Construction activities play a core role in design and technology education. Some of this activity is undertaken through the medium of construction kits, especially in the early years. Modelling of wheeled vehicles has always been a popular activity for children and indeed this is often the premier choice for pupils engaged in "free choice" situations. This paper examines aspects of free choice activity and relates this to the "car-led" mindset of wider society and the implications this may have for future transport choices. Research evidence has been collected from a range of cultural/geographic settings to provide qualitative and quantitative data on building choices made by children. Against the evidence collected from this research background, the paper asks to what extent car-led construction activity in primary schools may, by virtue of the consequent mindset developed in children, be a future mechanism for strengthening public resistance to changing travel habits in order to secure environmental benefits

Eric Parkinson (3364511)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

   This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions.      For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/  22Parkinson 1.4IDATER 98  Loughborough UniversityThe seduction of the wheel:  a synthesis of research-based issues surrounding car-led construction activitiesof young children and the relationship these may havewith current environmental trends which progressivelyseek to limit the impact of road trafficEric ParkinsonCanterbury Christ Church CollegeAbstractConstruction activities play a core role in design and technology education.  Some of thisactivity is undertaken through the medium of construction kits, especially in the early years.Modelling of wheeled vehicles has always been a popular activity for children and indeed thisis often the premier choice for pupils engaged in “free choice” situations.  This paper examinesaspects of free choice activity and relates this to the “car-led” mindset of wider society and theimplications this may have for future transport choices.  Research evidence has been collectedfrom a range of cultural/geographic settings to provide qualitative and quantitative data onbuilding choices made by children.  Against the evidence collected from this researchbackground, the paper asks to what extent car-led construction activity in primary schoolsmay, by virtue of the consequent mindset developed in children, be a future mechanism forstrengthening public resistance to changing travel habits in order to secure environmentalbenefits.Construction activities by young children inschool can provide a platform for skilldevelopment and the progressive deepeningof children’s subject knowledge andunderstanding of areas such as structures,materials and mechanisms.  Constructionactivities can occur through media such asreclaimed materials and construction kits.Part of the pattern of experience undergoneby most young children is “free-play” in whichan open choice to activities is invited.  Thistypically early years experience may be offeredas a “filler” at the end of taught, structuredsessions, or perhaps as a reward forcompleting a task.  Free play of course, is alsoa significant element in non-formal educationand it applies to children across a span of ages.The benefits of free play are significant.  Parker-Rees (1997) in his comparison betweenaspects of play  versus  teaching makes thefollowing comment:“Finding out what can be done withobjects, situations and roles by trying themout in different combinations and contextscan enable children to abstract generalconcepts from their experiences ofparticular exemplars”. (p.21)Construction kits may have a significant rolewithin free play.  They enable children to makea range of objects reliably and relativelyquickly.  Children can indeed “find out whatcan be done” with objects, situations and rolesin a variety of combinations and contexts.Within this rapid kit-led construction work,modelling of wheeled vehicles is perhaps ofprofound significance.  Construction ofwheeled vehicles is often the premier activityof pupils engaged in these “free choice”situations in the 3-8 age range.  Teachers mayadmit that gender issues exist in theirclassrooms, expressed for example, via themanufacture of cars (and guns) as thepreferred product outcome of maleconstructors.Construction work in design  and technology,in a range of guises, often reflects issues fromsociety.  It can be context-driven and childrenmay represent their aspirations, their dreamsand model things they see around them.23Parkinson 1.4IDATER 98  Loughborough UniversityUndoubtedly, construction activities in schoolshave a relationship with the wider social,economic and environmental picture of whichschool life is but a fragment.  However, is itpossible that such construction activity,particularly that which is car-led, has asignificant future environmental price tagattached?Environmental awarenessA change of government in the UK hasinitiated a series of debates regarding theinterrelated strands of transport, land use andenvironmental pollution.  The 18th Report  ofthe Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution (1994) set the agenda for changewith targets related to such issues asimproving the quality of life by reducing thedominance of cars and lorries.  Headlines fromthe national press underline the urgency ofwhat is now seen as a fundamental problem.An illustrative headline such as that  of Foster(1997) writing in The Times on September26th, 1997 captures the spirit of the culturechange which is starting to pervade ournational press.‘Air pollution ‘ exceeds limits every fivedays’......Air pollution reaches  levelsharmful to health once every five days inparts of Britain.....’ (p.4)The response of the incoming government hasbeen rapid.  As part of a public consultationexercise, the Department of Environment,Transport and the Regions  (DETR) haslaunched a detailed document “Developing anIntegrated Transport Policy, An Invitation tocontribute” ( DETR, 1997), in a bid to searchfor answers to transport-related problems.Central to this consultative paper is the coreidea that changes in travel habits —principallyreduced car usage— are essential toimproving environmental quality for all.If it is accepted that progress towards asustainable future will entail society makinghard choices and far-reaching lifestylechanges, then do some of the “typical”construction-type activities in schools assist inthis process? Possibly not.  On the one hand,children in schools might for example berepresenting their world and their aspirationsto own perhaps, bigger, faster and morecomplex cars.  As a consequence of the car-led mindset developed in some children, oneis left to ponder if  such  construction kitactivity may be a future mechanism forstrengthening public resistance to changingtravel habits which may be needed in orderto secure environmental benefits.From the classrooms of today, will the nextgeneration of young adults be so embeddedin “car culture”, that public transportalternatives — with lower spatial impact andgreater fuel efficiency than the private car —will be more difficult to promote andimplement?Evidence from schools: early yearsThis paper focuses on aspects of researchevidence recently collected from a range ofcultural/geographic settings to providequalitative and quantitative data showing thetypes of choices children make in kit-basedconstruction settings.Firstly some disclaimers.  Of course there areflaws in the approach taken to investigateactivities undertaken by children whenworking with construction kits.  Within thesurveys referred to and undertaken for thispaper, all the construction kits employed hadthe capability to produce wheeled vehicles.Hence it is not unreasonable to expect that ifchildren are given these sorts of constructionkits to work with (and of course, mostconstruction kits have wheels!) then theymight well want to explore the full capabilityof the kit, and will naturally want to makethings with wheels.In a UK-based study concerned with theconstruction activities of young children ofages 4 - 5 (Parkinson, 1997a), in free choicesituations it was found that children seemedto build under the influence of two factors.First, external sources of motivation seemedto have a role.  Children might represent aclimbing frame for example, because this wasan item of interest to them personally.  Second,the nature of the kits themselves seems tohave been of key importance in determiningconstruction outcomes.  The nature ofcomponent parts such as tubes and plates ina kit such as Reo Click, would suggest24Parkinson 1.4IDATER 98  Loughborough Universityparticular functions to children and sopromote a product outcome with a certainfeature.  In a parallel study undertaken in aJamaican school outlined by Parkinson(1997b) for example, the tubular-based ReoClick became the focal point for: “contagious small-arms manufacture(which) swept through the classroom andboys triumphantly held aloft a surprisingarray of automatic weapons...it seems thatthe nature of perceived buildingpossibilities of the kits themselves mayhave determined the outcomes, for thetubular-based Reo Click, which so readilyforms lattice shapes yielded two laddersand of course, a variety of gun barrels.”(p.35)Whilst the children in the Jamaican enquiryindicated that their building choices wereinspired by motorised road vehicles (13examples out of 20 responses), the UKchildren produced a greater diversity ofproduct, and only a third of the artefacts hadwheels.  It is possible that the UK children,with a greater familiarity with construction kits(the sample of Jamaican children had neverseen an educational construction kit), wereable to model a diversity of ideas from abroader experiential base.Evidence from schools: upper primaryFor older children, free play is not animportant area for learning within the formaleducation environment.  Beyond the schoolof course, it gains much greater significance.In order to test the matter of pupil choice ofactivity with construction kits across a rangeof ages, an enquiry was undertaken withchildren in UK primary years 5 and 6.  Thechildren were in the age range 9 - 11 and asample of 20 pupils (ten boys, ten girls) wasselected at random from four classes in aschool on the fringes of an industrial town inKent.  Children were invited to build any objectof their own choice.  They were given identicalsets of Lego Technic, minus electric motors.Each set had a base-board on which largestructures could be assembled.  The samequestions were asked of children as for theabove enquiries with early years children.These simply were related to what childrenwere making and what gave them the idea fortheir construction.  The children wereisolated, each to his or her own table, so therewas no opportunity  for them to confer andcross-fertilise ideas.There are obvious reservations about theresearch methodology.  The children were inan unfamiliar setting, uncharacteristicallydoing work of open choice on an individualbasis, and of course the majority of boys hadLego at home.  All of these reservations (andmany more!) are acknowledged.The results were stereotypic in the extreme.They overwhelmingly reflected the early yearsfindings of Beat (1991) in which boys madethings that move and girls tended toconcentrate on static models.  Eight out of theten boys made vehicles.  These ranged fromthe simple “car” to more specific vehicles suchas “the army reconnaissance craft” the“wrecker” (for rescuing racing cars) and the“formula one car”.  Two boys made buildings.One was a garage forecourt (“where theyrepair cars”) and another was a domesticgarage.  Whilst working at the latter task, thechild concerned predicted “All the others(boys) will make cars, so I’ll make a garage”.Reasons for the choice of construction rangedfrom “Well, my mum likes cars so I made acar” to “I just saw holes and wheels” and “ Ijust kind of built it as I went along”.With one exception, the girls made buildingson the large base plate.  Most chose houses.On giving reasons for their choice ofconstruction, one girl said “It’s the only thingI could make”.  The one girl who did not makea building, constructed an assault course“Because that is what I like doing”.  Two girlsmade buildings which were not homes.  Thesewere a garage and an airport terminal building.For both of these, perhaps motivated by aninfluential external context, they extendedtheir construction range to build appropriatewheeled vehicles.  These were for a car andan aeroplane. Unlike the boys, who saw waysof attaching shafts and wheels to the Legostructural elements, the girls had difficulty.Wheels were placed onto shafts and theninitially laid under other Lego pieces withoutany precise connection.25Parkinson 1.4IDATER 98  Loughborough UniversityOne is drawn to the observations of Claire(1992) on early years children.  She recordsthat:“the girls’ models were less well made andless  sophisticated than the boys’....”  andthat “Girls left alone without teaching oroversight turned construction play intohouse play...the thought struck me thatgirls  were sometimes transferring their 2Dskills at pattern-making and decoration to3D work...” (p.29)Ross and Browne (1993) make the point that“free choice” activities are themselves genderrelated, and convey the notion that girls havevery little freedom of choice due to a weightof socially-driven prior experience which pre-conditions them to construct passively.  Thisnotion may of course work both ways.  Perhapsboys also have a weight of prior experience,and this may pre-condition them to action-related constructions.  One could even turnthe argument around and suggest that boysare disadvantaged in that, due to socially-driven prior experience, they are denied theopportunity to construct passively!One clear feature of the upper primary levelstudy in the Kent school is that the results arestark and seem to suggest an intensificationof the gender-related issues that have been aresearch feature in early years education.Progression, continuity and purposeWithin the curriculum, issues such asprogression and continuity lie at the heart ofwhat is taught and learnt.  Progression in kit-based constructional terms is related to factorssuch as a gradual increase in the complexity(number of parts/ range of parts) that the childencounters.  Another element is productspecification.  Children in the early years mayinitiate work with no teacher-directedspecification — it is “free choice”.As children progress through the primaryyears, specification takes a more importantrole.  Teachers may set tasks, initially indicatingan overall outcome to children.  “Make yourown version of the Big Red Bus” may be thefirst step.  Adding to the  specification withinan overall task  so that there is greaterqualification of the outcome leads on to theinstruction  “Make your own version of theBig Red Bus so it can carry these four teddies”.In the controlled setting of the classroom then,teachers are in a prime position to influenceconstruction activity.  They have theopportunity to  elevate and extend thinkingbeyond both the stereotypic constraints of thecar and the house which so often stem fromfree-play.Discussion can play a key role in progressionand continuity.  Barnett (1994) raises the issueof the responsibility of the designer.  He notesthat one facet of technological activity is thatit can be seen as a response to human needand then gets to the heart of the matter inquestioning “fitness for purpose” driven valuesby probing deeper into the concept of  “fitnessof the  purpose”.This questioning of purposes may enableteachers to add a further dimension to themodelling process through a reflective viewon the way that technology impacts andinteracts with society.  Hansen (1994)highlights this view in relation to the conceptof “Technological Bildung”, of which one facetis the design activity starting with:“an anticipation of a the desired functionof a machine....in relation with the socialand ethical context of this technology”(p. 372).In the controlled environment of schools, theopportunities exist both for shaping anddirecting construction activity and for addingelements of discussion on areas such aspurposes, effects and social consequences.Perhaps then, progression throughspecification acts as a valuable counter tosome of the initial influences of free-play asthe child progresses through the primaryschool years.  Beyond schools, within thatgreat ocean of influential  informal experience,stereotypic influences may take over.  Is itbeyond the influence of the school that car-culture is most actively embedded via boysinteracting not just with construction kits—but with the rest of real life?Some thoughts for the futureInterestingly, despite a move towards “clean”technologies that produce environmentally less-26Parkinson 1.4IDATER 98  Loughborough Universitydamaging vehicles, technology itself has notproduced a solution to road traffic problems.The Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution 20 th Report (1997) reminds us thatwe are using modern (“clean”) vehicles moreand numbers are increasing.  Moreover, currenttrends in car sales indicate that whatever positiveenvironmental gains are made in overall enginefuel efficiency, these are largely cancelled out bythe additional energy requirements of the trendtowards larger, heavier vehicles, incorporatingsuch features as  air conditioning and four wheeldrive.Budgett-Meakin (1992) raises the issue ofsustainability from the platform of appropriatetechnology.  Her comments on the impact of aconsumer-led society in which of course, carproduction plays a central role, have particularrelevance.“In our society we have surroundedourselves with material goods, and we havebeen seduced by a way of life which esteemsand indeed demands consumption.....Oneof the results of our consumer society is avast industry which is devoted to thecreation of new “wants” and therefore to thedevelopment of technologies to satisfy thosewants” (p21)At a classroom level, the research implicationsarising from this paper may have relevance tothe context and levels of specification ofclassroom tasks.  It may be beyond the classroomhowever, that the greatest car-led constructionrelated pressures are felt.References• Barnett, M (1994) ‘Designing the future?technology, values and choice’.International journal of technology anddesign education, 4, 1, 51-63.• Budgett-Meakin, C. (1992) ‘Values to makethe future work: the role of the appropriatetechnology approach in design andtechnology education’. In Smith, J.S. (ed)IDATER 92, Department of Design andTechnology, Loughborough University ofTechnology, 20-24.• Beat, K. (1991) ‘Design it, build it, use it’. InBrowne, N. (ed) Science and technology inthe early years, Open University Press, MiltonKeynes, 77-90.• Claire, H. (1992) ‘Interaction between girlsand boys: working with constructionapparatus in first school classrooms’. Designand technology teaching, 24, 2, 25-34.• DETR (1997), ‘Developing an integratedtransport policy, an invitation tocontribute’, Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions,August 1997.• Foster, P. (1997) ‘Air pollution ‘ exceedslimits every five days’’ The Times, September26th 1997, 4.• Hansen, K.H. (1994) ‘Technology educationfor all teachers’. In Boersma, K. Kortland,K. and Van Trommel, J. (eds) 7th IOSTEsymposium,science and technologyeducation in a demanding society,Enschede, Netherlands, 366-375.• Parker-Rees, R. (1997) ‘Learning from play:design and technology, imagination  andplayful thinking’. In Smith, J.S. (ed) IDATER97, Department of Design and Technology,Loughborough University, 20-25.• Parkinson, E.F. (1997a) ‘History anddevelopment of construction kits includinga special study of mobilo and reo click’. Thejournal of design and technologyeducation, 2, 1, 32-37.• Parkinson, E.F. (1997b) ‘Some aspects ofconstruction activity in design andtechnology education in Jamaica and theUK—a primary perspective’. In Ager, R. andBenson C. (eds) International primarydesign and technology conference, volumetwo, CRIPT at UCE: Birmingham, 34-38.• Ross, C. and Browne, N. (1993), Girls asconstructors in the early years, TrenthamBooks Ltd, Stoke-on Trent.• Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution (1994), 18th  Report, Transportand the environment, HMSO.• Royal Commission on EnvironmentalPollution (1997), 20th Report, Transportand the environment—developmentssince 1994. The Stationery Office Limited.

The seduction of the wheel: a synthesis of research-based issues surrounding car-led construction activities of young children and the relationship these may have with current environmental trends which progressively seek to limit the impact of road traffic

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/The_seduction_of_the_wheel_a_synthesis_of_research-based_issues_surrounding_car-led_construction_activities_of_young_children_and_the_relationship_these_may_have_with_current_environmental_trends_which_progressively_seek_to_limit_the_impact/9343028/files/16951898.pdf

The seduction of the wheel: a synthesis of research-based issues surrounding car-led construction activities of young children and the relationship these may have with current environmental trends which progressively seek to limit the impact of road traffic

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository