Abstract
This paper argues that a pedagogic model grounded in both constructivist and Vygotskyian theory can be consistently applied throughout Design and Technology education. The constructivist model outlined, is borrowed from the work of Rosalind Driver in Science education and applies a perspective grounded in Piaget and moderated by Ausubel. This perspective involves a clear recognition that: ‘The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows’. This argument is extended further to cover the acquisition of scientific, design and technological capabilities. The paper focuses on how effective learning is achieved when new understandings are related to appropriate existing concepts and cognitive structures. Vygotsky's conception of the ‘zone of proximal development’ is utilised to show how cognitive functions that have not yet matured and which the child is unable to apply independently, can be productively applied, with the assistance of an educator. Child development is, from this perspective, dependent upon existing competencies, knowledge and understandings being challenged and extended with support, it is argued however, that it is essential that the challenges are not so great or irrelevant that the child experiences failure. The consequences of allowing individuals to experience educational failure are widely apparent in the context of science and technology throughout our society. The role of ‘play’ in the early years is seen as particularly valuable in this context. From this perspective the essential task for the teacher must be to clearly identify the limits of proximal development and to restrict as far as possible their teaching to this zone. The identification of such limits demands an appreciation of ‘progression’ within the learning context. The paper argues that the structure of the attainment targets within the UK Design and Technology National Curriculum provides teachers with a framework of ‘constructive scaffolding’ within which children may be given the maximum freedom and autonomy while developing their practical capability in designing and making. This heuristic framework may be lost in the application of the new proposals for Design and Technology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander R. (1992) Policy and Practice in Primary Education, London, Routledge.
Alexander R., Rose J. & Woodhead C. (1992) Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools: A discussion Paper, London, Department of Education and Science.
Ausubel D. (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt Rinehart, New York
Barrett G. (Ed.) (1989) Disaffection from school? The Early Years, The Falmer Press, Brighton
Blatch, Baroness The (1992) Out of Order, letter in The Times Education Supplement, 3rd July 1992
Bruner J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Camb. Mass
Bryant P. & Trabasso T. (1971) ‘Transitive inference and memory in young children’ Nature 232, 456–8.
David T., Curtis A. & Siraj-Blatchford I. (1992) Effective Teaching in the Early Years: Fostering Children's Learning in Nurseries and in Infant Classes, Trentham Books, Stoke-on-Trent
Dept. of Education and Science (1990) Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO
Dept. for Education (1992) Technology for ages 5 to 16 (1992): Proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Wales National Curriculum Council, York
Donaldson M. (1978) Children's Minds, Fontana, London
Donaldson M. (1992) Human Minds: An Exploration, Penguin Press, London
Doornekampe G (1991) Gender differences in the acquisition of technical knowledge, skills and attitudes in Dutch primary education: the need for technology education, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2, (1), 37–47
Driver R (1983) The Pupil as Scientist, Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Eggleston J (1992) Teaching Design and Technology, Open University Press, Buckingham
Flood, J. (1982) ‘Enabling and Disabling’ unpublished report of a lecture given at the Northampton Conference Design Education and The Young Child
Gelman R. (1969) ‘Conservation Acquisition’ Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 167–87.
Grieve R & Hughes M (Eds.) (1990) Understanding Children, Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Harlen W (1985) Teaching and Learning Primary Science, Harper & Row., London
Hughes M. (1990) ‘Children's Computation’ in Grieve R. & Hughes M. Understanding Children, Basil Blackwell., Oxford
Johnson S & Murphy P (1986) Girls and Physics, Reflections on Assessment and Performance Unit Findings, Assessment and Performance Unit Occasional Paper No. 4, DES and Assessment and Performance Unit. Department of Education and Science, London
Kruger C., Palacio D and Summers M. (1990) An investigation of some English primary school teachers’ understanding of the concepts force and gravity, British Educational Research Journal, 16 (4), 383–397
Kruger C., Summers M. and Palacio D. (1990) INSET for Primary Science in the National Curriculum in England and Wales: are the real needs of teachers perceived?, Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, (2), 133–146
Layton, D (1991) Science Education and Praxis: the Relationship of School Science to Practical Action, Studies in Science Education. 19
McGarrigle J. & DonaldsonM. (1974) ‘Conservation Accidents’ Cognition, 3, 341–50
Millar R & Driver R (1987) Beyond Processes, Studies in Science Education, 14, 33–62.
Oboho E. & Bolton N. ‘Matching Students'Technological Thinking with the Demands of a Technological Curriculum’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2, (2), 5–61
Shayer M. et al (1978) ‘The analysis of science curricular for Piagetian level of demand’ Studies in Science Education, 5, 115–130.
Siraj-Blatchford J. (1992a) ‘Making up their Minds' in Child Education, Scholastic Publications Ltd, Leamington Spa.
Siraj-Blatchford J. (1992b) What is an anti-racist atom? School Science Review, 71, (257), 127–131.
Siraj-blatchford, J. (1993a) Constructivism in Science and Primary Teacher Education, submitted for publication elsewhere
Siraj-Blatchford, J. (1993b) The Nature of Science Education, in Deshpande, P., Edwards, C. & Thorpe, S. (Eds.) Race, Equality and Science Teaching: A Teachers' Handbook, Association for Science Education
Smock C. (1981) in Sigel I et al (Eds.) New Directions in Piagetian Theory and Practice, Campus, New York.
Solomon J. Teaching Science, Technology and Society, Open University Press., Buckingham
Tubb, L. (1982) ‘Primary Education and the Child as a Natural Designer’ unpublished report of a lecture given at the Northampton Conference Design Education and the Young child.
Vygotsky L (1987) Thought and Language, MIT Press, Camb. Mass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siraj-Blatchford, J. Constructing design and technology an early years perspective. Int J Technol Des Educ 3, 19–30 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183704
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183704