Pupil attitudes to National Curriculum technology

AbstractThe Education Reform Act 1988 (HMSO,1988) introduced for the first time acompulsory National Curriculum into schoolsin England and Wales. Technology was onesubject in this compulsory curriculum; itsinclusion was controversial and (for some)unpopular, generating a debate about thesubject's nature and educational value. Thisstudy reflects upon that debate by:

reviewing the opinions of educationalistson National Curriculum technology

reviewing surveys of pupil attitudes toprevious school technology courses

investigating pupil attitudes to the 'new'subject of National Curriculumtechnology, and

discussing whether the general aims setout by the subject's creators have beenachieved.

IntroductionTraditionally, 'technology' has formed asmall part of the curriculum in Britishschools, being subsumed within "Art andCraft" in the primary sector and beingoptional in secondary schools. The decisiontaken in 1988 to include technology as acompulsory element in the NationalCurriculum for pupils aged 5-16 thus markeda radical departure. This decision was (andstill is) controversial. Some commentatorsargue that the subject is so important thatthe well-being of our society may dependupon it, whereas others doubt the subject'svalue. Even proponents of the subject holdwidely differing views about its nature. Thusit is hardly surprising that the introduction ofNational Curriculum technology has notbeen smooth and that in its relatively shortlife the subject has undergone considerablechange. This disorder has led to a livelydebate about the credibility of the subjectwhich has resulted in numerous assertionsbeing made about National Curriculumtechnology. In this study, some of thesestatements are compared to the views of asample of pupils who have studied NationalCurriculum technology since its introduction,in order to provide an empirical basis forfurther comment. In addition, the Non-

Statutory Guidance for teachers(CCW,1990) set out aims for the newsubject; an assessment is made of whetherthese aims are being achieved in practice.

SurveyThe study was carried out in apredominantly English-speaking rural LocalEducation Authority area (LEA) in Wales. Ofthe eight secondary schools in the authority,six agreed to participate in the study. A pupilquestionnaire was distributed (by appointedform tutors) to 25 boys and 25 girls fromeach school making a total of 300 pupilparticipants. Year 12 pupils (1994-5) werechosen because they belonged to the firstcohort of pupils to take National Curriculumtechnology for a full five years. The pupilsfilled in the questionnaires during contacttime with their form teachers. Interviews with20 pupils were carried out after the resultshad been analysed in order to clarify someof the issues raised.

The study does have some limitations, themost important being that the sample isrelatively small (241 pupils responded), andis taken from a predominantly rural area. Itis possible that the pupils' views areatypical, as they may have been affected byproblems surrounding the subject'sintroduction. Some pupils may also haveresented the fact that the subject had beenmade compulsory for the first time.

Literature surveyIt is apparent that subjects which havetraditionally contained a large element ofmanual skills have been regarded by manyacademics as suitable only for theintellectually challenged. In 1985, theStanding Conference on University Entrance(SCUE) advised that pupils who wanted togo to university should avoid"unconventional 'A' levels". Design andtechnology was one of the subjectsstigmatised by this comment (Penfold,1988). Norman (1985) summed up thesituation which followed the SCUE decision,stating that "Technical and vocationalsubjects, especially those involving a strongelement of practical skill, have been virtuallyoutlawed by the universities". Penfold (1988)further pointed out that a number of SUbjectswhich were largely taught in a practical waysuffered from a low educational status:

Milford HavenSchool,Pembrokeshire

University of Wales,Aberystwyth

"Almost from the beginning, practicalsubjects were firmly at the bottom of theacademic hierarchy ... clever childrenhave regularly been diverted away fromthe workshops to academicallyrespectable spheres."

When the National Curriculum TechnologyOrders were published (HMSO, 1990) therefollowed a fierce debate about the nature ofthe subject described by the Orders and theNon-Statutory Guidance (NSG) for teachers(CCW, 1990). Toft (1989) and Mulberg(1992) appear to support both the inclusionof technology as a compulsory element ofthe curriculum, and some of thecharacteristics described by the NSG.McCormick et al (1992) supported the notionthat technology should be taught "fromsome basis of an understanding of the worldaround". Others who appeared broadly infavour of National Curriculum technologyinclude Shaw (1991), Naughton (1992) andEggleston (1992), whose comment that

"every citizen needs to be familiar with awide range of technology in order tohave sufficient understanding andcapacity to live effectively in modernsociety"

typifies the views of many of the sUbject'ssupporters.

