A Knowledge Convergence Creation Rationale for the Importance of Design and Technology Education

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a British Council workshop and reception in Tokyo as part of the UK-Japan Higher Education?activities. Having met with Associate Professor HAYASHI Masako from Tohoku University at a conference in Japan last December, where we presented work from a successfully British Council funding bid with Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, we found common areas of interest and decided to apply for funding for a collaborative project focusing on the metaverse and AI in education. But I digress...

The morning workshop was on knowledge convergence creation and gender equality, the former of which I had not heard of and the latter being my primary motivation for attending. However, as interesting and illuminating as the workshop was on gender equality (I came away with new insights), the lasting impact in the thinking a week on is the implications of the concept of knowledge convergence. Particularly, as I have been thinking about the current Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) in England being led by Professor Becky Francis, as the perennial question always arises over the relevance of Design and Technology (D&T) in the national curriculum.

In the last curriculum review, where Michael Gove and Nick Gibb (cf Gibb, 2021) promoted the so-called knowledge-rich ideology to reform the national curriculum (DfE, 2013), which had the effect (albeit unintentional) of marginalising practical and creative subjects that were judged to have a weak epistemological foundation (DfE, 2011). My hope is that Professor Becky Francis and her panel of experts will take a broader and more holistic view, even beyond the stated 'lens' they are adopting of social justice.

To this end, the concept of knowledge convergence creation (KCC) could provide a useful 'lens' or rationale for looking beyond simple lists of knowledge to be taught and consider how knowledge boundaries are only there to conveniently define a specific body of knowledge. It is often the crossing of boundaries and breaking of 'rules' that leads to groundbreaking breakthroughs and creativity. Here, the idea of KCC could help to breakdown the artificial boundaries between subjects in the school curriculum and validate what we all know, but curriculum policymakers seem to forget, that in real life (be it work, play, or whatever) the knowledge we use us unbounded and interactive.

The Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence states that "The main benefits of science and technology convergence are increasing creativity, innovation, and productivity. Various methods to improve and expedite convergence aim at adding value in the convergence process and enabling people to more readily use new convergence-enabled competencies" (Roco, 2016).

Convergence knowledge creation refers to the process where different scientific disciplines, technologies, and communities interact and integrate to create new knowledge and innovations. This approach aims to achieve mutual compatibility and synergism, leading to added value and progress in various fields. For example, the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science (often referred to as NBIC) has led to significant advancements in healthcare, environmental sustainability, and human performance. This process not only combines existing knowledge but also generates new principles and solutions that can address complex societal challenges.

The 'so what?' question is 'how does this apply to curriculum design?' And my answer to that question is that we have at least one subject that was created and established in the very first national curriculum in England, taught from 1990 (DES/WO, 1990). That subject was (and is) Design and Technology (DES/WO, 1989), and was a groundbreaking attempt to create a subject that deliberately and consciously drew on knowledge from a range of disciplines to design and make solutions to real world problems, as indicated in the except below from the purpose of study statement in the current national curriculum programme of study:

...Using creativity and imagination, pupils design and make products that solve real and relevant problems within a variety of contexts, considering their own and others’ needs, wants and values. They acquire a broad range of subject knowledge and draw on disciplines such as mathematics, science, engineering, computing and art. Pupils learn how to take risks, becoming resourceful, innovative, enterprising and capable citizens... (DfE, 2013)

Academics like me, teachers, and organisations like The Design & Technology Association , the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) , the Design Council and the National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD) have been calling for design and creativity to be (re)valued in the national curriculum. Alongside the responses to the CAR submitted a couple of weeks ago, this article is an attempt to highlight the problems caused by narrow application of specific ideologies that have unintended consequences, and promote a more pluralistic and inclusive (and, conversely, less dogmatic and exclusive) approach to the current review led by Professor Becky Francis and the panel of experts. There are many different lenses that we can look at the curriculum through (in simple terms many different perspectives that we can take), and my argument this morning is that knowledge convergence creation is an interesting and practical approach to innovation, which might well provide insights on how best to educate our children and young people to become responsible and active citizens, addressing tomorrows 'wicked problems' and creating new ideas, cultures, and possibilities.

There is no one-size-fits all ideology for curriculum design, just a toolkit of ideas and approaches, with each choice we make having consequences - be they positive or negative, inclusive or exclusive, forward looking or retrospective. My point here being that virtually every choice we make has both benefits and limitations, and as influencers, stakeholders and decision makers in education, where we are dealing with human beings in their most formative years, we must be mindful of and at least attempt to expose and mitigate against potential undesirable consequences.

References

DES/WO (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. Department for Education and Science / Welsh Office. HMSO.

DES/WO (1989). Design and Technology for Ages 5 to 16: Proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales. Department for Education and Science / Welsh Office. HMSO.

DfE (2013). National curriculum: the national curriculum for England to be taught in all local-authority-maintained schools. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum [accessed 06/12/2024]

DfE (2011). The Framework for the National Curriculum: a report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7572c5ed915d6faf2b3104/NCR-Expert_Panel_Report.pdf [accessed 06/12/2024]

Gibb, N. (2021). The importance of a knowledge-rich curriculum [speech]. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-importance-of-a-knowledge-rich-curriculum [accessed 06/12/2024]

Roco, M.C. (2016). Principles and Methods That Facilitate Convergence. In E. Bainbridge & M. Roco (Eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07052-0_2