Abstract
The increasing pressures of account-ability faced by schools have been the application of various adaptations of self-evaluation methods. However, charges of lack of objectivity (Simons in Skilbeck, 1984 p. 52) have been directed at such responses, and these were fuelled by observations that teachers lack the skills and understanding to undertake evaluation (Mathias, 1983).
These pressures are intensified for Craft, Design & Technology as a result of its youth and the nature and brief existence of the subject. As a curriculum area it is different from its forerunners, yet most CDT teachers were not purposefully educated to teach it. The centralist nature of its introduction together with a misunderstanding of CDT and the skills demanded produced varying degrees of support and interpretation. This was compounded by the lack of CDT research and literature (Toft in Cross & McCormack, 1987 p.298).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dodd T. (1977). Design & Technology in the School Curriculum. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Harris NDC et. al. (1982). Signposts for Evaluating, a resource pack. Council for Education Technology & Schools Council, Bath
Hamilton D. et. al. (1979). Beyond the number game: a reader in curriculum evaluation. Mcmillan, London
HMI (1977). Curriculum 11–16. DES, London
Lacey C. & LawtonD. (eds.) (1981). Issues in Evaluation & Accountability. Methuen, London
Marland M. & HillS. (1981). Departmental Management. Heineman, London
Mathias J. (1983). ‘Evaluating a Design & Craft Department’. Studies in Design Education, Craft & Technology. 16(1), 5–11
Parlett M. & Hamilton D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Skilbeck M. (1984). Evaluating educational programmes: the need & the response. Centre for Educational Research & Innovation, Illinois
Swain, J. (1977). ‘Craft, Design & Technology: the opportunity & the challenge’, The Stanley Link. (1), 3–5
Toft P. (1985). ‘Evaluating the CDT Department’ in crossA. & McCormackR. (eds.) Technology in Schools. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
West R. W. (1975). The summative evaluation of curriculum innovations. University of Sussex Education Area Occasional paper No. 1, University of Sussex, Sussex
Zanker, F. (1977). ‘Priorities for the Craft Teacher’. The Stanley Link. (1) 11–12
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, M. A framework for evaluating CDT practice with respect to the ethos of CDT. Int J Technol Des Educ 2, 41–47 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183779
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183779