This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 01:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Pupils' Perceptions of Design andTechnology: a case‐study of pupils inSouth WalesDave Hendley a & Sue Lyle ba University of Wales Swanseab Swansea Institute of Higher EducationPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Dave Hendley & Sue Lyle (1996) Pupils' Perceptions of Design andTechnology: a case‐study of pupils in South Wales, Research in Science & TechnologicalEducation, 14:2, 141-151, DOI: 10.1080/0263514960140202

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514960140202

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1996 141

Pupils' Perceptions of Design andTechnology: a case-study of pupils inSouth Wales

D A V E H E N D L E Y , University of Wales Swansea

S U E LYLE, Swansea Institute of Higher Education

ABSTRACT The perceptions of pupils in South Wales of the National Curriculum subject of design and technology

were tested using a questionnaire. Pupils were selected from Key Stages 2 and 3, specifically, years 6 and 9 (age

10-11 and 13-14 years). The project took place in the summer of 1995 and involved 1675 pupils from primary

and secondary schools. Pupils were asked to select statements which best fitted their model of a good design and

technology pupil. The results show a remarkable degree of agreement between pupils across key stages and between

genders, suggesting that gender stereotyping in design and technology is decreasing. In general pupib are very positive

towards key aspects of design and technology, which represents an important break from the past. The results were

subjected to further analysis which is discussed in relation to groups of statements reflecting key aspects of design and

technology: aptitude for technology; classroom interaction; the discipline of design and technology; and outside

influences.

Introduction

This paper describes a research project, based jointly at the University of Wales Swanseaand Swansea Institute of Higher Education, to investigate pupils' perceptions of aspectsof the National Curriculum subject of design and technology. The project took place inthe summer of 1995, and involved 1675 pupils from primary and secondary schools inthe South Wales area.

The investigation was intended to contribute to an evaluation of the NationalCurriculum from the perspective of pupils. The subject of design and technology isrelatively new to UK schools, especially in the primary arena. The subject wasintroduced through the 1988 Education Reform Act. Until this time, technology wasvoluntarily included in the secondary school curriculum either through science orthrough craft, design and technology (CDT). There was no requirement for primarypupils to study design and technology before this time. Since the 1988 Act, no majorfunded project to date has focused on pupil perceptions of design and technology as asubject. This research explores further earlier work by one of the authors who has beeninvestigating pupils' attitudes towards and perceptions of design and technology as aschool subject at Key Stage 3.

0263-5143/96/020141-11 © 1996 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

142 D. Hendley & S. Lyle

Background

Research into pupils' attitudes towards and perceptions of design and technology are thinon the ground. Over the years there has been a trickle of data, but no substantial projecthas been carried out (Page et al., 1981; Nash et al, 1984; Whyte, 1986; Moore, 1987;Kelly, 1988; Ormerod & Waller, 1988; McCarthy & Moss, 1990, 1994; Woolnough,1990; Archer & Macrae, 1991; Welsh Office, 1993; Colley et al., 1994; Rennie &Jarvis,1995). In 1986 the largest survey of pupils' attitudes towards technology was reported atthe Pupils' Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT) conference in Eindhoven. Researchfindings from 10 countries were collated and published (Raat & de Vries, 1986). Thefollowing year, the second PATT conference provided further analysis of data from theirLikert-type questionnaire (Raat et al., 1987).

The research reported here takes cognisance of previous research findings in itsanalysis. The findings increase our understanding of concepts previously recognised andintroduce concepts not previously identified. The research took place in Wales wheredesign and technology is a relatively new subject. It was introduced in 1990 as part ofthe newly created National Curriculum, through the Education Reform Act (1988). Tounderstand the findings it is necessary to explain the nature of design and technology asdefined in the National Curriculum for England and Wales. The new subject embracedthree traditional areas of the curriculum and two more recent introductions. These areaswere: craft, design and technology (CDT); home economics (HE); art and design;business studies; and information technology (IT). Although not of direct concern to thispaper, the amalgamation of these subject areas into one new subject created manyproblems, both managerially and educationally.

The National Curriculum divided design and technology into four sections: theidentification of opportunity or need; the generation of design ideas; planning andmaking; and evaluating. This broadly created a 'design process', albeit seemingly linear.The content of the curriculum was mainly defined in terms of learning processes. Theknowledge and skills content was minimal. Teachers had to work out how best to delivera subject described in terms of processes by devising their own content. Little help indoing this was provided in the official documentation. In addition, teachers were givenlittle or no training to teach this new subject and were given very little time to plan howand what they were going to teach.

The nature of a process-based curriculum was an experience few teachers had met.They had been trained to teach through a knowledge and skills-based approach. Thesudden lack of content of this type in the curriculum caused problems. The uniquenessof this new subject was difficult to identify for both teachers and pupils. The same staffwho had taught the original subjects in pre-national curriculum days were now teachingthis new subject.

This project can be located in a wider body of research instigated to investigate pupilattitudes towards the new subject of design and technology. The first phase involved theadministering of a likert-type attitude scale to pupils at Key Stage 3 (Year 9). The resultsof this are reported elsewhere (Hendley et al., 1995). This was followed up by in-depthinterviews with 48 Year 9 pupils (Hendley et al., 1996) to determine which aspects oftechnology they liked best and least and whether or not they intended to opt for thesubject in Year 10. It was clear from this research that pupils were beginning to developtheir own perceptions of the new subject which were influenced by its process-basednature. An analysis of the in-depth interviews made it clear that pupils also hadperceptions of what qualities were required to be good at design and technology. It was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Pupils' Perceptions of Design and Technology 143

decided to conduct a cross-phase study into pupil perceptions of what makes a gooddesign and technology pupil. The target groups were pupils at the end of Key Stage 2(Year 6) and those at the end of Key Stage 3 (Year 9).

Research Tool

A questionnaire was devised which included 26 statements which could be used todescribe a good technology pupil. The design of the questionnaire can be divided intothree phases. In phase one an analysis of the in-depth interviews with year 9 pupils wascarried out to determine what their perceptions of a good design and technology pupilwere. A draft set of statements was constructed from this.

The statements contained references to the elements which comprise design andtechnology in England and Wales—craft, design and technology, food technology,textiles, business studies and information technology. These were filtered to removenon-generic material as the researchers were interested in overall characteristics whichrelated to the processes involved in learning about design and technology rather than thespecific subject-related ones.

In phase two, 10 teachers of design and technology at Key Stage 3 were asked tocomment on the statements. They were also asked to consider what qualities they feltpupils needed to succeed in their subject. As a result of diis the number of statements wasexpanded to incorporate their views. In phase three the final questionnaire was sent tothe participating teachers for comment, and final adjustments were made before thequestionnaires were administered. The questionnaire is shown below. (The statementswere categorised for analysis but were randomly distributed for the questionnaire.)

I think a good design and technology pupil ...

[Statements about aptitude for technology]... is good at drawing... enjoys using computers... is usually a boy... is usually a girl... enjoys solving problems... can design things... can make things... can use maths and science to solve problems in technology... can think imaginatively and creatively

[Statements about classroom interaction]... can explain why something has happened... can listen to the ideas of others... can communicate their ideas clearly and well... can tell others what they have done... can work with others... can follow instructions... can ask questions

[Statements about discipline]... can plan their work... can predict what might happen next... can suggest ways of improving their work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

144 D. Hendley & S. Lyk

... can stick at something until it is finished

... can make assumptions and test them

... can make a decision and live with it

... can work safely

... can find information for her/himself

[Statements about outside influences]... has an interest in the environment... wants to get a job within technology

Administering the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was given to 1675 pupils in years 6 and 9 at 33 schools in the SouthWales region. All the pupils were studying design and technology as part of their school'scurriculum. The questionnaire was administered by the class teacher. Pupils sat on theirown, no discussion was permitted amongst pupils before or during the completion of thequestionnaire. The class teacher explained the nature of the task carefully to each groupof pupils and ensured that everyone knew what was expected of them. There were nospoiled questionnaires, indicating that this procedure was successful. Pupils were asked topick nine of the statements which they considered best described a good design andtechnology pupil. They were not asked to rank them in any order of importance, simplyto indicate which statements they felt were important according to the criteria. Thebreakdown of the pupils involved according to year and gender is shown in Table I.

TABLE I. Total numbers of girls and boys completingthe questionnaire

Girls Boys Number of schools

Year 6 345 381 25Year 9 433 514 8

Findings

The statements which each gained over 50% of the combined years 6 and 9 pupils' votesare:

• can design things (69-6%);• can work safely (63-1%);• can follow instructions (62-3%);• can work with others (60-4%);• can make things (54-5%);• can plan their work (54-4%).

These responses give a clear indication that pupils have thought about the differentcategories from which the statements were drawn. They have a perception of a gooddesign and technology pupil as one who has aptitude for technology, is able todemonstrate skills in the processes associated with design and technology, both individualand interactional. They are also aware of outside influences, with 43-4% believing a gooddesign and technology pupil wants to get a job in technology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Pupils' Perceptions of Design, and Technology 145

We turn now to a consideration of the top six choices. The ability to design things isclearly the most popular choice overall, perhaps indicating the change in emphasisbrought about by the National Curriculum. The importance of being able to work safelyhas clearly been emphasised in schools. Significantly, the ability to work with others isgiven a high ranking.

The qualities listed above are represented in the top nine choices, regardless of age orgender. Further analysis of the data reveals differences between the respondents accord-ing to gender and age (see Tables II and III). When Year 6 responses are analysed, themost popular characteristic of a good design and technology pupil is 'being able to workwith others'. This is the top choice for both boys and girls. Only 15-4% (21-5% boys,8-7% girls) of the respondents considered being a boy a good characteristic and only8-1% (5% boys, 11-6% girls) thought being a girl a characteristic of a good design andtechnologist. Differences in emphasis appear in the statements referring to 'can makethings', 'enjoys using computers' and 'enjoys solving problems'. These are all perceivedby boys as having more importance. These statements show the perception of design andtechnology as a 'masculine' subject.

TABLE II. Rankings by gender for Year 6 pupils. The numbers in brackets indicate the percentageof pupils choosing each characteristic

Boys Girls

1 Can work with others (72-4%) Can work with others (75-1%)2 Can follow instructions (68-5%) Can design things (61-4%)3 Can design things (654%) Can follow instructions (56-2%)4 Can make things (51-2%) Can work safely (53-4%)5 Is good at drawing (50-9%) Can plan their work (50-1%)6 Enjoys using computers (50-7%) Can make things (48-4%)7 Wants a job within technology (43-3%) Is good at drawing (47-2%)8 Can find information for him/herself (38-8%) Can listen to the ideas of others (46-1%)9 Enjoys solving problems (37-8%) Can find information for him/herself (41-2%)

Girls perceive that 'can work safely' and 'can listen to the ideas of others' are moreimportant characteristics than do boys. Kelly (1987) explains the former in science by thedifference in behavioural traits of boys and girls. Boys exhibit 'toughness' which enablesthem to operate more fearlessly in 'dangerous' situations whereas girls will be far moreconcerned about safety. Similarly, girls are more likely to sit back and allow the boys totake over, and so are more willing to listen to others' ideas and suggestions, whereas boyswill be more competitive and confident.

If we examine statements which received the least votes, there is little sign of genderdifference. The ability to make assumptions and test them ranked very low with bothboys and girls (7-9% boys, 12-8% girls) as did predicting what might happen next (9-2%boys, 14-8% girls) and the ability to tell others what they have done (9-4% boys, 20-3%girls). Interestingly, many more girls than boys considered these characteristics asdesirable. The results show a remarkable degree of agreement between boys and girls inYear 9 (Table III). Only 8-7% (10-5% of boys, 6-5% of girls) of respondents thoughtbeing a boy a good characteristic and only 2-6% (2-5% boys, 2-8% girls) thought beinga girl a good characteristic of a good design and technology pupil. Some of thestatements are slightly differently prioritised by boys and girls.

