Too much D not enough T?

Recently I have become concerned that D&T is becoming reduced to teaching product design. Of course product design should be a part of D&T but I do wonder at the extent that it has dominated the subject. Is it a case of too much D and not enough T?

At the moment I see the subject looking like this:

I wonder if it should look more like this:

This asks the question just what do we mean by T? This isn’t an easy ask. The nature of technology is contested. Philosophers of technology have developed at least four ways of things about technology:

• As artefact: having at least two dimensions: functional and physical natures
• As knowledge: different from but related to scientific knowledge, science develops declarative knowledge which technology uses to make judgements – normative knowledge
• As process: moving from ideas of what might be to realisation as opposed to science which moves from what is to ideas of explanation
• As a property of humans: which makes us a unique animal on our planet in that we alone leave traces of what we have made; the hand, quoting Jacob Bronowski, being the cutting edge of the mind.

And in considering its nature philosophers of technology have given much thought to its influence on the lives lived by humans in the made environment, its impact on the natural environment and whether the benefits of technology are outweighed by its disadvantages. Does such philosophising have anything to say about the T in the D&T curriculum? In the hurly burly of managing learners’ engagement in the GCSE contextual challenge and preparing them for their written examination it is easy to be dismissive. But this, I think, would be a mistake and it is the aim of a new book to provide teachers with access to the thoughts of some philosophers of technology AND the implications of these thoughts for the curriculum.

Marc de Vries, Jonas Hallstrom and John Dakers, the editors of the book, have engaged a set of writers with considerable technology curriculum experience to each write a chapter featuring a particular philosopher and comment on how their thinking might relate to the curriculum taught in school. The philosophers considered come from England, Canada, USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands. It was a surprise to me to find that C.S. Lewis, the author of the Narnia books, is well regarded as a philosopher of technology. The authors too come from far and wide, England, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. So we have a wonderful international mix of commentators and philosophers!

Not exactly beach reading for the summer holidays I admit but as a subject community I stronglyly believe that D&T teachers need a firm grasp on the nature of technology so that they can justify what they teach young people about the way they might respond to its influence and effects. Here is just one example. The philosopher Kevin Kelly has identified a range of technology features which he sees as having trajectories into the future which will govern how technology plays out in society. Take ubiquity for example which Kelly sees as technology spreading out from points of development across global society. Some individual technologies might fail to do this whilst others succeed. Kelly suggests that a key question we should be asking is not “How can we ensure equal access to various technologies?” But “What happens when everyone does have access to a particular technology?” The approaching ubiquity of social media is a case in point.

The editors provide a strong justification for considering aspects of philosophy of technology in schools. In the preface they write …

Technology education is no longer the craft-oriented school subject it was in the past. Thanks to philosophy of technology, there is a sound theoretical basis for it and it is crucial for the future of the subject that we build on that foundation. It is extremely important that young people learn to give technology a proper place in their lives and for that a good insight into the nature of technology and its relations to humans and society is indispensible.

As always comments welcome.

PS For those who doubt that a consideration of technology, its nature and effects are not appropriate for D&T then a read of the Interim Report which laid the foundation for National Curriculum D&T is worthwhile. Section 1.14 in particular states the importance of such considerations. The report is available on line from the National STEM Centre.