Advertisement

Perceptions of Primary Design and Technology

Initial Teacher Education Students’ Experiences
  • Marion Rutland
  • Martin Seidel
  • Sally Aston
  • Dot Jackson
  • Debbie Haffenden
  • Bhav Prajapat
  • Gill Hope
  • Maggie Rogers
Chapter
  • 1.1k Downloads
Part of the International Technology Education Studies book series (ITES, volume 7)

Abstract

In 2002 a joint seminar ‘Developing and celebrating good practice in primary Design and Technology’ (Nuffield Foundation, Design and Technology Association and the Centre for Research in Primary Technology (CRIPT)) formed the impetus for this research. One of the recommendations from the seminar was that a small working party of key players should develop a research framework and plan co-operative research activity utilising school and university links across participating universities.

Keywords

Primary Design Student Teacher National Curriculum Primary Teacher Technology Conference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ager, R., & Benson, C. (1997). Primary ITE courses in the UK – Developing D&T education. In R. Ager & C. Benson (Eds.), International Primary Design and Technology conference 1997 (pp. 6–11). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  2. Aston, S., & Jackson, D. (2009). Blurring the boundaries or muddying the waters? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1).Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, R. (Ed.), (2009). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge primary review. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  4. Barlex, D. (2003). Developing and celebrating good practice in primary Design and Technology – A seminar, the recommendations and results. In C. Benson, M. Martin & W. Till (Eds.), Fourth International Primary Design and Technology conference 2003 (pp. 2–4). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, C. (1997). In-service provision for Design and Technology for primary teachers. In R. Ager & C. Benson (Eds.), International Primary Design and Technology conference 1997 (pp. 2–5). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  6. DATA (The Design and Technology Association). (1995). Guidance materials for Design & Technology: Key stages 1&2. Wellesbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  7. DATA (The Design and Technology Association). (2000). Helpsheets for the national exemplar scheme of work for Design and Technology in primary school. Wellesbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  8. DATA (The Design and Technology Association). (2000). Lesson plans for the national exemplar scheme of work for Design and Technology in primary school. Wellesbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Davies, D., Egan, B., Martin, M., & Rogers, M. (2000). Carrying the torch – Can student teachers contribute to the survival of Design and Technology in the primary curriculum. In R. Kimbell (Ed.), Design and Technology international millennium conference 2000 (pp. 47–52). Wellesbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, D., & Rogers, M. (2000). Pre-service primary teachers’ planning for Science and Technology activities: Influences and constraints. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(2), 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DES (Department of Education and Science). (1990). Technology in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  12. DfE (Department for Education). (1995). Design and Technology in the national curriculum . London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) and QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (1999). Design and Technology: The national curriculum for England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  14. DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2003). Excellence and enjoyment - A strategy for primary schools. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  15. Dow, W. (2003). Student teachers’ perceptions of technology teaching in Scottish primary schools. In C. Benson, M. Martin, & W. Till (Eds.), Fourth International Primary Design and Technology conference 2003 (pp. 31–34). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  16. Ive, M. (1999). The state of primary Design and Technology education in England – Past success and future developments. In C. Benson & W. Till (Eds.), Second International Primary Design and Technology conference 1999 (pp. 16–19). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, C. (2001). Using the QCA scheme of work for primary Design and Technology. In C. Benson, M. Martin, & W. Till (Eds.), Third International Primary Design and Technology conference 2001 (pp. 143–145). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  18. Mitra, J. (1999). Growing a community of good practice through a D&T curriculum development project. In C. Benson & W. Till (Eds.), Second International Primary Design and Technology conference 1999 (pp. 98–101). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  19. Nuffield Curriculum Project Centre/DATA. (2001). Primary solutions in Design and Technology. Wellesbourne: Design and Technology Association/Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, C. (2003). 2 days lessons are….Using a collapsed timetable to teach D&T in primary schools. In C. Benson, M. Martin, & W. Till (Eds.), Fourth International Primary Design and Technology conference 2003 (pp. 125–127). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  21. QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (1998). Scheme of work for Design and Technology key stages 1 and 2. London: Author.Google Scholar
  22. QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). (1999). Scheme of work for art and design key stages 1 and 2. London: Author.Google Scholar
  23. Rogers, M. (2004). Is it possible to ensure the survival of primary Design and Technology through ten hour courses? The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 9(1), 14–24.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, M., & Davies, D. (1999). What has happened to primary Design and Technology? – Student teachers in search of a foundation subject. Unpublished conference paper presented at BERA 99, University of Sussex at Brighton (2–5 September).Google Scholar
  25. Rose, J. (2009). Independent review of the primary curriculum: Final report. Nottingham: DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) publications.Google Scholar
  26. Rutland, M., Rogers, M., Hope G., Prajapat B., Haffenden, D., Seidel, M., et al. (2006). Student teachers’ impressions of primary Design and Technology in English schools: A pilot study. In E. W. L. Norman, D. Spendlove & G. Owen-Jackson (Eds.), Designing the future, D&T Association International Research conference 2006 (pp. 97–109). Wellesbourne: The D&T Association.Google Scholar
  27. TTA (Teacher Training Agency). (2002). Qualifying to teach: Professional standards for qualified teacher status and requirements for initial teacher training. London: Teacher Training Agency/Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  28. Vaughan, S. (1997). Starting from scratch – Planning for Design and Technology. In R. Ager & C. Benson (Eds.), International Primary Design and Technology conference 1997 (pp. 32–33). Birmingham, UK: CRIPT at University of Central England.Google Scholar
  29. Nuffield Foundation, Design and Technology Association and CRIPT seminar. (2002, February). Developing and celebrating good practice in primary Design and Technology. London: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Nuffield Foundation/Design and Technology Association. (2004, February 18). Report of first meeting of the National Primary Design and Technology Research Group, Enabling research into primary education seminar. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Nuffield Foundation/Design and Technology Association. (2008, January 16). Report of second meeting of the National Primary Design and Technology Research Group, Enabling research into Primary Design and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.primarydandt.org/data//files/itereport-15.pdf

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Rutland
    • 1
  • Martin Seidel
    • 2
  • Sally Aston
    • 3
  • Dot Jackson
    • 4
  • Debbie Haffenden
    • 5
  • Bhav Prajapat
    • 6
  • Gill Hope
    • 7
  • Maggie Rogers
    • 8
  1. 1.Roehampton UniversityLondonEngland
  2. 2.Roehampton UniversityLondonEngland
  3. 3.St Mary’s University CollegeLondonEngland
  4. 4.St Mary’s University CollegeLondonEngland
  5. 5.University of BrightonBrightonEngland
  6. 6.University of BrightonBrightonEngland
  7. 7.Canterbury Christchurch UniversityCanterburyEngland
  8. 8.Centre for Cross Curricular InitiativesSouth Bank UniversityEngland

Personalised recommendations