New Zealand Teachers' Experiences in Implementing the Technology ...

10 downloads 44167 Views 69KB Size Report
Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, PB 3105 ... education in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 101–119, 2004.  2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

New Zealand Teachers’ Experiences in Implementing the Technology Curriculum ALISTER JONES, ANN HARLOW and BRONWEN COWIE Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, PB 3105 Hamilton, New Zealand (E-mail [email protected]) ABSTRACT: This paper describes the results of a national study to investigate teachers’ experiences in the implementation of the technology curriculum in New Zealand schools from years 1–13. This investigation of the implementation of the technology curriculum is part of a larger study being undertaken nationally in all curriculum areas (National Schools Sampling Study) to explore how effective the curriculum is in practice and how the results can inform future developments. National focus groups, questionnaires and case studies are used to explore how the curriculum is being implemented. The questionnaires were distributed to over 10% of New Zealand schools. The key findings indicate that most primary school teachers are aiming for curriculum coverage, have moderate levels of confidence but are concerned about curriculum overcrowding. Years 7 and 8 teachers are mainly concerned about assessment, whereas secondary school teachers are constrained by existing structures in schools. Keywords: curriculum implementation, national curriculum, teacher experiences

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses New Zealand teachers’ experiences in implementing the technology curriculum three years after it became compulsory for all students from years 1–10. Data on teachers’ experiences of implementing the technology curriculum were gained from a national study called the National School Sampling Study funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Education and carried out by the Centre for Science and Technology Education Research and the Wilf Malcolm Institute for Educational Research at the University of Waikato. A previous article (Jones 2003) discusses the development of New Zealand technology curriculum in detail. The general aims of technology education in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995) were to develop: technological knowledge and understanding; an understanding and awareness of the interrelationship between technology and society; technological capability in a range of technological areas. In the New Zealand technology curriculum the technological areas include: materials technology; information and communication technology; electronics and control technology; biotechnology; structures and mechanisms; process and production technology; and food technology. A draft technology curriculum statement was trailed in schools during 1994. This provided teachers and others such as business and community groups to respond to the draft statement. The responses indicated that teachers were

102

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

supportive of the general structure and philosophy of the document. The final statement was released in October 1995 and full implementation occurred by February 1999. The National School Sampling Study started in 2001 provided an opportunity for teachers who had been involved in implementing Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum to share their experiences. The primary purpose of the study is to seek feedback from teachers about the effectiveness of the curriculum in practice. The key aspects to be investigated include: background and experience of teachers, general issues related to implementation, practice, support, the curriculum documents, impact and compliance issues. In this paper we discuss the structure of national school sampling study, the methods of data collection, the national results and implications of the findings for technology education.

METHOD

The structure of the National School Sampling Study encompasses national focus groups, questionnaires and case studies. In this paper we will discuss the results of the national questionnaire on the technology curriculum and the general questionnaire as the findings related to the implementation of the technology curriculum. Content The content of the questionnaire came from three major sources. Firstly, how teachers, at a series of teacher focus groups talked about their curriculum experiences that enabled the research team to identify important issues. Secondly, the questions posed by the Ministry of Education panels were considered, and thirdly, the views of subject experts were sought. A rolling series of pilot studies of draft questionnaires were carried out with: national subject experts; teachers in nearby schools; and subject association teachers in technology. The interaction identified items that were, by negotiation, amended or deleted, and in a few cases new items written. Further pilot work took place. This iterative process enhanced the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. The content can be summarised as follows: impact of structure; strands content; achievement objectives; support and resources; professional development; implementation; essential skills; funding; individual needs; assessment; reporting achievement; inclusiveness; integration; challenges; and levels. Sample A sample of ten percent of all types of New Zealand schools – state, private and integrated was required for this study. There are approximately 2900 schools in New Zealand. Factors taken into account when drawing the sample were:

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

103

• Randomisation and stratification; • Within each school type that the number of schools in the sample represented ten percent of all schools for the same type; • Decile approximation – that the sample for each school type represented as near as possible the national number of schools for each of the decile ranges; • Geographical coverage – to provide a regional and urban-rural coverage within each school type as possible; • Independent (private) schools – to include a representative number of independent schools; • Integrated schools – to include a representative number of integrated schools. In the sampling, the researchers were guided by statistical data relating to New Zealand schools. Data included the regional location of the school and the school type (e.g., whether a school was classified as a full primary, contributing, intermediate, secondary, a composite/restricted composite or an area composite school, or if it was a special school, or the Correspondence School). In addition, the researchers referred to school’s decile1 ranking, the school status (i.e., a state school, a private or independent school, or a state/integrated school) and also other information. Other details taken that guided the research related to the school gender (co-educational or a single sex school), and the geographical status (urban or rural and geographical location). A rural school was a school situated in an area where the population was less than 1,000 on census night. From the last census, a total of 868 schools are classified as rural schools. If a particular school declined to take part and a replacement school was required, the researchers would ‘borrow’ from one of the other sample groupings by selecting a school with similar characteristics. Some schools were unable to take part due to commitments and were replaced. School replacement took into account the need to stratify the deciles accordingly so that the sample reasonably matched the national total and distribution. Schools drawn in the sample were approached and invited to participate and in the case of secondary, area and intermediate schools, principals were contacted by telephone and letter; primary and other principals were contacted by letter with a follow-up telephone call made to those who did not respond within a week. The rate of agreement to participate was very high in all school categories, helped by reminders and explanations by telephone, and by support statements or letters from teacher leaders and teacher unions. On agreeing to take part, a principal nominated a contact teacher to act as an ‘agent’ to receive, distribute, collect and return questionnaires. Teacher numbers were indicated along with numbers of ‘specialist’ teachers of technology. The response rates for the first round of questionnaires were high, with over 90% schools returning questionnaires. Eight hundred and fifty-one (851) teachers from a wide variety of schools completed the technology questionnaire. The analysis of quantitative data is based on the total number

