Talking D&T

Send me a message.

How do we effectively assess knowledge in Design and Technology education? It's a question with surprisingly few research-backed answers, despite its critical importance to teaching practice.

I talk about  this assessment gap in the second episode of my sub-series on D&T research. I remind listeners that D&T knowledge encompasses both conceptual understanding ("knowing what") and procedural application ("knowing how"), forming the foundation upon which capability is built.

The limited existing research highlights two common assessment approaches: identifying technological objects and materials with justification, and describing product functions while understanding the relationship between form and function. I illustrate this with a propelling pencil example, demonstrating how students need vocabulary to articulate the tension between physical characteristics and functional requirements.

Teacher expertise emerges as perhaps the most crucial factor in effective knowledge assessment. Research clearly shows that teachers must possess secure subject content knowledge to design meaningful tests—a challenge in today's educational landscape with fewer specialist D&T teachers. I extend this requirement beyond content knowledge to include pedagogical understanding of assessment methodologies and curricular knowledge about D&T's structure.

For classroom application, I explain that formative assessment can be integrated within larger assessments as targeted checkpoints, allowing teachers to identify misconceptions efficiently. Interestingly, research reveals no particular assessment format (multiple-choice, essays, flowcharts) proves superior to others—what matters most is purposeful design aligned with learning goals.

Considering your own teaching practice, how might targeted knowledge assessments enhance your students' overall learning? The limited research presents an opportunity for practitioners to contribute to our collective understanding. Share your effective assessment strategies and join the conversation about balancing knowledge assessment with capability development in D&T education.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

How do we measure what truly matters in Design and Technology education? The challenge lies in distinguishing between assessing individual knowledge components and evaluating the holistic capability that emerges when students apply their learning autonomously.

In this foundational episode, I introduce a new mini-series focused entirely on assessment in D&T education. Drawing from research literature, I establish the critical difference between two assessment targets: specific knowledge components (which can be tested through formative methods) and overall D&T capability (which requires summative, holistic evaluation). For assessment to serve its purpose effectively, it must be both reliable (consistently marked) and valid (measuring what we think it's measuring).

The complexities of D&T assessment stem from its unique nature - we're not just testing what students know, but also what they can do. This incorporates both conceptual understanding and procedural skills across a spectrum of design and technological knowledge. When students respond to design contexts, they independently choose which aspects of their knowledge and experience to apply, making predetermined assessment criteria challenging.

This episode sets the stage for deeper explorations in upcoming instalments, where I'll examine research-based approaches to assessing design knowledge, implementing effective formative assessment through peer feedback and design critiques, and developing valid measures of D&T capability. Whether you teach in primary or secondary settings, these insights will help you reflect on whether your current assessment practices truly capture what you intend them to measure.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

What makes for effective teaching in Design & Technology? Returning after a brief hiatus, I delve into the research-backed pedagogical approaches that can transform D&T education. This episode synthesizes my recent exploration of teaching strategies, clarifying the crucial distinction between curriculum (what we teach) and pedagogy (how we develop student capabilities).

At the heart of D&T education lies a persistent misconception I'm determined to challenge: there is no single, correct design process. Drawing on extensive research, I outline four foundational pedagogical approaches: the traditional design-and-make activity, mainly designing (where imagination isn't limited by technical constraints), mainly making (focused on skill development), and exploring technology in society. Throughout these approaches, teachers must navigate the spectrum between restrictive and expansive teaching choices, deciding when to provide structure and when to foster independent thinking.

Recording and documenting the design journey presents another pedagogical decision point. Are traditional booklets limiting student creativity? Could engineer's notebooks, digital portfolios, or multimedia approaches offer more authentic documentation? I examine how deliberate choices about design recording can either restrict or enhance student learning. This episode provides practical guidance for D&T educators committed to moving beyond ritualistic approaches while preparing for my upcoming episode on assessment strategies. 

Links, References and Resources Mentioned

1. Kay Stables' chapter on signature pedagogies: You can find her chapter titled "Signature Pedagogies for Designing: A Speculative Framework for Supporting Learning and Teaching in Design and Technology Education" on SpringerLink.
2. Matt McLain's research on expansive and restrictive approaches in design and technology education: His work on this topic can be found in his thesis on the Liverpool John Moores University repository and in the International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
3. Design fiction as a methodology for designing in unfamiliar contexts: You can explore this methodology in the DRS Digital Library and the Nordes conference proceedings.
4. The Young Foresight Project (early 2000s): Information about this project is available on SpringerLink.
5. Todd Kelly's work on the engineer's notebook as a design assessment tool: His work is detailed in an article on Purdue University's website and on ERIC.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

In this episode of the Talking D&T podcast, I explore the pedagogical approach of product analysis, often known as IDEAS (Investigation, Disassembly, Evaluation, and Analysis). I examine how this signature pedagogy helps develop learners' understanding of technology in society—a core aim of the National Curriculum in England.

I discuss how product analysis bridges curriculum and pedagogy by teaching pupils to examine artefacts through multiple lenses. When handled thoughtfully, this approach enables young people to develop technological knowledge by understanding not just how products function, but why certain materials, components and manufacturing processes were selected.

