Loughborough UniversityInstitutional Repository

The Design and Make Task(DMT): some reflections on

designing in schools

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repositoryby the/an author.

Citation: DENTON, H.G., 1993. The Design and Make Task (DMT): somereflections on designing in schools. IDATER 1993 Conference, LoughboroughUniversity

Additional Information:

• This is a conference paper.

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/1054

Publisher: c© Loughborough University

Please cite the published version.

This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence

conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

70

Denton

IDATER 93 Loughborough University of Technology

Introduction

Experience visiting many schools across the countryleads this writer to an uncomfortable conclusion:that aspects of designing in many schools havebecome a stylised ritual. This ritual consists ofencouraging children to follow an apparently fixeddesign line, more particularly to produce endlessvisually attractive 'design sheets': complex bordersare used and all drawings worked to a high quality(often after the design process is completed). Thisis neither efficient nor effective design. This articleaims to take this assertion and juxtapose it with theimposition of the new DMTs. The position taken isthat this is an opportunity to look at the wayTechnology is taught.

Firstly the assertion of a 'stylised ritual' is examined.Secondly some aspects of teaching Technologythrough DMTs are discussed. This is done by askinghow this ritual appears to have arisen; examiningwhat a DMT is; and then discussing what existingresearch in the area of project work can teach us.

How did designing become a ritual inmany schools?

The genesis is obscure and certainly pre-datesNational Curriculum Design and Technology. Itappears to centre on an incomplete understandingof the process of designing and the functions ofmodelling, particularly drawing.

The purpose of the design activity is thedevelopment of outcomes of various types. It shouldbe our aim to show children how to do this efficientlyand effectively. The design process is a tool: ameans to an end. It should not become an end initself. Yet many teachers appear to have turned theprocess of design into an 'art' form divorced from itsprimary function: they appear to emphasise thevisual presentation of the design activity over theprimary function of generating and developing ideas.

Modelling is the essential 'tool' of design. Thispaper focuses on physical rather than cognitivemodels. The range and applications of these modelshave been described elsewhere (for example Evans1992) but could be summarised as a range oftechniques intended to externalise ideas enablingmanipulation and in some cases facilitatingcommunication. These range from rapid sketchesto pictorial presentations and engineering assemblydrawings. Other techniques include threedimensional models ranging from simple 'lash-ups'of specific aspects to whole presentation models.Models may employ scale and use various materialsto simulate the intended forms. Other models aremathematical and/or computer based. The essentialfunction of any model, however, is only its value indeveloping design ideas. Most models are usedonly by the designer or design team and are of nointerest to the client, though they are to the teacheras an indication of the child's thinking. Some

The Design and Make Task (DMT): some reflections ondesigning in schools

H G DentonDepartment of Design and Technology, Loughborough University

AbstractThis paper is based on the assertion that the initial phases of the design process in many schools hasbecome a stylised ritual more to do with the production of endless sheets of over decorated artwork thanefficient or effective design. This is juxtaposed with the requirements of the new Design and Make Tasks(DMTs). The resulting discussion centres on the opportunities the DMTs offer to look at the wayTechnology is taught.

Points discussed include:

• How the asserted ‘ritual‘ of designing has arisen in many schools.• That childrens‘ design ‘research‘ should be planned, appropriate, and of value.• That ideas should be generated and developed efficiently and effectively through appropriate

modelling. Inappropriate modelling, such as the use of detailed drawings and colour in initialidea generation, should not be encouraged.

• That children should be helped to reflect on their design work and share experiences in order togain from the learning potential within the design process.

• That informal groupwork should be used more frequently to assist in the generation anddevelopment of ideas

71

Denton

IDATER 93 Loughborough University of Technology

models are specifically intended as communicationsto clients at any particular stage. These models aretypically the finely worked presentation drawing ormodel.

The culture of schools values 'finished' and attractivework in all subjects. Design teachers rightly want todisplay childrens' work; colourful and carefullydone work is preferred. In contrast the initial stagesof efficient and effective design work require therapid development of ideas, using the mostappropriate methods of modelling such as rapidsketches and lash-up 3D models. This work doesnot need to be any more detailed or carefully donethan is necessary to advance thinking. Many children,however, appear unable to accept rough sketchesand lash-ups and spend time re-working them to a'better' standard. This re-working in no waycontributes to the process of design: by wastingtime it lowers efficiency: by slowing the explorationof ideas it lowers effectiveness.

Developing this point further, children are oftenshown the work of professional designers andexhibitions such as degree shows. This is potentiallyvery valuable educational practice. However,presentation drawings and final models tend to benoticed more than initial drawings and models.Children learn inappropriate concepts of designingthrough this unconscious agenda.

We arrive at a situation in which 'the design process'may become a ritual. Firstly a disproportionateamount of time is spent in 'research' which is oftenno more than the collection of catalogue cuttings.This 'research' (more correctly, informationacquisition and collation) is often seen by childrenas a sequential step in designing; done at the startonly. Children should be helped to develop a planof what they need to look for and have some meansof analysing their findings. Research is an activitywhich is constantly called into play throughout anydesign process as elements of need are recognised.

Moving to the process of idea generation, designsheets are often overworked with colour, detail andcopious neatly written notes. This slows the processat the very point where ideas need to be fixed andmanipulated with speed. It is common to see'design sheets' obviously produced after the initialstages have been completed and probably based onearlier sketches which have been discarded. This isnot to say that well worked drawings or qualitydrawing at any stage is not important, it is a questionof when such drawing is necessary.

The original National Curriculum Design andTechnology Order (1990) has added to this apparent

confusion. They sensibly call for children toexperience design mainly in a holistic form.However, the multitude of outcomes required(artifacts, systems and environments to be producedin five different contexts: ie 15 combinations) hasbeen translated, by teachers who often report beingconfused, into confusing schemes of work. Evidencefor this comes from a wide range of personal contactswith teachers and to some degree from HMI (1992)who considered only '59%' of KS3 Design andTechnology lessons as satisfactory or better. Theyobserved that AT1 was causing 'confusion' andteachers were often insisting that pupils spend toomuch time on written work. Teachers appeared topresume that the four ATs (identifying needs andopportunities; generating a design; planning andmaking; evaluating) required equal time. Theyreported that projects had often become 'model'orientated and that these were were difficult forpupils to evaluate. The HMI report does not use theterm 'model' accurately; by definition any designoutput will be a model even if realised in the intendedmaterials at full scale - what is more properly termeda prototype. The point being made by HMI is thatchildren are not taking designing through to suchprototyping and because of this they are not able toproperly evaluate design work.

What is a DMT?

The Proposals (1992) suggest that the main meansof delivering PoSs should be DMTs. These shouldbe 'set in a context that allows pupils to appreciatethe significance of their work' (p3) and they shouldbe orientated about 'good quality products'. Therange of named contexts and outcomes is removed,but teachers are specifically required to focus DMTson certain areas of the PoSs: control (pneumatics/mechanics; control (electronics); structures; food;textiles and four 'supplementary' at Key Stage 3(ages 11-14).

Many teachers may be alarmed at this apparent rigidrequirement but despite the narrow focus it doesmean that teachers have specific objectives. Deliverywill be principally via DMTs; ie project work, whichteachers are well used to. The word 'principal'means that other means are allowable. The use ofshort 'inputs' of various forms and at various timescould be very efficient in getting over various aspectsof the PoS. Specific amounts of time for DMTs arenot given, allowing teachers more flexibility to reactto matters such as progression in childrens' abilitiesto manage project work.

DMTs have two functions: teaching and assessment/evaluation. Looking at assessment, the Proposalssuggest two ATs: Designing and Making. It is

72

Denton

IDATER 93 Loughborough University of Technology

recognised that making requires more time and is,therefore, weighted at 60%. This may help teacherslimit the paper-chase of 'design sheets'. As a vehiclefor teaching the DMT still assumes a great deal. Itpresumes that it is possible to 'teach' through holisticproject work and that the integration of themultitude of knowledge and skills within such workis straightforward for teacher and children. Similarlythere are assumptions on differentiation of abilitiesand backgrounds. These questions will be addressedbelow.

Discussion

The APU (1991) showed that children did morework in short, test conditions than in regular projectwork. This may appear to have little relevance today to day teaching and DMTs. If we relate this tothe design process, however, we may seeopportunities for teaching strategies. Certain stagesof design could be approached more efficiently andpossibly more effectively by limiting the timeavailable for them and making this clear to children.For example, aspects of research and idea generationcould be made into tightly limited exercises. Thismay appear to limit creative potential but in fact itmay do exactly the opposite by encouraging childrento use more appropriate design strategies such asrapid modelling and drawing rather than over-worked techniques. Encouraging speed in gettingdown ideas may help children to juxtapose ideasand so encourage efficiency and effectiveness.

Efficiency and effectiveness may also be developedin these contexts by techniques such as the use ofinformal groupwork in the initial stages. This andthe use of short deadlines can also promotemotivation and possibly the generation of ideas(Denton 1992).

Many teachers attempt to gain as much time indesign lessons by starting project work immediatelyand then finishing a lesson with only the time toquickly clear the workshop. Teachers mayappreciate the value of reflection but many are notpractising it. At the start of a lesson a few minutesreflection on the previous lesson can have value in'bridging' key points. Clear objectives should be setas much as is possible. Lessons should end withenough time to clear away and still have five to tenminutes of sharing experiences and reflection.Project work is, by its nature, individual. We loseopportunities to learn from each other by failing toexplicitly share and reflect.

Again the above may appear counter-productive inthat it loses valuable working time, but it may helpby improving the quality of the learning and design

experience. Parallels can be drawn with the CASEproject (Adey, et al. 1990) which looked at scienceproject work. This showed the importance ofreflection and bridging. It also showed the value for'cognitive conflict', that is the presentation of ideasto children in such a way that they sometimesconflict with existing concepts and promote thought.We could use cognitive conflict in reflection bycarefully chosen questions which make childrenthink about what they are doing.

An example of this may be in helping childrenintegrate aspects of any design process. The NCTechnology Proposals suggests we teach via holisticwork but this assumes that children can integratethe various aspects of the work or the cognitiveskills required. Some may assume that holisticapproaches are integrative by definition but this isnot so. Hesketh et al (1989) indicated this andpointed out that teachers need to be explicit inattempting to integrate aspects of learning.

To some extent NC requirements appear to presenta dichotomy between open ended projects and thestructured acquisition of knowledge but this neednot be the case. As indicated above DMTs are notthe exclusive method of teaching Technology. Theuse of more formally structured teaching such asthe old Control Technology (1975) courses couldbe used specifically to develop the knowledge base.These could lead into DMT type exercises whichexploit that knowledge and reinforce it. Effectivereflection, lead by teachers, can be used to integrateexisting learning with new knowledge. Similarly wecan now break away from the misconception ofwork 'starting' at AT 1 (generating ideas). It may bemore appropriate to start by evaluating somethingin order to make proposals on how it may be madebetter.

HMI (1992) observed that the most successfulDesign and Technology was where staff plannedwork together but work was taught separately byspecialist teachers. HMI do not indicate why thisshould be so. It may be a reflection on staffconfidence and competence within their specialism.It does, however, indicate that many teachers haveattempted to manage and teach through open endedprojects which may take children far beyond staffexperience. In theory there is nothing wrong withthe principle of joint exploration: teacher andchildren together. In practice such techniquesdemand a great deal of all parties and requirecareful development of design skills. DMTs aregoing to be more focussed. This may help manyteachers and children though it does open thedepressing prospect of design work which onlyexplores well understood territory and does not

73

Denton

IDATER 93 Loughborough University of Technology

equip children to venture beyond their immediateexperience. One of the principles of design teachingshould be helping children realise what they needto know and develop the skills to researchappropriately. These are high level skills and needto be thought of in relation to long term progression.If each DMT had areas, small at first, which were notcovered by staff 'inputs' but required 'research'children could progress in this aspect.

Conclusions and some points for teachersand examiners

The DMTs and particularly their focussed nature,may offer us a useful guide in developing betterstructured learning contexts. There are two areasto consider:

a. The nature of the design process itself andparticularly the development of effective andefficient design ability; this is performanceorientated.

b. The use of the design process as a teaching/learning experience; this is pedagogicallyorientated.

We should be able to handle the 'dichotomy' ofgaining specific knowledge against open endedproject work. We should attempt strategies, someof which are suggested above, to focus childrens'attention on various aspects of design work andparticularly the recognition of the need for effectiveuse of time.

Childrens' 'research' should be planned,appropriate, and of value rather than simply pre-design pasted-up catalogue sheets. Ideas should begenerated and developed through appropriatemodelling and drawing which should be rewarded.Inappropriate modelling, such as the use of detaileddrawings and colour in initial idea generation, shouldbe discouraged. Similarly examiners and thoseinterviewing for higher education need to lookbeyond the overall impact of a design sheet to thequality of the ideas beneath rather than just at thequality of the images used to convey them. Theability to produce high quality images is importantand must be taught and rewarded but we mustnever loose sight of the range of modelling optionsopen to us or the need to develop their use inappropriate ways.

Finally we must help children to reflect on theirdesign work and share experiences in order to gainfrom the learning potential within the designprocess. This takes time and considerable teachingskill but failure to do this restricts childrens learningto immediate personal experience and then only ata superficial level.

References

Adey, P; Shayer, M; Yates, C (1990) Better Learning.A report from the Cognitive Acceleration throughScience Education (CASE) project. A paper fromthe Centre for Educational Studies, Kings College,University of London. May 2nd.

Assessment of Performance Unit (1991) Theassessment of performance in Design andTechnology. Schools Examinations and AssessmentCouncil. J0048NJ

Denton, H G (1992) Towards maximising pupilendeavour: An enquiry into a learning approachcentred on teamwork and simulation in the contextof Technology education. Unpublished Ph.D thesis,Loughborough.

Department for Education. (December 1992).Technology for ages 5 to 16. Proposals for theSecretary of State for Education and the Secretaryof State for Wales. HMSO 0/N13609/A. EDUC J0544.

Department of Education and Science and the WelshOffice. (1990). Technology in the NationalCurriculum. HMSO.

Evans, M (1992) Model or prototype - which, whenand why? IDATER 92 Loughborough University ofTechnology.

Hesketh, B; Andrews, S and Chandler, P (1989).Opinion - Training for Transferable Skills: The Roleof Examples and Schema. Education and TrainingTechnology International. 26, 2, 105-156.

HMI (1992) Technology Key Stages 1,2 and 3. Areport by HM Inspectorate on the first year 1990-91.DES. HMSO, ISBN 0 11 270794 7

Viles, G L Ed(1975). Control Technology. Hodderand Stoughton.