Advertisement

A future-focused approach to the technology education curriculum: the disparity between intent and practice

  • Elizabeth ReinsfieldEmail author
Article

Abstract

The recently revised New Zealand Curriculum in technology education [Ministry of Education (MoE) Digital technologies: Hangarau Matihiki, Wellington, 2017. https://education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/consultations/DT-consultation/DTCP1701-Digital-Technologies-Hangarau-Matihiko-ENG.pdf] presents opportunities for teachers to provide a future-focused approach to learning. Teacher perceptions about the nature of their subject and the discourse within their school however, influence how the curriculum is interpreted, for enactment. This article reports findings from Ph.D. research that explored the disparity between the intent of the technology curriculum and the practice of five technology teachers, in two secondary school settings. There is a focus on the ways that teachers might be supported to navigate challenges and enable change in their practice, if they are motivated to enact technology education in a future-focused way. Teachers’ interpretation and enactment of the New Zealand curriculum are heavily influenced by others’ understanding of their subject, and the organisational structures in their school. A threshold concept is presented as a strategy to transform teachers’ thinking, when making meaning of the curriculum, and to develop their knowledge for practice. Recommendations are made regarding the necessary changes in thinking and practice in technology education in New Zealand, to address a further disparity between what school-based practitioners believe students need and what academic researchers assert is important in contemporary education. Initial Teacher Education Programmes are briefly discussed as a means of addressing this issue from another perspective, to ensure that student teachers are exposed to future-focused conceptions of the curriculum at University, to compensate when such practice is not observed during their school placements.

Keywords

Curriculum Future-focused Initial teacher education Technology education Threshold concepts 

Notes

References

  1. Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Victoria, Australia: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30036968/blackmore-researchinto-2011.pdf.
  2. Boyatzis, R., McKee, A., & Goleman, D. (2002). Reawakening your passion for work, 1–8. USA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Retrieved from http://kempstreetpartners.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Reawakening-Your-Passion-for-Work-Boyatzis-McKee-and-Goleman-2002.pdf.
  3. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. de Vries, M. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Diaz-Greenberg, R., Thousand, J., Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Nevin, A. (2000). What teachers need to know about the struggle for self-determination (conscientization) and self-regulation: Adults with disabilities speak about their education experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 873–887.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00032-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy and the power of address. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from http://www.smudgestudio.org/archive/writing/Teaching%20Positions%20EE.pdf.
  7. Etim, J. (2005). Curriculum integration K-12: Theory and practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  8. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser, D. (2000). Curriculum integration: What it is and is not. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 34–37.Google Scholar
  10. Fullan, M. (2002). The change. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2000). Behavior in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Grundy, S., & Robison, J. (2004). Teacher professional development: Themes and trends in the recent Australian experience. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 146–166). Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Validity and reliability (credibility and dependability) in qualitative research and data analysis. Applied thematic analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, A. M. (2003). An analysis of the debate: Has the study of technology a vocational or academic purpose? In Paper presented at the Pupils attitudes toward technology: Thirteenth international conference on design and technology (pp. 87–92). Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/8379/1/PATT.pdf.
  16. Hipkins, C. (2017). New digital technologies for schools and kura. Retrieved from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-digital-technologies-schools-and-kura.
  17. Jewitt, C. (2012) An introduction to using video for research. NCRM Working Paper, Unpublished. National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/.
  18. Jones, A. (2009). Towards an articulation of students making progress in learning technological concepts and processes. In A. T. Jones & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 407–417). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, A., Harlow, A., & Cowie, B. (2004). New Zealand teachers’ experiences in implementing the technology curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 101–119.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000026549.08795.9e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kadi-Hanifi, K., & Keenan, J. (2016). Finding the “A-ha” moment: An exploration into higher education in further education teacher self-concept. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 21(1), 73–85.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2015.1125672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Land, R., Meyer, J., & Smith, J. (2008). Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Lather, P. (1998). Critical pedagogy and its complicities: A praxis of stuck places. Educational Theory, 48(4), 487–498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1998.00487.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leggat, P. (2015). Modern learning environments, 21st Century learning and curriculum and future-focused learning (Sabbatical report). Retrieved from https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Leggat+modern+learning+environments&oq=Leggat+modern+learning+environments&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.13727j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
  24. MacGregor, D. (2017). Exploring the role of professional learning communities in supporting the identify transition of beginning design and technology teachers. In J. Williams & D. Barlex (Eds.), Contemporary research in technology education (pp. 143–159). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mansell, H. L., Harold, B. D., Hawksworth, L. J., & Thrupp, M. P. (2001). The perceived impact of the technology curriculum. Set, 1, 23–28.Google Scholar
  26. McLintoch, H. (1966). Education, post-primary. Te Ara: The encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/1966/E/EducationPost-primary/en.
  27. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of liminality. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 19–32). London, England: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, J. H., Land, R., & Davies, P. (2008). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of variation and variability. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013005020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Education. (2017). Digital technologies: Hangarau Matihiki. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/consultations/DT-consultation/DTCP1701-Digital-Technologies-Hangarau-Matihiko-ENG.pdf.
  35. Stoll, L., Harris, A., & Handscomb, G. (2012). Great professional development which leads to great pedagogy: Nine claims from research. Nottingham, England: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335707/Greatprofessional-development-which-leads-to-great-pedagogy-nine-claims-from-research.pdf.
  36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development. (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf.
  37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en.
  38. Osborne, M. (2016). Innovative learning environments. CORE Education: White paper. Retrieved from http://blog.core-ed.org/files/2017/01/Innovative-Learning-Environments-FINAL-web.pdf.
  39. Paechter, C. (1995). Sub-cultural retreat: Negotiating the design and technology curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 75–87. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/stable/1501284.
  40. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  42. Peter, M., Harlow, A., Scott, J. B., McKie, D., Johnson, E. M., Moffat, K., & McKim, A. M. (2014). Threshold concepts: Impacts on teaching and learning at tertiary level. Commission Report for Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/TLRI_Peter%26Harlow_Summary%28v3%29.pdf.
  43. Reinsfield, E. (2012). Drivers for change in technology education in New Zealand. Unpublished Master’s Directed Study, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  44. Reinsfield, E. (2018a). Secondary technology teachers’ perceptions and practice: Digital Technology and a future-focused curriculum in New Zealand. Waikato Journal of Education, 23(2), 61–74.  https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v23i2.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reinsfield, E. (2018b). The potential for a future-focused curriculum in New Zealand: The perceptions and practice of six secondary school technology teachers. Doctoral thesis. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10289/11939.
  46. Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multiliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9046-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, P. J. (2012). Technology education for teachers. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams, P. J. (2013). Research in technology education: Looking back to move forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9170-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, P. J., Jones, A., & Buntting, C. (2015). The future of technology education. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willis, A. (1995). School literacy experiences: How culturally narrow are they? Discourse, 16(2), 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630950160205.Google Scholar
  51. Zuga, K. F. (1989). Relating technology education goals to curriculum planning. Journal of Technology Education, 1(1), 34–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations