Enabling learning through meaningful classroom experiences has always been a challenge for teachers. Bringing about a balance of the ‘conceptual’ and the ‘hands-on’, along with contextual embeddedness in problem-solving situations, broadly characterises the experience of development and trials of three Design and Technology (D&T) education units reported here. D&T education is a novel contribution to the curriculum and is in alignment with the values and ideas put forward in the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005 (NCERT, 2005), particularly the need for making appropriate connections across disciplines and fostering meaningful learning. The article describes the outcomes of a systematic effort to develop, implement and theorise D&T education pedagogy along with an emphasis on cognitive and curricular dimensions.
AnningA. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 219–239.
2.
BalaramS. (1998). Thinking design. Ahmedabad: National Institute of Design.
3.
BarlexD. (ed.) (2007). Design & technology: For the next generation: A collection of provocative pieces, written by experts in their field, to stimulate reflection and curriculum innovation. Whitchurch, Shropshire, England: Cliffe & Company.
4.
BhattacharyyaP.K. (2004). Technology and children. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
5.
BildaZ.GeroJ.S. (2005). Does sketching off-load visuo-spatial working memory? InGeroJ.S.BonnardelN. (Eds), Studying designers’ 05 (pp. 145–159). International workshop on studying designers ‘05, University of Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France, 17–18 October 2015. Key centre of design computing and cognition, University of Sydney.
6.
BlomdahlE.RogalaW. (2008). Technology in compulsory school: Why? What? How?Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(1), 19–28.
7.
BrownJ.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
ChoksiB.ChunawalaS.NatarajanC. (2006). Technology education as a school subject in the Indian context. In VolkK.S. (Ed.), International conference technology education in the Asia Pacific Region: Conference 2006 proceedings: Articulating technology education in a global community (pp. 280–290). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Technology Education Association and Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
10.
CrossN. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.
11.
DarkeJ. (1984). The primary generator and the design process. In CrossN. (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 175–188). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
de VriesM. (1994). Technology education in Western Europe. In LaytonD. (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. V, pp. 31–44). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
13.
de VriesM.J. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Springer.
14.
DoE. Y.-L.GrossM.D. (2001). Thinking with diagrams in architectural design. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15(1–2), 135–149. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006661524497
15.
FinkeR.A.WardT.B.SmithS.M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
GandhiM.K. (1959). India of my dreams. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
17.
Goldin-MeadowS.BeilockS. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 664–674.
18.
GoldschmidtG. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143. DOI: 10.1080/10400419109534381
19.
GoldschmidtG. (2001). Visual analogy: A strategy for design reasoning and learning. In EastmanC.M.McCrackenM.NewstetterW. (Eds), Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education (pp. 199–219). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
20.
HegartyM. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.
21.
HennessyS. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 1–41.
22.
HennessyS.McCormickR.MurphyP. (1993). The myth of general problem-solving capability: Design and technology as an example. Curriculum Journal, 4(1), 73–89.
23.
HillA.M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life contexts: An alternative for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203–220.
24.
HopeG. (2009). Beyond knowing how to make it work: The conceptual foundations of designing. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 49–55.
JonesM.G.Brader-ArajeL.CarboniL.W.CarterG.RuaM.J.BanilowerE.HatchH. (2000). Tool time: Gender and students’ use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 760–783.
27.
KhunyakariR.P. (2008). Investigating middle school students’ perceptions of technology and developing design and technology education units to study students’ design productions. Mumbai: Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (unpublished PhD thesis).
28.
KhunyakariR.ChunawalaS.NatarajanC. (2007). Comparison of depictions by middle school students elicited in different contexts. InDakersJ.R.DowW.J.VriesM. de (Eds), PATT-18: Pupils’ attitudes towards technology: International conference on design and technology educational research 2007: Teaching and learning technological literacy in the classroom (pp. 392–399). Glasgow, UK: Faculty of Education, University of Glasgow.
29.
KhunyakariR.MehrotraS.ChunawalaS.NatarajanC. (2007a). Design and technology productions among middle school students: An Indian experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(1), 5–22.
30.
KimbellR.StablesK. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
31.
KimbellR.StablesK.GreenR. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
32.
KraussR.ChenY.GottesmanR. (2000). Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. In McNeillD. (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 261–283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LawsonB. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.
34.
LaytonD. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In LaytonD. (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. V, pp. 11–28). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
35.
MacDonaldD.GustafsonB.GentiliniS. (2007). Enhancing children’s drawing in design technology planning and making. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 59–75.
36.
McCormickR. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.
37.
MehrotraS. (2008). Introducing Indian middle school students to collaboration and communication centred design and technology education: A focus on socio-cultural and gender aspects. Mumbai: Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (unpublished PhD thesis).
38.
MehrotraS.KhunyakariR. (2007). Puppetry as a technology education unit. In de VriesM.CusterR.DakersJ.MartinG. (Eds), Analyzing best practices in technology education (pp. 107–122). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
39.
MenonG. (2007). The relevance of introducing design education in schools. InKatiyarV. S.MehtaS. (Eds), Design education: Tradition and modernity: Scholastic papers from the international conference, DETM 05 (pp. 557–564). Ahmedabad: National Institute of Design.
40.
Ministry of Education (1966). Report of the education commission, 1964–66: Education and national development. New Delhi: Government of India Press.
41.
NatarajanC. (2004). Designing and teaching appropriate technological productions to enhance their multi-expressive and multipurpose possibilities. In DiasP. V. (Ed.), Multiple languages, literacies and technologies: Mapping out concepts, analysing practices and defining positions (pp. 139–161). New Delhi: Books for Change; Frankfurt: Multilingualism Network.
42.
NCERT. (2005). National Curriculum Framework 2005. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training.
43.
NCERT. (2007). Position paper on the National Focus Group on Work and Education. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training.
44.
RothW. M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45.
RowellP.M. (2004). Developing technological stance: Children’s learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 45–59.
46.
SandersM. (2012). Integrative STEM education as ‘best practice’. InMiddletonH. E. (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design and engineering education (Vol. 2, pp. 102–117). Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved on April 10 2015 from http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/514769/2012-TERC-Volume-2-of-2.pdf
47.
SchönD.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
48.
SolomonJ. (2000). Learning to be inventive: Design, evaluation and selection in primary school technology. In ZimanJ. M. (Ed.), Technological innovation as an evolutionary process (pp. 190–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SolomonJ.HallS. (1996). An inquiry into progression in primary technology: A role for teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 6(3), 263–282.
van SommersP. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
VyasH. K. (2000). Design: the Indian context: Learning the historical rationale of the Indian design idiom. Ahmedabad: National Institute of Design.
53.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
WindschitlM. (2001). The diffusion and appropriation of ideas in the science classroom: Developing a taxonomy of events occurring between groups of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 17–42.
