The paper reports on the first phase of a research project funded through a Research Informed Teaching Grant from the authors’ institution. Teacher education faculties in the UK work in partnership with schools and need, not only to keep abreast of changes in curricula delivery, but also to seek opportunities to research and reflect on the ways in which pedagogy evolves. Many of our institution’s partnership Primary schools (children aged 5-11 years) seem to be moving towards a cross-curricular way of working, which is largely to be welcomed. However, as Design & Technology lecturers with a deep commitment to our field of interest, the authors felt some concern about the future of the core skills of the subject, should it be subsumed under topic or project work. Reports by inspectors of the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) indicate that Design & Technology is a subject within which many teachers have felt less secure in their own knowledge, skills and understanding than within other, more traditional areas of the curriculum. Thus the authors of this paper were concerned that the essential characteristics of Design & Technology would become lost, especially the dimensions of design capability within a more cross-curricular approach to teaching and learning. Most teachers believe in hands-on learning and so practical work, per se, is unlikely to be under threat, but we are concerned for the possible loss of the essential aspects of design, innovation and future-oriented creativity in response to needs and opportunities. We are concerned about the needs of children to feel in charge of their own learning and being able to make choices about how and what they learn. We believe design activity to be vital to children’s education, whether the context is within Design and Technology, Science or other subjects, or embedded within cross-curricular project working. This may be of especial concern with regard to boys’ achievements and social need to be seen to be agentic (Katz, 2003:17). The nature of the funding for this project determined the research methodology, in that we were required to involve our Initial Teacher Education students in the research process and to demonstrate that the research was directly informing their learning as well as our own practice. This paper reports on Phase 1 of the project in which we have attempted to discover the current state of play in a random sample of our Partnership schools, prior to moving forward into making recommendations and, perhaps later, providing active curriculum support. We wanted to discover: • The extent to which Design & Technology was being integrated with other subjects through project work or whether it was being planned and delivered separately, including its relationship to Science; • How this affected teachers’ view of design activity. For instance, had Design & Technology become more akin to “craft” or to “practical science” rather than maintaining its own identity? • If, where and how design activity was to be found beyond Design & Technology lessons: had core design skills informed creative practice in integrated project work?

Fifty students were involved in the study, all of whom had chosen Design & Technology as one of their two Foundation Subject Options in Year 2 of their B.A. (Hons) with Qualified Teacher Status course. It could, therefore, be assumed that these students would have a sense of commitment to the subject and an understanding of the nature of design. They had received approximately 60 hrs of teaching input on Design & Technology education at the start of the school placement. The students were asked to complete two questionnaires, carefully worded so that there was no implied agenda and / or criticism of practice in any school or of student’s work in school: • Teacher questionnaire: for the students to use for interviewing a senior member of staff in the school, preferably the Design & Technology Co-ordinator; • Student questionnaire: an adapted sub-set of the teacher questionnaire, to record their own teaching opportunities and observations of children’s design learning. In both questionnaires, the questions moved from descriptives (e.g. Do you integrate or combine D&T into topic work?) to analytical / reflective (e.g. If D&T was wiped off the curriculum tomorrow, what would children lose out on?) Additionally, the students were asked to submit a reflective report, which enabled them to express opinions and reactions to the process as well as to encourage reflection on the relationship between their own learning on the university course and their experience in school (e.g. What do you feel you will need to research / learn more about in order to teach design skills effectively in school?). The responses to all three data sets were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, to determine trends and unpick expressions of viewpoints.

Using the students as researchers meant that we had, perforce, to recognise that our data had arrived through the filter of their note-taking. The thoroughness and commitment of our students to the research has been commendable, and several expressed their appreciation of having a “dry run” with our project before having to design their own independent studies in Year 3 of their course. The results from the survey likewise show the students’ enthusiasm for Design & Technology and their ability to identify potential for children’s design activity across the curriculum. The teachers’ questionnaire, albeit at times through the filter of student voice, also showed a commitment not to lose the value of design activities. However, it would seem that support from subject associations, advisory teachers and university education departments is still needed to ensure that the practical activities that children undertake do not lose the design element and continue to provide opportunities for children to be agentic in their own creative endeavours within both technology and science education.