Design without make: A feasible direction for American Technology Education

Brandon Thompson*, Terri Varnado**, Dr. Brian Matthews***
*-***North Carolina State University.
Periodicity:April - June'2010
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.7.1.1177

Abstract

This paper describes the second part of a new three-part study of STEM and engineering design research — termed Design—Without—Make — conducted by NC State University in 2009—10 in an NC high school. The hybrid quantitative, qualitative case study is being developed with the purpose of capturing what new technological learning occurs and how the new pedagogical learning benefits the technological learner. The first paper described a basic literature review, social learning theory, project-based learning study and the outline and aims of the study. This second paper in the sequence goes on to explain the main study and the major data results and findings for this new approach to teaching engineering design technology within STEM education.

The main purpose of this study was: 1) to assess whether students who participate in design-without-make activities achieve learning outcomes as successfully as or better than students of traditional design-with-make activities; 2) to determine student and teacher attitudes towards design-without-make activities within technology education. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the relationship between instruction and the change in pre- and posttest scores between groups.

The study consisted of 27 non-random participants, with the control group having 10 participants and the treatment group having 17 participants.  The mean score from both groups came to 14.37 (SD=5.43), with a standard error of 1.05. The post-test scores ranged from 4 to 22 out of a possible score of 22. With F=2.04, p=.05, it was found there were no significant differences between the control and treatment post-test scores.

Keywords

Project-based learning, Design-with-make, Design-without-make, STEM Education.

How to Cite this Article?

Brandon Thompson, Terri Varnado and Brian Matthews (2010). Design Without Make: A Feasible Direction For American Technology Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 7(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.7.1.1177

References

[1]. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[2]. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.
[3]. Atkinson, S. (2000). Does the Need for High Levels of Performance Curtail the Development of Creativity in Design and Technology Project Work? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 255-281.
[4]. Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573-585.
[5]. Bandura, A. (1997). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[6]. Banks, F. & Jackson, G. O. (2007). The role of making in design & technology. In Barlex, D. (Ed.), Design & technology for the next generation (pp. 186-197). Shropshire, England: Cliffe & Company Ltd.
[7]. Barlex, D. (2007). Creativity in school design & technology in England: a discussion of influences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17, 149-162.
[8]. Barlex, D. M. & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 119-138.
[9]. Berg, R., Pezalla-Granlund, M., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 59-69.
[10]. Brusic, S.A., Fales, J.F., & Kuetemeyer, V.F. (1999). Technology: Today and tomorrow. New York, NY: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
[11]. Davydov, V. V. & Kerr, S. T. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
[12]. Gredler, M.E. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall.
[13]. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy. Reston, VA: ITEA.
[14]. John-Steiner, V. (2000) Creative Collaboration. Oxford, Oxford University Press
[15]. Kipperman, D. & Sanders, M. (2007). Mind (not) the gap…Take a risk. In Barlex, D. (Ed.), Design & technology for the next generation (pp. 186-197). Shropshire, England: Cliffe & Company Ltd.
[16]. Lambros, A. (2002). Problem-based learning in K8 classrooms: A teacher's guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press.
[17]. Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
[18]. Matthews, B, (2004). The Effects of Direct and Problem-based Learning Instruction in an Undergraduate Introductory Engineering Graphics Course. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. NC State University.
[19]. Mills, J.E. & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Engineering education-Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australian Journal of Engineering Education.
[20]. Murphy, P. and Hennessy, S. (2001). Realizing the potential –and lost opportunities – for peer collaboration in a D and T setting. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 203-237
[22]. Peterson, R. E. (2001). Establishing the creative environment in Technology Education. The Technology Teacher, 61, 7-9.
[23]. Schwartz, J. (2007, September 30). Re-engineering engineering. The New York Times, pp.6, 94.
[25]. Spendlove, D. (2007). The locating of emotion within a creative, learning and product oriented design and technology experience: Person, process, product. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 45-57.
[26]. Sternberg, R. J., Reznitskaya, A., & Jarvin, L. (2007). Teaching for wisdom: What matters is not just what students know, but how they use it. London Review of Education, 5(2), 143-158.
[27]. Thompson, T.B. (2009). Design without make: A feasible direction for American Technology Education. Unpublished Master's Thesis. NC State University.
[28]. Thompson, Varnado, & Matthews. Design without make A new Design pedagogg for STEM Education. imanager's Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 6 Issue No. 1 April-June, 2009.pp. 20-27.
[29]. Trebell, D. (2007, July). A literature review in search of an appropriate theoretical perspective to frame a study of designerly activity in secondary design and technology. Paper presented at the meeting of The Design and Technology Association Education & International Research Conference, Telford, England.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.