Humanising the design and technology curriculum: why technology education makes us human

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by nayy☆

Repositioning design and technology (D&T) within England’s school curriculum, the paper argues that technological activity is fundamentally human and culturally formative. It traces D&T’s shift from craft-based roots to modern design-oriented iteration, then examines ongoing tensions: knowledge-rich curricular ideology, assessment constraints, and limited systematic research. Drawing on pragmatic theory and socio-technical perspectives, it proposes revitalising D&T to strengthen broad, balanced learning and practical, creative opportunities for pupils.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

The problem with D&T

Humanising the design and technology curriculum: why technology education makes us human Matt McLain, Liverpool John Moores University, England, UK Dawne Irving-Bell, Edge Hill University, England, UK David Wooff, University of Sunderland, England, UK David Morrison-Love, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK Introduction Design and technology (D&T) emerged from a very different education context than it finds itself in today. D&T was to be included in the National Curriculum for England because it was perceived that what children learnt from design and technological activity could not be learnt in another way (DES/WO, 1988) . Furthermore, it connected a wide range of subjects across the curriculum, developing capability “to operate effectively and creatively in the made world”(p.3) . Henceforth, the role of knowledge for action in D&T, primarily through designing and making, has been viewed as a great strength and unique feature in the subject (cf. Black & Harrison, 1985; Kimbell, 2018; Kimbell, Green, & Stables, 1996; McCormick, 1997; Morrison‐Love, 2017) . D&T emerged into the curriculum, in England, from craft education roots (Allsop & Woolnough, 1990) to its more modern, design oriented, iteration (Atkinson, 1990) . It has been a somewhat challenging journey from the outset, with calls for agreement on its purpose, nature and value in the curriculum (Wright, 2008) . However, in the face of a paradigm shift, from the teaching of individual material‐oriented and traditionally gendered subjects (home economics and craft design and technology) to a unified design‐oriented curriculum, many teachers retreated into familiar territory (McLain, 2012; Paechter, 1995)– i.e. craft and material based skills and practice. The focus on capability under the multidisciplinary umbrella of D&T, whilst compelling within the D&T education community, has arguably failed to win the hearts and minds of many. Indeed, the relative lack of the subject’s own body of propositional knowledge has recently led to criticism under the influence of a so‐called knowledge rich curricular ideology (DfE, 2011, 2016; Gibb, 2017) . D&T has also been criticised for failing to live up to its early expectations in many schools, struggling with the constraints of a content focused curriculum and assessment (McGimpsey, 2011; Miller, 2011) and a lack of “funded and systematic research”(Harris & Wilson, 2003, p. 62) . The aim of this paper is to reposition and reinvigorate how D&T is interpreted and enacted within the school curriculum. Not merely as an industrial imperative, with its focus on technical and economic matters, but on D&T as a cultural, creative and humanising endeavour. Our argument is that technological activity is fundamentally human and integral to our evolution and development as cognisant and social beings. Therefore, to measure a subject by it’s so called timeless knowledge in opposition to skill (Gibb, 2016) falls short of achieving a broad and balanced curriculum (Spielman, 2018); in particular a relatively new and evolving subject encompassing the complexity of technology and society, with their complex and changing natures. However, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, with inspection findings of “evidence of curriculum narrowing” in England and the negative impact of focusing on “few measurable outcomes”(Ofsted, 2019, p. 5); which may result ina resurgence of opportunities for pupils to study practical and creative subjects, such as D&T, in opposition to the perverse incentives that have led to said narrowing in school curricula. Theoretical Framework Curriculum can be viewed and understood through different theoretical lenses, each with their own drivers, such as aims (Reiss & White, 2013), knowledge (Young, 2008) and experience (Biesta, 2014) . In these politically turbulent times for D&T in England, we adopt a pragmatic stance (Biesta, 2014; Biesta & Burbules, 2003; Dewey, 1966, 1944, 1916) sidestepping the whole

FAQs

What is the paper’s main goal for design and technology (D&T) in schools?

To reposition and reinvigorate how D&T is interpreted and enacted within the school curriculum as a cultural, creative and humanising endeavour.

Why do the authors say technology education makes us human?

They argue technological activity is integral to human evolution and development as cognisant and social beings, so D&T should be understood beyond industrial imperatives.

What challenges to D&T does the paper highlight?

It discusses criticism related to content-focused curricula and assessment constraints, the influence of knowledge-rich curricular ideology, and a relative lack of funded and systematic research.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by nayy☆