Conclusion
It has been argued that Design and Technology teachers would be helped by clear distinction between the terms, ‘industry’, ‘business’ and ‘economic’. This would help to avoid the confusion between particular ways of viewing business (eg. through an economic concept such as ‘profit maximisation;) and the multi-faceted character of the activity under observation. By this reasoning, the economic dimension of Design and Technology resides in the analysis of needs and the evaluation of products according to the value of the resources used up, and the value and distribution of the resources and products created. The link with discussion of value judgements in the subject (eg. Riggs and Conway, 1991) is very clear. So also is the dependence of this analysis on the definition of needs and evaluation and, crucially, the perceived relationship between the two, in learning and classroom practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allum, J. (1990). Technology in Context. A National Support Service for Schools in Conference Papers, 3rd National Conference Design and Technology, Educational Research and Curriculum Development (DATER), Loughborough University of Technology Department of Design and Technology, 35–38
Archer, A., Creighton. P., Howden, J., Martin, J., Newton, A. and Toms, A. (1991). Case Studies of good activities within Design and Technology. DATER Conference Papers, 9–13
BBC (1988). Economic Awareness INSET, BBC Publications
Black, P. (1991). Design and Technology in the National Curriculum, DATER Conference Papers, 228–237
Black, P. and Harrison, G. (1985). In place of confusion: technology and science in the school curriculum. Discussion Paper, Nuffield/Chelsea Curriculum Trust and the National Centre for School Technology, Trent Polytechnic, Nottingham
Bowen, R. and Wade, W. (1990). Economic and Industrial Understanding and Primary Design and Technology — Implication for Initial Training in DATER Conference Papers, 43–47
Bower, S., Robinson, J. and Staines, J. (1990). Holiday at Howard Primary in DATER Conference Papers, 47–51
Budget-Meaking, C. (1990). A Global Approach to Design and Technology in DATER Conference Papers, 53–55
ChambersI. and SquiresS. (1990). Business Education and Economic Awareness — Friend or Trojan Horse. Economic Awareness, 2, (2), 21–25
Davies, T., Gilbert, J. and Dillon, P.; (1991). The Six Countries Technology Project: evaluative outcomes on management, teaching and learning in DATER Conference Papers, 46–52
DentonM. (1988). Group Task Management: a key element in Technology Across the curriculum. Studies in Design Education, Craft and Technology. 20,(3), 130–132
Department of Education and Science (DES) (1990b). Mini Enterprise in Schools: Some aspects of current practice, London: HMSO
EgglestonJ. (1992). Teaching Design and Technology. Open University Press: Buckingham
Flood, I. (1989). Is Mickey Mouse technology the way to beat the Japanese? DATER Conference Papers, 79–83
LiddamentT. (1992). Teaching design through social and historical contexts. Design and Technology Teaching, 24, (2) 18–21
Martin, M.C. (1991). Global contexts for Design and Technology in DATER Conference Papers, 142–146
Muhlberg, C. (1989). Appropriate Technology in the Design and Technology National Curriculum. DATER Conference Papers, 95–102
RiggsA. and ConwayR. (1991). Values in Technology Education. Design and Technology Teaching, 24, (1), 31–33
SmithersA. and RobinsonP. (1972). Technology in the National Curriculum. The Engineering Council, London
Tyne-Tees, (1988). Zig-Zag: Business Education. Tyne Tees Publication
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davies, P. Perception of ‘economic reality’ with Design and Technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 3, 19–24 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00454393
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00454393