From Gender-segregated Subjects to Multi-material Craft: Craft Student Teachers’Views on the Future of the Craft Subject

Abstract

This paper describes the views of student teachers of craft about the future of craft as a school subject. The study was conducted at the University of Turku, Department of Teacher Education, in Rauma in 2014. The literature review revealed that the subject of craft in Finnish basic education is understood as a dialog between the maker and the materials. However, teaching and learning craft in schools and in teacher education has a strong gender-based tradition. The aim of this study is to investigate student teachers’ understanding of craft as a school subject in the future and their solutions to teaching craft in basic education. The data were collected from essays (N = 20) written by student teachers of craft. The essays were analyzed qualitatively using content analysis. The results showed that the student teachers of craft viewed holistic craft, reflective action readiness, entrepreneurial behaviour, multiple skills, the use of versatile materials, and craft as sources of pleasure and the main solutions for the future of craft as a subject.

Perspectives on Multi‐Material Craft in Basic Education

“…The tools, machines, equipment, devices and craft techniques that constitute the technology of craft are no more than instruments. In the experiential and explorative acquisition of information in a multi‐material ‘hands‐on’ making process (Lepistö & Lindfors ) and learning‐in‐doing (Pöllänen & Urdziņa‐Deruma ), the individual gains a concrete understanding of the material world (Groth & Mäkelä ; Väänänen et al ) and abilities to relate to the world in a new, more sustainability and well‐being enhancing way (Pöllänen ; Veber & Syrjäläinen ; Väänänen et al ). This kind of embodied knowledge requires designing, thinking, reflecting, exploring and problem‐solving during all phases of the craft process (Kangas ).…”

“…In a multi‐material learning environment, students can design and produce solutions to design challenges and reflect on the holistic craft‐based process and solutions (Jaatinen et al ). As Lepistö & Lindfors () noted, students need not, however, engage with all of the available materials and techniques but should be aware of a range of material and technological means to be used. Härkki et al () found that if the materials are known in advance of the design process, the materials may guide the solutions or students will not know what to do with the new materials.…”

“…When the craft process is based on the student’s choices rather than on predetermined materials (Lepistö & Lindfors ), the student’s own design for a specific product may still be based on either different kinds of soft or hard materials, using more versatile techniques and extending basic craft‐related tactile skills – learning to be a skilful handcrafter (Groth & Mäkelä ). In these cases, students may acquire skills and knowledge about techniques and tools in ‘one material world’ from either soft or hard materials as material knowledge (Härkki et al ).…”

“…Based on the available advice, equipment and materials, students gain a broad understanding of the holistic craft process and develop their understanding of a multi‐material world (see Figure ). The design problem may involve preparing a new product or innovation (Lepistö & Lindfors ), of which the student has no previous experience; the intention is to motivate inquiry in a wider context, beyond knowledge of materials, methods and tools (Härkki et al ).…”

Hvor var det det butta, hvor er det blitt av alle gutta?

“…Historisk er kunst og håndverksfaget innskrevet i en nordisk tradisjon, med tradisjonell kjønnsmessig materialdifferensiering. Dette kommer jevnlig opp til diskusjon i forbindelse med laereplanrevisjoner i skole og laererutdanning i de ulike landene (Kjosavik, 2003;Lepistö & Lindfors, 2015;Sigurdson, 2014;Skoleverket, 2015;Westerlund, 2015). Formingsideen som kom inn i norsk skole i 1960 representerte et klart brudd med denne tradisjonen, og en beveget seg mot materialuavhengig arbeid med estetiske prosesser (Forsøksrådet for skoleverket, 1960, heretter kalt F60).…”