examining gcse design and technology - insights from the
TRANSCRIPT
Examining GCSE Design and Technology - Insightsfrom the Nuffield Design and Technology Project
AbstractThis article looks critically at the ways inwhich design and technology is currentlyexamined at GCSE level. It identifies two keyelements, technology for citizenship anddesigner maker capability, and explores howthese might be assessed. It discusses theissue of group work in examined projects andquestions the place of written examinations inassessing deigner maker capability. Itpresents a preliminary analysis of 1998higher tier examination papers in terms ofeight question types discussed in the NuffieldD and T KS4 Teachers' Guides. Finally, thearticle makes a plea for an assessmentscheme that matches the requirements ofteaching designer maker capability andtechnology for citizenship.
Some background considerationsDesign and technology is a relatively newsUbject although one with a long andintriguing history, with influences from avariety of traditions - craft, home economics,art and design, technical and vocationaleducation and technology education. Theprofessional association for teachers ofdesign and technology, DATA, is itself onlynine years old and the current form of thisjournal, in which all articles are refereed isonly three years old. The work of those whodesigned the first set of design andtechnology Orders provided a robustrationale for its inclusion in the curriculum. Inthe Parke's Report (ref 1) the unique reasonfor teaching it to children and young people isgiven as follows:
"What is it that pupils can learn fromdesign and technological activities whichcan be learnt in no other way? In its mostgeneral form, the answer to this questionis in terms of capability to operateeffectively and creatively in the madeworld. The goal is competence in theindeterminate zones of practice."
Initially this was almost incomprehensible tomany teachers and over six years a range ofrevisions has led to a much more pragmatic(some would say limited) definition (ref 2):
"Pupils should be taught to develop theirdesign and technology capability throughcombining their Designing and Makingskills with Knowledge and Understandingin order to design and make products."
It is worth reviewing initial rationale in thelight of politicians' and industrialists'comments on the requirements for our nationto compete in global markets.
"The new workplace is characterised byambiguity and unpredictability. In order tocope, staff need skills such as resilience,jUdgement and the ability to think in amuch more creative way." Amin Rajan,Chief Executive, Create (ref 3)
"I believe it is time to show a fresh face tothe world and reshape Britain as one ofthe 21st century's most forward thinkingand modern nations. I challengecompanies to demonstrate that the UKcan lead the world by creating productsand services that exemplify our strengthsin innovation, creativity and design."Rt Hon Tony Blair, Prime Minister, GreatBritain (ref 4)
We are now in a position to regard designand technology as a coherent subject in itsown right, concerned with developingdesigner maker capability in the young,whatever materials and components areused for the designing and making.
~here is, however, an important additionaldimension to this subject, almost hiddenwithin the programme of study, which relatesto the role of understanding technology aspart of citizenship education.
"8. QualityPupils should be taught to distinguishbetween quality of design and quality ofmanufacture, and use further criteria andtechniques that help them judge thequality of a product, including:
a how far it meets a clear needb its fitness for purposec whether it is an appropriate use ofresourcesd its impact beyond the purpose for whichit was designede how far it meets manufacturability andmaintenance requirements." (ref 2)
Section d, asking students to consider impactbeyond intended use, opens a veritablemoral minefield. 'Who wins?' and 'Wholoses?' from the introduction of a technology,the power bases of the winners and losers
Director, NuffieldDesign andTechnology, London
Examining GCSE Design and Technology - Insights from theNuffield Design and Technology Project
and the possibilities of losers influencingwinners are the very stuff of participatorycitizenship.
Citizenship is gaining in significance due tothe increasing importance given to spiritual,moral, social and cultural development in theschool curriculum.(ref 5) Design andtechnology has a natural role to play in thisarea of the curriculum.
These two important elements should clearlyhave an influence on both what and how wechoose to assess. On what we assessbecause we want to be sure we areassessing what we think is important indesign and technology - the assessmentmust be valid. And on how we assessbecause we want our assessment methodsto be understood by teachers and candidatesas well as being reliable and consistent. Andof course we want it to be easilymanageable.
Assessing students' designing andmakingThere is general agreement that students'ability in designing and making should beassessed - the 'what' of assessment is notcontested. It is in considering the 'how' thatinteresting issues arise. It is well known thatthe physical artefact produced by a studenttells only a partial story. The struggle ofbringing ideas in the mind to the reality of theproduct easily remains hidden to theuntutored eye and is almost inevitablymysterious to those who have not workedwith the young person doing the designingand making. It is here that the argument for adesign folder is at its strongest - to provideevidence of that struggle, evidence of theintellectual and practical endeavours that turnideas into products that can be used andevaluated.
What would I want to see in a student'swork? Here is my wish list:
the individual signature of the childshould be clear - designing is a personalactivity
an intelligent use of strategies fordesigning should be obvious - there aredifferent ways of designing for differentpurposes and these should be obvious
an appropriate use of communicationtechniques should be apparent - differenttechniques for different purposes
an intelligent use of researchedinformation should be clearly visible
a rational use of technical informationshould be in evidence.
Overall I want the student to tell a clear,internally consistent and coherent story of thedecisions they made in designing and makingthe product. I want evidence of designerlybehaviour. I want to see a balancedcombination of:
understanding of and skill inmanufacturing.
The Examination Boards were asked toprovide the following information:
1998 full course lower tier paper for allfocus areas plus marking scheme
1998 full course higher tier paper for allfocus areas plus marking scheme
the 1998 syllabi that refers to theseexaminations
instructions and mark schemes for fullGCSE course work submissions for1998.
Northern Examinations and AssessmentBoard, Midland Examining Group andLondon Examinations (EdExcel) supplied allthis information. Southern Examining Groupsupplied only the syllabus. In additionNorthern Examinations and AssessmentBoard provided course work gUidance forpupils' materials.
How do the current Examination Boards'course work requirements compare with mywish list? I ask this question because severalof the Nuffield Area Field Officers havewritten reports with comments about theuniformity, anonymity and 'safeness' of muchGCSE course work. The students had beenwell taught, they followed the requirements of
resi
stan
tm
ater
ials
tech
nolo
gy
food
tech
nolo
gy
text
iles
tech
nolo
gy
grap
hic
prod
ucts
elec
troni
cpr
oduc
ts
syst
ems
and
cont
rol
tech
nolo
gy
Com
mon
acro
ssal
lfo
cus
area
s:
•de
sign
and
mak
eac
tivity
•de
sign
folio
•pr
oduc
t•
evid
ence
of:
Des
crip
tion
ofpr
oble
mR
esea
rch
Ana
lysi
sS
peci
ficat
ion
Gen
erat
ion
ofid
eas
Dev
elop
men
tof
solu
tion
Pla
nnin
gan
dpr
oduc
tion
ofou
tcom
eE
valu
atio
n•
serie
sof
ques
tions
deal
ing
with
key
issu
esan
dpo
inte
rsto
war
dsov
erar
chin
gis
sues
•sp
ellin
g,pu
nctu
atio
nan
dgr
amm
arcr
iteria
Diff
eren
ces
betw
een
focu
sar
eas:
Tim
ere
quire
men
ts:
Res
ista
ntm
ater
ials
tech
nolo
gy,
text
iles
tech
nolo
gyan
del
ectro
nic
prod
ucts
40-5
0ho
urs
supe
rvis
edtim
eG
raph
icpr
oduc
ts40
hour
ssu
perv
ised
time
Food
tech
nolo
gy25
hour
ssu
perv
ised
time
Sys
tem
san
dco
ntro
l:m
inor
proj
ect
15ho
urs
supe
rvis
edtim
e,m
ajor
proj
ect
40-5
0ho
urs
supe
rvis
edtim
e
Com
mon
acro
ssal
lfo
cus
area
s:
•de
sign
and
mak
ea
prod
uct
·40
hour
scu
rric
ulum
time
•m
arki
ngcr
iteria
Form
ulat
ion
ofth
ede
sign
brie
fan
dsp
ecifi
catio
nR
esea
rch
and
inve
stig
atio
nG
ener
atio
nof
Idea
sS
elec
tion
and
deve
lopm
ent
Pla
nnin
gan
dor
gani
satio
nP
rodu
ctio
n/ou
tcom
eE
valu
atio
nC
omm
unic
atio
nsk
ills
•sp
ellin
g,pu
nctu
atio
nan
dgr
amm
arcr
iteria
Com
mon
acro
ssal
lfo
cus
area
s:•
desi
gnan
dm
ake
activ
ity•
40/5
0ho
urs
curr
icul
umtim
e•
desi
gnfo
lder
•qu
ality
prod
uct
•re
late
dto
indu
stria
l/com
mer
cial
prac
tices
incl
udin
gap
prop
riate
appl
icat
ions
ofsy
stem
san
dco
ntro
l
•as
sess
men
tob
ject
ives
:Id
entif
icat
ion
ofa
need
orop
portu
nity
lead
ing
toa
brie
fR
esea
rch
into
ade
sign
brie
fre
sulti
ngin
asp
ecifi
catio
nG
ener
atio
nof
idea
sP
rodu
ctde
velo
pmen
tP
rodu
ctpl
anni
ngan
dre
alis
atio
nE
valu
atio
nan
dte
stin
g•
spel
ling,
punc
tuat
ion
and
gram
mar
crite
ria
Com
mon
acro
ssal
lfo
cus
area
s:•
desi
gnan
dm
ake
apr
oduc
t,no
tle
ssth
an30
hour
s
•de
sign
fold
er•
prac
tical
outc
ome
•in
vest
igat
ion
ofa
prod
uct,
not
less
than
10ho
urs
•ill
ustra
ted
repo
rt•
asse
ssm
ent
obje
ctiv
es:
Dev
elop
ing
idea
sC
omm
unic
atio
nE
valu
atio
nM
ater
ials
,to
ols
and
equi
pmen
tIn
dust
rial
prac
tices
•sp
ellin
g,pu
nctu
atio
nan
dgr
amm
arcr
iteria
m >< III ~. ~ ~ CC G) o en m o (I)
z!!!
.s:::
CC::::
~~
~Q
,Q,
O~ m0
cO'
5'~0
~0
Q,~
~I g.5"
~!!!
.OC
C03
:CC
C/l'<
-0. .."tJ
0a
3Cir
,..o
::r
-(I
)
Examining GCSE Design and Technology - Insights from theNuffield Design and Technology Project
Hhe capabilitytasksare organisedinto linesof interestwhereeachline of interestrepresentsa producttype. These have beenchosento includebothfamiliarand unfamiliarproducttypes. In workwith resistantmaterialsthe linesof interestarebody adornment,seating,storage,lighting,automata,toysand games,testingequipment.In work withtextilesthe linesofinterestare itemsforprotection,for thetheatre,for fashionaccessories,to reflectstreetstyle, for interiors,bags and carriers,tentsand kites.
the assessment scheme to the letter. Thebetter candidates got the better grades butthe work generally lacked flair, personalsignatures were not much in evidence at anylevel of achievement. There is evidence thatteachers give Key Stage 3 students moreautonomy designing and makingassignments than Key Stage 4 and somehave argued that this is due to the coursework assessment requirements for Key Stage4. (ref 6)
All the Examination Boards give guidanceabout both design portfolios and madeoutcomes to be submitted for GCSE coursework. The main features of course workrequirements as included in the syllabus foreach Board are summarised in Table 1.
Invariably the assessment criteria are linkedto a seemingly linear set of stages in adesigning and making process. There isusually a caveat about flexibility, for example:
Northern Examinations andAssessment BoardThese are not necessarily consecutivestages of designing, although in muchdesign work they do follow logically fromOne another. Design requires a flexibleapproach which allows all aspects to beconsidered and reconsidered whenever itis appropriate.
Midland Examining GroupIt is appreciated that for assessmentpurposes, the criteria have been written ina linear form. It may be that within focusareas of design and technology somestages may interrelate and be cyclical inapproach.
Even with these caveats it is easy to see howthis can become a series of ritualistic hoopsto be jumped through; where the activity haslost dynamic purpose as far as the student isconcerned and has become reduced to 'whatI must put in my folder'. From the teachers'view point structuring the folder according tothe assessment criteria makes theassessment much easier to manage.
Nick Givens, Nuffield Area Field Officer forthe South West, writes passionately aboutthis:
"Our problem always has been, andremains, that of finding efficient painlessways of generating EVIDENCE thatdoesn't stifle the creativity. So theritualisation of designing, the conversionof the design folio into a product and theinflexible narrow interpretation of whatconstitutes design, represent a majorproblem. There needs to be scope forpupils to model and record their thinkingin a variety of ways AND orders. We can'tcarry On letting a narrow view of whatconstitutes EVIDENCE-of-design dictatethe nature of design." (ref 7)
Only if there is the possibility of diverseresponse will students be able to respondfrom within themselves and reveal theirpersonal designing signatures. Is it too muchto ask for a broad sweep approach to 'tellingthe story of your designing and making' withgeneral guidelines indicating the areas ofconsideration - the balanced combination offeatures referred to above? The production ofsuch portfolios would cease to be a chore,they would be working documents and laythe foundation of skills for life.
What about group work in examinedprojects?I know that many examiners feel strongly thatthe candidates are individuals and should beassessed as such but I believe that One ofthe most important qualities of an individual ishis or her ability to work as part of a group orteam. The Project has promotedopportunities for this in all the focus areasidentifying those parts of a designing andmaking assignment where students workingOnthe same line of interest1 can co-operate- research activity, brainstorming, reviewingprogress, evaluating. But for those who seethe design and technology endeavour asnaturally a team based activity - all thesenior designers from a range of highlysuccessful design consultancies who madepresentations to the examiners at a recentQCA meeting (ref 8) - this falls short of themark.
So I wonder if it is possible to have lines ofinterest where group work is the natural wayof working and to give some students thisoption with the inducement that theircertificate will indicate their ability to work wellin a group. I believe industry and commerce
Examining GCSE Design and Technology - Insights from theNuffield Design and Technology Project
Question type 1 about knowledge definitions (what?)The candidate is expected to show understanding of key terms, principles and concepts. The question will be written in a form whichrequires candidates to recognise or give an example which illustrates the meaning, but does not expect candidates to be able to recall
and state a definition.
Question type 2 about knowledge of purpose (why?)
The candidate is expected to show understanding of:
why things are done in a particular way (why do it in that way?)why actions or decisions are significant or important (why would you do 'x'? or why is it like that?)why decisions are appropriate or have been made (why has it been made from 'x'?).
Question type 3 about knowledge of method (how?)
The candidate is expected to describe or explain showing understanding of:
processes, materials and techniques (how could I make this design from particular materials?)the application of technological principles (show how you would do 'x' or make 'x' happen?)the application of design strategies (how would you research, analyse, review, make decisions, plan, test, evaluate, etc.).
The question will be written in a form which asks students to describe using a suitable mode of response, such as notes and
diagrams, grid/matrix or flow chart etc.
Question type 4 about speculating about change (what if?)
The candidate will be asked to predict the results of given changes in circumstances or variables, including:
the direct consequences of things (what would happen if you did 'x'?)the effect on connected things (if you changed "x" then what effect would this have on "y"?).
The question will be written in a form which asks the student to suggest what would happen if.
Question type 5 about creative problem-solving
The candidate will be asked to develop a personal response to a short technical design problem.
The question will be written in a form which requires students to suggest possible solutions, compare their alternatives, select andjustify a recommended solution.
Question type 6 about design strategies
The candidate will be asked to use design strategies on a short design scenario.
The question will be written in a form which requires the student to use a given strategy to carry out design analysis, development orevaluation.
Strategies could include:
clarifying briefs - turning an open ended brief into a more specific formwriting specifications - turning a headline specification into a more detailed formattribute analysis - analysing possible product characteristicsbrainstorming - completing a started brainstorm or organising a random list from brainstorm to show categories and linksimpact of design and technology - interrogating a completed winners and losers chartuser trip - interpreting user views and opinions.
Question type 7 about presenting and interpreting information
The candidate will be asked to make sense of design and technology research data.
The question will be written in a form which requires a student to:
present the information clearlyinterpret the data and reach conclusions.
Question type 8 about interpreting a short case study
The candidate will be asked to use comprehension skills, design strategies and knowledge to demonstrate their understanding aboutdesign and technology activity from the world outside school.
The question will be written in a form which requires the student to:
find a piece of information from the textexplain something that is described in the text
make judgements about the quality and effects of the design and technology described.
Examining GCSE Design and Technology - Insights from theNuffield Design and Technology Project
would welcome this. Interestingly theacquisition of much vaunted 'key skills' seenas essential to national prosperity can beshown to occur quite naturally within groupbased working within design and technology(ref 9). Yet another reason why industrial andcommercial support should be forthcoming.
Here are two examples from commercialgraphic products. First the Star Trek Theseare the Voyages pop up book. It consists offour double pages. Each double page spreadis a master work of cardboard engineeringand would constitute a major project in itself.Designing and making such a book as awhole represents a real challenge for a groupof four students with opportunities for bothconventional and ICT based designing andmaking. Second the Marvel Comics SuperHeroes GIANT Board Game book - 6different games, each with its own rules in anA2 format card book complete with electronicdice. Even without the electronic dice, and ithas to be admitted that this feature isextremely irritating, the production of such agiant book is a delightful challenge for a smallgroup of 16 year olds. Clearly we don't wantcopies of these products but they dorepresent interesting product types suitablefor group designing and making.
It is not a big curriculum developmentexercise to identify a range of product typesfor each focus area that is suitable for groupor team work and to develop them into fullblown designing and making assignments.The Nuffield Design and Technology Projecthas already developed a 14 point frameworkfor describing capability tasks (the designingand making assignments of the NationalCurriculum) (ref 10). Identifying a set offeatures that are important for group workand could form the basis for assessment isnot a difficult exercise. The literature alreadycontains well developed examples (ref 11and ref 12). I think that this is an endeavourthat could attract industrial sponsorship and Isuggest that DATA, the Nuffield Design andTechnology Project in co-operation with oneor more Examination Boards, seek suchsponsorship.
What about a written examination?First I must ask 'Do we really need one?' Is itimportant to examine across the entireprogramme of study/syllabus? Or should we
be interested in what students do with whatthey have been taught. It is obvious that theyare unlikely to use all the syllabus in a singlecapability task - but does that matter?Second I ask 'Does it have to be like this?' Ifwe decide that it is important to test theirsubject knowledge in a context outside theirown designing and making then it isimportant that this is done efficiently andeffectively - not, I suggest, as a design onpaper exercise. The Key Stage 4 Teacher'sGuides in the Nuffield Design andTechnology Project materials identify a rangeof question types that can be used for awritten examination (see Table 2). If we reallydo need such a written paper - and I'm notconvinced that we do - then I would like tosee these question types taken into account.
One way of starting a discussion about thisissue is to examine the current higher tier fullcourse papers for two different focus areasfrom different boards for the presence ofthese different questions types. In one sensethis is an unfair analysis as the questionpapers were not necessarily designed tomeet the criteria of including a spread ofdifferent question types but the analysis willreveal the question types currently prevalentin GCSE written papers. The results of thisanalysis plus comments are available uponrequest from the author at Nuffield Designand Technology, 28 Bedford Square, LondonWC1B 3EG.
Inspection of these results shows that thereis only minimal comparability between thequestion type profile of the different focusareas within a single examination board (withthe exception of electronic products andsystems and control). Inspection shows thatthere is some similarity in the question typeprofile between the examination papers fromdifferent examination boards for the samefocus area. The limited presence andabsence of question types is noteworthy.Type 1 questions dealing with knowledge butwithout requiring detailed recall are almostcompletely absent. Type 4 questions aboutspeculating are almost completely absent.Type 6 questions about strategies are scarce.Type 7 questions about presenting andinterpreting information are almost completelyabsent. Type 8 questions requiring theinterpretation of case studies are completelyabsent.
Examining technology for citizenshipNow I ask "What about a written examination
that tests technology for citizenship as a
counterpoint to designer maker ability tested
through project work?" This would be a very
interesting exercise. The questions need
NOT, and I stress this, be answered by
essays. They could involve reading about
technology in action and answering questions
exploring value judgements of differing
complexity. Candidates could be required to
use a range of evaluation strategies as part
of this. Some questions could involve
interpreting images by annotating. Of course
there will need to be precautions taken here.
At a recent Nuffield Area Field Officer
meeting Torben Steeg voiced a concern "It's
important that expertise in this area is as the
result of teaching, not simply a casual read of
The Guardian." The challenge here is to both
syllabus and examination question designers.
However, it is be important not to be over
conventional in designing either the questions
or the teaching materials as indicated by a
recent Design Council discussion paper (ref
13).
"Many of today's young people prefer to
receive their messages about life in visual
form. They have the ability to decipher
messages qUickly from visual imagery.
This has huge implications for education
and training. To be more effective,
teaching may need to be more visually
based; literacy may need to be more
visual than written."
Concluding remarksIf we are interested in an education that
values and promotes designer maker ability
and technology for citizenship then we should
use appropriate assessment techniques -
project work for the former, structured
questioning for the latter. Design and
technology teachers know how to teach and
assess project work; it is one of their
strengths and, with established moderation
procedures, we know that their professional
judgement can be trusted - "It suggests that
given appropriate training it is possible to pick
out and agree on a measure of consolidated
holistic capability."(ref 14). Teaching
technology for citizenship is less certain
territory which is why a robust examination
supported by appropriate training and good
curriculum materials will be needed. This is
Examining GCSE Design and Technology - Insights from theNuffield Design and Technology Project
not beyond current resources; the good
curriculum materials already exist, (Nuffield
case studies) there is a large and growing
body of expertise in this area of the
curriculum (ref 15) and Examination Boards
have an established track record in prOViding
in service training. So I believe we are in a
strong position to match the assessment
techniques we use to our educational aims
and intentions.
References1 National Curriculum Design and TechnologyWorking Group Interim Report (1988) Departmentfor Education and Science and the Welsh Office
2 School Curriculum and Assessment Authority(1995) Design and Technology in the NationalCurriculum London School Curriculum andAssessment Authority
3 Amin Rajan, Chief Executive, Create, in Designand Key Skills, Design Council 1998
4 Rt Hon Tony Blair, Prime Minister, Great Britainin Millennium Products, Design Council 1998
5 See for example The Promotion of Pupils'Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development(November 1997) QCA Draft Guidance for PilotWork
6 Preliminary finding of Nuffield Design andTechnology National Survey 1998 (unpublishedresults)
7 Givens, N. in Nuffield 0& T Project Response(July 1998) to the National Advisory Committee onCreative and Cultural Education
8 GCSE D&T Focus Area Forum meetingsorganised by QCA: meeting 1 24 Nov. 1997 atCambridge Consultants; meeting 2 13 March 1998at Pankhurst Design Developments
9 See, for example, the Summer 1998 issue ofUpdate the Nuffield Design and TechnologyNewsletter which took key skills as its theme
10 Barlex, D. Nuffield Design and TechnologyProduct Design Teacher's Guide Addison WesleyLongman 1996 or Barlex, D. Nuffield Design andTechnology Textiles Teacher's Guide AddisonWesley Longman 1996
11 Barlex, D., Project Work, Unit 5, OpenUniversity Advanced Diploma in Technology inSchools, Open University Press, 1988
12 Denton H. G. Group task management: a keyelement in technology across the curriculumDATER 1989 page 46- 51
13 Leading the way: What can future generationslearn from the start of the new Millennium? DesignCouncil 1998
14 Kelly, V., Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T.,Wosniak, A., The Assessment of Performance inDesign and Technology, SEAC 1991
15 See for example Validate News, the newsletterof Values in Design and Technology Educationavailable from Validate, c/o Mike Martin, UniversityCollege Chester, Chester, CH. Tel 01244375444,Fax 01244 373379, E-Mail [email protected]
There is a website at www.chester.ac.uk/technology/validate. htrn