Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 1 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools David Barlex, Brunel University and Electronics in Schools Strategy, England Torben Steeg, University of Manchester and Electronics in Schools Strategy, England

Abstract Electronics has been a part of the English school curriculum since the late 1970s, being taught variously under the auspices of Physics, General Science, Technology and, since 1995, as a part of the statutory National Curriculum for Design & Technology. The newly developed national Diploma in Engineering also includes elements of electronics. This paper briefly describes this history and its impact on the way electronics has been and is conceived in English schools. Like other physical science subjects, electronics in school suffers from a lack of specialist teachers and the perception that is ‘hard’. Since 1998 the Electronics in Schools Strategy (EiSS), with funding from a range of agencies, including the English Government departments of Trade & Industry and Education & Science and the Institute of Electrical Engineers (now the Institute of Engineering and Technology), has been engaged in supporting the national development of electronics in schools. Tactics employed by EiSS include school-based curriculum development, the development of an extensive website of support for both teachers of electronics and their pupils, training trainers who are funded to offer substantial free training to schools and the development of regional EiSS hubs with a brief and funding to support local initiatives that will support electronics teaching and learning in schools. Throughout the life of EiSS there has been a focus on the evaluation of effectiveness measured by the degree of impact on teachers and pupils and implementation of good quality electronics in schools. This paper summarises the findings of this evaluation effort. At the same time a wealth of ICT-based educational electronics resources has been developed by UK companies including high quality PCB CAD and CAM, pupil-friendly yet powerful electronics simulation and straightforward approaches to the inclusion of microcontroller and communications technologies into pupil projects. Electronics-focussed work in schools has also been influenced by other developments going on in the wider subject of Design & Technology such as thinking about how to foster creativity in pupils, work to develop more sustainable approaches to pupils’ designing and making and attempts to get pupils to design for the future, in particular through the Young Foresight initiative. The paper reflects on how the combination of high quality support for schools allied to excellent teaching resources has impacted on the approaches taken by teachers and the quality of pupils’ work, illustrated with examples taken from schools involved with EiSS. The paper finishes by reflecting on the challenges and opportunities to electronics in education that are offered by developments in research and industrial electronics and presents some early findings from new curriculum development projects working in these areas.

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 2 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

Background: the development of electronics within the English school system Aspects of Electronics have had an increasingly well-established foothold in the English school curriculum since the 1970s, initially being taught under the auspices of, variously, Physics, General Science, Craft Design & technology (CDT) and Control Technology. Curriculum development projects that included pioneering work on the place of and approach to electronics in the curriculum included the Engineering Science project and Project Technology both conducted at Loughborough University and Nottingham Trent University’s Modular Technology Project all from the 1970s. The Microelectronics Education Programme (MEP), established by The Department of Education and Science in England in 1980 ran until 1986, had as its aim to, “prepare children for life in a society in which devices and systems based on microelectronics are common place and pervasive.” (MEP 1985; introduction). It was concerned with all “aspects of teaching Electronics in schools” particularly with respect to the curriculum for 11 to 16 years olds and with teaching electronics both as a separate subject and as a part of many syllabuses such as Control Technology, Craft Design & Technology, Engineering Science, Physics and Computer Studies. Among MEP’s strategies were the development of an enhanced curriculum, teacher training and regional information networks; a model which would later be adopted by the Electronics in Schools Strategy (Bevis, 1983). A significant outcome of this work in the 1970s and 1980s was the development of influential resources such as the Alpha and MfA (Microelectronics for All) electronics kits that had very high penetration into schools and supported systems-based approaches to the teaching of electronics (Martin 1990,1993, Steeg 1995, 2000) When England introduced a National Curriculum in 1990, electronics was split between Science and the then new subject of ‘Design & Technology’ (D&T) and computer control was split between split between D&T and the equally new subject of Information technology (IT). The fairly rapid sequence of revisions to the National Curriculum that followed saw Electronics (as ‘Systems & Control’) positioned in D&T (and taken out of the Science curriculum) in 1995 and the 2007 revision has confirmed importance of all pupils being taught Systems & Control at 11-14 while placing computer control completely within D&T (i.e. removing it from ICT):

“The study of making in systems and control should include: � the practical application of systems and control in design proposals � electrical, electronic, mechanical, microprocessor and computer control systems and how

to use them effectively” QCA (2007)

On the whole the science education community has welcomed this transfer of content matter since the science curriculum is widely perceived to be overcrowded. It is also increasingly recognised that that, within D&T, the ability to link learning about electronics and control to designing and making products that make use of electronics understanding is good constructionist teaching (Kafai & Resnick1(996), Steeg & Ling (2006)). As is the case in many countries and despite rhetoric to the contrary, the parts of the English education system that have the highest esteem are those focussed on the needs of pupils generally labelled ‘academic’. As a result there is a steady undercurrent of concern about how best to meet the needs of those pupils for whom an ’academic’ curriculum is unsuitable. The latest incarnation of these concerns in England is a collection of vocational Diplomas for 14-19 year olds covering broad occupational areas with content defined by industry bodies representing the relevant occupational areas. Amongst the first Diplomas to be launched (starting teaching in Sept 2008 for a selected group of schools) is Engineering. Sadly the content of the Engineering Diploma, unlike that of the National Curriculum, tends to look back to 19th and 20th century technologies rather than forward to the possibilities of the 21st century and this is reflected in the electronics content which makes no mention of either systems thinking of control as a key area of electronics until level 3 (generally equivalent to current 16-19 ‘academic’ qualifications) (QCA, 2006), which runs counter to the significant curriculum thinking about how to teach electronics developed over the previous thirty years.

Some problems and (attempted) solutions

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 3 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

Like other subjects with links to the physical sciences, electronics in English schools suffers from a lack of specialist teachers and the perception that is ‘hard’ (usually meaning that it deals with mathematical concepts). The great majority of those teaching Systems and Control at 11-14 are not specialists; they were initially trained to teach Resistant Materials, Graphics, Textiles (even Food) and have taken up Systems and Control teaching, for example, to fill a gap when a colleague has left. Many of these teachers have received little training to support their new role and inevitably have been forced to support their teaching by relying on fairly undemanding projects that they can master and transmit; the scope for creativity and adaptation is generally severely limited and the technologies being used may be outdated. The English schools inspectorate, OfSTED (2002), has noted the negative effects of this on the scope for pupils to engage in design work in Systems & Control. The Electronics in Schools Strategy (EiSS) has been established to develop programs to increase the numbers of teachers able to teach electronics effectively. It is managed by the Design & Technology Association (D&TA) with funding from a range of agencies, including the English Government Departments for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (DfBERR, until recently Trade & Industry) and Children, Schools and Families (DfCSF, until recently Education & Skills) and the engineering professional body The Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET, previously The Institute of Electrical Engineers). The core aim of the Strategy is to provide support for the national development of electronics in schools so as to increase the numbers of teachers who can teach electronics and thus the numbers of pupils who go on to study the subject. The tactics employed by EiSS in pursuit of this aim include: � training trainers who are funded to offer substantial free training to schools � the development of an extensive website of support for both teachers of electronics and their pupils � the development of regional EiSS hubs with a brief and funding to support local initiatives that will

support electronics teaching and learning in schools � curriculum advisors Unsurprisingly, this combination of a lack of specialist teachers combined with perceptions of subject complexity (and probably other factors as well) has led to relatively low take-up of electronics when it ceases to be compulsory (at 14), this being especially marked for girls. Around 20% of English secondary schools offer an electronics related course for 14-16 year olds and about 9% of pupils each year follow such a course; about 1 in ten of these pupils are girls. Over the last 30 years there have been a number of initiatives and strategies launched by governments and industry to tackle this problem, including technology buses for girls, the WISE (Women into Science and Engineering) initiative and the TVEI (Technical and Vocational Education Initiative) which had reserved funding streams for supporting girls into technical areas. Since the mid 1990s this focus on the need to encourage girls to take technical subjects seriously has been lost as attention has turned to the apparent under-performance of boys in the education system. The under-representation of girls in subjects like electronics remains, however, a significant problem. Training and Trainers Various models of CPD for teachers in electronics were explored in the late 1990s to determine the best compromise between effectiveness and cost. The model settled on is called the Electronics and Communications Technology (ECT) training program. The term ‘Electronics and Communications Technology’, rather than the National Curriculum term ‘Systems & Control’, was, and is, used to emphasise the fact that the focus of the training is on modern technologies, where the boundary between electronics and control is blurred and communications technologies are central. The ECT programme is based on a ‘training the trainer’s model; around 100 prospective trainers (of whom around 50 remain active) have been provided with an eight-day course (two lots of four days separated by some months) and, on satisfactory completion of assessment tasks, gain professional accreditation through the IET as an ECT trainer. These trainers can then run IET funded courses for school teachers. Since 2004 IET have funded approximately 75 ECT course places per year for teachers. These are four-day courses (pairs of days, separated by reflection time) and the funding includes payment to the trainer (so the course is free to schools), payment to the school towards cover and

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 4 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

travel expenses (to lower the barriers to participation) and a contribution of £400 towards electronics hardware and software for the school which must be ‘matched’ by £600 from the school (to ensure that ECT related work with pupils can take place. Head-teachers of schools involved in the training are required to commit to allowing their teachers to attend the course, providing the matched funding and supporting the continuing development of electronics within the school’s curriculum. ECT courses run at two levels: ‘Getting Started in Electronics’ is aimed at teachers with minimal experience with the aim of getting at least some work with 11-14 pupils going in the school; ‘Going Further with Electronics’ is aimed at those who may do some 11-14 work but need support in expanding into work with 14-16 pupils and/or who need subject updating. Website Four days is not a long time to become confident as a teacher in a new subject. The ECT trials found that eight day courses worked much better for teachers, but were too expensive. Instead the four-day courses are supplemented by support from an extensive website1. Site content includes sections on technical matters such as core knowledge and understanding and how to make use of particular technologies effectively, practical support for designing developing and making electronic products, sample schemes of work, and other pedagogical support materials, a wide range of case studies including the use of ECT in society and implementation of electronics is various school settings and notes from teachers describing projects they have carried out in schools. Although primarily aimed at the needs of teachers, the website also contains material for pupils to use and, while full access requires free registration, is open to anyone who wishes to use it. Hubs Hubs, regional support centres for schools teaching or wishing to teach electronics, were trialled in 7 areas of England with funding from the then Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) from 2001 to 2003. This work was thoroughly evaluated by the Open University (Murphy et al, 2004) and teacher-friendly summary of this evaluation (Lunn et al, 2005) has proved to be very useful in dispelling some of the myths that can deter schools and teachers from implementing electronics in the curriculum. The success of this trial led to the establishment in 2004 of 16 regional hubs across England funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DfCSF, until recently Education & Science). Unfortunately the funding for the current hubs runs at about 10% of the funding level per hub during the trial, however those running the hubs have risen admirably to the challenge posed by this constraint and all run a programme of short course and network meetings for teachers in their areas. Curriculum advisors EiSS currently employs, for a day or two per month, two curriculum advisors (the authors of this paper) to support the hubs and the wider Strategy. The advisory role includes not only support for the hubs but also annual review of their work, the development and execution of impact evaluation and strategic work on the way that the Strategy’s work with school should develop. An early observation of one of us (Barlex) was that trainers and hubs, having correctly identified lack of technical knowledge as a problem in teachers coming to training courses, were in danger of focussing too much on technical subject knowledge. This may seem a counter-intuitive observation but it was informed by work on effective CPD conducted by the Open University (Banks et al, 2004). If effective CPD is defined as CPD that actually makes a difference in the way teaching and learning happens in classrooms, then enhancing subject knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient element of CPD; teachers do need a secure knowledge base for their teaching. But they also need to develop strategies for working with this new subject knowledge in the classroom or workshop (pedagogic knowledge) and they also need to understand how this new subject knowledge can be introduced into the curriculum (school knowledge). This can be encapsulated by the model shown in figure 1:

1 http://www.electronicsinschools.org/

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 5 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

Figure 1: The EiSS CPD model

The Open University call the intersection of these three kinds of knowledge a ’subject construct’; it is the development of this subject construct, understanding what to teach, how to teach it and how to place it in the curriculum, that CPD needs to strive for and this model for CPD has been adopted as the basis for CPD planning within EiSS

Resources and technologies The core electronics ‘big ideas’ underpinning the approach taken by EiSS to supporting electronics work in schools have been: � systems thinking � programmable systems � communications technologies Systems thinking Basing electronics teaching on the use of a systems approach has remained central to most developments in electronics pedagogy in the UK since the early 1980s (Steeg, 2000). By the late 1980s software to support a systems approach had been developed for early BBC computers. Developments in computing since then have led to the point where pupils can assemble a high-level systems-based circuit on screen, simulate it as a system, convert the high-level system into a systems based circuit diagram, simulate that, and then convert the circuit diagram into a PCB design that can itself be simulated (figure 2). This allows pupils to engage in real circuit design from the early years of secondary education and supports successful making (if the PCB simulation works then the correctly assembled real-world PCB will also work) where the pupils’ ability to engage in fault finding on the assembled circuit is enhanced by their systems level understanding of it.

Figure 2: Circuit Wizard Screenshot (Courtesy of NewWave Concepts)

Subject knowledge

Pedagogic knowledge

School

knowledge

Subject construct

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 6 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

Programmable systems The advent of low-cost programmable microcontrollers (PICs dominate in English education) is rapidly changing practice in schools. A PIC provides an essentially complete computer (processor, memory, clock, input and output) as a small and cheap (from around €1) component. A number of UK software companies have produced robust software that is very accessible to pupils at least as young as nine or ten and there is a range of hardware, in the form of kits, to match. For most educational purposes, at least in the 11-14 age range, PICs are much more suitable than hardwired circuits, being cheaper, more flexible and (for these very reasons) the direction that industry is increasingly turning. In respect of the electronics learning that takes place, pupils continue to require systems understanding and they also develop the necessary 21st Century skill of understanding something about computer programming. Pupils in introductory courses will need to learn essential assembly, component recognition and circuit testing skills as they assemble pre-designed circuits (the design of circuit function being in how the PIC is programmed). In more advanced courses (for example post-14) it is quite feasible for pupils to design and make their own PIC-based circuits thus developing a wide range of electronics knowledge and designing and making skills. Communications technologies PICs open up many possibilities for interesting product development that would simply be too technically complex for pupils to implement with hardwired circuitry. One of these possibilities is infra-red (IR) communications: the complexity of signal encoding is handled by the PIC, so pupils can focus on product and programming aspects of their design to create products that communicate at a distance – something that is surprisingly motivating for pupils while at the same time providing them with an introduction to an important aspect of modern electronics technologies. For older or more experienced pupils, the PIC technologies in use in English education also support the ZigBee radio communications protocol and can be used to implement a web server, for example to feed environmental or control data onto a webpage.

Electronics and good practice in Design & Technology Because electronics-focussed work in schools is embedded in Design & Technology, approaches to its teaching have benefited enormously from other D&T subject developments and thinking that have taken place in recent years. Significant examples include: � Creativity

Creativity has a high profile in the English education system both generally and specifically within the D&T curriculum (Barlex, 2003). There is some tendency amongst teachers to view ‘technical’ subjects as being less creative than ‘arty’ subjects and to investigate this we have been involved in some exploratory work with schools to explore what creativity in electronics might look like (Steeg & Martin, 2005, 2007). In summary, this work has indicated that there is a great deal of potential for pupils to work creatively in electronics if this is explicitly planned for.

