Advertisement

Can twenty years of technology education assist ‘grass roots’ syllabus implementation?

  • Ian Spurway Ginns
  • Stephen J. Norton
  • Campbell J. McRobbie
  • Robert S. Davis
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Technology Education Technology Education Research Technology Syllabus Teacher Practice Teacher Professional Development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anning, A. (1994). Dilemmas and opportunities of a new curriculum: Design and technology with young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anning, A. (1997). Teaching and learning how to design in schools. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 2(1), 50–53.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Education Council. (1989). The Hobart Declaration on Schooling, Retrieved 1.8.2005 from http://www.mceetya.edu.au/hobdec.htm
  5. 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
  6. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.Google Scholar
  7. Board of Studies (1991). Science and Technology K-6: Syllabus and Support Document. Sydney, New South Wales: Board of Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Board of Studies (1995). Technology – curriculum and standards framework. Carlton, Victoria: Board of Studies.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Curriculum Corporation (1994a). A statement on technology for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Curriculum Corporation (1994b). Technology – A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Custer, R. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DES/Wales (1990). Technology in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  14. Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Doornekamp, B. G. (2001). Designing teaching materials for learning problem solving in technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Ginestié, J. (2002). The industrial project method in French industry and in French schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design, 9(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001). Primary teachers’ and students’ understanding of school situated design in Canada and England. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, Virginia: International Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process – does it exist? a critical review of published models for the design process in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kimbell, R., & Parry, D. (2001). Design and technology in the knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Lewthwaite, B. (2004). “Are you saying I’m to blame?” exploring the influence of a principal on elementary science delivery. Research in Science Education, 34(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. McRobbie, C. J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I. (2001). Exploring designerly thinking of students as novice designers. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McRobbie, C., Ginns, I., & Stein, S. (2000a). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Mittell, I., & Penny, A. (1997). Teacher perceptions of design and technology: A study of disjunction between policy and practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (2001). Realising the potential – and lost opportunities for peer collaboration in a D & T setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Queensland Studies Authority (2003). Technology: Years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Stein, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2002). implications of missed opportunities for learning and assessment in technology education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H.S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2003). Designing the best: A review of effective teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Spurway Ginns
    • 1
  • Stephen J. Norton
    • 1
  • Campbell J. McRobbie
    • 1
  • Robert S. Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Math. Science and Techn. EducationQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations