International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13, 1–26, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Enhancing Technological Practice: An Assessment Framework for Technology Education in New Zealand VICKI COMPTON Auckland College of Education, Tai Tokerau Campus, Whangarei, New Zealand. E-mail:
[email protected]
CLIFF HARWOOD Massey University, College of Education, Palmerston North, New Zealand. E-mail:
[email protected] ABSTRACT: The stated aim of technology education in New Zealand is to develop students’ level of technological literacy. This paper introduces the Technology Assessment Framework (TAF) as an organisational tool for the development and delivery of technology programmes that focus on increasing students’ technological literacy through the enhancement of their technological practice across technological areas and contexts. The TAF was developed and refined in 1999 and 2000 as part of a two year New Zealand Ministry of Education funded research project, and integrated within a national professional development programme in 2000 designed for preservice and inservice teacher educators in New Zealand. This paper backgrounds the sociocultural theoretical position of the TAF and explains how it reflects and furthers the aim of technology education in New Zealand. The TAF is then presented and explained with the aid of illustrative examples from classroom practice. Keywords: formative interactions, gateways, learning outcomes, liberating technological literacy, sociocultural theory, Technology Assessment Framework (TAF), technological practice
INTRODUCTION
In 1999 technology1 was established as a compulsory learning area in New Zealand’s national curriculum for all students from years 1 through to 10. From 2002, technology programmes for students from years 11 through to 13 will have qualifications that provide pathways for them to access technological opportunities beyond secondary education. At the time of writing this paper, technology education is currently in its early implementation phase and has yet to become an established part of the culture of learning within New Zealand schools. It is important that technology education develops a robust ‘subject subculture’ (Goodson 1985; Paechter 1991) through a critical mass of classroom teachers and teacher educators whose practice supports the translation of the technology curriculum into effective technology programmes in schools. The overall aim of technology education in New Zealand is to support the development of students’ technological literacy. As represented in
2
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995), this is promoted through an amalgam of the three defined curriculum strands – Technological Knowledge and Understanding, Technological Capability, and Technology and Society. The focus on interlinking the curriculum strands (Ministry of Education 1995, pp. 31, 35, 41) provides the opportunity for students to increase their level of technological literacy through undertaking their own technological practice, and critically analysing both this and the practice of others’. By incorporating an integrated critical stance into the design and delivery of technology education programmes it allows for the development of a technological literacy that is ‘liberating’ rather than functional in nature (Mather 1994; Compton 1997; Compton 2001; Burns 1997; Davies 1998). (The concepts of technological practice and a liberating technological literacy are explained in depth in the next section of this paper.) The material presented in this paper is based on work we have carried out with teachers and teacher educators to support and guide the translation of Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) into classroom programmes that allow the potential of this curriculum to be realised in practice. The central aims of the paper are to background, present and explain the Technology Assessment Framework (TAF) as an effective tool in this translative process. The TAF was developed as part of a two-year classroom based research contract we undertook within New Zealand. The research contract was known as Technology Education Assessment in Lower Secondary 1999/2000 (TEALS 1999 & TEALS 2000). (Whilst the 1999 research was focused in lower secondary schools, in 2000 it was extended into primary, intermediate and upper secondary schools.) The TAF was further refined within a professional development contract that focused on enhancing teacher educators’ understanding of assessment in technology education known as Technology Education Assessment National Professional Development 2000 (TEANPD 2000). This contract was significant in that it provided opportunities for technology practitioners from primary, intermediate, secondary and tertiary sectors to be involved in the interaction of theory and practice. Their interactions provided an opportunity to further the establishment of a critical mass of teachers and teacher educators, so aiding the development of a technology subject subculture in New Zealand schools. The New Zealand Ministry of Education funded both the research and professional development contracts. Findings from the early stages of the TEALS 1999 research identified the difficulties that teachers were having in creating technology programmes that recognised and supported student learning in technology both across technology areas and beyond that of ‘one off ’ isolated activities. The TAF was developed to enable technology programmes to provide students the opportunity to progress both within and between technology units across a range of contexts. Before explaining the TAF in detail, the next section of this paper
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
3
provides an explanation of the underpinning theories and concepts upon which the TAF was developed. Initially, the sociocultural underpinning of technology education in New Zealand is introduced and the key concepts of technological practice and liberating technological literacy are explained. Direct links to Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) are presented followed by a discussion on the implications of all the above for assessment within technology education in New Zealand.
SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN NEW ZEALAND
Technology education in New Zealand has been positioned within a sociocultural theoretical stance (Compton 2001; Jones 2001), whereby learning is situated within a setting that is impacted on by historical, cultural and institutional factors (Wertsch 1991). In keeping with this stance, it draws from learning theories based on situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989), apprenticeship models (Rogoff 1991), and learning through participation in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991; Lave 1993). Sociocultural theorists ‘assume human agency in the process of coming to know’ and argue ‘that meaning derived from interactions is not exclusively a product of the person acting’ (Gipps 1999, p. 21). This is reflected in technology education in New Zealand where technology is conceptualised as a purposeful human activity undertaken to meet a need or realise an opportunity as influenced by, and impacting on, the sociocultural and physical location in which it is undertaken (Ministry of Education 1995). Technology education therefore, is viewed as having a clear focus on providing students with an understanding of technology as a situated human endeavour through providing them with opportunities to undertake their own technological practice in a highly reflective and critical manner. Technological practice Technological practice is a developing concept within technology education in New Zealand. It is currently defined as an overall descriptor for the thoughts, actions and interactions that occur as part of any technological endeavour (Compton & Harwood 1999a; Compton 2001; Ministry of Education 2001). Many aspects are involved in the determination of the specific nature of the technological practice undertaken within any context. These aspects include such things as: • the perspectives of the people involved in the development; • the capability of the people involved in the development; • the range of technological knowledges, skills and resources available at any time; • knowledge and skills from other domains as appropriate;
4
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
• the society and environment that impact upon the development; • the society and environment that the development will impact upon. The characteristics of a particular need being met, or opportunity being realised, influence the way in which these aspects are prioritised and/or operationalised at any given time in practice. That is, individual and/or groups of technologists will prioritise things differently and therefore, their practice will differ, as dependent on the specific interaction of all of the above. Whether the technologist understands these prioritisations and interactions at an explicit, or a more intuitive level, will depend upon the technologists themselves and the situation in which they are practicing. However, students in technology education should be encouraged to be overtly aware and explicitly understand and communicate the way in which such aspects as described above have been prioritised and interacted when analysing their own and others’ practices. Providing opportunities for students to undertake their own technological practice, critique the practice of others, and examine the cultural and historical development of technology, allows the interlinking of the three curriculum strands to occur in a meaningful way. That is, opportunity to critically reflect on technological practice allows students to gain a more in-depth understanding of the nature of technology as they consider social, cultural and environmental implications and influences including the ethics, values and beliefs of all stakeholders. Thus students begin to understand technology in terms of its sociocultural location. Liberating technological literacy Technology education in New Zealand has been linked to student empowerment as based on the concept of a ‘liberating technological literacy’ (Mather 1994; Compton 1997; Compton 2001; Burns 1997; Davies 1998). In keeping with this stance, technology education programmes need to focus on enhancing students’ technological practice in ways that allow them to become empowered decision makers, participating as mutually constitutive members within their learning community (Roth 1998), and those communities within which they may participate in the future. The concept of technological literacy generally can be thought of as a person’s ability to competently undertake and understand technological practice within the contemporary technological discourse/s in which they are situated. The possession of a liberating technological literacy however, extends this ability to include the critique and comparative analysis of past and current practices within different discourses, and allows projection into potential future practices that step outside and/or push boundaries of the current practices. That is, the development of a liberating literacy allows for and validates the suggestion that things may be ‘done differently’ (Davies 1998). The notion of a liberating literacy is supported in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) specifically through
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
5
the incorporation of the technology and society strand, coupled with guidance that this focus should be an integral part of practice. Having this sociological focus integrated within technological practice has been argued as essential for students to develop a critical analytical framework that is deemed necessary for the extension of a functional technological literacy into one of a liberating nature (Davies 1998; Compton 2001). Therefore, the aim of enhancing technological literacy in New Zealand encourages and supports students to both function within the boundaries of their current location, as well as to create opportunities to move beyond those boundaries through informed and responsive creativity within their practice. Thus, creativity, and its link to divergent practices and outcomes, is seen as an important aspect in the development of a liberating technological literacy. Research in the area of creativity suggests that learning environments that provide too much structure, direction and instruction can lead to a teacher imposing their own ‘predigested experience and expectations . . .’ leading to a lack of creative and individual thought through the development of ‘uniformity, dependence and acceptance’ on behalf of students (Thompson 1990, p. 104). Such prescriptive environments work towards developing a technological literacy that is socially reproductive in nature rather than liberating. Alternatively, opportunities provided for ‘creativity’ with too little structure and/or ongoing intervention, often result in ‘learner helplessness’ and the denigration of the educational opportunity to a perpetuation of constrained and restraining use of knowledge, skills and practices. Such open environments, rather than leading to innovative thinking and solutions, tend to once again limit the form and enhancement of literacy levels, in this case providing little towards the enhancement of even a functional literacy. Learning environments supporting technology education therefore, need to provide appropriate structure, combined with processes of intervention and a high level of flexibility, to ensure learning occurs within an environment that supports and encourages divergence and creativity. In this way, technology education learning communities can provide opportunities for students to undertake informed innovative technological practice leading to enhanced levels of technological literacy that is liberating in nature. Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) supports the development of such learning environments not only through its aim and strands, but also through the generic structure it adopted in its curriculum design. Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) is based on a concept of curriculum as a framework within which people can operate and think, rather than the more traditional notion of curriculum as prescribed content (Mather 1994). It leaves the specific nature of knowledge, skills and practices undefined, thereby supporting the assertion that
6
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
‘technology is a dynamic subject with a body of knowledge and skills and practices (our insertion) which is constantly changing’ (Shield 1996, p. 52). In addition to technological knowledge and skills, the technology curriculum also recognizes the importance of a range of other knowledge bases and skills, the relevance of which may be specific to individual students, groups, and/or situations and their divergent practices. The inclusion of defined technological areas in the New Zealand technology curriculum was an overt attempt to encourage the exploration of a diverse range of contexts and thus acknowledge and validate a wide range of knowledge and skills. Seven technological areas were identified and described as ‘not mutually exclusive’, with emphasis given to the fact that ‘most technological developments and learning experiences encompass more than one area’ (Ministry of Education 1995, p. 12). The areas are biotechnology, electronics and control, information and communication technology, food technology, materials technology and production and processes technology. The inclusion of these areas validated the contemporary technological knowledge, skills and practices that have arisen from within different cultures and a range of technological communities, that were deemed to be important to New Zealand’s past, present and potential future social makeup. Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) further supports links outside the school environment through an emphasis on ‘community and enterprise links’ (Ministry of Education 1995, p. 17). Technology education programmes should therefore include some provision for students to learn through a level of enculturation into established technological communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) that are significant to New Zealand, or may be in the future. Through such experiences, students are provided access to the knowledge, skills and practices accepted therein, whilst also having the opportunity to develop an understanding of their sociocultural location. These communities currently include, but should not be limited to, those representative of the technological areas identified earlier. The New Zealand Dairy Board is an example of an industry-based technological community of practice drawing extensively from biotechnology, food technology and production and process technology. Enculturation into such communities of practice provides opportunities for students to undertake a critical analysis in order to reject and/or adapt knowledge and practices that reside within them. In using such resources, the challenge for technology education and its potential to offer students opportunities to develop a liberating technological literacy, is to ensure that enculturation into such communities does not become indoctrination. Assessment implications Assessment from a sociocultural stance is ‘. . . seen as interactive, dynamic and collaborative. Rather than an external and formalised activity, assessment is integral to the teaching process and embedded in the social and
