The experiential domain: developing a model for enhancing practice in D&T education

  • Adrian O’Connor
  • Niall Seery
  • Donal Canty


Creativity and innovation are leading topics for the twenty-first century, not only in individual, cultural or social contexts but also within a wider perspective in business or economic development. For that reason, creative and innovative activities have started to feature in many design-based programs in second level education. Design and Technology (D&T) education has a special importance in promoting creativity and innovation, particularly when conceptual and material aspects of the design process reciprocally support one another. In the classroom, it is common for pupils to take part in creative and innovative activities in pairs or small groups. However, the complex and non-linear nature of these design-based activities calls for dynamic, collaborative problem solving. While collaborative settings and virtual learning environments in D&T education are receiving considerable attention in current research literature, we know very little about shared interactions in design-based activity. Accordingly, there is a need to examine both the collaborative and individual evidence of design-based activity by turning our attention to the interactions around that evidence as teachers and pupils engage in these activities. The purpose of this paper is to examine a pedagogical approach focusing on the social and cognitive interaction of teachers and pupils which is supported by technology and situated in the context of design-based activity. This research found that such interactions not only augmented the design process but led to a conceptual model which demonstrates evidence-based progress through the active configuration of knowledge and understanding.


Design activity Learning technology Virtual environments Asynchronous interaction Pedagogy 


  1. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. M., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baynes, K. (2013). The empty space: Seven key themes. In K. Baynes & E. Norman (Eds.), Design education: A vision for the future (pp. 25–32). Leicestershire: Loughborough Design Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, K. (2004). Technology: Building interaction. TechTrends, 48(5), 34–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2008). Ubiquitous learning: An agenda for educational transformation. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Ubiquitous learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Drain, M. (2010). Justification of the dual-phase project-based pedagogical approach in a primary school technology unit. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 15(1), 7–14.Google Scholar
  9. Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Government of Ireland. (2010). Innovation Ireland: Report of the innovation taskforce. Dublin: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong, J.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Chen, M.-Y. (2011). Collaborative learning in technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karakaya, A. F., & Şenyapılı, B. (2008). Rehearsal of professional practice: Impacts of web-based collaborative learning on the future encounter of different disciplines. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klokmose, C. N. (2006). An instrumental paradigm for ubiquitous interaction. Paper presented at the 6th Danish human-computer interaction research symposium, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
  15. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. EDUCAUSE Review, 37(1), 16–24.Google Scholar
  19. Ley, D. (2007). Ubiquitous computing. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2, 64–79.Google Scholar
  20. McCormick, R. (2004). Collaboration: The challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moyles, J. (2002). Observation as a research tool. In M. Coleman & A. Briggs (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 172–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2008). Leading and supporting change in schools. Dublin: NCCA.Google Scholar
  23. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2010). Innovation happens: Classrooms as sites of change. Dublin: NCCA.Google Scholar
  24. Roberts, P. (2013). The aims of design education. In K. Baynes & E. Norman (Eds.), Design education: A vision for the future (pp. 34–40). Leicestershire: Loughborough Design Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Kangas, K., Raunio, A.-M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Collaborative design practices in technology mediated learning. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(1), 54–65.Google Scholar
  27. Simpson, M., & Tuson, J. (2003). Using observations in small-scale research: A beginner’s guide. Glasgow: The SCRE Centre.Google Scholar
  28. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.Google Scholar
  29. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, J., & Kimbell, R. (2012). Conclusion. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations