Meta-cognition and Design and Technology Education

AbstractUsing a case study approach, this paperexplores meta-cognition in a design andtechnology setting. It reviews briefly thenature and role of meta-cognition in designand technology education and then describes a'schema' that was conceived originally toanalyse, but became a means to promote,meta-cognition in the respondents of a study.The main body of the paper identifies anddiscusses meta-cognition 'in action' of onerespondent from that study. Overall, this paperaspires to explore two questions: howconfident are we in identifying meta-cognitionin practice (what does meta-cognition looklike, sound like, in a design and technologymilieu?); how can we develop and promote itfurther in learners?

AimsThe aims of this paper are:

I. to review briefly the nature and role ofmeta-cognition in design and technologyeducation

2. to describe an analytical tool that wasused by the respondents of a study (1991-1995) to promote their meta-cognition

3. to identify and discuss meta-cognition 'inaction' of one respondent from that study.

In the construction of this I have been mindfulof external events. A number of commentators(Kimbell, 200Ia; Kimbell, 2001 b, Shirley,200 I) have cited the present interest in designand technology by others (e.g. DavidHargreaves). Publications have responded tothis challenge (Kimbell and Perry, 200 I;Barlex and Pitt, 200 I; Harrison, 200 I) but toofrequently there is a need for evidence tosupport our claims. This research work seeksto contribute to these debates in general andspecifically Kimbell and Perry (200 I).

The role of meta-cognition in design andtechnology educationThis section commences with a very briefreview of the educational aims of design andtechnology and seeks to trace the emergenceof meta-cognition within them. The motivesfor the inclusion of design and technology asa distinct component in general education inthe UK has been, and continues to be, acontested ground. Vocational and citizenshiparguments have been propounded, but otherswould advance an 'intrinsic value' rationale.Tn sharp distinction to propositionalknowledge, 'knowing that', this view wouldsee that at the core of design and technologyis procedural 'knowing how'; knowledgewhich empowers its holders in the realms ofpractical action. Design and technology is alearning process, capability in which is an

appropriate interaction of knowledge, skillsand values, and not simply the aggregation oflevels of understanding and performance indiscrete areas. This argument could be tracedthrough Dewey (1933,1938), Schon (1985),and Archer's a third cuiture (1979). Foradherents of this view the ideas expressed inthe 1987 Assessment of Performance Unit(APU) report (Kelly et ai, 1987), and thenexpanded and given even greater emphasis inthe 1991 report (Kimbell et ai, 1991: 21) areat the core of the subject's educational aims.Kimbell, Stables and Green (1996), drawingon the research work of the APU and theUnderstanding Technological Approachesproject (on both of which Kimbell and Stableswere principal researchers), propose andcelebrate the uniqueness of the languageemployed in design and technology:

'the language of technology is indisputablya concrete one - of images, symbols andmodels. Without this language it is just notpossible to conceive of technologicalsolutions.' (ibid: 23)

This proposition leads to the centralcurriculum justification for the study ofdesign and technology. Modelling, thelanguage of design and technology, has thepotential to give access to learners' thoughtprocesses, in particular how they have goneabout the learning task. Concrete modelling(Archer, 1982 and 1992) has the potential toprovide an externalisation of a learner'scognitive modelling (ibid) and it is throughthe relative accessibility of this concretemodelling that learners have access to theirown 'thinking-in-action'.

'Design and technology not only enhancesthe thinking and decision-making powersof young people, it also enhances theirconscious awareness of those thoughtprocesses'. They not only learn to thinkand make decisions, they also know (andcan see) that that is what they are doing.'(Kimbell et ai, 1996: 31)

'Note 2: The term 'meta-cognition' hasbeen applied to this phenomenon.'(ibid: 35)

To summarise this position, modelling is atthe core of design and technology capabilityand its external manifestation provideslearners and their teachers with 'a concretelever' that can expose and get a purchase onlearners' thought processes. Although thesethought processes are ostensibly concernedwith designing (making change to the made-world), they are intrinsically manifestations oflearning (making change to the learner). Ifdesign and technology is cast within thiswider sphere, then modelling is not just the

King Alfred's Collegeof Higher Educauon

means by which a design is 'pushed forward',but it is a means by which learners, and theirteachers, can gain an insight into theprocesses of their own learning; it is a tool toaccess meta-cognitive activity.

Elsewhere in the design and technologyliterature I would suggest that the term hashad at best a peripheral status. There areexceptions to this (Lawler, 1997) but in manypublications it is not mentioned (e.g.Eggleston, 1996), others cover it in a fewsentences (e.g. Hennessy and McCormick,1994), and in others it is implicit rather thanexplicit (e.g. Ritchie, 1995).

However, in a very recent, and I believepowerful and eloquent, review of thedistinctive contribution which design andtechnology makes to the school curriculum,Kimbell and Perry (200 I: 14) state (myemphasis in bold):

'A key part of this process [decisionmaking in a turbulent environment] relieson developing learncrs' 'meta-cognition',their abIlity to stand outside themselvesand look in at their own designing. [...]The transfer of learning that results forstudents from such meta-cognitive gripon their own thinking is enormous. Itunderpins our claim that through designand technology, students acquire higherorder thinking skills.'

The genesis of this paper was the desire toexplore this claim and bring some evidence tothe debate concerning design and technologyand the development of meta-cognition.

An analytical tool used to promote meta-cognitionBackgroundThe context of the original study was a BADesign and Technology/Certificate course (theBA) at a college of higher education in theUnited Kingdom. Following two commonyears the course allowed a choice of pathwayleading to a Certificate for secondary schoolteaching or industrial employment. As itscourse director I had a particular interest inthe BA and this interest prompted an extendedstudy (Elmer, 1996).

A representative sample of eight students (therespondents) was drawn from the 1991 cohort.The predominant fieldwork method was semi-structured, recorded interviews that wereconducted in each term of the course. Theywere transcribed in order to analyse the dataand varied in scale between 4,000 to 10,000words for each respondent in each fieldlocation.

Methodological considerationsFor this study, with its overarching aim oftrying to find out what students do believeand understand rather than what they thinkthey ought to believe, a methodology withinthe ethnographic tradition appeared the mostsuitable to minimise the influence of anyprescribed view of design and technology.From its genesis as a means of studying, intheir natural setting, the networks of moraland material affiliations of small communitiesin non-industrial societies, ethnography nowrefers to the detailed study of small groupswithin any society. It has always beenconcerned with the minimal manipulation,disturbance or interference by the observer ofthe setting and its emphasis is on theunderstanding of the meanings which underliesocial action.

I acknowledge that I had a stake in therespondents' responses in the school setting,as their teaching practice supervisor, and in allsettings as director of their course and anassessor of their work. This power relationshipand the need to bracket my own conceptionswere recognised at the outset of the study andthey were addressed in a number of ways butparticularly by the inclusion in all the earlierfieldwork of a cluster of very open questions(ones in which as course director T had noobvious stake) including: What have been thehigh points of the project/placement? Whathave you done that you remember mostclearly? What have yOIl said that youremember most clearly? In summary, I soughtto balance my desire to research the processof learning which my own students wereengaged in with the necessity to undertakethat research in a systematic and validmanner.

The schemaThe early stages of the study werecharacterised by my ill-formed theoreticalbackground, changing aims of the study andlogistical problems of the transcription ofinterview tapes. After this unstable and largelyunproductive period my aspiration became tocode the transcripts and to seek to place theseindividual units of meaning into the largerframe of a typology. A number of differenttypologies evolved from early analysis of databut their purpose remained constant. I saw thetypology as a 'map', an analytical tool, bywhich I could identify the categories ofmeaning, and their relationship, thatrespondents used to understand their actionsin learning settings. Although the detail ofthese different typologies changed, theiroverarching principle of 'intention' remainedstable.

I came to comprehend that all respondentsexperienced a tension between two contrastingintentions when engaged on design andtechnology project work in a learning setting.On one hand in their 'doing' of design andtechnology they were seeking to make changeto the made-world; the world of products andsystems. In this mode they were acting asdesigners; they were designing. On the otherhand they were doing this design andtechnology within a course that led to aqualification and thus they were seeking tolearn; to make changes to themselves. In thismode they were acting as learners; they werelearning through designing. Additionally, myanalysis indicated that these intentions, whether'designing' or 'learning', could be directed toeither themselves ('self') or outside ofthemselves ('other'). As I struggled with thistension in the data, ideas crystallised to forman 'analytical tool' to help reveal understandingof the respondents' transcripts to myself. I sawit as having the potential to represent succinctlythe major dimensions and domains ofinteraction and 1 came to use the term schemafor this analytical tool. I use the term here as amodel representing the structuring of genericconcepts which is used and tested asindividuals face a situation. At the time of thefieldwork that this paper utilises, the schemahad been finalised, Figure I:

but more importantly there had been atransition of power and responsibility fromresearcher to respondent. At an earlier stageof the research, I asked questions andrespondents' involvement was in givinganswers to those questions, however semi-structured those questions might be.Respondents now used the schema as areflective tool for themselves prior to aninterview. An example is given in Figure 2 ofanother respondent's use of it in anotherfieldwork location.

The schema uses four terms, two of which,learning and designing, were problematic forthe respondents. It became increasingly clearthat the schema had the potential to promptrespondents to reflect on their meanings forthese terms and to access these meanings wascentral to the aims of the study. A moredetailed account of the process of evolution ofthe schema, both its configuration and itspurpose, is given in Elmer (1998).

Meta-cognition 'in action'Case study is a frequently used approach(sometimes incorrectly termed amethodology) in research generally andeducational research in particular. It is aimedat understanding practice in all its complexityand places emphasis upon reflection anddeliberation, on context and meaning (Fish,1998; Bassey, 1999). Golby (1993) argues thatproperly conceived, case study is uniquelyappropriate as a form of educational researchfor practitioners as it is 'synonymous withprofessional activity; it is what professionalsdo day by day.' (ibid: I I) It is not a study ofuniqueness but of particularity and althoughsmall scale a case study like a poem, paintingor a piece of music can carry important truthsto its audience (McDonald and Walker, 1977).The following case is concerned with seekingto identify meta-cognitive activity in a designand technology setting. I commence withsome contextual detail: the briefest of

Figure 1: Theschema.

lain's schema sheets completed during the week prior to theinterview.

Sections from the interview.[lnt, Interviewer. IW, lain Williams]

Int. What's happening here?

IW. Really after some more thoughts I realise that if myintervention is to be worthwhile how can I not include otherpeople? [...] I thought if I was going to design this table orwhatever it is, if only my legs are going to go under it then it'snot going to be very beneficial to millions of other people whoare taller than me. [...] I guess a lot of my previous project workwas very self-centred, when you bring in this notion of others itseems so obvious, but I don't think I really thought of it asothers [...]1 see design as being beneficial to all.

Schema 2If my intervention in the made-world is to be worthwhile doesn'tit have to take account of others?

biographies of Mark Skinner; the Majorproject; the intentions of the fieldwork.

Mark SkinnerMark's school career was conventional; acomprehensive followed by sixth formcollege. Less conventional was that from 16he had worked part time as a tattooist andafter sixth-form he continued this full-time.At 24 he became a 'paste-up artist' on aLondon daily newspaper and at 29 hecommenced the BA.

The Major projectThe Major project was programmed over thefinal two terms of the fourth, and final, yearof the course. It was seen by students andtutors as the culmination of the degree courseand the means to exhibit the full range ofstudents' design and technology capabilities.It constituted a major part of not only thefourth year but the whole course assessment.As it was individually negotiated it allowed astudent's individual enthusiasms to bedeveloped to a high level.

InterviewI undertook five research interviews with alleight respondents over the period of the Majorproject but this case draws on only the firstinterview with one respondent. Mark was notunique, all respondents exhibited meta-cognition strategies to greater or lesserdegrees but Mark was chosen as one of thosein whom these were well developed. Mark hadbeen using the schema since midway throughhis third year. The case account is presentedin the form of my commentary interspersedwith quotations from the interview. The fullinterview transcript runs to 4,000 words. Theintentions of the first interview were toexplore the early stages of the Major project,and specifically:

'At the outset, how have intentions for theMajor project been identified?

Can you think of anything that hasinfluenced you identifying these particularintentions?

Have there been any changes to yourintentions since you've started thinkingabout the Major project?

Can you think of anything that hasinfluenced these changes of intentions?'(section ofTnterview Schedule)

First interview: the early stages of theMajor projectThe major intention determining Mark'sapproach to his Major project was to meetcourse requirements and, specifically, courseassessment. In order to achieve thisoverarching intention, Mark generated three

sub-headings of research, design process andthe displayed artefact, against which anypotential project that he identified could beinterrogated. Once an idea fulfilled the criteriainherent in these three categories, it could beconsidered and analysed further usingadditional categories of: personal interest;working to strengths; values.

The first potential project was concerned withchip-pan fires. Against the requirements of hisfirst category of research, he real ised that hewould be dealing with subjective data and thiswas an area that he felt uncomfortable with:

'How do people perceive a product') Howdo they feel about it? It's more to do withpeople's personal feelings, understandingthese at the commencement of the projectand that was what I was trying to captureand I found problems with this project.'

As for Design process

'It was a go nowhere project and I wasn'tgetting these jumps of imagination ... itwas based upon a solution and that was theerror.'

The project had considerable Displaypotential but by this time the project had beenrejected.

The second potential project was fordispensing of medication. The project startedfrom a desire to show technical knowledgeand understanding, thus meeting the Designprocess category.

'I thought I'd like to do an electronicsproject. It's cheap and quite interesting. Iwanted to prove my knowledge orunderstanding of logic, to startincorporating relatively complexelectronics which were operating acontrolling system.'

The research, although not defined, seemedto hold potential, but it was the third category- the final display, that raised concerns inMark's mind.

'How I was going to collate all theinformation and thinking and design workand actually show it to someone and say'this is the design process I've beenthrough' and illustrate it was going to be abit more difficult ... lots of bits ofelectronics scattered across the tabletop.'

He now utilised the second set of criteria,specifically working to strengths. The natureof the need required Mark to work less inareas of personal strength and more in weakerareas, and in particular end user research.

'And it moved too much out of my field. Itdidn't allow me to illustrate any of my

strengths. The whole time I'd be workingto weaknesses.

I: What would you perceive thoseweaknesses to be'?

The project turned out to be very heavilybiased on end user research. It's a failingof mine, but an area that I struggle with.I'm happier dealing with quantities. I cananalyse them and work methodically andput them in pigeonholes. This one wasimmense for lots of other reasons. It meantcontact with so many different parties.

I have to say that I've developed almost aphobia of end user research and I find it'sthis business of imagining a product beingused in an imaginary situation. What Iwant to do all the time is say 'That's fine,but 1 want something concrete.'

The project has potential with regard tovalues, and Mark's own learning (interest),but the latter may not be accessible to theassessors of the project.

'It's a very worthwhile project and fulfilslots of humanitarian needs. Where this onefalls down IS that there's a very gravedanger that it would have been difficult toillustrate that to every lecturer. At the endof the day it was not the best vehicle toallow me to get a degree.'

The third potential project was prompted byan industrial placement that Mark had justcompleted. Raleigh PLC had an electronicscooter in the office but they had insufficienttime to develop it. Coventry Universityindustrial design students were invited to helpRaleigh with this development work and Markhad been asked to write the brief for them.This role-reversal caused him to consider theproject.

'The week I spent on that then made meanalyse ho\\ I would myself attempt thisproject and being in an odd position inactually dictating to other students. it putthe product in a di fferent light ... it wasbeing taken out of it slightly and I thought'I'm not gOlllg to do this proJect, but howwould I do it?' and it immediatelymanaged to break it down into thesesegments of work and equate it againsttime and write a brief and generally startto explore it at a different level. Veryloose, but these three bands again.'

As to his first category, research, andparticularly with regard to end user researchthere was a tangibility to it, somethingconcrete:

'I had an instrument which was to bedeveloped. I could take this scooter out

and ask people what they thought, theycould ride it. I could gain impressions andbuild up this picture ... I had a base, anatural, easy plottable progression. Fine,the end user research looks good.'

The design process category has potential andparticularly; variety of approaches,mechanisms and power sources which arequantifiable.

'It directly comes back to how many ampsper hour the battery produces. It's vcryquantifiablc. In some ways I wouldn't sayit's an engineering based project, but it'sthings that I can apply figures to and whenI work this problem through I feel veryconfident in producing thc data andcxplaining why I've come to conclusions.'

The end product on display had greatpotential, both if it is complete:

'It should display well. It can be backed upby graphics.'

and if for any reason only part (s) of theproject are complete at the time of the display(not all eggs in one basket) then personalachievement is still possible. This is astrategic approach showing a fall-backposition - if I don't do this, then the displaye.g. course assessment, still has potential ofachievement for me.

'The project didn't have a fail point. 1fTdidn't reach the perfect end result I couldresearch it and if things went very badly Icould produce a model which would bebacked lip with sound information to saywhy it was like that. If things were runningbetler and progressing I could make a veryrough working model which people couldtest and get a feel for it and then reinforcethis with graphic images which I feel moreconfident I could produce quickly to giveit this 'OK, here's the concept. This iswhat it's going to be like when It'S styled'and my third and real hope behind this isthat everything goes completely accordingto plan and I actually manage to get astyled, finished object.

...1'11be going with because it had theexcitement of the other projects, but also asense of safety. I know there's anachievable end result which is displayable.

...It talks through the three [categories].'

DiscussionThe discussion examines whether Mark isexhibiting meta-cognitive activity. Meta-cognition is an emerging and contestedground. Flavell (1976, 1977, 1981) would beseen by many as a seminal influence butincreasingly there is a tendency to describe

and explore its attributes within a specificsubject domain (Schoenfeld, 1985) (Otero,1996). It is possible, and perhaps proper, thatat a later date there will emerge a view of'meta-cognition in design and technologyeducation'. It is not my intention to engage ina critical review of the literature but rather toestablish a few core principles from whichthis paper's discussion might proceed. Tocharacterise meta-cognition as 'Mind havingknowledge of itself' or 'thinking about one'sown thoughts' is insufficiently precise. Flavell(1978) proposes that meta-cognition is multi-faceted and includes knowledge aboutstrategies, tasks and the self, as well as theskills to evaluate strategies Hacker et al(1998) believe there is a general consensusthat meta-cognition should include theseattributes: knowledge of one's knowledge,processes, and cognitive and affective states;the ability to consciously and deliberatelymonitor and regulate one's knowledge,processes, and cognitive and affective states.

Mark has three clear categories to assess thepotential of his ideas for the Major projectand these categories are directed to one aim,his achievement on the course. If any potentialproject meets all these criteria then a furtherset of assessment categories are utilised. Markdisplays clarity of overall intention and thecriteria to evaluate whether potential'vehicles' are suitable. A refined andconscious strategy is used. Rather than using alarge number of criteria at the outset, whichcould be unwieldy to use, there is one smallset. If an idea passes these then a second setcomes into play; it is a strategy of progressivefiltering. This thinking needs to be, and is,carefully and finely balanced. Research is anexemplar of this thinking. Mark believes thatresearch should entail end-user research andhe believes his assessors believe it should. ButMark is not comfortable with doing end-userresearch (Flavell's [1979] knowledge of self).He must therefore manage his intentions suchthat research is done, and done properly, butwith a minimum of end-user research.Properly means meeting both Mark's valuesand the values of his assessors. Mark's valuesof 'personal interest' and 'meeting humanneed' are in conflict with 'working tostrengths'. He wants the project to meethuman need but this underpinning value is inconflict with his main personal intention ofachievement on course because of thedifficulties of engaging in end user research.He examines alternative courses of actionassociated with this dilemma and choosesbetween competing possibilities using clearcriteria.

SummaryMark is able to see that the Major project, asany design and technology project, is not agiven but a construction; not a construction ofwood, fibre-glass, etc. but a construction ofintentions. Some intentions are generated byothers (assessment criteria of the Majorproject) but others are generated by himself.This complex inter-play of intentions isresolved by Mark creating an envelope ofproject intentions that are directed toachieving his overarching personal intentionbut which minimise conflict between othervalues. I suggest that Mark is exhibiting twoessential features of meta-cognition, that ofself-appraisal and self-management ofcognition (Paris and Winograd, 1990). Self-appraisal in his ability to reflect not only onhis knowledge and skills but the affectivedimension of that knowledge and those skills,in particular their motivational characteristics.Such reflections answer questions about 'whatyou know, how you think, and when and whyto apply knowledge or strategies (Paris andWinograd, 1990: 17). Self-management is hisability to deploy cognitive processes toorchestrate his actions.

If we as practitioners/commentators/'productchampions' believe in the importance ofmeta-cognition in design and technology, thenthere are a number of unresolved questionsthat need to be addressed. This paper hassought to explore two of them. Firstly, howconfident are we in identifying meta-cognitionin practice (what does meta-cognition looklike, sound like, feel like, smell like in adesign and technology milieu). Secondly, howcan we develop and promote it further inlearners? It is my intention that a subsequentpaper will continue the story of Mark into hispresent professional setting and address anumber of issues raised here but notanswered; for example, the relationshipbetween reflection and meta-cognition.

At one time I commenced or finished manydocuments. particularly design briefs forstudents, with a line of poetry. I have weanedmyself mostly from this habit unless I believeit to be particularly insightful.

'How can I know what I think until I seewhat 1 say.' (Auden, 1962)

I wish to acknowledge the role of David Perryas 'critical friend' to an earlier draft of thispaper.

ReferencesArcher, B. (1979) The Designerly Approach toKnowledge Lecture Course, London: RoyalCollege of Art

Archer, B. (1982) Cognitive Modelling, RationalThinking, Language, Designerly Thinking andImaging, Internal Paper, London: Department ofDesign Research, RCA

Archer, B. (1992) 'As complex as ABC', inRoberts, P., Archer, B. and Baynes, K. Modelling:the Language of Designing, Design: OccasionalPaper No.1, Loughborough: Department ofDesign and Technology, Loughborough University

Auden, W.H. (1962) The Dyer's Hand and otherEssays, New York: Random House

Barlex, D. and Pitt, J. (2001) Interaction: Therelationship between science and design andtechnology in the secondary curriculum, London:Engineering Council

Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research inEducational Settings, Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press

Cross, N. (1990) 'The Nature and Nurture ofDesign Ability', Design Studies 11, 3: 127-140

Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think (Revised edition,originally published 1910), Boston: DC Heath

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education,London: Collier-Macmillan

Eggleston, J. (1996) Teaching Design andTechnology, Buckingham: Open University Press

Elmer, R (1996) Whose need? A study ofreflective practice of eight students on a BA(Hons) Design And Technology courseunpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading

Elmer, R. (1998) 'Probing Intentions of Design andTechnology Students', International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education 8, 3: 221-240

Fish, D. (1998) Appreciating Practice in the CaringProfessions: Refocussing professionaldevelopment and practitioner research, Oxford:Heinemann

Flavell, J.H. (1976) 'Metacognitive Aspects ofProblem Solving', in Resnick, L.B. The Nature ofIntelligence, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Flavell, J.H. (1977) Cognitive Development,Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Flavell, J.H. (1978) 'Metacognitive Development',in Scandura, J.M. and Brainerd, C.J. (Eds)Structural/Process Models of Complex HumanBehavior, Netherlands: Sijhoff and Noordhoff

Flavell, J.H. (1979) 'Metacognition and CognitiveMonitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry', American Psychologist,34: 906-911

Flavell, J.H. (1981) 'Cognitive Monitoring', inDickson, w.P. (Ed) Children's Oral CommunicationSkills, New York: Academic

Golby, M. (1993) Case Study as EducationalResearch, Exeter: Fairway Publications

Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J. and Graesser, A.C.(Eds) (1998) Metacognition in Educational Theoryand Practice, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Harrison, G. (2001) The Continuum of DesignEducation for Engineering, London: EngineeringCouncil

Hennessy, S. and McCormick, R. (1994) 'TheGeneral Problem-solving Process in TeachingEducation: Myth or Reality?', in Banks, F. (Ed)Teaching Technology, London: Routledge inassociation with Open University Press

Kelly, A.V., Kimbell, R.A., Patterson, V.J andStables, K. (1987) Design And TechnologicalActivity: A framework for assessment, London:Assessment of Performance UnitlHMSO

Kimbell, R. (2001 a) 'Design and Technology andthe Knowledge Economy', The Journal of Designand Technology Education 6, 1: 3-4

Kimbell, R. (2001 b) 'Engineering Influence', TheJournal of Design and Technology Education 6, 1:99-100

Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A.and Kelly, V. (1991) The Assessment ofPerformance in Design And Technology, London:Assessment of Performance UnitlHMSO

Kimbell, R., Stables, K. and Green. R. (1996)Understanding Practice in Design and Technology,Milton Keynes: Open University

Kimbell, R. and Perry, D. (2001) Design andTechnology in a Knowledge Economy, London:Engineering Council

Lawler, T. (1997) 'Exposing and Improving theMetacognition of Designing through PracticalStructured Workshops', Proceedings of IDATER97 Conference, Smith, J. (Ed) Loughborough:University of Loughborough

McDonald, B. and Walker, R. (1977) 'Case Studyand the Social Philosophy of EducationalResearch', in Hamilton, D., Jenkins, D., King, C.(Eds) Beyond the Numbers Game - a reader ineducational evaluation, London: Macmillan

Otero, J. (1996) 'Components of comprehensionmonitoring in the acquisition of knowledge fromscience texts'. In Fisher, K.M. and Kibby, M.R.(Eds) Knowledge Acquisition Organisation anduse in Biology, Berlin: NATO-Springer-Verlag

Paris, S.G. and Winograd, P. (1990) 'How Meta-cognition can Promote Academic Learning andInstruction', in Jones, B.F. and Idol, L. (Eds)Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Ritchie, R. (1995) Primary Design andTechnology: A process for learning, David Fulton:London

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985) Mathematical Problem-solving, New York: Academic Press

Schon, D. (1985) Design Studio: An Exploration ofits Traditions and Potential, London: RIBAPublications

Shirley, M. (2001) 'Foreward', in Kimbell, R. andPerry, D. Design and Technology in a KnowledgeEconomy, London: Engineering Council