104

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

of technology questionnaires returned (n = 851). Qualitative data have been reported from a smaller sub-sample (n = 500).

RESULTS

The major content of this paper discusses the results of the questionnaire designed to investigate teachers’ experiences in teaching from the New Zealand technology curriculum statement. Overall, the results provide a broad sweep of information about teachers’ experiences, and the general impression is that most teachers are reasonably positive about teaching from the curriculum statement. However, there are variations between teachers in different kinds of schools and within school types, and especially between primary and secondary school teachers. As highlighted earlier, in order to find out how useful teachers had found the technology curriculum statement the questions asked of teachers were framed around the structure of the statement, covering areas such as the structure of the curriculum, the support and professional development for technology teachers, assessment and reporting issues and strategies for curriculum implementation.

BACKGROUND OF THE TEACHERS

In the survey group there were 537 teachers who taught at year levels 1–6, 84 who taught at year levels 7–8, and 221 who taught at year levels 9–13 and only 9 who taught at special type schools. The majority of teachers were from state schools (94%), which were co-educational (97%) and urban (88%). There was a reasonably even spread across all deciles (7–14% in each decile). Most teachers were classroom/subject teachers (67%). Leadership positions in technology were held by 34% of teachers. The main leadership position held by teachers was that of curriculum or syndicate leader (11%). Secondary teachers were more likely to have responsibility for a technological area, which was the second most popular type of leadership position (9%). The largest category of teachers had been teaching for more than 15 years (46%). Most of the teachers who had a leadership position in technology had been teaching for more than 15 years (56%). Confidence Across all school types two thirds of teachers expressed a medium level of confidence in teaching technology and one-fifth a high level of confidence. Few teachers (11%) regarded their confidence as low. Teaching experience was the most important factor contributing to the degree of confidence in teaching technology as well as professional development was seen as an important factor.

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

105

CURRICULUM STRUCTURE

A comprehensive curriculum statement sets out the requirements of technology programmes in schools from year 1 to year 13 (Jones 2003). Almost half of the teachers found the technology curriculum statement user-friendly in some ways. One-third found it user friendly, and some very user-friendly (4%). It was rated not user-friendly by only 16%. Overall, primary and intermediate teachers felt that the statement was more user-friendly than secondary teachers. There was a general degree of satisfaction with the curriculum statement in that only one third of teachers (33%) wanted to make changes. The largest group who wanted to make changes to the structure/organization of the curriculum statement was secondary school year 9–12 teachers (50%). The most popular changes would be ‘making it more simple to understand’ and ‘including better developed learning and assessment examples’. But analysis of the answers of the teachers in the sub-sample (n = 500) shows that some had difficulty interpreting the language and translating the ideas into practical classroom activities: It is in academic jargon. It needs to be written so it is more easily understood. At the moment everyone I talk to sees it differently – even advisors. Whose interpretation do we follow? (Secondary teacher)

Some wanted it to be simpler to understand (23%), with better-developed learning and assessment examples (14%). The achievement objectives, the strands and the learning outcomes were not clear to some teachers (16%), nor was some of the terminology, for example ‘technological principles’: Specific learning objectives given for each technological area at each level in the curriculum. (Secondary teacher) More clarification of the terms and ideas contained in the foldout back cover. More information about the types of knowledge and understanding involved in each technological area. (Secondary teacher) Philosophy does not come through the AOs – tendency for inexperienced teachers to teach to a particular AO. The Conceptual, Procedural, Societal, Technical planning format used in the LITE technology contract was much more effective. (Primary teacher)

In terms of organisation, a reduction in what must be covered was called for (10%). A few teachers felt that the statement should be divided into technological areas for ease of use (7%); some felt it would be useful to have guidance as to how technology could be integrated with other curriculum areas (6%); other teachers berated the loss of skill instruction that they felt the technology curriculum had caused (3%). The technology curriculum statement has been of most help in planning, gaining an overview of the progression of key technological ideas, achieving consistent understanding of the curriculum levels and in assessing student achievement. Over 85% of primary teachers found the curriculum statement always or sometimes helpful in planning their classroom programmes, whereas only 27% of secondary school teachers found this aspect of the statement particularly helpful. Approximately three-quarters of all teachers

106

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

sometimes found the curriculum statement helpful in gaining an overview of the progression of key ideas. Fewer secondary school teachers than primary teachers said they always found this to be the case. Primary teachers appeared to have used the curriculum statement for guidance on curriculum levels more than secondary school teachers, of whom 30% said which they not very often or rarely referred to the curriculum statement for guidance on levels. However, after three years most teachers now used school schemes rather than the curriculum to plan and assess in technology. There were similarities in the responses from primary and secondary school teachers to the question about assessing student achievement – approximately 60% of teachers across all school types had found the curriculum statement always or sometimes helpful in this area. More primary teachers (over 40%) than secondary teachers felt the objectives of the curriculum were ‘about right’. A higher percentage of secondary school teachers thought the objectives were too broad. Overall the results show that primary teachers found the curriculum statement more helpful than secondary school teachers. The technology curriculum was new for primary teachers whereas for many secondary teachers they felt they were already teaching aspects of technology in the designing and making activities of home economics and wood and metal work. Implementation In terms of implementing the curriculum strands (technological knowledge, technological capability, technology and society) more than one-third of teachers usually combined all three strands while 30% ‘sometimes combined strands and sometimes taught the strands separately’ 27% addressed objectives from all three strands. Nearly half of the teachers gave more or less equal emphasis to each strand however 53% of secondary year 9–15 teachers placed more emphasis on technological capability. It would appear that primary teachers have been much more successful in integrating the three strands in the technology teaching whereas secondary teachers place a greater emphasis on technological capability. Assessment and reporting issues Student achievement in technology was reported mainly to parents (92%). There was more communication between teachers about achievement in technology by primary and intermediate teachers (85%) than at the secondary level (64%). Reporting achievement in technology was mainly in relation to the achievement objectives and levels (88%). Teachers used a variety of strategies for assessing technology. The most popular way of assessing student learning in technology was the use of ‘practical tasks’ (81% ‘mostly’ or ‘often’), followed by ‘observation’ (78% ‘mostly’ or ‘often’) and ‘products’ (56% ‘mostly’ or ‘often’). Primary school teachers often used observation and interviews/conferencing to assess student learning in technology. Intermediate teachers used a wider variety

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

107

of assessment methods, including pre-tests/post tests, products, practical tasks, peer assessment, observation and school exemplars. Secondary teachers most often used products, practical tasks, observation, and school exemplars. Most teachers reported that they assessed specific learning outcomes ahead of achievement objectives. Secondary teachers assessed the whole task and technological processes, and over 50% of teachers assessed students’ knowledge and understanding and specific technology related skills. Specific learning outcomes were the most popular focus of assessment overall (75%), while 52% of teachers reported that they assessed the ways students were meeting the achievement objectives. Although 70% of teachers found the curriculum statement to be always or sometimes helpful in assessing achievement, many reported having difficulties with assessment in technology. The most popular way of assessing student learning in technology was the use of ‘practical tasks’, however there was some lack of agreement/guidance on what to assess and the feeling that there was too much paperwork for the required assessment. Large classes, the ‘time’ factor, and establishing level accuracy, were also issues, but only noted by less than 20%: Why assess every AO in every strand? This is unrealistic and not done or expected in any other curriculum area. Very easy to say ‘assess anecdotally’, but with 140+ and a practical based class there must be some sort of quantitative system in place or you will have teachers unable to cope. (Technology teacher in a primary school) The lack of guidance – we waited in vain for a lead on assessment from the technology contract advisors. (Primary teacher) Assessing to the AOs, then having to report differently to parents, as they know little about AOs. (Intermediate teacher)

The problems were different in the different types of school, and at the primary level teachers were concerned about finding appropriate forms of assessment for the junior years and felt that they needed more guidance, both in planning and in assessment: Lack of resources to help with planning, therefore units that could be better planned and therefore taught. Therefore skills, knowledge, processes not improved a lot in unit. (Primary teacher) Exemplars are needed so it is much clearer what is an achievement at each level . . . the present levels are very much left up to the teacher. Of the 3–4 courses I have attended this has never been addressed. (Primary teacher)

One issue that was frequently reported by specialist teachers at the intermediate level was that of large classes: As we have large classes and limited time it is difficult to assess everything I would like to. Many students have difficulty reading and writing at their level and cannot complete work. Individual conferencing is more accurate but there is not enough TIME. We have 7 client schools and as they are here for a limited time it is difficult to assess all the AOs we would like. We have over 110 different students through our workshops in a week. (Intermediate technology teacher)

108

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

Secondary teachers saw technology as a fragmented learning area: Difficulty in assessing a progression and tying student work together when it is taught by different teachers teaching different technological areas. (Secondary teacher)

These secondary teachers were beginning to look outside the curriculum statement for guidance: In the past we have collected data on student achievement against the levels and objectives of the curriculum. We have found it VERY difficult to write descriptors to differentiate between levels. Now that achievement standards have been written for years 11–13, there seems a slightly different emphasis with different language used to that used in the technology curriculum document. We don’t use the achievement objectives for assessing or reporting. We assess and report on some essential skills within strand A and B using grades, not levels. Students and parents wouldn’t understand it otherwise.

Assessment issues were different in the different types of school. Secondary school teachers were more concerned with the amount of paperwork required than teachers in other schools and were influenced by qualification requirements. At the primary level teachers were concerned about finding appropriate forms of assessment for the junior years and felt that they needed more guidance, both in planning and in assessment. Teachers were using the curriculum statement to guide them in their assessment of student achievement, but depending on the type of school taught in, there are assessment issues that need to be addressed. Much more work needs to be undertaken in the area of assessment in technology both at the classroom and reporting level.

SUPPORT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Support With the introduction of the technology curriculum, an extensive programme of professional development was offered to teachers (Jones & Compton 1998). The publication ‘Implementing Technology in NZ Schools, Years 1–8’ (Ministry of Education 1999a) had been used by more than 50% of teachers in all schools apart from secondary year 9–15, special and secondary correspondence schools. Over a quarter of teachers were still using the Know How material developed in 1997 (see Jones & Compton 1998; and Compton & Jones 1998). The Know How tapes were mainly used initially to gain a broader understanding of the curriculum. At the beginning to get a broader understanding of the technology curriculum. (Intermediate teacher) Initial expectations of technological teaching. Helping to facilitate other teachers. Unit ideas. (Intermediate teacher)

In addition the Ministry of Education has published various resources to assist teachers in their implementation of the technology curriculum.

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

109

Classroom Practice in Years 1–8 (Ministry of Education 199b) is especially popular – these publications were most widely used by primary school teachers for whom they were designed. When asked ‘In what ways have you found these publications helpful?’ teachers in the sub-sample responded that they had used them mainly for getting ideas for teaching units and for seeing relevant examples of work (42%). Ideas for teaching units that can be adapted. Seeing problems that have occurred and how others solved them. (Primary teacher)

Secondary teachers (particularly year 9–13) would not have been expected to have used the Classroom Practice publications. However one secondary teacher said: (They) have given me the knowledge of what students have learnt in Y1–8 and helped planning of courses for Y9, 10 students. (Secondary teacher)

Less than half of the teachers (38.7%) in this survey had found other support materials that were particularly helpful in their teaching of technology. Of these teachers, many listed titles of books, both resource books and books about implementing the curriculum, but the most popular resource was the internet with many sites that teachers had found to be helpful to both their teaching and student learning, especially the Ministry of Education site. Other questions about support materials revealed that teachers were mainly concerned with gaining access to ‘practical ideas’ to use in their technology teaching. A number of teachers in the sub-sample (n = 500) had suggestions about the kinds of support materials they would like, especially practical ideas, units, planning formats, equipment such as videos and software, student resources, and teacher guidebooks. Primary teachers focused on practical ideas and materials: Electronics and control kits/ updated videos/school journal material with planning formats/ assessment ideas including peer and individual. (Primary teacher)

Intermediate teachers were also looking for ideas and ways to help them show their students technology in practice: Workable assessment ideas and examples. Videos on industrial practice of topics suitable for Y7 & Y8 – we can’t take our students to bakeries, factories etc. (Intermediate teacher)

Secondary teachers were interested in more sophisticated equipment: Video interactives. (Secondary teacher)

Professional development Nearly three-quarters of the teachers (73%) had received professional development in technology. ‘Other teachers in the school’ had been the most useful source of knowledge to almost 50% of teachers, particularly secondary school teachers, who also mentioned teachers in other schools. For 75% of teachers professional development had been helpful and 28% had

110

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

found it had given them a depth of knowledge and ideas so that they could plan and implement the technology curriculum. I was part of the LITE contract – it gave me ways of planning, assessing, understanding the curriculum. It stretched me and the children – gave outstanding quality of work. (Primary teacher)

Nearly a quarter had found that professional development had clarified the curriculum document (statement) for them. A smaller percentage (11%) had gained increased confidence in specific technological areas through professional development. In the sub-sample (n = 500) there were 123 teachers (24%) who had not found professional development to be helpful: It enabled me to see where the rest of technology education was at – pretty depressing really! (Co-ordinator of secondary electronics programme)

Nearly 10% had felt that the professional development had been too theoretical and that the advisors had little practical experience – secondary teachers had found this to be the case more than primary teachers. Others (7%) recognised that it had only been an introduction to the curriculum. I’ve found that not all teachers are as far along the track as me – so it can be frustrating. (Primary teacher) Did not help – a technology specialist taught them – they have a myopic view! (Primary teacher)

Teachers in the sub-sample were most interested in receiving professional development in the specific technological areas (26%). They were also interested in planning and teaching skills (23%) as this teacher explained: I want to know how to give the children adequate guidance without answering the question for them. (Primary teacher)

Secondary teachers were interested in developing programmes and also in linking technology education and NCEA (Qualification): Release time e.g. one month to visit/observe what other schools are doing in technology education, and to re-evaluate ‘design and make’ technology education. Then (we could) prepare materials and strategies to move successfully into a full technology education programme. (Secondary teacher) In the teaching of technology for levels 2, 3 NCEA. (Secondary teacher)

Some teachers wanted to know more about progression, assessment and reporting achievement (18%) and some would like to gain more information on practical contexts and ideas (15%). Professional development had helped many teachers to gain confidence in teaching technology. Teachers were most interested in receiving professional development in the specific technological areas. Information on planning and teaching skills was requested and they were also interested in knowing more about progression, assessment and reporting achievement.

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

111

STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

According to 88% of all teachers surveyed, all students up to and including year 10 in their school studied technology. The majority of teachers (64%) considered that the technology curriculum should be compulsory for all students to the end of year 10, as it provided students with important life skills, for example communication and problem-solving skills. Teachers in the sub sample who answered ‘no’ were asked to explain why all students in their school did not study technology; not compulsory for year 10 (n = 8), pressure from other subjects, and timetable (n = 7), and staffing/student numbers (n = 6). The reasons were different depending on the type of school the teachers taught in. In primary schools it was either because of difficulties with staffing or large class sizes, or the perception that technology was not ‘studied’ as such, since it was a part of other curriculum areas. At intermediate level where students attended a technology centre or specialist classes, there were some students who were not be included in the technology classes as they had not paid their fees to the school. Some secondary schools made technology compulsory for year 9 only, so year 10 students did not necessarily study technology. Pressure from other subjects in the timetable and staff/student numbers impacted on the possibilities of every student being able to study technology at the secondary level. In some secondary schools technology was integrated with other curriculum areas. The findings revealed that just as the curriculum statement sets out different ways of approaching the teaching of technology in schools, technology was indeed being implemented in different ways, mainly dependant on the type of school. Over 60% of schools were integrating technology with other learning areas. This was particularly evident in primary schools (71%), where teachers teach all curriculum areas. They tended to integrate technology into languages and science. Secondary school technology teachers taught technology in blocks or modules or as a new subject with its own timetable slots. Since the curriculum was introduced approximately one-third of primary schools and fifty percent of intermediate and secondary schools had changed the way in which the curriculum was implemented. Improved planning, implementation and/or assessment were cited as examples of changes made, particularly in primary schools. In secondary schools it was more likely to have been new content that was covered or a timetable change. Teachers detailed a wide range of pedagogical approaches that had been successful in their teaching of technology. These included: choosing topics of relevance to students; practical, hands-on learning activities; a ‘problemsolving approach’; and group or co-operative learning approaches. A primary school teacher offered this example: I use co-operative work groups, with appropriate roles assigned to oversee particular tasks e.g. production manager, research and development officer, advertising executive etc. (Primary teacher)

112

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

Some teachers were concerned about ensuring skills development: Year ones need lots of teacher support for hot glue gun, tape etc. (composite area school teacher) Teach the basic skills first!! Then expand into curriculum requirements. Pupils will then have pride and real ownership of outcomes. (Hard materials teacher in technology centre attached to primary school)

Teachers tended to favour a student-centred approach to teaching technology. The ‘problem solving approach’ was listed by some teachers (21%) as being successful in their teaching of technology. Many teachers responding to the question listed several effective strategies, for example: New rooms and facilities; additional staffing especially for IT; willingness of teachers to change teaching styles and methods of assessment; design briefs which allow for both genders and all abilities to reach their full potential; use of computers to allow for research, design and other applications for the success of project work. (Secondary school teacher)

It was evident that students had been working on varied types of projects in technology. There was a trend for intermediate and secondary students to work on individual projects. Students in primary schools ‘sometimes’ worked on individual projects. Over 50% of students across all types of school ‘sometimes’ worked on group/team projects and 33% worked on them frequently. Over 50% of students across all types of school ‘sometimes’ worked on teacher-directed projects. Secondary students were more likely to work ‘frequently’ on teacher-directed projects. Although nearly 50% of students across all types of school ‘sometimes’ worked on selfselected projects, there was less likelihood of students working on self-selected projects than on other types of projects (37% rarely worked on self-selected projects). It was rare (71%) for students at any school to be able to visit experts at their place of work, but 26% did so sometimes and 3% often. Primary and intermediate students were more likely to have field trips where they were able to work with experts. This was a rare occurrence for most secondary students. Nearly half of the primary teachers said that they had had experts visiting the classroom, whereas this was much less so for intermediate and secondary school teachers. In summary, more than 50% of respondents reported that they rarely involved people from the community who have technological expertise. Overall, primary school teachers appeared to involve experts in the community more often than teachers in other types of school. Overall, there was a general degree of satisfaction with the scope to make decisions and adaptations when implementing the technology curriculum statement, with 41% finding the scope considerable and 53% finding it sufficient. Few teachers (6%) said they had no scope to make their own decisions and adaptations. Most of the teachers stated that their teaching had changed as a result of the technology curriculum statement, but a quarter said it had not changed

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

113

at all. Reasons given by the sub-sample (n = 500) for changes in teaching as a result of the technology curriculum statement focused mainly on less teacher direction, more problem solving and a different focus, for example, on the process rather than the product and more hands-on type work. A comment from a secondary year 9–13 teacher shows a degree of frankness: Adapted teaching in that I use many different teaching styles for many individuals and their individual projects – I am more a resource centre than a dictator, which suits my style of teaching. (Secondary teacher)

Teachers had found that student-centred approaches were effective in improving student learning in their classes. Primary teachers, in particular, had been able to employ activity-based co-operative activities that encouraged student enquiry, and were also able to involve the students in the planning, developing and evaluation of lessons. Most teachers (60%) were happy with their implementation of the technology curriculum. Secondary year 9–13 school teachers were less happy with their implementation than teachers in other schools. Teachers in the sub-sample (n = 500) stated that their implementation was successful because the students achieved well and enjoyed the lessons: I am achieving the objectives; children are progressing in their knowledge and experience. I do understand what I am teaching. I am learning too and the children enjoy it. It’s fun to teach. (Primary teacher) Generates excellent learning opportunities. Focused, high interest levels and outstanding thinking from children. (Primary teacher)

Teachers also found that it was beneficial to be supported by good professional development and team planning: My university and advisory work have given me an excellent background into the many issues involved. Constant reviews allow us to enhance programmes. (Area school teacher) Had excellent professional development which encouraged us to build a wonderful facility for technology. We work as a syndicate team and pool ideas. Everyone is enthusiastic about the subject. (Primary teacher)

Most of the teachers in the sub-sample (n = 500) who were not happy with their implementation felt that they needed further professional development. Some teachers felt that the facilities they taught in hindered their implementation: No, I am not happy yet – we are building a purpose-built facility, as we would like to be able to give year 7 and 8 students the opportunity to have a full technology programme at the school. (Primary teacher)

More secondary teachers than teachers from other schools felt that their schools needed to be involved in planning for coverage of the technology programme in order for them to able to implement the curriculum.

114

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

TECHNOLOGICAL AREAS TAUGHT

There are seven technological areas in which students are expected to carry out their technological activities and teachers are expected to develop learning approaches and technological activities within the technological areas which will best help their students achieve the objectives of the curriculum. Materials technology and food technology were reported to be the most widely taught technological areas in New Zealand schools, which could be explained by the fact that the previous home economics and workshop materials curricula were replaced by the technology curriculum. All other technological areas were being taught in schools, with biotechnology the least widely taught. Across all school types materials technology (93%) and food technology (92%) were reported to be the most widely taught technological areas. Biotechnology was the least widely taught area (71%). Most primary teachers covered all the technological areas in their teaching; the most popular areas were materials technology and structures and mechanisms. It is interesting to note that over 70% of primary and intermediate school teachers reported that their school teaches both biotechnology and electronics and control technology. More secondary school teachers answering the questionnaire were teachers of materials technology than other areas. In addition to the traditional technological areas of food and materials technology, secondary schools were offering some courses in electronics and control technology and in information and communication technology, but had not developed courses in the other three technological areas to the same extent as primary schools. Biotechnology was considered to be one of the more difficult areas to teach as well as electronics and control whereas food and materials technology were considered the easiest. Production and process technology as well as structures and mechanisms were considered to be of medium difficulty. The amount of teacher knowledge was identified as the most important factor influencing the ease of providing technological experiences (75%). Facilities (71%) and other resources (55%) were also considered to be influencing factors. More primary teachers felt that teacher knowledge was important whereas more secondary teachers felt that facilities were important. Few teachers had been able to access community links and specialist teachers to help them in their delivery of technology. Primary school teachers covered all the technological areas in their teaching. Fewer teachers in middle schools taught electronics and control technology, and food technology perhaps because specialist technology teachers often covered these areas. At secondary school level, biotechnology seemed to be the least frequently covered. Overall it appears that apart from the traditional technological areas of food and materials technology, secondary school schools have not developed courses in other technological areas to the same extent as in primary schools.

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

115

THE CHALLENGES FOR TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS

The general impression from the findings was that technology was being implemented across all school types and at all levels. However, on looking more closely at the three main school systems, primary, intermediate and secondary school, it was clear that the challenges of the curriculum at each level were different. Teachers were asked to list the three major challenges they had faced in implementing the technology curriculum: • The prime concern of teachers was the difficulty of resourcing the equipment needed to implement the technology curriculum (50%); • What was termed a ‘crowded curriculum’ was found to be a major challenge for 32% of all teachers, in particular the primary teachers; • Teachers expressed the need for up-skilling or professional development in technology education and in particular a specific technological area (22%); • Understanding the curriculum was one of the major challenges for 22% of all teachers. Primary school teachers reported a moderate level of confidence (70%) in teaching technology and appeared to be well on the way to providing technological activities for their pupils in many of the technological areas. They asked for more support, in the form of practical ideas and nearly 60% of primary teachers said that a major challenge was the difficulty they had with resourcing and equipment. Their second major concern (32%) was how to fit technology into an overcrowded curriculum. As teachers who teach all areas of the national curriculum, primary teachers reported overcoming this to a certain extent by integrating technology with other subject areas. In many primary schools, teachers were expected to cover all technological areas over a period of two to three years. Primary teachers often used observation and interviews to assess student learning in technology. At the primary level teachers were concerned about finding appropriate forms of assessment for the junior years and felt that they needed more guidance, both in planning and in assessment. Intermediate school teachers fall into two distinct groups, specialist technology teachers of subjects such as materials technology, food technology and biotechnology, and classroom teachers who teach all or most areas of the national curriculum. The specialist technology teachers have had to up-skill from the traditional subject areas of cooking, sewing and woodwork/metalwork to one or a combination of the technological areas. They said that they found it difficult to incorporate the traditional skills that were an essential part of how they used to teach prior to the technology curriculum. They continue, on the whole, to work out of poor facilities not specifically designed for the technology curriculum, and they work with outdated equipment. They tend to teach large classes over short periods of time and reported having concerns about how to make assessment manageable. Specialist technology teachers perceived barriers to involving experts from the community in technology programmes as they were

116

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

restricted by timetabling and class size. Intermediate school teachers used a wide variety of assessment methods, including pre-test/post-tests, products, practical tasks, peer assessment, observation and school exemplars. Although many secondary school teachers have new facilities in which to work, they have had difficulties with establishing technology in their schools either because of timetable constraints, management decisions or lack of enthusiasm on the part of former home economics and wood/metal teachers. Fifty-three percent of secondary school year 9–13 teachers placed more emphasis on technological capability. Concerns about the level of student knowledge and skill to be able to cope with requirements of the curriculum were expressed by 31% of secondary school teachers. Biotechnology was the only technological area that secondary school schools did not cover so well. Secondary school teachers most often used products, practical tasks, observation and school exemplars in the assessment of technology.

DISCUSSION

When the technology was introduced into New Zealand schools it was a new curriculum for all teachers. This major evaluation of teacher experiences in introducing the technology curriculum provides interesting insights into how teachers have implemented this part of the New Zealand curriculum framework. Technology teachers have had to adapt more than in any other curriculum area to new ways of teaching. They have found the subject challenging yet have taken technology in their stride, and believe in the value of the subject for their students. The technology curriculum has clearly established itself in the culture of New Zealand schools. There was a general degree of satisfaction with the curriculum statement that had been most helpful to teachers in their planning, gaining an overview of key technological ideas, and achieving consistent understanding of the curriculum levels. Most teachers considered the technology curriculum statement to be user-friendly or user-friendly in some ways. Primary and intermediate teachers considered the statement to be more user-friendly than secondary teachers. There was a general degree of satisfaction with the curriculum statement in that less than 35% of teachers wanted to make changes. The largest group who wanted changes to the structure/organisation was secondary teachers. The most popular changes would be ‘making it more simple to understand’ and ‘including better developed learning and assessment examples’. The technology curriculum statement has been of most help in planning, gaining an overview of key technological ideas, achieving consistent understanding of the curriculum levels and in reporting student achievement to parents and caregivers. Generally speaking the primary school teachers said they covered all the technological areas in their teaching. There were fewer teachers at intermediate schools teaching biotechnology, electronics and control tech-

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

117

nology, and food technology; this could be because specialist technology teachers often cover these areas. At secondary level, biotechnology seemed to be the least well covered by teachers responding to the questionnaire. Secondary schools have not developed courses in biotechnology, structures and mechanisms or production and process technology to the same extent as in primary schools. Food Technology and Materials Technology were considered to be the easiest technological areas in which to provide experiences for students. Electronics and Control Technology and Biotechnology were considered to be the most difficult. Amount of teacher knowledge was the most important factor influencing ease of providing technological experiences. Facilities and other resources were also considered to be important factors. More primary teachers felt that teacher knowledge was important whereas more secondary teachers felt that facilities were important. Approximately two-thirds of teachers said they integrated technology into other learning areas. Implementing technology in blocks/modules was also popular with nearly 40% of all the teachers’ schools. Primary schools tended to integrate technology into languages and science. Intermediate and secondary schools integrated technology into home economics and workshop technology. Across all school types teachers ‘usually combined all three strands’ in their technology units or ‘sometimes combined strands and sometimes taught the strands separately’. However secondary teachers placed more emphasis on technological capability. ‘Practical tasks’ was the most popular way of assessing student learning in technology, followed by ‘observation’ and ‘products’. Primary school teachers often used observation and interviews/conferencing to assess student learning in technology. Intermediate teachers used a wider variety of assessment methods, including pre-tests/post tests, products, practical tasks, peer assessment, observation and school exemplars. Secondary teachers most often used products, practical tasks, observation, and school exemplars. Teachers detailed a wide range of strategies that had been successful in their teaching of technology, and the trend appears to be one of choosing topics that are relevant to students’ needs, involving the students in practical, hands-on activities, encouraging a ‘problem-solving approach’ and using group or co-operative learning approaches. It was evident that students were working on varied types of projects in technology: approximately 50% of all students ‘sometimes’ worked on individual projects, group/team projects, teacher-directed projects, and self-selected projects. Intermediate and secondary students worked on individual projects more often than students at primary school level. Teachers rarely involved people from the community who have technological expertise. Primary school teachers appeared to involve experts in the community more often than teachers in other types of school. Teachers detailed a wide range of teaching approaches that had been effective in improving student learning, and the trend was one of involving the students more in the planning and direction of the lessons, having the students work in a co-operative way and being involved in

118

ALISTER JONES ET AL.

hands-on, practical activities. The majority of teachers were happy with their implementation of the technology curriculum. Primary school teachers were more satisfied than secondary teachers. Reasons given for satisfaction focused mainly on the view that students enjoyed the units of work and were achieving, and teachers felt that they were covering requirements. Nearly three-quarters of the teachers had received professional development in technology. Teachers reported that it helped most of all to give a ‘depth of knowledge’ or ‘ideas’ to help them implement the curriculum. The most useful source of knowledge to almost half of the teachers was other teachers in the school. Advisors, books and journals and teachers in other schools were also considered useful. Teachers were most interested in receiving professional development in the specific technological areas. They wanted information on planning and teaching skills. They were also interested in knowing more about progression, assessment and reporting achievement, as well as gaining more information on practical contexts and ideas.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national study of the implementation of the technology curriculum in New Zealand schools and reports on teachers’ experiences. Technology education has obviously become more established in primary schools compared with secondary schools. However this research is based primarily on teacher self report data and may not reflect actual classroom practice in terms of technology learning outcomes. The classroom-based research of Moreland and Jones (2000) indicates that although teachers are implementing the technology curriculum, technology education outcomes were not always being prioritised. Further research is required to examine what is occurring at the classroom level. Professional development has had a significant effect in helping in the implementation of technology in New Zealand schools. The emphasis on professional development in the beginning of the implementation phase of the curriculum has had a positive impact in terms of teachers knowing about the curriculum and in many ways what are technology-learning activities. However, the professional development has not been on-going and although teachers are aware of the technology curriculum, much more research is required to examine the impact on student learning. In secondary schools the change has not been as great as in primary schools. Existing school structures, existing facilities, examinations have had an impact on curriculum implementation is secondary schools. The strong subject subculture (Goodson 1985; Paechter 1991) of workshop technology, home economics and graphics has also had a major impact. Given the lack of a technology subject subculture in New Zealand, other subjects’ sub-cultural impact on technological classroom practice becomes very complex (Jones 1999).

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES

119

Assessment and progression are key issues for the future that were identified by the teachers in this study, this is consistent with research agendas in the field which point out that this is a significant area of study if the field of technology in schools is to progress (Jones & Moreland 2003).

NOTES 1. Schools are rated in decile groupings (1 lowest – 10 highest) based on the school’s community socio-economic status.

REFERENCES Compton, A. & Jones, A.: 1998, ‘Reflecting on Teacher Development in Technology Education: Implications for Future Programmes’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8(2), 151–166. Goodson, I. F.: 1985, Social Histories of the Secondary Curriculum, Falmer Press, Lewes. Jones, A.: 1999, ‘The Influence of Teachers’ Subcultures on Curriculum Innovation’, in J. Loughran (ed.), Researching Teaching, Falmer Press, London. Jones, A.: 2003, ‘The Development of the New Zealand Technology Curriculum’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13(1), 83–99. Ministry of Education: 1995, Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Learning Media, Wellington. Jones, A. & Compton, V.: 1998, ‘Towards a model of Teacher Development in Technology Education’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8(1), 51–65. Jones & Moreland: 2003, ‘Developing Classroom Focused Research in Technology Education’, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 3(1), 51–66. Moreland, J. and Jones, A.: 2000, ‘Emerging Assessment Practices in an Emergent Curriculum: Implications for Technology’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10, 283–305. Paechter, C.: 1991, Sub-Cultural Retreat: negotiating the Design and Technology Curriculum. Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference.