Learning to teach the design in technology education

Perrine Martin
IUFM Aix-Marseille University, UMR ADEF Gestepro, France

Éric Tortochot
Aix-Marseille University, UMR ADEF Gestepro, France

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 73:52, s. 444-451

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2012-06-18

ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


In France; the last five years have been marked by the reforms of the lessons of the college and high school. It is in this context that the design has made its entry in the teaching of technology at the college and in the series STI2D (Science and technology of the industry and sustainable development).

In parallel with this entry of the design in technology education; the series STD2A (Science and Technology of Design and Applied Arts) strengthens the place of lessons technological and scientific in the learning. This evolution of knowledge taught; by the link between design and technology; naturally connected in the industrial professional field; but treaty separately to the school; accentuated the fact to rethink teacher training.

This paper aims to address the issue of the interactions between design and technology in education in college and in high school; and to think about teacher training. The analysis presented here is based on observations made within the curricula of applied arts and technology in France as well as within the activities of teaching and learning of students; for students and teachers.

How to teach Design and Technology to teachers who will be responsible to account for the relationship of these two professional fields to students in college and high school?

In what the concepts of vocational teaching and activity of design can help to understand the process that led; today; to teach the knowledge on the design to teachers whose profiles are also different? To answer these questions; we focus on the study of the establishment of a Master Craft of the teaching of the training and education option “Technology & Engineering of industrial design” in France.

It will be as well to think about the objectives associated with the training of teachers for college and vocational “lycée” and their ability to articulate technological education and teaching of design thus aiming to circumscribe the effectiveness of their practices.

From a theoretical point of view; the analysis of the joints task-activity and situations of teaching and learning; within the framework of the teachings of technology and design; is proving to be a theoretical framework particularly suited to try to understand the specificities and common points.


Design; technology; activity; situation; teacher training


Brassac; C.; & Grégori; N. (2003). Une étude clinique de la conception collaborative : la conception d’un artefact. Le travail humain; 66(26); 101-127.

Dewey; J. (1915). The School and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dutson; A. J.; Todd; R. H.; Magleby; S. P.; & Sorensen; C. D. (1997). A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses. Journal of Engineering Education; 86; 17-28.

Kintsch; W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension : A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review; 95; 163-182.

Kintsch; W.; & Van Dijk; T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review; 85; 363-394.

Koehler; M. J.; & Mishra; P. (2005). What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? the Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research; 32(2); 131-152.

Loi d’orientation et de programme pour l’avenir de l’école; L721 C.F.R. § Titre II (2005).

Loi d’orientation sur l’éducation; L721 C.F.R. § Titre II (1989).

Lebahar; J.-C. (2007). La conception en design industriel et en architecture. Désir; pertinence; coopération et cognition. Paris: Lavoisier.

Lebahar; J.-C. (Ed.). (2008). L’enseignement du design industriel. Paris: Lavoisier.

Leplat; J. (2004). L’analyse psychologique de l’activité en ergonomie. Toulouse; France : Octarès.

Marsh; C. J. (2004). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum (3rd ed.). Oxon; UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

Moineau; C. (2011). Incidence de la présence d’un partenaire industriel dans une situation didactique de conception. Analyse de l’activité de conception d’étudiants en design industriel dans le cadre de situations didactiques de conception intégrant une entreprise industrielle. Research Master. Université de Provence. Aix-Marseille 1. Aix-en-Provence.

Ostergaard; K.; & Summers; J. (2009). Development of a systematic classification and taxonomy of collaborative design activities. Journal of Engineering Design; 20(1); 57-81.

Perrenoud; P. (2002). Les conceptions changeantes du curriculum prescrit; hypothèses. Un siècle d’éducation en Suisse romande(1); 48-52.

Piaget; J. (1974). Biology and Knowledge. An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes (B. Walsh; Transl.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Piaget; J. (1979). La psychogenèse des connaissances et sa signification épistémologique. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.); Théories du Langage; théories de l’Apprentissage (pp. 53-64). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Poell; R. F.; Yorks; L.; & Marsick; V. J. (2009). Organizing Project-Based Learning in Work Contexts. Adult Education Quarterly; 60(1); 77-93.

Raucent; B. (2004). What kind of project in the basic year of an engineering curriculum. Journal of Engineering Design; 15(1); 107-121.

Reeves; T.; Herrington; J.; & Oliver; R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education; 16(2); 96-115.

Rutland; M. (2009). Art and Design and Design and Technology: Is there creativity in the designing? Design and Technology Education: an International Journal 14(1); 56-67. Retrieved from http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/article/view/202/177

Safin; S.; Leclercq; P.; & Decortis; F. (2007). Impact d’un environnement d’esquisses virtuelles et d’un modèle 3D précoce sur l’activité de conception architecturale. Revue d’Interaction Homme-Machine 8(2); 65-98.

Savery; J. R.; & Duffy; T. M. (1996). Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and its Constructivist Framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.); Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs; NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Swan; J.; Scarbrough; H.; & Newell; S. (2010). Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning; 41(3); 325-344.

Tortochot; E. (2007). L’inspection d’équipe dans le domaine des arts appliqués : des textes officiels à la réalité du terrain. Mémoire de Master. Université de Provence. Marseille.

Tortochot; E. (2011). La créativité chez les étudiants en design. Le cas d’une université anglaise qui enseigne l’activité de conception. In J. Ginestié (Ed.); A paraître. Toulouse: Octarès.

Tortochot; E. (2012). Pour une didactique de la conception. Les étudiants en design et les formes d’énonciation de la conception. PhD; Aix-Marseille Université; Marseille.

Tortochot; E.; & Lebahar; J.-C. (2008a). Genèse de l’enseignement du design industriel en France : les traditions; l’économie; les institutions; les pionniers. In J.-C. Lebahar (Ed.); L’enseignement du design industriel (pp. 109-135). Paris: Lavoisier.

Tortochot; E.; & Lebahar; J.-C. (2008b). D’une noosphère traversée par les conflits; à une stabilité de 25 ans : l’enseignement du design industriel en France. In J.-C. Lebahar (Ed.); L’enseignement du design industriel (pp. 137-171). Paris: Lavoisier.

Van Dijk; T. A.; & Kintsch; W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York : Academic Press.

Vygotsky; L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. In A. Kozulin; (Ed.). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Wolff; M.; Burkhardt; J.-M.; & de la Garza; C. (2005). Analyse exploratoire de “ points de vue ” : une contribution pour outiller les processus de conception. Le travail humain; 68(3); 253-286.

Wrigley; H. S. (1998). Knowledge in Action: The Promise of Project-Based Learning. Focus on Basics; 2(D). Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=384

Zager; D. (2002). Collaboration as an Activity. Coordinating with Pseudo-Collective Objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW); 11(1); 181-204.

Citeringar i Crossref