Alice Hellard, Goldsmiths University of London
At Goldsmiths the major curriculum studies assignment during the D&T PGCE programme is focused on active and object-based learning. We live in a period in which arguments for knowledge-based learning and conventional ‘academic’ teaching and learning are ever more influential in policy and curriculum agendas (Gibb, 2021), which can be at odds with the nature and purpose of design and technology and design as a context dependent activity. In this context of a sometimes challenging binary perception of knowledge and skills, we often come across classroom binaries of practical and theory, where in reality the practice of design and technology usually sits comfortably and/or uncomfortably somewhere in between.
Our focus on active and object-based learning through the use of handing collections is designed to provide trainees with pedagogical perspectives that enable them to consider and critique some of the important theory and approaches inherent in our subject, developing and personalising their practice as design educators.
With its foundations in constructivism and social constructivist theory, active learning theory suggests that actively engaging in learning facilitates deep learning and enables learners to develop knowledge through reflection – the learner is engaged in personal meaning-making. Crucial to this is the active engagement of the teacher in planning and facilitating structured learning activity that moves students along a continuum from passive to active (Watkins et al., 2007).
Characteristics of active learning are typically considered to be social and cooperative: dialogue and discussion, collaborative group work, problem-solving, peer review, to name a few (Johnson and Johnson, 2019). These forms of learning activity are also important in design and technology and professional design practice (Williams and Barlex, 2020; McLellan and Nicholl, 2011), and object-based learning can be a useful vehicle for this.
The use of objects in school based teaching is considered integral to the development of design and technological literacy, but needs to be undertaken with careful consideration (Frederik et al., 2011). In traditional linear design and make projects students often encounter objects at the research stage, analysing a small number of products (sometimes down the well-trodden paths of frameworks like ACCESSFM) that are often the same as that which is being designed and made. This type of product analysis can be superficial, and is argued to contribute to design fixation and limited learning outcomes (McLellan and Nicholl, 2011).
We are fortunate to be able to work with Professor Kay Stables, who introduces her research on handling collections and design capability over a number of taught sessions (Stables, 2000; Kimbell and Stables, 2007). We then ask our trainees to look beyond conventional school-based practice to the extensive field of research around object handling in the museum and gallery sector. This is also an excellent opportunity to reinforce to trainees the interdisciplinary nature of design and design practice.
It is no coincidence that object-based learning has strong foundations in the museum and gallery sector, where visitor and participant learning is primarily centred around personal and collaborative meaning-making, rather than against rigid assessment criteria found in formal education settings (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). Approaches to object-based learning in museums centre on notions of socially distributed learning that is enhanced by interaction with objects as they function as tools for helping learners to construct, mediate and understand knowledge (Chatterjee and Hannan, 2017) This situates the learner’s personal meaning-making in real-world contexts.
Stables (2000) emphasises the significance of hands on and sensory experiences for learners in schools, and also the way in which objects are introduced, which should provoke intrigue and excitement through challenging tasks. This research suggests that challenging hands-on activity leads to greater cognitive engagement, and attainment, which in turn leads to increased enjoyment and motivation. Stables focuses on the use of handling collections to develop students’ design capability, but they can also be used to learn about materials, mechanisms or finishes, provenance and technological development, or to develop empathic approaches to designing, for example. In an iterative (rather than linear) design process, handling collections can be useful at a number of points as the idea and associated research develops (Stables, 2014).
Finally, a key component of the assignment is practitioner research. Initial teacher education at Goldsmiths strongly promotes the value of reflective practice, and in emphasising this opportunity for practitioner research we aim to build on this. Practitioner research is an important tool for trainee teachers to begin to value and employ because it acknowledges the validity of knowledge created in the spaces between theory and practice, and brings in knowledge and experience of colleagues and through personal reflection.
This introduction to practitioner research can help to address some of the woollier spaces we encounter between theory and practice in the teaching of design and technology. Watkins et al (2007) argue that active learning ought really to be called ‘active-reflective learning’. We want our trainees to value the knowledge they are making from their earliest days in teaching, and through careful and active inquiry and reflection to acknowledge their own important role in developing quality active learning opportunities for their students.
References
Chatterjee, H. J. & Hannan, L. (2017) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. . Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=none&isbn=9781317143413 (Accessed 23 August 2021).
Frederik, I. et al. (2011) Teaching and learning the nature of technical artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 21 (3), 277–290.
Gibb, N. (2021) ‘The Importance of a Knowledge-Rich Curriculum’, in July 2021 Department for Education, Gov.UK. p. . Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-importance-of-a-knowledge-rich-curriculum (Accessed 14 January 2022).
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007) Museums and education: purpose, pedagogy, performance. Museum meanings. London ; New York: Routledge.
Kimbell, Richard. & Stables, Kay. (2007) Researching Design Learning: Issues and Findings from Two Decades of Research and Development Science & technology education library v. 34. Springer. . Available from: https://www.dawsonera.com:443/abstract/9781402051159.
McLellan, R. & Nicholl, B. (2011) “If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a chair”: product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 21 (1), 71–92.
Paris, S. G. (ed.) (2002) Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stables, K. (2014) Designerly Well-being: Implications for pedagogy that develops design capability. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal. 19 (1), 9–20.
Stables, K. (2000) ‘Hands on… Heads on… Hearts on: the use of handling collections and product analysis as a strategy for resourcing design and technological activity’, in 2000 pp. 47–59.
Watkins, C. et al. (2007) Effective Learning in Classrooms. London: SAGE Publications.
Williams, P. J. (Ed) & Barlex, D. (eds.) (2020) Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools : research informed perspectives for classroom teachers. Contemporary issues in technology education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Commenti