My conversation highlights two particularly valuable aspects of product analysis:

Firstly, how physical interaction with products—handling a hair clip or observing people using a door—provides unique insights into design decisions and functionality that theoretical discussion alone cannot achieve.

Secondly, how examining products helps pupils recognise technological determinism—the reciprocal relationship between how technology shapes society and how society shapes technology.

Whether you're teaching primary or secondary D&T, this pedagogical approach offers rich opportunities to develop critical thinking and analytical skills. Consider how you might structure IDEAS activities with clear learning intentions: Are you focusing on materials selection, product evolution over time, or user experience?

Have you found effective ways to structure product analysis in your classroom? What impact have these approaches had on your pupils' design thinking and technological understanding? I'd love to hear your experiences.

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Subscriber-only episode

Send me a message.

In this episode, I explore the boundary between pedagogy and curriculum intent in D&T education. I reflect on how we can make our implicit modelling of design strategies more explicit to enhance pupils' learning and metacognitive awareness.

Drawing from my classroom experience, I consider those moments when I implemented activities like Design Fiction or 635, but didn't articulate why I'd selected these approaches or when pupils might choose to use them. I question whether I was sufficiently explicit when making material choices—why select 4mm acrylic rather than 6mm?—and how sharing this reasoning might have deepened pupils' design thinking.

Unlike simple demonstration of techniques, explicit modelling reveals the decision-making processes underpinning good design practice. While this connects to aspects of Rosenshine's principles of instruction, D&T presents unique opportunities as our projects unfold over weeks rather than single lessons.

This approach has relevance beyond the National Curriculum, with international educators similarly exploring how to make design thinking visible to learners. Whether you're teaching in a secondary school in Birmingham or a technology college in Melbourne, making your design decisions explicit helps pupils develop their own design capabilities.

As you plan your next scheme of work, which design decisions might you make visible to your pupils? How might explicitly modelling your thinking transform their understanding of the design process? I'd love to hear how explicit modelling works in your context.

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here.

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

In this episode, I delve into the pedagogical approaches that exist beyond the traditional 'design and make' activities in Design and Technology education. Drawing on research literature and classroom practice, I explore how 'mainly designing' and 'mainly making' activities can be powerful pedagogical tools when used deliberately and appropriately.

I share insights from Bill Nichol's work on designing for future contexts, including how case studies and question cards can help pupils develop empathy and understanding for users they cannot directly access. I also examine Hilda Ruth Beaumont's contributions to the Young Foresight Project, which demonstrated how pupils can design with materials not yet available in classrooms.

The episode highlights how these approaches allow pupils to explore unfamiliar contexts—whether from different countries, time periods, or future scenarios—without being constrained by their current making skills. I discuss how focused practical tasks provide opportunities for pupils to develop material understanding and manufacturing skills without the cognitive overload that can accompany full design and make activities.

These pedagogical approaches aren't replacements for design and make activities but complementary strategies that enhance pupils' learning. By recognising when we're using 'mainly designing' or 'mainly making' approaches (rather than masquerading them as design and make activities), we can better structure learning experiences that build capability.

How might your curriculum benefit from explicitly planning for 'mainly designing' and 'mainly making' activities? Could these approaches help you introduce pupils to emerging technologies or contexts beyond their immediate experience? Share your thoughts with colleagues and join the conversation about expanding our pedagogical repertoire in D&T education.

References, activities, and resources mentioned:

1. Donna Trebell's doctoral studies on "designing without making"
2. Young Foresight Project (late 1990s) - introducing children to new materials and processes not available in classrooms
3. Bill Nichol's work on question cards for exploring different users
4. "Designing Our Tomorrows" research by Bill Nichol, including hands-on kit
5. Bob McCormick's paper on "the ritual of the design project"
6. Matt McLain's and Sarah Davies' collaborative work with me on "mainly designing" and "mainly making" terminology
7. Nuffield resources for focused practical tasks (available on "dandtfordant" website)
8. IDEO cards (mentioned in context of exploring different functions and uses of objects)

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

In this episode of Talking D&T, I explore the complex nature of design and make activities in design and technology education. Drawing on research from Richard Kimball, David Perry, and Robert McCormick, I unpack the pedagogical approach of design and make that underpins our subject and challenge some common misconceptions about "the design process".

A key insight emerges around the balance between process and outcome in D&T education. When we become fixated on the final product, we risk compromising valuable learning opportunities along the way. I examine Matt McLain's framework of expansive versus restrictive approaches, questioning when it's appropriate to give pupils freedom to make decisions and when more structured guidance serves them better.

I also explore McCormick's notion of 'revelation and ritual' in design processes, highlighting the danger of following steps mechanistically without making learning explicit to pupils. This raises important considerations about how we develop pupils' design and technology capability rather than simply guiding them through predetermined steps.

For D&T teachers, this episode offers a chance to reflect on your own practice. How do you balance the focus on outcomes with the development of skills and knowledge? Where in your projects do pupils have genuine opportunities to make decisions, experience failure, and justify their choices?

Whether you're teaching in a primary or secondary setting, these considerations are crucial for developing authentic design and technology capability in your pupils. How might you adapt your planning to create a more balanced approach to design and make activities in your classroom?

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

Drawing a clear line between how we teach and what we teach seems straightforward—until you step into a Design & Technology classroom. In this thought-provoking exploration of pedagogy in D&T education, I unpack why teachers often blur the boundaries between teaching methods and curriculum content, sometimes without realising it.

The heart of effective D&T education lies in developing students' design and technology capability, but this requires navigating complex terrain. When we structure lessons around design processes without explicitly highlighting those processes as strategies students can adopt independently, we risk creating what researcher Bob McCormick calls "the ritual of the design project." Students follow prescribed steps without developing true capability—they complete the activities without gaining the metacognitive awareness needed to transfer these approaches to new contexts.

Through practical examples like the 6-3-5 collaborative design technique and tool demonstrations, I illustrate the difference between clear pedagogical separation (when demonstrating cutting techniques) and problematic blending (when teaching design processes). This distinction matters profoundly: when students don't recognise a design strategy as a transferable tool they can apply independently, their development as designers is limited. They become dependent on teacher-led frameworks rather than developing autonomous design thinking.

For D&T educators, this episode offers an opportunity to reflect on your teaching practice. Are you explicitly highlighting design strategies as transferable tools? Do your students recognise when they're learning processes they can apply independently? How might restructuring your lessons enhance students' ability to develop genuine capability rather than just following teacher-led frameworks?

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

Mentioned in the show

1. Andrew Pollard's text about pedagogy - the reflective teaching book
2. Bob McCormick's paper about "the ritual of the design project"
3. Reference to Non-examined assessment (NEA) - coursework in England
4. Matt McClain's work on demonstrations as a teaching approach
5. The 6-3-5 technique of designing (design strategy where students fold A3 paper into six boxes and take turns creating designs in three-minute intervals)

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.

Knowledge frameworks matter profoundly in Design and Technology education, yet teachers often struggle to distinguish between what students need to know for a specific project versus what builds lasting capability. This episode tackles that challenge head-on.

In this episode, I explore the concept of knowledge frameworks in design and technology education, continuing my series on what research tells us about D&T. I delve into two types of knowledge that I believe are particularly relevant to our subject: residual knowledge and fingertip/situated knowledge.

Drawing from Christine Counsell's work in history education, I explain how these frameworks can help D&T teachers distinguish between knowledge that serves an immediate design context and knowledge that builds lasting capability. Using a biodiversity garden project as an example, I illustrate how certain knowledge (like specific materials properties) serves the immediate task, while other understanding contributes to transferable skills students carry forward.

This distinction is crucial for curriculum planning. When teaching about materials like chicken wire or bamboo, facts about cutting techniques might be context-specific, but understanding material selection represents residual knowledge that contributes to enduring D&T capability. This framework helps teachers make intentional decisions about what deserves emphasis and retrieval practice.

I also explore the importance of authentic contexts, warning against tokenistic project scenarios while emphasising that engagement remains crucial for effective learning. D&T educators must draw on their understanding of local environments and student interests, adapting resources to create meaningful learning experiences.

For teachers developing units of work, this episode offers both theoretical clarity and practical guidance to navigate the tension between project-based learning and building transferable knowledge. How might this framework transform your approach to curriculum planning and help you build students' D&T capability more effectively? 

Links and Resources Mentioned

1. Christine Counsell's work on residual knowledge and fingertip knowledge in history education
2. McCormick's 2004 paper on situated knowledge in design contexts
3. Kay Stables' work on authentic contexts in D&T education
4. Unit of work about biodiversity in school gardens created by Alison Hardy and Sarah Davies
5. Ofsted research reviews published on their website

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

Support the show

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. 

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Subscriber-only episode

Send me a message.

In this episode of Talking D&T, I explore the crucial distinction between using design strategies as pedagogy and explicitly teaching these strategies as curriculum content. Drawing from my recent research on blurred boundaries between pedagogy and curriculum intent, I consider how teachers can make their modelling more explicit to develop students' metacognitive awareness.

I examine how D&T teachers often implicitly model design strategies – like design fiction or the 635 method – without explicitly discussing the decision-making process behind choosing these approaches. Two particularly interesting insights emerge: firstly, the importance of 'thinking aloud' about our design decisions as teachers, and secondly, how we can make visible the reasoning behind material choices and project constraints.

Beyond simple demonstration of techniques, this approach involves sharing our thinking as designers and curriculum planners. I suggest practical ways teachers might implement this metacognitive modelling at different stages of a project, helping pupils understand not just how to use design strategies, but when and why they might select them.

For D&T practitioners, this perspective offers an opportunity to reflect on your own practice. How explicit are you about the design decisions you've made when planning projects? Do your pupils understand why certain materials or constraints have been selected? Consider how you might share more of your design thinking with learners to develop their capacity for independent decision-making.

What small change could you make in your next lesson to make your design decisions more visible to your pupils?

Acknowledgement:
Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.

If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'

Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.

If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show.

If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here.

If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!