Evidence from an earlier five-year study (see Author 2020; Authors, 2019; 2021; Authors 2022) of a project was judged by teachers to have had a significant impact on pupils’ learning in Science and Design Technology. The project, however, depended on the skills of artists and engineers and was expensive unless funded by external grants. Teachers wanted to see how a similar approach could be embedded in mainstream schools. This paper explores the development of the T*** approach based on the experience of the teachers involved and the previous research project.

Teacher interviews identified a lack of experience in curriculum design, a lack of confidence in design technology and using art-making practices to develop learning. Teachers revealed a desire to give children freedom to express themselves, take some responsibility for and enjoy their learning, but that this was in tension with concerns to cover a packed curriculum, so was often not realised. 

This project was a process of responding to teachers’ questions and discussing their successful use of the elements of the T*** model, which was developed in response to their practice. We sought to ensure the approach was faithful to the insights from the professional work of the art-makers, responsive to the needs of the mainstream classroom, and attuned to the theoretical insights gleaned from previous research. The process was iterative and messy with the model emerging from the ongoing discussions. Through trialling different pedagogies, adopting practice from the previous project and becoming familiar with ‘community of practising art-makers’ (CoP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991) and ‘commission’, teachers planning changed, and they developed an understanding of and confidence in the approach. In addition to the foundational CoP and commission, the model embeds a range of characteristics identified from the professional culture and practices of the art-makers (Ingold, 20130; 2017) summarised in, what teachers saw as, a helpful visualisation.

Teachers designed their schemes of work over 18 months (albeit with interruptions due to the pandemic), trialling elements in their settings, with regular discussion and feedback from educationalists and artists. Their developing understanding of the model, its educational implications and how it could inform their classroom practice was not an easy process. In the end of project interviews, one teacher talked about coming to a session with what they thought was a really good idea only to for it to be ‘picked apart by you [the educationalists]’. Whilst initially, such moments were disheartening, they were later acknowledged as vital to teacher understanding of the model and having the confidence use it. 

As an example, in one school, by inducting children into a community of environmental activists, children were required to engage with issues related to the physical world and how humans engage with it, requiring multiple subject knowledges, but also to think and behave like a member of this community of environmental activists. The commission, situated in the real-world, generated a series of real-world tasks that the community needs to address and through which the majority of the learning occurs; learning-by-doing and/or educative conversations whilst being supervised to address the task; or at moments by direct teaching. In this example, the community’s commission was to improve the ecology of their school grounds by designing and making homes for wildlife. It required not just the development of scientific, design, geographical and communicative knowledge and understanding but the ability to empathise, listen, think critically, imagine, negotiate ideas, be responsible for particular tasks, practice particular skills, persist with ideas – in short to see themselves as a necessary and valued member of this community by practising and behaving like environmental activists. 

The project involved 14 teachers from 7 schools and 5 professional art-makers with specialisms in theatre and design. The project also drew on the experience and practice of 2 engineers. It lasted two-years during the covid-19 pandemic. Teachers engaged in 10 professional development days lead by the art-makers and researchers, and in 8 Design Technology skills sessions. Art-makers also met with teachers from each school for planning and support sessions at least 4 times. The sessions took place at a number of venues but predominantly at a purpose-built makerspace which provided a large range of resources which teachers could use. All sessions were designed to illustrate the T*** approach, that is they were active, investigative and utilised art-making as a mode of learning. Teachers designed and delivered a scheme of work in their schools and evaluated sing a modified form of ‘Lesson Study’. The study was participatory and collaborative by design. Both authors were involved in the development sessions with teachers and artists and at least one was involved in each skills development sessions. The researchers collected fieldnotes, lesson plans, talked informally with participants and led more structured discussions on the impact of the project on teachers’ planning and classroom practice, and outcomes for pupils. Semi-structured interviews (average time 40 mins) were conducted with the teachers just before the project, after one year and at the end of the project. We interviewed the artists twice (average time 60 mins) and kept notes on artist development meetings throughout the project. We also interviewed senior leaders from each of the 7 schools at the beginning and end of the project. Interviews were transcribed and thematically coded. All participants gave fully informed consent and ethical approval for the research was given by the UCLan’s research ethics committee. Here we report on the teachers’ interviews and structured discussion comments, supplemented by reflections from fieldnotes.

Teachers valued having a structured approach which had identifiable elements and clarity about the relationships between those elements. The visualisation of the T*** showing its two primary principles: the art-making community of practice and the commission, framed teachers thinking about the process and reminded them of the key characteristics (active and embodied learning, different spaces, situated knowledge, maker-educators). Whilst it framed planning, the visualisation did not dictate; different teachers found a different balance between the elements in response to their own values and confidence, and the characteristics of their class. The most immediate impact on teachers was an opportunity to critique and develop additional pedagogical tools as they learnt from the artists and engineers on the project. However, they also have the confidence and skills to consider and implement a different approach to planning, which they recognised improves pupils’ learning, their motivation to learn, develops important transversal skills and children’s enjoyment of learning. Significantly for teachers, this motivated them to allow more freedom and co-learning with their pupils. For most teachers this was at times a difficult journey as they had to engage with arts-rich activities in which they were under confident and where they engaged in a series of critical dialogues with the researchers, a process that required an extended period of time.

Author (2020) Authors (2019) Authors (2021) Authors (2022) Ingold, T. (2013) Making. London: Routledge. Ingold, T. (2017), Anthropology in/as Education. Routledge, Abingdon. Lave J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.