Part 1A - Reflection

Through engaging with the design cycle in an open-ended design challenge, I recently had the opportunity to embrace the new design and technologies curriculum. The production of the new technologies curriculum offers a more comprehensive approach that focuses on aspects of design and technologies and digital technologies.

The practical nature of the Technologies learning area engages students in critical and creative thinking, including understanding interrelationships in systems when solving complex problems. A systematic approach to experimentation, problem-solving, prototyping and evaluation instils in students the value of planning and reviewing processes to realise ideas. (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, c. 2015)

This curriculum area, unlike other authority subjects, allows for expression and builds upon students’ creativity. I recently blogged about this topic. While some may believe that design process models, such as CobusBotes’ (Botes, n.d), are intended to make the process prescriptive and deprive students of opportunities to express creativity, they are in fact created to help students engage in the critical or key components of the design process and unleash their creativity through invention, increasing motivation, enthusiasm and engagement (Lewis, 2009, pp. 258-260). I feel I was engaged in extensive creative thinking in the design process while scaffolded, supported and guided by the design cycle.

By utilising the design cycle I was engaged with “active construction of meaning” through a “learner-centred approach” that built on my prior knowledge and allowed me to actively construct deeper and more meaningful and personalised knowledge. This was through open-ended, collaborative activities that allowed for shared understandings to solve problems that related to mine and my group members' real lives (Learners and learning in technology, n.d., p.16). The design cycle took place in a “co-constructed learning environment” where we, as students, were given more control and engaged in authentic and purposeful enquiry tasks with the teacher acting as a guide (Blackberry & Woods, 2015, p. 131); we were very much left to our own devices. As a teacher I would get students to engage in technology design challenges in groups where they can share ideas, build on each others' understandings, gain assistance from more knowledgeable peers and receive continuous feedback with little teacher input. From this I'm sure they will gain deeper meaning and understanding of the design process than traditional teaching methods.

Peer feedback works best in a “supportive environment [that] enables students to help each other clarify and develop ideas” (Moreland et al. 2007, as cited in Jones, Buntting & de Vries, 2011, p. 201) in a non-judgemental, supportive manner. This is certainly the experience I had and will strive to provide for my future students (see blog post for more thoughts on feedback). When I provided feedback, I tried to provide comprehensive, ‘affective’ feedback on the specific areas I feel my peer did well (Lu & Law, 2012, p. 272) and areas for improvement. From this process, I also received very positive and affective comments, which boosted my confidence and encouraged me to pursue with my design challenge as intended. I do believe constructive feedback would have been beneficial and is something that I will encourage my future students to engage in. To ensure the collaboration in my classroom is safe, thoughtful and supportive, as an educator I would utilise functions in student blogging tools that allow the teacher to read and approve each post and comment before it is published.

I recently blogged about stress created by engaging in multiple online spaces simultaneously (see blog post). Although this was my personal experience I am aware of the positive power of blogging. Trevor Cairney (2010) believes blogs are powerful tools as they provide a space where students have “’real readers’ who will respond as learners and fellow writers”.  While I was comfortable blogging, originally I was a little unsure about students doing this for privacy and safety reasons; I didn’t want the general public to be able to access and comment on the students’ content. However, I have found options for secure and safe environments for blogging such as ‘KidBlog’ and the blogging and journaling capabilities in ‘Virtual Classrooms’ in The Learning Place. I am quite excited to attempt using a ‘virtual classroom’ in my internship so I can see for myself the benefits of using these online tools with students.

All of these aspects lead to what I believe is one of the most critical elements of implementing the design cycle with students; the development of higher-order thinking skills. These thinking skills are often thought of by referring to Bloom’s revised taxonomy. In the design cycle process, participants are involved in the following thought processes:

• Ideation – Recollecting (past or similar ideas), modifying or inventing new ideas, and illustrating ideas. This covers a broad range of the Bloom’s levels of higher-order thinking. While there are elements of lower level thinking, there is a lot of idea generation in this initial phase, linked to the Bloom’s level of Creating. 
• Investigation – Researching, imagining, analysing – Bloom’s level of Analysing.
• Production – Designing, inventing, fabricating and building – Bloom’s level of Creating.
• Evaluation – Measuring, judging, justifying and critiquing – Bloom’s level of Evaluating.

By experiencing the design cycle first hand, I was able to notice how interlinked each of the design phases are. This is a very important part of the process to explain to students so they are aware that using the design cycle is not about getting anything right immediately; it’s about critically evaluating your product, engaging in higher-order thinking, providing and receiving feedback to finally arrive at a design or product that is refined and best suited to the criteria. As a future educator, this is an understanding I want to instil in my students so they are futures-oriented, resilient and ready for the rapid progressions in society.

References

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (c. 2015). Technologies: overview (v. 7.4). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/technologies/rationale

Blackberry, G. & Woods, D. (2015). Teachers and pupils incorporated: developing a co-constructed classroom. In S. Younie, M. Leask & K. Burden (Eds.),Teaching and learning with ICT in the primary school (2nd ed., pp. 131-141). New York, NY: Routledge.

Botes, C. (n.d.). The design cycle. Retrieved from http://mypdesign.weebly.com/design-cycle.html

Brady, L. (2006). Collaborative learning in action. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Cairney, T. (2010, March 7). Children as bloggers.  Retrieved from http://trevorcairney.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/children-as-bloggers.html

Jones, A., Buntting, C. & de Vries, M. (2013). The developing field of technology education: a review to look forward. International journal of technology and design education, 23(2), 191-212. doi 10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4

Learners and learning in technology. (n.d.). Retrieved from CQUniversity e-courses, EDED11406 Teaching Reading, http://moodle.cqu.edu.au

Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International journal of technology and design education, 19(3), 255-268. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y

Lu, J & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional science, 40(2), 257-275. doi 10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2