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