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
7
cultural life of the classroom’ (Gipps 1999, p. 26). Hattie and Jaeger (1998) also argue that assessment should be seen as an integral part of teaching and learning, rather than an adjunct to it. An important implication of viewing assessment in these terms is the need for assessment practices, as with all pedagogical practices, to involve high quality teacher/student collaborative relationships if learning is to be enhanced (Russell 2001). Through involving students in meaningful ways in the process of their learning, teachers can better recognise and respond to the influences of each student’s background and their specific needs or desires. From such a basis both the teachers and students themselves can develop better understanding of the reasoning behind the decisions made in their practice which is critical in terms of both formative and summative assessment in technology. This is supported by earlier work within technology education where a strong focus on the interaction between ‘mind and hand’ demanded a high level of interest in finding out ‘why and how pupils chose to do things’ rather than focusing on the somewhat easier task of establishing ‘what it was they chose to do’ (APU 1991, p. 20). Collaboration between the teacher and students can also provide the opportunity to assess the learning environment, as well as the specific unit being delivered, in terms of how well it is allowing students to progress in technology. Such assessments during unit delivery are critical if the teacher is to modify their own practice to ensure learning is meaningful and valid in terms of both the curriculum and the student’s learning needs. Developing a level of shared understanding of the learning community also provides an opportunity to develop the teacher’s and students’ metacognitive skills and thus allows for meaningful self-assessment of all practices inherent within the social setting. This is supported by Sadler’s view of the need for students to both understand and value the goals of the learning community in which they are participants (Sadler 1989). Assessment interactions therefore, provide guidance for not only the future participation of the student, but the teacher and any others involved in the learning community. That is, the learning community provides opportunity for the enhancement of students’ technological practice, as well as the enhancement of teachers’ pedagogical practices. In this way, ongoing classroom practice is both informed by, and in turn informs, the development of a technology subject subculture (Goodson 1985; Paechter 1991). In summary Based on the discussions above, assessment in technology education in New Zealand should be seen as embedded in the planning and delivery of units of work in which the teacher and students participate as informed members of a learning community. The learning environment should be dynamic and responsive to the changing needs of the members as established through ongoing consultation. The nature of technology, technological practice and technology education should be overtly discussed and critiqued, and
8
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
underpinning concepts of learning and assessment should be clarified for all participants. Opportunities should be provided for all students to undertake technological practice, and analyse that of others where divergence of both technological practice pathways and resultant outcomes should be both acknowledged and validated through informed critique. Inherent in such opportunities is the freedom to experiment and explore in innovative and creative ways within an appropriately structured environment where pedagogical practices are focused on ensuring that all students ‘progress’ their learning in technology rather than simply ‘experience’ a range of technological activities. The following section presents and explains the TAF as a tool that was developed specifically to aid teachers in providing programmes, and developing comprehensive assessment practices, in keeping with the ideas summarised above. In this section the TAF is introduced and underlying aspects such as the different categories of learning outcomes and the importance of unexpected student learning are explained. Diagrammatic representation of how these aspects relate to unit planning and delivery is provided, followed by a detailed explanation of the conceptual structures called ‘gateways’ that are of critical importance to the formative interactions highlighted within the TAF. Illustrative examples provided in this section are included to aid explanations of the TAF through classroom practice. These examples represent possible unit ideas/situations, or are taken from a number of technology units that were delivered during 2000, as indicated.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
The Technology Assessment Framework (TAF) was developed to enhance students’ technological literacy through the development of knowledge and skills (including, but not exclusively, those deemed technological), and most importantly the subsequent operationalisation of these into student technological practice. This is in keeping with The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology project team’s focus on ensuring a moving past the ‘traditional assessment split’ through focusing assessment on the ‘active, purposeful, deployment (original emphasis) of understandings and skills’ (APU 1991, p. 22). The TAF also supports the overall aim of technology education in New Zealand by providing opportunities for students to analyse and critique their own and others’ practice in order to develop a technological literacy that is liberating in nature (Mather 1994; Compton 1997; Compton 2001; Burns 1997; Davies 1998). The TAF is an organisational tool to assist teachers to manage, and students to participate in, the establishment of learning communities in keeping with sociocultural theories and Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995). It does this through a focus on linked learning outcomes specifically related to technological practice. There
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
9
are three types of learning outcomes, which are grouped into two further categories as explained below. Categories of learning outcomes Component of practice, knowledge, and skill learning outcomes Findings over two years of classroom research (TEALS 1999; TEALS 2000) indicated that overall technological practice undertaken by students is made up from smaller interlinking practices which we refer to as ‘components of practice’. Examples of components of practice include such things as ‘brief development’, ‘planning for practice’ and ‘outcome development and evaluation’. Like over all practice, these components of practice rely on the integration of all three strands of Technology in New Zealand Curriculum – Knowledge and Understanding, Technological Capability, and Technology and Society (Ministry of Education 1995). Components of practice are generic across technological contexts and thus are able to be focused to assess and plan for student progression2 as students experience a range of technological contexts and areas in a technology programme. In contrast, knowledge and skills that are critical to any current practice, are often not useful as a focus for student progression within programmes of technology education that cross technological areas due to their relevance being defined within specific contexts. Within any unit however, the development of students’ knowledge and skills are important. Technology in New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) clearly takes the position that there is a body of knowledge and skills that can be referred to as belonging to the domain of technology – that is, technological knowledge and technological skills. It also acknowledges a wide range of knowledge and skills from other domains as critical to technological practice. Thus ‘knowledge’ and ‘skills’, as used within the TAF, refers to all knowledge and skills deemed key for student technological practice, not just those that may be defined as specifically technological. Our initial research (TEALS 1999) demonstrated that attempting to support technological practice through the use of learning outcomes and assessment strategies developed around overall technological practice did not allow for the identification of, or focused support for, a student’s specific learning needs (Compton & Harwood 1999b). That is, such a holistic learning outcome focus did not allow for targeted learning experiences to be developed and supported by purposeful formative student/teacher interactions. In contrast, our latter research (TEALS 1999; TEALS 2000) confirmed that through the identification of key knowledge, skill and component of practice learning outcomes, teachers can employ teaching strategies best suited to the students, and the nature of the learning required within the context of the technology unit. Based on formative interactions around these learning outcomes, teachers can determine whether students have developed a key understanding or skill
