The future of my subjects
7:13 pm on the 30th of November, 2006So, I was in uni today, talking with my supervisor about my project (it’s going okay, thanks) and we got talking with the course leader, who shares the same office, about the future of subjects in CDT. More and more schools are going down the route of teaching only Craft and Design, and Graphic Communication. The point that came up was that these subjects are the ones that are (apologies if this hurts any of you) easy to teach and easy to learn. This is because essentially these courses only offer up skills, there is not really any academic aspect to them, they require pupils to learn how do perform some tasks but do not require much understanding or learning to occur.
This post is a bit of a ramble and there are no fully thought out ideas here, so feel free to chip in with your ideas of CDT, or to tell me that you disagree. It’s likely I will edit this if I get more of an idea of what I think should happen.
Part of the battle1 to keep Craft, Design and Technology on the school curriculum map is going to be making the teachers in the departments realise the potential of their knowledge, make them see that without the Design and Technology aspect of the department all they do is furnish children with skills that at best will help them onto an apprenticeship.2
I don’t want to give the impression that I think these skills should be dropped in favour of design etc, they are still important, but I want to say that an understanding of Design and Technology is of far greater benefit. They give you the skills to analyse problems, to look for solutions, to identify people’s requirements. These are skills that are of transferable benefit, they do not just stick to the subject area where they are learned.
This is against learning how to cut a mortise and tenon joint which leaves you with a fairly limited piece of knowledge. Yes, I am being fairly extreme, there is more to it than this, but for argument’s sake:
I’ll admit that Graphics is of more benefit, because it is based on teaching communication skills - but the skills taught in Graphics could (should?) be taught in Design. The other way to go is that Graphics could incorporate something more academic - another style of design maybe, (information design and layout) or perhaps some sort of project based upon a design brief. Pupils could be asked to come up with an advertising campaign for a product that has a certain type of target market, the pupils then have to look at what sort of thing appeals to the market and design an advert accordingly.
[tags]Scottish Curriculum, Craft and Design, Graphic Communication, Technological Studies, technical, education, Design[/tags]
1 The other part of the battle will be convincing the other departments that what we do is still valuable.
2. I don’t want that to coma across as me saying apprenticeships are rubbish - it should say that it can only help but not be a main reason for getting there.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:15 am on the 5th of December, 2006
well to turn it on its head slightly, for a few years now, the govt (and to a far lesser extent the Scot Exec), have been paying lip service to the need for more vocational training, while maintaining their ‘get the middle-class vote’ driven policy of getting as many kids into a uni, any uni, as possible. The opposition parties, eg the next govts, have been banging the vocational drum far more. Your course is split. Much of what you teach is neatly categorised as ‘vocational’. What you are arguing for, if I understand correctly, is a need to draw in those who wish to do more than vocational courses after school. Why, for instance, should a budding architect do art to prove he can draw? Surely he should do graphic design instead/as well?
To summarise further, in my day there was craft and design. (as well as technical drawing). You are capable of teaching craft AND design, but are worrried you are heading a lifetime of craft. To me the solution is the qualifications offered need to be diverse. What was a new subject when i were a lad, technoligical studies, seems to have heralded the merger of all subjects into one - and this appears, if I read you correctly to have lead to those with uni aspirations abandoning your classrooms.
Maybe I read you wrong. Correct me if I have, correct my ignorant assumptions if they are incorect. But you did ask for our comments in para 2 above.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:53 am on the 5th of December, 2006
When you were a lad, there were subjects like Metalwork, Woodwork, Engineering Science, Technical Drawing. What came towards the end of that was a period of discussion that was spurred on by the desire to make all new teachers degree qualified and that led towards making two new subjects with Craft and Design being one, it had elements of Metal and Woodwork, but introduced an element of Design (the more ‘academic’ part, for want of a better word). The other subject was to be Technological Studies, a modern interpretation of Engineering Science, I believe the difference was Tech Studs was to be less theoretical and more practical but I don’t know.
I don’t know the exact ins and outs because I was younger than a lad, but I think it was going to mean an end to drawing as a discrete subject, which industry didn’t like. The response was Graphic Communication, a course which took Engineering Drawing and made it a little less focussed on exact, precise drawings and introduced the parts that make up a large part of what kids today really like - Colour Theory; Computer Aided Drawing/Graphics; basic Graphic Design.
So, in answer to what you wrote: as far as I understand Tech Studs was never meant to be a combination of all the subjects, it missed out the craft side and at the same time as its introduction came another course with Design.
I think what I am arguing for is an need to get more people in who want to do more than vocational courses, but it isn’t because those with uni aspirations have abandoned our classrooms, but more because the courses for those pupils have been abandoned in favour of the more vocational ones.
This is partly because many teachers, particularly in the west, have not been trained for the other courses and do not want to teach them. This is true in the case of Tech Studs. When it was introduced many teachers knew how to do metal and wood, maybe Engineering Science too, Tech Studs introduced electronics, semiconductors, computer programming - it is a bit like telling a Modern Languages teacher they now have to teach sign language and just leaving them to it.
It is also partly because of the recent abandonment of Higher Craft and Design in favour of two courses - Practical Craft Skills, purely craft and no academic work, only offered up to Intermediate 2 level; and Product Design, a course that is purely design but has had big problems since it’s inception (I’m told something like 58% of centres failed moderation last year), and that teachers aren’t comfortable teaching.
The solution? First the need to clarify all the hurdles (as I see them):
Does that help find a solution? I’ll have a think about it, but for now I need to do some work.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:39 pm on the 5th of December, 2006
well, first i’ll point out I’m older than you think - metalwork and woodwork had become craft and design (or ‘techie’) with THREE different strands, woodwork, metwork and plastic work. Check out mum’s salad servers if you don’t believe me!
I also think I mis-explained the techie studies thing - it was a brand new subject on its own when I were a lad, its just that it appeared to me to have since absorbed engineering, techie drawing (in which I have an O’Grade) and good old techie to become one big subject. My vague point was that this, to a former student and future pupil’s parent, is a bad thing. the man that designs the Ford Focus does not have or need the same skils as the mechanic that changes the oil, and the same goes for your subject. There are overlaps, sure, but surely there should be courses pitched for all abilities.
Taking your 3 in order, and from a complete outsider point of view (sometimes a good thing, though I’m sure other regular posters who teach will have more relevant and knowledgeable opinions
1) Teachers in the departments who are unhappy teaching subjects other than Craft, and Graphics: generalising here, but I suspect they’ll be the older members of the dept, who learnt their trade before I went to school. In which case, is it possible to re-train, re-educate? if not, does this give young guns like yourself a chance to specialise in the stuff they don’t like?
2) see again a change from when I were a lad, I think. Your dept taught bright ones in engineering, so it was more certain subjects, and every department had them. There was a general ‘Science’ standard grade ran alongside and separate form physics etc. which brings me back to my general point.
3) Now this, in my world is called CPD. Fail to tick of so many hours training a year, and I lose those precious 4 letters after my year. Because its mandatory to get, its mandatory for the governing bodies, and the major firms to run the training. So in teaching, ditto. If the govt expects the new course run properly, they should run the training on the new course.
I’ll bow out now, unless you say anything I feel the need to defend myself on. You don’t tend to discuss my work in detail, and you probably don’t want to, so I feel like anymore would be intrusion. Its just that, unfortunately for you, most people think they should have some say in education, and I’m in that category. (Start me on selection by ability, or religon, and sit back and watch me go)
December 5th, 2006 at 1:42 pm on the 5th of December, 2006
re-reading the above, and spotting the typos (four letters after my name, not my year) tells me I should re-read before clicking ’submit comment’
December 5th, 2006 at 4:53 pm on the 5th of December, 2006
I totally take your point about the Ford Focus workers, I agree there should be variety of courses on offer. My initial post was trying to get across the point that there is a slide towards subjects like Practical Craft Skills and Graphics, and away from Technological Studies and Product Design. I then wanted to try and understand the reasons why this is a bad thing (or if this is a bad thing) and what could be done to stop it happening.
I don’t think I made a point for getting rid of the vocational courses, more that I wanted them to continue to be complemented by the more academic ones. I’m using vocational and academic in very loose terms here.
I’ve installed a live comment preview script, so you can see what your comment will look like as you type it.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:27 pm on the 5th of December, 2006
Not sure whether to involved in a family argument but …………….Skills are useful but need a context no matter what the skills are. I am not sure what ‘vocational courses’ actually means. We are looking at introducing Microsoft Professional Qualifications under the vocational banner.Techie teachers have always had a chip on their shoulders about being ‘more Academic’. This has made Tech Studies an increasingly difficult course. Though I would argue that it is one of the most relevant to industry with the problem solving aspects (Though if its relevant to industry does that not mean its more vocational?)If you look at where this actually started the you will see it was from academics who see University as where we all should be trying to aim for.
I have never been convinced that should be the case. Have look at Ken Robinson’s argument on creativity. Creativity is something which we under value in our curricular area. It doesn’t matter if the creativty is in solving a problem in Tech Studies or working through a linear design process on S1/2 but is something which is very difficult to measure academically but is immearurably useful when you hit the real world
Also see Design Thinking
You thought your comment was rambling!
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply