TD&T109 Redesigning D&T part 1

This is the first of 3 episodes launching the Redesigning D&T project.

Listen to all 3 and fill in the survey: Do you agree with the contentious questions?

You might find it helpful to download the discussion notes: Contentious questions

Episode transcript

Mentioned in this episode

Related episodes:
TD&T18: How can design not be considered as central to engaging with the future?

TD&T22 What designers know and how they know it

TD&T28 Eddie and Alison talking about D&T and epistemology

TD&T31 Are there different ways of knowing?

The Kurt Seeman episodes: 33 - 34, 36 & 37

TD&T13: Talking design and/or technology 2.0 with David Spendlove

TD&T107 Talking about the rise and fall of D&T with Professor David Spendlove

Our book: Redesigning D&T
Phil Robert's paper: Aspects of  research concerning design education
Delphi method

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Twitter @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you want to ask a question or leave me a message, you can do this on Speakpipe.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

This podcast is funded by consultancy work I do outside my full time job at Nottingham Trent University and my beloved Patrons. Patrons receive exclusive content and various rewards, depending on their level of support, such as access to my special private Patreon-only 

Ciaran Ellis posted a thought-provoking question on LinkedIn recently: Do design decisions involve value judgements?

What do you think? Join the conversation over on LinkedIn and let us know what you think. 

