[page 99]
12 Technology
Signs of technological giftedness
Technologists rarely pursue perfection in any absolute sense. Unlike so many fields of human endeavour, the manifestation of giftedness is not excellence in one field but excellence in compromise. For example, the problem of how 'best' to span a river will not, indeed cannot, be solved by building a perfect bridge, but rather by building a bridge which will take into account the length of time building will take, the estimated working load and life span, the cost and availability of materials, the state of knowledge in bridge building, the size and skill of the workforce, the aesthetic appearance of the product and the social and environmental consequences of the new structure. What may be an optimum solution for spanning the Humber will be quite different from that for spanning a stream in the grounds of a primary school.
A second difficulty emerges when identifying technological giftedness. Technology is concerned with the control of our material world. Beyond an understanding of control concepts and principles, there is no essential body of knowledge which must be mastered, no essential practical skill to be practised to perfection, for these will vary with the task. But there are cognitive skills and modes of working which are present in any problem-solving activity in which a human need is met by the appropriate use of human and material resources. It is these cognitive skills, plus certain dispositions, which enable teachers to say with some assurance that they can spot gifted children who may become gifted technologists. The marks which identify the child include:
i. Eagerness to accept a challenge of using existing knowledge or skills to meet a human need or overcome a practical problem. Gifted children rarely await a challenge; rather they actively seek to deploy their resources of knowledge and skill as they require them.
This eagerness is often accompanied by quiet confidence. One teacher accustomed to teaching able youngsters commented that what distinguished the gifted technologist was this confidence in finding a solution to the apparently insoluble.
ii. Patience to plan an approach to a problem, rather than rushing into the first line of empirical solution. A gifted child puts time and effort into researching the background to a problem, into collecting data and considering possible approaches, into planning his/her time and effort.
iii. Capacity to take into account the interaction between several factors in a problem and to think of them as parts of a system. Much of the school content is taught, if not acquired, in a simplistic and linear fashion. One step follows another. Technological problems are rarely so simple. Several variables may need to be considered together.
[page 100]
iv. The willingness to acquire new skills and knowledge which could lead to a more effective or efficient solution. For example, by learning to join materials by unfamiliar techniques, or by studying electronic circuitry.
In one school, a project was held up by the consistent failure of a coupling between an engine and a shaft. After persistent attempts to avoid disintegration of the coupling when the engine ran at high speed, one boy decided to investigate the failure by high-speed photography - a technique of which he had no knowledge. He read extensively on the topic of high-speed photography, borrowed a suitable camera, made tests and produced photographs which gave clues which led to the eventual modification of the coupling.
v. A disposition to model a solution before commencing work. The model can be graphic, three dimensional or conceptual, as in mathematical modelling. Modelling serves to show the interaction between complex relationships. It serves to reduce a system to its essential elements, or it may serve to rehearse the stages through which an artefact moves during construction.
vi. Creativeness in the sense of being able to generate more than one solution to a problem, and of seeing that existing knowledge and skills have relevance in novel situations. The gifted technologist is inventive and capable of thinking outside convention.
In one school, a teacher asked pupils to drive model vehicles as far across a room as they could using a hairdryer as 'wind' source. Most pupils devised sails to mount on the vehicles as the obvious line of approach. Two boys adopted quite a different approach. They built a propeller-driven windlass which, when turned by the airflow from the dryer, very effectively hauled their model right across the room.
vii. Capacity to select and to follow an optimum course of action, recognising that there must be a 'trade-off' between various solutions. Sometimes a simple solution may be all that is required.
In one school, a group of boys were given the problem of raising tin cans from the floor to bench level. One group devised a simple see saw, one end of which could be trodden on to flick the cans upward. The solution was simple, fast, cheap and effective and avoided the time consuming activity of building cranes, lifts or pulley systems.
viii. Communication skills of a high order. The technologist at school and at work may be taking lines of action which are not conventional or standard practice. Teacher, employer, or man in the street may demand explanation. This is usually in graphic form, since this is the simplest way to convey a picture of a proposed artefact, or system. Technologists often work in teams, where again, efficient communication of intent and direction of progress is of high importance.
ix. Awareness of the social consequences of 'solving' a technological problem. At school or at work, the aesthetic effects of an artefact,
[page 101]
the physical hazards which accompany its use, or any other adverse side effects are considerations which the gifted technologist embodies in his general ability to grasp interactions inside and outside the physical system he is seeking to modify.
Examples of technologically gifted children
Peter, a sixth former, working with a science teacher noted the crude way in which his local garage tested car brakes, and decided to devise a 'decelerorneter' to measure braking efficiency. He considered a variety of solutions based upon pendulums, rolling balls, strain gauges and sliding weights and in each case made models and illustrations which he discussed with his teachers. He built a prototype and spent considerable time exploring various ways of calibrating the device. He had a good grounding in physics but acquired new practical skills as they were needed. The whole project was carefully documented and illustrated so that he could enter into dialogue with the teacher. Finally it was tested, evaluated by the pupil and an improved Mark 2 version was produced.
Paul, a fourth year pupil in an inner city comprehensive had no interest or apparent aptitude for any work in the fourth year curriculum; he was a trouble maker who only desired to leave school. The school placed him in a group which was carrying out some trials upon some curriculum development material in control technology. Paul's interest was fired and it became apparent to the teacher that he had above average capacity to think divergently. The course demanded that simple knowledge of structures, electrical and electronic principles could be used to solve open-ended problems. Although he remained somewhat taciturn, he tackled increasingly difficult problems of control, using kits and electronic components to make machines to detect changes, transport objects, sort small components into different boxes, or devise alarm systems. Possibly the verbally based, traditionally taught curriculum was of little interest and challenge to him, giving few opportunities for the exercise of his technological characteristics. But the control technology course may have afforded him the outlet which enabled his gifts to be identified. Paul remained at school beyond the minimum school leaving age, took GeE examinations and eventually followed a career in engineering.
Sometimes individual giftedness is difficult to detect, for so often technological projects in school are team exercises. For example, two schools in different parts of the country have had small teams of children working on problems of written communication which are experienced by people with severe physical handicap. Both schools had mixed teams of four pupils which, after careful planning, research of the basic problem, visits to handicapped people, and acquisition of new skills, succeeded in modifying conventional typewriters to respond to one imprecise muscular movement.
Identifying and providing for the gifted
Since the move to introduce technology into the secondary school curriculum became more marked some ten years ago, teachers have argued that several factors are working against the effective identification of and provision for the gifted technologist.
First, the gifted all-rounder (like Peter) is likely to be steered away from 'practical subjects' towards the conventional 'academically
[page 102]
respectable' subjects at O- and A-level. Some technology teachers bitterly attack engineering departments in universities for calling for A-level mathematics and physics and neglecting to see that these subjects embody few of the qualities listed above.
Secondly, the 'hidden' technologist, such as Paul, may be a child who never encounters teaching method or content which can reveal his talent. He may be fed on diet of subject orientated material taught in a didactic manner. The discovery of Paul came late in his school life. One wonders how many youngsters pass undiscovered in a curriculum based on verbal knowledge.
Thirdly, in a crowded curriculum, there may be no space for a subject labelled 'technology', and instead there may have to be reliance upon a technological flavour being present in science, craft, or the social studies. To some extent this does happen, notably in craft workshops where the smaller group size, greater freedom from prescribed subject matter and the strong design methodology are factors which encourage the emergence of gifted technologists. Project work in science is another curricular area where the characteristics of technological behaviour readily find expression. Yet to rely upon existing subjects to develop and support the characteristics is not entirely satisfactory. It means that technology must be taught by teachers who have other important aims to pursue, such as the pursuit of excellence in craft or truth in science, who are trained for their own discipline and who have to meet the requirements of their own examinations. Those who would teach technology, in science for example, must consider what content and method is at the risk of being displaced, what alternative examinations are acceptable, and where and when they acquire their additional training.
These problems notwithstanding, craft and science teachers have made considerable efforts to introduce technological content and to modify examinations to test technological characteristics. Particularly commendable are CSE Mode 3 examinations which call for the solution of practical projects in technology. Frequently they pose design briefs, evaluate by continuous assessment which calls for evidence of searching for data, posing various solutions to the design and effective planning and executing of a work schedule.
A minority of heads have established technology courses within the curriculum. Usually these are fourth year options, but a few schools regard 'technological literacy' as a core curriculum subject (this is compulsory in Belgian, French, Italian and some German schools) and offer technology to all pupils lower in the school. Where this is done, the girls with technological gifts have the rare opportunity to show their talents - an opportunity which in general is denied. Where technology is one of several options in the upper school it again faces the problem of competing for the time of the gifted all-rounder who is wooed away to A-level examinations in the traditional academic mould.
Despite difficulties of identification and course provision, the picture within courses is one of good quality. Gradually teachers are retraining to teach technology. LEAs, the DES, the Open University, and the National Centre for School Technology have offered in-service courses in School Technology. Curricular development materials are now on the market, where few existed a decade
[page 103]
ago. Technology teachers are among the more sophisticated and perceptive of project method teachers. Local and national support systems exist in the form of local science and technology centres, the National Centre for School Technology and the School Technology Forum. There is a Standing Conference on School Science and Technology which has representatives from industry, educational administration and teaching.
Examinations are changing to take account of some of the characteristics listed at the outset. CSE examinations in technology have already been mentioned. One A-level engineering science syllabus aims to test, not so much specific knowledge but a pupil's capability to: 'Design the manner in which an optimum solution may be obtained efficiently and to propose alternative solutions, taking into account the restraints imposed by material, economic and social considerations'.
In short, the provision for technology in schools, though meagre, is of good quality, and well able to support the gifted.
What still needs to be done?
Clearly, from the analysis above, there is not yet enough pressure from the public, from industry and from higher education (particularly from engineering faculties in universities) to identify the characteristics of a gifted technologist. For example, insufficient work has been done to identify the behavioural characteristics displayed by the talented engineer. Without public awareness and pressure, there can be little possibility of making curricular space.
Although in-service provision for would-be technology teachers exists, and sound curricular materials are available, teachers in initial training are technologically illiterate. A mere handful of courses in technology are to be found in colleges of education.
Because of the shortage of technology teachers, heads sometimes seek to encourage interdisciplinary work or project work with a technological flavour. In one school, a well-intentioned head had been able to timetable for project work, but many of the staff had neither a grasp of the nature of project method nor sufficient training or insight into the nature of technology.
Given that curricular space can be found and that the characteristics of gifted technological behaviour are identified, two more things need to happen. First, technological behaviour needs to be divorced from technological artefacts. That is to say, the emphasis upon the actual product which is sometimes seen in project competitions and school open days needs to be supplemented by evidence of the quality of thinking, the extent of research, and the variety and validity of solutions by individual pupils. The second related point is that more recognition of this evidence, in the form of examination syllabuses, employers' tests and university entrance boards, needs to be encapsulated into our educational system.