Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology education

Abstract

This paper analyses the beliefs of teachers regarding the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology, where there is a limited body of literature outlining the theory and practice. The demonstration is multifaceted, and effective teachers adopt and adapt a range of skills and values to scaffold learning, including teacher modelling and explaining. The study explores the subjective beliefs of seven practicing teachers through Q Methodology; comparing and analysing the responses of the participants’ subjective beliefs and values, using 62 statements relating to teacher modelling and explaining, developed and refined with teacher educators, and representing the concourse of opinions and perspectives. The sample is purposive, comprised of practicing teachers who are engaged with mentoring trainees in Initial Teacher Education. The findings will represent a snapshot of subjective values of practicing teachers, as part of a discourse on signature pedagogies in design and technology education.

Full text

Emerging perspectives on the demonstration
as a signature pedagogy in design and technology
education
Matt McLain
1
Accepted: 18 August 2017 / Published online: 1 September 2017
The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication
Abstract This paper analyses the beliefs of teachers regarding the demonstration as a
signature pedagogy in design and technology, where there is a limited body of literature
outlining the theory and practice. The demonstration is multifaceted, and effective teachers
adopt and adapt a range of skills and values to scaffold learning, including teacher mod-
elling and explaining. The study explores the subjective beliefs of seven practicing
teachers through Q Methodology; comparing and analysing the responses of the partici-
pants’ subjective beliefs and values, using 62 statements relating to teacher modelling and
explaining, developed and refined with teacher educators, and representing the concourse
of opinions and perspectives. The sample is purposive, comprised of practicing teachers
who are engaged with mentoring trainees in Initial Teacher Education. The findings will
represent a snapshot of subjective values of practicing teachers, as part of a discourse on
signature pedagogies in design and technology education.
Keywords Demonstration Teacher modelling Explaining Pedagogy Teaching
methods Q methodology Design and technology
Introduction
The primary aim of this study is to analyse the subjective beliefs of teachers regarding the
demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. A secondary, long-term,
aim is to encourage dialogue in the design and technology community on effective ped-
agogies and contribute to the development of theoretical frameworks which inform
classroom practice. The research question is: What do teachers of design and technology
believe to be effective pedagogy when demonstrating skills and knowledge?
&Matt McLain
m.n.mclain@ljmu.ac.uk
1
Liverpool John Moores University, IM Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool L17 6BD, UK
123
Int J Technol Des Educ (2018) 28:985–1000
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9425-0
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Viewed from a pragmatic perspective, in formal learning ‘‘involving the use of the body
and the handling of material’’, the act of demonstration is an essential teaching method in
practical disciplines (Petrina 2007; Dewey 1916, p. 178). This paper explores teacher of
design and technology views about the demonstration. Despite the subject being formally
recognised in the National Curriculum for England in the late 1990s (DfE 1995,2013;
QCA 2004,2007; DfEE 1999; NCC 1990), almost three decades on, there is limited
research and pedagogical literature to underpin practice in this area (McLain et al. 2015).
Whilst this study focuses on the views of teachers in England, and the relative historical
and cultural context, the nature of the discussion in this paper is relevant to creative,
practical and technical subjects internationally; be they craft or technology based,
emerging into or embedded as a design and technology based curriculum.
The demonstration is an important pedagogical method in other practical subjects,
including science (Milne and Otieno 2007) and physical education (Mosston and Ashworth
2002). In design and technology, it builds on the traditions of apprenticeship and craft
education of ‘‘demonstration, observation and constant practice’’ (Mason and Houghton in
Sayers et al. 2002, p. 44). Petrina comments on the significance of demonstrations as ‘‘the
single most effective method for technology teachers’’ (Petrina 2007, p. 1).
Central concepts and literature review
There is relatively limited range of literature on demonstration and teacher modelling in
design and technology (McLain et al. 2013). This section will draw on explicit references
both within and beyond the subject, and make links with wider learning theories.
By way of definition, this paper assumes that a demonstration is, primarily, a combi-
nation of teacher modelling (DfES 2004a) and explanation (DfES 2004b)—respectively,
largely visual and auditory approaches—supported other pedagogical skills such as
questioning (DfES 2004c); each of which do not define demonstration, in themselves, but
together are pedagogical techniques employed by the teacher of design and technology
when demonstrating. Demonstration focuses on knowledge transfer of technical processes
and the practical application of knowledge—demonstrated by the teacher and replicated by
the learner. The teacher, as an expert subject practitioner, or more knowledgeable other
(Vygotsky 1978), makes conceptual and procedural knowledge (McCormick 1997) explicit
in a meaningful context. Therefore, effective modelling and explanation facilitates the
development of understanding of a process, including sequence, related knowledge and
next steps.
‘‘ Modelling is an active process, not merely the provision of an example. It involves
the teacher as the ‘expert’, demonstrating how to do something and making explicit
the thinking involved.’’ (DfES 2004a: 3; emphasis mine)
‘‘The purpose of explaining a process or procedure is to help pupils understand how
things happen or work. The emphasis is on sequence and connectives such as first,
next, then and finally are important.’’ (DfES 2004b: 3; emphasis mine)
Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social constructivism and the zone of proximal develop-
ment (ZPD) provide a useful lens for critiquing learning and pedagogy in the context of
this study. Tappan comments on the mediating role of tools (physical and linguistic) in
Vygotskian theory, and their ability to ‘‘shape human mental functioning’’ (1997: 78).
Daniels et al. (2007) further elaborate on the Vygotsky’s notion of mastery and
986 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

development of these mental functions involving the ‘‘creation of external technology’’ (p.
66). Vygotsky described the process of learning (internalisation) as internal reconstruction
of an external activity, ‘‘incorporated into [a] system of behaviour’’ (1978: 56–57). The
ZPD ‘‘is the distance between the actual developmental level…and the level of potential
development…under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.’’ (p. 86).
This has implications for how and when the teacher should demonstrate, as he suggest
that the evaluation of mental development should be ‘‘the assistance of others, without
demonstrations, and without leading questions’’ (p. 88). The implication being that a
demonstration, whilst being a useful scaffold for learning, obfuscates the requirement to
recall and apply learning. In other words, a cautionary note should be attached to the use of
demonstration, considering appropriate timing and the need to consider the appropriateness
of frontloaded, just-in-time or after-failure approaches. Frontloaded instruction relies on
the learner’s ability to translate observations from working to long-term memory (Brown
et al. 2014: 46–66; Baddeley 2000), but provides a holistic demonstration of a process or
skill, in its wider context. Whereas the just-in-time approach mediates this process for the
learning by removing the necessity to encode complex information to long-term memory
and reduces cognitive load (Martin 2016), but removes some of the necessity for the
learner to think and make decision autonomously. An after-failure approach has a number
of potential applications, including with the use of a discovery learning approach (Brunner
1961), which allows for exploration and trial and error, although in some contexts may
have safety implications; and in a corrective context, where the teacher observes pupils’
engagement with a task or process, diagnoses misconceptions or errors and intervenes as a
‘more knowledgeable other’.
As noted by McLain et al. (2015), the demonstration encompasses teacher modelling
and explaining, and includes the manipulation of physical tools (materials and making), to
virtual tools (software, including computer-aided manufacture) and cognitive tools (design
thinking and problem solving); reflecting Wartofsky’s (1979) levels of artefact. In design
and technology learners explore, create and evaluate (DfE 2015). The teaching of the
physical, virtual and cognitive domains has similar features, as well as distinctive differ-
ences, concerning the learner, context, resources.
Petrina (2007) identifies that the primary aim of a demonstration is to ‘‘communicate
and model’’ procedural knowledge of ‘how to do something’’ and conceptual knowledge of
‘‘how to talk about [a] task’’ (p. 14); and involves demystification of equipment and
procedures, explanation of expected outcomes and the application of knowledge. It is
commonly accepted that much of human communication is non-verbal, mediated by
symbols, signs and actions (Engestro
¨m2009; Vygotsky 1978, cited in Tappan 1997;
Wertsch 1985,1991, cited in Tappan 1997). In neuroscience, the much debated notion of
mirror neurons (cf Thomas 2012) has sought to explain the ability of primates to mimic
through observation and perception. Petrina goes on to state that words in themselves are
inadequate to explain technological principles and processes. In fact, this is the de facto
rationale for the demonstration.
McLain et al. (2015) speculated that the fundamental and tacit nature of demonstration,
as a pedagogical method, is socially assimilated through the act of observing and intuition
within the community of practice (Wenger in Illieris 2009; Duguid 2008; McLain 2012;
Lave and Wenger 1991), and that this may go some way to account for the limited research
in the area. They go on to observe that the demonstration is a ‘‘multifaceted skill’’ (p. 269)
combining a range of pedagogical techniques. Implicit is the notion that much teacher
knowledge of demonstration, as a signature pedagogy, is engaged with at a subconscious
or automatic level. Kahneman (2011) describes this as System 1, the subconscious aspect of
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…987
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the mind, which responds effortlessly and draws on prior experience and encoded mem-
ories or patterns, without the need to draw on the slower, conscious, System 2. Whilst the
automatic nature of System 1 thinking is relatively quick and efficient, without the
engagement of System 2, learning and the development of expertise is impaired and error
(or biases) can affect practice.
In order to overcome the inherent weakness of operating solely on automatic thought
and action, the practitioner adopts a reflexive interplay between the subconscious and
conscious knowledge, challenging misconceptions and strengthening practice. Much has
been written about the importance of reflective practice for professional development (cf
Wood et al. 2009; Race 2007; McCormack 1997; Scho
¨n1991; Luft 1982) and specifically
for teachers (cf Banks et al. 2004; Jay and Johnson 2002; Brookfield 1995). Ericsson and
Pool (2016) write about naı
¨ve, purposeful and deliberate practice. Purposeful practice
differs from naı
¨ve practice in that it requires that the learner focus their full attention on the
skill, immediate feedback and moving beyond the bounds of current knowledge or skill.
Naı
¨ve practice, where the same set of skills is repeated over time with limited reflection
and development, can result in more recently trained professionals performing better than
seemingly more experience colleagues. Deliberate practice is described as taking pur-
poseful practice further, enhanced by proven techniques developed by experts, with a
mentor figure playing an important role, providing real-time feedback, alongside the self-
reflection (internal feedback) of the practitioner. Therefore, the lack of research and
documented proven techniques, in relation to teacher modelling, potentially inhibits the
professional development of teachers of design and technology, and thus learners in the
subject.
Visual processing, and interpretation, is sophisticated with the mind constructing and
reconstructing what we see into something that we can understand. Individuals perceive
and understand in different ways from differing perspectives (physical and cognitive), so
the effective demonstrator should consider the important aspects of the activity that the
observers need to see. Learning is a complex process, drawing on memory and sensual
experience. Whilst focusing on specific ‘learning styles’ can be counterproductive (Sharp
et al. 2008), lacking in research and mythologised (Kirschner 2017), the inclusion of
variety of approaches that take into consideration the wider intelligences of learners
(Brown et al. 2014; Sternberg 2011; Gardner 1983,1993,1995,1999). Barlex and Carre
´
add a situated and cultural dimension suggesting that learners ‘‘do not see things as they
are, we see them as we are’’ (1985, p. 4). In other words, the learning experiences, be they
assimilated or accommodated into memory, influence our perceptions.
When planning for learning, teachers make pedagogical choices which can be consid-
ered to be on an expansive-restrictive continuum (Fuller and Unwin 2003). In other words,
the teacher, as a more knowledgeable other adapts content knowledge to be demonstrated
to the learner, taking into consideration factors such as age, prior learning, expected
learning outcomes. For example, when teaching a new concept or skill to a group of
younger learners, the choice might be to adopt a more restrictive and teacher led approach,
with questions being used to gauge recall and understanding. This restrictive approach will
limit the range (and potentially the creativity) of outcomes, whereas a more expansive
approach (where learner potentially make more choices) can result in a broader range of
outcome, which might be less skilfully realised if the requisite skills have not already been
developed.
988 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Theoretical framework and research design
This Q Methodology (Brown 1980) study adopted pragmatism as the philosophical and
conceptual framework, in the traditions of Dewey, Pierce and James (Watts and Stenner
2012, pp. 24–46). The research paradigm is ontologically relativist, recognising the sub-
jective nature of realities for individuals, which are multiple (Guba 1981, p. 77, 1990,
pp. 17–27). As a Q Methodology study, the focus is on the socially and culturally con-
structed, subjective beliefs and values of the participants in relation to the object of
teaching and learning practice (Watts and Stenner 2012, p. 29). In this aspect the intentions
of the Q Method are interpretive and qualitative, using Peirce’s ‘‘abduction’’, where
observation of facts are used ‘‘in pursuit of an explanation and new insight’’ (p. 39).
Q Methodology originates from psychology research and ‘‘focuses on subjective or first
person viewpoints’’ (Watts and Stenner 2012, p. 4). As such it does not purport to generate
or confirm generalizable concepts and principles. With its roots in pragmatism, it draws on
inductive and abductive reasoning with the support of mathematical modelling (factor
analysis) to explore qualitative data through quantitative methods. In Q Methodology the
comparison focuses on the similarities and differences between the participants, rather than
their responses as is common within tradition factor analysis. A series of statements, or Q
Set, that represents the broad range of opinion or belief (concourse) potentially held by the
population that the sample is being drawn from. The participants then undertake a Q Sort
activity. This is typically a two stage process involving a pre-sort into three categories
(essential, desirable and optional, in this study), followed by the main sort where the Q Set
statements are sorted into a forced-choice frequency distribution (Fig. 1) ranging from
most agree to most disagree (note: the statements in this study were not designed to
generate disagreement, so the ‘most disagree’ is relative).
The initial Q-Set was developed through a focus group of six teachers of design and
technology, working with initial teacher education trainees in the North West of England,
and refined by McLain et al. (2015) within an online, predominantly UK-based, commu-
nity of practice for design and technology teacher educators. The list was divided into 10
categories to aid the presentation and interpretation of the 62 statements (see ‘‘Appendix’’).
An online Q-Sort was completed by a sample of seven teachers (Table 1) from a range
of backgrounds and design and technology specialist areas, with only Participant 1 having
been part of the initial focus group (above). Five of the participants are currently involved
with initial teacher training (ITT) with management responsibilities that involve working
both within and outside of their place of employment; Participant 4 and 7 being recently
qualified teachers.
The Q-Sort for this study was conducted using an online questionnaire tool, QSortWare
(Pruneddu 2014), to enable wider participation across institutions. The population for the
Fig. 1 Q Sort distribution
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…989
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

study was experienced teachers of design and technology engaged with the mentoring of
ITE trainees and with links to members of the institutions that the research team represent;
with the sample being purposive (Guba 1981). The factor analysis for data analysis was
conducted using the PQMethod (Schmolck 2014) software.
Ethics, reliability and validity
This study was conducted with the informed consent of the participants and anonymity has
been maintained for the individuals and their institutions. Limited personal information
was gathered from participants. The problematic issues of researcher bias, validity and
reliability (Lincoln et al. 2011) are addressed by adopting Guba’s (1981) criteria for
assessing trustworthiness. Guba describes the problems with imposing a scientific approach
to testing the quality of naturalistic, or qualitative, research: proposing criteria of credi-
bility, transferability, dependability and conformability (pp. 79–88). Credibility has been
addressed through researcher-stakeholder engagement throughout the process of the
development of the Q-Set with teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers; and
presenting preliminary findings at conferences with peers in the field (McLain 2016;
McLain et al. 2015). Transferability is sought by the researcher’s aim to understand
subjective views and avoid making generalised claims without reference to external and
corroborative evidence. Dependability and confirmability of the findings will, ultimately,
be tested through future studies, with larger samples using a variety of overlapping
methods, and in this study are contextualised in the conceptual framework developed
through the literature review.
Findings and interpretation
As an exploratory study into subjective beliefs and values, a small sample size does not
pose a problem in Q Methodology, according to Watts and Stenner (2012). The findings
are not being used to infer generalizable theoretical principles, rather to explore existing
practice with the view to refine the 62 statements (see ‘‘Appendix’’) relating to teacher
modelling and explaining within the subject. A future study with a larger sample would
then be appropriate and more valid as a means to establish a recognised orthodoxy, with
regard to demonstrations in design and technology. Further study is also required to
develop and refine the Q-Set statements.
Table 1 Factor loadings, with X
indicating defining sort (n =7) Q-Sorts Specialist area Gender Loadings
Participant 1 Electronic and control Male 0.65 X
Participant 2 Graphic design Female 0.58 X
Participant 3 Product design Male 0.40 X
Participant 4 Product design Male 0.38 X
Participant 5 Engineering Male 0.03
Participant 6 Fashion and textiles Female 0.16
Participant 7 Graphic design Mail 0.64 X
Eigenvalues 1.51
Variance 21%
990 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

The initial comparison of participants’ responses to the Q-Sort (Fig. 2), from the
PQMethod Q methodology analysis software (Schmolck 2014), indicate the superficial
correlations between the participants ranging from 44 (Participants 1 and 2) to -1 (Par-
ticipants 1 and 5), with Participant 5 showing the lowest correlation to the overall. This
reinforces the perception that the nature of teaching and learning is complex, with no ‘one
size fits all’ approach. The responses of both Participant 5 and 6 demonstrated weaker
correlations with the other participants in the sample. Due to the sample size, inferences in
relation to the participants’ specialism or gender have not been drawn.
PQMethod was used to extract factors (Table 1) and reduce the data, with the Eigen-
values (EV), or Kaiser-Guttmann criterion, above 1.00 used to indicate the statistical
strength (Watts and Stenner 2012). Watts and Stenner advise that Q Methodology
researcher try to extract one factor for every 6–8 participants (p. 107). Initially, two factors
(groups of participants with similar responses) were extracted, but only the EV for Factor 1
(1.51) indicating potential explanatory power (i.e. [1.00) and the presence of a single
common factor in the study—i.e. Factor 2 was discounted as insignificant.
The factors are the rankings of items (Q Set statements) in comparison to the partici-
pants, with the items being treated as the sample rather than the participants. These factors
are the building blocks of the participants’ responses to the Q sort activity, when their
responses are compared. Whilst the EV for both factors indicate potential explanatory
power, the factor loadings above 0.33 for each participant (Table 1) indicate a significant
loading in the responses for all except Participants 5 and 6 (Factor 2). A factor loading of
0.33 is considered to be a cut-off point in Q Methodology to indicate participant’s
inclusion in a factor (Watts and Stenner 2012). However the relatively low loading for
Participants 3 and 4 may indicate a degree of divergence between them and the other
‘members’ of the factor.
The factor array for the Factor 1 Q-Sort (see ‘‘Appendix’’) provide a useful ranking of
the statements, enabling common themes to be identified. They are presented with the 62
items (statements) in the Q Set ranked from ?6to-6, in a similar distribution to the
‘forced-choice frequency distribution’ described above (Fig. 1). However, it is important
to note that the items that are ranked at the minus end of the spectrum do not necessarily
represent disagreement, but rather that the participants arrange the items in a continuum
from most agree (?6) to most disagree (-6), indicating the degree to which each were
viewed as essential or desirable (respectively).
Discussion: competent management of the learning experience
As highlighted above, this is a single factor Q Methodology study due to the small sample
size. The factor as an eigenvalue of 1.51 and explains 21% of the study variance. Five of
the seven participants are significantly associated with the factor. In the original sample,
there were five male participants, four of whom are associated with the factor, and two
1234567
1 100 44 25 20 -3 16 16
2 100 21 17 -1 11 42
3 100 17 0 12 24
4 100 6 8 28
5 100 -2 9
6 100 -3
7 100
Fig. 2 Correlation matrix
between Q Sorts (n =7)
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…991
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

female participants, one of whom is associated with the factor. Two of the Factor 1
participants identify themselves as product design specialists, two as graphic design and
one as electronics and control. Of the participants in the discounted Factor 2, one identified
herself as textiles and fashion and the other as engineering.
Where a specific statement from the Q-Set is referred to, in the discussion below, the
bracket items indicate (a) the number of the statement and (b) the relative ranking of the
statement between the five teachers in ‘Factor 1’ (i.e. the degree to which the group agreed
or disagreed with the statement). For example, (37: ?6) indicated statement 37 ‘‘The
teacher is competent to use equipment safely’’, which the group ranked strongly as most
agree. The common features of the beliefs and values of the teachers in Factor 1 related,
primarily, to the competency and clarity of the demonstrator. The findings are discussed
below.
Competence and clarity
The highest rated statements relate to competency (37: ?6) and clarity (1: ?6) in relation
to subject knowledge (see ‘‘Appendix’’). Similarly the next layer of statements relate to the
clarity of communication in relation to health and safety information (38: ?5), learning
outcomes (5: ?5), explanations of processes and procedures (11: ?5) and identification of
the main teaching points or steps (17: ?5).
Other key messages emerging in the 9 highest ranked items (Table 2), relate to class-
room management and expectations of learning, and are somewhat teacher-centric as might
be expected when the participant were prompted to reflect on their practice. The classroom
management items are preparation for the demonstration area (32: ?4) and the teacher
monitoring or scanning the class to ensure that learners are safe (47: ?4). Ranked outside
the top ten (at 12) was scanning the class to monitor progress (53: ?3), although this
diagnostic approach would require some further exploration to define how the participants
measure progress during and following a demonstration. The participants’ expectations
related to high standards in designing and making (39: ?4) and explanation of how
learners will make progress (59: ?3).
Outside of the highest ranked items, two interesting features emerge, the first relating to
the consolidation of learning, within the mid-range of statements (ranked between ?2 and
Table 2 Highest ranked items (ranked ?4, or above)
The teacher gives an overview of the content of the skills or knowledge being demonstrated (1: 16)
The teacher is competent to use equipment safely (37: 16)
The teacher presents the learning outcomes (i.e. what learners will do or be able to do as a result) (5: 15)
The teacher gives clear verbal explanations of processes and procedures (11: 15)
Appropriate information about risk is readily available to learners (38: 15)
The teacher identifies the main points/steps for the learners (17: 14)
The teacher prepares the demonstration station/area in advance (e.g. before the lesson) (32: 14)
The teacher sets high standards and expectations for the learners in designing and making activities (39:
14)
The teacher scans and monitors the group to ensure that learners are safe (47: 14)
Statement number and factor array ranking in bold
992 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

-2), and the second relating to learners’ choices and independent learning, in the lower-
range (-3to-6).
Consolidation of learning
In the mid-range statements two themes emerge relating to the consolidation of learning
and to the teacher’s role in probing learners’ understanding concepts and processes (27: 1)
to recall (26: -2) and apply knowledge from both within (26: -2) and outside of the
immediate learning experience of the current unit being taught (23: ?2), other design and
technology units (24: -1) and from other subjects (25: -2). In addition, the teacher’s role
in using questioning to ascertain what learners understand (58: 0) and addressing their
misconceptions as they arise (21: 1); both of which require a secure level of subject
knowledge from the teacher in addition to pedagogical skills. The second theme relates to
learners’ emerging independence facilitated by the teacher allowing them to attempt a task,
following a demonstration, before intervening (54: 0) and the use of peer learning to
demonstrate skills/knowledge to each other (43: -1) and provide support before seeking
the teacher’s assistance (55: -1). This requires a degree of self-discipline from the teacher
to defer intervention and to invest time to develop a collaborative learning environment.
Learners’ choices and independent learning
Statements relating to the consolidation of learning continue to emerge in the lower-range
statements, with focus on: the teacher identifying (40: -6) or learners being enabled by the
teacher (41: -3) to make choices or take alternative actions; learners speculating with
prompts through teacher questioning (28: -3); or thinking-out-loud to consolidate learning
(50: -5). The ranking of these items in the lower-range does not necessarily indicate a lack
of importance or value placed on the independent learning, although this may be the case
and would suggest the need for further study; it could also be the result of the necessarily
restrictive nature of the demonstration of skills and knowledge requiring learners to follow
defined and predetermined processes. An increasing focus on the learner’s independence is
reflected in the various psychomotor domains for taxonomies of learning objectives, such
as Simpson (1972) or Dave (1967), developed following the development of the cognitive
domain by Bloom et al. (1956) and the affective by Andersen and Krathwohl (2001). As
the principle investigator, Simpson drew from expertise in practical subjects (Industrial
Arts, Agriculture, Home Economics, Music, Physical Education and Art), identifying
adaption and origination as the highest levels (Table 3). It also reinforces the notion that
Table 3 Simpson’s psychomotor domain
Level Description
Perception Observation and general perception
Set (or mindset) Cognitive readiness for action
Guided Response Imitation and mimicry when practicing actions
Mechanism Emerging competence/proficiency, leading to independence
Complex Overt Response Independence, automatic and accurate performance
Adaptation Mastery and the ability to transfer skill/knowledge to other settings
Origination The ability to create new approaches to activity
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…993
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the demonstration was viewed by the teachers as an essentially restrictive, as opposed to
expansive, teaching method (Fuller and Unwin 2003).
Traditionally these levels of competence have been considered to belong to the
craftsman through a lengthy apprenticeship (Sennett 2009,2008). So it is not surprising to
see the role of the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology, within
a subject-based national curriculum espousing a ‘‘balanced and broadly based’’ (DFE 2013,
p. 5) learning experience. The ranking of items relating to the role of the teacher to make
learners aware of choices, encourage them to speculate on the next steps or ‘think-out-
loud’ to consolidate knowledge, indicates that these pedagogical strategies may be less
commonly employed and/or desirable. The learning at the adaption and origination end of
the psychomotor domain is predominately expansive, as opposed to restrictive, suggesting
that demonstration through teacher modelling and explanation may be less appropriate; and
learner-led approaches such as microteaching, which is an effective learning method
(Hattie 2009), may be more appropriate.
Planning, preparation and resources
Three statements in the Q-Set related directly to planning (8-10) and six to the use of
resources (29–34). The participants in the factor group expressed a preference for staged
demonstrations (8: ?2), breaking down complex processes, over modelling the whole
process in one demonstration (9: -6). The low rating of the latter does not imply dis-
agreement, but hints at a bias towards the just-in-time over the frontloaded approach. It
also implies some form of rehearsal, whether cognitive for experiences teachers or real-
time for novices. Preparation of the demonstration are (32: ?4) featured in the highest
ranked statements (Table 2). Another trend identified in the lower-range statements, relates
to the use learning and human resources to support demonstrations. These include the use
of resources, such as instruction sheets, slideshows and videos (33: -3), images, pho-
tographs and diagrams (29: -4), ICT to simulate or model a process (20: -5), and the use
of support staff during or after the demonstration to support learners (34: -4). This was a
somewhat unexpected outcome, and would suggest the need for further research to
investigate this relatively low ranking of potentially useful approaches to support verbal
explanations with visual reinforcement, through dual coding (Clarke and Paivio 1991).
Conclusion
As previously stated, the act of demonstrating is complex and nuanced, drawing on both
generic and subject-specific pedagogical teaching methods (in particular teacher modelling
and explanation). Whilst this study does not seek to propose theoretical framework or
typology, it develops on the discussion begun by McLain et al. (2015). The responses in
this small-scale study support the belief that competence in relation to design and tech-
nology subject knowledge is fundamental to effective teacher modelling, supported by
skilful pedagogical knowledge to manage the classroom; with the sophisticated skills to
consolidate learning and facilitate independence being employed as appropriate to the age
and ability of the learners (Fig. 3). DfE (2013) presents the content of design and tech-
nology for 14 to 16 year olds in two categories: technical principles and designing and
making principles. Whether it be in relation to the properties of material or specific making
techniques, the designed artefact (be it referred to as product, system or prototype) is a
994 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

fundamental aspect of design and technology activity. Whilst there are basic concepts that
can be described, such as the fact that most materials can be shaped using ‘‘wastage,
addition, deforming and reforming’’ (p. 6), different materials have distinct means (e.g.
tools and techniques) for achieving these ends. Therefore, this paper argues that the
demonstration is a fundamental, or signature, pedagogy in design and technology education
to support knowledge transfer; albeit within a relatively restrictive pedagogical paradigm,
and other aspects of design and technology knowledge would benefit from more expansive
approaches, embodied in discovery learning activities central to design and technology
such as designing and making.
As a Q Methodology study, the analysis of the findings indicates the common ground
between the participants in response to the 62 predefined statements on teacher modelling and
explanation in design and technology. This paper explores, in more depth, the findings from
the initial and exploratory small-scale study by McLain et al. (2015), which present subject
knowledge and classroom management at the heart of teachers’ beliefs and values. Further
research is needed to explore the emerging patterns of beliefs about teacher modelling and
explaining in design and technology, and McLain (2016) reports on a subsequent study
involving teacher educators, using the same set of statements, which will be explored in depth
with a second paper. Initial finding from McLain (2016) suggest potential avenues to develop
and refine of a more concise set of statements. This study nine of the highest ranked items
(Table 2), which could be used to inform discussion, debate and observation of learning in
initial teacher education and for training school-based mentors.
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges David Barlex (independent consultant, UK), Dawne Bell
(Edge Hill University, UK) and Alison Hardy (Nottingham Trent University, UK) as co-authors of the
original paper, which this paper develops upon, presented at the Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology
(PATT) conference in Marseille, in April 2015. The 62 statements used in this study were developed through
dialogue initial teacher education networks of school-based mentors linked to Liverpool John Moores
University and teacher educators in a UK-based design and technology Google Group.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-
national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Competence
with Subject
Knowledge
Consolidation of
learning
Skillful
Classroom
Management
Facilitation of
independence
Fig. 3 Visual representation of
participants’ responses
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…995
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Appendix
Q-Set: 62 items (statements) relating to teacher modelling, explaining and questioning in
design and technology, with factor array (ranking):
No. Item Category Array
1 The teacher gives an overview of the content of the skills or knowledge being
demonstrated
Content 6
2 The teacher uses technical language/terminology and key words Content 3
3 The teacher presents their expectations Content 3
4 The teacher presents the learning objectives (knowledge/skills) Content 3
5 The teacher presents the learning outcomes (i.e. what learners will do or be
able to do as a result)
Content 5
6 The teacher refers to the application, of what is being demonstrated outside
the classroom context
Content 1
7 The teacher demonstrates skills and knowledge that learners will apply within
the lesson
Content 1
8 The teacher uses staged demonstrations, breaking down more complex
process into separate (linked) demonstrations
Planning 2
9 The teacher models/explains the whole process in one demonstration Planning -6
10 The teacher adapts their approach and style of demonstration to the learners,
dependent on age, ability, prior experience, etc.
Planning 1
11 The teacher gives clear verbal explanations of processes and procedures Explanation 5
12 The teacher provides a running commentary through the demonstration Explanation 0
13 The teacher gives clear models/examples processes and procedures Explanation 2
14 The teacher makes reference to relationships with other related concepts (e.g.
mathematical, scientific, technological, etc.)
Explanation -1
15 The teacher make reference to cause and effect of decisions and/or actions Explanation -2
16 The teacher uses examples, analogies and/or similes to explain processes and
procedures
Explanation -2
17 The teacher identifies the main points/steps for the learners Explanation 4
18 The teacher ‘signposts’ or indicates the next steps (i.e. ‘‘later in the lesson…’’
or ‘‘in next lesson…’’ )
Explanation 0
19 The teacher models diagnostic processes, such as using testing equipment to
fault-find or the application of scientific knowledge from an observation
Explanation -2
20 The teacher uses ICT to simulate or model process or products Explanation -5
21 The teacher addresses learners misconceptions as they arise Explanation 0
22 As part of the planned demonstration, the teacher addresses common
misconceptions around technical terms, concepts, etc.
Explanation -1
23 The teacher uses questioning to probe learners’ prior knowledge from within
the unit/project
Questioning 2
24 The teacher questioning to probe learners’ prior knowledge from previous
D&T units/projects
Questioning -1
25 The teacher questioning to probe learners’ prior knowledge from other
subjects
Questioning -2
26 The teacher uses questioning to enable learners to recall aspects of the
process demonstrated
Questioning -2
27 The teacher uses questioning to probe understanding of concepts, process and
procedures
Questioning 1
996 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

No. Item Category Array
28 The teacher uses questioning to encourage learners to speculate (e.g.
predicting the next step in a process)
Questioning -3
29 The teacher uses visual resources, such as images, photographs and diagrams,
to enhance their demonstrations
Resources -4
30 The teacher prepares and uses examples of the products/outcomes being
demonstrated
Resources 0
31 The teacher prepares examples showing the steps/stages of the process being
demonstrated
Resources -1
32 The teacher prepares the demonstration station/area in advance (e.g. before
the lesson)
Resources 4
33 The teacher uses resources, such as instruction sheets, slideshows or videos,
after the demonstration to support learners
Resources -3
34 The teacher uses other support staff (i.e. technician or teaching assistant)
during, and after, the demonstration to support learners
Resources -4
35 The teacher identifies hazards and risks for the learners Health and
Safety
1
36 The teacher prompts learners to identify hazards and risks for themselves Health and
Safety
2
37 The teacher is competent to use equipment safely Health and
Safety
6
38 Appropriate information about risk is readily available to learners Health and
Safety
5
39 The teacher sets high standards and expectations for the learners in designing
and making activities
Challenge 4
40 The teacher identifies alternative actions or choices learners can or need to do
(e.g. design, make, evaluate)
Challenge -6
41 The teacher enables learners to identify alternative actions or choices that
they can make (e.g. design, make, evaluate, etc.)
Challenge -3
42 The teacher plans and uses extension or enrichment activities for able learners Challenge -4
43 The teacher encourages/supports learners to demonstrate skills and
knowledge to their peers
Challenge -1
44 The teacher encourages learners to participate in fault finding and quality
control
Challenge -2
45 The teacher ensures that they make eye contact with members of the whole
group
Engagement 0
46 The teacher scans and monitors the group, as they are teaching, to ensure that
the learners are engaged
Engagement 2
47 The teacher scans and monitors the group to ensure that learners are safe Engagement 4
48 The teacher has ‘presence’ within the classroom Engagement -1
49 The teacher can modify their tone when talking to/with different sized groups
and in different situations
Engagement -3
50 The teacher encourages learners to ‘think-out-loud’ to consolidate knowledge
and understanding
Engagement -5
51 The teacher explains the function and/or context of the matter (i.e. knowledge
and/or skill) being demonstrated
Engagement -5
52 The teacher encourages learners to reflect on values (e.g. the impact of a
technology on society, the environment, etc.)
Engagement -3
53 The teacher scans the room after the demonstration to monitor learners’
progress
Learning 3
54 The teacher waits for learners to attempt a task before intervening Learning 0
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…997
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

No. Item Category Array
55 The teacher encourages learners to support each other before seeking the
assistance of the teacher
Learning -1
56 After the demonstration, the teacher moves around the room to support
learners
Learning 1
57 The teacher shows/explains the process/skill to individuals who have
misunderstood processes or concepts shortly after a demonstration
Learning -4
58 The teacher uses questioning to ascertain what a learner understands, when
they have not fully understood the demonstration
Assessment 0
59 The teacher explains what learners are expected to do to make progress Assessment 3
60 The teacher makes his/her expectations of the learners’ outcomes clear Assessment 2
61 The teacher provides examples of outcomes of a process that exemplify the
skills being modelled
Assessment 0
62 The teacher ensures that all learners know what they need to do to make
progress
Assessment 1
References
Andersen, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Pearson.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 4(1), 417–423. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2. Accessed 1 Aug 2017.
Banks, F., Barlex, D., Jarvinen, E.-M., O’Sullivan, G., Owen-Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2004). DEPTH—
developing professional thinking for technology teachers: An international study. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 14, 141–157.
Barlex, D., & Carre
´, C. (1985). Visual communication in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, B. S., et al. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals:
Handbook 1, cognitive domain. New York: Longman Higher Education.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., a Willey
Company.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful
learning (1st ed.). London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education, Educational Psychology Review,3(3),
149–210. doi: 10.1007/BF01320076. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). The cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dave, R. (1967). Psychomotor domain. In Berlin: International conference of educational testing.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York:
The Macmillan Company.
DfE. (1995). Design and Technology in the national curriculum. London: Department for Education.
DfE. (1999). Design and technology—the national curriculum for England. London: Department for
Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
DfE. (2013). National curriculum in England: Framework document [online]. Available at: https://www.
gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
DfE. (2015). Design and technology: GCSE subject content [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/gcse-design-and-technology. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
DfES. (2004a). Pedagogy and practice: Teaching and learning in secondary schools unit 6: Modelling
[online]. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.
uk/node/97131. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
998 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

DfES. (2004b). Pedagogy and practice: Teaching and learning in secondary schools unit 8: Explaining
[online]. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.
uk/node/97131. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
DfES. (2004c). Pedagogy and practice: Teaching and learning in secondary schools unit 7: Questioning
[online]. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.
uk/node/97131. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Duguid, P. (2008). The art of knowing: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the
community of practice. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.), Community, economic creativity, and
organisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engestro
¨m, Y. (2009). Expansive learning: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualisation. In K. Illeris
(Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words. Oxon: Routledge.
Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and
managing expansive and restrictive learning environments. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4),
406–427.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Com-
munication and Technology, 29(2), 75–91. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219811.
Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialogue. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue.
London: Sage.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon:
Routledge.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8.
Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Group.
Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and
emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
qualitative research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Luft, J. (1982). The Johari Window: A graphic model of awareness in interpersonal relations. In L. C. Porter
& B. Mohr (Eds.), Reading book for human relations training. Arlington: NTL Institute for Applied
Behavioral Science.
Martin, A. J. (2016). Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement.
Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Mason, R., & Houghton, N. (2002). The educational value of making. In S. Sayers, J. Morley, & B. Barnes
(Eds.), Issues in design and technology teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
McCormack, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 7, 141–159.
McLain, M. (2012). An (auto)ethnographic narrative of the teaching of designing within design and tech-
nology in the English curriculum. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,45, 318–330. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18770428/45. Accessed 11 Apr 2013.
McLain, M. (2016). Teacher educator perspectives on pedagogical modelling and explaining in design and
technology: A Q methodology study. In PATT32 conference, technology education for 21st century
skills, 23–26 August 2016, Delft University of Technology and HU University of Applied Sciences.
McLain, M., Barlex, D., Bell, D., & Hardy, A. (2015). Teacher perspectives on pedagogical modelling and
explaining in design and technology: A Q methodology study. In PATT 29 conference, plurality and
complementarity of approaches in design & technology education, 6–10 April 2015, Marseille
Universite
´.
Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature…999
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

McLain, M., Bell. D., & Pratt, A. (2013). Show-how know-how (Part 1): Theory and practice for
demonstrating in design and technology. D&T Practice, 3/2013. Wellesbourne, UK: Design and
Technology Association.
Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy.
Science Education,91(4). doi: 10.1002/sce.20203. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson
Education Inc.
NCC. (1990). Technology in the national curriculum. London: Department for Education and Science and
the Welsh Office.
Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. London: Information Science
Publishing.
Pruneddu, A. (2014). QSortWare [Online software]. Available at http://www.qsortouch.com. Accessed 18
Jan 2017.
QCA. (2004). Design and Technology—the national curriculum for England. London: Department for
Education and Skills and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
QCA. (2007). Design and Technology: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target. London:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Race, P. (2007). The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching (3rd ed.).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Sayers, S., Morley, J., & Barnes, B. (Eds.). (2002). Issues in design and technology teaching. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Schmolck, P. (2014). PQPethod (Version 2.35) [Computer program]. Available at http://schmolck.userweb.
mwn.de/qmethod/index.htm. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Scho
¨n, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Farnham: Ashgate
Publishing Limited.
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. London: Penguin.
Sennett, R. (2009). The Social Craftsman: Global Perspectives on the Economic Crisis [video online].
London: University College London. Available at: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/itunes-u/social-
craftsman-global-perspectives/id390418862?mt=10. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Sharp, J. G., Bowker, R., & Byrne, J. (2008). VAK or VAK-uous? Towards the trivialisation of learning and
the death of scholarship. Research Papers in Education, 23(3), 293–314.
Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington,
DC: Gryphon House.
Sternberg, R. J. (2011). The theory of successful intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.),
Cambridge handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tappan, M.B. (1997). Language, culture, and moral development: A Vygotskian perspective. Develop-
mental Review, 17(1), 78–100 [online]. doi: 10.1006/drev.1996.0422. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Thomas, B. (2012). What’s So special about mirror neurons? [online article]. Available at https://blogs.
scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-so-special-about-mirror-neurons/. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Publishing Company.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning:
Learning theorists in their own words. London: Routledge.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wood, N., Rust, C., & Horne, G. (2009). A tacit understanding: The designer’s role in capturing and passing
on the skilled knowledge of master craftsmen. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 65–78.
1000 M. McLain
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com