D&T knowledge That Sticks: Residual vs Fingertip Learning

Send me a message.In this episode of the Talking D&T podcast, I explore the pedagogical approach of product analysis, often known as IDEAS (Investigation, Disassembly, Evaluation, and Analysis). I examine how this signature pedagogy helps develop learners' understanding of technology in society—a core aim of the National Curriculum in England.I discuss how product analysis bridges curriculum and pedagogy by teaching pupils to examine artefacts through multiple lenses. When handled thoughtfully, this approach enables young people to develop technological knowledge by understanding not just how products function, but why certain materials, components and manufacturing processes were selected.My conversation highlights two particularly valuable aspects of product analysis:Firstly, how physical interaction with products—handling a hair clip or observing people using a door—provides unique insights into design decisions and functionality that theoretical discussion alone cannot achieve.Secondly, how examining products helps pupils recognise technological determinism—the reciprocal relationship between how technology shapes society and how society shapes technology.Whether you're teaching primary or secondary D&T, this pedagogical approach offers rich opportunities to develop critical thinking and analytical skills. Consider how you might structure IDEAS activities with clear learning intentions: Are you focusing on materials selection, product evolution over time, or user experience?Have you found effective ways to structure product analysis in your classroom? What impact have these approaches had on your pupils' design thinking and technological understanding? I'd love to hear your experiences.Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Subscriber-only episodeSend me a message.In this episode, I explore the boundary between pedagogy and curriculum intent in D&T education. I reflect on how we can make our implicit modelling of design strategies more explicit to enhance pupils' learning and metacognitive awareness.Drawing from my classroom experience, I consider those moments when I implemented activities like Design Fiction or 635, but didn't articulate why I'd selected these approaches or when pupils might choose to use them. I question whether I was sufficiently explicit when making material choices—why select 4mm acrylic rather than 6mm?—and how sharing this reasoning might have deepened pupils' design thinking.Unlike simple demonstration of techniques, explicit modelling reveals the decision-making processes underpinning good design practice. While this connects to aspects of Rosenshine's principles of instruction, D&T presents unique opportunities as our projects unfold over weeks rather than single lessons.This approach has relevance beyond the National Curriculum, with international educators similarly exploring how to make design thinking visible to learners. Whether you're teaching in a secondary school in Birmingham or a technology college in Melbourne, making your design decisions explicit helps pupils develop their own design capabilities.As you plan your next scheme of work, which design decisions might you make visible to your pupils? How might explicitly modelling your thinking transform their understanding of the design process? I'd love to hear how explicit modelling works in your context.Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.In this episode, I delve into the pedagogical approaches that exist beyond the traditional 'design and make' activities in Design and Technology education. Drawing on research literature and classroom practice, I explore how 'mainly designing' and 'mainly making' activities can be powerful pedagogical tools when used deliberately and appropriately.I share insights from Bill Nichol's work on designing for future contexts, including how case studies and question cards can help pupils develop empathy and understanding for users they cannot directly access. I also examine Hilda Ruth Beaumont's contributions to the Young Foresight Project, which demonstrated how pupils can design with materials not yet available in classrooms.The episode highlights how these approaches allow pupils to explore unfamiliar contexts—whether from different countries, time periods, or future scenarios—without being constrained by their current making skills. I discuss how focused practical tasks provide opportunities for pupils to develop material understanding and manufacturing skills without the cognitive overload that can accompany full design and make activities.These pedagogical approaches aren't replacements for design and make activities but complementary strategies that enhance pupils' learning. By recognising when we're using 'mainly designing' or 'mainly making' approaches (rather than masquerading them as design and make activities), we can better structure learning experiences that build capability.How might your curriculum benefit from explicitly planning for 'mainly designing' and 'mainly making' activities? Could these approaches help you introduce pupils to emerging technologies or contexts beyond their immediate experience? Share your thoughts with colleagues and join the conversation about expanding our pedagogical repertoire in D&T education.References, activities, and resources mentioned:Donna Trebell's doctoral studies on "designing without making"Young Foresight Project (late 1990s) - introducing children to new materials and processes not available in classroomsBill Nichol's work on question cards for exploring different users"Designing Our Tomorrows" research by Bill Nichol, including hands-on kitBob McCormick's paper on "the ritual of the design project"Matt McLain's and Sarah Davies' collaborative work with me on "mainly designing" and "mainly making" terminologyNuffield resources for focused practical tasks (available on "dandtfordant" website)IDEO cards (mentioned in context of exploring different functions and uses of objects)Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.In this episode of Talking D&T, I explore the complex nature of design and make activities in design and technology education. Drawing on research from Richard Kimball, David Perry, and Robert McCormick, I unpack the pedagogical approach of design and make that underpins our subject and challenge some common misconceptions about "the design process".A key insight emerges around the balance between process and outcome in D&T education. When we become fixated on the final product, we risk compromising valuable learning opportunities along the way. I examine Matt McLain's framework of expansive versus restrictive approaches, questioning when it's appropriate to give pupils freedom to make decisions and when more structured guidance serves them better.I also explore McCormick's notion of 'revelation and ritual' in design processes, highlighting the danger of following steps mechanistically without making learning explicit to pupils. This raises important considerations about how we develop pupils' design and technology capability rather than simply guiding them through predetermined steps.For D&T teachers, this episode offers a chance to reflect on your own practice. How do you balance the focus on outcomes with the development of skills and knowledge? Where in your projects do pupils have genuine opportunities to make decisions, experience failure, and justify their choices?Whether you're teaching in a primary or secondary setting, these considerations are crucial for developing authentic design and technology capability in your pupils. How might you adapt your planning to create a more balanced approach to design and make activities in your classroom?Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.Drawing a clear line between how we teach and what we teach seems straightforward—until you step into a Design & Technology classroom. In this thought-provoking exploration of pedagogy in D&T education, I unpack why teachers often blur the boundaries between teaching methods and curriculum content, sometimes without realising it.The heart of effective D&T education lies in developing students' design and technology capability, but this requires navigating complex terrain. When we structure lessons around design processes without explicitly highlighting those processes as strategies students can adopt independently, we risk creating what researcher Bob McCormick calls "the ritual of the design project." Students follow prescribed steps without developing true capability—they complete the activities without gaining the metacognitive awareness needed to transfer these approaches to new contexts.Through practical examples like the 6-3-5 collaborative design technique and tool demonstrations, I illustrate the difference between clear pedagogical separation (when demonstrating cutting techniques) and problematic blending (when teaching design processes). This distinction matters profoundly: when students don't recognise a design strategy as a transferable tool they can apply independently, their development as designers is limited. They become dependent on teacher-led frameworks rather than developing autonomous design thinking.For D&T educators, this episode offers an opportunity to reflect on your teaching practice. Are you explicitly highlighting design strategies as transferable tools? Do your students recognise when they're learning processes they can apply independently? How might restructuring your lessons enhance students' ability to develop genuine capability rather than just following teacher-led frameworks?Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Mentioned in the showAndrew Pollard's text about pedagogy - the reflective teaching bookBob McCormick's paper about "the ritual of the design project"Reference to Non-examined assessment (NEA) - coursework in EnglandMatt McClain's work on demonstrations as a teaching approachThe 6-3-5 technique of designing (design strategy where students fold A3 paper into six boxes and take turns creating designs in three-minute intervals)Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.Knowledge frameworks matter profoundly in Design and Technology education, yet teachers often struggle to distinguish between what students need to know for a specific project versus what builds lasting capability. This episode tackles that challenge head-on.In this episode, I explore the concept of knowledge frameworks in design and technology education, continuing my series on what research tells us about D&T. I delve into two types of knowledge that I believe are particularly relevant to our subject: residual knowledge and fingertip/situated knowledge.Drawing from Christine Counsell's work in history education, I explain how these frameworks can help D&T teachers distinguish between knowledge that serves an immediate design context and knowledge that builds lasting capability. Using a biodiversity garden project as an example, I illustrate how certain knowledge (like specific materials properties) serves the immediate task, while other understanding contributes to transferable skills students carry forward.This distinction is crucial for curriculum planning. When teaching about materials like chicken wire or bamboo, facts about cutting techniques might be context-specific, but understanding material selection represents residual knowledge that contributes to enduring D&T capability. This framework helps teachers make intentional decisions about what deserves emphasis and retrieval practice.I also explore the importance of authentic contexts, warning against tokenistic project scenarios while emphasising that engagement remains crucial for effective learning. D&T educators must draw on their understanding of local environments and student interests, adapting resources to create meaningful learning experiences.For teachers developing units of work, this episode offers both theoretical clarity and practical guidance to navigate the tension between project-based learning and building transferable knowledge. How might this framework transform your approach to curriculum planning and help you build students' D&T capability more effectively? Links and Resources MentionedChristine Counsell's work on residual knowledge and fingertip knowledge in history educationMcCormick's 2004 paper on situated knowledge in design contextsKay Stables' work on authentic contexts in D&T educationUnit of work about biodiversity in school gardens created by Alison Hardy and Sarah DaviesOfsted research reviews published on their websiteAcknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Subscriber-only episodeSend me a message.In this episode of Talking D&T, I explore the crucial distinction between using design strategies as pedagogy and explicitly teaching these strategies as curriculum content. Drawing from my recent research on blurred boundaries between pedagogy and curriculum intent, I consider how teachers can make their modelling more explicit to develop students' metacognitive awareness.I examine how D&T teachers often implicitly model design strategies – like design fiction or the 635 method – without explicitly discussing the decision-making process behind choosing these approaches. Two particularly interesting insights emerge: firstly, the importance of 'thinking aloud' about our design decisions as teachers, and secondly, how we can make visible the reasoning behind material choices and project constraints.Beyond simple demonstration of techniques, this approach involves sharing our thinking as designers and curriculum planners. I suggest practical ways teachers might implement this metacognitive modelling at different stages of a project, helping pupils understand not just how to use design strategies, but when and why they might select them.For D&T practitioners, this perspective offers an opportunity to reflect on your own practice. How explicit are you about the design decisions you've made when planning projects? Do your pupils understand why certain materials or constraints have been selected? Consider how you might share more of your design thinking with learners to develop their capacity for independent decision-making.What small change could you make in your next lesson to make your design decisions more visible to your pupils?Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.If you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.In this episode of Talking D&T, I explore the complex role of values in design and technology education. Drawing on research from influential scholars like David Layton, Mike Martin and Rhoda Trimingham, I unpack how values aren't merely peripheral to D&T but are, as Layton puts it, "the engine of design and technology."I examine two key perspectives: values within design (how values influence design decisions) and values developed through design and technology (how students develop values as they become technologically literate). Particularly fascinating is Trimingham's research observing designers in practice, revealing how both internal and external values shape design decisions, often unconsciously.We explore how early curriculum frameworks categorised values as technical, economic, aesthetic, and moral—frameworks that remain relevant despite their absence from the current National Curriculum. This raises important questions about how we as educators bring our own value systems into our teaching, potentially modelling these unconsciously to our pupils.For D&T teachers, this episode offers an opportunity to reflect on how we might make values more explicit in our teaching, helping pupils understand not just how to design, but how their values influence those designs. Whether you're teaching in England or internationally, considering the role of values adds depth to design education and helps students develop critical awareness of design decisions.How might you bring conversations about values more explicitly into your D&T classroom? Could examining values help your students make more thoughtful design decisions? Let's continue this important dialogue with colleagues about preserving these vital aspects of our subject.Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.In this episode, I delve deeper into the forms of knowledge that underpin design and technology education. Building on McCormick's conceptual and procedural knowledge framework, I propose a more nuanced approach that considers design knowledge and technological knowledge as existing on a spectrum.I explore how these knowledge types can be visualised as intersecting axes, creating four quadrants that help teachers plan their curriculum more effectively. This framework isn't meant for pupils but serves as a planning tool for teachers to develop knowledge systematically over time.Drawing on Vincenti's work on engineering knowledge, I highlight the importance of design criteria and design instrumentalities – the tools and procedures used when designing. These elements are crucial for pupils to build their repertoire of skills and understanding as outlined in the National Curriculum.The reality of diminishing teaching time for D&T presents significant challenges for delivering the curriculum comprehensively. This framework offers a way to make informed decisions about what to include and exclude whilst ensuring pupils' design and technology capability continues to develop.How might you use this knowledge framework to review your current planning? Could mapping your curriculum against these knowledge types reveal gaps or opportunities for deeper learning? Join the conversation and share your thoughts on how we might better structure D&T knowledge in our teaching.Look out for the next episode where I'll be discussing the often-overlooked but central role of values in design and technology education.Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on the actual conversation and my editorial direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Send me a message.In this episode, I explore what research tells us about knowledge in Design & Technology education. Understanding the nature of knowledge in D&T is crucial for effective teaching and curriculum planning, so I examine both procedural and conceptual knowledge, exploring how they connect and what this means for our practice.Following our previous discussion on D&T capability, I analyse the relationship between these knowledge types, drawing from Bob McCormick's 1997 paper and wider literature. Through examples from textiles and materials, I demonstrate how procedural knowledge extends beyond following steps to understanding interconnected processes. Looking at tasks like using a sewing machine, I discuss how teachers can build pupils' procedural knowledge over time, helping them develop both technical competence and the ability to select appropriate processes.I challenge some common approaches to teaching theory and discuss how conceptual knowledge encompasses categories and relationships rather than just facts. Using examples from my teaching - including a memorable lesson about bronze - I consider how we might better structure our teaching of materials and their properties.For D&T teachers, this discussion offers insights for curriculum planning and sequencing. Whether you're developing schemes of work or considering progression, these ideas could reshape how you approach building pupils' knowledge and capability.What's your take on knowledge in D&T? How do you balance procedural and conceptual understanding in your teaching?• Examining the importance of knowledge in D&T education • Differentiating between procedural and conceptual knowledge • Discussing the interconnected nature of different teaching procedures • Highlighting the role of literature in shaping understanding • Challenging traditional views on skills vs knowledge in D&T • Illustrating practical examples of knowledge in action • Reflecting on the implications for effective curriculum planningMentioned in the showHurrell, D., 2021. Conceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge: Why the conjunction is important to teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 46 (2), 57–71.McCormick, R., 1997. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1), 141–159.Acknowledgement:Some of the supplementary content for this podcast episode was crafted with the assistance of Claude, an AI language model developed by Anthropic. While the core content is based on my research, thinking and direction, Claude helped in refining and structuring information to best serve listeners. This collaborative approach allows me to provide you with concise, informative, and engaging content to complement each episode.Support the showIf you like the podcast, you can always buy me a coffee to say 'thanks!'Please offer your feedback about the show or ideas for future episodes and topics by connecting with me on Threads @hardy_alison or by emailing me.If you listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, please take a moment to rate and/or review the show. If you want to support me by becoming a Patron click here. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!