The Technology Fair: a project-based learning approach for ...

Int J Technol Des Educ (2007) 18:79–100 DOI 10.1007/s10798-006-9011-3 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Technology Fair: a project-based learning approach for enhancing problem solving skills and interest in design and technology education Alexandros C. Mettas Æ Constantinos C. Constantinou

Received: 19 June 2006 / Accepted: 7 September 2006 / Published online: 29 December 2006 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract This paper presents an innovative way in which university education can help pre-service teachers become better problem-solvers. The central idea is to use the ‘‘Technology Fair’’ as a means for promoting pre-service teachers pedagogical content knowledge about technological problem solving skills. This innovation is supported with results from a study carried out in autumn 2004. The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of a procedure of working with primary school children to complete and present a technology fair project, on the educational value and meanings attached to problem solving skills by pre-service teachers. Pre-tests, mid-test and post-tests were administered to the pre-service teachers before, during, and after the preparation of the technology fair, respectively. A number of pre-service teachers were selected and interviewed after the completion of the technology fair. Data were also collected from reflective diaries kept by the pre-service teachers during the preparation phase of the technology fair. Analysis of the results indicates that the technology fair contributes to the development of positive values and attitudes in technology education and has a significant influence on improving pre-service teachers understanding and application of problem solving strategies within the domain of technology. Keywords Decision-making Æ Hands-on activities Æ Problem-solving Æ Science fair Æ Technology fair Æ University–school partnership

Introduction Technology education is a relatively new domain in relation with many other areas of educational research, such as science and mathematics education. As a result, some of the ideas that are successfully established in science teaching could be

A. C. Mettas (&) Æ C. C. Constantinou Learning in Science Group, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus e-mail: [email protected]

123

80

Int J Technol Des Educ (2007) 18:79–100

usefully adapted in technology education. We have explored the possibility of transfer of some aspects of one such idea, the science fair. Science fair projects have long been used as a mechanism for promoting scientific skills with an emphasis on learning through ‘‘doing’’. Identifying problems, formulating questions, making observations, proposing solutions, and interpreting data are necessary skills for students in school and throughout their lives. The core underlying idea has been to promote a type of education that places emphasis on these skills through hands-on science activities, while simultaneously enhancing understanding of fundamental principles in science (Czerniak & Lumpe, 1997; Duggan & Gott, 1995). The technology fair is a new idea derived from one interpretation of science fair projects as designed by the Learning in Science Group at the University of Cyprus and now implemented nationally throughout the educational system of Cyprus (Constantinou et al., 2004). Because the technology fair is a new idea, its design, organization and implementation are not currently well supported in the research literature. The technology fair was elaborated from the general idea of the science fair, which promotes learning by doing, student investigations and University– school-community partnerships. The main focus of the Technology Fair is on engaging students in the process of design as an approach to developing methodical solutions to technological problems. Our interest in this area arose from the idea that participation in a technology fair could stimulate students’ interest in technology education while simultaneously promoting the development of technological problem solving skills.

Theoretical background Problem solving strategies hold a special importance in education. Much research has been carried out into problem solving, analyzing and describing strategies for solving different types of problems, designing instruction for chosen strategies, and measuring the result of teaching interventions (Boud & Feletti, 1991). First versions of teaching approaches in relation to problem solving relied heavily on practicing problem solving on a large number of problems. Instruction and feedback are usually focused on the sequence of problem solving steps to be performed and less emphasis was placed on the knowledge and the cognitive strategies necessary to perform these steps. In the 1980s, researchers introduced new methods of instruction composed of a wider variety of learning tasks. Some of these were based on new insights into cognitive processes. Many of these approaches are inspired by theories on the role of schemata in domain knowledge (Gick & Holyoa, 1983) or by theories on mental models (Chi & Bassok, 1989). Recently, more emphasis has been placed on the use of computers and modern Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the teaching of problem solving and on peer collaboration (Hoek, Terwel, & Van den Eeden, 1997), whereas cognitive psychology has produced new perspectives such as multiple-code theories and connectionist models (Sternberg, 1999). The approach to learning that includes explicit working for a solution to a problem is often called ‘‘Problem Based Learning’’. It is an instructional approach that has already been implemented, at least on a trial basis, in elementary and secondary education (Delisle, 1997). Problem-based learning typically begins with a

123


81

problem for students to solve or learn more about. The problem acts as the stimulus and focus for student activity and learning (Boud & Feletti, 1991). Learning in this way is purposeful and self-sustaining as the student learns while searching for solutions to the problems they have formulated themselves. Students are actively involved and learn in the context in which knowledge is to be used. Problems are designed to be ‘‘ill-structured’’ and to imitate the complexity of real life situations. Often, they are framed around a scenario or case study format. Problem based learning assignments vary widely in scope and sophistication. Our approach uses an inquiry model: students are presented with a problem and they begin by organizing any previous knowledge on the subject, posing any additional questions, and identifying areas on which they need more information (Delisle, 1997). Students devise a plan for gathering more information, then do the necessary research and reconvene to share and summarize their new knowledge (Stepian & Gallagher, 1993). Problem based learning practices have been used for many years in higher education (Barrows, 1996; Williams, 1992). In the field of educational studies there have been positive findings from research on the learning outcomes of project-based teaching approaches (Chard, 1992; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Existing studies have shown that students involved in problem-based learning tend to acquire knowledge and become more proficient in problem solving, self-directed learning, and team participation (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1997). Frequently, problem based learning is achieved through well design projects that the students work with. This type of learning through the implementation of projects is called ‘‘Project Based Learning’’. Project based learning and problem based learning are instructional strategies that are intended to engage students in authentic, ‘real world’ tasks to enhance learning. Students are given open-ended projects or problems with more than one approach or answer, intended to simulate professional situations. Both learning approaches are designned to be student centred, and include the teacher in the role of facilitator. In project based learning approaches, students define the purpose for creating the end product and identify their audience. They research their topic, design their product, and create a plan for project management. Students then begin the project, resolve problems and issues that arise and finish their product. Students may use or present the product they have created, and, ideally, they are given time to reflect on and evaluate their work (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). The entire process is meant to be authentic, mirroring real world production activities and utilizing students’ own ideas and approaches to accomplishing the tasks at hand. Though the end product is the driving force in project-based learning, it is the content knowledge and skills acquired during the production process that are important for the success of the approach. Researchers have investigated the impact of project based learning in a variety of educational contexts ranging from early childhood education to medical and legal education. Project based learning has generally been shown to be effective in increasing student motivation and in improving student problem-solving and higher order thinking skills (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). In practice, it is likely that the line between project- and problem-based learning is frequently blurred and that the two are used in combination and play complementary roles. Fundamentally, problem- and project-based learning have the same orientation: both are authentic, constructivist approaches to learning. Thus, a wide variety of promising instructional approaches is available to teachers, instructional

123

82


designers, and researchers. However, a more systematic overview of the merits of the various approaches in terms of learning outcomes achieved in experimental settings is lacking as a basis for the application of new methods of instruction (Taconis & Broekkamp, 2002). Problem based learning and project based learning approaches are used in design and technology education in order to engage students with processes to investigate and solve technological problems. In technology education, problem solving activities provide students with opportunities to create and evaluate designs and to experience knowledge seeking, processing, and applications. Most of the technological problems that students are dealing with in design and technology education are ill-defined. Greenwald (2000) characterized an ill-defined problem as being: ‘‘unclear and raises questions about what is known, what needs to be known, and how the answer can be found. Because the problem is unclear, there are many ways to solve it, and the solutions are influenced by one’s vantage point and experience’’ (p. 28). An ill-defined problem can be introduced to students within the context of a larger, realistic scenario. In design and technology education, illdefined problems become better defined and more contextualized as they are worked on and hence the solving and learning is through doing. In some approaches to design and technology education problem solving is conceptualized through a dynamic sequence of steps called the design process. In Cyprus the national curriculum, operationalizes this process as a sequence of eight steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Identify a need or a problem Formulate the design brief Write the specifications and limitations that the solution should satisfy Search any relevant information Draw/Sketch possible ideas/solutions for the problem Select the best possible solution Construct a prototype Test and Evaluate the solution (redesign if possible)

These steps can be implemented one after the other but can also be repeated as individual steps or combinations of them at any stage of the process. The appropriateness or not, of the design process as a linear model for designing is currently under debate (Barlex & Welch, 2001). Some researchers argue that the design process does not exist, and that, what is required, is a focus upon design skills, and not a process. This would also discount the idea of the design process being seen as a problem-solving process, ‘‘It could therefore follow that teachers who treat the process as ritual are in fact not necessarily underplaying the problem solving in technology activity’’ (McCormick, 1995, p. 174). The results of a study by McCormick, Murphy and Hennessy (1994) indicate that the design process is highly complex and not always communicated successfully by teachers. What children typically encounter in design and technology projects are different problems requiring different approaches according to the kind of task and the stage reached in its solution. The popular idea that ‘problem solving’ in technology denotes a holistic ‘design and make’ process is hence under challenge. Murphy and Hennessy (2001) argue that students usually do not follow a sequential pattern of activity as they move to reach what they consider to be an appropriate solution. According to Barlex and Welch (2001) children seem to

123


83

develop solutions serially, rather than developing several alternative solutions at the beginning before choosing one to pursue. Children move from one type of design activity to another quite rapidly, and designing occurs alongside, throughout the entire process. Despite the doubts about the existence of a uniform design process or not, the use of design as a means to technological problem solving is the dominant paradigm in technology education in many countries. Additionally, some researchers argue that the application of a design process makes it possible to guide students with little experience in technological problems (Moriyama, Satou, & Kin, 2002; Walker, 2000). The current study is based on the teaching of a design process as part of a preservice primary education programme. In our programme, we use the design process with non specialist pre-service teachers in order to provide a sense of security, a scaffolding framework and some guidance on how to approach technological problem solving. We explicitly avoid implementing the process as a serial sequence of steps and we also integrate into our teaching reflective mechanisms with a view to promote awareness of the different aspects of the design process and their complex inter-relationships. To develop technological problem solving skills, students must merge design as a problem solving approach with the content of technology and integrate technical skills with problem solving skills. In our context, we have developed the technology fair as an activity that provides opportunities for our students (pre-service teachers) to work with children in order to gain practice in achieving this type of synthesis.

The technology fair During the technology fair primary school children, with the assistance of pre-service teachers were responsible for identifying a human need, formulating a technological problem, collecting information and developing an appropriate solution. Each preservice teacher was responsible for collaborating with one child (aged 10–12) on a single technological project. In this context, technology fair projects provide an opportunity for interaction between pre-service teachers and primary school students so that they can work as a team with shared but different goals: the child aims to solve a technological problem and present both the description of the problem and its solution during the technology fair; the pre-service teacher aims to use the interaction as a process for helping the child develop technological problem-solving skills through a systematic approach (Mettas & Constantinou, 2005). Once the work of pre-service teachers and pupils reaches a level where specific products are available, the school organizes a public event where each pupil displays a poster describing their designing and the constructed artifact. In addition, preservice teachers and pupils develop interactive activities specifically for the technology fair which are implemented with a view to engage the visitors in the learning process and enhance the educational value of the fair. This interactive activity should be of some relevance to the initial problem and their solution (Mettas & Constantinou, 2006). Through this activity they will attract interest and participation from the parent and student visitors to the fair. At this phase a whole day school event was organized, called the technology fair, and parents and other school children were invited to participate.

123

84


The technology fair was implemented with an explicit emphasis on combined problem based and project based learning. Pre-service teachers and primary school pupils worked as a team using a project based learning approach with the goal to solve a technological problem. For the completion of their projects, pre-service teachers and children faced various technological problems and applied problem based learning approaches to overcome them. Prior to the technology fair, the pre-service teachers received formal instruction for a period of 4 weeks on Design and Technology with particular emphasis on using design as a process of solving technological problems. During that period each pre-service teacher became engaged with a single technological problem and worked on developing and evaluating solutions to that problem as a member of a small group. They investigated the problem and designed a solution that satisfied explicit specifications to the extent possible. In the next phase, pre-service teachers prepared teaching materials and implemented them with primary education children as part of their technology fair preparation. A period of 4 weeks was needed for the preparation of teaching materials and the meetings with children. Figure 1 shows graphically the phases of the research and how the technology fair was implemented and assessed. Introduction to Design and Technology

Phase 1 Pre-test administration

Instruction based on the design process

Phase 2

Application of the design process to a technological problem

Mid-test administration Students’ preparation of teaching materials and meeting arrangements with children Reflective diaries Technology Fair

Phase 3 Classroom meetings

Post-test administration

End of Semester

Phase 4 Interviews with 12 students

Fig. 1 The design of the technology fair

123


85

The technology fair as a university–school partnership The technology fair was designed as a measure to promote mutual cooperation between the University of Cyprus and local schools through a complex process of merging theory and practice in technology education. LePage, Bordreau, Maier, Robinson and Cox (2001) argue that often school university partnerships have been framed with the belief that something is wrong with the educational practices in schools, and universities often prescribe solutions to fix perceived problems in a topdown manner. In some partnerships, universities are blamed for not reciprocating what they gain from the relationship. For example, in many cases partnership-based research that faculty conduct does not necessarily lead to results that are in any way relevant to teachers’ daily classroom activities and children’s achievement (Teitel, 2003). Even when the results are relevant, the teachers do not have a systematic implementation strategy that will allow the educational innovation to become part of everyday classroom practice (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, & Marx, 2000). In other words, what university faculty brings to schools through partnerships is often unusable for classroom teachers. Partnership relationships require programs striving to maintain a collaborative relationship that involves teachers trying to identify knowledge situated within their work context, and university faculty with an active presence in schools identifying and attempting to meet everyday teacher needs (Day, 1998). The technology fair involves school teachers and school pupils in an active educational cooperation with university staff and university students. In addition, the technology fair involves the local community and other children and teachers that are not participating directly in the technological projects but are invited to participate in the actual fair. It is important for university students and perspective primary education students to have authentic learning experiences from their collaboration with school pupils. This objective could only be accomplished with effective university–school partnership that offers mutual benefits to both sides. The technology fair attempts to improve the cooperation of the University of Cyprus with local schools with simple, applied design and technology tasks that could be easily adopted in school technology classes.

Purpose of the research The main purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of the Technology Fair in developing pre-service teachers’ problem solving skills and their pedagogical content knowledge about technological problem solving. More specifically, the purpose of the study was: (i)

To examine whether the Technology Fair influences pre-service teachers’ involvement and interests in Technology. (ii) To improve our understanding of the processes used in developing technological problem solving strategies and how the technology fair could contribute in this direction.

123

86


(iii) To examine the understandings and strategies that the pre-service teachers develop in their effort to facilitate the development of technological problem solving by primary school children.

Research design, methods and sample In order to assess pre-service teachers’ understandings about the design process, a number of tasks were designed and organized into pre-tests, mid-tests and post-tests. Tests were administered to students before, during and after the preparation of the technology fair, respectively (25/10/2004, 8/11/2004 and 29/11/2004). Pre-tests, midtests and post-tests included exactly identical tasks. In addition, each pre-service teacher was asked to keep a detailed reflective diary after every meeting with the child. These diaries formed an additional source of complementary data. In the diary, each pre-service teacher recorded information about the difficulties they encountered and how they were able to overcome them. Additionally, teaching methods, emotions and ideas were reported after each meeting with the primary school pupils. Finally, following the completion of the technology fair, 12 pre-service teachers were selected and interviewed about the experiences, problems and difficulties they faced as well as their interests and commitments while working with the child.

Sample The sample of the research consisted of 82 pre-service teachers at the Department of Educational Sciences, University of Cyprus. All pre-service teachers were enrolled in a compulsory course on Design and Technology Education. The pre-service teachers were studying for the degree of primary education in order to serve as teachers at primary school. All students were in their second year of a four-year course and they were all coming from similar educational backgrounds, having graduated from the Cyprus state high school system. Consent forms were distributed to the whole class and the 82 pre-service teachers that took part in the study returned their completed form within one week.

