exploring designerly thinking of students as novice designers

Research in Science Education 31: 91–116, 2001.© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Exploring Designerly Thinking of Students as Novice Designers

Campbell J. McRobbie1, Sarah J. Stein2 and Ian Ginns3

1Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, Queensland University ofTechnology

2University of Queensland3Queensland University of Technology

Abstract

Few studies have attempted a detailed analysis of designerly thinking and actions of students as theysolve design technology problems. This paper reports on a study that describes in detail, the designprocesses used by small groups of preservice teacher education students engaged in ill-defined, open-ended, self-selected design technology projects. A notation of symbols and connectors was devisedand used to map the decisions, and the material and embodied actions of two groups of studentsthroughout the course of their projects. The detail provided by the maps gives insights into theseadult novice designers’ design processes and provides information to assist teacher educators inplanning courses to support future teachers of design and technology.

Key Words: design technology education, designerly thinking, novice designers, preserviceteacher knowledge

Currently, technology education with a design and problem solving emphasis isbeing introduced in elementary schools around the world, including in Australia(Curriculum Corporation, 1994). With design being a strong aspect of such curricula,it has been recognised that there is a need for teachers to know more about schoolstudents’ designing abilities and the processes they use as they engage in designtechnology tasks (Johnsey, 1995). One way of assisting teachers to support theirstudents within design and technology learning contexts is to provide them withinformation about what their students are actually doing when they engage in designtechnology tasks.

Many attempts have been made in the professional world of architects and engi-neers to expose and delineate the various methods, strategies, and thinking processesdesigners engage in, and draw upon, as they design. As a result of such studiesvarious design “methods” have been proposed to provide guidelines that aim to assistdesigners to improve their skills (e.g., Altshuller, 1988; Matchett, as cited in Jones,1992). Forms of these often sequenced steps and models have been used in edu-cational texts as guides for school teachers planning for their students’ technologylearning experiences in their classrooms (e.g., Open Access Support Centre, 1996).However, the limitations of these sequenced models also have been noted, especiallywith regard to their usefulness for guiding teaching (Welch, 1999) because they can

92 C. J. McROBBIE, S. J. STEIN AND I. GINNS

present an idea of technological activity that is artificial. Rather than being followed,step-by-step, they need to be viewed as sources of information that can providegeneral overviews of the types of activities that tend to occur during most designand problem solving activities.

To complement these often activity focussed schemata, sources of informationabout technological knowledge can be found in a number of typologies. For example,Vincenti (1984), Frey (1989) and Faulkner (1994) have identified types of techno-logical knowledge that are drawn upon during technological activity. In particular,Faulkner’s (1994) list is useful, because, while it is a synthesis of knowledges usedby professional innovators, its specificity provides a good basis for analysing, indetail, the nature of the knowledges drawn upon and utilised during technologicalactivity by novices as they tackle design and technology problems. Roth (1998)used Faulkner’s typology in examining engineering design activities undertaken byelementary school students.

Few studies have attempted in-depth analyses of school students’ designerly think-ing and actions. For example, classroom studies reported by Kimbell, Stables andGreen (UK; 1996) and Jones and Carr (1993) (NZ) involved large numbers of classesand students. Consequently, the actual actions and reasoning of the students wereonly sampled, resulting in comparatively coarse analyses when compared with therichness of in-depth case studies. These studies involved interviews with studentsand teachers, observation of students as they engaged in design activities, and, insome cases, discussion with students at selected times in the lesson, or noting ofcritical incidents. Also, Jones and Carr (1993) developed a graphic method of identi-fying pathways students took in their design activities, incorporating such elementsas “reformulated idea” and “planned research,” which are, comparatively, coarsedepictions of designerly thinking.

Roden (1999) and Welch (1999) are two recent examples of in-depth analysesof students’ designerly thinking and actions. Roden (1999) monitored the designprocesses used by a group of very young students and followed them in consecutiveyears. She observed students in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 in an effort to describethe strategies they used during a design and make task. As a result, a number ofproblem-solving strategies were identified, some of which were used at the begin-ning, some used at the end and others in cycles, throughout engagement with the task.Roden subsequently developed a taxonomy of young children’s problem solvingstrategies. The study highlighted, in particular, the non-adherence of young novicedesigners to the set sequenced steps of design process models. Welch (1999) reportedhis efforts at examining the design processes used by older students. In his study,Grade 7 students were set a defined design and make project (a specific design briefwas given) to be completed within a set time limit. Welch mapped the different sortsof activities in which the students were engaged at different times throughout theirprojects. He classified the types of the design processes the students used accordingto stages or sequences of steps of “standard” design methods, similar to the sorts ofmethods referred to earlier. Like Roden (1999), Welch confirmed that students maynot follow easily classifiable steps at particular times throughout such a project. He

DESIGNERLY THINKING OF NOVICE DESIGNERS 93

also noted the important role played by the concrete materials and resources that thestudents had to use, select and manipulate.

Where teacher education is concerned, there are also few examples of researchdocumenting the detail of adult (student teacher) novice designing processes. To de-velop worthwhile teacher education courses in design and technology, it is necessaryto find out more about the design processes preservice and inservice teachers utilisethemselves. In this way, courses can be developed to respond to and support thelearning needs of both preservice and inservice teachers and enable them to identifymore clearly the students’ design understandings and capabilities.

With reference to school students, Jones (1997) noted that, “it is now time to placea greater emphasis on in-depth research on student understanding of technologicalconcepts and processes and ways in which these can be enhanced” (our emphasis).Further, Johnsey (1995) noted that instead of drawing on theoretical formulationsof the design process, “our new knowledge should be based on real observationof children as they design and make, rather than solely on potentially misleading,theoretical models of what we think happens” (p. 216). Similar comments are alsoappropriate for research on adult novice design students including teacher educationstudents.

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore the designerly thinking and ac-tions of adult novice designers, in particular, preservice elementary teacher educationstudents engaged in an ill-defined design and technology task.

The Current Study

The study described in this paper emerged from a need to be able to explain insome detail the design processes used by preservice elementary teachers as novicedesigners, and simultaneously, to provide an opportunity for them to experience thetype of activity that they would be expected to plan and implement within their ownfuture classrooms. In planning the study, therefore, it was recognised that to ensureecological validity, it was important that the actions and thinking of the preserviceteachers be studied in a typical classroom situation, rather than in clinical isolation.Their ill-defined project encouraged what may be classified as innovative designrather than normal design (Faulkner, 1994). Innovative design involves the creationof something new by the designer, from the designer’s perspective (Faulkner, 1994).Innovative design can often involve the solving of “wicked” problems (Rowe, 1987),or problems which have no definite endpoint. Normal design, on the other hand,is the type of design during which previously used ideas and design elements areemployed within new contexts. While normal design can also involve the solvingof wicked problems, there is a certain amount of repetition and perhaps replicationinvolved, where old ground is being retraced, but within new situations.

The study drew upon a form of re-presentation of experimentation devised byGooding (1992). Gooding used a notation to indicate the material actions, deci-sions and embodied actions of investigators in scientific investigations using (his-


torical) scientists’ written notes. Roth, McRobbie, Lucas and Boutonné (1997) mod-ified this notation for educational use. In their study, they produced maps of seniorsecondary science students’ problem solving activities to identify the educational“value” of the actions undertaken by students engaged in small group science exper-iments.

In the current study, the notation was developed further to enable its use for map-ping the course of actions and decisions undertaken by the preservice teachers duringan ill-defined, open-ended design technology project of their own choice. Symbols(see Appendix 1), linked together, trace the various actions and decisions made bythe groups throughout the course of the projects. The resultant maps of the preserviceteachers’ designing experiences thus serve to re-present “reflective ‘conversation[s]’with the materials of [the] design situation” (Schön & Wiggins, 1992, p. 135), andtrace the “movements” which occurred as the preservice teachers “saw,” took a stepand “saw” again (Schön & Wiggins, 1992), during the course of their projects. Eachsymbol in the maps thus represents a “move experiment” (Schön & Wiggins, 1992)or, in this study, a local unit of a design process. Move experiments occur as a resultof several kinds of seeing, dependent upon visual apprehension or literal seeing.These kinds of seeing include: the construction of organised ideas or patterns ofexperience (gestalts), or “seeing that” (e.g., “I see that (observe that) the apparatusis in this formation.”); the appreciation of qualities of intentions, problems and solu-tions), or “seeing as” (e.g., “I see (predict, suggest) this formation as being able to bechanged in this way to take on a new form”); and the recognition of consequences,or “seeing in” (e.g., “I see in this new formation that these ideas are in operation.This is how and why it is/is not working or confirming/not confirming my hopes forsolving the problem.”) (Schön & Wiggins, 1992).

Schön and Wiggins derived their ways of seeing in relation to paper and pencildesigning activities of architecture students. However, in this study, we have drawnupon Schön and Wiggins’ ways of seeing and adapted them to assist us to articulatethe activities of students designing and constructing in classroom situations and toinclude the manipulation of tools, materials and other resources. Thus, in this study,“seeing that” is a literal reporting on the state or appearance of a phenomenon that isartefactually bound (e.g., “I observe this about the construction”; “The rubber bandis riding up.”)

The second type of seeing, “seeing as,” we believe, can be demonstrated in twoways, or on two levels. On the first level, “seeing as” refers to perceiving or en-visioning particular elements of a configuration that, by affecting some change tothem, may be a way to alter the configuration and advance it towards a solution. Thisseeing is often embodied in the proposal of a change to an apparatus or formationbut the proposal is predominantly a mental action and not linked in specific termsto physical phenomena. For example, “If we could just get something to hold thatup better” or “Maybe the ball needs to touch something else to close the circuit andmake the buzzer work.” The second level of “seeing as” is envisioning in conjunctionwith physical phenomena in specific terms. This type of seeing is identified in thetranslation of mental thought with physical action and may be a precursor to, or


be integrated with, testing. For example, “The other [short, straight] alley will bemade of. . . a section of rubber band from one place to another. . . and your marblewill go in between.” While the statement is still a proposal, it is more developedthan the proposal made in the previous example of a first level seeing as statement.This time the speaker has definite ideas about the placement and assembly of thephysical phenomena being dealt with. In the previous example, the proposal wasless clear in terms of how it would become concrete – “Maybe the ball needs totouch something. . ..” In other words, in “seeing as” on this second level, a proposalabout particular elements of a configuration perceived to be important, predicts orsuggests changes or developments in physical form in order to advance activity orthe construction of the artefact towards the achievement of a solution.

The third type of seeing, “seeing in,” is reflected in conclusions which eventuateas a result of proposals made at the “seeing as” level. The proposals are translatedinto material actions; the experience of preceding move experiments leading to con-clusions about how the problem is being or has been solved. It is the result of acomplex interplay of relationships among the elements of the apparatus or construc-tion perceived to be important and an expression of how those elements have cometogether. These expressions can be about how or why a configuration is working ornot working and articulated specifically in operational terms (e.g., “The beams acrossthe corners are conferring stability and thus are holding the frame together”) or inmore abstract, theoretical and principled terms (e.g., “These beams are examples of(the technological principle of ) bracing with a triangular structure”).

The maps show the designerly thinking and actions of the preservice teachers atdifferent grain sizes from the macro structure of episodes of attention, to various as-pects of the design problem, to more detailed microanalysis within an episode. Theyrepresent action in terms of the preservice teachers’ transformation of ideas, theirsearch for new relationships among ideas, materials, tools and developing designs,their reassessment of each situation (Jones, 1992) and their collaboration to reachconsensus.

Design and Methods

In an effort to focus on the phenomenon of the designing processes used by the pre-service teachers, basic elements of phenomenological thought (Holstein & Gubrium,1998) formed the underpinning assumptions the researchers made about the circum-stances of the technological activity in which the students were engaged. At the sametime, an interpretive research methodology (Erickson, 1998) framed the interactionsbetween the researchers and the participants, so that the researchers could understandthe thoughts and actions of the preservice teachers as they engaged in a design andtechnology project course unit. The criteria of trustworthiness, authenticity and thebenefits of the hermeneutic process (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) were used to monitorthe quality of the interpretive inquiry.


The participants were drawn from a cohort (130 students) enrolled in a one yearpostgraduate elementary teacher education program. The first three weeks of thecourse (one and a half hours per week) were planned as a teaching and learningplatform for design and technology in which activities and tasks ranged from highlystructured to less structured with students working in groups of three. During thefollowing three weeks of the course, each student group selected and conducted anill-structured, independent design and technology project, appropriate for an upperelementary school student. During the final two weeks, the groups of pre-serviceteachers took turns to present the results of their designing efforts to the rest of theclass, and some discussion of their endeavours took place. Because time was limited,many of the groups worked on their projects outside formal class sessions. This studywas largely concerned with the in class deliberations.

One of the researchers (IG) was the lecturer and workshop leader for the course.Twelve pre-service teachers (4 groups of three students, one group in each of four se-quential class groups) were purposefully selected for in-depth study from the cohort.These focus students were interviewed about their conceptions of technology andtheir predictions and understandings about technology education, both in elementaryclassrooms and within the preservice teacher education course to follow. The focusstudents were selected to include the range of responses on surveys and interviews.

Data Sources and Analysis

Data sources for the study were: preservice teacher responses to technology surveyinstruments (Rennie & Jarvis, 1994); pre- and postinterviews that probed the preser-vice teachers’ understandings of technology and design (a sample of 30 studentsfrom which the focus students were selected) and all interviews were audio taped,transcribed and returned to the participants for checking; video and audio recordingof focus groups (using radio microphones) as they undertook their design activitiesin groups of three students during the technology workshops; field notes from ob-servations of students by the research team as the students undertook their designactivities; and, students’ journals of their reflections on their learning and progresscompiled during the technology course.

The group talk was transcribed, and then, using the video taped material and fieldnotes, action was described and recorded alongside the group talk in a table. Reviewof the talk and action together was then undertaken and, using symbols from the de-veloped notation (Appendix 1), each utterance or group of utterances was allocated asymbol to indicate the nature of the material actions, embodied actions and decisionsmade by the students within the group. In this way, it was shown that utterances andthe action “work” together. Interpretations become shared when participants withininteractions share experiences to some extent on historical, social and situational lev-els (Roth, McRobbie, Lucas, & Boutonné, 1997). Utterances are grounded in actionwithin the world and it is from the intricate complexities and intertwining of spokenand visual language that meaning can be composed and comprehended. Participants


within interactions make sense of meanings being created because spoken words areoften “illustrated” through gestures, movements and the manipulation of artefacts. Inother words, meanings are embodied within action and environment.

After all the transcriptions had been analysed in this way and notational symbolsallocated to the separate actions and decisions (the move experiments), attention waspaid to the links between each symbol. Using connectors (Appendix 2) the develop-ment of the action and talk across the whole activity sequence was then mapped. Aseach move experiment, represented by a symbol, was placed on the map, an excerptfrom the accompanying utterance/s or description of action was included to provideillustration of each action or decision made. Sections of the resultant maps are shownin Figures 1 and 2 as examples of the outcomes of the process.

The map in Figure 1 re-presents some of the move experiments undertaken by onegroup, referred to here as Group A, during the second workshop session in the seriesof five that focussed upon the project. During the first session, prior to the eventsrecorded in Figure 1, the members of Group A, Annabel (A), Gary (G) and Maurice(M) (all names are pseudonyms), had engaged in lengthy discussions about whatthey were going to design and make. Ideas put forward included an alarm clock, adrawbridge, a car or boat powered by a propeller and a catapult. During a passingconversation with a member of another group, the idea of building a pinball machinewas accepted as the choice and the group then put its energies into talking abouthow the pinball machine could be constructed and the materials they would need tocollect. Part of the construction involved making “flippers” or mechanisms to keepthe ball in play. Each flipper was a plastic clothes peg (clip type) that was fixed inplace to the baseboard with a small nail driven through a pivot point on the peg.Another nail anchored an elastic band fastened around the end of the two arms ofthe peg to provide the return flipper action. Figure 3, from Gary’s journal, shows thegroup’s sketch of their peg flipper mechanism.

During the course of the design and make activities, a number of problems emergedfor students. In analysing the data, three levels of problem similar to those noted inother studies (McCormick, Murphy, Hennessy, & Davidson, 1996; Roth, 1995) couldbe identified: (a) macro problems – the overall outcome of the project; (b) mesoproblems – the intermediate problems, the satisfaction which, together, contribute tothe achievement of the major goal or solving of the macro problem; and (c) microproblems – specific and very focussed problems, the solving of which, together,contribute to the solving of the meso problems, and so on.

The map in Figure 1 begins at the top of the page with Annabel (A) identi-fying a micro problem, represented by a triangle, with an attempt being made toposition the elastic band. The micro problem she identified emerged through thequestion she asked of the group member she was working with at the time, Gary(G), “What’s the problem trying to keep the band on?” The micro problem is howto keep the elastic band in the best position for the peg to work appropriately as aflipper.

Annabel’s posing of the question leads to a number of statements being “offered.”At times, throughout the course of any of the groups’ design activities, a number of


Figure 1: Section of one of the maps, showing an example of some of the notation,the links and the accompanying illustrative utterances or description of (embodied)action.

ideas were put forward, in a similar fashion to those offered in this instance as shownin Figure 1. In some instances, subsequent action leading on from those ideas didtake place. In other instances, subsequent action did not result, necessarily, directlyfrom those ideas. These “offered” ideas are shown on the maps as move experimentsconnected by horizontal lines. A move experiment is a decision or action that takesthe development of the product closer to its realisation. Even though these offered


Figure 2: As Julia and Marcia worked with the resources, ideas were generated,solutions were predicted and micro problems were solved “on the spot” and “on therun.”

ideas did not always directly lead to further move experiments, we have allocated asymbol to represent them, because we claim that they contributed in some way tothe ultimate decision to follow the path of action that was eventually chosen. Weare suggesting that because of the offering of a number of possibilities for moves,and the opportunity that the offering of possibilities caused for consideration of


Figure 3: Gary’s diagram of the flipper mechanisms from his reflective journal.

various ways to solve the next part of the problem being tackled, the group wasmore able to select the path that seemed most viable at the time. However, we doacknowledge the interpretive flexibility and ontological ambiguity (Roth, 1998) ofthe re-presentation of the embodied action appearing in our maps. Thus, in Figure 1,the four horizontally connected symbols in the second row of symbols represent fourofferings, the fourth of which led to the next move experiment which was to take theaction closer to the realisation of the product or the solving of the identified microproblem of getting the elastic band to sit appropriately. The development of ideas,actions or the forward direction of the move experiments is thus represented in thevertically connected (down) lines. This contrasts with Gooding (1992) and Roth etal. (1997), who both used horizontal lines to indicate “learning” or developmentalmoves toward successful achievement of aims.

The first of the offerings came from Gary who observed that the elastic band was“riding up” (Figure 1). The symbol of a square represents an observation or reportrelated to physical action or phenomena. In this sense, the symbol represents anobservation about a physical phenomenon, a literal kind of seeing or “seeing that.”Gary said he could see that the elastic band was behaving in a particular way. Hemade an observation about what he could see happening.

The third move experiment in this horizontal series of four, is one of three offeringsby Annabel, that is, a suggestion of an action (a proposal) that could be taken, “Whycan’t we bend the nail over [to prevent the elastic band from riding up]?” Like thefollowing offering, again from Annabel, “What if we stuck something on the end [ofthe peg]?” the utterance is a proposal or a mental action in relation to a physicalphenomenon, represented by the symbol of a circle (the mental action) inside asquare (the physical phenomenon). That is, Annabel had visualised the materialsand their assembly in a new way from the way they actually were at the time. Thesuggestions she offered were results of her seeing the situation as something else,that is, transformed, or in some other form, with either “something on the end” or by“bend[ing] a nail over.” In both instances she was attempting to solve the problem ofthe elastic band riding up and predicting, suggesting, proposing or envisioning howto transform the apparatus.

This, then, led to Gary making the suggestion, “You could easily put somethingover the top [of the end of the peg].” This, again, is a mental action in relation to


a physical phenomenon and is represented by a circle within a square. This moveexperiment led to Annabel and Gary’s move to test the effectiveness of a small pieceof straw to hold the elastic band in place. The symbols on the map thus revert to avertical and down direction to indicate that this move experiment led on to a next onewhich aimed to take the activity closer to its ultimate realisation.

Figure 2 is a map of part of the activity undertaken by a second group, referred tohere as Group B, involving two students, Julia (J) and Marcia (M), as they designedand constructed a dog feeder. The section of the map in Figure 2 illustrates theembodied actions of Julia and Marcia as they considered the feasibility of attachinga length of curved PVC drainage pipe to the neck of an upturned plastic soft drinkbottle holding dried dog food, and the placement and workability of a bowl intowhich the food would flow. Among many of the options and outcomes of their actionsdiscussed, Marcia and Julia noted how placing an open and unattached bowl underthe feed tube would expose the dog food to the air (meso problem identified by Julia:“How are we going to stop the food from going stale?”) and raise the possibility ofthe bowl being infested by ants, the food overflowing and the dog running away withthe bowl. These are indicated by the two circle symbols: proposals contributed byJulia and Marcia to train the dog to respond to a flag or a bell or to bite a handleto open the chute. The two proposals represent mental actions or the envisioningof possibilities. They represent “seeing as” without reference to or manipulation ofphysical phenomena in specific terms.

Following these proposals come two examples of “seeing in.” Julia states that“Training the dog would take too long” and Marcia adds, “And then you wouldn’t beable to market it.” Both statements imply that Julia and Marcia were looking ahead tothe marketability of their dog feeder. They were “seeing in” their plans for their pilotdog feeder inefficiencies relating to knowledge about the final product (Faulkner,1994), that is, knowledge about a product or artefact’s ultimate use, purpose andplace. The symbol of the square within the circle is used in the maps to denote“seeing in.” The experiences of the previous move experiments led Julia and Marciato conclude that training a dog would not be viable to the success (marketability) oftheir dog feeder. They recognised that their earlier proposals (represented by the twocircle symbols) would not work from an operating performance or knowledge aboutfinal products perspective (Faulkner, 1994).

Many of the (limited number of ) move experiments categorised as “seeing in”identified in the activities of Groups A and B were related to the operation of anartefact, an assembly, configuration or formation of materials and were expressed atan operational level. That is, references or explanations were given by group mem-bers about how or why an artefact, configuration, assembly or formation was/wasnot, would/would not work or be appropriate. Few, if any, of the move experimentscategorised as “seeing in” were expressed as principled knowledge (e.g., theoreticalscientific or engineering knowledge or technological principle knowledge) beyondthe artefact, configuration, assembly or formation; knowledge that could be relevantor applicable in contexts beyond the immediate one.


Results

The results of this study are presented in the form of assertions describing thedesignerly thinking and actions of the students, drawing on the constructed mapsusing an adaptation of the ideas of Gooding (1992) and Roth et al. (1997) and otherdata sources. Selected sections of the maps of two of the four groups are provided toindicate the kinds of maps that resulted and the sources of evidence for the assertionsto follow. The two groups will be referred to as Group A (Maurice (M), Annabel (A)and Gary (G)) and Group B (Julia (J) and Marcia (M)). (All names are pseudonyms.)

A Description of the Groups’ Projects – the Macro Problems to be Solved

As already mentioned, Group A decided to make a pinball machine (the macroproblem) using pegs and elastic bands for flicking mechanisms, batteries, a buzzer,lights and more elastic bands to construct the attractive and responsive elements, andother materials such as pieces of cardboard, a laminex strip and a wooden baseboard.

Group B decided to make a dog feeder that would store plenty of dry dog foodto last a dog a few days (the macro problem). The members of this group decided,during the beginning discussions, that they would use a plastic drink bottle to holdthe dog food, some coat hanger wire to secure the plastic bottle to a wall, and a cubeshaped plastic two litre ice cream container, which, positioned on the ground belowthe neck of the bottle, would collect the food and provide a receptacle out of whichthe dog could feed. As the preservice teachers had been forewarned during the weeksprior to its commencement of the need to decide upon a project, some groups hadmade decisions about their projects outside formal class times. Unlike the membersof Group A who spent time during class discussing their project, Julia and Marcia,Group B, were two students who arrived at the discussion session with their ideaabout what they wanted to design already firmly decided upon. Thus, the map ofGroup B’s project work does not record any explanation or discussion between itsgroup members of preliminary ideas in the same way as Group A’s does.

Assertion 1. The preservice teachers clarified their overall task at the start andadhered to their general intentions or vision for the final outcome, throughout thecourse of the design activity.

At the start of the design project, once the groups had decided the overall outcomeof their project (the macro problem to be solved), they adhered to the one generalcourse of action as they solved the associated meso and micro problems that arose.Variations amongst the groups occurred during the solving of the meso problems inhow direct and directed the groups were in achieving their goals, that is, how oftenthey tended to “stray” from a direct path. In the cases presented, Group A displayedvery clear notions of their outcomes and adhered closely to those planned intentions,


concentrating upon fine-tuning at the micro problem level and making some alter-ations in response to their experiences at that level, as they deemed necessary. Onegroup member, Gary, had made a pinball machine before and had a clear vision of anoutcome in terms of the pinball’s overall structure and features. The other two groupmembers seemed able to grasp a similar vision for the ultimate pinball machine andwere convinced of its workability and the likelihood of their being able to assemble itvery easily. Other groups, such as Group B, continually brainstormed and discussedideas on a meso as well as a micro problem level, and as group members interactedwith the resources at hand.

At the start of Group A’s project, the main meso problems foreseen by the groupwere: the construction of the various major elements that would make up the pinballmachine, that is, the buzzers and lights; the assembly of the baseboard upon whichthe marble (the pinball itself) would roll; and the development of a flippers to keepthe marble in play. The overall diagram of the group’s efforts shows that while therewas a steady progression from initiation of the idea to the ultimate goal of producingthe pinball machine, there were also clusters of concentrated activity, where particu-lar meso/micro tasks required intensive activity before they were able to resume theirsteady progression towards the macro goal. During these times, the group membersaddressed the meso problems that arose, concerned with, for example, attemptingto make the buzzers and lights work and ensuring that the flicking mechanisms (theflippers) for the pinball directed the ball in paths that were considered to be mosteffective.

Micro problems were also observed in the complete maps within the clusters ofactivity, which concentrated upon the meso problems. One example reveals Mauricetaking repetitive actions while attempting to solve the problem he faced with closingthe circuit between the buzzer and the battery for long enough for the buzzer tosound. In this instance, the micro problem was not solved and, ultimately, the groupmade the decision to forego the inclusion of buzzers and concentrate on other aspectsof the pinball machine. The group did not change its overall design, however, beinghappy to concede that the buzzer could not be made to work to the group’s designspecifications in the time frame of their construction activity.

The major meso problems foreseen by Group B at the start of the project includedhow to attach the food bottle to the plastic ice cream container and how to supportthe plastic drink bottle in a vertical position. The group overcame (or at least decidedto avoid) such problems by selecting different materials, as the activity proceeded.For example, Marcia and Julia decided that the wire coat hanger did not meet theirpurposes as well as a curved bracket, attached to a wooden backing board, and usedin conjunction with an angled piece of PVC plumbing pipe. Marcia “discovered”the pipe while browsing through a hardware shop between sessions (Field Notes).Julia and Marcia decided that the pipe, held in place on a wooden backing boardby the metal bracket, could be the tube through which the food was channelled intothe feeding receptacle, the plastic ice-cream container. The design was altered inresponse to their realisation that there was need to improve the way the food reachedthe ice cream container. These “discoveries” or changes made by Julia and Marcia


were indicative of the way they worked throughout the course of their project. Theexcerpt from their map, in Figure 2, shows how, while they held an idea of how theywanted to solve their macro problem, the meso problems were solved as they cameto them or as they arose, and changes were made “on the spot.”

Assertion 2. The preservice elementary teachers displayed behaviours that includedextensive generation and test procedures.

Very few trial and error procedures were used across the groups, that is, the pre-service teachers did not attempt to find solutions to problems in an entirely randommanner (Rowe, 1987). They generally used generate-and-test procedures to take theirprojects forward to states that were closer to their vision of their finished artefacts.Each move experiment was made with a purpose in mind. While groups such asGroup A spent time testing and developing by refining specificities such as makingfine adjustments to the way materials were positioned, other groups, such as GroupB, made more changes involving the selection of better materials, as they consideredconsequences of their actions on a meso problem solving level.

For example, the vision Group A held about its pinball machine and the componentsections, led the members to generate ideas about, or predict, what would happen ifthey tried various ways of assembly. In this way, the students displayed their designcompetency and instrumentality knowledge (Faulkner, 1994). Then they observed re-sults of trials, and, each time, altered their assembly in response to observations. Thegenerate-and-test procedures either resulted, overall, in a satisfactory outcome or, asin the case of the buzzer assembly, an abandonment of the inclusion altogether. Anysatisfactory outcome was the result of a gradual development of ideas, the endpointof the extensive generate-and-test procedures undertaken. The lengthy see-move-seeagain process (Schön & Wiggins, 1992) shown in the complete map (not shown forspace reasons), indicates the persistence with which Gary and Annabel attempted toget the assembly to work in the way they desired, that is, the design specificationsand design criteria (Faulkner, 1994) they had set down earlier, and their ability tojudge between competing demands. Each alteration was a small change, but one thatwas significant enough to contribute to the developing effectiveness of the alley.

Concentration for the members of Group B was, as mentioned already, on the mesoproblems of, for example, how to control the food flow through the PVC tube into theice-cream container below, and the associated problems they predicted would arisefrom the actions they undertook, for example, how the dog’s head would fit into thespace that they had allowed using the particular sized bowl they had selected to catchthe food. At each point of action, decisions for further action were made in the lightof the predictions and the testing that the group members had undertaken previously.Marcia noted in her reflective journal the see-move-see again process in which hergroup engaged:

Each time we found a problem with our model, we brainstormed alternatives that we could try. We thendiscussed the most practical alternative and if it seemed feasible, tried it. If it didn’t work on this test,we would go back to our list of possibilities, or through the process thought of another possible solution.(Marcia – Reflective journal)


As with Group A, at no time did a circumstance arise in which Julia and Marcia,in Group B, acted randomly. Their see-move-see again process was not made up ofa series of thoughtless (trial and error) random actions. Each action they took was adevelopment of something that had gone before and indicated their implementationof developing and testing procedures (Faulkner, 1994).

Throughout the entire project we made our modifications. We did them the way we did, expecting aparticular result – and in most cases we did get what we wanted. When we didn’t, then we simply mademore modifications. (Julia – Reflective journal – her emphasis)

While the gradual development and refining that Group B displayed was not asclearly defined as in the map of Group A’s actions, there was still a general movement“forward” (shown by the vertically connected move experiments in the map) towardsoutcomes that Julia and Marcia considered to be more satisfactory. The main differ-ence between Groups A and B in this respect, lay in the number of contributing moveexperiments (indicated by horizontal connectors between the moves) that assistedprogress towards the end product.

From an educational perspective, the activity displayed by Groups A and B showsthe value of open-ended and ill-defined projects for creating interest and authen-ticity for learning. While the difficulties of creating authentic learning experiencesin technology education have been noted (McCormick, 1994), the inclusion of thistype of project within a teacher education course for students who are looking toimplement similar ideas within their own future classrooms, can prove to be a worth-while learning experience (McRobbie, Ginns, & Stein, 2000) for developing theirunderstandings and appreciation of design processes and technology education ingeneral. As one member of Group A, Gary, noted:

[Learning activities] must be real or lifelike or authentic, and must give some idea of use and the interplayof materials and systems and problem-solving and design and technology, because it’s only through thosesorts of experiences, that’s really the experiential learning, that we come to our best understanding ofsomething. . . . My idea of “authentic” was that we had something that was a real life task. . . . We had toactually physically make a pinball machine for some purpose: to be able to play pinball and to be ableto learn scientific principles from it. So that to me was authentic. What would be non-authentic would beanything that was abstract in parts rather than a whole, producing something in bits with no real meaningor purpose or outcome.

While Gary stated in the above excerpt that learning of scientific principles occurredas a result of the authentic nature of the project, the maps of Group A’s activity do notsupport that notion. It seemed that the students did not display much learning aboutknowledge of the natural world (Faulkner, 1994), in terms of scientific theoreticalknowledge, but they did learn about design practice and about developing and testingdesigns (Faulkner, 1994).

In contrast, the maps of the students engaging in science activities documentedby Roth et al. (1997) indicated that, for some groups, there was little authenticity inthe learning experiences. The resultant maps of some groups, for much of the time,showed very few links indicating “moving forward,” or “learning” as the researchers


called it. Much of the activity the science students engaged in was random trial anderror activity.

Assertion 3. The interaction with the materials was an important part of the de-sign process as the preservice teachers thought through their tasks and tackled theproblems that arose (the meso and micro problems in particular).

Both Group A and Group B found that although they were able to make somepredictions about their final products, they needed to work with the materials andmanipulate them physically in order to be sure that they could transform ideas intoconcrete realities. An indication of this was also evident in the use of drawings. Bothgroups tended to sketch ideas and general notions rather than make firm and detailedplans. Analysis of field notes showed that apart from the few sketches made at thestart of the project to record overall ideas, both groups tended to record on paper whatthey had done more often than what they intended to do. This supports the findings ofWelch (1999) who pointed out the critical role that modelling in three-dimensionalmaterials played in the design activities of younger novice designers. For example,in Group A, while Maurice was convinced that the buzzer would work, it was onlyin attempting to put his ideas into concrete reality that he found there were limits tohis intentions. Ultimately, the inclusion of the buzzer had to be abandoned. He wrotein his reflective journal:

The lights and buzzers part of the pinball machine I’m afraid to say, failed dismally. The problem was thatI wasn’t able to get a glass marble, or even a larger steel ball to place enough sustained force on to thecontact that was connected to the back of a rubber band to make the buzzer and light work. . . . (Maurice’sreflective journal, after workshop 18.8.98)

but did not record a sketch or diagram of the buzzer. He did talk about the problemhe was experiencing with his group members and with the researchers during theworkshop sessions, but he did not write down the tryouts or experiments he used toattempt to get the buzzer to work. In fact, he became very frustrated with the task,but persisted with the problem for most of a whole workshop session (Field Notes).

It was a good idea but, if this doesn’t work, do we have to call it a failure or do we just call it an experimentthat didn’t work?. . . I reckon the theory is right but it’s just the materials we have maybe aren’t theright ones for the particular purpose that we want. (Conversation with group members during workshop,18.8.98)

To record the event, after Maurice’s failure to get the buzzer to work, Annabel madethe quick sketch of the buzzer assembly in her journal as shown in Figure 4.

In Group B, during the discussion phases, drawings were used in conjunction withtalk and in conjunction with the manipulation of the materials. Often, the names ofequipment, materials, assemblies and so on, were not used, but non-verbal actionssuch as gestures, pointing to and handling of the objects, served to assist communi-cation of ideas and intents between, and amongst, the group members. Furthermore,


Figure 4: Annabel’s reflective journal sketch of the buzzer, made after the problemMaurice experienced had been identified.

it was because the group members were able to manipulate the materials and toolsthat they were able to make decisions about steps to take and changes to enact.

The need to be able to interact physically with the resources was recognised byGary. He spoke to one of the researchers during the time when he and Annabel weredeveloping the flipper mechanisms for their group’s pinball machine.

Well, I was trying to do the design part, right? But there are some things that you just can’t! I mean theflicker [flipper]. How is that going to work? Like you sort of know, you have some conception, you drawsomething down there like that, but you still can’t work it out unless you go and try it. Like I just got[the peg] stuck on the board and tried it different ways and then got it to work. So that you can’t alwaysdo it just on paper. You go back to the design again. . . . We’ve got this part sort of worked out, but wehaven’t got the little parts and then we go back to the design again. . . . I don’t see [design] as a phasethat you’ve finished. . . . The paper [sketches, plans] would never tell you that, like the chipboard blowsoutside (indicating that the chipboard breaks, ‘blows out,’ as a nail is driven into it). (Workshop 18.8.98)

Even though these participants were adults with life experiences, it was still nec-essary for them to manipulate the materials that they were working with in orderto be able to realise the limitations and possibilities of the resources available tothem, that is, discover the properties of materials (Faulkner, 1994), and also theirown skills and abilities. Through physical contact with the materials and the tools,they demonstrated and recognised that they were engaged in processes involving aninteraction between the mind and the hand (Black & Harrison, 1992), something alsohighlighted by Kimbell et al. (1996) and Jones and Carr (1993) in their studies. Thegroups in this study showed, as Welch (1999) reported, that sequenced and stagedmodels and methods of design processes do not explain adequately the processesin which designers engage. While the preservice teachers did engage in planningat the very early stages of the project, they also continued to plan, as well as toconstruct, review and evaluate throughout the course of the project. However, theseplans usually tended to remain in their heads, or virtual, rather than written andembodied in their actions. They concentrated on aspects of the tasks before them,solving the various levels of problems as they became relevant and as they saw themfitting into the solving of their overall problems within the boundaries of the task,time, materials, and their own skills and abilities.


Assertion 4. The prior knowledge of the preservice teachers influenced the nature ofthe interactions within the groups between and amongst the resources, individuals,tools and tasks.

Prior knowledge played an important part in influencing the nature of the moveexperiments made by the groups. Two members of Group A (Maurice and Gary)reported having past personal and professional experiences with the tools they wereusing for their design project (Field Notes). Schön and Wiggins (1992) highlightthe influence past designing experiences can have upon a new task: the participants’familiarity with different aspects of the designing experiences and phenomena (ma-terials), which are the focus of attention, serve to enrich the process and enable theparticipants to make more informed choices. The nature of Group A’s move experi-ments focussed upon the selection, manipulation and utilisation of materials as theyconcentrated upon fine-tuning details at the micro problem level. Furthermore, theirinteractions with the materials resulted in outcomes that, predominantly, matchedtheir predictions about them. Thus, the overall map of Group A’s project work showshow this group’s clear vision for the pinball machine and how component parts wouldbe incorporated was borne out, for the most part, in their ultimate product. Apartfrom the buzzer, there were very few diversions that took the group from its overallpath. It is suggested here, that a contributing factor influencing the resultant activityof Group A was related to the experiences of using tools, for example, hammeringnails, working with wood and connecting wires to batteries, that at least two membersof the group brought to the task.

Group B, on the other hand, had had limited experience with the tools and ma-terials they were using, resulting in micro problems arising around the use of, forexample, glue, the hammer and nails, and meso problems related to limited knowl-edge of the natural world (Faulkner, 1994) with regards to lack of certainty abouthow materials would fit together and contribute to the overall assembly of theirdog feeder components. Micro problems related to the materials and the tools werenot talked about in great detail during Group B’s early discussions, but were oftenthe reason why different materials were chosen and/or changed along the way. Forexample, at the beginning of the project, bending the wire around the plastic bottlecaused difficulties, as it was thick wire and not easily bent into a regular curve, andit did not hold the bottle firmly enough for Julia and Marcia to be able to manipulateother materials around the construction (Field Notes). Further micro problems arose,even after the decisions were made to change materials. In another example, Marciaattempted to hammer nails into a block of wood after the discovery that the “glue”they had used before was not glue at all, but a sealant. Marcia discovered that the nailwould not penetrate the wood that she was using and she spent time trying to removethe bent and partially hammered-in nail. She eventually asked another member ofthe class to remove the nail for her, but in the meantime, also discovered that theglue gun available for use across the class could be a useful means of sticking thewooden blocks together. Marcia was “seeing” the nail, wood and hammer from anartefactual level, not at a level which indicated abstracted knowledge of the natural


world relating to the properties of materials (Faulkner, 1994) (e.g., that her inabilityto hammer the nail into the wood had something to do with the density of the wood).At this point of the design and make activity, there existed a teaching opportunity tocapture a meaningful moment during which the learning about, say, density of woodor broader technological processes of joining materials, using a hammer, or drivingin nails (e.g., drill first), could have been made explicit for Marcia. Her understandingcould have been encouraged to move to a world knowledge level (Roth, McRobbie,Lucas, & Boutonné, 1997; Roth, 1998), that is, a World 3 type of knowledge (Popper,1972) of theories, explanations, solutions, proofs and so on that have already beenproduced and exist as immaterial “objects” (Bereiter, 1994).

Educational Significance

The mapping of the pre-service teachers’ design processes using an adaptation ofthe notation used by Gooding (1992) and Roth et al. (1997), confirms the outcomes ofWelch’s (1999) mapping study and the earlier studies undertaken by Jones and Carr(1993) and Kimbell et al. (1996). In this study, the maps, like Welch’s, highlightedthe importance of three-dimensional modelling and the lack of fit of pre-designedstep-by-step models for considering how design processes are engaged in duringdesign and make tasks.

This initial fine grained analysis of the study described in this paper goes some wayto providing insights into the different approaches taken by groups as they solvedproblems on different levels and why they tackled the problems in the way theydid. The mapping of the design processes revealed the different approaches takenby the preservice teacher groups, all moving forward towards the achievement ofsuccess in the development of their final products, but taking different paths as theyresponded to the materials, tools, their own background knowledge, skills, abilitiesand prior experiences, and to each other and the tasks at hand. An important outcomerevealed by the maps was that there was little or no random trial and error behav-iour displayed by the groups. Rather, actions were the result of logical conclusionsand predictions from the perspectives of those involved, and comprised reasonedgenerate-and-test procedures. The mapping of the various move experiments andtheir linkages amongst them confirm the view that design processes involve a com-plex interplay between and amongst tools, resources, ideas and people (Roth, 1998)as designers engage in see-move-see again processes (Schön & Wiggins, 1992).

The nature of the learning task, as a self-selected, open-ended and ill-definedproject played a large part in developing the students’ perceptions of the authen-ticity of the task and, consequently, their enthusiasm for achieving success in theirfinal products. In turn, this authenticity supported the development of the preserviceteachers’ vision for their final products, which was tempered by the parameters oftime and resources. While the activity was seen as being authentic by the preser-vice teachers, the maps show most of the learning took place in the area of designprocesses. Using Faulkner’s (1994) typology, the preservice teachers were immersed


in activities that assisted them to become explicitly aware of design practice (aspectsof design criteria, design competence and instrumentalities, practical considerations,and developing and testing procedures). However, in our view, little explicit knowl-edge was evident about the natural world, that is, knowledge about the propertiesof materials, and scientific and engineering knowledge related to tasks at hand, orconcepts associated with technology practice with materials. Further, there was scantevidence of the language associated with discussion of such concepts.

This study thus raises issues related to the teaching and learning of technologyprocesses and concepts and the role played by teachers in assisting students to be-come explicitly aware of technological conceptual and procedural knowledge. Asalready stated, the nature of the project described in this paper stimulated the studentsto think about the design processes in which they were engaged. Furthermore, whilethey were aware of the need to know more about materials, for example, or the needto be able to use certain tools, the evidence did not support the notion that the studentshad developed specific and explicit knowledge about tools or about the properties ofmaterials. The students’ knowledge and language remained, essentially, within therealms of the artefacts with which they were working, and it did not move to a levelof world knowledge (Bereiter, 1994; Roth, 1998), knowledge of the natural world, orknowledge of the principles of technology practice with materials (Faulkner, 1994).This was evident in the extensive maps developed, in the predominance of “seeingthat” and “seeing as” representations with very few examples of “seeing in” rep-resentations which indicated these latter kinds of knowledge. Further, most of the“seeing in” categorisations were at the operational level, with few, if any at the moreprincipled or abstract level as noted earlier.

The challenge for teachers lies in finding balance between (a) creating tasks thatallow students to find authenticity and meaning, and (b) intervening to assist studentsto recognise the world knowledge meaning of their encounters and experiences. Theindividuals within the groups described in this study could not necessarily havepredicted the problems that were to arise with the materials and tools they had touse. The need for one student to be able to remove a nail from a block of wood, forexample, only arose out of the context within which she was involved. Furthermore,she was not faced with the task of removing “any” nail out of “any” piece of wood.It was because she used the particularly dense piece of wood and relatively soft nail(because these were the resources that were readily available to her) that her prob-lems arose. The situation in which she found herself was a result of particular eventsand circumstances of that particular situation. The situation could not necessarilyhave been predicted within the context of an ill-defined, self-selected project such asthe one described, but it could have been seen as a possibility.

Learning can be described as “a change in the learner’s capability of experiencinga phenomenon in the world” (Marton & Pang, 1999, p. 11). To develop that capabil-ity, it is necessary for teachers to provide opportunities for learners to experience awide variety of instances of a phenomenon in many different ways and to develop thelanguage to enable students to discuss those concepts. As a consequence, learners’awareness of and sensitivity to aspects of phenomena (brought into the foreground


or sent to the background of attention) are raised and made explicit (Marton & Pang,1999). Thus, there is an implication for teaching. In order to capture the learningmoment, it is vital for the teachers to be alert to the problems and questions beingexperienced by students at the time when they are most relevant. It is also importantfor teachers to be aware of the possibilities of situations of significance for learningthat may occur. In this way, opportunities for helping students to develop explicitknowledge about the natural world can be capitalised upon. An open-ended, ill-defined and self-selected project can create an environment for authentic experienceand present opportunities for a wide variety of instances and phenomena in manydifferent ways to be experienced. However, without intervention by the teacher atappropriate times, deeper and more extensive learning about the natural world, aboutdesign processes or about knowledge itself at a world knowledge level will notnecessarily occur. In other words, learners often need assistance to develop knowl-edge of which aspects of instances and phenomena to focus upon (and, therefore,learn more about) and which aspects are of less significance. Planned interactionswith students as part of unplanned (but, perhaps, predictable) situations or encoun-ters with materials, artefacts and tools, are therefore important times during whichstudents’ learning can be scaffolded, supported and developed. These opportunitieshelp students develop breadth of (explicit) technological knowledge and experience.Without breadth, depth and variety of experience within different contexts, abilityto differentiate between and amongst phenomena will not necessarily occur (Mar-ton & Pang, 1999). Thus, the study has also alerted the research team to the needto review the preservice teachers’ course described herein, to ensure that in thefuture, the interventions do include development of other aspects of Faulkner’s ty-pology including knowledge of the natural world, and not just knowledge of designpractice.

Conclusion

In the detail about design processes provided by analysing the preservice teachers’group projects in the way we have, mapping the participants’ actions and decisionsthroughout the course of a self-selected and ill-defined design and make project, wehave shown that: the interactions amongst the novice designers and the materials andtools at hand are significant elements that work together in a complex intertwiningand interlinking relationship; and that from an educational point of view, open endedand ill-defined tasks help create opportunities that allow learners to discover forthemselves what they need to learn to solve design and make problems and pro-mote learning. These problems were made real because they emerged from the taskthat the learners set themselves as they worked towards achieving their own goalsfor success. However, we have also highlighted the need for teacher interventionduring the design activity to help students focus upon what is important in terms ofdesign knowledge. Without that intervention, students will not necessarily develop


their understandings or the language to discuss their interactions beyond the artefactlevel.