� Sustainability The relationship between education and sustainability is also something that is the subject of much discussion and policy making in England. D&T seems clearly to be a subject that should have much to say about practical approaches to sustainability and education for sustainability. Within D&T, electronics, through its high dependence on batteries, currently has the most unsustainable practice. We are currently engaged in a curriculum development project with schools that is exploring the possibilities of ‘electronics without batteries’.

� Young Foresight Young Foresight is a curriculum initiative that requires young people working collaboratively to design but NOT make products for the future using new and emerging technologies as the starting point. The results of this initiative were sufficiently impressive for the scheme to be recommended as part of the English national strategy for design and technology (Barlex 1999, 2004).

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 7 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

� Thinking about design decisions A powerful tool that has been developed out of the work of EiSS has been the Design Pentagon, designed to help teachers and curriculum planners analyse their D&T activity (Barlex 2005, figure 3).

Figure 3: The design decision model that informs EISS curriculum planning (Barlex 2005)

This diagram captures the idea that, when engaging in design activity, pupils make design decisions in five broad areas; those relating to the conceptual, technical, aesthetic, constructional and marketing aspects of the product being designed. In a balanced design curriculum pupils should have the opportunity to experience making design decisions in all of these areas. Similarly, CPD for teachers of D&T should develop their ability to devise curricula that engage pupils in all these areas. As already noted, there can be a tendency in electronics CPD for the emphasis to be over-technical; we have encouraged those planning electronics CPD to use the design pentagon as a tool for analysing their planned activities and to support planning that engages teachers in all corners of the pentagon. During CPD activity, when teachers are engaged in their own design work, they have used the pentagon as tool to help them reflect on where the balance of emphasis in their own designing lies. Where the tendency in CPD is for the emphasis to be over-technical, in planning for classroom pupils’ activity the tendency is for teachers to suppress technical design decision-making and over-represent aesthetic decisions in pupils’ work. Use of the design pentagon as a curriculum auditing tool can help reveal such biases. During the development of new activities the tool can be used as an analytical support that helps ensure the activities provide children with a wide and balanced range of decision making opportunities.

Impact and evaluation From the beginning of the EiSS program there has been a strong evaluation strand focussing on the extent to which the work of the Strategy has impact in schools; for example examining the degree to which ideas explored in CPD sessions lead to implementation in school workshops. The evaluation of the initial phase of EiSS hub piloting has already been noted (Murphy et al, 2004, Lunn et al, 2005). Data have been and are being collected on the subsequent work of the hubs; this includes data on the activities of the hubs over three year and follow-up implementation reports from some of the schools involved. Recently questionnaires have been distributed to 400 schools that have experienced CPD support from hubs, and a sample of these schools will be visited by the curriculum advisors where interviews will be conducted with both pupils and teachers. The finding from the analysis of this data will be reported separately.

ConceptualWhat it does

TechnicalHow it works

AestheticsWhat it looks like

ConstructionalHow it fits together

MarketingWho it’s for

ConceptualWhat it does

TechnicalHow it works

AestheticsWhat it looks like

ConstructionalHow it fits together

MarketingWho it’s for

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 8 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

Looking forwards We believe the curriculum content established for electronics in secondary schools by EiSS, of systems based thinking, placing microcontrollers at the heart of circuits and emphasising the importance of communications technologies is bringing the subject up-to-date, literally; the content is located in the mainstream technologies of the 1990s and early 21st century. However the pupils we are teaching will reach adulthood in the 2020s – and, as Kurzweil (2005) has pointed out, the pace of change in technological development is exponential.

“Computers started out as large remote machines in air-conditioned rooms tended by white-coated technicians. They moved onto our desks, then under our arms, and now into our pockets. Soon we’ll routinely put them inside our bodies and brains.”

Ray Kurzweil, (2005) Part of the role of EiSS is to be looking forward to new technologies that have the potential to be adopted by electronics education as new tools for designing and making. There are currently two main strands to this work. Fab Labs The first is inspired by Gershenfeld’s (2005) work in developing Fab Labs2 around the world. Since around 2000 the Centre for Bits and Atoms at MIT has been developing the idea of Fab Labs (Fabrication Laboratories) where CAD, CAM and microcontroller technology are brought together to make small-scale prototyping capabilities available to under-served communities. There are currently 7 Fab Labs in the world and they have had a remarkable impact on their communities: � Lyngen Alps, Norway � Cartago, Costa Rica, � Pabal, India � Boston, USA � Takoradi, Ghana � Pretoria, S. Africa � Soshanguve, S. Africa. What is particularly striking about the story of Fab Labs is that the technologies they are using (programmable technologies and CAD/CAM) already exist in the majority of UK secondary schools; it would not take a great deal of funding to develop the technology base that exists in schools and create a network of community Fab Labs. Equally striking to a teacher is the new pedagogies that the use of Fab technologies allows. Gershenfeld (ibid) describes the development of a new MIT course “How To Make (almost) Anything” open to students from all disciplines. The students could, and did, make (almost) anything they wanted – motivated by their desires rather than curriculum imperatives; the result of this was that, apart from making them aware of the equipment available and its capabilities, Gershenfeld was unable to construct a taught curriculum for the course. “Instead the learning process was driven by the demand for rather than the supply of knowledge.” He describes this as ‘just-in-time’ learning and contrasts it to the ‘just-in-case’ model that dominates traditional educational systems. Gershenfeld (ibid) goes on to discuss the implications of the development of these fabrication and programmable technologies. In the future when you go to a large DIY store for a particular piece of hardware you won’t spend a long time looking for it on the shelves. There won’t be many shelves. You’ll use a keyboard and screen to find what you need, press a ‘fabricate’ button and it will be manufactured for you on the spot. The same will apply to spare or replacement parts for any number of domestic appliances, bicycles, motorcycles and cars. Intelligent machines will be able to monitor their own parts and, as wear and tear take their toll, order replacements to be fabricated in advance of breakdown. This has implications for the way we teach pupils in school to make things. Of course it will always be essential for children and young people to work with hand tools and light machine tools. But if this is the

2 http://fab.cba.mit.edu/

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 9 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

only ‘making’ technology at their disposal they will be severely limited in (a) the sort of things they can make, (b) how fast they can make and (c) how accurately they can make. As the Fab Lab revolution is about to hit society it is important that it finds recognition and application in schools; EiSS is currently exploring the possibilities of open source fabricators form Fab@Home3 and RepRap4. Developments are being tracked on the Fab@School blog5. Spimes Bruce Sterling is a science fiction writer who takes a great deal of interest in the development of novel technologies. He writes (Sterling, 2005) about a possible future of objects that brings together ideas on personal fabrication and programmable technology and links them to the use of RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification), local communications and geo-location to come up with the idea of a ‘spime’. He argues that we have moved from an age of artefacts, made by hand, through complex machines, and then products to the current era of "gizmos." New forms of design and manufacture are appearing that lack historical precedent, but current production methods, using archaic forms of energy and materials that are finite and toxic, are not sustainable. He claims the future will see a new kind of object – we have the primitive forms of them now in our pockets and briefcases: user-alterable, baroquely multi-featured, and programmable - that will be sustainable, enhanceable, and uniquely identifiable. These are what Sterling calls spimes; future manufactured objects “with informational support so extensive and rich that they are regarded as material instantiations of an immaterial system”.

“Spimes are designed on screens, fabricated by digital means, and precisely tracked through space and time. They are made of substances that can be folded back into the production stream of future spimes, challenging all of us to become involved in their production.

(ibid)

EiSS is pursuing the possibility of developing a spime development kit that could be used by school pupils to incorporate spime-like capabilities in their product designs.

