Using ‘Electronic Portfolios’ to Challenge Current Orthodoxies in the Presentation of an Initial Teacher Training Design and Technology Activity

Article

Abstract

The paper examines the extent to which a University undergraduate curriculum initiative provided initial teacher trainees with opportunities to challenge orthodox design methodologies through the production of an electronic portfolio within and extended design and technology activity. It was found that the ‘electronic portfolio’ served primarily as a developmental tool for promoting creative continuity and sound, reflective, design practice within a structured educational design challenge. The portfolio also provided a focus for the development of ‘e’ learning skills as it facilitated the use of new technologies in the compilation of the portfolio. Additionally, the portfolio provided trainees with a means by which they were able to demonstrate their capability to prospective employers. The use of the ‘electronic portfolio’ challenges current orthodoxy and methods routinely employed to present and assess trainees’ creative work, which have been shown to constrain innovative practice. The paper concludes that the use of the ‘electronic’ portfolio was successful in facilitating trainees’ engagement with a creative Design and Technology process.

Keywords

creativity Design and Technology (D&T) design practice electronic portfolio Initial Teacher Training (ITT) innovation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes, R. 1989Art, Design and Topic Work 8–13Allen & UnwinLondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. 2003The Unique Contribution of Design and Technology: Building on SuccessDepartment for Education and SkillsLondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, N., Desforges, C., Cockburn, A., Wilkinson, B. 1984The Quality of Pupil Learning ExperiencesLawrence ErlbaumLondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross, N. G. 1990‘The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability’Design Studies11127140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holden, J. D. 2001‘Hawthorne Effects and Research into Professional Practice’Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2001–200716570Google Scholar
  6. Hopper, M. G., Hepton, B. & Downie, M.: 1999, ‘Supporting the Development of Creativity and Innovation – further issues examined as part of an extended curriculum development initiative’, in J. S. Smith (ed.), International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development, pp. 97–106, Loughborough University, Loughborough.Google Scholar
  7. Hargreaves, A. 2003Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of UncertaintyOpen University PressMaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  8. Krueger, B., Wallace, J. 1996‘Portfolio Assessment: Possibilities and Pointers for Practice, Australian’Science Teacher’s Journal4226Google Scholar
  9. Kimbell, R. A., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A. & Kelly, V.: 1991, The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology London. School Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information.Google Scholar
  10. Kimbell, R.: 2005, Digital capture and the club med test. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 10, 2, 7–8, 2005, Design and Technology Association, Wellesbourne.Google Scholar
  11. Lave, J. 1988Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday LifeCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. McCormick, R.: 2004, Issues of Learning and Knowledge in Technology Education; International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 21–44, 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. McMillan, J. H. 2004Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective instruction3PearsonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Office for Standards in Education2000Ofsted Subject Reports Secondary Design and Technology, 1999–2000The Stationary OfficeLondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Prawat, R., Floden, R. 1994‘Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist Views of Learning’Educational Psychology293748Google Scholar
  16. Stables, K. & Kimbell, R. A.: 2000, ‘The Unpickled Portfolio: Pioneering Performance Assessment in Design and Technology.’ Design and Technology International Millennium Conference.Google Scholar
  17. Shield, G. 1996‘Learning Teaching through a Process Approach: The Implementation of Curriculum Innovation Through the Pragmatic Interventions of the Teacher’International Journal of Technology and Design Education6114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shulman, L. 1998

    Teacher Portfolios: A Theoretical Activity

    Lyons, N. eds. With Portfolio in HandTeachers College PressNew York2337
    Google Scholar
  19. Spendlove, D. & Hopper, M.: 2004, ‘Creativity in Design and Technology and ICT: Imagining Possibilities in a Digital Age’, in E. Norman, D. Spendlove, P. Grover & A. Mitchell (eds.), Creativity and Imagination – DATA International Research Conference July 2004, pp. 173 –178.Google Scholar
  20. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. 1990Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and TechniquesSageLondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Sturman, A. 1999

    Case Study Methods

    Keeves, J. P.Lakomski, G. eds. Issues in Educational ResearchPergamonOxford
    Google Scholar
  22. Thistlewood, D. 1990

    The Essential Disciplines of Design Education

    Thistlewood, D. eds. Issues in Design EducationLongmanLondon
    Google Scholar
  23. Thistlewood, D.: 1997, ‘Supporting Innovation in Schools Project: Factors Inhibiting Key Designer Attributes in Current NC Design and Technology Teaching’, in J. S. Smith (ed.), International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Curriculum Development, pp. 243, Loughborough University, Loughborough.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Community and LeisureLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations