Reflecting on Teacher Development in Technology Education ...

5 downloads 278305 Views 961KB Size Report
emphasised the importance of teachers developing an understanding of both technological practice and technology education. Two different programmes have ...
International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8: 151–166, 1998.  1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Reflecting on Teacher Development in Technology Education: Implications for Future Programmes VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand ABSTRACT: This paper reflects on the outcomes of teacher professional development programmes in technology education. These programmes were based on a model which emphasised the importance of teachers developing an understanding of both technological practice and technology education. Two different programmes have been developed and trialed in the New Zealand context. They are the Facilitator Training programme, and the Technology Teacher Development Resource Package programme. This paper will focus on the outcomes of these programmes. The Facilitator Training programme was a year long programme, and ran in 1995 and 1996. It involved training a total of 30 educators – 15 each year, from all over New Zealand. The Resource Package was trialed in 14 schools over a 3–6 month period in 1996. The evaluations indicate the successful nature of these programmes and the usefulness of the model as a basis for the development of teacher professional development in technology education. The programmes reported on in this paper were developed and evaluated as part of two New Zealand Ministry of Education contracts held by the Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research. Keywords: programme evaluation, teacher development, technology, technological literacy

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents the structure and outcomes of two teacher professional development programmes in technology education in New Zealand. They are the Facilitator Training programme, and the Technology Teacher Development Resource Package programme. This paper will focus on the outcomes of these programmes. The opportunity to undertake the professional development programmes arose from the publication and future implementation of the national technology curriculum statement (Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Ministry of Education, 1995). This was the first national curriculum in technology to be developed in New Zealand and was released in draft form in 1993. The writers of this paper also played a major part in the development of both the draft and final curriculum statements. The aim of technology education as represented in the curriculum is that of enabling students to achieve technological literacy. Programmes to meet this end are to be developed using three interwoven strands: technological knowledge and understanding; technology capability; and technology and society. Key technological areas are included so as to provide relevant content and contexts for New Zealand students. These are: materials technology; information and communication technology; elec-

152

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

tronics and control technology; biotechnology; structures and mechanisms; and food technology. This national curriculum is compulsory for years 1–10. Since New Zealand has not previously had a broadly based national curriculum in technology, teacher professional development was a major priority if nationwide implementation was to be successful. These teacher development programmes took into account past national and international research in teacher development, as well as recent technology education baseline research carried out in New Zealand schools (Jones, Mather (now Compton) & Carr, 1995). This baseline research was a Ministry of Education funded project known as Learning in Technology Education. Previous research on school-based curriculum development and teacher change (for example, Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991); Bell, 1993; Dalin, 1978; Jones & Simon, 1991; Van den Akker, 1988), had a major influence on the approaches adopted in the Learning in Technology Education project. These included the recognition that teacher development models which have built into their structure a level of ongoing support, and an acknowledgment of the importance of personal, social and professional development as interrelated, have a far greater success rate in terms of teacher change and changing classroom practice (Bell & Gilbert, 1995). It also took seriously the argument that for teachers to be able to create and maintain changes in their practice, they must have an acknowledged, legitimated and rewarding role in the change process (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991). The findings from previous research led Jones and Mather (1995) to argue that technological knowledge and an understanding of technological practice must be combined with appropriate conceptualisations of technology and technology education. This is consistent with Shulman’s argument (1987) that teachers need to develop content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge. Teacher’s existing ideas of teaching and learning generally, and their needs, expectations, and classroom experiences in technology education specifically, are also factors which must be taken account of in technology teacher development programmes. Teachers have a subjective view of the practice of teaching within their concept of a subject area (Goodson, 1985). This is often referred to as a subject subculture, and leads to a consensual view about the nature of the subject, the way it should be taught, the role of the teacher, and what might be expected of the student (Paechter, 1991). Given that technology education is a new curriculum area in New Zealand, there has been, and still remains, no coherent technology subject subculture within which teacher development programmes can be positioned. The result of this is a very complex situation whereby a multitude of alternative subject subcultures impact on technological classroom practice in a variety of ways. Teachers’ subject backgrounds and/or particular subject strengths and experiences must therefore be explored in terms of the effect they have on the factors listed above. These interactions must be understood by all involved in order that technology teacher development programmes have the maximum chance