3 http://www.fabathome.org/

4 http://reprap.org/

5 http://www.steeg.co.uk/F@Sblog/

Developing Engineers; The Case Of Electronics Education In English Schools 10 David Barlex, Torben Steeg © 2007 Paper for IEEE International Summit “Meeting the Growing Demand For Engineers and Their Educators 2010 – 2020” Munich, November 2007

References Banks, F, Leach, J & Moon, B 1999, ‘New Understandings of Teacher's Pedagogic Knowledge’ in J. Leach & B. Moon (eds.) Learners and Pedagogy Paul Chapman publications, London Banks F, Barlex D, Jarvinen E, Owen-Jackson G, Rutland M (2004) DEPTH - Developing Professional Thinking for Technology Teachers: An International Study International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 141-157 Klewer, The Netherlands Barlex, D. (1999) Young Foresight, London: Young Foresight Barlex D (2003) Creativity in Crisis? Design & Technology at KS3 and KS4 DATA and Nuffield D&T [summary available at http://www.secondarydandt.org/dt-world/reports/crisis-in-creativity-executive-summary,45,SA.html ] Barlex, D. (2004). ‘Creativity in school technology education: A chorus of voices’ In H. Middleton, M. Pavlova, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Learning for innovation in technology education (pp. 24–37). Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University. Barlex D (2005) ‘The centrality of designing: An emerging realization from three curriculum projects’ Paper presented at the PATT15 Conference - Technology Education and Research: Twenty Years in Retrospect, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Bevis G (1983) Electronics - Why and in what form it should appear in the curriculum? Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology Vol 15 (2) 84-86 Gershenfeld N (2005) Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop - from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication Basic Books Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M. (Eds) (1996) Constructionism in Practice Lawrence Erlbaum Kurzweil, R (2005) The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology Viking Lunn S, Barlex D, Murphy P, McCormick R, Revill P (2005) Dispelling Myths about Electronics in Schools Open University, Milton Keynes Martin DJ (1990) Stages in Systems Thinking, Modelling and Realisation in School Electronics International Journal of Technology & Design Education 1,1, 14-20 Martin DJ (1993) ‘Developing Information Skills and System Thinking; A resource-based approach to electronic control systems’ in Smith J (Ed) (1993) IDATER 93 Loughborough University MEP (1985) Electronics & Control Technology Domain; Information File MEP, Hampshire Murphy P, McCormick B, Lunn S, Davidson M, Jones H (2004) Evaluation of the Promotion of Electronics in Schools Regional Pilot; Final Report of the Evaluation Open University, Milton Keynes OfSTED (2002) Design and technology in secondary schools; OfSTED subject reports series 2001/02 OfSTED QCA (2006) Criteria for the specialised Diploma qualifications in engineering at levels 1, 2 and 3 QCA, London Accessed 30-9-07 at http://www.engineeringdiploma.com/public/downloads/QCA-06-2999_engineering_nov06.pdf QCA (2007) Design and Technology Programme of study: key stage 3 QCA, London Accessed 30-9-07 at http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/D-and-T_KS3_PoS.pdf Steeg T.J. (1995) ‘A Systems Approach to Designing and Making in Electronics’ in Design & Technology Teaching, vol 27 no 2, pp19-24 Steeg T.J. (2000) ‘Systems Thinking and Practice; A review and analysis of key ideas and their implications for practice in Design and Technology education’ in Kimbell R (Ed) Design and Technology International Millennium Conference DATA pp203-214 Steeg T, Martin J (2005) ‘ECT: Electronics, Creativity and Technology?’ In Norman E & Spendlove D (Eds) D&TAEducation & International Research Conference 2007 D&TA pp85-90 Steeg T, Martin J (2007) ‘PICs, CAD & Creativity’ In Norman E, Spendlove D & Grover P (Eds) DATA International Research Conference 2005 DATA pp167-174 Steeg T, Ling M (2006) ‘Who’s in Control (of the teaching of computer control)?’ in Norman E, Spendlove D & Owen-Jackson G (Eds) DATA International Research Conference 2006 DATA pp135-142 Sterling B (2005) Shaping Things The MIT press