Out of all the statements shown in Table III, only two divergences of opinionemerged. The boys prioritised 'listening to the ideas of others' more highly than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

146 D. Hendley & S. Lyle

TABLE III. Rankings by gender for Year 9 pupils. The numbers in brackets indicate the percentageof pupils choosing each characteristic

Boys Girls

1 Can work safely (82-5%)2 Can design things (77-2%)3 Can plan their work (72-4%)4 Can make things (62-6%)5 Can follow instructions (58-9%)6 Can stick at something until it is finished (50-8%)1 Can work with others (50%)

8 Can listen to the ideas of others (49-8%)

9 Is good at drawing (48-6%)

Can work safely (73-4%)Can design things (70-4%)Can follow instructions (61%)Can plan their work (60-5%)Can make things (52-7%)Can work with others (50-6%)Can stick at something until it isfinished (50-3%)Can suggest ways of improving theirwork (45-5%)Is good at drawing (44-6%)

girls—iO-9% of girls chose this characteristic. This is a reversal of the results for Year6 pupils and also contradicts Kelly's (1987) findings in science. It is possible that boys inYear 9 are beginning to value sharing ideas as most teachers of the pupils in the researchsample insist that pupils produce three or four design ideas before proceeding to making.The process adopted for this involves pupils informally discussing their ideas with eachother before selecting their preferred design.

The girls prioritised 'suggesting ways of improving their work' more highly than theboys—35-8% of boys chose diis characteristic. This may indicate that girls are lessconfident in their abilities than boys, and therefore are more self-critical of their work.Kelly (1987, p. 75) has found that girls bring qualities to science lessons which maypredispose them to this characteristic: 'girls bring widi them ... conscientiousness, personorientation'. On the other hand, classroom experience would support the view that manyboys lose interest in a project if evaluation means they have to modify their work.

Analysis revealed some important differences in attitudes towards gender according toage. Whilst 21-5% of Year 6 boys thought being a boy was an important characteristic,only 10-5% of Year 9 boys did. Similarly, in Year 6 11-6% of girls thought being a girlwas an important characteristic, but this dropped to 2-8% at Year 9 (Table IV).

A very significant change between the key stages is the perception of quality of 'theability to work safely'. This increases dramatically between Year 6 (33-9%) and Year 9(82-5%). It seems likely that this reflects the fact that design and technology takes place

TABLE IV. Comparative rankings between Year 6 and Year 9 overall. The numbers in bracketsindicate the percentage of pupils choosing this characteristic

Rank Year 6 Year 9

1 Can work with others (73-7%)2 Can design things (63-3%)3 Can follow instructions (62-7%)4 Can make things (49-9%)5 Is good at drawing (49-2%)6 Enjoys using computers (45-2%)7 Can work safely (43-1%)8 Wants to get a job within technology (41-5%)9 Can plan their work (38-2%)

Can work safely (78-5%)Can design things (74-2%)Can plan their work (66-9%)Can follow instructions (59-9%)Can make things (58-1%)Can stick at something until it is finished (50-6%)Can work with others (50-3%)Is good at drawing (46-8%)Can listen to the ideas of others (45-7%)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Pupils' Perceptions of Design and Technology 147

in a workshop environment at Year 9, whilst few primary schools have separate facilities,work taking place in the normal classroom. It may also reflect the greater emphasis onworking with tools and machinery at Key Stage 3.

The quality of being able to enjoy using a computer also shows significant changvsbetween the key stages, with a drop in the importance of diis characteristic in Key Stage3. Computers are readily available in Key Stage 2 classrooms and their use is activelyencouraged. However, it should be noted that using a computer is relatively moreimportant to Year 6 boys (50-7%) than to the girls (39-1%). Although computer accessin Key Stage 3 is good—each school in the sample surveyed has at least one machinein the workshops—there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that its use is restricted due toconstraints of time. Further, computers are used more regularly in information technol-ogy. Only 24-1% of Year 9 boys considered computer use to be important, which ismore than a 50% drop from Year 6 boys. Similarly, only 20-8% of the girls in Year 9chose this quality, again showing a drop of nearly 50%.

Some other interesting changes occur between the end of Key Stage 2, Year 6, andthe end of Key Stage 3, Year 9. Of the boys in Year 6, 72-4% rated the ability to workwith others. This dropped to 50% by Year 9. Anecdotal evidence suggests this might bedue to pupils in primary school being encouraged to share work with each other, finishedartefacts often being the result of collaborative effort, whereas in secondary schools, theability to work on one's own is expected. Key Stage 3 is also perceived by teachers asbeing a training period for national examinations and so pupils are encouraged tosucceed by their individual efforts rather than as part of a team.

Another area where a significant change occurs is the ability to plan their work. InYear 6, 27-3% of boys considered this important. This rises to 72-4% by Year 9. Theincrease in popularity is matched by the girls but not to the same extent—50-1% in Year6 and 60-5% in Year 9. This may reflect the increased responsibility given to Key Stage3 pupils by their teachers. This can be explained partially by the pupils' growingcompetence in the subject, which is reflected in independent learning. On the otherhand, teachers of Key Stage 3 are subject specialists used to workshop situations wherepupils are taught in relatively small groups, often on individual projects. Most Key Stage2 teachers have little or no training in design and technology, have few, if any, specialistfacilities and work with much larger groups of children. The opportunities for childrento plan their own work are consequently much less. This explanation is further supportedby pupil attitudes to following instructions, which loses popularity between Year 6(68-5%) and Year 9 (58-9%) whilst the ability to design things increases in popularity—65-4% in Year 6; 77-2% in Year 9. These latter two statements show that pupils arebecoming increasingly aware of the process-based nature of design and technology, withthe structure of their folio work becoming more important. Teachers in Key Stage 3stress the need to present work in design and technology. It is noteworthy to mention thatthe popularity of making things also increases as the pupils get older. This change iscommon across the sexes.

Links with Science

If we examine four of the statements which most closely relate to the association of designand technology with science (see Table V), we find that pupils overall give these a lowpriority, indicating that pupils are not positive towards aspects of design and technologywhich link it to science. This suggests that the type of course pupils will be attracted toin technology will reflect a design emphasis rather than a scientific one. Raat et al. (1987)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

148 D. Hendkp & S. Lyk

TABLE V. Statements which link design and technology with science

Statement

'Can predict what might happen next'.'Can use mathematics and science to

solve a problem''Can make assumptions and test them'.'Can predict what might happen next'.'Can explain why something has

happened'.

Boys

Key Stage 2

9-2

26-57-99-2

24-9

(%)

Key Stage 3

21

20-913-214-8

7-6

Girls

Key Stage 2

14-8

25-312-821

29-6

(%)

Key Stage 3

13-2

16418-713-2

27-7

also noted this same perception. Rennie (1987) points out that unless the connection isactively made then pupils will not associate the two subjects.

Further, this would suggest that pupils do not see a close relationship between qualitieswhich are valued by science as ones which help make a good design and technologypupil. This contradicts the findings of McCarthy & Moss (1994), who report thattechnology is perceived by both genders as being similar to science rather thancraft-based subjects. However, this research was based at only one school and may reflectthe values of staff and their interpretation of design and technology ratfier than beingindicative of widely held values of pupils. Design and technology at Key Stage 3 is rarelytaught by teachers with a science background; most have been trained as teachers of craftspecialising in one or more resistant materials: wood, metal, plastics, textiles or food. Itwould be surprising if the perceptions of pupils were not influenced by this aspect of theirteachers' background.

An interesting difference between pupils can be seen in the quality, 'can explain whysomething has happened'. A quarter of all boys and girls selected this statement at KeyStage 2 and this is maintained by girls into Key Stage 3, whilst boys drop to only 7-6%.We are tempted to link this to findings in science which have shown that boys are less likelyto engage in speculation about why something happened, preferring cut-and-dried answers(Head, 1987). Research (Harding & Sutoris, 1987) also suggests that girls prefer sciencepresented as an interpretative, rather than a controlling activity, and boys prefer sciencewhen it is presented as factual, with abstract laws and concepts to be learned. This mayhave important implications for the way design and technology is presented in schools. The1995 review of the curriculum has very clear links with science, particularly at Key Stage3 where pupils should develop their design and technology capability through work with'control systems and structures' (Department for Education [DfE], 1995). Under theheading 'knowledge and understanding' pupils must be taught to '... consider the physicaland chemical properties of materials ... classify [materials] according to dieir propertiesand behaviour' (DfE, 1995). Pupils are also expected to relate products to 'the scientificprinciples applied'. Design and technology is not just about working with resistantmaterials to design and make 'quality' products; it involves knowing and understandingfrom otfier subjects, in particular science, mathematics and art.

Links with Outside Influences

One of the key reasons for making design and technology a compulsory subject for allchildren aged 5-16 years was the perception that Britain's workforce needed more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Pupils' Perceptions of Design and Technobgy 149

technologists. Concern about the small numbers of pupils choosing a technology-basedcourse in higher education and the lack of recruits to industry was the driving forcebehind this decision. Government can take heart from this research; it would appear thatall children are very positive towards key aspects of design and technology and thisrepresents an important break from the past. Industry, too, has cause for optimism aspupils appear to value many of the qualities they consistently ask for—for example,personnel who are able to work as part of a team. In this research the ability to workwith and listen to the ideas of others is ranked very highly by both boys and girls in bothage groups. The quality of wanting a job using technology remains fairly constantbetween the two age groups—43-3% boys, 39-4% girls in year 6; 45-3% boys, 41-6%girls in Year 9. However, its ranking decreases with older pupils as other characteristicstake precedence. This is in keeping with previous research (Hendley et al., 1996) wheredesign and technology is seen by very few as a route to a job.

An interesting aspect of the research is the lack of interest in the environment; 'havingan interest in the environment' ranks very low with both boys and girls in Year 9 (11-3%boys, 9-9% girls), which is a fairly dramatic change compared with Year 6 pupils, where26-6% of boys and 24-6% of girls thought it desirable. Environmental concerns are nowcentral to current industrial concerns as the impact of technology on our environment,both locally and globally, receives a high public profile. It is widely acknowledged thattechnology has an important role to play in establishing a balance between human needsand environmental integrity. A key challenge facing industry is how to maximise resourceuse whilst minimising environmental impact. It is important that pupils of design andtechnology start to see a good technologist as one who is aware that the health of theeconomy and the environment are interdependent. Pupils need to consider the appropri-ate use of resources in their designing and making and the impact of their products onthe environment. This finding suggests that teachers themselves are not emphasising theenvironmental contexts in work with pupils. This is unfortunate; our own work on linkingenvironmental education with design and technology (Hendley & Lyle, 1994) has shownhow pupils can benefit from such approaches.

Conclusions

One of the most interesting findings from this research has been the consistency ofresponses across both the age range and between the sexes. The priorities have shiftedbetween Key Stages 2 and 3, but generally, the qualities remain constant. It is satisfyingto note that gender stereotyping of design and technology appears to be fading. Thefigures from this research show only a small minority of pupils who think that the subjecthas a gender bias. This figure also decreases with age. This suggests that the new subjectof design and technology is challenging stereotyped views of what makes a 'goodtechnologist', and that this is equally attractive to both boys and girls.

Design and technology is a relatively new subject in England and Wales. It is aprocess-based subject, which until the 1995 review of the curriculum had very littleknowledge content. The importance of process in design and technology is perceived bypupils as the way in which they learn the subject. Thus, qualities such as designing,planning, manufacturing, and following instructions are at the forefront of their thinking.As pupils get older these qualities increase in importance.

The respondents did not seem to make the link between the ability to design, which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

150 D. Hendley & S. Lyle

was overall rated very highly, and the ability to think imaginatively and creatively (thereis an increase with both age and gender, with the boys showing the greater increase—from 29·l% to 42·6%, while the corresponding increase for girls is from 37·4% to43·9%). This should be of some concern to teachers. The curriculum within which thisresearch was carried out has now been superseded by a revised one which is moreknowledge- and skills-based at the expense of process. It remains to be seen if this notionof creativity will survive at all. A key aspect of design and technology is its holistic natureand links with other subjects; this is stressed in the new orders. The research suggestspupils do not have this perception; this is particularly noticeable with regard to scienceand mathematics.

Further Research

A follow-up to this perceptions survey consisted of in-depth work with whole classes ofpupils in both Year 6 and Year 9 to explore their understanding of the statements whichhad proved the most popular in this research. The results from this will provide a muchgreater understanding of children's perceptions of what makes a good design andtechnology pupil, which we shall be reporting in due course.

Correspondence: Dave Hendley, University of Wales Swansea, Department of Education,Hendrefoelan, Swansea SA2 7NB, UK.

REFERENCES

ARCHER, J. & MACRAE, M. (1991) Gender perceptions of school subjects among 10-11 year olds,British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, pp. 99-103.

COLLEY, A., COOMBER, C. & HARGREAVES, D. (1994) Gender effects in school subject preferences:a research note, Educational Studies, 20, pp. 13-18.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND THE WELSH OFFICE (1995) Design and Technology in the NationalCurriculum (London, HMSO).

HARDING, J. & SuTORIS, M. (1987) An object-related account of the differential involvement of boysand girls in science and technology, in: A. KELLY (Ed.) Science for Girls? (Milton Keynes, OpenUniversity Press).

HEAD, J. (1987) A model to link personality characteristics to a preference for science, in: A. KELLY(Ed.) Science for Girls? (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).

HENDLEY, D. &LYLE, S. (1994) In: F. Banks (Ed.), Design and Technology and Cross-curricular Issues: theexample of environmental education (Milton Keynes, Open University).

HENDLEY, D., STABLES, A., PARKINSON, J. & TANNER, H. (1995) Gender differences in pupils'attitudes to the National Curriculum foundation subjects of English, mathematics, science andtechnology in Key Stage 3 of the National Curriculum: a study of pupils in South Wales,Educational Studies, 21, pp. 85-98.

HENDLEY, D. , STABLES, A., PARKINSON, J. & TANNER, H. (1996) Pupils' attitudes towards technologyin Key Stage 3 of the National Curriculum: a study of pupils in South Wales, International Journalof Technology and Design Education, 6, pp. 15-29.

KELLY, A. (1987) Science for Girls? (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).KELLY, A. (1988) Option choices for girls and boys, Research in Science & Technological Education, 6.MCCARTHY, A.C. & Moss, G.D. (1990) Pupil perceptions of technology in the secondary school

curriculum: a case study, Educational Studies, 16, pp. 207-216.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Pupils' Perceptions of Design and Technology 151

MCCARTHY, A.C. & Moss, G.D. (1994) A comparison of male and female pupil perceptions oftechnology in the curriculum, Research in Science & Technological Education, 12, pp. 5—13.

MOORE,J .L. (1987) A technique for discovering young pupils' ideas about technology, CASTME,7, pp. 1-9.

NASH, M., ALLSOP, T. & WOOLNOUGH, B. (1984) Factors affecting pupil uptake of technology at14 + , Research in Science & Technological Education, 2, pp. 5-19.

ORMEROD, M.B. & WALLER, J.E. (1988) Attitudes to craft, design and technology studies with somerelated factors and sex differences at 14 + , Research in Science & Technological Education, 6,pp. 133-144.

PAGE, R., ORR, M. & NASH, M. (1981) An attitude scale for technology, Research in Education, 26, pp.55-63.

R A A T J . H . & DE VRIES, M. (Eds) (1986) What do girls and boys think of technology, in: J.H. RAAT&M. DE VRIES (Eds) Pupils' Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT) (Eindhoven, Eindhoven Universityof Technology).

RAAT J . H . , DE KLERK WOLTERS, F. & DE VRIES, M. (1987) Report: PATT Conference 1987, in:J.H. RAAT & M. DE VRIES (Eds) Pupils' Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT) (Eindhoven, EindhovenUniversity of Technology).

RENNIE, L.J. (1987) Teachers' and pupils' perceptions of technology and the implications for thecurriculum, Research in Science & Technological Education, 5, pp. 121-133.

RENNIE, L.J. & JARVIS, T. (1995) English and Australian children's perceptions about technology,Research in Science & Technological Education, 15, pp. 37-52.

WELSH OFFICE (1993) Statistics in Education and Training in Wales: schools (Cardiff, Welsh Office).W H Y T E , J . (1986) Girls into Science and Technology (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).WOOLNOUGH, B. (1990) Making Choices? an enquiry into the attitudes of sixth formers towards choke of science

and technology courses in higher education (Oxford, Oxford University Department of EducationalStudies).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014