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

153

of supporting teachers in the development of classroom programmes capable of providing students with the opportunity of achieving the technology curriculum objectives. Jones, Mather and Carr (1995) showed that many technological activities that seemed appropriate in the planning phase became problematic in practice. In the majority of cases, whilst the teachers were planning and beginning classes with a concept of technology similar to that of the curriculum statement, they had little technological knowledge or understanding of technological practice. This was reflected in classroom practice being shaped by alternative knowledge bases within which the teachers felt more comfortable. Another situation was evident in classrooms where teachers had specific technological skills and knowledge, but a narrow concept of technology education. This often resulted in classroom activities emphasising a simplistic step-by-step design process. In both these cases, whilst some objectives from some of the strands in the curriculum were able to be met by students, opportunities for them to achieve objectives from all strands in a coherent manner were severely limited.

BECOMING A TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

From the findings of previous research (Jones & Mather, 1995) we would argue that in order for teachers to become successful technology classroom practitioners, their professional development programmes should focus on identifying, understanding the influences on, and further developing their own conceptualisations of technology education, technology pedagogy and technological practice. We suggest that an effective way to develop such areas include reflecting on both one’s own and others’ concepts of technology, pedagogical knowledge, and technological practices. The prior experiences and social positioning of every teacher also has a major influence on their technology classroom practice. For example the overall school culture will serve to both constrain and/or enhance any programmes they may develop. Strategies to deal with these influences must be a part of their pedagogical understanding. Subject subcultures as discussed above have a strong influence on teacher’s concepts of technology, technology education, and therefore what they perceive as technological practice, and their pedagogical understanding in technology education. Other influences will be determined by teacher’s life experiences both inside and outside education. Experiences of belonging to various social groupings as based on categorisations such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, etc. will all influence teachers’ perceptions of themselves and their practice of being technology education practitioners. Figure 1 provides a model which summarises these interactions. One of the implications of this model is that teachers will need to experience technological practice in some form to become confident in the teaching of technology. Learning about technological practice is not suffi-

154

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

Figure 1. Becoming a classroom technology teacher.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

155

cient. It needs to be experienced, reflected on (Gilbert, 1994), and critically analysed within a theoretical and philosophical framework in keeping with the curriculum statement. Links between teachers and those in technological communities could provide a fertile ground whereby some experience of the culture of technological practice can be gained. In other words teachers could experience a level of technological enculturation. This could provide opportunities to reflect on the technological practice within that community, enabling a critical analysis of all aspects of this enculturation in order to ‘unpick’ the ethics, values and prioritisation of knowledge bases inherent in any technological practice. Such opportunities would also aid their own technological conceptual development. The remainder of this paper describes two teacher professional development initiatives based on this model, presents evaluative material from their trialing, and discusses implications for future teacher development in the area of technology education.

THE FACILITATOR TRAINING PROGRAMME

The aim of the National Facilitator Training Programme was to train a group of fifteen practising educators, either classroom teachers or teacher advisers, to facilitate teacher development in the area of technology education, with an emphasis on school-based teacher development. The training programme ran over the period of one year in 1995, and was repeated with another group of fifteen people in 1996. Whilst there was some modification of the detail of the programme as based on feedback from the initial year’s participants, the overall framework of the programme remained the same for both years. The framework was developed taking into account the Learning in Technology Education project research findings as depicted in Figure 1 above. The programme can be divided into four interlinking stages. The first stage involved the participants undertaking a Summer School Master’s paper in technology education in order to develop their conceptual understanding of technology, technology education, learning and curriculum theory and teacher development in technology. The course consisted of the following modules: • the nature of technology and technology education; • learning in technology; • technology education curriculum; • issues in technology education – such as implementation, assessment, teacher development, the concept of inclusiveness. This stage of the training was begun prior to the school year, and completed by midway through the school year. Part of the assessment for the course required that the participants undertake an extensive research audit in a school, primarily to establish the conceptual and experiential basis of the teachers they would be working with later in the year.

156

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

The second stage related to the participants developing knowledge and skills in technological areas by reflection on both their own and others’ technological practice in a broad range of technological areas. Numerous people were brought in to work with the participants during this stage. The participants were released from their respective schools for this time, attending two one-week residential courses. The third stage of the training programme involved the participants developing and trialing their own school-based teacher development programmes as based on both their research audit and training to date. The fourth and final stage was that of the participants coming together again at a residential course (5 days in 1995, 4 days in 1996). During the first year, this course included a session on facilitation skills, but due to feedback this was brought forward in the programme for the second year. Sessions in this stage focused on providing opportunities for the facilitators to share their experiences and critically reflect on their own and others’ programmes. The participants also received visits from the programme team three times during the year to provide guidance and discuss any issues which may have arisen during their time working in schools. The participants could also contact the programme team for help and advice by fax, telephone and e-mail. Background of participants The Ministry of Education-funded participants were selected on a national basis on the following criteria. There had to be representation in the following areas: school subject background; teaching experience; primary, secondary or advisers; regional representation; teacher development experience; interest and experience in technology; and ability to undertake a graduate programme. The participants also had to have the support of their employer. Evaluation of the programme Methods of evaluation The evaluations were undertaken throughout the year and at the completion of the course. The evaluation of this programme included both quantitative and qualitative data. The participants were interviewed during the three visits to their schools. These interviews were taped and transcribed. Written reports were also produced from these visits. These reports included the programmes the participants were developing and any problems that might have arisen. The participants also completed response questionnaires related to each of the sessions they attended. At the end of the course the participants also completed a major personal evaluation of the whole programme. A nationally distributed questionnaire was also sent out to teachers who had been involved in the participants’ school-based pro-

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

157

fessional development programmes. This questionnaire included a number of quantitative based questions, as well more open questions allowing participants the opportunity to make more personal reflective comments on the programmes they had been involved with. From the evaluations of all those involved, it would appear these programmes have been very successful in terms of not only providing professional development for the trainee facilitators, but also for their colleagues through their own teacher development work. The only significant negative aspect highlighted was the lateness of providing facilitation skills in the programme during the first year. As mentioned earlier, this aspect of the programme was moved forward in the subsequent year. As one of the criteria for selection was that the participants already had facilitation skills, and indeed they did, this issue was possibly more focused on confidence. Given this was a new curriculum area, facilitation in technology education teacher development must take into account a number of factors which other more established areas do not require – including in this case a high level of political uncertainty about implementation. Other negative comments arose for some individual sessions but these comments were not focused on the programme as a whole, but rather on aspects such as the delivery style of visiting speakers. The following material was collected over the two years the programme ran, and provides a summary of the responses of both the participants and the teachers they worked with in schools. Outcomes The participants comments over the two years of the programme were reasonably consistent. All participants commented very favourably about the Master’s paper in technology education. The comments indicated that the participants considered that it was important to develop a theoretical background to the area of technology education. They considered it provided them with a strong theoretical background to the area. Typical of the comments were: The summer school paper was absolutely essential to get into the philosophy and issues in technology education. The research base gives confidence and depth to understanding. The thorough background of technology education/research etc has broadened my knowledge base. The intensive theoretical approach supplemented by discussion with lecturers and colleagues was good. I think it is most important to have a theoretical framework in which to base one’s thinking. The theoretical background has provided a sound framework in which to base my thinking. The process has also given me the confidence to feel that I do know what I am on about (well that’s what I aspire to anyway!) The research on my own school has become an invaluable piece of work. . . . The theoretical and historical background is invaluable in ‘getting a handle’ on the breadth and depth of technology and technology education.

The theoretical focus gave the participants the background and confidence to discuss aspects of technology with their colleagues. This was particularly

158

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

important as technology education was a developing area and schools were attempting to understand how they might implement technology education. The participants indicated that they used theoretical aspects in working with other teachers, for example: Invaluable theoretical base – I used it to add weight to my flagging confidence, also able to present others’ opinions without necessarily owning them. I think I have a very firm foundation of knowledge about the theory of technology and NZ technology curriculum and feel confident I know what I’m talking about now – thank goodness! Although I have found it difficult to remember which researcher has said what, it has still been good to be able to refer to it, with the knowledge that it would be easy to back up what you are saying. This has especially been the case with much of the informal discussion which has come up in my staff development so far.

Many comments reflected the extent of this feeling as they referred to the theoretical background as essential to both facilitation of teacher development and implementation in the classroom. For example: The research background and all the discussion has been great – the depth and extent of the discussions were mind boggling. I wonder how we could contemplate implementation without it. The discussion, having to write position papers (to justify and clarify your thinking) and the critical analysis of these. To have your thinking challenged. Most discussions in teaching do not operate at this level. I enjoyed the intellectual challenge (it was a challenge for me!) The master’s paper was essential for understanding the theory and philosophy of the curriculum and I believe this depth of understanding is necessary for facilitation of this new area of learning.

Some of their comments highlighted the fact that they did not think the theoretical aspects were particularly relevant initially, but they appreciated their importance later in the year when undertaking professional development activities of their own. For example: We did hate you for a short time during those first two weeks in January – but I can see the reason for the hefty load now and really appreciate the solid background we got. I thought the theory and philosophy has proved to be useful, probably more than I had expected. Initially I wondered at summer school! but as time went by and I began to be faced with the task of running department meetings, working with the curriculum committee and trying to convince the Principal technology was not just computer hardware and software, the importance of what I had learned became clearly relevant.

The opportunities for developing technological practice and understanding of the technological areas were also perceived to be a positive aspect of the programme. These weeks of technological practice helped the participants to develop an understanding of the areas as well as making personal contact with practicing technologists. Typical of the comments were: Opportunities we have had to expand our own personal technological knowledge have been excellent. The networks with the specialist you facilitated enabled us to continue building contacts with these people. For example, we have formed new links with the ‘technology experts’ etc.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

159

The people who have been invited in to talk about, and run workshops on various aspects of technology education, have nearly all been exceptional. This has not only assisted in building up my knowledge, but also my own enthusiasm. This has definitely had an effect on staff development, and has also been useful in building up knowledge of contacts . . . i.e. inventors, designers, corporate executives etc.

The participants developed an understanding of technological concepts and principles in these sessions and this is highlighted in their comments. Typical comments were: Being shown examples of technological praxis and getting to grips with technological principles and terms. Opportunities to get a feeling for technological areas I had least knowledge of e.g. biotechnology, were really valuable. It was important to have the opportunities to increase our awareness of technological practice e.g. innovation, design, interconnectedness.

The practical experiences where participants undertook hands on experiences in technological areas were often mentioned as helping to develop a greater understanding of technological practice itself. The participants commented: The practical activities helped me to understand what an authentic technological activity was. Training in technological areas gave me the opportunity to get into these in more depth – hands-on/minds-on experiences.

The training programme as a whole was seen as helping in the facilitators own educational practice, including developing and carrying out their own teacher development programmes. Many comments also reflected the facilitator’s increased confidence in, and enthusiasm for, the area of technology. It was good to have the opportunity to work in the classroom with other teachers who I am training and with my own school staff in a whole school collegial way. All elements (of the programme) have been equally valuable. In general – excellent professional development, and I appreciate the opportunity I have been given. The theoretical framework and the networking this course has provided has been invaluable in helping me to feel confident that I can effectively work as a facilitator in the field of technology. I have gained confidence as a teacher to work in authentic situations to develop a real/authentic/honest approach to learning. This has brought some reality into my teaching and has been the best professional development I have ever received. I have gained confidence – based on thorough preparation, in the knowledge of what technology education is, and how to convey the message to other teachers with an enthusiasm and firm conviction that this learning area will benefit all who become involved in it. I valued the opportunity to increase my awareness of technological practice, get a feeling for technological areas I was unfamiliar with, and develop confidence in facilitation, underpinned by a strong theoretical base and supported by lectures and a diverse group of colleagues. It has given me a wonderful opportunity to learn and be confident that I can create, develop and lead personnel in school and regional programmes of professional development. It has also led to an improvement in my relevant knowledge and skills.

160

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

I think this training programme has given me a very sound basis on which to base the teacher development in my school. I consider myself to be very fortunate to have benefited from this exceptionally thorough form of teacher development.

Having a whole year allowed time for the participants to integrate all aspects of the training programme. The time to rethink current issues. This has allowed our thinking to develop. The opportunity to work theory into practice and back again.

The participants spent about six weeks together spread over the whole year. They were from different areas of the education sector and this was important as it allowed them to understand the range of perspectives that they would have to take into account when working as facilitators. A mixed view of technology implications/implementation models – primary/intermediate/secondary – North Island/South Island – urban/rural was really helpful. The chance to work with other professionals in the different sectors of education was important.

The participants also commented that the environment of the programme allowed for open debate and reflection, and they felt as if they had been treated as educational professionals. This is reflected in their comments: Being valued as a professional and able to cope with and debate educational issues. The opportunity to clarify and articulate ideas in sessions where open debate is allowed and where one doesn’t always have to be ‘politically correct’. Being treated as a professional person – not having too many rules.

The level of collegiality which developed within both groups was also seen as valuable for both the period of training and in the future. For example: The willingness of the group to share experiences – both positive and negative. Networks established between the facilitators have been valuable for support during this year’s programme and for ensuring on-going support. Working as a team to come to terms with technology education theory.

From the responses given above, it would appear that providing a strong theoretical and philosophical foundation from which to develop understanding of technological practice and teacher development was an effective strategy for training technology facilitators in this area. The comments also provided evidence of the importance of establishing an environment which allows people to feel valued and comfortable, and confident they are involved in a well-grounded programme, and one which encourages group collegiality. Participants’ work in schools The opportunity for the participants to work intensively within their own school, and with a number of other schools, to develop and carry out

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

161

school-based teacher development, provided an important opportunity for a reflexive practice component to be added to the theoretical framework provided by the Master’s course, and the workshops in various technological areas. All these components worked together to provide the participants with a wide range of interlinking opportunities for their own professional development as technology education facilitators. The participants’ own teacher development programmes were also evaluated by an anonymous questionnaire through the mail. During the two years 337 questionnaires were distributed nationally. One hundred and eighty-five were returned, representing a response rate of approximately 55%. The following summary reflects the data from both years. There was a high level of consistency in responses from 1995 and 1996 evaluations. The facilitators’ programmes were perceived very positively by the majority of teachers who participated. The very common call from teachers personal comments was for more teacher development of this type. This, along with the 87.2% of responses rating the programme as above average or excellent, reflects clearly the success of the facilitators’ programmes, and of the training programme overall, as judged by practicing teachers. The responses also showed there was a general perception that the facilitators had a high level of skill in both facilitation and programme development, and a significant number commented specifically that they ‘really knew the material well’. The majority of the teachers felt their needs had been met by the teacher development programme in which they were involved. Most of the teachers (83%) considered the programmes developed by the facilitators had helped them with their understanding of technology education generally, and the technology curriculum specifically. Over half of the teachers (63%) also found the programme helped them with their understanding of the concept of technology itself. Approximately three quarters of the teachers (76%) considered the areas of school and classroom implementation had been helpful, and over half of the teachers (66%) had found the programme helpful in providing them with ideas for classroom activities – even though this was not a primary focus of the programmes. Due to time and financial constraints, the programmes the facilitators developed and ran could not include a major focus on technological practice, general educational/pedagogical issues, or developing technology classroom practice and therefore should be seen as an introduction to technology education only.

TECHNOLOGY TEACHER DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE PACKAGE

This Technology Teacher Development Resource Package consists of a number of written modules and supporting video material developed by the Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research (Ministry of Education, 1997). The structure of the programme, based on

162

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

Figure 1, emphasised technological practice, technology education and technology education pedagogy. The first modules focus on developing concepts of technology and technology education. The first series of videos were developed to encourage teachers to reflect on the nature of technological practice in a range of settings, for example: whiteware manufacturing; stage production; noise control; street design and development; and manufacturing and marketing dairy products. Further modules explore implementation and classroom issues, including information which could be useful for a Board of Trustees and other community group sessions. Additional video material shows examples of technology education in real classrooms – including the planning and development stages, and critically reflective discussions of the teaching practices developed and the learning opportunities they offered. Further written material introduces more classroom material and assessment strategies. The teacher development programmes developed from this resource package will vary depending on the needs and resources of the schools involved. However, through the package components and guidelines, the developers attempted to emphasise that all the programmes should have in common a commitment to developing an understanding of technology, technology education and technological practice. The programmes developed using this package should be seen as more introductory in nature than those offered to the facilitators in the Training Programme as described above, but nonetheless still aiming for conceptual development, as well as offering practical guidelines for classroom implementation. It was hoped that after completion of a formal programme, the material could be constantly revisited for further development. Those who were interested in further development would also be in a strong position to take up more advanced professional development courses in technology education. These could be in terms of undertaking generalist out of school courses in technology education at an appropriate level or more specific courses in one or more technological areas. Evaluation of package Background The teacher development resource package was trialed in 14 schools. All except one of these schools had an in-school facilitator who was responsible for the programme development and management. All schools had the help of an outside facilitator, although accessibility was variable due to some communication problems. Industrial action at the time of the trial disrupted some aspects for the secondary schools, with one school feeling it was unable to continue with the trial at all. The schools’ previous experience in technology education ranged from limited (9 schools) to comprehensive (2 schools) and extensive (2 schools).

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

163

Methods of evaluation The teacher development resource was evaluated in a number of different ways. Four schools were randomly selected for a visit in the middle of the trial period. The resource also included an additional evaluation section for the participants to fill out as they completed the respective modules. It was evaluated through questionnaires and interviews after all schools had used it for an average of three/four months. Material was also written up as the programme was running, from information provided by schools through fax and e-mail. The end of trial questionnaires and interviews with the teachers involved covered such issues as: the importance of the in-school facilitator’s background; conceptual change in technology/technology education; understanding of and/or comfortableness with the technology curriculum; perception of the package; and perception of this model of teacher development. The evaluation reported here focuses on teacher change and the type of support which the participants considered should accompany the package in order to maximise its potential. Outcomes At least some people at every school for which there is information available, experienced some level of conceptual change in both technology and technology education. Nine of the schools (69%) indicated that the teachers’ concepts of technology had been broadened, while four of the schools (31%) indicated that concepts of technology had been developed – that is, significantly changed in some way. In six schools (50%), teachers’ concepts of technology education had been developed and six (50%) indicated their concepts had been broadened. Teacher development using this package would therefore appear to be very effective in terms of providing opportunities for conceptual change in both technology and technology education. Working through the package had a positive impact on the teachers’ understanding of the technology curriculum in all but one of the schools for which information is available. When asked whether participation in their programme had increased people’s understanding of the technology curriculum, twelve (92%) of these schools answered ‘Yes’. Three of the schools specifically commented that they had previously found the technology curriculum to be very difficult to understand. Of these three, one felt that many things had been clarified but they still needed more time, and one considered they now had a clear understanding of the curriculum. The third school did not consider their programme had managed to deal with these difficulties. This school had many problems developing their programme using this resource, primarily due to a lack of support within the school for the facilitator and for technology education generally. Whilst another two (16.6%) schools commented that they felt they still needed more time in order to feel confident in using the curriculum, six (50%) expressed that they now felt significantly more comfortable and/or confident in using the curriculum, and an additional two (16.6%) schools

164

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

considered the greater understanding had increased their enthusiasm or positive feelings for the whole area of technology education. Therefore, for those who developed a greater understanding of the curriculum, 67% of the schools also mentioned an additional positive effect gained from this understanding. Teacher development using this package would therefore appear to be very effective in terms of providing opportunities for the development of a better understanding of the technology curriculum. An increase in understanding of the curriculum in the majority of cases also corresponded to a positive effect on people’s perception of both their ability to use the curriculum effectively, and/or their attitude to technology education generally. Suggested support Eleven of the schools for which information was available (85%), considered some level of support outside the school was necessary for a successful programme to be developed and carried out in schools as based on this resource. A summary of the type of support suggested was as follows: • The package needs to be supported by access to an out-of-school person with a strong background in technology education – mentioned in all eleven (100%) of the school reports which added a qualifying statement to their endorsement of this type of teacher development, representing 85% of schools overall. • The package needs to be supported by a network linking in-school facilitators and/or schools – mentioned in nine (82%), of the school reports which added a qualifying statement to their endorsement of this type of teacher development, representing 63% of schools overall. The overall evaluation for the package is that it was perceived to be a positive initiative by the majority of schools. Ninety three percent of the schools involved in the trial considered the package to be positive with only one school seeing it as negative (see previous comments). All those who viewed the package as positive, gave at least as part of their reason for this positive perception that the package provided them with a ‘comprehensive resource’. Eight of the schools (57%) also specifically mentioned the videos as adding significantly to the strength of the package as a resource. This percentage should be treated as conservative as many of the schools involved had not completed modules three and six at the time of the interview, and therefore had not viewed any or all of the video material. Overall it would appear that the package was perceived as providing schools with a comprehensive resource on which to base their teacher development programmes. School-based teacher development, supported by a package such as this, was perceived to be an effective and favourable means of teacher development, with all of the schools involved in this trial perceiving it as an effective model.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMES

165

Reasons given for this perception were as follows: • Programme can be tailored to meet the needs of both the school and teachers involved – mentioned in ten school reports (77%). • Colleagues working together was seen as important to general staff relations – mentioned in nine school reports (69%). • Staff owning their own development and having the opportunity for self-management was seen as empowering for all involved – mentioned in seven school reports (54%). • This type of teacher development was seen as providing opportunities for staff to develop in-depth understandings of issues, mentioned in two school reports (15.4%).

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Using the model portrayed in Figure 1 as a basis for the development of teacher development programmes has been shown to be successful in the intensive training of teacher development facilitators, and their subsequent formulation of school-based teacher development programmes. It has also served to provide a sound basis for determining the components which should be included in a resource package which allows for a comprehensive school-based introductory programme in technology teacher development to be carried out. Our experience to date would therefore suggest that the following key features should be taken into account when developing technology education teacher professional development programmes consistent with the New Zealand national curriculum statement in technology and past research findings as portrayed in Figure 1. The key features of the programmes were the: • importance of developing a robust concept of technology and technology education; • importance of developing an understanding of technological practice in a variety of contexts; • importance of participants developing technological knowledge in a number of technological areas; • importance of participants developing technological skills in a number of technological areas; • importance of developing an understanding of the way in which people’s past experiences, both within and outside of education, impact on their conceptualisations of, and in, technology education; • importance of developing an understanding of the way in which technology education can become a part of the school and classroom curriculum. This must be based on a sound pedagogy in keeping with the concept of technology education.

166

VICKI COMPTON AND ALISTER JONES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the teachers and facilitators who were involved in this project, and to the New Zealand Ministry of Education for its financial support. Glynn McGregor worked with the programme participants in the later part of this project and we are grateful for his contribution.

REFERENCES Bell, B. & Gilbert, J.: 1995, Teacher Development: A model from Science Education, Falmer Press, Lewes. Dalin, P.: 1978, Limits to Educational Change, Macmillan Press, London. Fullan, M. G. & Stiegelbauer, S.: 1991, The New Meaning of Education Change, Teachers’ College, New York. Gilbert, J.: 1994, ‘The Construction and Reconstruction of the Concept of the Reflective Practitioner in the Discourses of Teacher Professional Development’, International Journal of Science Education 16 (5), 511–522. Goodson, I. F.: 1985, ‘Subjects for Study’, in I. F. Goodson (ed.), Social Histories of the Secondary Curriculum, Falmer Press, Lewes. Jones, A. & Simon, S.: 1991, Strategies for Educational Change: The Work of the OPENS Project in the Context of a New National Curriculum for Science SAME Papers, Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 15–35. Jones, A., Mather, V. & Carr, M. D.: 1995, Issues in the Practice of Technology Education. Final report of the Learning in Technology Education Project. Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato. Hamilton. Jones, A. & Mather, V.: 1995, Towards a Model of Teacher Development in Technology Education. Paper presented to the Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference. Bendigo, July. Lave, J.: 1991, ‘Situated Learning in Communities of Practice’, in Resnick L. B., J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington. Ministry of Education: 1995, Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Learning Media, Wellington. Ministry of Education: 1997, Towards Teaching Technology: Know How Two, Learning Media, Wellington. Paechter, C.: 1991, Subcultural Retreat: Negotiating the Design and Technology Curriculum. Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference 1991. Shulman, L. S.: 1987, ‘Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform’, Harvard Educational Review 57(1), 1–22. Van den Akker, J.: 1988, ‘The Teacher as Learner in Curriculum Implementation’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 20(1), 47–55.