 |
KS3 scheme of work for the effective and progressive
teaching of CAD/CAM skills |
|
|
| |
 |
School: Wolgarston High
School, Stafford |
|
Fellow: Jeff Gillen |
|
Email: j-gillen@wolgarston.staffs.sch.uk |
|
|
|
|
Background: |
|
|
|
My name is Jeff Gillen, I am 51 years old
and have been teaching Design and Technology
for 12 years. I joined the profession, as
a mature entrant, after having spent 19 years
in design related disciplines in industry.
Having introduced CAD/CAM into my current
school I became increasingly aware of the
significant impact its use is likely to have
in schools. Already its use in GCSE project
work has led to some difficulties in the assessment
of work against existing criteria. Examination
boards, while requesting the use of ICT and
CAD/CAM, appear to be unable to support the
allocation of high grades where outcomes are
exclusively CAD/CAM generated and produced.
In thinking about these problems the following
issues seemed evident: |
| |
ICT and CAD/CAM are extremely motivating
for students.
Student work is of much higher quality
where ICT and CAD/CAM are used effectively.
The knowledge and skills needed to design
with CAD/CAM are (arguably) more demanding
than those needed to design with traditional
tools and processes.
The knowledge and skills needed to design
for CAM are (arguably) more demanding
than those needed to design for traditional
tools and processes.
Knowledge and understanding of materials
is equally important when using CAD/CAM
as when using traditional methods of
manufacturing.
The use of CAD/CAM lends itself to developing
other industrial processes (line bending,
vacuum forming, drilling, tapping and
threading, accurate production of jigs
etc.).
The use of CAD/CAM introduces engineering
concepts such as 'Tolerances' much earlier.
ICT and CAD/CAM are not going to go
away.
Challenges in assessing CAD/CAM outcomes
will have to be addressed.
Before student capability can be recognised
and accurately assessed students will
need to develop competency in the use
of CAD/CAM systems.
Having developed competency students
will need opportunities to demonstrate
capability through application of their
skills and knowledge.
If students are to achieve the levels
of competency necessary to effectively
select software and machines and in
order for students to design 'for' these
more advanced processes at GCSE, they
will need to acquire knowledge and understanding
in KS3 |
|
| |
Consideration of these issues led me to
submit the following project to GTEP: |
| |
|
| |
Project: |
| |
|
| |
To produce a Key Stage 3 scheme
of work for the effective and progressive
teaching of CAD/CAM skills within Design and
Technology. |
| |
|
| |
Aims: |
| |
The scheme of work will include two
(or three) Focussed Practical Tasks
plus at least one Design and Make assignment
for each year from year 7 to year 9
inclusive.
Each module of work will be designed
to teach and assess CAD skills and to
provide students with opportunities
to produce practical outcomes using
a range of CNC output devices.
The modules will teach design skills
in traditional and modern formats and
encourage comparison between board based
methods and CAD methods and comparison
between different types of software
(eg: 2-D Design Tools and Pro-DESKTOP).
Assessment of Focussed Practical Tasks
will be competency based whereas assessment
of Design and make Assignments will
reflect student capability against National
Curriculum criteria.
Modules will be devised in consultation
with Middle Schools, trialed and evaluated
in Middle and High Schools.
Success will be assessed through students
evaluations, end of Key Stage Attainment
Levels and consultation between Middle
School and High School Design and Technology
staff.
Equipment, teaching support and technical
support will be made available to Middle
Schools as necessary.
The complete scheme of work, teaching
notes, examples of outcomes, teaching
materials (PowerPoint presentations,
hand-outs etc.) will be made available
to Middle Schools and GTEP. |
|
| |
The Plan: |
| |
Autumn Half Term: Complete sample
FPT's for Y7, 8 and 9. Complete teacher
notes, support materials and examples
for initial FPT's.
Christmas 2004: Deliver sample lessons
in Middle Schools, assess student outcomes
and evaluations, and assess teaching
materials.
Spring Term 2005: All schools deliver
and assess FPT,s in Y7, 8 and 9. Complete
DMA module materials.
Summer Term 2005: All schools deliver
DMA modules in Y7, 8 and 9. |
|
| |
The Reality (so far): |
| |
|
| |
The first thing I did was to
talk to other Heads of Technology. One conversation
went as follows: |
| |
|
| |
Me: "O.K. Andy,
I have time and I have resources to develop
some modules of work. What do you want"?
Andy: “That sounds great; can you produce
a module that I can pull down off the shelf
and just use"?
Me: “Very
possibly, in fact I have a scheme in mind.
Here it is". |
| |
|
| |
From that point the conversation
went downhill. Andy (a long time colleague,
friend and extremely enthusiastic Technology
teacher) began saying things like: |
| |
|
| |
"That's great, but I only have year
9's on a five week rotation, can you shorten
it"?
"That would be good but
I haven't got staff who could teach that,
could you change it to..."? and:
"I only have one machine and very limited
technician support, I don't think I'll ever
be able to produce whole class outcomes with
the equipment I've got" |
| |
|
| |
The next thing I did was to
talk to colleagues from our feeder Middle
Schools and again I asked them to make suggestions.
At a later meeting colleagues arrived with
samples indicating the sort of outcomes they
would like to produce and asked me if I would
be able to provide a scheme for them to use
"...sometime later in the year".
I agreed to investigate the possibilities.
Colleagues from Middle Schools identified
the time they would be able to allocate to
the project and one significantly positioned
colleague indicated that she would be taking
maternity leave for at least the early development
period. |
| |
|
| |
Having considered these conversations
and, drawing on my own experience of introducing
the QCA National KS3 Scheme in two schools,
I asked myself the following questions: |
| |
Who is the scheme for?
What level of equipment should be included/expected?
How flexible does the scheme need to
be?
How can I make it 'attractive' to the
end user/s (teachers and students)?
Should flexibility compromise the aims? |
|
| |
After considering these questions I concluded
that: |
| |
|
| |
The scheme should be aimed at teachers
who are either 'in transition' towards
the use of new technologies or who have
ICT and/or CAD/CAM equipment that is
not being used to capacity.
At least one of the modules should be
flexible enough to allow success with
the very minimum level of equipment
(computers/printers).
Other modules should be aimed at 'entry
level' equipment (in Staffordshire this
usually means CAMM 1's and CAMM 2's
operating with 2-D Design Tools and
Pro-DESKTOP). Faster and/or more sophisticated
(expensive) machines would cut down
machining time and therefore would not
adversely affect delivery of any module
designed for lower specification equipment.
The scheme needs to be flexible enough
to allow successful completion of the
modules under a range of different circumstances.
The presentation of the modules should
be transparent and allow teachers to
immediately 'visualise' its place within
their curriculum.
The module outcomes should be sufficiently
attractive as to encourage completion
of the learning process leading up to
the realisation of the outcome.
The flexibility within the scheme should
be sufficient as to encourage teachers
to try it out in 'their way'.
Flexibility must not compromise the
aims of the scheme, progression within
the scheme is essential. |
|
| |
Changes to the plan: |
| |
In consideration of the Middle Schools'
time commitment it has been agreed to
introduce only one module this year
and two modules in 2005-2006.
Year 7 and 8 modules will be trialed
in High School (in order to collect
evidence of meeting success criteria
as per original plan)
The Year 9 module will be introduced
as planned in the Summer Term 2005.
All teaching and support materials should
be completed as per original plan. |
|
| |
How the Project is Going: |
| |
|
| |
With the January presentation
looming I agreed with my Head Teacher to spend
several Mondays (31/2) at home to begin ‘writing
up’ my Fellowship project. This worked
very well; I was able to work all day with
NO INTERRUPTIONS! So the academic aspect of
the project is at last taking shape. |
| |
|
| |
The practical aspects of the
project have to be completed by students in
our school and in at least one of the feeder
schools; this is providing a range of challenges!
But again some progress is being made (see
changes to the plan). |
| |
|
| |
I thoroughly enjoyed my ‘Gatsby’
days and found that I was able to plan my
time very effectively. Very early in the project
I did some research to find out what presentation
format other teachers would find most useful.
Lately, however, there are times when I feel
that I am working in isolation and wonder
whether my work is going to be really useful
to other teachers. Continued trials in schools
should answer this question eventually but
I am keen to open up my ideas to broader scrutiny.
I am therefore really looking forward to the
January presentations. |
| |
|
| |
Students are enjoying the projects
and I am getting some excellent module evaluations
from them. |
| |
|
| |
As my project has developed
the difficulties of assessing Technology Capability
where outcomes are generated through CAD/CAM
has become even more evident. As CNC equipment
is becoming more accessible to schools, assessing
capability is now creating real problems for
teachers involved with GCSE course work. Although
the main aim of my project was to produce
a scheme of work for the effective and progressive
teaching of CAD/CAM skills in KS3, I am now
scrutinising assessment opportunities as rigorously
as I am trying to define levels of progression. |
| |
|
| |
Teaching CAD skills in KS3
requires clearly structured and carefully
directed tasks of increasing difficulty. The
degree and sophistication of student intervention
appears to be the best way of assessing design
capability. However GCSE experience has identified
that students need to document their interventions
in order for their capability to be recognised.
Students’ evaluations of their work
now include references to, and illustrations
of, applied learning through direct intervention
(students producing original designs through
interaction with the software). This helps
students to recognise and consolidate their
learning, as well as providing evidence for
assessment, and as such has become a major
feature of my Fellowship work. |
| |
|
| |
Assessing making skills is
even more difficult where CNC outputs are
used. Exam boards currently require a RANGE
of making skills to be demonstrated. Their
interpretation of this criterion appears to
be that a combination of CAD/CAM and
traditional skills are required to allow students
to access the highest grades. Accepting the
rigour and demand of designing for CNC outcomes
and selecting and using CNC machines appropriately
as evidence of making skills may prove impossible.
However these skills as evidence of ‘manufacturing’
capability are much more obvious. This has
led me to consider assessing technology capability,
in my scheme of work, through designing and
MANUFACTURING skills and NOT the currently
recognised designing and MAKING skills. This
is an area that still needs a lot of thought. |
| |
|
| |
My Fellowship work (like all
good projects) has therefore begun to take
on its own direction. It has caused me to
question my views on the relevance of the
fundamental activities outlined in the NCC
orders and the appropriateness of examination
boards GCSE marking criteria. |
| |
|
| |
CAD/CAM is not the future of
technology, it is the now. It is the standard
in industrial practice and has been for some
time. Schools, I feel, need to be allowed
(if not encouraged) to adopt a new approach
to the skills that are relevant in the 21st
century and how we teach and assess those
skills. Involvement in this GTEP project has
prompted me to focus on these issues and I
am hoping to extend my investigations to include
an identification of relevant, hierarchical
‘manufacturing’ skills. |
| |
|
| |
On Wednesday 8th December I
attended an LEA meeting arranged to support,
at a county level, the launch of the KS3 National
Strategy for Design and Technology. I have
been encouraged, in recent years, to note
that OFSTED, HMI and LEA advisers have begun
to recognise the need to adjust the balance
of teaching of designing and making skills.
This view is apparently supported by the emphasis
placed on design skills within the National
Strategy. |
| |
|
| |
I have for many years used
the allocation of GCSE marks as an indicator
of how much time should be devoted to the
teaching of knowledge and understanding, designing
skills, and making skills. I have been involved
in many discussions over the last decade where
the proposition that,” Making skills
are the most important area of the D&T
curriculum because they carry 60% of the GCSE
project mark”, has been supported
by teachers, advisers and HMI. My position
has always been that 60% (making mark) of
60% (total course work mark) equals 36% (of
which a significant proportion of marks are
awarded to evidence of planning within the
design folio). This effectively means that
the remaining 64% of the overall GCSE grade
is gained from other areas as follows: |
| |
|
| |
The demonstration of knowledge
and understanding, (mainly through the terminal
examination paper), carrying 40% of the overall
GCSE mark, and
The application of research, development and
design skills (mainly in the design folio
of the major project) carrying a minimum of
24% of the overall GCSE mark. This has always
indicated to me that knowledge and understanding
and design skills demand a significant amount
of teaching time. |
| |
|
| |
The National Strategy apparently
supports the importance of teaching knowledge,
understanding, research, design and development
skills, I am concerned, however, that it seems
to promote the view that making skills are
well taught and need no urgent scrutiny or
development. The emergence of CAD/CAM in schools
has already challenged our view of what might
be achievable in manufacturing, and how CAD
designed items produced through the utilisation
of CNC manufacturing systems should be assessed.
The current examination boards apparent insistence
that the demonstration of ‘A range of
making skills’ requires evidence of
traditional skills in GCSE projects could
be perceived as being ‘out-of-date’
and irrelevant in terms of current industrial
practice. This situation has already led to
students being constrained and frustrated
in their natural and reasonable quest to achieve
the highest possible quality of outcome by
having to ‘bolt on,’ what seems
to the students, to be unnecessary and unwanted
‘traditional’ techniques. Although
not a major part of my original intention,
the investigation of strategies for assessing
making skills in CNC generated projects is
emerging as an area of significant personal
and professional development. |
| |
|
| |
I have also recently been introduced
to ‘Camtasia’ software. At first
glance this software appeared to be the ideal
media for the presentation of many of the
Focussed Practical Tasks within the scheme.
However, having used the software I feel that
the planned presentation format of the project
could be a major aid and support to those
teachers who are in a position to develop
the use of new technologies as a major component
of their teaching and learning strategies,
including those who may wish to develop Camtasia
presentations of their own. |
| |
|
| |
The next steps: |
| |
Adapt existing and planned PowerPoint
presentations to provide a secondary
use as storyboards for ‘Camtasia’
(or similar) presentations.
Audit modules against National Strategy
criteria. (Meeting planned for Thursday
27th January at LEA base, involving
adviser and feeder school colleagues).
Adapt modules as necessary in consultation
with feeder Middle School colleagues.
Introduce comments on ‘teaching
strategies’ within student evaluations.
Monitor student evaluations and adapt
schemes as necessary.
Identify levels of ‘Manufacturing’
skills within the modules. |
|
| |
Summary: |
| |
|
| |
I appear to be learning a lot a practical
level (especially personal ICT skills), to
be developing ideas in a much broader context
than my original brief, fuelling my enthusiasm
for Design and Technology and thoroughly enjoying
the experience. |
