Can twenty years of technology education assist ‘grass roots’ syllabus implementation?
Teachers’ informed acceptance of challenges associated with teaching technology might ensure the successful implementation of a Technology syllabus in primary schools. They must be prepared to analyse their own understandings of technology concepts and processes, teaching and resource needs, and engage in professional development activities designed to meet their needs. This paper investigates the introduction of a new Technology syllabus into a school and draws on a number of data sources, for example, surveys, interviews with individual teachers, classroom observations, and field notes. It was evident that very specific personal and classroom related issues (e.g., content and pedagogy), and broader issues related to the school and wider communities (e.g., resources and networking), impacted on teachers’ acceptance of the syllabus. Based on these findings, the influence of 20 years of technology education and associated research on the essentials of classroom syllabus implementation by teachers is evaluated. Ways of making this store of knowledge and expertise more meaningful and accessible for teachers are explored.
KeywordsTechnology Education Technology Education Research Technology Syllabus Teacher Practice Teacher Professional Development
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Anning, A. (1997). Teaching and learning how to design in schools. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 2(1), 50–53.Google Scholar
- Australian Education Council. (1989). The Hobart Declaration on Schooling, Retrieved 1.8.2005 from http://www.mceetya.edu.au/hobdec.htm
- Australian Science Technology and Engineering Council. (1997). Foundations for Australia’s future. Science and technology in primary schools. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
- Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.Google Scholar
- Board of Studies (1991). Science and Technology K-6: Syllabus and Support Document. Sydney, New South Wales: Board of Studies.Google Scholar
- Board of Studies (1995). Technology – curriculum and standards framework. Carlton, Victoria: Board of Studies.Google Scholar
- Burgess, S. (1998). Effects of group composition on individual learning/performance in design and technology: A case study approach. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 3(3), 201–208.Google Scholar
- Curriculum Corporation (1994a). A statement on technology for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
- Curriculum Corporation (1994b). Technology – A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
- DES/Wales (1990). Technology in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
- Elton, F. (2005). April, ‘Technology Education in Chile after Nine Years of Implementation from the Paper to the Classroom’, Proceedings of the PATT-15 Conference – Technology Education and Research: Twenty Years in Retrospect, (Retrieved 29.11.05 from http://www.iteaconnect.org/PATT15/Elton.pdf), Netherlands: Haarlem.
- Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In: B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
- Holroyd, C., & Harlen, W. (1996). Primary teachers’ confidence about teaching science and technology. Research Papers in Education: Policy and Practice, 11(3), 323–335.Google Scholar
- International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, Virginia: International Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
- Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L.J. (1996). Perceptions about technology held by primary teachers in England. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
- Jones, A., Moreland, J., & Chambers, M. (2001). March, Enhancing student learning in technology through enhancing teacher technological literacy, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.Google Scholar
- Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Kimbell, R., & Parry, D. (2001). Design and technology in the knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
- Lee, J., & Todd, R. (2004). March, Clarifying the design task – developing a ‘Toolkit’ for teachers and pupils, Proceedings of the PATT-14 Conference – Pupils’ Decision Making in Technology: Research, Curriculum Development and Assessment, (Retrieved 1.8.2005 from http://www.iteaconnect.org/PATT14/PATT14.pdf), Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230–241.Google Scholar
- McRobbie, C., Stein, S., & Ginns, I. (2000b). April/May, Elementary school students’ approaches to design activities, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Parkinson, E. (2001). Teacher knowledge and understanding of design and technology for children in the 3–11 age group: A study focusing on aspects of structures. Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 44–57.Google Scholar
- Queensland Schools Curriculum Council (1998). Years 1–10 technology key learning area curriculum development project: Design brief (Part 2). Brisbane: Queensland Schools Curriculum Council.Google Scholar
- Queensland Studies Authority (2003). Technology: Years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.Google Scholar
- Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education into the curriculum of young learners. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 50–65.Google Scholar
- Thomson, C. (2004). March, What are the unique and essential characteristics of technology education in the primary school? A Study Based in the USA. Proceedings of the PATT-14 Conference – Pupils’ Decision Making in Technology: Research, Curriculum Development and Assessment, (Retrieved 1.8.2005 from http://www.iteaconnect.org/PATT14/PATT14.pdf), Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
- Twyford, J., & Jarvinen, E. (2000). The influences of socio-cultural interaction upon children’s thinking and actions in prescribed and open-ended problem solving situations: An investigation involving design and technology lessons in English and finnish primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
- Welch, M., & Lim, H.S. (2000). The strategic thinking of novice designers: Discontinuity between theory and practice. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 34–44.Google Scholar