Geoff Rogers
Curtin University of Technology
Abstract
An exploratory case study of an early years class involved in a Design, Makeand Appraise [DMA] program was conducted. It was found that a number of factors and structural / organisational issues emerged during the implementation process. One issue of significance that emerged was the fact that there appeared to be a weak link existing between the children's designing stage and their making and appraising stages. This paper will attempt to explore some possible reasons as to why the children in this study did not visibly link the designing stage with the other two stages of making and appraising. Because there was found to be a lack of research studies that focussed on the designing stage of DMA with young children, it was therefore necessary to explore associated aspects of designing such as children using computers to design and drawing pictures and diagrams during science lessons. Other aspects of the designing stage that will be briefly mentioned include scale, copying and perspective. The analysis of young children's design capabilities was found to be very complex and worthy of a more in-depth treatment than was possible in this present study. The paper concludes with a brief mention of some of the implications for teachers as they implement the design stage of DMA in their classrooms.
Introduction
Design activities have the potential to offer rich and meaningful learning, and combined with technology, allow for the creation of interesting and stimulating design learning environments in schools. As an area of the curriculum, design education makes a unique contribution to children's cognitive, emotional, psycho-motor and social development. The act of designing can open the door to a wide range of real life situations that are of special interest to girls (Browne, 1991). Designing can make a contribution to child development that both complements and augments the effects of more traditional subject areas (Phillips, 1982). The act of design has been defined by Richards (1990) as prescribing some form, structure, pattern or arrangement for a proposed thing, system or event. Design can also be described as a process that includes problem solving, problem finding and personal expression (Kafai, 1991). The difference between problem finding and problem solving has been pointed out by Schon (1983) who maintained that the former has tended to have been neglected in schools to its detriment.
A number of characteristics of design and technology have been documented by Bentley and Campbell (1990). These authors believe that it involves problem solving activities that are child centred and focused. Designing (or imaging) is a distinct activity that usually occurs as a pre-cursor to the problem solving activity that takes place within a particular context or environment. Design and technology is distinctly concerned with knowledge and skills concerning the form and function of materials, artefacts and systems. It is an activity that involves children in cooperative planning and practical application of various communication skills. Wisely (1988) in her book on primary technology, lists the design process as consisting of eight main steps and for younger children can be simplified into three basic stages. The first stage consists of drawings and plans. The children are encouraged to be innovative and creative in their design of say an imaginary device. At the second stage, 3-D models of their design are created. These models do not do anything as they only symbolically represent the components and structures. For the third stage a working model is made and contains working parts that re-create the ways in which a full size version would operate. These three stages differ from the usual Design, Make and Appraise [DMA] process which can be considered to be essentially a cyclic process, in which feedback from each stage enables children to either modify ideas already generated, or move forward onto new ideas (Lever, 1990).
The act of design integrates different aspects of learning - the analytic and synthetic; the planning and tinkering; the detailed and the holistic; and the cognitive with the affective. The act of designing allows the learner to explore a particular subject from multiple perspectives and in different styles (Kafai, 1994). Design education can be used to help children think more flexibly and creatively by encouraging them to engage in exploratory and investigative behaviour towards objects in the environment. It assists in the functioning of the relatively neglected right hemisphere of the brain (Phillips, 1982). It can be used to encourage those aspects of thought and understanding concerned with more sensuous ways of knowing the world.
In a recent study of technology teaching and learning in a Victorian year five primary class, the relationship between science and technology was explored (Jane, 1995). From a literature search this researcher found that little has been reported about the design process as it relates directly to primary school children in Technology Studies. I have also discovered this to be the case and therefore in discussing the designing stage of DMA it is necessary to broaden the focus to explore related areas. One of these relates to the techniques that children use to draw diagrams in science. A study was conducted some time ago using grade two children in a Victorian primary school. It was found that young children used a wide variety of techniques to aid the clarity of their drawings during science activities. They were able to readily discriminate between various drawings even though they were given no direct teacher instruction on appropriate drawing techniques (Hayes & Symington, 1989). In a more recent study of drawing during science activities, Hayes, Symington and Martin (1994) maintained that there has not been any comprehensive consideration given as to what are the actual purposes of involving children in drawing. After implementing a number of teaching strategies, these researchers discovered that a range of objective and process purposes can be achieved in the early years of schooling. Despite the fact that drawing is a very common activity during science lessons in the primary school, it has received very little attention from curriculum developers and researchers (Medway, 1989).
Kafai (1994) has conducted extensive research in the US with elementary children engaged in design projects using computer software. Many of her findings have relevance for design in the DMA context. She believed that there is no one 'right' way to start, continue and complete a design task. Children's mistakes are not seen as signs of failure but as sources of feedback. The unexpected is valued and unanticipated ideas from children actively encouraged (Medway, 1989). A similar sentiment is shared by Farely (1986), who also maintains that there is no absolutely right answer to a design problem, since any one of several creative and diverse solutions may be equally valid. Unfortunately it would appear that much of today's education seems to require responses to questions that can be measured by only have so-called 'correct' or 'right' answers. The National Subject Profiles (Curriculum Corporation, 1994) attempt to categorise children's attainment levels in the eight key learning areas of the curriculum. Each statement (subject) strand has eight progressive levels of student achievement which are described as outcomes. Yet it would seem that DMA activities tend to be more open-ended and do not readily lend themselves to be neatly categorised into levels. What is required is a new mind-set in which solutions produced can always be further refined and improved. As such, DMA activities can be one of the most intellectually demanding tasks that a child can experience at school (Farley, 1986). Primary schools are appropriate places for children to begin their DMA training, since young children tend to have limited inhibitions about discovering. A good deal of learning takes place through play in which children learn through trial and error (Bishop & Simpson, 1992).
Attention shall now be given to the study of the implementation of DMA in an early years classroom. The research was initially guided by the following three questions: What are some of the factors that contribute to the effective implementation of a DMA program in an early years classroom? What are some of the underlying structural and organisational issues of the classroom environment that appear to emerge during the implementation of a DMA program in an early years classroom? And what are some of the possible implications for classroom teachers that arise out of these identified factors and issues?
Methodology
The study focused on a single early years classroom at Highfield Junior Primary School. The teacher was Jill (a pseudonym) and she implemented a DMA curriculum with her class of 26 five year old children in their first year of formal schooling. In order to investigate the initial research questions a qualitative case study, that was both descriptive (of the classroom setting and situation) and interpretive, was conducted (Peshkin, 1993). The initial research questions underwent further modification and refinement as the data collection and interpretation process proceeded. The mainly qualitative approach also included obtaining some quantitative data in order to provide some background information about the selected early years classroom and the children's current level of awareness and exposure to technology.
The data for this study was collected while working in the classroom as a participant observer over the third school term. Observations took place every Wednesday morning, in the period between morning recess and lunch time, for a total of ten weeks. A variety of data sources were used and included detailed field notes, debriefing sessions with the class teacher following each session, audio taping of all sessions and video tapes of some of the sessions during term three. Photographs were taken of completed models and informal interviews conducted with the participants throughout the period of the study. From the assembled data a detailed narrative description of the term three DMA program was compiled. During the data collection phase emerging factors and issues, (some of which led to the need to acquire additional data) were identified.
During the data analysis process of this study, it was necessary to deliberately seek out confirming and disconfirming evidence from the multiple data sources (Erickson, 1986; Yin, 1989). This process was assisted by employing inductive analysis (Abell & Roth, 1992) in which repeated examinations of field notes, audio and video tapes, interview transcripts and documents led to the development of categories for organising the data in order to report the findings. Some aspects of the data analysis was conducted collaboratively with the class teacher who was the focal informant (Abell & Roth, 1992). Following each of the individual DMA sessions, a debriefing session with the teacher was held. The teacher was also asked to read several drafts of the case study and to make critical comments about the contents. This ensured that any obvious misinterpretations or misunderstandings were corrected.
School Profile
Highfield Junior Primary was the school used for this study and is a state school situated in a leafy, reasonably affluent suburb of Adelaide. The junior primary (reception to year two) and primary schools (years three to seven) share a common campus. (In South Australia, the majority of children commence their formal schooling soon after they turn five years of age and generally spend their first twelve months of school in a reception class before commencing year one.) At the time of conducting this study there were three hundred and seven children enrolled in the junior primary school in reception through to year two. There were twelve classes, five of which were taught by tandem teachers sharing the same class. On the staff there were a total of twenty female teachers, which included specialist teachers in music, LOTE (Languages other than English - Chinese, Greek and Italian), and ESL (English as a second language) and Farsi (mother tongue program). The average age of the teachers was between 40 and 50 years. Approximately 16% of the students came from non-English speaking backgrounds and approximately 6% of the students were on what is called 'School Card' (that is, parents of limited income who are means tested to receive some State Government financial assistance).
Designing
Jill's DMA program of activities for term three commenced with the teaching and learning of several science concepts. This occupied the first three sessions. In the session for week four, the children were asked to make a vehicle that contained at least one wheel. The children used a variety of commercially made plastic construction kits. For the final part of this session, Jill handed out a prepared blue worksheet on which each child was asked to draw their design of the model that they had made. Of the designs drawn by the children 50% were from the side-perspective. The children were also required to write down the name of what they had made. Some children needed assistance with writing their word. A total of nine children's designs contained persons. When they had finished, these sheets were then glued into the back of their Science and Technology exercise books.
At the beginning of the DMA session in week five, Jill explained to the children how they were now going to work in pairs and jointly design a model of something that had wheels. She handed out a yellow work-sheet on which the children were asked to draw a picture which was to be the design of what they were going to make. To assist the children with this task, Jill showed them some ideas of objects with wheels, using photocopied sheets as well as some examples from a selection of library books.
Before the children went off to draw their designs, Jill went through some of the different types of materials they could utilise. She said to the children: I want you to think about the materials you are going to use. (These materials included plastic cups, big reels, plastic wheels, empty cardboard rolls, cotton reels, popsticks and an assortment of different sized cardboard wheels.). Think about what you are going to use and talk with your partner and draw a picture. I want you to think about all the materials that you are going to need. I am going to give one person at a time a partner and you are going to write their name on the top of your design sheet. You are both going to do a picture but first of all you have to plan together. Talk together and plan what you are going to do. So you will need to have two names. Maybe underline your name and write the other person's name too. As the children were paired off they went back to their seats to begin their designing task. Jill reiterated to the children that this time, although they each had to draw their own design, they would only be making one model (containing wheels) between each pair. At this stage the children were not given any assistance or guidance on how to go about drawing a design. After the children had been given sufficient time to draw their designs, Jill had all the children gather on the carpet. This time all of the designs drawn by the children were from a side-perspective and ranged from quite detailed through to less sophisticated. No plan view perspectives were drawn. Once again nine children including drawing a person in their design (Figures 3 & 4).
The children's models with wheels were subsequently completed during the next session in week six.
Over the next three weeks, the sessions were devoted to having the children design, make and appraise pieces of play equipment for their group models of playgrounds. Jill explained to the children that they would be working in groups of five or six children and that each child would be required to make an individual piece of play equipment for her/his group's playground. She also told them that for this week's session they would need to decide what they would like to make and then draw a design for it. Jill stressed the need for the children to discuss their proposed piece of play equipment with each other in the group so that no one would chose the same type of play equipment.
After most children had finished drawing their designs, Jill called them back together and collected their design sheets. As Jill collected their design sheets she made some comments about each design before allocating them into categories of play equipment. She asked the children to think during the coming week about what types of materials they might be able to use and how they might be able to get their models to move. She then informed them that after lunch during their weekly computer session, they were going to use the 'pencil' on the Kid Pix computer program, to improve their designs by redrawing them.
At the beginning of the session in week eight, Jill went through with the whole class each child's computer generated piece of play-ground equipment design from the previous week. She showed the class what each child had drawn and provided feedback on each design. Jill retained these designs. She later made the comment how the children generally found it easier to draw straight lines using the computer. Jill also reminded the children of the need to keep their models Examples of designs from session in week five reasonably small so that they would fit onto their group's piece of thick plastic-coated base board. She also asked the children to start to think of possible safety features that could be added to their playground models next week.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Discussion of Findings
One issue of significance that emerged during this study was the fact that there appeared to be a weak link existing between the children's designing stage and their making and appraising stages. Although Jill incorporated designing tasks as an integral and important part of the DMA process, from the observations it was apparent that Jill only provided the children with minimal guidance and attention whenever they were asked to draw designs. This resulted in a weak link existing between the designing stage and the making and appraising stages. There seemed to be three main possible reasons why children did not refer back and make any further use of their designs during the subsequent making and appraising stages. First, they did not appear to have a clear idea of what designs actually looked liked. Secondly, they did not seem to understand the purposes for drawing a design. And thirdly, closely associated with the above two reasons, they did not appear to know how to go about drawing a design. Also to emerge from an analysis of the data concerning this design stage, were several other issues related to the area of design. These included the aspects of design perspectives, the children's attitudes towards the design tasks and the association between the designs drawn and the finished products. Each of these will now be discussed in turn.
The first possible reason for the weak link concerned the fact that the children had no clear idea about what designs looked like. The two DMA activities in which the children were asked to initially draw designs were in session five when they were asked to make a design with wheels and in sessions seven when they designed a piece of play-equipment for their group's playground. After the children had drawn their initial designs, no evidence was observed of them referring back to their designs during any of these and subsequent sessions. Once the children had completed drawing their designs, they usually went over to select from the collection of materials that Jill had assembled. The materials that they selected seemed to be largely determined by what was available rather than what was needed to build their design. The design sheet Jill had prepared for session five contained space for the children to list materials but unfortunately this section of the sheet was not used. While talking to the children before they started drawing their designs, Jill did ask them (as can be seen in the dialogue presented in the previous section) to think about the materials that they were going to use.
The children seemed to confuse drawing pictures and drawing designs. In session four, when asked to draw a design of their finished model a number of children included people in their design. During session five, where the children were asked to initially draw a design of a model that had wheels, once again a number of children included people in their design (Figures 3 & 4). The boy who drew a racing car in Figure 1 also included a road. When questioned about his picture, he was able to relate a short story. When pressed further about how he was going to make his car, he said that he was not sure. It would appear that he did not really understand the difference between drawing a picture and drawing a design.
Atkinson (1991) believes that children use drawing as a flexible and powerful tool to perform a variety of representational tasks such as actions, event, time-sequences, people, objects and narratives. (The boy mentioned above was obviously using his drawing as representing a narrative.) This author, when discussing children's drawing development refers to their range of drawing discourses. It could be argued that designs are a specific type of drawing discourse in which objects become representations that capture, explore and transmit ideas visually. In this study it would therefore seem that the children, when asked to draw a design, used a range of drawing discourses which resulted in a variety of representational forms. This may have been due to the fact that Jill had not taught them specifically about designing.
A second possible reason as to why the children in this study did not visibly link the designing stage with the other two stages of making and appraising, may have been because they were unclear as to the purpose of drawing designs. In Jill's class, there seemed to be an unstated rule that the designs should result in a perfect product from a first draft. They did not see their designs as a 'first ideas' stage of a continuous DMA process whereby they could regularly return to their designs to rework. (A similar analogy could be drawn from the process approach to writing where children's first written drafts have often been considered to be final products.) Jill required the children to draw a first and final design for all the design tasks except the one for the playground making sessions. For the piece of playground equipment design task, the children were able to redraft their designs using a computer. Generally the children were not encouraged to work through 'drafts' of their design drawings along similar lines to that used in process writing. The designing stage in this study was related to the making and appraising stages in a linear way. Jones and Carr (1993) in their New Zealand study of Technology Education found that the technological processes used by the majority of students proceeded in a linear fashion. On the other hand, both Jane's (1995) Victorian case study of Technology Education, and Ritchie and Hampson's (1996) Queensland study of children in a year six class, found design to be interrelated to the making and appraising stages in a cyclic fashion. The three interrelated components of plan, build and test were able to inform the children about the other features. Ritchie and Hampson (1996) have argued that teachers might consider teaching children that design is an interrelated DMA process that can involve several planning - making - testing loops.
The impressions gained from observations of the children during the designing stage was that they wanted to get over the designing task as quickly as possible so that they could get on with the next stage of making which seemed to them to be more important and interesting. Jane and Smith (1992) in their study of year two / three children in Victoria, found a similar situation with their children who also wanted to quickly complete the design part so that they could move onto the making stage. From observations of the children in this study, it was obvious that they did not understand that drawing designs can act as an aid to enhance their problem-solving and thinking about ideas and exploration of options visually on paper. Egan (1995), who has explored the narrative aspects of children's drawings, maintains that the focus of design drawing should be to explain rather than depict. She has argued that by concentrating on the pictorial aspect of drawing, reinforces the concept of drawing designs as an end in itself, unrelated to the subsequent task of making. It could be also be argued that with the young children in this study, a lot of their designing occurred cognitively, without them necessarily recording their ideas on paper. A third possible explanation relating to the weak link found between designing and making, may have been due to the fact that the children did not know how to draw designs. Had Jill spent more time teaching them designing skills, then maybe their models could have been improved further. Cousins (1994) in her paper on DMA has also raised this issue of the need for teachers to focus on teaching design drawing skills and stressing to children the purpose of designs.
On the Design Sheet handed to the children for session five, Jill had the original intention of having the children think about what they were going to use to make their models, and to list them on the sheet. (Jill had overlooked asking the children to complete this section on their sheet.) The intention appeared to be a good idea, because it would have forced the children to think about possible materials that they could use to make their design. Had Jill taught the children design skills, she could have introduced to the children the notion of size and scale to use. Samuel (1991) has argued that wherever possible, young children should have access to a limited choice of materials and that they draw their designs with this in mind. He also believes that they should design 'life size'. Finally, Jill could have talked to the children about the complex issue of copying and building on from the ideas of others.
Another issue to emerge from an analysis of the children's designs was that of perspective. It was interesting that when the children were asked to draw a design of their completed model made using plastic construction kits, half the group chose to use a plan view perspective. When the children were asked to draw a design in session five, they all drew it from a side perspective (Figures 1, 2, 3 & 4.). This would suggest what has already been mentioned, that they lacked knowledge and understanding about the designing stage of the DMA process. Work by Fleer (1992, 1993) has shown that young children can successfully be taught to draw 'birds eye'/plan view perspectives of models.
In this study, the designs were all characterised by flat images that revealed the height and width of objects (Figures 1, 2, 3 & 4). Atkinson (1991) has claimed that children's early representational forms are typically like this. On the other hand, as children grow older, their drawings become characterised by a shift towards more perspectival forms. It was very difficult to make subject judgements about the designs drawn by the children. Although from an examination of the children's designs they seemed to be straight forward and lacked a high degree of creative innovativeness, this observation may have been due to one's own attitude towards representation that could have been based for example on intellectual realism. The variety of children's design drawing discourses suggest that children's use of drawing was more complex than first thought. Therefore, in attempting to interpret children's designs one needs to be sensitive to the various uses and meanings which children give their drawings. This also means that the context needs to be taken into account.
Although this study did not find that the children made an obvious connection between the design and making stages, on the other hand it did find that the children had a very positive and enthusiastic attitude towards drawing designs. The children enthusiastically applied themselves to the designing task and seemed to enjoy drawing their designs. Previous studies by Brennan (1989), Claire (1991), Cooke (1996), Jane and Smith (1992) and Smits (1990) all found that children disliked engaging in any form of graphic presentation. (It was interesting to note that the children in these studies were older than those used in this current study.) Jill varied the designing task and this may have been a contributing factor to the children's enjoyment. In the session for week four, the children were asked to draw their designs after they had made their 'wheel' model using commercial construction kits. Claire (1991) conducted a case study of DMA teaching and found that for reception children, learning the skills involved in drawing often occurred in the context of recording what had already been made. In session seven, Jill had the children make use of the computer to redraft their earlier drawn designs of their pieces of play equipment.
As mentioned throughout this discussion on designing, the children in this study did not exhibit a strong connection between their drawn designs and the other two stages of the DMA process. As a result it was difficult to visually detect a strong correspondence between the models made and the designs drawn by the children for the two tasks of an object with 'wheels' and their piece of play equipment. Samuel (1991) believed that children often translate their highly imaginative images into elaborate drawings that bare little relationship to anything that they could possibly make. It was too difficult to try to categorise the designs and models. While speaking informally to the children about their completed models and original designs, most were vague and unable to talk about the connection between the two. At the time it was felt that this was because they were unsure about their designs and why they had to draw them. What this aspect of the study did highlight was that this whole area of the analysis of young children's design capabilities was very complex. Thus it could be an area worthy of a more in-depth treatment than was possible during this present study, which has been largely exploratory and in many ways has only been able to scratch the surface of this issue.
Recently Stables (1997) has written a paper about introducing technology education to young children. In this paper she expresses grave reservations about allowing young children to draw a design on paper prior to making. She argues that the technology curriculum for young children should not be dominated by paradigms developed for use in secondary schools. She supports her argument by citing instances where there has been little resemblance of the designs drawn to what the young children went on to make. It could be argued that such a stance fails to appreciate what the purpose of the initial design process should be in that it serves to provide a medium for children to clarify and communicate their ideas. The fact that the resultant artefact is different from the original design is quite normal and illustrates the draft status that designs can assume. Medway (1992) has also argued that the production of design proposals is an artificial construction whose links to reality are tenuous and problematic.
Implications for Teachers
As previously mentioned, this study has revealed that the teaching of design skills is as important as the making and appraising stages of the DMA process. Young children can successfully engage in design tasks, providing sufficient emphasis on the design stage is given by the teacher. Because in this study there was found to exist a weak link between the design and making processes, teachers therefore need to make a conscious effort to link the two stages of designing and making. There are a number of strategies which teachers can use to enhance the link between the two stages. Both Claire (1991), and Pace and Larson (1992), have suggested that children can draft a predesign drawing and then draw a postdesign drawing after they have constructed their model. This postdesign would then reflect the modifications that they had made to their model.
Jill was not observed modelling drawing during the design stage. Anning (1994) has noted that teachers rarely demonstrate drawing skills to young children. She maintained that the primary school culture often vetoes teacher modelling of drawing because it may force children into an adult mode of representation at the expense of individual creativity. Another researcher, Fleer (1990; 1992; 1995) argued that adult interactional patterns by teachers are crucial for the quality of children's learning. During the design stage of DMA, teacher modelling with children could be a valuable strategy before eventually handing over to them responsibility for the process. For example, teachers could explore with children various perspectives that can be used for drawing designs.
Another useful strategy during the design stage could be to show children examples of how rough sketches are produced by a variety of designers such as artists, architects and engineers prior to starting work on their final piece. Fleer (1996) has presented a case study of a year three teacher who had her children investigate what architects do and the associated building processes. Such exposure can act as a resource bank for children's developing designerly thinking skills (Anning, 1992). Providing children with opportunities to discuss their designs with others has also been advocated by Liddament (1991) as a useful strategy to enrich children's designs. These nodal points (points at which the learner's understanding undergoes a metamorphosis) are embedded in talking to others. Cross-age tutoring has been suggested as another possible strategy (Tiddy, 1989).
When children are imaging (that is, running mental models through their mind's eye) the scaffolding provided by the teacher can greatly enrich this design process. This scaffolding takes place when the teacher provides visual stimuli of mental images which children can later access and so help them function at a much higher level in the design process (Anning, 1992). In addition, Samuel (1991) has advocated that teachers need to impose a range of constraints when giving young children design tasks. He believes that by providing young children with parameters in which to explore a design problem, they can be genuinely extended in both their thinking and designing skills. Such a controlled and structured approach also ensures that children are able to gain access to a full range of experiences offered by DMA activities.
The topic of children copying ideas from each other also needs to be raised as part of design pedagogy. Much of our education in schools today disapproves of children copying work from others. Because in designing there is no one right solution, copying ideas and building on from them, can be a very useful technique. Hayes and Symington (1989) conducted a study of junior primary children's drawings during science lessons. They found that children gained drawing techniques as a result of seeing them used by their peers. Jackson (1996) has written about the topic of copying during design and technology and believes that there is an interface between group work and individual work in which respect for each other comes into play. She also believes that it is important for the teacher to discuss the various aspects of copying with children. Richie and Hampson (1996) also found considerable peer interaction in which ideas were shared within and between groups. They concluded that the sharing of ideas appears to be an important component of learning through technology based projects in primary classrooms.
Summary
It was found that the children in this study when asked to draw designs, used a range of functional forms of drawing discourses. As children grow older, so their repertoire of drawing becomes narrower - usually towards representational. Because of the need to ensure that the eclectic nature of the functional forms of children's drawing remains broad, it is therefore necessary to ensure the act of designing does not become restricted to representation exclusively. Young children need to see the use of drawing design sketches as a function that allows their exploration and transmission of ideas visually. The designing stage is the all important thinking stage and is an important part of children's drawing discourse which should be fostered by the teacher.
This study has demonstrated that the design stage is an integral and important part of the DMA process, even though a weak link was found to exist between the design stage and the other two. It has been argued that this weak link may have been caused in part by the children's lack of a clear idea of what designs look like, their purpose and lack of skills to draw them. Associated skills such as listing materials, size and scale, copying and perspective have been discussed. It became apparent during the study that this designing stage provided the children with an opportunity to engage in a form of cognitive thinking about the problem-solving task using a visual medium. The thinking process used by the children engaged in the design task was probably more important than the end product produced. A lot of the children's designing and planning must have occurred without their ideas necessarily being expressed on paper.
References
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76(6), 581-595.
Anning, A. J. E. (1992). Factors effecting design and technology capability at key stages 1 and 2. Design and Technology Teaching, 24(3), 10-15.
Anning, A. J. E. (1994). Technological capability in the primary school classroom. Occasional Publication No. 6. Leeds, UK: School of Education, University of Leeds.
Atkinson, D. (1991). How children use drawing. Journal of Art and Design Education, 10(1), 57-72.
Bentley, M., & Campbell, J. (1990). Primary design and technology: An introduction. In M. Bentley, J. Campbell, A. Lewis & M. Sullivan (Eds.), Primary design and technology in practice (pp. 1-3). Essex, UK: Longmans.
Bishop, A., & Simpson, R. C. (1992). Playing with design and technology: Experiences in the nursery. Design and Technology Teaching, 24(2), 35-36, 42.
Brennan, R. (1989). A problem solving approach to design and construction. In Early childhood / primary curriculum newsletter (No. 1). Adelaide, SA: Education Department of South Australia.
Browne, N. (Ed.) (1991). Science and technology in the early years. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
Claire, H. (1991). A child centred technology curriculum - a primary school case study. Design and Technology Teaching, 24(1), 17-22.