We began this study with the belief that, if teachers are to assist students to enhancetheir design processes, it is important that we first find out the detailed nature of thedesign processes that students are actually using, rather than assume theoretical orempirical models derived from professional designers’ actions. Although we workedwith novice designers who were adults, the maps produced in this study go someway to continuing the analyses begun by more coarse grained studies into the designprocesses used by younger novice designers. This study has produced understandingsabout design processes on a fine grained level, which may be useful for assisting thecontinuing exploration of the designing activities of younger novice designers. Theunderstandings gained through this study have the potential to inform pre-serviceand in-service teacher education courses on design technology to enhance the com-petence and confidence of teachers, and to result in improved learning outcomes forstudents.

Correspondence: Campbell J. McRobbie, Centre for Mathematics and ScienceEducation, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, KelvinGrove, QLD 4059, AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

References

Altshuller, G. S. (1988). Creativity as an exact science. New York: Gordon andBreach.

Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s World 3. Educa-tional Researcher, 23(7), 21–23.

Black, P., & Harrison, G. (1992). Technology capability. In R. McCormick, P.Murphy, & M. Harrison (Eds.), Teaching and learning technology (pp. 51–57).Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.

Curriculum Corporation. (1994). A statement on technology for Australian schools.Carlton, Victoria: Author.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J.Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education(pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Faulkner, W. (1994). Conceptualising knowledge used in innovation: A secondlook at the science – technology distinction and industrial innovation. Science,Technology and Human Values, 19(4), 425–458.

Frey, R. E. (1989). A philosophical framework for understanding technology.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 27(1), 23–35.

Gooding, D. (1992). Putting agency back into experiment. In A. Pickering (Ed.),Science as practice and culture (pp. 65–112). Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.


Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. InN. K. Denzin, & Y. S Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1998). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, andinterpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies ofqualitative inquiry (pp. 137–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process – does it exist? International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 5, 199–217.

Jones, A. (1997). An analysis of student existing technological capability: Devel-oping an initial framework. International Journal of Technology and DesignEducation, 7, 241–258

Jones, A., & Carr, M. D. (1993). Working papers from the Learning in TechnologyEducation Project (Vols. 1, 2, 3). Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato.

Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and

technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Marton, F., & Pang, M. (1999, August). Two faces of variation. Paper presented at

the 8th European conference for learning and instruction, Göteborg University,Göteborg, Sweden.

McCormick, R. (1994). Learning through apprenticeship. In D. Blandow, & M.J. Dyrenfurth (Eds.), Technology education in school and industry. Emergingdidactics for human resource development (pp. 16–36). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

McCormick, R., Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., & Davidson, M. (1996, April). Researchon student learning of designing and problem solving in technology activity inschools in England. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New York, NY.

McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 10(1), 81–101.

Open Access Support Centre. (1996). Senior multi-strand science. The science oftoys. The State of Queensland (Department of Education): Author (Booklets 17& 18 plus video).

Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press.

Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1994). Helping children understand technology. Adelaide,South Adelaide: Department for Education and Children’s Services.

Roden, C. (1999). How children’s problem solving strategies develop at key stage 1.The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(1), 21–27.

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Knowing and learning in open-inquiry laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Roth, W.-M., McRobbie, C. J., Lucas, K. B., & Boutonné, S. (1997). The local pro-duction of order in traditional science laboratories: A phenomenological analysis.Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 107–136.


Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing.

Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.Vincenti, W. G. (1984). Technological knowledge without science: The innovation of

flush riveting in American airplanes, ca 1930–ca 1950. Technology and Culture,25(3), 540–576.

Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research inScience and Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.

Appendix 1

Notation adapted from Gooding (1992) and Roth et al. (1997).

Symbol Meaning Examples from action/talk

MACRO PROBLEM• overall problem/task statement,

definition, discussion• stated intentions• clarification of goal• statement of problem to be

solved

MESO PROBLEM• “large” tasks/problems identi-

fied, stated, defined, arising– solving of which contributeto achievement of MACROproblem/task satisfaction

• “We have to do this, don’twe?”

• “This is what we have todo.”

MICRO PROBLEM• “small” tasks/problems identi-

fied, stated, defined, arising –solving of which contribute tothe achievement of MESOproblem/task satisfaction

• often related to detailedand specific aspects ofproblem/task e.g., tool orskill related


• seeing that• report, observation• literal seeing

• “I observe this (idea) aboutthe physical phenomenon.”

• “The rubber band is ridingup.”

• seeing as• envisioning• a mental action• proposal of idea, construct etc• particular elements of the con-

figuration or formation are per-ceived/identified/judged to beimportant or significant to solv-ing the problem

• “Maybe this is somethingwe could try.”

• “Maybe the ball needs totouch something else toclose the circuit and makethe buzzer work.”

• seeing as• envisioning in conjuction with

physical action• proposal or idea to be translated

into material• particular elements perceived to

be important to solving the pro-blem are changed or developedin physical form

• proposal is a translation/ trans-formation of mental action andphysical phenomena

• “This could be how we willdo it.”

• “The other [short, straight]alleywill be made of. . . asection of rubber band fromone place toanother. . . and your marblewill go in between.”

• seeing in• as above (physical

phenomene plus mentalactivity-envisioning)but with a conclusion

• proposal or idea to be translatedinto material action

• conceptualisation of how some-thing works/happens

• extended mental component• attempt to explain at operational

or abstract principle levels

• “This is how it works.”• “This is what is happening

when it works.”• Everything has been put

together in one’s own mind.• “The beams across the

corners are conferringstability and thusare holdingthe frame together.”

• “These beams are examplesof (the technologicalprinciple of)bracing with atriangular structure.”


Appendix 2

Connectors adapted from Gooding (1992) and Roth et al. (1997).

Symbol Meaning Examples from action/talk

• link between move exper-iments

• contributing actions• sideline actions• indicates learning about

the problem, the tools, thesolution, the resources etc

• off on a tangent• something from out of

the blue• a group member’s

suggestion oridentification of apossibility

• link between move experi-ments

• actions that contribute to“moving on”

• indicates learning aboutthe problem, the tools,the solution, the resourcesetc

• this move experimentis leading to this moveexperiment

• link between moveexperiments

• links back/forward to ac-tions/questions/ideas fromanother part of the map

• this solves the prob-lem left unsolvedearlier in the course ofevents

• this is the sameproblem arising oncemore even thoughaction has takenanother course in thetime being

• the problem arisesagain in another form

• link between moveexperiments

• tentative connections/contributions

• indicates learning aboutthe problem, the tools,the solution, the resourcesetc

• this could be or seemsto be emanating fromthis moveexperiment

exploring designerly thinking of students as novice designers

Documents