Roger Elmer, Department of Design and Technology

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5 1999.

Roger Elmer, Department of Design and Technology

King Alfred's College of Higher Education, Winchester

Modelling in design and technology education

Abstract

A significant school curriculum development of recent years has been the emergence of the subject Design and Technology as a distinct component of general education. The paper reviews various motives given for inclusion in curricula, in particular the claim that it has the potential to give access to learners’ thought processes through their modelling of emergent ideas. Drawing on research evidence this claim is analysed and the paper concludes that although the aims of modelling in educational and industrial settings are different, there would appear to be a similar issue of whose interests are being served by the modelling - a 'politics of representation'.

Key words

design and technology; modelling; meta-cognition

Comments on this paper are welcomed:

1

BERA 99

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to explore the impact of social influences on learners’ modelling through the analysis of data drawn from a larger study. The paper commences with a brief review of the nature of modelling in design and technology education and in particular the relationship between cognitive and concrete modelling. The variety of purposes that educators have for learners' modelling is considered before exploring the variety of purposes that the study’s respondents had for their modelling. Modelling in industrial settings is then examined andthe paper concludes with a discussion which links these two settings through the issue of whose interests are being served by modelling - a 'politics of representation'.

The nature of modelling in design and technology education [ijtde v6]

Sparkes (1992) proposes a definition of model as 'a simplified or idealised version of reality created for a purpose' but this is unhelpful for design and technology as frequently there is no reality to simplify or idealise; design and technology is not concerned with what is but what might be. Archer's view (1992: p.7) 'A model is anything which represents anything else for informational, experimental, evaluative or communication purposes' captures the necessary concern with representation, of one system 'standing for' another, and for future as well as present states. Authors have sought to classify models, frequently employing material, scale and language as distinguishing characteristics; one such classification is iconic, analogue, and symbolic (Brown, 1983; Baynes, 1992). However more pertinent to an exploration of educational intention and thus to this paper are the terms 'cognitive' and 'concrete' modelling and their potential inter-relationship. Archer (1978, 1982) employs cognitive modelling to describe generating and manipulating ideas in the 'mind's eye' (Archer, 1980) whilst concrete modelling is their externalisation in some form. This distinction is the conceptual cornerstone of one of the most detailed descriptions so far of the processes underlying design and technology in schools: the work of the Design and Technology Assessment of Performance Unit (APU). Based at Goldsmiths' College, London, it published its first thinking in 1981 (APU, 1981), followed by Framework for Assessment (Kelly et al, 1987). These were a preparation for its major survey, commenced in 1988 and reported in 1991 (Kimbell et al.1991), of the design and technology capabilities of 15 year-olds. Central to the research design was a conception of design and technology capability as the interaction between modelling inside the head (cognitive modelling) and confronting reality outside the head (concrete modelling).

The paper returns to the work of the APU later but one other aspect is noted here. Very few authors consider modelling through talk and discussion; a prevalent view is that design ability relies fundamentally on non-verbal forms of thought and communication (Daley, 1982; Cross, 1990). The APU team developed specific modelling tests as part of their overall research strategy, and in these tests there was embedded a structured discussion time. Both in the final report (Kimbell et al, 1991) and later commentary on it (Kimbell et al, 1996), the authors acknowledge that a startling outcome of the modelling tests was the role and importance of this group discussion. Sutton (1992, 1995) argues for a reinstatement of words as instruments of understanding in science education, whilst Chambers (1989) is one of the very few authors to deliberate on talk in design and technology, and she is strenuous in her advocacy of its centrality.

Summarising, models and modelling are seen as representation, of one system standing for another for a particular purpose and they may take a very wide variety of forms; from the ubiquitous sketch to mathematics and talk.

Purposes of Modelling in Design and Technology Education [ijtde v6]

Before exploring the variety of purposes that learners have for modelling, this section considers the variety of purposes that educators have for learners modelling. But this question requires the asking of a wider one: what is the educational purpose of the subject design and technology itself? For the scale and intentions of this paper it is contended that there is a clear bifurcation, and an increasing one, between those who would see its educational purpose as 'quality product' and those who would see is as 'quality process'. The revised orders (DFE, 1995) emphasise 'quality product' and reduce the importance given to modelling compared to the previous orders (DFE,1990). The current Government consultation materials published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority linked to the review of the National Curriculum maintains a similar emphasis on products, but gives more emphasis to processes linked to student modelling such as: 'intervening creatively to improve the world' and 'learning to become creative problem-solvers.' (QCA, 1999).

In sharp contrast, for many commentators and researchers in the subject field the ideas expressed in the 1987 APU report (Kelly et al, 1987), and then expanded and given even greater emphasis in the 1991 report (Kimbell et al, 1991: p.21) are at the core of the subject's aims. Kimbell, Stables and Green (1996), drawing on the research work of the APU and the Understanding Technological Approaches project (both of which Kimbell and Stables were principal authors), propose that through the uniqueness of the language it employs (op cit, p:23):

'the language of technology is indisputably a concrete one - of images, symbols and models. Without this language it is just not possible to conceive of technological solutions.'

the central curriculum justification for the study of design and technology is that this language has the potential to give access to learners' thought processes, in particular how they have gone about the learning task. Utilising the terminology of Archer cited in the previous section, concrete modelling has the potential to provide an externalisation of a learner's cognitive modelling and it is through the relative accessibility of this concrete modelling that learners have access to their own 'thinking-in-action', (op cit, p:31):

'Design and technology not only enhances the thinking and decision-making powers of young people, it also enhances their conscious awareness of those thought processes. They not only learn to think and make decisions, they also know (and can see) that that is what they are doing.'

To summarise, modelling is at the core of design and technology capability and its external manifestation provides learners and their teachers with 'a concrete lever' that can expose and get a purchase on their thought processes. At best it is a tool to access meta-cognitive activity; for learners to gain an insight into the processes of their own learning.

If design and technology education seeks to give access to learners' thought processes then the trace of that thinking will be mostly captured in learners' concrete modelling and specifically in the modelling that has themselves as audience. Any educational aim will have a means of assessment to ascertain if that aim is being realised. Learners use modelling to bring their ideas into the world and test them; teachers try to observe the modelling for evidence of the learner's design and technology capabilities. A priority for the learner then becomes to record fully and make accessible the modelling with 'oneself' to the assessor of learning: the private modelling has then to function for a public audience that will act in a judgmental capacity. These varied purposes and the influences on them are now explored utilising research evidence drawn from a larger study.

Research evidence [ijtde v6]

The context of the larger study (Elmer, 1996) was that of eight students who were on a BA Design and Technology/Certificates course in a college of higher education. The eight students (the respondents) were a mix of age, capability and gender, a reasonably representative sample of the cohort of fifteen from which they were drawn, and the study gathered data over the four years of their course. The three major student learning settings of the BA course are: the college; industrial placements; school placements. In the second half of the study there was an increasing emphasis in the study's aims to the investigation of college-based work and in particular design and technology project work and with a corresponding shift of emphasis away from the investigation of placements.

Throughout the period of the study there was an intention of trying to find out what students do believe and understand rather than what they think they ought to believe and understand. To achieve this intention a methodology within the ethnographic tradition was used to minimise the influence of any prescribed view of design and technology. Some observation of the respondents in studio, workshop and placement settings was undertaken but the predominant fieldwork method was semi-structured, recorded interviews. These were conducted during each term of the course (12 terms in total) and transcribed in order to assist data analysis. Two and three-dimensional modelling including the 'design folio' and sketchbooks was used both as prompts for dialogue and means to allow triangulation between the words of the interview and the acts as captured in these tangible forms of modelling.

The study as a whole identifies a variety of influences on respondents' intentions when engaged on design and technology activity but the following examines and discusses specifically the influences on respondents' modelling.

Discussion of influences on respondents' modelling

Assessment

If modelling is the major means through which learners' thinking can be captured, a priority for the learner is to record fully and make accessible that modelling to others, in particular the assessor of learning. There are three forms of assessment on the BA: coursework, written examinations and Examination by Display. The Examination by Display, at the end of year two and year four, assesses all project work of the preceding two years. At the completion of a project a formative commentary and mark is given but students are able to make changes to their work prior to the summative Examination by Display. Although elements of the BA course will have modelling outcomes such as a bread-boarded electronic circuit or numerical calculations, these are more frequently assessed as coursework and therefore cannot contribute to the Examination by Display.

