Ideas About Design: Towards Appropriate Pedagogy for Teaching Design at the School Level

  • Farhat Ara
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


This study set out to explore Indian school students’ naïve ideas about design and designers. Findings suggested that most students relegated ‘design’ to the status of mere decoration and associated ‘designers’ with gender and professional-stereotypic images. Insights from the survey afforded development of appropriate design activities and scope to extend students’ understanding of design. The study has implications for development of the design curriculum at school level in India.


Design Activity Middle School Student Design Education Reflective Thinking Pedagogical Principle 
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.



I am grateful to Prof. John Williams and Dr. David Barlex and other reviewers for going through all my drafts and providing suggestions and feedback while I was writing this chapter. I would also like to thank Prof. Sugra Chunawala, the supervisor of my thesis for her feedback and constant support during my PhD years.


  1. Anning, A., Jenkins, E., & Whitelaw, S. (1996). Bodies of knowledge and design-based activities. In J. S. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 1996. Loughborough: Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  2. Ara, F., Chunawala, S., & Natarajan, C. (2009). From analysing to designing artefacts: Studying middle school students’ ideas about design and designers. In K. Subramaniam, & A. Mazumdar (Eds.), Proceedings of epiSTEME-3: International conference to review research in science, technology and mathematics education. Mumbai: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  3. Ara, F., Chunawala, S., & Natarajan, C. (2011). A study investigating Indian middle school students’ ideas of design and designers. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 62–73.
  4. Ara, F., Chunawala, S., & Natarajan, C. (2013). Investigating Indian elementary and middle school students’ images of designers. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 18(2), 50–65.
  5. Atkinson, S. (2009). Are design and technology teachers able to meet the challenges inherent in the theme for this conference ‘D&T—A platform for success’? In E. Norman (Ed.), Design and Technology Education: International Journal, 14(3), 8–20.Google Scholar
  6. Barlex, D., & Rutland, M. (2004). Design decisions in Nuffield design & technology. In I. Mottier, & M. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of 14th PATT conference. New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, C. (2012). Your ego is a bad designer. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from Newfangled Web Developers:
  9. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choksi, B., Chunawala, S., & Natarajan, C. (2006). Technology education as a school subject in the Indian context. In K. Volk (Ed.), Articulating technology education in a global community: International conference on technology education in the Asia Pacific region. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Technology Education Association and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Google Scholar
  11. Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S., & Lyons, S. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glick, P., Wilk, K., & Perreault, M. (1995). Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles, 32, 564–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hennessy, S., & McCormick, R. (2002). The general problem-solving process in technology education: Myth or reality. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary design and technology: Perspectives on practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  14. Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L. (1998). Factors that influence children’s developing perceptions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8, 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1994). Student technological capability: Where do we start? SAMEpapers, 1994, 165–186.Google Scholar
  16. Khunyakari, R., Mehrotra, S., Chunawala, S., & Natarajan, C. (2009). Studying Indian middle school students’ attitudes towards technology. In K. Subramaniam, & A. Mazumdar (Eds.), Proceedings epiSTEME-3: An international conference to review research in science, technology and mathematics education (pp. 81–87). Mumbai: Macmillan Publishers India Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
  18. Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference & exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  19. Layton, D. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (pp. 11–28). France: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, T., Petrina, S., & Hill, A. (1998). Problem posing-adding a creative increment to technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(1), 5–35.Google Scholar
  21. Mawson, B. (2007). Factors affecting learning in technology in the early years at school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students: A pilot study. Science, 126, 386–390.Google Scholar
  23. Mehrotra, S., Khunyakari, R., Chunawala, S., & Natarajan, C. (2007). Using pictures and interviews to elicit Indian students’ understanding of technology. In J. D. Dakers, & M. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of PATT 18 – International conference on design and technology education research: teaching and learning technological literacy in the classroom (pp. 152–161).Google Scholar
  24. Newstetter, W., & McCracken, M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 63–77). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Owen, C. L. (2005). Design thinking. What it is. Why it is different. Where it has new value. Keynote speech at the international conference on design research and education for the future. Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  26. Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Debates in design and technology education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Picker, S., & Berry, J. (2000). Investigating pupils’ images of mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts, P. (2005). Of models, modelling and design: An applied philosophical enquiry. In L. Archer, K. Baynes, & P. Roberts (Eds.), A framework for design and design education: A reader containing papers from the 1970s and 80s. Wellesbourne: D&T Association.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, M., & Clare, D. (1994). The process diary: Developing capability within national curriculum design and technology- Some initial findings. In J. S. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 94: International conference on design and technology educational research and curriculum development, (pp. 22–28). Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Welch, M., Barlex, D., & O’Donnell, E. (2006). Elementary students’ beliefs about designers and designing. In E. W. Norman, D. Spendlove, & G. O. Jackson (Eds.), Designing the future: The D&T Association international research conference, (pp. 165–176).Google Scholar

For Further Reading

  1. An electronic copy of the PhD thesis can be found at this url:
  2. Banks, F. (1994). Teaching technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Dakers, J. R. (2006). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process – Does it exist? International Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(3), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  7. Stables, K. (2008). Designing matters; Designing minds: The importance of nurturing the designerly in young people. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 8–18.Google Scholar
  8. Trebell, D. (2009). Exploring pupils’ beliefs about designers and designing. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERTAD (Centre for Education, Research, Training and Development)Srishti Institute of Art, Design and TechnologyBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations