Creating change? A review of the impact of design and technology in schools in England

Journal of Technology Education

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 46-65

  Wilson, Valerie ^a   Harris, Marlene ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b Edinburgh H C I Co Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18544382665     PISSN: 10451064     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21061/jte.v15i2.a.4     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Anning, A. (1994). Dilemmas and opportunities of a new curriculum: Design and technology with young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 155-177.
2. Atkinson, S. (1994). Key factors which affect pupils' performance in technology project work. In J. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 94: The International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, (pp. 30-37). Loughborough: Design and Technology, Loughborough University.
3. Atkinson, S. (2000). Does the need for high levels of performance curtail the development of creativity in design and technology project work? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 255-281.
4. Barlex, D. (1998). Design and technology-The Nuffield perspective in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 139-150.
5. Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & M. de Vries (Eds.), Technology education in the curriculum: Relationships with other subjects. Papers: Pupils' attitudes towards technology, PATT-12 Conference, March 15, 2002. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, 3-12. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://www.iteawww.org/PATT12/PATT12.pdf
6. Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary curriculum. London: Engineering Council. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from http://www.engc.org.uk/ publications/pdf/Interaction_Report.pdf
7. Burgess, S. (1998). Effects of group composition on individual learning/performance in design and technology: A case study approach. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 3(3), 201-208.
8. Cross, A. (1998). Coordinating design and technology across the primary school. London: Palmer Press.
9. Davies, D. (1997). The relationship between science and technology in the primary curriculum-Alternative perspectives. The Journal of Design and Technology Education. 2(2), 101-111.
10. Davies, L. (2000). Design and technology's contribution to the development of the use of language, numeracy, ICT, key skills, creativity and innovation and thinking skills. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(2), 166-170.
11. Davies, T. (2000). Confidence! Its role in the creative teaching and learning of design and technology. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 18-31.
12. Denton, H. (1993). Motivation levels in pupils' project work: Observations from an action research programme with particular reference to groupwork. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 3(1), 53-61.
13. Denton, H. (1994). Simulating design in the world of industry and commerce: Observations from a series of case studies in the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 16-31.
14. Department for Education and Skills [DfEE/QCA]. (1999). The National Curriculum for England, design and technology. London: DfES.
15. Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. (2002). 14-19: Extending opportunities, raising standards [Green. Cm.3390]. London: Stationery Office.
16. Department of Education and Science [DES]/Welsh Office [WO]. (1988). National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group: Interim report [The Parkes Report]. London: HMSO.
17. De Vries, M. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the 'technology is applied science' paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7-15.
18. Doherty, P., Huxtable, J., & Murray, J. (1991). Planning for capability and progression for design and technology in the National Curriculum. Design and Technology Teaching, 23(2), 70-76.
19. Eggleston, J. (2000). Teaching and learning design and technology: A guide to recent research and its application. London: Continuum.
20. Elmer, R. (1999). Modelling in design and technology education. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Associate Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton.
21. Elmer, R. (2002). Meta-cognition and design and technology education. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 7(1), 19-24.
22. Gardner, P. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24.
23. Harlen, W., & Malcolm, H. (1999). Setting and streaming: A research review. Edinburgh: SCRE.
24. Harris, M., & Wilson, V. (2003). Designs on the curriculum: A review of the literature on design and technology. London: DfES. Available from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/index.htm
25. Hendley, D., & Lyle, S. (1995). The potential of collaborative group work to increase pupil learning in the implementation of design and technology in the National Curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 6(3), 363-376.
26. Hennessy, S., & McCormick, R. (1994). The general problem-solving process in teaching education: Myth or reality? In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology. London: Routledge/Open University Press.
27. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design, 9(1), 1-36.
28. Hine, A. (1997). Motivation and methodology: Perspectives from an ongoing research enquiry into students' conceptions of technology. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 2(3), 208-217.
29. Howe, A. (1999). A visual literacy strategy: Why not? The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(3), 215-222.
30. Kimbell, R. (1996). The role of the state in your classroom. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(2), 99-100.
31. Kimbell, R. (1997). Standards in technology. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 2(1), 5-13.
32. Kimbell, R. (1999). Coming of age. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(1), 3-4.
33. Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.
34. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology: Developing science and technology education. Buckingham: Open University.
35. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology: The final report of the APU Design and Technology Project, 1985-91. London: School Examinations and Assessment Council/Evaluation and Monitoring Unit.
36. Koutsides, G. (2001). Using cooperative learning in design and technology. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 6(1), 55-59.
37. Lawler, T. (1997). Exploring and improving the metacognition of designing through practical structured workshops. In J. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 97: The International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 204-212). Loughborough: Design and Technology, Loughborough University.
38. Layton, D. (1993). Technology's challenge to science education: Cathedral, quarry or company store? Buckingham: Open University Press.
39. Layton, D. (1995). Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 89-118.
40. Levinson, R., Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Science and technology concepts in a design and technology project: A pilot study. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(2), 235-255.
41. Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education: Some areas of need. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 41-56.
42. Linton, T., & Rutland, M. (1998). An investigation into the interaction of teaching and learning in primary design and technology, academic ability and classroom behaviour. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 3(3), 216-222.
43. Makiya, H., & Rogers, M. (1992). Design and technology in the primary school: Case studies for teachers. London: Routledge.
44. McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230-241.
45. McCormick, R., & Murphy, P. (1994). Learning in the processes in technology. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Oxford.
46. McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, P. (1994). Problem solving processes in technology education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 5-34.
47. Office for Standards in Education [OfSTED]. (2001a), OfSTED subject reports 1999/00: Primary design and technology. London: OfSTED.
48. Office for Standards in Education [OfSTED]. (2001b). Improving attendance and behaviour in secondary schools: Strategies to promote educational inclusion. London: TSO.
49. Office for Standards in Education [OfSTED]. (2002a). Primary subject reports 2000/01: Design and technology. London: OfSTED.
50. Office for Standards in Education [OfSTED]. (2002b). Secondary subject reports 2000/01: Design and technology. London: OfSTED.
51. Paechter, C. (1993). What happens when a school subject undergoes a sudden change of status? Curriculum Studies, 1(3), 349-363.
52. Parkinson, E. (1999). Talking technology: Language and literacy in the primary school examined through children's encounters with mechanisms. Journal of Technology Education, 11(1), 60-73.
53. Penfold, J. (1988). Craft design and technology: Past, present and future. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
54. Perry, D., Davies, L., Booth, A., & Sage, J. (1998). The future for advanced level. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 3(2), 154-161.
55. Roberts, P. (1994). The place of design and technology education. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. 5). Paris: UNESCO.
56. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 65-72.
57. School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (1995). Design and technology in the National Curriculum. London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
58. School Examinations and Assessment Council [SEAC]. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: School Examinations and Assessment Council.
59. Shield, G. (1996). Formative influences on technology education: The search for an effective compromise in curriculum innovation. The Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 50-60.
60. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Student achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
61. Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (1992). Technology in the National Curriculum: Getting it right. London: Engineering Council.
62. Stables, K., & Rogers, M. (2001). Reflective and literate boys: Can design and technology make a difference? In E Norman & P Roberts (Eds.), IDATER 2001: The International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 124-129). Loughborough: Design and Technology, Loughborough University.
63. Twyford, J., & Jarvinen, E. (2000). The influences of socio-cultural interaction upon children's thinking and actions in prescribed and open-ended problem solving situations: An investigation involving design and technology lessons in English and Finnish primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 21-41.