International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 121–140, 2004. 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Technology ALISTER JONES and JUDY MORELAND Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, PB 3105 Hamilton, New Zealand (E-mail:
[email protected]) ABSTRACT: This paper describes the frameworks and cognitive tools that have been developed to enhance practising teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in primary school technology education. The frameworks evolved from our research that firstly examined existing teaching practices, secondly enhanced formative interactions and thirdly enhanced summative assessment strategies. The evidence gained over the three years demonstrated how the effective use of frameworks could be utilised to enhance teacher pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). How we see learning is of prime importance in examining the development of teacher pedagogical content knowledge. A sociocultural view of learning is taken where human mental processes are situated within their historical, cultural and institutional setting. In the research project we strongly emphasised the need for teachers to build a knowledge base for teaching technology. Critical aspects identified as enhancing PCK included: negotiated intervention, planning frameworks, reflection on case studies, workshops and support in classrooms, appropriate resources, teacher agreement meetings, portfolios of student work and summative profiles. The increased PCK resulted in: enhanced teacher knowledge about technology including the nature of technology, areas of technology and specific technological knowledge, changed pedagogical approaches, enhanced teacher student interaction, refinement of appropriate learning outcomes, critical decision making, improved teacher confidence, and enhanced student learning. Seven characteristics or features of pedagogical content knowledge that we believe are important for effective teaching and learning in technology are presented. Keywords: learning, primary schools, teacher knowledge, technology
BACKGROUND
Technology education was mandated as one of the seven essential learning areas in New Zealand schools in 1999. All students are involved with technology education from years one to ten. The development, structure and intent of the technology education curriculum are discussed in Jones (2003). This paper describes the frameworks and cognitive tools that have been developed over a three-year period to enhance practising teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in primary school technology education. The frameworks evolved from our research that firstly examined existing teaching practices (Moreland & Jones 2000), secondly enhanced formative interactions and thirdly enhanced summative assessment strategies. This research involved 18 primary teachers in 5 schools, as well as two principals, over the three years. Three of the year 1–6 schools were in a city, one year 1–6 school was rural and one year 7–10 school was in a small town. Teachers’ professional development experiences in technology education ranged from minimal to moderate. The classroom studies were
122
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
undertaken in year 1–8 classrooms and a case study approach was utilised to gain an in-depth understanding of classroom practices in technology. Several different methods of data collection were used including classroom and workshop observations, field notes, individual and group interviews (both teachers and students), teacher written documentation, and student work. The classroom observations allowed for the general context of the environment to be explored as well as the variety of influences that might be affecting student performance in the technology tasks. Individual and group interviews provided an opportunity to explore student interaction with the tasks throughout the process. Group interviews were valuable since many of the students worked collaboratively. The teacher observation and comment of student work allowed for further consideration of the context, and the teacher’s views of their teaching and student performance. An analysis of student outcomes was undertaken to assess student performance. The classroom discussions between the teacher and students and the students themselves were taped and analysed. Students’ written work and teachers’ written material, including planning and assessment, were collected and analysed. The classroom involvement was extensive involving nearly 700 hundred hours of contact time. How we see learning is of prime importance in examining ways to enhance children’s learning and achievement. This research project is based on a sociocultural view of learning where human mental processes are situated within their historical, cultural and institutional setting (Wertsch 1991), and where learning is a form of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown Collins & Duguid 1989). Technology is essentially an activity that involves not just the social context, but also the physical context, with thinking being associated with and structured by the objects and tools of action. This then means that cognitive processes will differ according to the domain of thinking and the specifics of the task context and that learning is a process of enculturation into that domain through participation in shared activities. Rogoff (1990) highlights three forms of participation corresponding respectively to personal, interpersonal and community processes that is participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. There is also an intimate connection between knowing and doing (Brown Collins & Duguid 1989). Technology education is concerned with developing student technological literacy through the exploration and solving of complex and interrelated technological problems that involve multiple conceptual, procedural, societal and technical variables (Jones 1997). Part of technology assessment must be to provide evidence of progression to show that learning has occurred, and to what extent. Progression in technology is defined in three aspects. These are: • the nature of technology; • dimensions of student technological practice, including the increasing complexity and sophistication of the operationalisation of conceptual, procedural, societal and technical variables in the student activity;
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
123
• generic1 and specific2 conceptual, procedural, societal and technical dimensions. Teaching, learning and assessment strategies therefore need to be consistent with these dimensions. The constructs of the dimensions of student technological practice are derived from the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical variables.
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Teacher knowledge The construction of a knowledge base for teachers is pivotal for effective technology teaching and for expecting teachers to add technology education to the learning areas that they are required to teach. Shulman (1987) strongly emphasises the need for teachers to build a knowledge base for teaching. He suggests that teaching begin with an understanding of what is to be learned and what is to be taught. His framework includes knowledge of content, general pedagogy, curriculum, pedagogy content, learners, educational contexts and educational ends. Pedagogical content knowledge is acknowledged as important as it identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. A blending of content and pedagogy represents how particular topics are organised for learners. For a new curriculum area such as technology, this presents particular challenges for teachers as they search to construct a coherent, technological content base and appropriate assessment practices. Formative interactions with students become distorted if there is a lack of subject knowledge and its construction. Teachers’ understanding of the nature and purpose of the discipline strongly influences their personal pedagogical content knowledge i.e. what they highlight as important. Subjects taught in schools are a representation of that subject rather than the subject itself. The nature of the subject or discipline from a socio cultural perspective will include also the ways of knowing and knowledge generation. Stetsenko and Arievitch (2002) describe the seminal work of Piotr Gal’perin, one of Vygotsky’s students and colleagues, who argued in essence that the teacher must organize their work around the most abstract and coherent principles that characterize a particular domain of knowledge. These principles are the core conceptual tools, the internalisation of which enables students to think powerfully about a whole range of phenomena. This means that the teachers need to have a sense of what the nature of the discipline is and its organising concepts as well as its tools. This includes also cultural notions of language concepts and the mediation of tools and frameworks. Therefore to be effective in technology, teachers will need to develop three dimensions of knowledge. These are knowledge about technology, knowledge in technology and general technological pedagogical knowledge (Moreland & Jones 2000).
124
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
Effective teaching Brophy and Good (1985) indicate that students learn best when teachers spend most of their time focusing on content, with learning activities focused on the learner level of understanding, appropriately moving forward, with well structured and presented material. The student learns more effectively when the teacher structures new information, relating it to prior knowledge of the learner, monitoring the learning and providing effective feedback. In thinking about pedagogy it is useful to think about what makes a good teacher. A number of empirical studies highlight characteristics of effective teaching (for example, Gipps 1999; Porter & Brophy 1988; Wragg, Wragg, Hayes & Chamberlain 1998). Common to all these studies and commentaries are: having a broad understanding of curriculum aims and objectives; having a wide range of pedagogical strategies; having high expectations of all students; knowing their students well; providing effective feedback; recognizing student success; having sound content knowledge of the subject and understanding what it means to progress. Harlen and James (1997) comment that teachers cannot provide experiences and activities that guide student progress towards understanding ideas if they themselves do not know what the ideas are. If teachers have generally sound pedagogical skills they rely on these to carry them through difficult aspects of the subjects they teach but this can limit student learning in the area. Duschl and Gitomer (1997) also declare that successful facilitation of student-teacher conversations requires a reasonable grasp of the subject matter being explored. Teachers also need to develop a clear sense of the conceptual terrain they are exploring and will also need to have a pedagogical sense of the likely understandings the students will bring to a domain. With sufficient content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers can respond to students productively. Socio-cultural theory would suggest that knowledge emerges through social and cultural activity during community participation (Dalton & Tharp 2002), including the cultural tools. In teaching and learning situations development and learning proceed best when assistance is provided that permits a learner to perform at a level higher than would be possible if they worked alone. When experts and novices work together for a common product or goal and have opportunities to converse about the activity, effective learning is a more likely outcome. One critical feature is applying that knowledge in productive action with others (Boaler 1999). Only if the teacher is also present and engaged in activities sufficiently to share the experiences will there be sustained and intensive interaction that maximizes development (Dalton & Tharp 2002). Teacher interactions Black (1998) writes of the necessity for teachers to be able to make decisions on what to assess and how to interpret student work in terms of a need that might require attention. The practice of formative assessment has to
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
125
be informed by a model that is quite detailed, in that it has to provide some guidance about the ways in which a pupil might progress in learning, linked to a clear conception of the curriculum and its learning goals (Black 1998, p. 26). Teacher feedback is a key element to effective formative interactions and is usually defined in terms of information that gives the learner the opportunity to see how well they are doing or have done (Sadler 1989). Students have been shown to benefit from feedback that identifies both the strengths and weaknesses of their work, enabling them to take control of their own learning. The cueing effect of feedback on students can not be underestimated (Black & Wiliam 1998). Teacher feedback is often focussed on praise and promotion of social and managerial aspects of tasks (Mavrommatis 1997; Butler 1987). This results in drawing student attention away from the task and may have a negative effect on learning. Sadler (1998) makes the point that the more complex the learning situation, the more sophisticated the feedback needs to be. Thus in technology education, where progression in learning may be thought to consist of dealing with a greater number and a more complex array of variables, the development of sophisticated feedback skills by teachers is critical to the enhancement of student learning in technology. Effective formative interactions are thus dependent on informed assessors who are able to interpret observations and student outcomes, and consequently act upon the interpretation to enhance student learning. In building up a comprehensive and holistic picture of student progress in technology several strategies will need to be adopted. Teaching and assessment strategies need to be focussed and detailed, and yet able to be conducted on a day-to-day basis as part of normal classroom routines (Blenkin 1992).
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING TEACHING PRACTICE AND STUDENT LEARNING
In 1998, the teachers (12, later increased to 18) had developed reasonably consistent concepts of technology and they demonstrated a sound understanding of primary school pedagogical knowledge (years 1–6). Analysis showed that these were very effective teachers in other curriculum areas. However, a sophisticated, complex technological knowledge base from which to teach technology had yet to develop. Though teachers were able to identify suitable technological tasks for their students they had difficulty identifying suitable technological learning outcomes and associated technological knowledge. All teachers viewed technology as a subject requiring the practical involvement of students, so many of the student tasks were design, make and appraise centred. With the focus on tasks it became almost impossible for teachers to provide feedback to enhance student performance at the conceptual and procedural level. Whether students had completed the task was the basis for assessment. This resulted in teachers having difficulties making statements about student learning that were useful for future teaching and learning.
126
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
A further consequence of the difficulty in identifying the procedural and conceptual technological learning outcomes of the tasks was that teacher-student interactions were frequently praise-based and related to task completion, rather than related to enhancing students’ technological understanding. This lack of critique of student understanding meant that detailed guidance for ongoing work was minimal. When all attempts were accepted without discrimination, students were not required to reflect on their work in terms of whether they had met the objectives of the task, or how well the objectives had been met, or what they might do next. The opportunities to build on relevant conceptual, procedural and societal technological aspects were lost. The teachers’ had common understandings of teamwork, leadership, turn-taking, discussing, depicting ideas, gathering information, describing, reflecting, etc., and these common understandings of social and managerial skills became the focus of assessment in technology (Moreland & Jones 2000). INTERVENTION FOR ENHANCING TEACHERS PCK AND CLASSROOM PRACTICE
In 1999 and 2000 the following strategies were used to assist teachers to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge in technology: • reflecting on case studies of their own and others’ classroom practice; • using a planning framework; • negotiating interventions in the classroom; • involvement in workshops; • providing classroom support; • involvement in teacher agreement meetings; • using student portfolios; and, • summative profiling. Case studies The outcomes of the 1998 work were presented to the teachers in the form of case studies both of their own classroom and those of the other teachers. The detailed analysis of their teaching practice assisted in highlighting some prominent issues in teaching, learning and assessment in technology. From the case study evidence and their own reflection the teachers saw the need to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge so as to enhance the formative interactions to ensure quality learning in technology. From this 1998 background, it was decided to focus the intervention on moving the teachers away from thinking about technology as a series of tasks and defined solely by the broad curriculum achievement objectives. The intervention centred on developing planning strategies that compelled teachers to articulate intended learning outcomes in concise technological terms. We wanted the teachers to think in terms of the task as whole rather than isolated aspects of a task. We wanted to help teachers explore, talk and think about the comprehensive nature of the tasks. Teachers’ difficul-
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
127
ties with planning and teaching arose from a lack of understanding of significant underlying concepts and procedures. Planning format The development of a planning format was directly related to our 1998 research and teachers’ identification of the importance of developing a more detailed, complex and sophisticated knowledge base in the different technological areas. As Bennett (1997) states the quality of classroom practice can be improved by enhancing the quality of teacher thinking, which in turn spotlights the crucial importance of the planning or pre-active stage of teaching. We were endeavouring to provide the means for teachers to begin to develop a mental framework for making decisions about what needs to be included when teaching technology. By undergoing a process of articulating concise intended learning outcomes, the teachers were able to deduce what they personally needed to know to teach technology, as well as providing a guide for clearly defining student learning goals. Technology education is concerned with complex and interrelated problems that involve multiple conceptual, procedural, societal and technical variables (Jones 1997). The research team therefore devised a planning format (see Figure 1) that had the following features: specific task definition, overall dimensions of technology (eg knowledge, capability and societal) and specific learning outcomes in terms of technological concepts, procedures, societal aspects, and technical skills. The planning format was based on a framework that included five domains. The five domains being: • conceptual – knowledge and understanding of relevant technological concepts and procedures; • procedural – knowing how to do something, what to do and when to do it; • societal – aspects related to the interrelationship between technology and groups of people; • technical – skills related to manual/practical techniques; and
Figure 1. Planning for learning and assessment in technology.
128
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
• the operationalisation of the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspects in student technological practice – integrating all four domains in undertaking and completing the technology task. With students working across the five domains the development of student technological literacy is enhanced. All five domains are critical in assisting teachers to provide a comprehensive and balanced approach to teaching technology. Completion of the planning format requires an iteration process between task definition, dimensions of technology and specific conceptual, procedural and societal aspects in technology. Negotiation The change strategy used by the researchers with the teachers was that of negotiated intervention (Jones & Simon 1991). This was used to gradually move teachers from existing practice to a new negotiated position. The intervention programme was designed to provide intensive workshops followed by opportunities for classroom practice with the research team providing feedback on the teachers’ developing classroom practice. This provided the teachers with the opportunities to build stronger foundations for enhancing their teaching of technology. Workshops Workshops were spread throughout the school year with intervening classroom practice opportunities. Each workshop and intervening practice in the classroom was used as a stepping-stone to the next phase. On-going facilitation provided vital support during the workshops and once teachers had returned to their classrooms. The features of the intervention were as follows: increased precision in thinking about progression; stronger links between detailed learning outcomes and technological practice; overall judgements more reflective of the dimensions of technology; and, the iteration between task definition, dimensions of technology and specific conceptual, procedural and societal aspects in technology. The final workshops, held at the end of each school year, had a reflective focus with teachers sharing and evaluating both their classroom’ teaching programmes and student learning. As well, research teachers attempted to identify the key elements of guidance for other teachers in planning, teaching and assessing technology in primary school classrooms. Work in classrooms In working in classrooms the research team needed to continually stress to the teachers the need to identify and focus on the articulation of specific learning goals. The teachers required continuing advice and direction related to this identification and articulation. The research team provided support material, demonstration of suitable learning outcomes and clear instruction about the desired outcomes. Appropriate learning outcomes were made
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
129
known to the teachers on an ongoing basis. This continual insistence by the research team on the identification of learning outcomes, in both workshops and the classroom, compelled the teachers to move away from thinking about technology just in terms of suitable activities for their students. The struggle teachers demonstrated meant that support strategies became a crucial feature of the research and development. One-to-one, ongoing support in the classroom and the collaborative atmosphere built during the workshops were important. When the teachers’ foundations on which they had come to rely for teaching technology were shaken, when doubt became a companion and when feelings of uncertainty surfaced, it was crucial that the research team was understanding, supportive and appreciative of the efforts that the teachers were making. Also of significance was the support that the teachers gave each other, during both workshop sessions and in schools. The teachers’ commitment to the research was a key factor, as was their unfaltering enthusiasm for the project. Teacher agreement meetings The frameworks that were developed enhanced teacher communication related to student achievement in technology. These frameworks formed the basis of teacher agreement meetings. Teacher agreement meetings allowed teachers to reach close consensus about the student work in technology. This agreement was based on an overall judgement and backed up by detailed information related to the specific learning outcomes in the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical domains. The smooth process of reaching teacher consensus can be attributed to increased teacher knowledge. Increased teacher knowledge has resulted in increasingly skilled delivery of technology education programmes based on clearly identified learning outcomes, increasingly comprehensive shared concepts of learning in technology education, enhanced formative interactions and more sophisticated summative practices. In their written evaluations the teachers acknowledged how the agreement meetings assisted their developing notions of progression which would be further enhanced by more experiences in data gathering and interpretation, especially as they now had clearer ideas about gathering useful sets of work (individual portfolios) for summative judgements. Some of the comments were: Teacher agreement meetings are easier when we have ‘shared language’ and understanding. Teacher agreement meetings were very focused and useful for making us justify our choices. Understand what we need to be aware of.
These quotes demonstrate the crucial planning role that teacher agreement meetings play particularly when these meetings use the assessment frameworks as a base, in enhancing teacher knowledge in technology and subsequent summative assessment.
130
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
Portfolios Portfolios were an essential feature of the teacher agreement meetings and were used for different purposes. An individual portfolio, for example, served a different purpose from a class, school, or exemplar portfolio. Portfolios were used to show progress of learning within or across topics, and were useful for assisting teachers to talk about a range of student work. Class portfolios were used as tools for assisting teachers to make judgements about where students are placed and where they might take them. Common to all portfolios was that they: • were informed by the planning and summative assessment frameworks; • included learning outcomes; • included relevant student and teacher commentary; • included samples of work to back up commentary as well as further analysis; • were meaningful to those readers for whom they are intended; • contributed to accountability requirements. Portfolios showed teachers what students were capable of and provided further teacher knowledge of student performance in technology. Summative profiles The frameworks that have been developed for extending teacher technological knowledge as a means to enhance formative interactions also informed the summative assessments. A holistic profile seemed a useful way of summatively recording information related to dimensions of technology (Moreland, Jones & Chambers 2000). The summative assessment profile sheet included: • Task definition; • Overall statement related to the dimensions of technology; • Graphing of conceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspects related to the ways in which these have been incorporated into the outcome; • Generic and specific graphs, generic defined as those aspects common to more than one technological area and specific defined as particular to one technological area; • Attitudes; and, • Where to next. In their written evaluations the teachers were unanimously positive about use of the new frameworks to plan for summative assessment, and to graph students in overall conceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspects as well as in generic and specific aspects of technology education. Many commented that it helped them to visualise important aspects of technology assessment, for example: Allow one to be more focussed (and to) focus upon what is needed to be taught. Concise and well thought through.
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
131
TEACHER CHANGE
Teacher change in enhanced pedagogical content knowledge was noticeable where teachers moved from using general concepts about technology to more specific concepts within different technological areas. For the first time teachers were able to identify the specific technological learning goals they wished to assess. The teachers’ developing conceptual and procedural knowledge enabled them to write specific learning goals, and they began to move with more confidence between the global dimensions of the nature of technology and the specific technological learning outcomes. • Task selection The teachers were able to choose more suitable tasks that had the potential to develop student learning in technology. The shift in focus from providing a technology experience to providing opportunities for students to develop particular technological learning outcomes was significant. By investigating a wide range of learning outcome possibilities and then selecting particular learning outcomes teachers pursued a more appropriate approach to technological learning. They became focussed on the technological learning of their students. Teachers were also increasingly cognisant of unexpected and negotiated learning outcomes and were better prepared to allow students to pursue such outcomes. • Enhanced formative interaction Teachers demonstrated greater confidence with formative interactions, particularly in relation to providing appropriate technology feedback to the learners. Considered direction was given where deemed appropriate, which led to more considered and purposeful interactions. Not only was there more emphasis on providing feedback and assistance to students to develop particular technical skills, there was also more emphasis on conceptual and procedural aspects rather than social and managerial aspects. Additionally there was less emphasis on praise as the sole formative interaction and more emphasis on assisting students to move on, to reflect, and to assess their own progress. As one teacher commented: I’ve become a lot more focused and specific, moving on to actually telling kids why we are doing things. Those flow diagrams were really important and saying well this is the reason why we are doing this and moving on. The idea that you do share where you’re doing and why you’re doing this and feeding them information, instead of actually waiting for them to discover. It’s impacted on my other teaching in that I am a lot more upfront with what I want the kids to do . . . and a lot more specific about what they should be looking for, instead of making them discover on their own.
• Use of the format The framework that was developed in the project had a key role in enhancing the teachers’ planning and classroom strategies. An example of ways in
132
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
which the format enhanced the detailed planning of the teachers is shown in Table I. In 1998, this teacher defined the learning outcomes in terms of the TABLE I A comparison of 1998 planning with 1999 planning 1998: Time measuring devices
1999: Hand-held home technology for Arthritis sufferers Key aspects of technological practice: • Investigate and describe the use and operation of home technologies by sufferers of arthritis focussing on ergonomics; • Explore and modify existing technical aids for arthritis sufferers through drawing; • Identify the positive and negative effects of existing, modified and adapted technologies for arthritic sufferers
Technological knowledge: • Investigate and describe the use and operation of time measuring devices
Conceptual: • Explore and understand what is technology • Understand that interview schedules, surveys and open questioning are methods of collecting information • Understand ergonomics-the need for the product to fit the user • Understand the use of and drawing of exploded diagrams • Understand that modified, adapted and fail-safe are technical terms
Technological capability: • Prepare a plan of action for creating specific time measuring devices • Collect resources and produce the selected design to meet the specified criteria • Test, adapt and reflect on time devices produced
Procedural: • Conduct an interview to find out about problems people face with arthritis • Complete a needs analysis • Define the target group needs • Negotiate the criteria for designs • Explore existing modifications to technologies employed • Complete a materials analysis • Draw 2D, 3D and exploded drawings of existing and modified technologies for sufferers
Technology and society: • Identify and discuss the importance and impacts of time in our lives
Societal: • Cost, the user and materials will affect technical developments • The traits of a group will affect the ergonomics of a product Technical: • Orthographic drawing • 3D drawings • Interviews – develop open-ended questions
Moreland, Jones and Northover (2001).
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
133
broad curriculum level objectives. He did not attempt to define specific technological conceptual and procedural knowledge, nor did he try to develop any sense of progression in student learning. His prime concern was to provide students with the opportunities to experience different technological areas rather than to develop any degree of sophistication or complexity in technology. The difference between 1998 and these 1999 learning outcomes is the degree of specificity. He no longer described technology in terms of an activity, rather in terms of technological learning. He moved from thinking of technology as broadly described by the achievement objectives to thinking about technology in detailed, conceptual, procedural, societal and technical terms. Additionally, he began to bring this detail together to form an overall statement. Together these provided a base for his teaching, enhancing both his student interactions and his assessment practices. He commented that: . . . The whole process has become more refined. I knew that when I was planning, I knew exactly what I was going to assess and how I was going to assess it, so I was very specific. . . . The planning models helped me to have a better look at exactly what technology is being taught and what the technology is in different activities. The activities that I am giving my children are more clearly targeted and identified. My children have a fair idea of where they are going to go. . . . But they have still gone in a thousand different directions and they’ve really enjoyed it. You can start to see the divergence coming out in children and that’s neat too.
The gains in planning was also reflected in other teacher comments, for example: Very focussed in terms of planning and technological learning outcomes. Formative interactions were more purposeful and productive which resulted in children being more focussed and tuned into the technology involved in the learning activities. Actually looking at the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspects, that was the biggest thing. The idea about being specific and more focussed in planning and in teaching. I found it a lot easier to bring the class discussion to those aspects because I was more comfortable in my mind about where we were heading. It was easier to focus discussions.
The teachers valued the following intervention strategies: identifying specific and overall learning outcomes rather than just activities; identifying procedural, conceptual, societal and technical learning outcomes; summative assessment during the unit as well as at the end; questioning using technological vocabulary and concepts; an iterative use of the framework; and, allowing for multiple outcomes. These are illustrated in some of the teachers’ comments below: Thinking about the learning I wanted to take place enabled very focussed activities to meet the learning outcomes. Dividing planning into conceptual, procedural, societal and technical allowed me to more effectively hone in on the technology involved. To focus on specific learning outcomes first then plan activities to match allow me to better cater for the needs of students. The identification of possible and planned learning outcomes made me more aware of the questioning that would be required.
134
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
The planning and on-going formative and summative assessments allowed for accommodation of negotiated outcomes.
Also increased were more appropriate pedagogical approaches. A variety of methods was employed by the teachers including student interviewing, conferencing, observation, use of considered portfolios and analysis of appropriate learning outcomes. There was continued encouragement for students to seek divergent solutions. Teachers also began developing understanding related to progression aspects, including linking and enhancing technological learning from one unit to the next. Teacher understanding of progression was also reflected in task selection and development. Tasks were identified to develop particular technological conceptual and procedural aspects rather than just providing a variety of experiences in different technological areas. The use of the frameworks also enabled the teachers to differentiate between the different levels of effectiveness of student learning and to justify the differentiation. The teachers also noticed enhanced student learning in technology. Their comments were illustrative of this: Children’s differences in learning can be better identified with specific learning outcomes with more effective children coping with more variables. Have had quality opportunities to show what they can do with improved vocabulary, language and skills. The more effective children were engaged all of the time, they had the vocabulary and could use it appropriately. This was evidenced in their mock up and drawing.
• Summative assessment When teachers assessed summatively they placed less emphasis on social and managerial aspects because they had identified technological learning outcomes. A further shift was identified in the timing and scope of summative assessment where attempts were made to assess summatively at different points in the learning process. Negotiated and unexpected learning was taken into account alongside planned summative assessment. Additionally, attempts were made by teachers to make overall judgements about the effectiveness of students’ learning and these judgements were more effective in assisting teachers to make appropriate decisions to guide students’ future learning. I’m getting more specific and focussed with this too. I was able to get an overall impression and I could comment on the knowledge, their actual procedures and designs, their technical skills and the society aspects. By being focussed with the learning outcomes right from the start it has made it easier to actually focus on what I was looking for at the end.
• Impact on other curriculum areas The teaching, learning and assessment strategies that have been developed in the two intervention years also impacted on the teaching and learning in other curriculum areas. All teachers made comment on this, for example:
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
135
I am looking at making my learning outcomes very focused for other curriculum areas to develop more purposeful and structured formative and summative assessment practices. I am thinking more carefully about what I want the children to learn. The planning framework has helped the curriculum documents fall into place. I am now probing, in-depth questioning and constantly challenging. I am thinking about how my learning activities in different learning areas link and how I can help children transfer ideas and skills.
This research project has developed intervention strategies that encourage teachers to identify the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspects, task definition and aspects of holistic assessment. The results are very encouraging with the focus at the conceptual and procedural level rather than in terms of an activity. Many of the teachers commented that the intervention had a direct influence on other subjects, especially with their planning and formative interactions. They have moved from thinking about progression in terms of a series of activities to examining the conceptual and procedural aspects of student learning. The focus on more precise formative interactions has enhanced student learning. • General comments General comments made by the teachers at the conclusion of the year included some of the following. My technology teaching has made huge leaps forward because of my involvement. It has been very demanding but the risks have been worthwhile. The framework has helped immensely and it has been particularly rewarding to see the quality of work that is being produced by the children as a result of the research. Intervention strategies based on the frameworks produced accelerated learning.
ENHANCED STUDENT LEARNING THROUGH ENHANCED TEACHER KNOWLEDGE
All the teachers have indicated that they believed that student learning had been enhanced as a result of improved planning and formative interactions as indicated by the comments made earlier in this paper. The initial re-analysis of 600 pieces of student work from years 1–8 in technology, currently being undertaken, indicates the following: • Greater student understanding of the nature of technology In 1998, very few students had a broad and comprehensive understanding of the nature of technology; rather they defined technology in terms of the current activity being undertaken. For example, when making a timer, students thought that technology was making timers; and when making games, that technology was about making games. Throughout 1999 and 2000 there was a broadening of concepts and the development of a shared view of the nature of technology. This broadening was brought about through teachers explicitly engaging their students in conversations about
136
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
the nature of technology. This greater understanding is illustrated by some year 2 and 3 student quotes. It’s It’s It’s It’s
about designing new things for our world. like building things and having tools to do things. human made. It’s learning about trying to improve things. about designing things so that they are better
• Greater conceptual and procedural understanding Throughout 1999 and 2000 there appeared to be a greater complexity and sophistication of technology conceptual and procedural understanding. This was evident in both the student conversations and their work. For example, an analysis of year 2 and 3 student work showed: conceptual understandings that drawing is a way to express initial design ideas, containers need to be appropriate shapes and sizes relative to their contents and that nets can be used for patterns; procedural ability to develop initial conceptual ideas as 3-dimensional sketches and develop initial plans for construction as nets; societal understanding that labelling containers contributes to their aesthetics; and technical ability to draw 3-dimensionally and to draw nets. One student’s analysis demonstrated her ability to think critically about different technological aspects including societal aspects (safety issues for the product user), conceptual aspects (properties of materials), technical skills (tying, knotting, wrapping), and procedural aspects (drawing, construction processes). • More appropriate and prolific use of technological vocabulary With the teacher focusing on conceptual and procedural aspects more opportunities were afforded for students to develop appropriate technological vocabulary. Teachers explicitly targeted these aspects. This is illustrated in the following quotes. A six-year-old student recorded: My handle design is better . . . school ropes are uncomfortable and my handle has a padding for the thumb and has grip for the fingers. The Storage box was portable because its light and durable because it is made out of hard cardboard.
A 9-year-old student noted: The materials were affordable, durable and reusable
A 10 year old commented that she that: I have learned how to optimise material . .. heat resistance . . . water proofing
• Greater student understanding of the purpose of the activities Throughout the teacher student interactions teachers constantly assisted students to be aware of the purpose of the activities. The teachers had clarity of purpose that was regularly conveyed to the students. This meant that
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
137
students at all levels were cognisant of task goals. Additionally there was greater student focus on the technology learning rather than social and managerial aspects compared with 1998 findings. • The ability of students to identify their own technology gaps In conversations with students it became apparent that they were much more aware of what they did not know and were prepared to seek advice. In 1998 however, they were unaware of their gaps in their understanding as the focus was often only in terms of general designing and making. • Increased motivation and interest in technology The teacher focus on specific technological goals ensured that the classroom interactions were structured around developing appropriate technological solutions. It was evident that student engagement and interest were significantly enhanced. • More effective knowledge transfer from other curriculum areas Teacher awareness of the need to assist students to transfer knowledge from other curriculum areas to the technology tasks, and their making links explicit, ensured that students more successfully transferred from other areas.
DISCUSSION
To enhance and sustain learning in technology there needs to be a focus on teacher knowledge of specific and detailed technological learning outcomes in conjunction with appropriate pedagogical approaches. The following strategies were used to assist teachers to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge in technology: reflecting on case studies of their own and others classroom practice; using a planning framework; negotiating interventions in the classroom; involvement in workshops; providing classroom support; involvement in teacher agreement meetings; using student portfolios; and, summative profiling. Of particular importance was the use of a well-developed framework to focus the teachers’ attention on the conceptual, procedural, societal and technical aspects of student learning in technology. Overall aspects of the dimensions of technology were also encouraged, as was the iterative process between task definition, learning outcomes and the dimensions of technology. This resulted in teachers moving from using general concepts about technology to more specific concepts within different technological areas. The frameworks that were developed were internalised by the teachers and are now used routinely in their interactions with their students. The teachers were able to choose more suitable tasks that had the potential to develop student learning in technology. This shift in focus from
138
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
providing a technology experience to providing opportunities for students to develop technological learning outcomes was significant. By investigating a wide range of learning outcome possibilities and then selecting particular learning outcomes teachers pursued a more appropriate approach to technological learning. They became focussed on the technological learning of their students. Teachers demonstrated greater confidence with formative interactions, particularly in relation to providing appropriate technology feedback to the learners. Considered direction was given where deemed appropriate, which led to more considered and purposeful interactions. Not only was there more emphasis on providing feedback and assistance to students to develop particular technical skills, there was also more emphasis on conceptual and procedural aspects rather than social and managerial aspects. Additionally there was less emphasis on praise as the sole formative interaction and more emphasis on assisting students to move on, to reflect, and to assess their own progress. As a result of increased teacher pedagogical content knowledge there was enhanced student learning in technology. There was evidence of: greater student understanding of the nature of technology; greater conceptual and procedural understanding; more appropriate and prolific use of technological vocabulary; greater student understanding of the purpose of the activities; an ability of students to identify their own knowledge gaps; increased motivation and interest in technology and more effective knowledge transfer from other curriculum areas. The focus of this research has highlighted the importance of teacher knowledge of the subject matter, curriculum, learners and pedagogy. Teachers not only identified the knowledge of technology but they also learnt how to think about technology pedagogically in a flexible and multi-represented way (Shulman 1990). This research has also demonstrated the complexity of primary practice and in consequence the high levels of skill and knowledge required by teachers (Bennett 1997). This paper has argued that a sociocultural perspective on learning and pedagogical content knowledge provides insights into the importance of teachers developing robust pedagogical content knowledge. A review of the literature on teaching, learning and assessment indicated the importance of pedagogical content knowledge alongside pedagogical knowledge. The emerging sociocultural notions of teaching, learning and assessment highlight the importance that the culture/discipline plays in teaching and student learning. Drawing from a sociocultural perspective (Stetsenko & Arievitch 2002), effective teachers (Dalton & Tharp 2002), research on pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome 1999) and our own classroom research in the area we argue that pedagogical content knowledge in technology has seven constructs: • Nature of technology and its characteristics; • Conceptual, procedural and technical aspects of technology; • Knowledge of the relevant technology curriculum including goals and objectives as well as specific programmes;
ENHANCING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER’S TECHNOLOGY
139
• Knowledge of student learning in technology including existing technological knowledge, processes, strengths and weaknesses and progression of student learning; • Specific teaching and assessment practices of technology, e.g. authentic, holistic, construct reference; • Understanding the role and place of context in technological problem solving; • Classroom environment and management in relation to technology e.g. groupings, managing resources, equipment and technical management. These constructs then need to be brought together and operationalised in a teaching and learning situation in the classroom. This act is probably the most complex and difficult process. An over-emphasis or a lack of understanding in one of these can distort the classroom practice as has been highlighted earlier in the paper. The introduction of this model in association with effective teacher development has been shown to have a positive impact on teaching and student performance in technology. This model of PCK has had wider implications for teaching, particularly science (Jones & Moreland, in press). NOTES 1. Generic is defined as those aspects common to more than one technological area. 2. Specific is defined as those aspects particular to one technological area.
REFERENCES Bennett, N.: 1997, ‘Voyages of Discovery’, in C. Cullingford (ed.), The Politics of Primary Education, Open University Press, Buckingham. Black, P. J.: 1998, Testing: Friend or Foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and Testing, The Falmer Press, London. Black, P. & Wiliam, D.: 1998, ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning’, Assessment in Education 5(1), 7–74. Blenkin, G.: 1992, ‘Progression, Observation and Assessment in Early Education: The Context’, in G. V. Blenkin & A. V. Kelly (eds.), Assessment in Early Childhood Education, Chapter 2, Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Boaler, J.: 1999, ‘Participation, Knowledge, and Beliefs: A Community Perspective on learning’, Educational Studies in Math 40, 259–281. Brophy, J. & Good, T.: 1985, ‘Teacher Behaviour and Student Achievement’, in M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, McMillan Publishers, New York. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P.: 1989, ‘Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning’, Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42. Butler, R.: 1987, ‘Task-involving and Ego-involving Properties of Evaluation: Effects of Different Feedback Conditions on Motivational Perceptions, Interest and Performance’, Journal of Educational Psychology 79(4), 474–482. Dalton, S. & Tharp, R.: 2002, ‘Standards for Pedagogy: Research, Theory and Practice’, in G. Wells & G. Claxton (eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford. Duschl, R. A. & Gitomer, D. H.: 1997, ‘Strategies and Challenges to Changing the Focus
140
ALISTER JONES AND JUDY MORELAND
of Assessment and Instruction in Science Classrooms’, Educational Assessment 4(1), 37–73. Gess-Newsome, J.: 1999, ‘Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Subject Matter and Their Impact on Instruction’, in J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman, Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Gipps, C.: 1999, ‘Sociocultural Aspects to Assessment’, Review of Educational Research 24, 353–392. Harlen, W. & James, M.: 1997, ‘Assessment and Learning: Differences and Relationships Between Formative and Summative Assessment’, Assessment in Education 4(3), 365–379. Jones, A.: 1997, ‘Recent Research in Student Learning of Technological Concepts and Processes’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7(1–2), 83–96. Jones, A.: 1999, ‘Teachers’ Subject Subcultures and Curriculum Innovation: The Example of Technology Education’, in J. Loughran (ed.), Research Teaching: Methodologies and Practices for Understanding Pedagogy, Falmer Press, London. Jones, A.: 2003, ‘The Development of a National Curriculum in Technology for New Zealand’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13, 83–99. Jones, A. & Moreland, J.: In press, ‘From Classroom-based Research to School-wide Reform: The Case of Mountview School’, STERpapers, University of Waikato. Jones, A. & Simon, S.: 1991, ‘Strategies for Educational Change: The Work of the OPENS Project in the Context of a New National Curriculum for Science’, SAME papers 1991, Longman Paul, Auckland. Mavrommatis, Y.: 1997, ‘Understanding Assessment in the Classroom: Phases of the Assessment Process – The Assessment Episode’, Assessment in Education 4(3), 381–399. Moreland, J. & Jones, A.: 2000, ‘Emerging Assessment Practices in an Emergent Curriculum: Implications for Technology’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10, 283–305. Moreland, J., Jones, A. & Chambers, M.: 2000, ‘Learning in Technology Education (Assessment) Project’, workshop materials, University of Waikato, Hamilton. Moreland, J., Jones, A. & Northover, A.: 2001, ‘Enhancing Teachers’ Technological Knowledge and Assessment Practices to Enhance Student Learning in Technology: A twoYear Classroom Study’, Research in Science Education 31(1), 155–176. Porter, A. & Brophy, J.: 1988, ‘Synthesis in Research on Good Teaching: Insights from the Work of the Institute of Research on Teaching’, Education Leadership 48(8), 74–85. Rogoff, B.: 1990, Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sadler, D. R.: 1998, ‘Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory’, Assessment in Education 5(1), 77–84. Sadler, D. R.: 1989, ‘Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems’, Instructional Science 18, 119–144. Shulman, L. S.: 1987, ‘Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform’, Harvard Educational Review 57(1), 1–22. Shulman, L.: 1990, Pedagogical Ways of Knowing, Keynote Address, ICET World Assembly, Institute of Education, Singapore. Stetsenko, A. & Arievitch, I.: 2002, ‘Teaching, Learning, and Development: A PostVygotskian Perspective’, in G. Wells & G. Claxton (eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford. Wertsch, J. V.: 1991, Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wragg, E., Wragg, C., Hayes, G. & Chamberlain, R.: 1998, Improving Literacy in the Primary School, Routledge, London.