Throughout the fieldwork assessment featured considerably in students' perceptions. Even in a project where learning intentions were explicitly made its central feature (The Individual Learning Project; see Elmer, 1998), and when at the project's commencement many respondents talked enthusiastically about the learning they hoped to achieve: "I am interested in the learning process rather than the finished article", assessment was a dominant influence in displacing these initial intentions. One respondent echoed the beliefs of the majority:

"We know it's going to be assessed by someone else, so therefore you're consciously or sub-consciously designing to meet those standards which are set by other people. Even on an individual learning project like this you've still got that at the back of your mind and it's still going to influence the way you design things."

Assessment influenced respondents' intentions in general but it influenced respondents' modelling in a very specific manner through the authority of the Examination by Display. The Examination by Display is significantly different to the other two means of assessment. A student's work is accessible not only to their assessors but to their peers and others in a public arena. For many students as their design and technology projects developed it became apparent to them that their modelling, and in particular the modelling that depicts their perception of the 'final outcome' of the project, all of which will be displayed in a public forum, might not fit a recognised archetype. This archetype was the highly finished 'artefact'. Their response in a large number of cases was to shift their modelling intentions so that their modelling, in particular the final model, was more in accordance with this perceived archetype:

"I'm conscious that I'm designing something which is going to be on my final display."

It is quite proper that their ideas in the form of their modelling are brought to a degree of completion in order that they can be subjected to as rigorous test as possible in their context of use in the made-world. However this requirement does not always necessitate the single highly finished 'artefact'; there might be multiple modelling forms allowing high level testing of specific aspects of their design intentions. It is recognised that if a project's assessment criteria prompt this attention to highly finished 'product' then learners and their facilitators will be influenced. However this is not the case for the BA Examination by Display; 50% is allocated to Design Process, 25% technological concepts and 25 % Visualisation and Realisation. This emphasis on process learning, reinforced through these criteria, are communicated by tutors throughout the course but from a constructivist perspective (Fosnot, 1966), (Wertsch, 1991), (Murphy, 1996), the physical outcome of learning did not fit the established social practices, the 'authentic culture' (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989) associated with an Examination by Display. The result is that students shifted in their modelling intentions and shifted in such a way that the outcome fitted these shared cultural understandings. Tutors sought to gain insight into students’ cognitive modelling processes through their concrete modelling. This could take many and varied forms but students themselves sought the form that fitted their cultural perception; the highly finished artefact. Jackson (1995, p 164) applies the term 'hero culture' to the assessors in art and design education. Is there a similar hero culture associated with the highly finished made-world artefact in design and technology education?

'Being professional'

The previous section has explored the influence on respondents of placing their modelling in a public domain in order to be judged. This section continues this theme of the tension between modelling with oneself as audience, private-domain modelling, and when it enters a more public domain, whether to be nurtured or judged. At a very early stage of the analysis of initial fieldwork, a conceptual category was identified termed 'being professional' and throughout the study's fieldwork this was a significant influence on respondents' actions. With regard to modelling, two specific tensions arose with their concept of 'being professional'.

Firstly they perceived private-domain modelling as a reverse priority of importance to professional and industrial settings. The industrial designer is judged on the modelling that s/he has produced for the client, in particular the final model. When respondents aspired to 'be professional' then this private modelling was not seen as a useful or even a proper outcome of their modelling activities. The respondent Tom is just commencing a project that will be the focus on much of his final year. He justifies his emphasis on the final model ('product') as it is will be this that will be judged by a commercial client:

"If you look at it when you go beyond college, [ ] it's the product that is on sale. You're not selling the process. Hardly anyone is going to be interested in that process. It's just the product. What happens in the learning world should replicate the commercial world that will follows it. Otherwise you're training to be a bricklayer and going to work as a plumber almost. That's a bit tenuous."

Secondly, they were surrounded by the very tangible outcomes of 'professional' modelling in a wide variety of forms and their intentions were influenced by them. This public-domain modelling, whether the marker-rendered perspective or the computer-aided orthographic, was pervasive and persuasive. By their very need to be accessible to a broad public audience, these forms of modelling were far more understandable and accessible than private-domain modelling. These factors combined to give professional modelling a status far higher than private-domain modelling, whether their own or of their peers. Particularly in the early fieldwork this private-domain modelling was characterised as 'non-presentable' and frequently referred to as 'scribbles'. A change of perception to the role and status of private-domain modelling occurred for all the respondents in the later stages of the course but this change was outweighed by the influence of their final assessment.