Cooke, S. (1996). Effective completion of technological tasks. In L. Tickle (Ed.), Understanding design and technology in primary schools: Cases from teachers' research (pp. 38-49). London, UK: Routledge.
Cousins, J. (1994). Teaching and assessing tasks within the design, make and appraise (DMA) strand of technology in the primary school. In L. J. Rennie (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the Western Australian science education association (pp. 23-27). Perth, WA, 18 November. [ERIC NO ED389514]
Curriculum Corporation. (1994). Technology - A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.
Egan, B.A. (1995). How do children perceive the act of drawing? Some initial observations of children in an infant school. DATER 95, 10-14.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Farley, S. (1986). Primary design. Western European Education, 18(3), 53-62.
Fleer, M. (1990). Scaffolding conceptual change in early childhood. Research in Science Education, 20, 140-123.
Fleer, M. (1992). Introducing technology education to young children: A design, make and appraise approach. Research in Science Education, 22, 132-139.
Fleer, M. (1993). Can we incorporate the principles of the national statement on technology education into our early childhood programs? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 18(4), 26-34.
Fleer, M. (1995). The importance of conceptually focused teacher-child interaction in early childhood science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 325-342.
Fleer, M. (1996). Talking technologically in preschool and school: Three case examples. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(2), 1-6.
Hayes, D., & Symington, D. (1989). Techniques used by primary school pupils in drawings during science activities. Research in Science Education, 19, 145-154.
Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 265-277.
Jackson, R. (1996). Copying. In L. Tickle (Ed.), Understanding design and technology in primary schools: Cases from teachers' research (pp. 77-85). London, UK: Routledge.
Jane, B. L. (1995). Technology in the primary curriculum: A teacher's perceptions and student's learning. Monash University, VIC: Unpublished Ph.D doctoral thesis.
Jane, B., & Smith, L. (1992). Technology in the curriculum - a vehicle for the development of children's understanding of science concepts through problem solving. Australasian Science Education Research Association paper, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, July.
Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1993). Analysis of student capability. (Working paper, Vol. 2 of the Learning in Technology Education Project). Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato, Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research.
Kafai, Y. B. (1991). Design for learning: An exploration of design theories and their implication for educational computing. Qualifying paper, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Kafai, Y. B. (1994). Children's design styles: The development of strategies in the creation of a complex product and their implications for learning activities. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LO, April.
Lever, C. (1990). National curriculum design technology for key stages 1, 2 and 3. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
Liddament, T. (1991). Design-talk. Design and Technology Teaching, 23(2), 100-103, 110.
Medway, P. (1989). Issues in the theory and practice of technology education. Studies in Science Education, 16, 1-24.
Medway, P. (1992). Constructions of technology: Reflections on a new subject. In J. Beynon & H. Mackay Technological literacy and the curriculum (pp. 65-80). London, UK: Falmer.
Pace, G., & Larson, C. (1992). On design. Science and Children, 29(5), 12-15, 61.
Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 23-29.
Phillips, E. M. (1982). Developing by design. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 34(88), 31-36.
Richards, C. (1990). Science and technology in the primary school. Western European Education, 22(2), 82-91.
Ritchie, S. M., & Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: A case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391-407.
Samuel, G. C. (1991). 'They can never make what they draw'-producing a realistic, appropriate and achievable design at key stages 1 and 2. DATER 91, 187-194.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Smits, A. (1990). Primary school technology: Where is it going? In M. Bentley, J. Campbell, A. Lewis & M. Sullivan (Eds.), Primary design and technology in practice (pp. 25-31). Essex, UK: Longmans.
Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education into the curriculum of young learners. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 1-12.
Tiddy, D. (1989). Technology in the junior primary years. In Early childhood/primary curriculum newsletter (No. 1). Adelaide, SA: Education Department of South Australia.
Wisely, C. (1988). Projects for primary technology. Berkshire, UK: Foulsham.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research. (2nd ed.). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.