:建立一个车,有施工阶段的发动机,变速箱,车轮,车身,门窗,内饰等每个组件有一个初步的概念,行动,反思和评价发生选择,材料和尺寸,然后才进入最后建设的汽车提供,再次行动,反思和评价就会发生。然后,一旦所有的部件都配车是完整的,那么反思和评价发生。最终修改和评价发生。汽车完成。
行动,反思和评价每个学生承担的程度是由在其长期的老师,教师的经验和知识设计一般设计在现实世界中,最重要的是他们的信心和能力的领导专长。
老师:这样的表现和他们的使用快速素描,图案演示和工程装配图所有去实现高效的建模技术。最后一块可能的缩放版本,或者可能只存在于电脑屏幕,但无论它的价值是在设计理念和发展学生的思维程度。
我将参观每所学校每两个星期进行评估,并讨论学生的进步。该项目的设计及任务关键阶段3 ,将控制的背景下,让学生体会到他们的工作的最终意义。我的方向将侧重设计的效率和有效性,优质的产品在很短的期限内。这些因素,我会鼓励,因为他们是动机对促进基础和思想的一代(丹顿,1992) 。
我评估项目的研究方向是尽量精简,给学生高层次的技能的机会,寻找适量的信息,使他们能够实现的目标。
继完成对我的评价,我会给予口头反馈给大家,在一个合理的时间内发送更详细的书面鉴定。书面评估是一个重要因素,对学生的学习动机和长期发展的进展为“设计师的思维和行为。
我的目标将是明确的知识和技能的学生的需要,他们被教导学习活动序列之间的联系。在我访问前的准备工作中,我将有一个明确的方向的设计问题:是谁,他们的需求是什么,会在哪里被使用,生产的单位数等,并设计解决方案:特殊材料,技术或产品可以识别和教(市安宁等,1996 )
每次访问期间,我会看技术的教学要以明确的方式可以得到显示技术真正了解。这一谅解将是流程的设计以及元素的技术知识和必要的技术原理。我会为学生寻求解决技术问题,发明的过程中,呈现出更深,更全面的了解结果技术。整个我看鼓励使用独立的策略,方法和原则,发展出这种技术发展过程中,可以检查瞳孔(山,1996) 。
在我访问期间,通过一个简短的分配期间,这个时间限制测试的方式,我会评估他们的设计表现方式的大画面和小步骤描述。我会鼓励学生对专业设计师为灵感的做法,并寻求问题的重视证据,并需要为下列专业设计:在设计过程中的各个阶段的讨论,不断重提该项目旨在不断评估进展使用素描视觉记笔记(山, 1996年,第3页)
整个项目完成所分配的时间,学生将能够访问他们的正常向他们提供广泛的信息来源。因此,我可以赢得学生的意见,考虑到他们的深度调查,讨论和由此产生的知情决策的质量,用途和功能需要。
在完成任务后,我会要求每个学生完成的调查问卷(见附录)响应将被评估。
总之,承诺参与该项目,并在设计过程应该是一个成功的教学/学习经验。
结果与讨论
该项目完成设计和建造保险丝测试仪。从table1中的结果,它是明确的,从两所学校参观,学校表示,有更多的参与保险丝测试仪的设计和制造阶段。从学校的学生, A也有更大范围的个体化的设计,虽然很多学生互相抄,因为缺乏创意。
学校A
学校B
电路理论
电路理论
绘制电路采用创业奇兵
蜘蛛图,以确定最终用户
焊接到PCB组件
初步设想
测试电路
最终的想法
到手持设备的研究
标记丙烯酸
蜘蛛图,以确定最终用户
切割设计
初步设想
弯曲丙烯酸塑造
最终的想法
丙烯酸坚持铜带
原型泡沫
焊接联接
使模具(成两半)
测试和评估
模具真空的情况
测试与评估
表1
我的目标作出明确的知识和技能的学生需要学习活动的序列之间的联系是成功的。我访问前的准备,我的设计问题有一个明确的方向:
是谁:一般消费者
他们的需求是什么:要测试一般家用保险丝
它会在哪里被使用:在家庭和办公室
制作单位数: 250,000
设计解决方案
特殊材料:塑料,
技术:真或假的指标,电路板
产品:连接器,电池
每次访问,初步解决类,我查了最远的地方,都可以听到我的那些学生,我的声音是不是太安静。然后,我简要地解释了任务,同时发放额外信息表中的信息,然后我详细覆盖和成品询问任何问题。我采取了与我大印刷版的情况下,有瞳孔( S)目前有视力困难的任务。
我的教学技术,提出了一个明确的态度,良好的倾听和学习有关流程的设计以及元素的技术知识和必要的技术原理发生。很明显,个别学生就整体而言,寻求解决方案过程中的技术问题,通过发明,技术更全面地了解其次。我鼓励使用独立的策略,方法和原则的发展,从技术发展的过程中,可以检查瞳孔。
我成功地告知学生对专业设计师为灵感的做法在一个合理的速度,检查,所有学生理解,并强调需要在设计过程中的各个阶段进行讨论,以确保不断参考该项目旨在不断评估进展,并始终使用作为视觉记笔记素描。所有这一切都在不同程度上取得成功。
看到,一些学生是在涉及到一些生产概念比别人更强,在使用不同程度的照相存储器在他们的详细草图,而寻求自己的解决方案。
并非所有的设计师在现实世界中,在各个领域的专家,因此它是没有预料到的瞳孔会在所有领域中脱颖而出。和更强一些学生证实,在有关的一些设计和生产的概念比别人多,一定程度的照相存储器的一个例子,一个学生表现出承诺解决的问题作为解决方案的有关或无关的对象了详细的草图。
完成的问卷调查结果证实了阿特金森(1995)发现,没有表现出显着的性别差异,对感知能力的学生或他们享受的设计过程。从总样本中有大量的学生都认为自己是穷人设计的,并没有享受的任务。
男%
女%
喜欢和实现
喜欢的,但无法实现
没有享受,但实现
没有享受,并不能达到
总计
100%( )
100%( )
表2 :学生感知享受和能力,实现了良好的效果。
中列出的阿特金森(1995)证实了一个比较明确的合作者(学校)和干预模式(学校B )的技能和教学策略。协作学习的概念,让我想起一个'圆'学习者的形象,学生相互学习,共同建构知识。协作是指人们一起劳动,建设一些之前并不存在合作。从这看出,输入老师:他们的个人技术能力,他们了解每一个想法如何能或不能被制造的可用资源的可用时间;和知识的学生,制造能力。
虽然干预模式,以更快的速度决定的,而不是设计上花了很多时间,这是绘制最初的想法,直接制造。很少详细草图和发展发生了,项目开发过程中发生的制造。学生往往出于他们的深度与他们的技术能力,并表明,这里的学生失去了他们的想法的所有权老师。在这一点上,即使是有能力的学生将等待进一步指令的下一步骤是超出了他们的能力,这导致在老师与学生的需求变得沮丧。
无论采用哪种教学策略被采纳的研究结果证实,阿特金森(1995 ,第40页)在项目开始他们都遵循类似的模式。该项目的解释,然后开始工作需要研究的规格和分析。据观察,姑娘们放心反射,评估研究和分析阶段工作,同时有大量的男生期待的意图,过去的这个重要的设计周期,制造提前期。
在大图片和小步骤的过程控制和成就的学生由老师评估。在项目工期观察证明,创造性思维和项目管理,在学校的小步骤A的清楚传递给学生,而不是用于学校B的大图片的线性模型,但在个人层面,学生所提供的组合这两个进程产生了'好'的设计能力。
从承诺的时间约束测试结果劳勒(1999 )的调查结果证实,大部分的男生介绍,通过大图片设计项目时取得了较好成绩,相当大的比例的女孩取得了较好成绩项目时介绍,通过小步设计。
有趣的是,看到一个确认数据发现劳勒(1999年,第136页)中的男孩做一个大的图片设计方法,而不是小步骤,但女孩两者之间的分布更均匀更好。
结论与建议
很显然,通过本次调查来回答这个问题:我们可以有更多的相关项目,在设计与科技促进更多的利益,答案是肯定的。
教学设计与科技,最有创意的科目一样,是在现实世界中的铅行业。设计的方法:从最初的概念,客户端通过发展,是不能被忽略的一个重要领域。现代建筑中所使用的各种材料和结构进行说明,讨论和评价,以通知瞳孔。对于不正确的交付和采取的策略,设计与制作的进展是缓慢的,受到抑制。
都不是,协同或干预策略,让学生开发设计,这里既有妥协以不同的方式进步的有效方法。前者是缓慢的非常详细的过程中牺牲了精心设计的成果,后者是所有牺牲发展速度,和完整的创新设计。然而,这两种策略所要求的关键阶段4瞳孔中的进度始终是男孩和女孩的工作超出了他们的技术能力。
尽管远远优于学校B学校A的保险丝测试仪的质量,最终的结果是相同的设备来测试是否保险丝已熔断。不能有许多学生可以热衷保险丝测试仪。电器是时下相当可靠和保险丝熔断是一个罕见的。保险丝测试仪,将可能超过,最终在垃圾抽屉电池被抢电源别的东西。电池测试仪本来是一个更为有用的项目完全。
一个稍微更复杂的想法的一个项目将是使外设接口控制器(PIC )为导向的项目使用的的PICAXE PIC芯片,一个源自英国的单片机系统,是一台计算机上的一个芯片是用来控制设备,型微处理器,强调自给自足和成本效益。
微控制器是令人兴奋的新的电子单芯片计算机“正在迅速地被用在工业和教育。 PICAXE系统是一个非常强大的,但低的成本,单片机编程系统,旨在简化教育和业余爱好者使用的微控制器( PICAXE , 2006年)
这些接口控制器被越来越多地用于各类工程:电子骰子,手机铃声发生器,网络宠物,各种报警和传感器,简单的电子游戏或闪烁的LED电路可以在学校。可能性是无穷无尽的。
虽然学生也不会明白电路的工作,这是没有必要的100% 。有足够的设计和制造以满足国家课程要求,也许更重要的是,想要完成他们热血沸腾的学生,并采取他们的成就感到自豪当之无愧的范围。有更多的潜在的个体化项目,可以培养创造力提供瞳高动机,一个积极的进展和优秀成果,鼓励进一步教育的主题,并进入设计和技术在关键阶段4 。
参考书目
安宁市, A ,詹金斯, E. ,怀特洛, S. (1996)基于知识和设计活动的机构。 [编者按] IDATER'96 :设计与科技教育研究和课程发展的国际会议。英国拉夫堡大学
阿特金森, E.S. (1995)的方法来设计关键阶段4 。英国桑德兰大学
丹顿, HG (1992) ,最大限度地扩大瞳孔努力:查询到的一种学习方式团队精神和刺激的背景下,科技教育中心。未发表的博士论文,拉夫堡大学,英国。在丹顿, HG (1993)的设计与制作任务( DMT ) :在学校的设计的一些思考。设计与科技系,英国拉夫堡大学
丹顿, HG (1993)的设计与制作任务( DMT ) :在学校的设计的一些思考。设计与科技系,英国拉夫堡大学
山, B. (1996)探索发明的学习过程中的科技教育。 [编者按] IDATER '96 :设计与科技教育,研究及课程发展的国际会议。英国拉夫堡大学
约翰D. Boucouvalas ,的A.多媒体任务和用户的认知风格。多媒体研究集团,英国伯恩茅斯大学,
金贝尔, RA ,马厩, K. ,惠勒, AD ,沃兹尼亚克, AV ,凯利, AV (1991)在设计和技术性能评估,学校考试及评核局。 HMSO ,伦敦,英国
劳勒, T. (1999)公开性别的影响,如果呈现和管理学生工作的比较策略的设计和技术项目工作。 [编者按] J.史密斯, IDATER'99 :设计与科技教育,研究及课程发展的国际会议。英国拉夫堡大学
PICAXE (2006) PICAXE微控制器。革命教育[互联网]可从:< http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/ [访问: 2006年4月29日]
骑马, RJ ,吉玛, I. (1991)认知风格的概述和整合。教育Pyychology ,第11卷第3及4号,第193-215页。在阿特金森E.S.中(1995)的方法来设计关键阶段4 。英国桑德兰大学
骑马, RJ ,斯特利, A. (1998)作为学习者的自我认知:认知风格和商业研究学生的课程表现。高等教育评估及评价。 23 ,第1期,第41-58页。在约翰D. Boucouvalas , A.多媒体任务和用户认知风格。多媒体研究集团,英国伯恩茅斯大学,
马厩, K.金贝尔, R. (2005)非正统方法论:理解设计和技术方法。