This paper builds on and extends the paper presented at IDATER93 titled Probing Understanding - An Ethnographic Study Of Student Designing by the same author.

The methodology employed previously has proceeded and with the same aim; a description of the development of concepts of design and technology in students. The purpose of this paper is to explore some aspects of the process of this researcher making meaning from data. It will describe the continuing use of an ethnographic methodology; specifically how analysis is proceeding through the use of an analytical tool that has evolved from the data. Some sections from individual interviews are analysed and the next stage of the study is indicated

Roger Elmer (7151204)

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/  160ElmerIDATER 94  Loughborough University of TechnologyProbing understanding: mapping learningRoger ElmerDepartment of Design and Technology, King Alfred's College, WinchesterAbstractThis paper builds on and extends the paper presented at IDATER 93 entitled 'Probing Understanding - AnEthnographic Study Of Student Designing' by the same author.The methodology employed previously has proceeded and with the same aim; a description of thedevelopment of concepts of design and technology in students.  The purpose of this paper is to explore someaspects of the process of this researcher making meaning from data.  It will describe the continuing useof an ethnographic methodology; specifically how analysis is proceeding through the use of an analyticaltool that has evolved from the data.  Some sections from individual interviews are analysed and the nextstage of the study is indicated.BackgroundIn contrast to other curriculum areas, little is knownabout learning and the development of conceptualunderstanding in design and technology.  Thedevelopment of students' understanding andcapability in a number of other curriculum areas hasbeen a subject of study for a significant time,Langford1.  In design and technology a large numberof models have been proposed by various authorswhich profess to describe how students shouldengage in design and technology (linear, open andclosed loops...), but there appears to be few studieswhich provide descriptions of the process in action.I suggest that there is a need for accounts to includenot only the range of phases associated with designand technology (inter alia: problem identification,design, production and evaluation), but therecognition that these activities do not happen inisolation.  Students' perceptions of the activitiesthey are engaged on and their attitudes to theminfluence significantly what they do in a learningsetting.The aim of this study is to formulate a description ofthe development of concepts of design andtechnology in action in students whilst engaged ona BA (Hons) Design and Technology course.  Toachieve the intention of looking at what doeshappen, rather than what should happen, anethnographic methodology has been adopted.From ethnography's genesis as a means of studying,in their natural setting, the behaviour of smallcommunities in simpler societies, it now refers tothe detailed study of small groups within any society.It has always been concerned with the minimalmanipulation, disturbance or interference by theobserver of the setting (ecological validity) and itsemphasis has been on the understanding of themeanings which underlie social phenomena.  Itspredominant methods are observation, in-depthinterviewing, biographies and the investigation ofdocuments.  Ethnography is thus predominantlyconcerned with the description of cultures andrather than 'studying' people, many ethnographerswould see their work to be concerned with 'learningfrom' people.For this study, with its intention of trying to find outwhat students do believe and understand ratherthan what they think they ought to believe, amethodology within the ethnographic traditionappeared the most suitable to minimise the influenceof any prescribed view of technological design.Fieldwork for the study has consisted of someparticipant observation followed by semi-structured,recorded interviews.  These have been fullytranscribed in order to analyse the data.  Students'concepts, the meanings they generate to understandtheir actions in learning settings, are actively soughtin the data.  Analysis has been directed to theconstruction of a typology.  The aim of the typologyis to enable the identification and clarification of thestructurally significant differences that students useto define some specific portion of their world; a'map' by which the underlying structure of individualobservations and utterances can be seen moreclearly.A number of typologies, each utilising a variety oforganising principles, have evolved from myinterrogation of the data.  At its genesis the presenttypology proposed four major domains interactingin pairs:intentionsENDSagency to realise intentionsMEANSSELF OTHER161ElmerIDATER 94  Loughborough University of TechnologyEach major domain encompassed further sub-divisions.  Further consideration indicated that thesetwo interactions were interconnected and theemerging typology now became a triad founded onthe organising principle of intention:and Stables5Inevitably the school situation carries a varietyof tensions ranging from the extent to which thetask will be accepted as 'real' and worthwhile bythe children to the dimension of learning it aimsat developing.  At the heart of these tensions isthe perception by both the teacher and the childof the purpose of the activity.As I struggled with this tension in the data, ideascrystallised to form a schema which I have usedsubsequently as an analytical tool to help revealunderstanding of the respondents' transcripts.  (Iuse the term schema as meaning the representationof a field of interaction.)  The schema has twodimensions, each with two domains:As this organising principle of intention emergedfrom the data I saw connections in the literature ofdesign and technology:Before we can assess the effectiveness of anypiece of design and technology behaviour weneed to know the intention that the person hasin doing it.  Without that, our assessment mustof necessity be based on guesswork- and thatwill not do.APU2My Present Understandings andApproachesWhat is virtually unique to the ethnographicapproach is its strong emphasis on reflexivity;the observer is required to observe his ownactions and interpretative processes and try toassess their effect on his conclusions."  3As I worked at the analysis, I came to comprehendthat intentions needed to be linked to the contextin which they were operating, and that 'context' wasinherently complex and suffused with a number ofintrinsic tensions.  This would presumably be foundin all academic subject courses when a learner mustrelate and act against a background of constraintsincluding course aims and assessment and theestablished conceptions of the discipline, but thereappear to be added dimensions to this tension indesign and technology.  One of the greatest tensionsappears to be between design and technology as astimulus for change in the made-world, and designand technology as a stimulus for change in thelearner: between design and technology as meansof change to other, 'out there'; and design andtechnology as means of change to self, 'within'.This tension is caught by Schon4But communication between student and studiomaster is in several ways problematic.  Messagesoften refer both to the process of designing andto the process of learning to design.  An eventlike Petra's desk crit, pertaining to both processesholds a potential for two-tiered confusion.SELF OTHERMEANSintentionTo assist my understanding I considered someimaginary examples of it in use.Consider a professional designer's activities that aredirected to the act of DESIGNING for a client/sponsor/user/manufacturer.  These are all examplesof OTHER.  In the activity of designing the personmay learn, it is very unlikely that no learning occurs,but that is not an explicit intention.  Thus theschema shows a locus (hatched area) located solelyon one dimension, DESIGNING and in the domainof OTHER:selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGContrast the 'do-it-yourself' person's activities whichare directed to the act of DESIGNING but for SELF.This schema shows a locus located solely on onedimension, DESIGNING and in the domain of SELF:selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGselfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNING162ElmerIDATER 94  Loughborough University of TechnologyFor the person in a learning environment, ifdesigning is directed to meet perceived needs ofOTHER through, for example the learner'sinterpretation of the design brief - toy for child, andLEARNING intentions are directed to meetrequirements of other (eg honours classification ofexit qualification) then:.   .   .   one of the tasks I set myself was to do areasonably professional model .   .   .whilst if DESIGNING directed to meet needs ofSELF through interpretation of the design brief (eg'storage system for my study') and LEARNINGintentions are directed to meet needs of SELF (egworking to a known weakness 'I don't know anythingabout working in wood') then:selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGwhilst if DESIGNING directed to meet needs ofSELF through interpretation of the design brief (eg'storage system for my study') and LEARNINGintentions are directed to meet requirements ofOTHER (eg working to a known strength 'I know alot about working in wood and therefore the finalartefact will impress my peers') then:selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGselfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGFrom these imaginary examples I turn to sectionsfrom two recent interviews, both concerned withthe very broad question of 'How was the project foryou?'  [Italics indicate the interviewer's speech.]Interview OneLooking at the RSA [Royal Society of Arts StudentAwards] project in particular, how has theproject gone for you?.   .   .   I think it went quite well.   .   .   yes I'm quitepleased.What constitutes 'being pleased' for you?selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGAnd what was prompting you to make, in yourown words, a 'professional model'?I don't know. [Pause]It's one of the things that I've been criticisedfor before.   .   .The tutors involved in the course prompting you todo that?Yes.selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNING we had to write down our own objectives and Idid sit down and think about them and think ofwhat people had said before and I think Imanaged to do all that I set out to do.selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGMy interpretation of these utterances is that theinitial response was positive to the very generalquestion of how the project went.  ('Being pleased'is a very common initial answer to many evaluativequestions.)  The cause of this pleasure is readilyarticulated as a 'reasonably professional model', butdeeper probing as to who or what had identifiedthis as an intention elicits bewilderment - 'I don'tknow'.  Allowing pause for thought, it emerges thatcriticism by course tutors of previous project workprompted the identification of this particularintention.  Although not identified initially by thestudent, crucially this prompt has been recognisedand accepted by the student, and integrated into apersonal set of learning intentions.163ElmerIDATER 94  Loughborough University of TechnologyIt could be argued that this may be a designingintention, or that learning and designing intentionsare so inextricably bound that their disaggregationis neither possible nor useful.  Approaches to resolvethis question are considered later in Next stage ofthe study.  Additionally, it would appear that therequirement to enunciate 'objectives' throughwriting them down at the commencement assistedthis process.Interview TwoHow was the project?A good project.  I enjoyed it.  I think I enjoyed itbecause for me it addressed as what I see as realdesigning.  The idea was to find something thatreal people, ordinary people, could actually useand I find that area of designing appeals to me.My interpretation of these utterances is that thereason for a positive response to the project isreadily articulated as 'real designing'; designingdirected to trying to meet the needs of ordinarypeople.  But this enthusiasm for designing does notprevent reflection on what is being learnt.  Thislearning is then transferred to another context -when working as a teacher of design and technology.Then a complex set of statements, interpreted (atpresent solely by the researcher) and paraphrasedas, I'm coming to understand that you don't alwaysget the designing right, and that this is less importantthan I previously believed.  It would be tempting togo further, and propose designing is less importantthan learning through designing, but this is lessinterpretation and more, at present, unvalidatedextrapolation.Next Stage of the Study: RespondentValidationRespondent validation means checking withparticipants to see if they recognise the validity ofthe analysis being developed, and it forms part ofthe approaches for checking reliability and validityin qualitative material.  In distinction to the prevalentapproaches in other fields of enquiry, neither arestatistical.  Some researchers have the wholemanuscript, or substantial chunks, validated by someor all of the participants.  This can be a political actby people who believe that the respondents ownthe data.  The response to a manuscript byrespondents is always interesting and can providenew data or confirm hypothesis but a person usingethnographic methods cannot assume that therespondents have sole access to truth.  Theresearcher's account may be more valid than anyparticipant's perspectives because the researcherhas been focusing on the setting rather than livingin it.  Respondent's knowledge may be differentfrom ethnographer's knowledge but not necessarilysuperior to it.In recent years the use of the concepts of reliabilityand validity have been questioned by someresearchers, and they have used the termtrustworthiness, and its components of credibility,transferability, dependability and conformability,   .   .   I think the idea not to charge in like aheadless chicken with the answer, so that's a realsort of learning thingselfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGselfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNING   .   .   and I think that learning commodity canbe put into use when you're talking to childrenabout how they're going to do a project.selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNINGand yet there seems something very importantabout clarifying what you are going to design for.You don't always get it right, I'm not sure that I gotit right.  Getting it right maybe isn't important,understanding that's what I'm trying to work towardsis probably important.selfotherotherselfDESIGNINGLEARNING164ElmerIDATER 94  Loughborough University of TechnologyLincoln and Guba6, or of authenticity criteria, Gubaand Lincoln7, as means to keep qualitative researchhonest and believable.  These researchers wouldsee these terms not as just different ways to say thesame thing that positivists say, but that they indicatereal differences.As conceived presently, respondent validation inthis study will consist of my respondents analysingtheir own interview transcripts using my schema,followed by them analysing interview transcripts ofanother respondent's interview(s).  The interviewshave been chunked into episodes in order to reducethe time required for them to undertake this task.Following the implementation of a pilot, thischunking maybe undertaken by the respondent.Throughout the process the aspiration is to beconsonant with an ethnographic methodology inallowing the meanings that students are making ofdesign and technology to emerge.SummaryThe paper describes some of the approaches beingtaken to explore what actually happens whenstudents are engaged on technological design.  Itexplores the use of a schema, grounded in the data,that is being used as an analytical tool to helpuncover meaning in interviews with students ofdesign and technology.  Its genesis was the perceivedtension between design and technology as a stimulusfor change in the made-world, and design andtechnology as a stimulus for change in the learner.It is proposed that there may be significantadvantages in differentiating between the activitiesof learning and designing, and to whom theseactivities are directed.  Although the concept oflearning through designing has been pervasive, itwould appear that learners need to be more self-conscious about the diversity of intentions that theyare attempting to manage.Layton8, in examining published 'models' of designand technology activity, notes their lack of attentionto the complexity of the activity of design andtechnology.However, they fail to represent some essentialaspects of design and technology, perhaps theirmost significant weakness being their silence onwhat might be called the politics of the activity,ie who shapes the decisions at various points inthe process and in terms of what valueconsiderations.This paper proposes a means of exploring thiscomplexity, a means of mapping intentions in orderthat distinctions may be made clearer betweeninter alia designing, learning, self, and other.Drawing distinctions may allow a means to reducetension and conflict and thereby allowing learnersto be better able to control the process of learningand technological design.This research was supported by a financial grantfrom King Alfred's College.References1 Langford, P  Concept Development in theSecondary School  Croom Helm, London (1987)2 Assessment of Performance Unit  The Assessmentof Performance in Design And TechnologyLondon, HMSO (1991) p23.3 The Open University DE 304 Research Methodsin Education and the Social Sciences Block 8(1979) p134 Schon, D  Educating the Reflective PractitionerJossey-Bass, San Francisco (1987) p96.5 Stables, K   Who are the real clients in schoolbased design and technology projects?Proceedings of IDATER 93, LoughboroughUniversity of Technology (1993)6 Lincoln, Y and Guba, E  Naturalistic InquirySage, Beverley Hills, CA (1985)7 Guba, E and Lincoln, Y  Fourth GenerationEvaluation  Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1989)8 Layton, D  Technology's Challenge to ScienceEducation  Open University Press, Buckingham(1993) p37.

Probing understanding: mapping learning

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Probing_understanding_mapping_learning/9343658/files/16952606.pdf

Probing understanding: mapping learning

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository