Abstract
The paper explores the adoption of the social dimensions of sustainability in technological design tasks. It uses a lens which contrasts education for sustainability as ‘a frame of mind’ with an attempt to bridge a ‘value-action gap’. This lens is used to analyse the effectiveness of the Sustainable Design Award, an intervention in post-16 technology education in three countries to encourage students and teachers to strengthen design for sustainability in their work. In each country, the intervention project provided varying combinations of teacher professional development, provision of learning resources, in school student support, lobbying of key curriculum policy makers and a student Award. Three types of teacher are identified by reference to their motivation for introducing sustainability into their teaching of design. These teacher types are linked to a hierarchy of teachers’ understanding of the social dimension of sustainability. The consequences for continuous professional development are examined. The findings are then used to critique the value of the lens.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bonnett, M. (2002). Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 9–20. doi:10.1080/13504620120109619.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Dakers, J. R. (2005). The hegemonic behaviourist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 111–126. doi:10.1007/s10798-005-8275-3.
DCSF. (2007a). What is sustainable development? http://www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/whatis.shtml(accessed10/09/07).
DCSF. (2007b). Sustainable schools. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/(accessed on 24/08/07).
Elshof, L. (2005). Teachers’ interpretations of sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 173–186. doi:10.1007/s10798-005-8277-1.
Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Education.
Harland, J., & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers’ continuous professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. Journal of In-Service Education, 23(1), 71–84.
Harrison, D., Chalkey, A., & Billett, E. (2002). The rebound effect. In J. Birkehead (Ed.), Design for sustainability (pp. 109–137). London: Earthscan.
Huckle, J. (2006) Education for sustainable development: a briefing paper for the Teacher Training Resource Bank (TDA). Updated edition 10/06 Found on http://john.huckle.org.uk/publications_downloads.jsp Accessed 08/09/07.
Lubben, F., & Pitt, J. (2007). Evaluation of the sustainable design award project—A report for practical action. York: The University of York.
Pavlova, M. (2005a). Social change: How should technology education respond? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 199–215.
Pavlova, M. (2005b). Knowledge and values in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 127–147.
Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206. doi:10.1023/A:1008919120846.
Pitt, J. (2006). ‘Learning about sustainability through Design & Technology education’. In W. L. Filho (Ed.), Innovation, education and communication for sustainable development (pp. 253–264). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Practical Action. (2007a). List of social issues http://www.sda-uk.org/content/downloads/socialIsues.doc Accessed on 23/08/07.
Practical Action. (2007b). Environmental, economic, social and moral sustainability issues http://www.sda-uk.org/content/definitions/sustainissues.asp Accessed on 23/08/07.
Practical Action. (2007c). Specific design brief practical action 4: Rainwater harvesting http://www.sda-uk.org/itdg4.html Accessed on 05/09/07.
Practical Action. (2007d). Starter activities—Introducing sustainability to students http://www.sda-uk.org/starters.html Accessed on 07/09/07.
Practical Action. (2007e). Eco-design tools http://www.sda-uk.org/tools.html Accessed on 07/09/07.
QCA. (2007a). New secondary national curriculum http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/D-and-T_KS3_PoS.pdf Accessed 30/10/07.
QCA. (2007b). GCE AS and A level subject criteria for design and technology (September 2006) http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca–06-2845_design_technology.pdf Accessed 30/10/07.
Stirling, S. (2001). Sustainable education, re-visioning learning and change. Darlington: Green Books.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publishers.
Tungaraza, F., & Sutherland, M. (2005). Capturing the minds of a lost and lonely generation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 187–198. doi:10.1007/s10798-005-8279-z.
UNESCO. (2007). The earth charter initiative—principles http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/uncom02t05s01.htm#principles Accessed on 23/08/07.
de Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 149–154.
Webster, K. (2004). Rethink, refuse, reduce: Education for sustainability in a changing world. Preston Montford: FSC Publications.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Welsh Assembly Government. (2002). Education for sustainable development and global citizenship. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support by DFID of project activities in the UK during the period April 2002 to March 2006, and by the EU of activities in the UK and The Netherlands during the period April 2004 to March 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Practical action’s list of social issues for design & technology students
Headings | Comments and questions |
|---|---|
Product not really needed (bad) | Some products are not really needed. Perhaps we might be better off without them, as making, using and disposing of them at the end of life all contribute to pollution and using up of limited resources. But some products genuinely improve the quality of life for the users. How would you rate this product? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Genuinely useful product (good) | |
Not appropriate for the culture of the users (bad) | Some products might be good in one society or culture, but not so good in a different one. For example, a solar lantern (a light charged up by sunlight) is good for Kenyan families that have no access to mains electricity but experience strong sunshine. It would not so be appropriate for use in England where we have mains electricity and dull days. But what about a wind-up torch? At the end of its life, the product might be waste in one country or a reusable or recyclable resource in another. Is the product culturally appropriate for where it will be used? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Appropriate for the culture of the users (good) | |
Traditional wisdom and technologies disappear (bad) | New products can sweep the market, and in the process traditional ways of doing things are lost, sometimes forever. This makes the world less sustainable. For example, more and more supermarkets sell ready-made meals: will this mean that we lose the skills of home cooking? On the other hand new or improved products can build on ‘the wisdom of the centuries’. A better product is produced, but traditional skills and know-how are not lost. Thinking about the whole life cycle, how would you rate this product? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Conserves traditional wisdom and technologies (good) | |
Diminishes cultural diversity (bad) | Every culture has its own way of doing things. This is reflected in the clothes we wear, the food we eat, what we like to do in leisure time and so on. In England—a multicultural society—there are many different cultures. There are also cultural differences between generations. For example, teenagers dress differently from their parents, and use text-messaging more on mobile phones. Thinking about the whole life cycle, how far does the product promote cultural diversity? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Promotes cultural diversity (good) | |
Diminishes conviviality (bad) | Humans are social beings. On the whole we like to be with other people (but not all the time!) and do things together. Some products encourage this—such as the mobile phone, musical instruments or clubs. Through books we can share the ideas or knowledge of others. But some products tend to make us more isolated. Thinking about the whole life cycle, how would you rate the product on a conviviality scale? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Promotes conviviality (good) | |
Limits opportunities for future generations (bad) | A successful product will meet the needs of people today. But how far is this done at the expense of future generations? Will it limit their choices? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Increases opportunities for future generations | |
Limits basic rights and freedoms (bad) | Every person has a right to basic freedoms—enough to eat, safety, care (especially the young and old), a place to live. These are enshrined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes also the right to education and, for adults, a job, fair pay, the right to vote and so on. How far does this product support such rights? For example, is it fair-traded? |
(over whole life cycle) | |
Enhances basic rights and freedoms (good) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pitt, J., Lubben, F. The social agenda of education for sustainable development within design & technology: the case of the Sustainable Design Award. Int J Technol Des Educ 19, 167–186 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9076-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9076-2