|Fulltext||0.55 MB||PDF (requires Acrobat Reader)||Previous | Next|
|Authors:||Matt McLain: Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK|
|Publication title:||The importance of technological activity and designing and making activity; a historical perspective|
|Conference:||PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012|
|Publication type:||Abstract and Fulltext|
|Abstract:||Whilst tool use is by no means an exclusive human trait; the “ability to deliberately manipulate” is central to our development; and it is our ability to “create complex artefacts” (Wolpert; 2003) that sets us apart. Recent archaeological and neuroscience advances have suggested that the activity of designing and making of tools; such as the handaxe; played a crucial role in the development of language. This paper will argue that the technological mindset is a preeminent paradigm in human development.|
The paper will work within an interpretive and constructivist paradigm. The standpoint of the author is that of a technologist and literature is used to build and argument for the historic relevance of technological achievement; the trustworthiness of the research will be addressed through critical and reflective review of literature. The conclusion ends with polemic and rhetorical questions; based on the discussion; aimed a generating further debate both within the subject and the wider educational communities.
In the context of curriculum change in the English education system; the aim of this paper is to re-examine the role of designing and making activity and technology education. The findings will be literature from contemporary neuroscience; and revisit the original nature of design and technology and current challenges (Ofsted; 2011); highlighting the historical and social importance of the designing and making activity.
A central assertion of this paper is that core subjects; such as science; in the contemporary English curriculum owe their origins to technological innovation; in terms of solving human needs through design and making. As such; they argue for the case for continued inclusion within a broad curriculum; in whatever form it may take; from a cultural rather than purely a technical or economic perspective.
|Keywords:||Technology; designing; making; design and technology; tool use; neuroscience; cultural psychology; constructivism; socio-technological|
|No. of pages:||11|
|Series:||Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings|
|Publisher:||Linköping University Electronic Press; Linköpings universitet|
|REFERENCE TO THIS PAGE |