A critical view of National Curriculumtechnology has been put forward forcefullyby a number of authors, many of whomargue that the new 'subject' was created bybanding together a disparate group of othersubjects preViously taught as separatedisciplines. As Smithers and Robinson(1992) complain:

"(National Curriculum technology)embodies the aspirations of differentinterest groups which have been kepttogether only by pitching its objectivesand content at such a high level ofgenerality that it can include almostanything."

Indeed, Medway (1992) maintains thattechnology in the National Curriculum isbased on a 'discipline' which does not existat all outside the school:

"The concept of technology on which thecurriculum is based is in fact anormative, not an empirically derivedone, an artificial constraint whose links toreality are tenuous and problematic."

Medway goes on to point out that NationalCurriculum technology provides acombination of activities in the classroomlinked to so many diverse occupations that itrepresents

"an apparent blindness to the division oflabour in society ... this extraordinaryassemblage (of skills) ... would almostnever be exercised by one person"

and the only rationale for bringing them alltogether is eVidently "the belief that they areall design and technology activities". Thisremark encapsulates his concerns:

"It is ... important to ask how this newsubject got itself invented ... By way ofan answer (we find) on the one hand,educational idealism and well-foundedtheory, and, on the other, conceptualconfusion, unrealistic aspirations andideological loading ..." (Medway, 1992)

Others have also noted incongruities in thenature of National Curriculum technology.Barnett (1992) points out that the originalsubject Orders are divided into "two distinctcomponents - Design and Technology, andInformation Technology (IT)". He commentsthat this separation was "a witlessdemarcation which the working group (onthe proposed curriculum) attempted tochallenge but without success". Manytechnologists see this distinction as afundamental flaw. The working groupactually stated in the Interim Report (1988)that "IT... forms an essential part of D&Tbecause it lies at the heart of many artefactsand systems". Despite this, in the latestversion of the subject orders (HMSO,1995)IT is no longer even a part of design andtechnology.

A few studies on pupils' attitudes to thestatus of technology as a school subjecthave been reported in the past. McCarthy(1989) carried out a small-scale study whichrevealed some positive attitudes to CDT:

technology; however the sample was small,consisting of 40 pupils all of whom hadopted for the subject. It is therefore likelythat they held the subject in higher esteemthan others in the year group. Ormerod andWaller (1988) noted that pupils who choseto do COT in Year 9 were associated withhaving a weakness in both mathematics andintelligence by those pupils who did not optfor COT subjects. As in the McCarthy (1989)study, craft-based and draWing-based COToptions were held in the lowest esteem. Aninternational investigation by Raat and OeVries (1986) discovered that "pupils find ithard to give a description of technology andare unaware of the role of creativity anddesign in it". Pupils were also found to beignorant of the types of work done bytechnologists.

The questionnaire and data analysisThe questionnaire was prepared with theaim of discovering pupil attitudesconcerning:

the status of National Curriculumtechnology relative to other subjects;

the usefulness of National Curriculumtechnology to pupils' career prospects;and

4.5

4

3.5

3••••c0Co

2.5••-~.a.:>

2Co

c~::E

1.5

the degree to which the distinctivefeatures and general educational aims ofNational Curriculum technology asidentified in the Non-Statutory Guidancefor teachers (CCW,1990) had beenachieved.

the subjects which they had opted totake in Year 12.

A chi-squared test was applied to establishwhether there were any statisticallysignificant response differences betweenarts and science pupils, and betweengender groups.

Results and discussionQuestion 1Pupils were asked to rate the NationalCurriculum subjects in their order ofimportance for future career prospects. Afive point scale was used, where 5 = Veryimportant, 4 = Quite important, 3 = Averageimportance, 2 = Less important, 1 = Leastimportant. The weighted mean responsewas calculated (Figure 1). English (mean4.48), Maths (4.48) and Science (4.00) wereregarded as being the most important forpupils' career prospects. Technology (2.82)

Figure 1: Importanceof each subject forpupils' careerprospects (weightedmean)

,----------------·-----·1

I

I

was ranked eighth out of the twelve subjectsand thus was rated as being of belowaverage importance.

Science pupils apparently consideredtechnology to be more useful to their careerprospects than arts pupils. Science pupilsplaced technology in sixth position, whereasarts pupils placed technology eighth. Thislends support to the view that technology isperceived as having more in common withscience disciplines rather than arts. However,even science pupils gave technology a lowrating compared to English (4.06), Maths(4.4), Science (4.57), and Informationtechnology (3.49). Male pupils rankedtechnology seventh (mean 3.00) and femalepupils placed the subject eighth (2.63)

Question 2Pupils were asked to choose the fourNational Curriculum subjects which theywould study, if only four subjects could bestudied. The results are shown in Figure 2.English (87.1%), Maths (84.2%) and Science(68.5%) received significantly higher scoresthan the other subjects. Technology gainedonly seventh place (17.8%).

Figure 2: % of pupilswho would havechosen each subjectas one of fourcompulsory subjectsatKS4

90 .--._-----

80

70

60

II)50'a,.~...

0 40#.

30

20

10

0Eng

This seems to show that many pupils do notconsider that technology is sufficientlyimportant to be a compulsory subject at KeyStage 4. The status of technology is clearlymuch lower than that of English, Maths and

Science, and considerably lower than that ofa Foreign Language.

A comparison between arts and sciencepupils established that science pupils gavetechnology a much higher score than artspupils (science 29.5%; arts 13.9%);however, science pupils still considered thatinformation technology (fourth place) and aforeign language (fifth place) were moreimportant than technology, and placedbusiness studies in equal sixth place withtechnology.

Arts pupils placed technology in eighthplace, well behind a foreign language(fourth), and information technology (fifth).This is further evidence that arts pupilsappear to hold technology in lower esteemthan science pupils.

Male pupils placed technology seventh(24.2%), whereas females placed the subjectninth with a much lower score (11.1%).

This evidence suggests that pupils acceptthat English, maths and science should becompulsory subjects at Key Stage 4, butthey feel that the fourth subject (assumingthat there should be four) should not betechnology. The most important inference tobe drawn is that many pupils are studyingtechnology who would not do so if they hada choice.

.--_.- .__ .- .__ .__ ._...._ ..._._------- -----_._-_._._- -----_.- _.-._._ ..__ ._---- --_.------- _ .._-- -------------,

!

Question 3Out of all your GCSE subjects, are thereany that you now wish you had not studied?If so, name them on the line below, and givea brief explanation.

Of the 117 pupils who responded to thisquestion, 42 (17.5% of the sample) statedthat technology was a subject that theywished they had not taken. The next highestresponse was for history (15 pupils - 6.2%)and the remaining subjects had scoreslower than eight (3%). The reasons thatpupils gave for wishing that they had notbeen obliged to take technology fell intothree categories:

those who felt that it did not "give themthe skills that they would need in laterlife" (7 pupils);

those who stated that it was "a waste oftime that could have been spent onmore important subjects" (27 pupils);

those who stated that there "is nothingtechnological about the subject" (8pupils).

Thus the number of pupils who regrettedtaking technology was much higher than forany other subject. This may have been dueto the fact that for the first time technologywas compulsory, though the compulsorycore subjects (English, Maths, Science) didnot receive any such responses. It is acause for concern that 27 pupils (11.2%)resented the fact that the time given totechnology prevented them from taking whatthey regarded as "more important subjects".On the other hand, 199 pupils (82.5%) didnot indicate any regret at taking the subject.

Question 4Pupils were invited to agree or disagree witha number of statements (see table 1).

These statements were based upondescriptions of the aims and nature ofNational Curriculum technology found in theNSG for teachers (CCW, 1990). Thequestion was therefore designed to asseshow successfully National Curriculumtechnology had fostered in the pupils the

attitudes, qualities and skills which are,according to the NSG document, vital to apupil's general education and inherent in thedistinctive nature of National Curriculumtechnology.

Pupils were required to read the statementsand respond "yes", "no", or "don't know".The totals were then tallied for eachstatement.

It is encouraging that for all except one ofthe statements, a majority of thoseexpressing an opinion gave a positive viewof National Curriculum technology; however,when the "don't know" responses are takeninto account, two other statements failed tobe supported by the majority. It must be acause for concern that the one statementrejected was that "School technologyprepares pupils for work and life in society",and that less than 50% of the pupils agreedeither that "School technology helps toprepare young people to live effectively andcreatively in a 'technological world'" , or that"School technology fosters an ability toevaluate the purposes, processes andproducts of technological activity and thewider role of technology in society". Theseresults show that the aims set out forNational Curriculum technology are notbeing achieved for a significant proportion ofpupils. It also seems that pupils are notbeing exposed to the ''wide range oftechnology (that would enable pupils to)have sufficient understanding and capacityto live effectively in modern society"(Eggleston, 1992). One pupil commentedthat

"the work done in technology lessons istotally unique and isolated from that donein the outside world. I do not believe thatthe subject has helped prepare me forlife after schooL .."

These results appear to support Medway's(1992) contention that National Curriculumtechnology's link to the real world of work istenuous. Medway also maintains thatNational Curriculum technology does notallow for the way in which technology oftenconsists of the application of skills to deal

Table 1· Pupilresponses to thestatements inQuestion 4 a-h,expressed as apercentage of thetotal (Number ofpupils in sample:241)

with unexpected situations. Others, forexample Smithers and Robinson (1990),claim that National Curriculum technologyhas no real identity because it embodies theaspirations of too many disparate interestgroups (viz. COT, home economics, textiles,art, design) and thus has to aim itsobjectives and content so generally that itcan include almost anything.

The relationship between NationalCurriculum technology and the world outsidethe school gates is also considered by theproposition that: "School technologyprovides an opportunity for pupils to studytechnology in the wider world and itsinteractions with society and theenvironment". In this case, 50.6% answered'yes' and 29.5% answered 'no', thusNational Curriculum technology seems to befailing (for a significant minority) to achieve

another of its fundamental aims. A responsetypical of those who disagreed with theproposition was that:

"technology lessons are too contrived -all about the design process and folderwork. The subject failed to deal with theimpact that technology has on our lives

or the environment."

Barnett (1992) identified this as afundamental problem, pointing out thatmany basic technological activities such asnuclear energy and road building are noteven touched upon because they do nothave a design and make element. It istherefore very difficult for those who teachthe subject to achieve this aim. If thesubject were to be taught in future in a moreholistic and anthropocentric way - assuggested, amongst others, by Capel (1992)

a) School Technology helps to prepare young people to liveeffectively and creatively in a "technological world"

b) School Technology provides many and varied opportunities forpupils to gain first hand experience of the processes which arecentral to technological activity.

c) School Technology provides an opportunity for pupils to studytechnology in the wider world and its interactions with society andthe environment. 50.6 29.5 19.9

d) School Technology provides an opportunity for pupils to bringtogether and apply knowledge and skills gained in other subjects. 59.8 27.6 12.4

e) School Technology helps to develop pupils' practical ability tothink and act imaginatively, by allowing them to apply their physicaland intellectual knowledge and skills. 68.9 18.7 12.4

f) School Technology fosters confidence to solve problems,perseverance in the face of problems, enterprise, good judgement,responsible attitudes to the environment and safety problems. 56

g) School Technology fosters an ability to evaluate the purposes,processes and products of technological activity and the wider roleof technology in society. 47.7 29.9 22.4

- it might be easier to link the subject toenvironmental concerns.

Although a large number of pupils appearsceptical about technology's potential valueto them in their future careers, and itsrelevance to the world at large, many aremore positive about other aspects of thesubject. Almost 70% agreed that "Schooltechnology helps to develop pupils' practicalability to think and act imaginatively, byallowing them to apply their physical andintellectual knowledge and skills". As onepupil said:

"Technology is the only subject I did forGCSE where I had to design and makesomething using my own initiative tosolve a problem that I had identified. Inthe other subjects everybody did similarwork involving mainly writing with littleopportunity to use our own ideas."

This supports the view that technology isone of the few subjects on the curriculumthat gives pupils the opportunity to applytheir intellectual knowledge in a practicalway, and so

"makes an important contribution to thecreation and maintenance of a properbalance between the acquisition ofknowledge and skills and its practicalapplication to realistic and relevanttasks." (CCW, 1990)

Eggleston (1992) maintains that this uniquecontribution of design and technology to apupil's educational experience is enough tomerit its inclusion in any balancedcurriculum. A healthy majority of pupils(nearly 60%) also supported the contentionthat: "School Technology provides anopportunity for pupils to bring together andapply knowledge and skills gained in othersubjects". A typical comment was that

"Technology is one subject that I enjoyedbecause I was able to apply many of theskills that I had learnt in other subjectslike maths and science, to help solve thedesign problems."

Technology has therefore been moresuccessful in achieving this aim, and thepupils' responses show that the subject atleast partially reflects Naughton's (1992)description of technology as being "theapplication of scientific and otherknowledge".

The proposition that: "School technologyfosters confidence to solve problems,perseverance in the face of problems,enterprise, good judgement, responsibleattitudes to the environment and safetymatters" was supported by 56% of thesample; the 'no' response was 25.3%.Although the aim is being achieved for amajority, a significant number of pupils feelthat technology is failing to cultivate thepositive personal qualities and attitudesexpected. A number of pupils commentedduring interviews that there was nothing"unexpected" about the problems they had tosolve, providing some support for Medway's(1992) suggestion that National Curriculumtechnology does not deal with the skillsneeded to tackle unexpected situations,because it is too rationalistic and governedentirely by a systematic design process.

For all the statements in question 4, theresponses of groups of pupils (arts andscience; male and female) were comparedstatistically using the chi-squared test. Asthe sample size was relatively small (241pupils), only one set of responses showed astatistically significant difference betweentwo groups - though it may well be thatother differences which occurred could beconfirmed on the basis of a larger sample.The proposition that: "School technologyprovides many and varied opportunities forpupils to gain first hand experience of theprocesses which are central to technologicalactivity" gave a "yes" response of 50.6%and a "no" of 27.4%; however, a comparisonbetween arts and science pupils revealedthat the higher "yes" response by arts pupilswas significant at the 0.05 level. This mayreflect that arts and science pupils havedifferent views about the processes whichare central to technological activity. Sciencepupils may have higher expectations and amore refined view of the nature oftechnology; if this is so, they might havepreferred a technology course similar to thatproposed by Smithers and Robinson (1990),

who argued that the subject should to coverareas such as: materials, electronics,instrumentation, fluids, structures, and teachskills including: control, measurementassembly, construction and projectmanagement. Barnett (1992) is anotherauthor who complains that much of the workcarried out as National Curriculumtechnology is "distinctly low-tec ... and thenew technologies may as well not exist". Asone pupil commented:

"technology lessons were disappointingas they only involved carpentry andsimple metal working with some use ofplastic. The new manufacturingtechnologies and their application inindustry were not looked at."

This could well account for the highproportion of science pupils who respondednegatively. Indeed, since 76.7% of thesample who take 'A' level design andtechnology combine it with arts subjects,arts pupils appear more likely to identify theless scientific techniques and processescurrently being taught in National Curriculumtechnology as being technological, and tobe satisfied that these techniques will proveuseful to them.

ConclusionsFrom the debate about the nature of schooltechnology, it can be seen that there are anumber of conflicting views about the formthat the subject should take. The Proposalsfor technology (Department for Education/Welsh Office,1992) recognised thesedifficulties, and noted that one fundamentalproblem which had to be overcome wasthat:

"overall, there was considerable variationin respondents' views on the nature ofD&T and what it should contain."

It is very likely that these differing viewsarose primarily from the grouping together ofsubject areas which had previously beentaught separately, as Smithers andRobinson (1992) and Medway (1992) hadpointed out.

The authors of the 'new' subject had hopedto create a high status subject which wouldovercome previous predjudice wherebytechnological activities were seen as beingsuitable for pupils with manual skills butweak intellects. Judging by the responses ofthe pupils in this survey, this laudableambition has not been achieved. The statusof the 'new' subject remains low whencompared to many other NationalCurriculum subjects, and the hiving off of IThas not helped the cause of technology. Theresults give weight to Barnett's (1992) viewthat this separation constituted "a witlessdemarcation". It is probable that a subjectcontaining IT as an integral part withintechnology would command a higher statusthan either subject on its own.

It also appears that science pupils holdtechnology in higher esteem than artspupils, and yet 76.7% of the pupils in thesurvey who take 'A' level technologycombined it with arts subjects. Arts pupilsfeel that technology enables them toexperience the "processes that are centralto technological activity" (NSG, 1990) to amuch greater extent than science pupils; ittherefore appears that arts and sciencepupils have a different view of the nature oftechnological activity. A survey on a largersample of pupils could help to clarify theseapparently contradictory results.

A large number of pupils do not consider thattechnology prepares pupils for life in a''technological world", apparently becausethey believe that the subject does notexpose them to the wide range of technologynecessary to achieve this. Fewer than 50%of the sample believed that technology isable to foster an "ability to evaluate thepurposes and processes of technologicalactivity and the wider role of technology insociety". It is therefore clear that the subjectas constituted and taught at the time of thesurvey is failing to place technology in itsproper context, which in turn undermines itsimportance in the eyes of the pupils.

On a more positive note, almost 60% ofpupils considered that technology didprovide "an opportunity for pupils to bringtogether and apply knowledge and skillsgained in other subjects", and 56% of pupilsfelt that the subject had improved their

"skills in problem solving, enterprise,judgement and the cultivation of responsibleattitudes to the environment and safetymatters". In these areas the subject hasbeen fairly successful. The area in which thesubject is considered to be the mostsuccessful (by almost 70% of pupils) is thecapability of technology to "develop pupils'practical ability to think and actimaginatively, by allowing them to apply theirphysical and intellectual knowledge andskills" (CCW, 1990).

The overall conclusion to be drawn is that iftechnology is to become "institutionalized ...as a core component of school learning"(Toft 1989) then research must be carriedout in order to establish how the subject canbe more successful in achieving its authors'aims, perhaps especially that of "preparingpupils for work and life in society" (CCW,1990). Some of the main questions thatneed to be investigated arise from claimsmade by educationalists that many of thedifficulties are attributable to fundamentalflaws inherent in the nature of NationalCurriculum technology. Other factors alsoneed to be examined, including the oneidentified by HMI which links the failure ofNational Curriculum technology to the "poorunderstanding of the statutory requirements"by many teachers (HMI, 1992).

The considerable doubt about the rationalebehind National Curriculum technology thusappears to be well founded. It is hardlysurprising that only a few years after theOrders came into being, the subject whichhad been heralded as the "jewel in thecrown" of the National Curriculum byDuncan Graham (then Chief Executive ofthe National Curriculum Council) had -according to many commentators - fallenfrom grace. It remains to be seen whetherthe post-Dearing version of NationalCurriculum technology can improve matters- though the separation of IT fromtechnology is hardly likely to be helpful.

ReferencesBarnett, M (1992) 'Technology within the NationalCurriculum', in Beynon, J and Mackay, H (Eds)Technological Literacy and the CurriculumBasingstoke: Falmer Press.

Capel, R (1992) 'Social Histories of ComputerEducation: Missed Opportunities', in Beynon, Jand Mackay, H (Eds) Technological Literacy andthe Curriculum Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

Curriculum Council for Wales (CCW) (1990) Non-Statutory Guidance for Teachers, Cardiff, CCw.

Department for EducationlWelsh Office (1992)National Curriculum Technology - Proposals ofthe Secretary of State for Education and theSecretary of State for Wales.

Eggleston, J (1992) Teaching Design andTechnology Buckingham: OUP.

Department ot Education and SciencelWelshOffice (1988) Interim report of the NationalCurriculum Design and Technology working group(HMSO).

Department of Education and SciencelWelshOffice (1990) Technology in the NationalCurriculum (HMSO).

Department for Education (1995) Design andTechnology in the National Curriculum (HMSO).

McCarthy, A (1989) Technology in the secondaryschool curriculum: a pupil perspective(unpublished M.Ed. dissertation), University ofWales, Cardiff.

McCormick, R, Newey, C and Sparkes, J (Eds)(1992) Technology for Technology EducationWokingham: Addison-Wesley.

Medway, P (1992) 'Constructions of Technology:reflections on a new subject', in Beynon, J andMackay, H (Eds) Technological Literacy and theCurriculum Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

Mulberg, C (1992) 'Beyond the Looking Glass:Technological Myths in Education', in Budget, C(Ed) Make the Future Work Appropriate -Technology: a teacher's guide Singapore:Longman.

Naughton, J (1988) 'What is Technology?', inMcCormick, R , Newey, C and Sparkes, J (Eds)Technology for Technology Education Wokingham:Addison-Wesley.

Norman. M (1985) 'Black list of 'A' levels forUniversity Entrance', The Daily Telegraph, 19th.May, 1985.

Ormerod, M and Waller, J (1988). 'Attitudes toCraft, Design and technology with some relatedfactors and sex differences at 14+', Research inScience and Technological Education, Vol. 6, No.2.

Penfold, J (1988) Craft, Design and Technology:Past, Present and Future Stoke-on-Trent:Trentham Books.

Raat, J H and De Vries, M (Eds.) (1986) What dogirls and boys think of technology? Pupils'attitudes towards technology Eindhoven,Eindhoven University of Technology.

Shaw, K E (1991) Teaching Design Technology(Perspectives 43) Exeter, Exeter School ofEducation.

Smithers, A and Robinson, P (1992) Technologyin the National Curriculum - getting it rightLondon: The Engineering Council.

Toft, P (1989) Managing change in the COTdepartment Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.