Höre Talking D&T

Send me a message. [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/288393/open_sms] In this episode of the Talking D&T podcast, I explore the pedagogical approach of product analysis, often known as IDEAS (Investigation, Disassembly, Evaluation, and Analysis). I examine how this signature pedagogy helps develop learners' understanding of technology in society—a core aim of the National Curriculum in England. I discuss how product analysis bridges curriculum and pedagogy by teaching pupils to examine artefacts through multiple lenses. When handled thoughtfully, this approach enables young people to develop technological knowledge by understanding not just how products function, but why certain materials, components and manufacturing processes were selected. My conversation highlights two particularly valuable aspects of product analysis: Firstly, how physical interaction with products—handling a hair clip or observing people using a door—provides unique insights into design decisions and functionality that theoretical discussion alone cannot achieve. Secondly, how examining products helps pupils recognise technological determinism—the reciprocal relationship between how technology shapes society and how society shapes technology. Whether you're teaching primary or secondary D&T, this pedagogical approach offers rich opportunities to develop critical thinking and analytical skills. Consider how you might structure IDEAS activities with clear learning intentions: Are you focusing on materials selection, product evolution over time, or user experience? Have you found effective ways to structure product analysis in your classroom? What impact have these approaches had on your pupils' design thinking and technological understanding? I'd love to hear your experiences. Acknowledgement: Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode. Support the show [https://www.buzzsprout.com/288393/support] If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee [https://ko-fi.com/alisonhardy] to say 'thanks!' Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison [https://www.threads.net/@dralisonhardy] or by emailing me. If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here [https://www.patreon.com/alisonhardy]. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Subscriber-only episode [https://www.buzzsprout.com/288393/supporters/new] Send me a message. [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/288393/open_sms] In this episode, I explore the boundary between pedagogy and curriculum intent in D&T education. I reflect on how we can make our implicit modelling of design strategies more explicit to enhance pupils' learning and metacognitive awareness. Drawing from my classroom experience, I consider those moments when I implemented activities like Design Fiction or 635, but didn't articulate why I'd selected these approaches or when pupils might choose to use them. I question whether I was sufficiently explicit when making material choices—why select 4mm acrylic rather than 6mm?—and how sharing this reasoning might have deepened pupils' design thinking. Unlike simple demonstration of techniques, explicit modelling reveals the decision-making processes underpinning good design practice. While this connects to aspects of Rosenshine's principles of instruction, D&T presents unique opportunities as our projects unfold over weeks rather than single lessons. This approach has relevance beyond the National Curriculum, with international educators similarly exploring how to make design thinking visible to learners. Whether you're teaching in a secondary school in Birmingham or a technology college in Melbourne, making your design decisions explicit helps pupils develop their own design capabilities. As you plan your next scheme of work, which design decisions might you make visible to your pupils? How might explicitly modelling your thinking transform their understanding of the design process? I'd love to hear how explicit modelling works in your context. Acknowledgement: Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode. If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee [https://ko-fi.com/alisonhardy] to say 'thanks!' Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison [https://www.threads.net/@dralisonhardy] or by emailing me. If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here [https://www.patreon.com/alisonhardy]. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message. [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/288393/open_sms] In this episode, I delve into the pedagogical approaches that exist beyond the traditional 'design and make' activities in Design and Technology education. Drawing on research literature and classroom practice, I explore how 'mainly designing' and 'mainly making' activities can be powerful pedagogical tools when used deliberately and appropriately. I share insights from Bill Nichol's work on designing for future contexts, including how case studies and question cards can help pupils develop empathy and understanding for users they cannot directly access. I also examine Hilda Ruth Beaumont's contributions to the Young Foresight Project, which demonstrated how pupils can design with materials not yet available in classrooms. The episode highlights how these approaches allow pupils to explore unfamiliar contexts—whether from different countries, time periods, or future scenarios—without being constrained by their current making skills. I discuss how focused practical tasks provide opportunities for pupils to develop material understanding and manufacturing skills without the cognitive overload that can accompany full design and make activities. These pedagogical approaches aren't replacements for design and make activities but complementary strategies that enhance pupils' learning. By recognising when we're using 'mainly designing' or 'mainly making' approaches (rather than masquerading them as design and make activities), we can better structure learning experiences that build capability. How might your curriculum benefit from explicitly planning for 'mainly designing' and 'mainly making' activities? Could these approaches help you introduce pupils to emerging technologies or contexts beyond their immediate experience? Share your thoughts with colleagues and join the conversation about expanding our pedagogical repertoire in D&T education. References, activities, and resources mentioned: 1. Donna Trebell's doctoral studies on "designing without making" 2. Young Foresight Project (late 1990s) - introducing children to new materials and processes not available in classrooms 3. Bill Nichol's work on question cards for exploring different users 4. "Designing Our Tomorrows" research by Bill Nichol, including hands-on kit 5. Bob McCormick's paper on "the ritual of the design project" 6. Matt McLain's and Sarah Davies' collaborative work with me on "mainly designing" and "mainly making" terminology 7. Nuffield resources for focused practical tasks (available on "dandtfordant" website) 8. IDEO cards (mentioned in context of exploring different functions and uses of objects) Acknowledgement: Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. Support the show [https://www.buzzsprout.com/288393/support] If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee [https://ko-fi.com/alisonhardy] to say 'thanks!' Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison [https://www.threads.net/@dralisonhardy] or by emailing me. If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here [https://www.patreon.com/alisonhardy]. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message. [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/288393/open_sms] In this episode of Talking D&T, I explore the complex nature of design and make activities in design and technology education. Drawing on research from Richard Kimball, David Perry, and Robert McCormick, I unpack the pedagogical approach of design and make that underpins our subject and challenge some common misconceptions about "the design process". A key insight emerges around the balance between process and outcome in D&T education. When we become fixated on the final product, we risk compromising valuable learning opportunities along the way. I examine Matt McLain's framework of expansive versus restrictive approaches, questioning when it's appropriate to give pupils freedom to make decisions and when more structured guidance serves them better. I also explore McCormick's notion of 'revelation and ritual' in design processes, highlighting the danger of following steps mechanistically without making learning explicit to pupils. This raises important considerations about how we develop pupils' design and technology capability rather than simply guiding them through predetermined steps. For D&T teachers, this episode offers a chance to reflect on your own practice. How do you balance the focus on outcomes with the development of skills and knowledge? Where in your projects do pupils have genuine opportunities to make decisions, experience failure, and justify their choices? Whether you're teaching in a primary or secondary setting, these considerations are crucial for developing authentic design and technology capability in your pupils. How might you adapt your planning to create a more balanced approach to design and make activities in your classroom? Acknowledgement: Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode. Support the show [https://www.buzzsprout.com/288393/support] If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee [https://ko-fi.com/alisonhardy] to say 'thanks!' Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison [https://www.threads.net/@dralisonhardy] or by emailing me. If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here [https://www.patreon.com/alisonhardy]. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message. [https://www.buzzsprout.com/twilio/text_messages/288393/open_sms] Drawing a clear line between how we teach and what we teach seems straightforward—until you step into a Design & Technology classroom. In this thought-provoking exploration of pedagogy in D&T education, I unpack why teachers often blur the boundaries between teaching methods and curriculum content, sometimes without realising it. The heart of effective D&T education lies in developing students' design and technology capability, but this requires navigating complex terrain. When we structure lessons around design processes without explicitly highlighting those processes as strategies students can adopt independently, we risk creating what researcher Bob McCormick calls "the ritual of the design project." Students follow prescribed steps without developing true capability—they complete the activities without gaining the metacognitive awareness needed to transfer these approaches to new contexts. Through practical examples like the 6-3-5 collaborative design technique and tool demonstrations, I illustrate the difference between clear pedagogical separation (when demonstrating cutting techniques) and problematic blending (when teaching design processes). This distinction matters profoundly: when students don't recognise a design strategy as a transferable tool they can apply independently, their development as designers is limited. They become dependent on teacher-led frameworks rather than developing autonomous design thinking. For D&T educators, this episode offers an opportunity to reflect on your teaching practice. Are you explicitly highlighting design strategies as transferable tools? Do your students recognise when they're learning processes they can apply independently? How might restructuring your lessons enhance students' ability to develop genuine capability rather than just following teacher-led frameworks? Acknowledgement: Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode. Mentioned in the show 1. Andrew Pollard's text about pedagogy - the reflective teaching book 2. Bob McCormick's paper about "the ritual of the design project" 3. Reference to Non-examined assessment (NEA) - coursework in England 4. Matt McClain's work on demonstrations as a teaching approach 5. The 6-3-5 technique of designing (design strategy where students fold A3 paper into six boxes and take turns creating designs in three-minute intervals) Support the show [https://www.buzzsprout.com/288393/support] If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee [https://ko-fi.com/alisonhardy] to say 'thanks!' Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison [https://www.threads.net/@dralisonhardy] or by emailing me. If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here [https://www.patreon.com/alisonhardy]. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!