Matt McLain 2017
This paper was exceptionally brought to my attention as a continuous journey into technical pedagogy, ‘Matt McLain’ has generously researched and put forward a conclusion of similar research interests that I hold. Stating that the paper argues that demonstration pedagogy is a fundamental part of design and technology education. While also highlighting that it does have a restrictive pedagogical paradigm, and needs a more expansive approach to embody the discovery of learning through designing and making.
This is quite interesting as what I have been witnessing as a technical staff member, as well as asking my colleagues, that the amount of time from ‘learning’ to make is decreasing dramatically which technical workshop days that explore the processes of making (which provides you with the skills to design) are becoming less and less.
McLain’s question ‘What do teachers of design and technology believe to be effective pedagogy when demonstrating skills and knowledge?” was a singular approach to gathering data and subjectively or not obvious in this research paper were the voices of technical staff who are the providers mostly in creative education of skills and knowledge when it comes to making and designing. As I challenge myself not to have a bias, I could provide a naïve approach and be hopeful that McLain has labelled all those questions be it academics or service staff as teachers.
Moving onto the article, McLain has shown that demonstrative pedagogy is not just in creative education but is also visible in science and physical education teaching environments, which both are labelled under process and practice-based teachings. With also highlights that this demonstrative pedagogy is built from the traditions of apprenticeships and craft-based education of “demonstration, observation and constant practice”.
‘‘Modelling is an active process, not merely the provision of an example. It involves
the teacher as the ‘expert’, demonstrating how to do something and making explicit
the thinking involved.’’ (DfES 2004a: 3; emphasis mine)
‘‘The purpose of explaining a process or procedure is to help pupils understand how
things happen or work. The emphasis is on sequence and connectives such as first,
next, then and finally are important.’’ (DfES 2004b: 3; emphasis mine)
McLain also included these two quotes from the Dfes 2004B, which is from the national archives and that article explores pedagogy and practice in teaching and learning in secondary schools. The relation these quotes put in my own teaching practice is obvious. However, I have a more adapted version of using ‘modelling’ through an ‘active learning’ method where the student becomes the expert and translates through demonstrating their knowledge by teaching me how they understood the process of learning/experience.
The extension of ‘the purpose’ at the university level is to bring in the value of tactility and embrace the risk of failure to develop a more self-identifying process for the student experience. Although why processes are shown, ‘Pauses’ in certain steps to engage in ‘what if’ student directions can lead to students engaging more creatively and effectively with the technical understanding that failure is not the end but a chance to explore the unseen.
The evidence of exploring Vygotsky’s work of process learning and reconstruction methods of scaffolding and risk-taking, it provides guidance that what I was first exploring in my early research to be a key insight in expanding the influence of technical pedagogy as signatory pedagogy on its own through the influence of contemporary teaching teaching practices with that of past pedagogical movements.
“An after–failure approach has a number of potential applications, including with the use of a discovery learning approach (Brunner 1961), which allows for exploration and trial and error, although in some contexts may
have safety implications; and in a corrective context, where the teacher observes pupils’ engagement with a task or process, diagnoses misconceptions or errors and intervenes as a ‘more knowledgeable other’.” McLain 2017
This quote supports the risk and scaffolding of Vygotsky’s work, although to add my context, this explains that in some contexts, health and safety concerns can be implicated. The technical teaching and learning roles are built to control this by providing ‘supervised studio’ time, which means that during all workshop opening times, a technician at grade 4 or even grade 3 is in place to help prevent these health and safety concerns. Providing a unique student experience between the technicians and student body in creative education.
Throughout the article McLain has pointed out that the statements they are putting across are not theoretical yet observational, the negative aspect is that there is not enough research in the area to provide credible sources. I think part of my own research mission is to add this research topic, how I do that, is part of the journey.
What really stood out, was McLain’s explanation of 3 practices; Purposeful, Naïve and Deliberate and how these practices benefit their evidence of demonstrative pedagogy.
“Purposeful practice differs from naive practice in that it requires that the learner focus their full attention on the skill, immediate feedback and moving beyond the bounds of current knowledge or skill.”
“Naïve practice, where the same set of skills is repeated over time with limited reflection and development, can result in more recently trained professionals performing better than seemingly more experienced colleagues.”
“Deliberate practice is described as taking purposeful practice further, enhanced by proven techniques developed by experts, with a mentor figure playing an important role, providing real-time feedback, alongside the self-reflection (internal feedback) of the practitioner. “
It is interesting to read up on these practices and try and recognise to which my teaching practice belongs, in the honesty of self-reflection, I believe that my role (which could be different to that of another grade 4 technician) falls under the ‘deliberate practice’ as I like to be hands-on and involved in engaging and challenging the students learning experience with my expert knowledge in the subject. I also try to get students to engage in self-reflection as it is an industry skill that builds ‘thick skin’ that used to be a crucial skill in the harsh fashion and textiles industry. But also to give students the chance to critically edit their work and be dismissive of what is not working for them on that particular day of learning.
While Mclain goes on to explore the complexity of learning and that target focus of ‘learning styles’ one thing that I did pick up, which is currently part of the compassionate teaching initiative within UAL becoming an inclusive environment is ‘learners do not see things as they are, we seem them as we are’. Understanding this can really change the environments in which we teach, as well as what the students experience within those educational spaces.
One thing I do have to reflect on while reading this article, was the confusion in the Q methodology, I did not really understand it, and the findings became slightly confusing, with the Q-sort and PQMethod. Although maybe it is my inexperience in academia and research practices, at least now I have a new method to investigate and learn about in the future.