Purpose of each task in the test Six tasks were designed and organized into pre-tests, mid-tests and post-tests in order to assess the understanding of pre-service teachers in the application of design as a technological problem solving process. All the tests (pre-test, mid-test and posttest) consisted of identical tasks. The tasks were designed to assess specific aspects of design as well as design as a coherent process. The tasks were pilot-tested and improved for 2 semesters prior to this research study. The requirements for each task included in the test are shown below: Task 1-Problem identification Requires pre-service teachers to identify a technological problem (or a need) from the domain of transportation. Specifically the actual task stated: ‘Identify a

123


87

need that could be considered as a technological problem, which you are able to solve, within the time limit and the available materials of the course on Design and Technology’. Task 2-Design brief Requires pre-service teaches to formulate the design brief for the following technological problem: ‘Many people travel from city A to city B every day. In-between the two cities there is a large lake that causes difficulties in their transportation, because people need to drive a long distance to reach the other side of the lake’. Therefore a new construction is needed that will be reliable, decrease the existing transportation time and secure easy access from one city to the other. Task 3-Specifications Requires pre-service teachers to identify the main specifications and limitations for a given product (Bridge model). For the requirements of that task pre-service teachers had to consider all the factors that could affect the design of a specific artifact, as shown in Fig. 2. Task 4-Problem investigation Requires pre-service teachers to list a number of issues on which they need to seek information in order to be in a position to develop an appropriate solution for the

Fig. 2 Bridge model used in Tasks 3 and 6

123

88


problem given to them in task 2. Pre-service teachers identified the most important factors and mentioned which information needed to be obtained in order to embark on developing the best possible solution. Task 5-Alternative solutions Requires pre-service teachers to draw/sketch possible ideas/solutions for the problem given in task 2. The pre-service teachers were asked to draw a solution that is possible to be constructed by themselves within the course limitations (time limit and materials availability). Task 6-Test and evaluation Requires pre-service teachers to test and evaluate a finished construction (bridge model, Fig. 2). Pre-service teachers had to consider the product specifications that they mentioned in task 3 and then decide and describe the appropriate tests needed in order to evaluate the product.

Reflective diaries and interviews Reflective diaries and interviews formed an additional source of data in relation to the pre-service teachers’ strategies in applying the design process with the children. In the reflective diary, each pre-service teacher recorded information about difficulties and problems they encountered while working with pupils and how they were able to overcome them. They described in detail every step of their design work. Additionally, teaching methods, emotions and ideas were reported after each meeting with the primary school pupil. The purpose of the reflective diaries was to collect information and data about pre-service teachers’ understanding of technological problem solving strategies and how these were enacted during collaboration with primary school pupils. The purpose of the interviews with the pre-service teachers was to investigate their understanding of technological problem solving, their appreciation of its educational value and their approach to facilitating the development of relevant skills after their experience with the technology fair. The questions of the interviews were open ended and the pre-service teachers were encouraged to draw explicitly on their experiences while working on the technology fair. During the interviews, pre-service teachers initially responded to tasks of the same context as the tasks included in the test, eg. to identify a technological problem and formulate the design brief, to consider the main specifications of different products, to describe the kind of research and different information that could possibly inform the design and to evaluate some finished technological products. They were also required to reflect on the importance of children developing such skills and the strategies they had themselves used while working with the child. The pre-service teachers reported their difficulties while working with pupils, their emotions and their beliefs about the organization of the technology fair and its usefulness as a teaching and learning activity.

123


89

Research limitations and weaknesses The tasks that formulate the test were based on the use of the different steps of the design process as these appear in the Cyprus National Curriculum. Therefore, comparisons are only possible between the respective tasks for each test, i.e. task 1 of the pre-test could be compared with task 1 of the mid-test and task 1 of the post-test. The research design assumes that pre-service teachers are using these aspects of the design process while engaging with the solution of technological problems. Because designing is a complex activity and the students were prepared to deviate from a serial implementation of the different aspects of design, this assumption is not always valid, i.e. the students’ don’t always restrict themselves to these stages, they do not use all stages and they do not implement them in strict sequence. Therefore more research is required in relation to the extent that students and children are using the different aspects of design in their projects. In consequence, the results of this study cannot be interpreted to reveal children’s spontaneous approaches to designing solutions to technological problems. Results Responses to pre-tests, mid-tests, and post-tests were analysed using the phenomenographic approach developed by Marton (1981). Pre-service teachers’ responses were organized into categories, which were then arranged hierarchically so that category 1 is the most appropriate category of responses, category 2 is cognitively less adequate than category 1 and better than category 3 etc. The results are presented graphically for each task of the pre-test, mid-test and post-test. Task 1: Problem identification Pre-service teachers’ responses to task 1 involved the formulation of four types of problems. The categories that emerged from the phenomenographic analysis for task 1 are shown below: Category 1: Simple technological problems that students are able to solve within the course limitations. Example: My little dog leaves in my home yard and needs its own little house. Category 2: Complicated technological problems whose solutions could not be achieved within the course limitations (eg. time or material limitations). Example: During summer the weather is very hot. I need to design a cooling device for my room. Category 3: Responses that describe problems whose solution requires technological knowledge that is not yet available. Example: The irradiation of the earth because of the ozone hole is a big threat that needs to be resolved. Category 4: Descriptions that cannot be considered as technological problems. Example: I spend my monthly salary during the first week of the month and then I have a financial problem until the beginning of the next month. The percentages for each category of response for task 1 during pre-test, mid-test and post-test are shown in Fig. 3.

123

Int J Technol Des Educ (2007) 18:79–100 87%

90

Pre-test

22%

2%

5%

17%

18%

17%

6%

20%

21%

40%

26%

60%

Post-test

Mid-test

45%

80%

34%

Pecrenatges (% )

100%

0% Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

Problem Identification Fig. 3 Percentages of pre-service teachers’ responses to task 1

Task 2: Design brief Pre-service teachers were expected to include in their design briefs the main requirements that the construction should satisfy, such as (1) decrease the existing transportation time, (2) secure easy access from one city to the other, and (3) reliable solution. The responses of task 2 were analysed based on these aspects and the results are presented in Fig. 4. Task 3: Specification The specifications mentioned by pre-service teachers were, cost, safety, completion time, functionality, attractiveness, available materials, product size and strength. The frequencies of each specification mentioned in each phase of the research are shown in Fig. 5. Task 4: Problem investigation The types of information that were considered by the pre-service teachers as important elements to be analysed prior to the development of a proper solution were, material properties, product functionality, appropriate size, cost, how to

84%

Post-test

49%

37%

50%

52%

35%

40%

38%

Percnetages (%)

80% 60%

Mid-test

81%

87%

Pre-test

20% 0% Time

Easy Access

Design Brief

Fig. 4 Percentages of pre-service teachers’ responses to task 2

123

Relibability

51% 52%

76% 38% 43%

27% 35%

40% 40%

32% 23%

21% 31%

40%

78%

Post-test

73%

72%

79%

72%

73%

Mid-test

60% 29% 38%

Percentges (%)

Pre-test

72% 77%

100%

80%

91

92%


20%

0% Cost

Safety

Time

Size

Functionality Attractiveness Materials

Strength

Specification


ensure the highest strength, safety, how to make the product attractive. Figure 6 shows the percentages of pre-service teachers’ responses for the three tests. Task 5: Alternative solutions

70%

70%

32% 10%

18%

37%

44%

36%

15%

20%

Post-test

70%

Mid-test

67% 3

29%

40%

39%

67%

62%

51%

60%

54%

Precentages (%)

80%

Pre-test

59%

100%

85%

95%

Pre-service teachers drew their initial solutions for the problem given to them in task 2. The drawings/solutions were classified into three main categories, which are demonstrated by typical examples of students’ drawings in Figs. 7–9. Category 1: Detailed design drawings/solutions Category 2: Drawing of a picture Category 3: Abstract drawing that does not include any operational features The percentages for each category of response to task 5 at pre-test, mid-test and post-test are shown in Fig. 10.

0% Materials

Functionality

Size

Cost

Strength

Safety

Attactiveness

Investigation Factor


123

92


Fig. 7 An example of a detailed design drawing

Fig. 8 An example of a drawing of a picture

Task 6: Test and evaluation Pre-service teachers’ descriptions about the appropriate tests needed for the evaluation of the product related to the product functionality, the appropriateness of the size, and the required strength. Figure 11 shows the percentages of students’ responses on the three tests.

Fig. 9 An example of an abstract drawing without any operational features

123


Mid-test

Post-test

21% 6%

18%

15%

20%

23%

40%

20%

60%

59%

66%

Pre-test

73%

80%

Percnetages (%)

93

0% Detailed Design

Picture

Abstract drawing

Alternative Solutions


85%

83%

59%

61%

32%

40%

Post-test

35%

60%

55%

80%

32%

Precentages (%)

100%

Mid-test

87%

Pre-test

20% 0% Functionality

Strength

Size

Test


Statistical analysis We undertook statistical analysis in order to examine the influence of the two parts of the teaching intervention ((a) formal teaching and own constructions, (b) preparing for the technology fair in collaboration with a child) on pre-service teachers understanding of the different aspects of technological problem solving. The test consisted of 6 tasks that required understanding and implementation of different aspects of design in order to solve a new technological problem. The preservice teachers’ responses to four of the tasks (tasks 2, 3, 4, 6) were on an interval scale and, hence, were analysed using the paired samples t-test. The other two tasks (tasks 1, 5) had responses on an ordinal scale and were analysed using the (nonparametric) Wilcoxon Test. Tables 1–3 show the results of the paired samples t-test for tasks 2, 3, 4 and 6. Table 1 shows the comparison between pre-test and mid-test, i.e. the period from the introduction to the topic until the teaching and the implementation of the technological problem solving process by the pre-service teachers themselves. Table 2 shows the comparison between mid-test and post-test, i.e. the period during which the pre-service teachers guided a child to solve a technological problem and prepare for the technology fair, including the implementation of the fair itself. Table 3 shows the comparison between pre-test and post-test, i.e. the effect of the overall intervention (both parts) on pre-service teachers’ problem solving skills.

123

94


Table 1 Paired samples t-test comparing Pre-test and Mid-test Task

Task Task Task Task

2. 3. 4. 6.

Design Brief Specifications Information search Test—Evaluation

Mean Pre-Test

Mean Mid-Test

S.D. Pre–Test

S.D. Mid-Test

1.13 3.09 2.11 1.21

1.56 3.39 3.01 1.39

1.08 1.18 1.01 0.94

0.92 1.23 1.54 0.78

t

–3.840 –1.783 –5.185 –1.504

d.f

p

81 81 81 81

.000 .078 .000 .136

d.f

p

81 81 81 81

.000 .000 .000 .000

d.f

p

81 81 81 81

.000 .000 .000 .000

Table 2 Paired samples t-test comparing Mid-test and Post-test Task

Task Task Task Task

2. 3. 4. 6.


Mean Mid-Test

Mean Post-Test

S.D. Mid-Test

S.D. Post-Test

1.56 3.39 3.01 1.39

2.51 6.24 5.24 2.54

0.918 1.23 1.53 0.78

0.633 1.10 1.17 0.70

t

–9.557 –17.518 –12.191 –10.495

Table 3 Paired samples t-test comparing Pre-test and Post-test Task

Task Task Task Task

2. 3. 4. 6.


Mean Pre-Test

Mean Post-Test

S.D. Pre-Test

S.D. Post-Test

1.13 3.09 2.11 1.21

2.51 6.24 5.24 2.54

1.08 1.18 1.01 0.94

0.633 1.10 1.17 0.70

t

–11.886 –18.304 –19.503 –10.909

From Table 1, we can see that pre-service teachers perform significantly better in mid-test as compared to the pre-test, in tasks 2 and 4. The differences are statistically significant for both tasks 2 and 4 with t(81) = – 3.84, p < 0.01 and t(81) = – 5.18, p < 0.01, respectively. There are no statistically significant differences between pretest and mid-test performance for tasks 3 and 6. From Tables 2 and 3, it can be seen that there are statistically significant differences for all the tasks, both from mid-test to post-test and from pre-test to post-test. These results corroborate the impressions that emerge from looking at Figs. 4–6 and 11: the biggest changes in pre-service teachers’ performance on these tasks were observed during the phase of preparation and implementation of the technology fair and not during formal instruction. Tables 4–6 shows the results of the Wilcoxon test for task 1 and task 5. Table 4 shows the comparison between pre-test and mid-test, Table 5 shows the comparison between mid-test and post-test and Table 6 shows the comparison between pre-test and post-test. From Table 4, we can see that none of the differences between pre-test and midtest are statistically significant for tasks 1 and 5. On the contrary, Tables 5 and 6 indicate that there are statistically significant differences for tasks 1 and 5 from midtest to post-test (Wilcoxon Z = – 5.244, p < 0.01 and Wilcoxon Z = – 5.587, p < 0.01, respectively) and from pre-test to post-test (Wilcoxon Z = – 6.140, p < 0.01 and Wilcoxon Z = – 6.277, p < 0.01, respectively). Again, these results

123


95

Table 4 Wilcoxon test comparing Pre-test and Mid-test for Tasks 1 and 5 Mid Task 1–Pre Task 1 Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Mid Task 5–Pre Task 5

– 1.605(a) .109

– 1.043(a) .297

a. Based on negative ranks

Table 5 Wilcoxon test comparing Mid-test and Post-test for Tasks 1 and 5 Post Task 1–Mid Task 1 Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Post Task 5–Mid Task 5

– 5.244(a) .000

– 5.587(a) .000


Table 6 Wilcoxon test comparing Pre-test and Post-test for Tasks 1 and 5 Post Task 1–Pre Task 1 Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

– 6.140(a) .000

Post Task 5–Pre Task 5 – 6.277(a) .000


confirm the impressions formed from looking at Figs. 3 and 10 where the biggest shifts in pre-service teachers’ responses are observed during the latter part of the intervention as opposed to the formal instruction phase. Indications from students’ reflective diaries Pre-service teachers’ records in their reflective diaries were also analysed using a phenomenographic approach. A number of different factors in relation to technological problem solving emerge from the reflective diaries. The main findings are discussed below: Almost every pre-service teacher (94%) characterized the opportunity to participate in the technology fair as a very important experience for their future teaching practice, eg. a pre-service teacher stated in her reflective diary: ‘‘my cooperation with the primary school pupil was very important for my future studies. I found myself improving my teaching skills because of my interaction with the pupil’’. Another pre-service teacher stated in his reflective diary: ‘‘it was a very valuable experience, working with a primary education pupil. I tried different approaches with the child and I realised that these kinds of activities are important as part of our training as teachers’’. A significant number of pre-service teachers express their positive dispositions and values gained through the fair. They also consider themselves to be more effective in identifying technological problems and in a better position to overcome possible obstacles that they might encounter in the process of teaching technological

123

96


problem solving, eg. a pre-service teacher stated in her reflective diary: ‘‘I realised that simple technological problems could be drawn from every day activities, for example, where to store my toothbrush, how can I improve the appearance of my bedroom, etc’’. A large percentage (86%) of the pre-service teachers noted in their reflective diaries that primary school children worked through the design part of their projects with enthusiasm and positive attitude, eg. a pre-service teacher stated in her reflective diary: ‘‘the pupil worked with enthusiasm during the design and construction of his project’’. Another student said: ‘‘the designing part of the project was great fun. Myself and the pupil were extremely motivated in our collaboration by the idea of the participation in the technology fair’’. In their reflective diaries, pre-service teachers also describe the teaching approaches they used during their collaboration with pupils as part of the preparation of the technology fair. Most of the pre-service teachers (74%), prior to the first meeting, had designed very structured teaching materials for their pupils, and were expecting children to follow a series of certain tasks in their work. In their diary entries after of the third and fourth meeting with the child, pre-service teachers described more flexible teaching approaches, generally more consistent with a constructivist model. Pre-service teachers tried various teaching methods throughout the technology fair and they adopted the strategies they believed are more suitable. For example, a pre-service teacher stated in her reflective diary: ‘‘at the beginning I wasn’t sure what pedagogical strategies to follow, I prepared a lot of well-defined tasks for my child, but I noticed that with this approach it was difficult for the child to transfer the new knowledge to his technological problem. After some feedback I got from my instructor, I tried some‘ leaning by doing’ approaches and I realized that it was working out much better’’.

Indications from students’ interviews During the interviews, pre-service teachers expressed their beliefs about their experiences from their participation in the technology fair. They also responded to tasks in relation to technological problem solving. The main outcomes from the interviews are presented below: Pre-service teachers expressed the belief that after the technology fair they were more confident in teaching the subject of Design and Technology in primary school, eg. a pre-service teachers said during her interview: ‘‘After the technology fair I am feeling more confident to teach the subject of design and technology in primary school. It is very important to have this kind of teaching experience as part of our studies’’. The overall process and the presentation of their work in the fair seem to enhance pre-service teachers and pupils’ motivation and interest in the area of technology, eg. a pre-sevice teacher said during the interview: ‘‘The atmosphere during the technology fair was very stimulating for both pupils and students. My pupil showed an interest in every single project presented in the fair’’. Pre-service teachers also expressed a number of emotions they felt during the preparation and implementation of the technology fair. Their initial emotions were characterized mainly by stress about the teaching process and about the interaction with pupils. After the first meetings, pre-service teachers described different and

123


97

substantially more positive emotions, eg. a pre-service teacher said during the interview: ‘‘During my first meeting with the pupil I was very stressed. I was worried about the interaction with him. At the end of our meetings I was really happy and satisfied about our cooperation and the outcome’’.

Discussion The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of the technology fair in developing pre-service teachers’ problem solving skills. The analysis of the results indicates that the technology fair has a significant influence in improving pre-service teachers’ understanding and application of problem solving strategies within the area of design and technology education. The results from the tests, reflective diaries and interviews triangulate and offer substantial support to this conclusion. From these results it emerges that the technology fair can be considered as an effective teaching approach. The comparison of pre-test and mid-test, i.e., the period from the introduction to the subject of Design and Technology up to implementation of the design process in workshop, indicates that there are statistically significant differences only for two out of the six tasks. The two tasks that demonstrated statistically significant differences were related with the formulation of the design brief and the search for information that can contribute to a successful solution. These are influenced by theoretical strategies and hence the impact of formal instruction is understandable. In contrast, there are statistically significant differences for all tasks for the comparison between the mid-test and post-test, i.e., the period before and after the technology fair for all tasks included in the tests. This outcome, in connection with the analysis of reflective diaries and interviews demonstrates that the pre-service teachers’ engagement with the organization of the technology fair strongly influences their abilities to research and solve technological problems through processes of design. The effectiveness of problem based learning in education was also identified from other researchers as well (Boud & Feletti, 1991; Chard, 1992). A possible explanation for this outcome is that the responsibility that was undertaken by pre-service teachers to work with a child and present their results in the technology fair, helped them to focus their efforts and work more effectively. Results obtained from previous research (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1997) show that students involved in problem-based learning are more likely to acquire knowledge and become proficient in problem solving and self-directed learning. During the preparation of the technology fair, pre-service teachers worked harder and sought feedback on their work more frequently than during the formal instruction period in which traditional learning approaches were used (before the technology fair). Throughout the technology fair pre-service teachers indicated an interest both about the designing of a technological project, and for possible pedagogical approaches that could be usefully implemented within design and technology education. Project based learning has been shown to be effective in increasing preservice teachers motivation and in improving their problem-solving skills. Analogous results have been reported by Blumenfeld et al. (1991) who consider project based learning as an effective and stimulating teaching approach.

123

98


From the analysis of the results it can be seen thatthe engagement of pre-service teachers with technological problems and pedagogical activities can enhance their problem solving skills. The application of a ‘‘holistic’’ design process is possible to guide inexperienced designers and pre-service teachers in the designing of effective technological solutions. Our results demonstrate that the implementation of some basic guidelines by pre-service teachers during the designing of technological projects for the technology fair, led them to substantial improvements in various problems solving strategies related to the design process. Pre-service teachers’ reflective diaries also identified that the guidelines of the various steps were helpful to their work with the children. Similar results were reported by Walker (2000) and Moriyama, Satou and Kin (2002) who argue that is very difficult to design a solution to a technological problem without any guidelines, like the steps of the design process. From the analysis of pre-service teachers’ reflective diaries and interviews, it can be seen that the technology fair contributes to the development of positive values and attitudes in design and technology education. Many pre-service teachers express the belief that the atmosphere during the technology fair was very stimulating and technologically rich. Technologically rich environments were also considered by Riel (1994) to be a very important factor that fosters positive values and interest in technology education. Positive values and attitudes that are developed as a result of the technology fair will help pre-service teachers to enhance their interest in technology education in general and in technological problem solving in particular when they come to serve as a teachers. Important factors that emerge from this study are the enthusiasm and the motivation that this kind of education conveys to pre-service teachers. This outcome is evident both from pre-service teachers’ reflective diaries and interviews. Most of the children express the willingness to participate again in a technology fair, while many pre-service teachers stated that they will consider undertaking the organization of a technology fair in their future career as primary education teachers. Children’s enthusiasm and motivation for this kind of education was also obvious from observations during the days of the technology fairs. From the outcomes of reflective diaries and the interviews there is also evidence that the technology fair is valuable mechanism for implementing a University– School partnership. Pre-service teachers on the one hand, take this opportunity to improve their technological problem solving skills and pedagogical content knowledge and on the other hand, primary education pupils encountered an alternative teaching approach with enjoyment, enthusiasm and important outcomes. School teachers also benefit from the rich technological atmosphere during the technology fair, which makes it possible to subsequently consider various technological tasks in their own class work. University staff gain important experiences from their direct involvement with children and thereby enriches and validates their knowledge on teacher training and effective learning approaches. In this context, the technology fair provides a mechanism for a university–school partnership that safeguards the necessary commitment from all sides that is required to promote substantial educational objectives. The level of commitment required makes it difficult to use the technology fair as a medium for an artificial exercise of intervention—data collection—write up and run (Blumenfeld et al., 2000; Teitel, 2003). On the other hand the close alignment between the technology fair activities and the corresponding curriculum themes as well as the first-hand involvement of children in a process of problem solving through design safeguard that the school is

123


99

engaged in a process that is closely linked to their educational reality while at the same time promoting valuable learning outcomes. The findings of this study have wide implications for the conception of design as process of technological problem solving. There is inherent value in promoting design as a thinking strategy that underlies all of technology education. Firstly, this provides a backbone structure unifying all teaching and learning activities. Secondly, it emphasizes more strongly the procedural aspects of technology as opposed to the end products or constructions. Thirdly, it re-contextualizes technology education in a way that is more clearly aligned with the need for enhancing thinking and creativity as opposed to the early development of expertise. Conclusions Based on the results of the tests, the reflective diaries, and the interviews, it can be concluded that the technology fair can enhance the development of technological problem solving skills by pre-service teachers. Another important factor that emerged from this study is the enthusiasm and the motivation that this approach to teacher education offers for both children and pre-service teachers. The technology fair seems to be considered by pre-service teachers as an important educational activity that will help them in their future career. From reflective diaries and interviews, it can be concluded that the technology fair developed positive values to pre-service teachers towards technological design. In addition, during the fair, pre-service teachers expressed positive viewpoints both for their cooperation with children and for the educational value of the technology fair. This study also identified a number of limitations that could be improved in future designs of the technology fair. Further research is needed in order to extent this study with the design and evaluation of teaching materials to support the technology fair activities. The research can also be extended to examine in depth how students address design problems spontaneously. Observations of students and children while working towards the technology fair can provide another source of valuable data in this effort.

References Barlex, D. & Welch, M. (2001). Educational research and curriculum development: The case for synergy. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 6(1), 29–36. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991) Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398. Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164. Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning, New York: St. Martin’s Press Chard, Sylvia C. (Eds.) (1992). The project approach: A practical guide for teachers. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Printing Services.

123

100


Chi, M. & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L.B. Resnick, (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdal, NJ: Erlbaum Constantinou C. P. (and The Learning in Physics Group) (2004). The science fair: A means for developing investigative skills: Teachers’ guide, Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2004 Czerniak, M. & Lumpe, T. (1997). Relationship between Teacher Beliefs and Science Education Reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4, 247–266. Day, C. (1998). Re-thinking school–university partnerships: A Swedish case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 807–819 Delisle, R. (Eds.) (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17, (2) 137–148. Gick, M. & Holyoa, J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 3, (1)1–38. Greenwald, N. L. (2000). Learning from problems. The Science Teacher, 67(4), 28–32. Hoek, D., Terwel, J. & Van den Eeden, P. (1997). Effects of training in the use of social andcognitive strategies: An intervention study on secondary mathematics in co-operative groups. Education Research and Evaluation, 3, 364–389. Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1997). Using multimedia to overcome the problems with problem based learning. Instructional Science, 25(2), 97–115. LePage, P., Bordreau, S., Maier, S., Robinson, J., & Cox, H. (2001). Exploring the complexities of the relationship between K-12 and college faculty in a nontraditional professional development program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 195–211. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography–describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200. McCormick, R. (1995). The problem solving in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 173–175. McCormick, R., Murphy P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem solving in technology education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 5–34. Mettas, A. & Constantinou, C. (2005). The Technology Fair as means for promoting Primary education students’ problem solving skills and interest in Science and Technology’. In C. Benson (Ed.), 5th international primary design and technology conference: Excellence through enjoyment, (pp. 79–82). England: Birmingham. Mettas, A. & Constantinou, C. (2006). The technology fair project. The Technology Teacher, 65(8), 19–21. Moriyama, J.,Satou, M., & Kin, C. (2002). Problem-solving abilities produced in project based technology education. Journal of Technology Studies, 28 (2), 154–158 Murphy, P. & Hennessy, S. (2001). Realising the potential – and lost opportunities – for peer collaboration in a D&T setting. International Journal of Design and Technology Education, 11(3), 203–237. Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 452–474. Stepien, W. J. & Gallagher, S. A. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25–28. Sternberg, R. (Ed.) (1999). The nature of cognition. Cambridge: Bradford. Taconis, R. & Broekkamp, H. (2002). Teaching science problem solving. An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442–468. Teitel, L. (2003). Using research to connect school–university partnerships to student outcomes. In D. L. Wiseman & S. L. Knight (Eds.), Linking: School–university collaboration and K-12 outcomes, (pp. 13–27). Washington D.C.: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walker, D. (2000). Process over Product. A Critique of the Present State of Problem Solving in Technology Education. Technology Teacher, 59(4), 10–14. Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(4), 367–427.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.