10
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
to a level sufficient to allow for its use in their technological practice. If this is not the case (whether it be for one student a group or the whole class), they can then respond by providing further opportunities for the identified student/s. When sufficient understanding of the key knowledge and/or skill has been established, the teacher is then able to focus on providing opportunities to enhance the ability to translate these effectively into practice. Focusing on transfer, before the knowledge/skill is mastered, results in constrained technological practice with resultant poor technological outcomes for students (Compton & Harwood 1999a). Alternatively, assuming transfer will happen without support also results in poor solutions. This is often seen where parts of a student’s practice may be excellent, but where little linking of these parts to the whole is apparent – again resulting in poor technological outcomes (Compton & Harwood 1999a). If particular knowledge and skills are deemed to be ‘key’, they must be critical to a student’s practice and should be clearly linked to component of practice learning outcomes. For example, if students were developing a product for a target market, a ‘key’ knowledge learning outcome would be to understand the needs and desires of that target market. It would then be expected this understanding would be incorporated into a subsequent component of practice learning outcome based on students undertaking ‘brief development’, where the specifications for the product outcome are defined. This ensures that this knowledge of needs and desires of the target market is operationalised into their technological practice. In this way the TAF validates and supports knowledge and skills that underpin practice, as well as the way in which they are operationalised. Whether learning experiences that are focused on knowledge, skill or components of practice are established on a student ‘need to know’ basis during unit delivery, or planned prior to the unit as based on the teacher’s judgement of the context and student learning needs, will be reflected by way of another category of learning outcome within the TAF – referred to as pre-determined or negotiated learning outcomes. Predetermined and negotiated learning outcomes Part of the evolution of learning communities based on meeting both the needs of the technology curriculum and the students, is the establishment of learning outcomes that provide a balance of ‘structure’ and ‘freedom’ as discussed earlier. Learning outcomes specific to any unit of work should therefore reflect two distinct types – those that are pre-determined at the time of unit planning, and those that are negotiated during delivery in response to students’ specific learning needs as based on their actual practice. Predetermined learning outcomes are established prior to unit delivery as based on the requirements of the curriculum, the resources available to the teacher, the teacher’s understanding of their students’ current understandings and competencies, and the general nature of expected technological practice to be undertaken within the unit. During unit delivery,
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
11
these learning outcomes may change as the needs of the students are more accurately ascertained. This could involve a realignment of the criteria developed to judge students’ progress towards the learning outcome. Alternatively, if the nature of the learning experiences offered through the unit delivery shifts significantly from those planned, some of the predetermined learning outcomes may no longer be valid indicators of learning for this unit at all, and therefore should be changed. For example, in a unit that provided opportunities for students to undertake practice to develop a bone ‘taonga’3 to be worn around their neck an appropriate predetermined skill learning outcome key to the success of the students practice, would be one focused on crafting with bone as a material. However, if during an initial research/exploration phase, students decided that pewter was a preferable material from which to make their taonga, and the teacher could support this shift in material, the original learning outcome would no longer be relevant. Instead, a more appropriate negotiated learning outcome would be developed that was focused on the key skill of mould making and those skills associated with crafting pewter. As described in this example, negotiated learning outcomes are established during unit delivery in response to students’ needs and/or desires as they emerge from the technological practice that they have adopted or intend to adopt. These learning outcomes are established through negotiation based on teacher/student interactions as they participate in the learning environment. In summary therefore, learning outcomes within the TAF are interrelated, are predetermined or negotiated, and can be further categorised into knowledge, skill, or component of practice learning outcomes. Both predetermined and negotiated learning outcomes focus on progression of students’ (or an individual student’s or group’s) knowledge, skills and/or component of practice. Unexpected learning One further factor highlighted in the TAF, is the significance and potential role of unexpected learning. This is reflective of the stance that all significant learning exhibited by students should be recognised and validated, and if possible, used to enhance their current or future practice. This can occur in two ways. If the learning has direct relevance to the student’s current practice, it may be a useful base to establish a negotiated learning outcome to enhance that practice. For example, when a student was experimenting with methods for extracting essential oils from lavender plants to produce a topical scented oil to aid insomnia, he discovered that intensive shaking of the lavender in warm oil resulted in a permanent scenting of the carrier oil. The teacher used this unexpected learning as a basis for a negotiated knowledge learning outcome that focused on determining whether this method or distillation would provide the best all round solution, when taking into account factors such as time of production as well as resultant properties of the product.
12
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
In some instances, unexpected student learning may not be directly relevant to their current practice. However, if validated through recording as part of the student’s overall learning in the unit, this information will be available for possible use in the establishment of predetermined learning outcomes to enhance their future practice. For example, when a student was surveying a group of young sports people to determine the attributes they would like in a sports drink, she found many of this group felt that their peers held a negative stereotypical image of them. The student began to understand the impact this had on the way that members of the group felt about themselves and whether they would continue to take part in their chosen sport after intermediate school. For the purposes of this student’s current practice, this knowledge allowed her to interact more appropriately with the group and produce labelling on the drink bottle that worked against the stereotype. For the development of the drink product, it was agreed that further progress in terms of developing a greater understanding of the impact of this stereotype image of the target group was not key to her practice. However, the knowledge developed about this target group was significant to the student’s overall understanding of technology, and was used in a subsequent unit as a basis of a predetermined ‘planning for practice’ learning outcome focused on exploring the way in which people’s perceptions can be reinforced or manipulated through advertising programmes. Diagrammatic representation of the TAF Figure 1 (following) provides a diagrammatic representation of the TAF. The learning community is prioritised as the site within which all planning and delivery is situated. The factors impacting on this community are many and varied, and as such outside the scope of this paper to detail. We however, acknowledge these factors as critical influences on the specific nature of the technology programme offered. As shown in Figure 1, ‘gateways’ are an important structure within this framework. They bring together the elements of assessment critical for supporting and identifying student learning within technology education, and are therefore used to enhance the planning of technology units, and inform and support teacher and student practice throughout the delivery of a technology unit. They provide a structure for teachers to formatively interact with student learning specifically in terms of the learning outcomes, throughout their technological practice. As a consequence of such interactions the learning experiences offered can be adapted to better support student learning. Gateways also provide information for making summative judgments of student learning at the exit point of a technology unit to support the development of progression-focused programmes that offer experiences that work together to enhance students’ overall technological literacy.
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
13
Figure 1. Technology Assessment Framework (TAF).
The nature of gateways In keeping with technology education learning outcomes as discussed earlier, gateways are of two types – either predetermined or negotiated, and are further sub-categorised into knowledge, skill or component of practice gateways. It is important to understand the concept of a gateway as an opening up of learning opportunities as opposed to a ‘gate’ or ‘barrier’. They provide a focal point for teachers and students to gain insight into learning within practice that is inherent in the complex and dynamic nature of students’ overall technological practice before, during, and after it occurs. In so doing they allow for learning environments to be modified to ensure that students progress.
14
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
Information for summative judgements can be gained through the formative use of gateways, as they provide a picture built up from interpretations made throughout the student’s learning in practice. Thus gateways provide information on the process of coming to know (Gipps 1999) as well as the resultant transformation of the student through their learning through practice (Lave & Wenger 1991). The former provides a focus for interactions during unit delivery, whilst the latter is described as an overall statement of a student’s technological practice. All gateways are developed to support a specific learning outcome. Gateways provide a link between the learning outcomes and the generic achievement objectives of Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995). These links provide an opportunity to audit the coverage of the objectives, and thus ensure that the curriculum is being realised in practice. As discussed in the previous section, the achievement objectives in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) are interlinked in order to provide a framework for students to undertake technological practice. Technological learning outcomes therefore relate to multiple achievement objectives in technology – with component of practice learning outcomes linking to achievement objectives across all three strands. Assessment criteria provide statements that are used for making judgements on student learning. The achievement objectives inform the development of the assessment criteria to specify the expectation of student achievement in terms of the learning outcome. The criteria should be established to ensure progression of students’ practice occurs. Criteria established for predetermined gateways from the teacher’s pre-unit understandings, need to be clarified and/or re-established as their initial judgements are confirmed or challenged through teacher/student interactions during unit delivery. Criteria for negotiated gateways arise directly out of teacher/student interactions as they occur during student technological practice. The number of criteria graduations (e.g. not met/pass or not met/ credit/merit/excellence etc) used in assessment criteria is dependent upon the teacher’s need to differentiate student achievement of the specific learning outcomes and is often determined by the requirements of school reporting and/or qualification systems. Learning experiences provide ‘scaffolding’ to enable students to meet the assessment criteria as based on an ongoing teacher analysis of their progress. This may include the development of additional learning experiences (further scaffolding), or a reconsideration of the appropriateness of the learning outcome itself, or its assessment criteria for a particular student, in order to best support their continued learning. In this way teaching practice represents a balance between setting goals for students in keeping with technology education, and responding to their learning needs. The following extract provides an example of how a teacher provided additional learning experiences based on her formative interactions. The extract is taken from a case study (Harwood & Compton 2000a) developed around
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
15
a primary school unit focused on developing year 1 (5 and 6 year olds) students’ knowledge of, and skills in, production and process. The unit used ‘Thankyou Cards’ as a context and is the same unit as outlined in Figure 2. The teacher introduced a range of experiences to progress the students towards achievement of a predetermined knowledge learning outcome written as ‘students can identify inputs, outputs, and processes’. To introduce the concept of making something to an agreed standard/quality, the students, in groups of four, were asked to make four faces that were all the same using paper cut-outs of facial features (ears, eyes, nose, or mouth). Initially the students each assembled a face as individuals and when each face was compared it was shown to be quite different. The teacher discussed how a ‘production line’ approach might both speed up the face production and assist in obtaining uniformity of outcome. In the second attempt, each group was given a completed face – a prototype – that set the quality. Within each group, different students took responsibility for placing one of the facial features in the correct place as per the prototype. When all the faces were completed, the students compared them to the original face to establish how well they had met the standard. In all cases, the second attempt resulted in increased uniformity of outcome, thus reinforcing the advantages of production line manufacture introduced earlier. This activity enabled the teacher to assess the students’ developing understanding of production systems and to decide how many further activities of a similar nature would be required to help consolidate their learning of this and support their understandings of inputs and outputs within a process. As a result of these judgements, another learning experience was provided which involved making faces on biscuits using icing and lollies. This activity was used to reinforce students’ understandings of production line manufacture and develop their skills in manufacturing outcomes to an agreed standard using a different medium. Emphasis was placed on developing a quality outcome, designing a production sequence and group co-operation skills, and distinguishing between inputs, outputs and processes in the production line. In-groups of four, students worked in the production line to ice four plain biscuits. Each student was assigned a specific task – icing the biscuit or placing the mouth, nose, or eyes. The student decided the order, in which they would work, and then completed the first biscuit. This became the manufacturing sequence that was used by groups to manufacture biscuits of a consistent quality to that achieved with the first biscuit. The students then visited a local shoe factory to see the sequence of actions in a production line. Teacher preparation for the visit was important to ensure that the students focused on the production system and not on peripheral aspects within the factory. While they were there, the teacher reinforced the concepts of inputs (materials to make the shoes), processes (using the materials), and outputs (the finished shoes) by asking the students to look out for these, The teacher took photographs of each of the main stages in the production process. When they returned to the classroom, the students were given copies of the photographs and asked to order them in a sequence that represented the process they had observed. They were then asked to identify the inputs, processes, and outputs. At this point the teacher was confident that all the students had developed a sound understanding of inputs, outputs and processes within the context of a production line as required in her predetermined learning outcome. Therefore the teacher was confident the students were ready to develop their own production system for the production of cards. (Harwood & Compton 2000a)
16
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
Figure 2. Thankyou cards unit outline (Harwood & Compton 2000a).
Gateways also indicate potential assessment strategies for supporting teacher/student assessment interactions. Strategies chosen should reflect those that are best suited to the students, the learning outcome and the technological endeavour. That is, assessment strategies must allow insight into the specific knowledge, skill and/or component of practice being assessed and the provision of effective feedback into the learning community as a whole. These strategies should be negotiated between individual students/groups of students and the teacher in order to respond
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
17
to the different communicative abilities of participants in the learning community. If the learning outcome is well defined, and the assessment criteria are established and clearly communicated, different strategies may be validly selected in the assessment of different students in order that they can have the opportunity to best demonstrate learning. For example, in the ‘Thankyou Cards’ unit (Harwood & Compton 2000a), a predetermined planning for practice learning outcome focused on designing a production line to manufacture the chosen card design. Some of the students chose to explain the production process they should follow through the use of sequenced diagrams and written annotations, whilst others used the prototype of the chosen card as a prop to aid a verbal explanation of the steps. Links between preceding and/or subsequent learning outcomes are highlighted within gateways in order to show the interlinking nature of knowledge and skills and their operationalisation within components of practice, as well as to assist the teacher’s pedagogical practices. For example, in the ‘Thankyou Cards’ unit (Harwood & Compton 2000a), students needed to be able to identify inputs, outputs and sequenced steps (knowledge learning outcome 1) before they were able to design a production line to manufacture their chosen card design (component of practice learning outcome 2). Examples of gateways and their links are provided in the unit outline of the delivered Thankyou Cards unit shown in Figure 2. Student analysis of technological practice The TAF encourages students to undertake a reflective end-point analysis that we refer to as ‘Student Analysis of their Technological Practice’ (See Figure 1). From this analysis, further information can be gathered which can serve to substantiate the level of attainment of the learning outcomes. This student analysis should be used to inform the teacher’s exit point judgment (see below for further explanation of exit point judgments), as well as provide feedback on the teacher’s practice and that of the learning community. Such a reflective end-point analysis provides students with a sense of closure, and a direct link to their future technological undertakings – thus also fulfilling a formative role. The following example is provided from an extract of student data taken from a case study (Harwood & Compton 2000b) developed around a secondary school unit focused on developing year 11 students’ (14, 15 and 16 year olds), overall technological practice. The technology unit provided a context where students developed puppets to use to tell a story. The student communicated the following as part of her selfanalysis: I chose to create a horse puppet, because I am familiar with the movement and bone structure of horses. My passion is with horses both in riding and theory. Initially I had trouble understanding how to write a plan of action, as I was totally unfamiliar with
18
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD the technology process, the making and the using of the machines and different materials. I had to spend extra time learning new skills that many of the rest of the class already had. This was important for my success in this unit and my teacher negotiated an additional learning outcome to recognise this part of my learning. I knew I wanted my horse to have a lot of joints, to make it more realistic. My research on existing puppets showed how I could use the minimum joints for movement so I based my ideas on these. I spent a great deal of time deciding how to make the leg joints without breaking them. I discovered the grain of wood was important to create the strength needed in the leg. I also discovered the placement of the pivot was very important to get the maximum movement in all joints. Also the joint shape needed to be circular for the joints to flow freely. In making the head, legs and body I used two different woods, ply and pine, the pine was used in the ‘middle of the sandwich’. I discovered that finishing, sanding and varnishing were important stages and needed a great deal of work. The horse had to be completely dismantled in order to do this. During varnishing I had to be careful not to cover over the holes. Adding the extra features was the most rewarding part for my puppet really took on a character. Placing the string was straight forward as my research had shown me exactly where I needed to attach strings to balance the puppet’s mass. I allowed the legs to freely move and I am delighted with the final product. I am pleased with the realistic impression that the puppet gives when it is being manipulated plus the overall look and finish, especially as I had no experience with this type of technology before. In the next unit we are making a book and I can see how what I learnt through my puppet development will help me especially the way my research, planning and experimenting needs to link together better. (Harwood & Compton 2000b)
Providing an opportunity for analysis reflects the critical role students’ perspectives can play in the development of a technology education learning community. Interpretations made from the perspectives of teachers alone will by nature be partial. It is therefore important to provide spaces for all participant ‘voices’ to be heard and validated through inclusion in the interpretative framework from which descriptions of learning are reported. The level of reliability of resultant accounts will depend on the level of shared understandings within the learning community, as well as the understandings of any ‘audience’ outside the learning community to whom these descriptions may be reported. Exit point judgments Student reflection, self-assessment, and their ongoing documentation, interactions and evaluations during their practice, often provide the opportunity for students to enhance their learning with regard to earlier learning outcomes in the unit. It is important therefore, that a final judgment of attainment of specific learning outcomes is not limited to the evidence exhibited at the point of the student and teacher moving on to another learning outcome focus. Rather, such exit point judgments must reflect all of the
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
19
learning that has occurred up to the exit point of the unit. In order to determine this learning, teachers must revisit earlier judgements made as part of their formative interactions with the student and be prepared to acknowledge and validate subsequent learning that may have occurred. The following example is an extract of student data from a case study (Harwood & Compton 2000b) developed around a secondary school unit focused on developing year 11 students’ (14, 15 and 16 year olds), overall technological practice. This technology unit provided opportunities to explore and develop a secure carrier for items to meet the need of a selected person. A predetermined ‘planning for practice’ learning outcome required that students demonstrate ability to develop a ‘plan of action’. The initial evidence exhibited by one student is provided below in Figure 3. The initial plan of action as shown in Figure 3, was judged by the teacher to show sufficient understanding of planning for the student to move on successfully in her practice. As the unit continued the student continually refined and modified her planning throughout her practice. By the time she had developed her outcome, her planning ability had progressed significantly as demonstrated through her actions and in her documentation. An example of some of the evidence she exhibited in terms of planning is provided from an extract taken from her documentation as shown below in Figure 4. As can be seen by comparing Figures 3 and 4, this student’s final record of her planning at the end of the unit was very detailed and provided
Figure 3. Initial ‘plan of action’ (Harwood & Compton 2000b).
20
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
Figure 4. Example of part of the students ‘Plan of Action’ at completion of the unit (Harwood & Compton 2000b).
evidence of critical reflection and ongoing evaluations that informed her subsequent planning. Making a judgment in terms of the initial plan was important for the teacher to ensure the student had achieved a good enough understanding of planning for practice to move on successfully. It also allowed the teacher to undertake formative interactions that would further
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
21
support the student’s learning both in terms of planning and the directions the student indicated her practice would proceed in as outlined in the initial plan. However, basing an exit point judgment on the initial evidence of planning obviously would not have captured the full extent of this student’s achievement in terms of this learning outcome. Hence, the initial judgment made by the teacher should not stand as a summative judgment in itself, but rather provide information towards a summative judgment. This notion of exit point judgements has particular significance to, and implications for, programmes where credentialing for qualifications is a factor and summative ‘marks’ for particular learning outcomes are often assigned for work completed during practice and are totalled without revision at the end of the programme. Overall statement of student technological practice The ‘Overall statement of student technological practice’ (See Figure 1), is a descriptive statement of a students’ ability to undertake technological practice. Details of summative judgments on student’s learning against individual learning outcomes may or may not be recorded separately, as dependant upon reporting requirements and formats. However, the exit point judgments on student attainment of learning outcomes should inform this statement of technological practice. This statement should therefore reflect the judgments made on the student’s progress in terms of the learning outcomes, as well as other information relevant to the student’s practice. It may include such information as unexpected learning, teacher/student absenteeism, resource availability etc. The overall statement should provide direction and guidance to the student and future teachers in terms of how this student’s practice could be enhanced. The following example is an extract of teacher data taken from the same ‘Secure Carrier’ case study as outlined above (Harwood & Compton 2000b) but refers to a different student to that identified in Figures 3 and 4. The extract provides an example of a teacher’s overall statement of a student’s technological practice, and the teacher’s suggestions for how she could be supported in the future. (Please note, the original text contained the student’s name – this has been replaced with ‘the student’) (The student’s) learning in Technology during this unit was significant, particularly in the area of determining the specific needs of a consumer and negotiating these into specifications for a design brief. She documented the practice that she followed post her design decisions and validated these as being relevant to her practice with notation. This meant that many of the decisions she made based on testing and evaluation of mockups, and records of discussions held during negotiations with the consumer, were not recorded in detail. These were rather evidenced in terms of the outcome only. This therefore made it difficult for others to understand and interact with the rationale for the decisions she made. (The student’s) prioritising of her identified ‘key factors’ was not evident until they were transposed into specifications. She however was able to justify to the teacher those factors
22
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD that she deemed important and how they would or may potentially influence her future design decisions. Obtaining feedback from people (20 females) who where not direct benefactors of her outcome, provided (the student) with a very good indicator of how people outside of this development would accept or reject the final outcome. It also provided the consumer with confidence that the factors that she was valuing as being important in her outcome were going to be socially acceptable. (The student’s) initial ‘plan of action’ provided a framework for her future practice. Details were placed on this framework, as her technological practice became more apparent. The student found predicting the required actions to manufacture the bag with its enclosed security alarm far easier than defining the specifications of the brief. These being based on predicting the actions that would ensure that her consumers’ needs/desires were met. During the manufacture of her bag (the student) continued to test and refine her design ideas through the use of mockups, and the evaluations undertaken by both herself and her consumer. Both (the student) and consumer evaluated her final bag. Her consumer noted that she thought the bag had all the design features she desired, and felt its audible alarm system functioned reliably and as she expected it should. She also stated that she would be proud to be seen carrying it. (The student) evaluated the prototype against the design brief specifications and indicated that she felt that it met all of the specifications, except that it did not stop all of the contents from falling out if tipped upside down. The bag was manufactured to high craft standards within the acceptable codes of relevant safety and school practices. Future Needs (The student) needs to present initial design decisions that determine the practice she follows. These do not need to be presented as works of art but do need to contain justifications for the decisions she is making. Establishing those factors that contribute to people’s preferences (e.g. ethnic background, cultural beliefs) would assist (the student) to gain a fuller understanding of why people prioritise ‘key factors’ the way they do. This would assist her in establishing those specifications that are essential and those that are desired for a brief when working with a client. (Harwood & Compton 2000b)
Whilst the above statement provides an indication of the general type of information we would expect to see in the description of student learning in technology, this is an area that is still under considerable development. The work we are currently carrying out in the area of establishing indicators of progression for each component of practice (Compton and Harwood in progress), will greatly enhance the ability of the teacher to write overall statements that will communicate the level at which the student is currently practicing. Once level indicators of progression for each component of practice have been established a greater shared understanding both within and between learning communities will be possible. This will enable students and teachers to be involved in more focused formative interactions around component of practice learning outcomes as both parties have a clearer more robust understanding of the nature of the progression they are working toward. Early trialing of draft indicators has already confirmed the usefulness of these indicators for use in such interactions (Compton and Harwood in progress). The level indicators will also enable teachers nationwide to make more consistent judgments and provide more
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
23
specific guidance as to the types of learning experiences that would allow students to progress further towards developing higher levels of a liberating technological literacy.
IN CONCLUSION
This paper has provided an account of the TAF as a direct attempt to mediate the translation of technology education into New Zealand technology classroom practice. Technology education in New Zealand has been theorised within a sociocultural stance and linked to learning theories in keeping with this. However, specific research into the practicalities of adopting such a stance in terms of technology education in New Zealand classrooms is in its infancy. Much of the work has remained at a general level of theory rather than exploring the implications of taking a sociocultural stance into classrooms where the underpinning pedagogy and philosophies are at best based on constructivist learning theories, or still centre on more behaviourist learning theories. The views of knowledge and learning within such classrooms are therefore not in keeping with the sociocultural nature of Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995). In recognition of this, the initial focus of our research was on allowing for the development of classroom programmes supportive of progressing students’ technological practice across technological areas and contexts. Case study material developed from trials using the TAF have validated its use in supporting such progression both within units and between subsequent units in technology programmes at primary, intermediate and secondary schools (Harwood & Compton 2001a; Harwood & Compton 2001b; Ministry of Education in progress). The TAF has also been shown to be effective in supporting the ongoing development of technological practice (and technological pedagogical practice) within inservice teacher professional development programmes, as well as for student teachers in preservice teacher education programmes (Harwood & Compton 2001a; Ministry of Education, in progress). We therefore suggest the TAF is an effective organisational tool for use across all sectors of technology education. It provides the potential to shift the nature of technology learning communities towards those more reflective of a sociocultural stance and theories of learning through participation (Lave & Wenger 1991). As a mediating tool in the translation of technology education theory into classroom practice it may be seen as allowing for the enhancement of technological literacy – the stated aim of the New Zealand technology curriculum. With a strong focus on undertaking practice, and critically analysing both one’s own and others’ technological practices across a range of discourses, the TAF also offers the potential for this literacy to become liberating in nature. However, if this potential is to be realised, there is still much work to be done within New Zealand’s emergent technology subject subculture.
24
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the financial support of the New Zealand Ministry of Education for the TEALS 1999, TEALS 2000 and TEANPD 2000 contracts. We thank our research teachers and their students for the critical role they have played in the development of the TAF. The teachers’ willingness to allow us into their classrooms is only a small component of this. Their enthusiasm to debate ideas and trial a range of practices was one of our most valuable assets, along with their own, and their students’ honest evaluations of the trials. We thank our friend and colleague, Ann Northover, whose insightful questions helped us to refine and explain the thinking behind our work. We thank Professor John Gilbert for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We also would like to thank Dr Bev France and Garry Falloon for their comments on latter drafts of this paper and their ongoing interest and support of our work.
NOTES 1. The nature of Technology Education in New Zealand has been described in detail in our own and others’ earlier work – please refer to Compton 1997; Compton 2001; Compton & Harwood 1999a; Compton & Harwood 1999b; Compton & Jones 1998; France 1997; Jones 1995; Jones 1998; Jones & Compton 1998; Jones, Mather & Carr 1994; Ministry of Education 1995. 2. Further explanation of components of practice and their potential role in providing indicators of progression in technology is the focus of our current work – Compton and Harwood in progress. 3. A Taonga is a common New Zealand term of Maori origin, referring to a precious object with identifiable significance – the closest English equivalent is ‘treasure’ although this does not capture the full depth of word particularly in terms of the level of ‘significance’.
REFERENCES Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology: 1991, ‘The Final Report to the A.P.U. Design and Technology Project 1885–1991’, School Examinations and Assessment Council Nottinghill Gate London. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P.: 1989, ‘Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning’, Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–41. Burns, J.: 1997, ‘Implementing the Technology Curriculum: Promise and Prospect’, Paper presented at the inaugural Technology Education in New Zealand (TENZ) conference. Christchurch, October 1997. Compton V. J.: 1997, ‘Implementing Technology Education in New Zealand Schools’, in J. Burns (ed.), Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum – Perspectives on Practice, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North. Compton V. J.: 2001, ‘Developments in Technology Education in New Zealand 1993–1995: An Analysis of the Reflections of Key Participants’, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
ENHANCING TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICE
25
Compton, V. J. & Harwood, C. D.: 1999a, ‘TEALS Research Project: Starting Points and Future Directions’, Paper presented at the 2nd TENZ Conference, Auckland New Zealand, 14–16 April 1999. Compton, V. J. & Harwood, C. D.: 1999b, ‘TEALS Research Project: From Directions to Classroom Practice’, Paper presented at the 30th Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference (ASERA), Rotorua, New Zealand: 8–11th July 1999. Compton, V. J. & Jones, A. T.: 1998, ‘Reflecting on Teacher Development in Technology Education: Implications for Future Programmes’, International Journal of Design and Technology Education 8(2), 151–166. Davies, J.: 1998, ‘Constructing Technology Education: Questions of Purpose and Fit’, New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 119–146. France, B. J.: 1997, ‘Realising the Technology Curriculum: Professional Development in Biotechnology Education’, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Centre for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato: Hamilton. Gipps, C.: 1999, ‘Socio-cultural Aspects of Assessment’, Review of Research in Education 24 (September). Goodson, I. F.: 1985, ‘Subjects for Study’, in I. F. Goodson (ed.), Social Histories of the Secondary Curriculum, Falmer Press, Lewes. Harwood, C. D. & Compton, V. J.: 2000a, ‘Milestone Two’ of Ministry of Education professional development contract – Technology Education Assessment national professional development (TEAN PD 2000). Joint contract between Centre for Educational Development, Massey University, Palmerston North and Auckland College of Education, Auckland. Harwood, C. D. & Compton, V. J.: 2000b, ‘Milestone Six’ of Ministry of Education Research Project – Technology Education Assessment in Lower Secondary (TEALS 2000). Joint contract between Centre for Educational Development, Massey University, Palmerston North and Auckland College of Education, Auckland. Hattie J. & Jaeger, R.: 1998, ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning: A Deductive Approach’, Assessment in Education 5(1), 111–122. Jones, A. T.: 1995, ‘Technology Education in the New Zealand Curriculum: From Policy to Curriculum’, in SAMEpapers 95, Centre for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato: Hamilton. Jones, A. T.: 1998, ‘The Development of Technology Education in New Zealand’, The Technology Teacher 58(3), 13–18. Jones, A. T.: 2001, ‘Researching and Enhancing Teacher and Student Technological Literacy’, NARST symposium 25–28 March 2001. Jones, A. T. & Compton, V. J.: 1998, ‘Towards a Model for Teacher Development in Technology Education: From Research to Practice’, International Journal of Design and Technology Education 8(1), 51–65. Jones, A. T., Mather V. J. & Carr, M. D.: 1994, Issues in the Practice of Technology Education, Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato: Hamilton. Lave, J.: 1993, ‘The Practice of Learning’, in S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives of Activity and Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lave, J. & Wenger, E.: 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Mather, V. J.: 1994, ‘Students’ Concepts of Technology and Technology Education: Implications for Practice’, Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Waikato, Hamilton. Ministry of Education: 1995, Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Learning Media, Wellington. Ministry of Education: 2001, ‘NCEA Detailed Explanatory Notes for Level One Technology Achievement Standards. New Zealand Ministry of Education Website 2001. URL http://minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl4271_vl/tech%20Level%201%20Ex%20notes. PDF. Paechter, C.: 1991, ‘Subject Subcultures and the Negotiation of Open Work: Conflict and Co-
26
VICKI COMPTON AND CLIFF HARWOOD
operation in Cross-curricular Course Work’, Paper presented to the St Hilda’s Conference, Education and Qualitative Research: Teaching, Learning and educational Change. Warwick University, 1991. Rogoff, B.: 1991, Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Roth, W.: 1998, Designing Communities, Science and Technology Education Libraries, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Russell, J.: 2001, ‘Enabling Learning: School Leadership at Work’, Keynote Address, Annual Conference of the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand. Wellington, 25–29 March 2001. Sadler, R.: 1989, ‘Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems’, Instructional Science 18, 119–144. Shield, G.: 1996, ‘Formative Influences on Technology Education: The Search for an Effective Compromise in Curriculum Innovation’, Journal of Technology Education 8(1), 50–60. Thompson, E.: 1990, ‘Promoting Individuality and Originality’, in L. Tickle (ed.), Design and Technology in Primary Classrooms, Falmer Press, London. Wertsch, J. V.: 1991, Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