Transcript

0:57

It's been a while since I recorded a podcast, I think where it's just me talking about some things to do with design and technology. So it's good to be back sound might be a little bit different. If you follow me on Instagram, you might realise and remember that I'm actually not in my usual space, so might be a little bit more echoey this week. And if you're a regular listener, there is no Kip in the background. Today, he's gone away for the weekend, as we're preparing to go away to visit friends tomorrow. So we won't have any of those kinds of interruptions. So onto the podcast. This is the first part of three episodes, that I've planned them anyway, that there'll be three episodes of a new project that is, well, it's a new project, but it's an old project. It's the next step of the redesigning Design and Technology Project, which relates to the book that I did with Eddie Norman, that was published, I think, in 2021. Now, so this is the next step in that project. So we did the book, we set up a couple of things. And then this is kind of now the next step. And this project is taking an activist and consensus approach to redesigning the design and technology curriculum. So what I mean by that what I mean by it's an activist. So historically, in England, the design and technology curriculum, I think this is probably more of a global issue as well, not just particular to England, is that the curriculum, the national curriculum, that comes from government has tended to come top down. Now, what I mean by that, it's come about because of policy change, and government change, decide to review the curriculum, and then sometimes have consulted with the DNC community, sometimes they haven't, I'm not going to go into all the backstory about where governments have and where governments haven't, you can kind of find out more about that in some of the things that I've published in the past and talked about. So I suppose that's kind of where this is coming from. I'm trying to build a project here. That is not the Alison Hardy approach, not the only normal approach that David Spend Live approach the view of design and technology, or a government approach. But he's actually trying to create a space and a forum for dainty teachers to debate. And as much as we may be able to come to consensus about what design and technology curriculum should be, or the next iteration. They recall that design and or technology 2.0. So that's, that's what I'm starting today. That as I said, this is part one of three episodes in which I'm explaining it, which is the new fact the first phase of this project. So what's going to happen is, in each episode, I'm going to introduce some content, such questions and issues that that maybe haven't been fully resolved in design and technology, and maybe some things that we need to resolve in design and technology. Before we can move on to redesigning the curriculum. There is a discussion sheet that you can download that I've put in the show notes where I've put all of the questions in the issues. So you don't have to sit there if you're driving in the car thinking I can't get my head out. So now we're going to keep a track of this. Then I've actually prepared a sheet there's a link in the in the show notes, download it, make notes, because I do want you to get involved in I do want you to make a response. There's there's different ways you can get involved in this. And I'm talk later on in the episode about about how you can do that. So that's what we're doing each episode, I'm going to introduce these contentious questions and issues. This is a list of questions and issues that myself and Eddie have pulled together over our many lunchtime conversations that we've had about this about this topic. The idea is that you will, can hear these issues, you can read them, you might agree, or you might disagree. And if you want to get involved, there's a survey link, where you can can share your thoughts about that. But let's talk a bit more about that. I'm getting ahead of myself here. Okay. So let's start by thinking about why why I'm doing this, I've given a little bit of information about that. But I'll tell you a little bit more. So you might have read the book for the gigabit link in the show notes of this, the redesigning, dainty talking and thinking, or you've listened to me talking about some of the challenges that's been faced, or you might be thinking the design technology, national curriculum isn't quite working for my school and my pupils, whatever it is, what I want to do is to support the DNC community. And predominantly, I'm talking here about teachers in using design thinking as a research approach to redesign design and technology. I don't want to do this from a policy, governmental or national level, instantly said the aim is for new design to come from teacher practitioners. And that's if you're listening, and you're a current designer, technology, people like teacher, people like you, who teach the curriculum. I've been encouraged by previous work from Phil Roberts, particularly publication of his aspects of research concerning design education. And in that he set out three objectives, which were to support action research is a mode of inquiry and development that is especially appropriate to DNC educational practitioners. And that's kind of what I've used here to design this project, to support the teacher as researcher or practitioner as researcher. And that is something I really do believe in that I'm very much rooted in in terms of being involved in leading master's work, but also the work I do in supporting teachers in publishing the research they've done or supporting teachers in doing research. And just recently, I'm not going to embarrass anybody by giving their names. I've had a few emails from people saying, as I've listened to your podcast, and I want to get involved in research, and I want to get involved in the work you're thinking about doing about design and technology, so I'm hoping they're listening. And they're gonna say, right, I'm all ears, Allison, this is how I can get involved. So what I'm doing is I'm putting a structure around this to support teachers in, in being the project team for this, this redesigning, design and technology. So that's me supporting teachers, as researchers. And then to support third is what Phil says, to support the position that action research within design and technology on within education is intended to improve practice. That's the aim. If what comes out of this doesn't improve practice, then hey, we've gone wrong, some work in this project. So that's, that's kind of which is a, so those three points from fail. And I'll put a link to the paper that I'm taking those from, on the website that you can, that's kind of like a mantra or kind of resonates with me about why I'm doing this for my academic perspective. But also, I'm coming at this from my belief in design and technology as part of a general education. So ultimately, the redesigning design and technology project aims to develop a new D and T curriculum for teaching in England, to primary and secondary schools through the consensus of members of the DNC community. To achieve this, I've set out four phases. And this is this is phase one, this episodes here and the survey a part of phase one, which is firstly, to identify the big or controversial DNA curriculum, curriculum issues. Then the second phase is to debate the controversial issues and reach some consensus, and I'm hoping that teachers will think I've got a view, okay, not just yet hold on to those views when you listen to these, but I want you to share those views. And we'll, we'll have some hopefully, get some time to come together to debate it. Thirdly, to design and evaluate some curriculum solutions in response to that consensus. And then the fourth phase is to agree on a new DNC curriculum. Now, this is a design project. Those are the steps I've set I've set out. And I think at some point, we have to have a product design specification. Eddie and I spoke about this and in the in our book, but we know that design projects evolve, that new parameters appear, new issues that we have to contend with. So that's that's what's set out at this stage by me. When we've got a project team involved, which might be some of you, then that might shift but that's where we're at at the minute. But my thinking is here in this design, that We're using a design based approach to develop a new DNC curriculum. And this method, these, these four phases are actually quite structured. They're from the Delphi method. And again, there's links in the show notes, if you want to read more about that approach to reach a consensus over the four phases that don't tell you if my PhD or master's students that the link I'm giving you to read about the Delphi method is a Wikipedia page. But hey, ho, no, it's a really good page. And it details it kind of quite succinctly as well, I think people find that useful. So if you're listening, why should you bother getting involved, you don't have to, you could just listen and go, Well, that was nice. But what I'm saying is, by getting involved, you get to have a, say, in what a redesigned DNC curriculum should look like or could look like. Now, there are no guarantees that this redesign will be taken up by government or other national groups. But I am hopeful that they will hear what we are doing, read what we publish and join the debates later on. But for you, as an individual, if you're a teacher, and you're listening, here's some reasons why I think you should get involved, what will happen and what your benefit, I think it'll make a difference to your classroom and school practice, about how you think about design and technology, and therefore what you do in your classrooms. So that's on a very straightforward reflective level. If you join in each phase, you'll get to share your views, debates with others, and help design a new career new curricular models for D&T. And I think by just being part of this, I think it will give you space to think and be challenged about what you see design and technology has been about. You'll meet others who are interested in design and technology, you've got an investment in wanting to change the curriculum, so your network will widen. And then finally, I'll become more research active, you'll be a teacher as researcher trying out new ideas in your school, because I'm hoping that when we get to stage three, phase three, and we've got some design ideas about what this curriculum could be and look like, people might go, Well, actually, I want to try that in my school, I want to try that in my school. And we do some action research here. That if you can't commit to all four phases, that's all right, you can just listen to the survey. And also listen to this episode and the next two episodes. And that's giving you something to reflect on, you could just do the survey that's related and linked to every episode. And then you can step back, if you come back in later on. When we get to phase three or phase four, it's completely up to you. And I'm not going to judge you for how much or how little you want to be involved. So think about how you could get involved. You could you can also said get involved by doing the survey. But it's a great question to ask me about how can you get involved because currently, it's just me running this project. Edie has helped me pull together the questions and design the process. But Eddie wants to spend more time playing golf. He's happy to be involved to advise and consult. But let's face it, it is to go and play golf. And I don't want it to be like this. I don't want it to be me. And I don't want it to be me and Eddie. And I don't want it to be me and academics. Yes, yes, it can be evolved. And yes, I'm involved. But I think it needs to be designed and technology teachers involved in this. So you can get involved by encouraging other people to do the survey. The more people we have do that the better. There is a LinkedIn group, which I set up to be honest, I've not done so much you might want to get involved in that you might post reviews, you might want to say, Allison, I'll be a manage that group, I'll kind of be a moderator. That's the word I'm looking for, then there's an opportunity for you to become part of the expert group. And the expert group is the group that will look at the feedback from the surveys and do some analysis of that, and kind of reduce the number of questions or maybe expand them. Or you might want to involve join the project team. And that's not all glamorous. But you will learn how to run a research project and then implement the shape of the project. It will take more time and effort than just doing the survey. But you will gain so much more in return. But let me make it clear at the moment, I have no funding for this project, you'll be joining as a volunteer, and there'll be no reimbursement for your time or other expenses. You'll be doing this because you want to do it. And you're going to get things out of it. And you're going to put things into it and you're going to meet more people. But that's how you get involved. So drop me an email if you want to get on a chat about getting involved. And there's busy details on the survey about kind of signing up. And nothing sort of definite community. You always, always change your mind. That's absolutely fine. But I'm hoping some of you will want to get involved. Okay, so that's the blurb. That's the background to the project. Now on to the controversial questions. Well, me and Eddie have said that they're controversial, you might disagree or think we've missed them. And that's what I'm interested in hearing about in this first phase. And what I've done is I've categorised the topics into three groups, the nature of design and technology, the content NSF design and technology curriculum, learning and assessment. And in this episode, I'm talking about the nature of design and technology. So what I'm interested in is, do you agree that these are the contentious or unresolved questions and issues that relate to the nature of design and technology. So listen and download the discussion notes, and take notes if you want to. And hopefully, you'll respond to the survey. So there are six issues in this category. And these are in no particular order. So number one, is design and technology, a vocational subject. Now, I think this one gets things going as a subject academical or vocational. Could have been the question that we asked, but instead, we're asking, is it vocational? Which suggests that it might be a subject for some, and it's not for others. But, you know, is that a question that needs debating? Topic number one, is Deonte a vocational subjects? Number two, should the subject be called design, or design and technology? Is the subjects name what we're saying? contentious and misunderstood? And we're changing that help understand the nature of the subject. People will know who know me, well know that I get frustrated when people leave at the end in design and technology is ever big day. Some argue the word engineering should be in there. And it's a confusion about the word design in art and design and design and technology. So that's all kind of under this one question about should the subject be called design, or design and technology? And these are just questions that we're asking, do you agree do these need debating? Do they need thrashing out? Topic? Number three, what's the technology in design and technology? Now, I put this question here for all sorts of reasons. For me, it's about what do we mean by technology? I think I think we were still debating it. It's not clear. If you did the undergraduate programme with me at Nottingham Trent, you'll now have talked about Mark DeFries, his book about teaching technology, or the philosophy of technology for design and technology teachers. But I think it is something to think about as a word technology confuse the nature of the subject. Topic number four, does deity actually make a difference to industry? Now, this is a big one. Do we need to debate this? It's a claim that's often made. And it's often used to defend the place of the subject. But is it true? And is it something that defines the anti? Should? Those are kind of the debates? I think that are within that question. So the first question to ask to you is, do we need to even talk about this? Does Danti actually make a difference to to industry? Some of you might go? Yeah, that's fine. sorted, David's talk about it anymore. Some of you might disagree. Number five, do designers know anything? So why have we put that in here? Okay, partly, because this is what we're noticing. You can disagree. That, you know, in England at the moment, I've not even at the moment, it's been going on for a few years now that the subject is about it being a knowledge of its subjects. And the challenges around defining what knowledge is in design and technology, and where the knowledge comes from when we're developing subjects. And it's been a fixation from some not in design technology. And we're talking more generally about the curriculum. But new knowledge comes from universities, we're actually for design technology, a lot of new knowledge comes from practice. And it comes from professionals. Which led us to asking the question, Do designers know anything? That's a question there. Does it need debating? Some of you to think about? And then the last question here is what sort of statement actually D and T is not an inclusive subject. Now that work in inclusive can be taken in lots of different ways. It can be about you know, it doesn't include young people with special educational needs as pupils, or it only designs for the mainstream. Or it doesn't include or speak to young people of colour, or teachers of colour, or society, or different communities. Now, please think therefore, in this question about how I define defining inclusivity I've deliberately left that open. But is that something that we need to debate that deity is not an inclusive subject? So those are the questions that are for this first section, about the nature of design and technology. I've given a little bit of my opinion about what could be debated about those But what I'm interested in is, do you even think that issue or topic or question, even warrants being debated. So how you can give me some feedback on that is, you can go on to the survey, there's a link in the show notes. And I'm going to publicise it on social media as well. You can fill in the survey once, or three times, you can fill it in after you've listened to this episode. Or you can fill it in after you've listened to all three, you can fill it in after every three, it doesn't matter. You can do it as many times as you like. I'm hoping that each time you fill it in your answers are pretty similar, because that kind of could skew things and make it interesting. But that's my problem. And the project teams problem, not yours as contributors. It closes on 30th of November 2022. Your answers are anonymous. So in other words, you know that your responses are not attributed to you. I don't, I don't collect your name when I'm collecting the responses. But there is just one proviso. If you want to take part in the next round, you wanna be part of the expert group where you learned about the project team, then there is space on the survey to let me know. So I'll need your name, and contact and email address. But that bit is kept separate from your answers to the survey. Hope that makes sense. But the longer the short of it is, no one not even me will know how you responded, oh, the I have access to the data. At the moment. Once I download it, I will make sure that everything is kept separate. But I will be publishing the responses online in 2023 for everyone to see. So they will be in the public domain for other people who might want to use these in other studies. But that's a whole nother story. And if you fill out the survey, you'll see some more information about that. So listen out for the next episodes re listen to this one if you want take part by filling in the survey. You don't have to but it would be helpful. And if you want to be more involved, do let me know. Hope you found that interesting. I hope that's kind of got your brain thinking about do we need to redesign deity? How could we do these questions make sense? Do I have an answer? Do I have a debate? It'd be great to hear from you. Be grateful to have you involved. You can find me on social media. Do let me know what you think and listen out for the next two episodes. Thanks for listening