BP608 - Developing Junior Technology Programmes

Overview: This case study examines a strategic department-wide approach in the implementation of the Technology Curriculum and the creation of an innovative teaching framework to ensure student progression through Years 9-13 in a complex, large school environment.

In 2006, building on the experience gained over the previous seven years of working with the Curriculum, the Havelock North High School Technology department, led by co HODs Doug Sutherland and Carol Rimmer, took a highly innovative and effective approach to establishing a strong foundation for their Year 9 and 10 Technology students.

While maintaining a wide range of student options and using teaching staff from a range of disciplines, core technology classes were established at junior levels using a planned programme of learning, generic structures and teacher guides to maintain strategic control. The initial focus on progression through the Year 9 and Year 10 programmes in 2006/07 is now being extended into the senior technology options.

The resource material developed for this programme is especially innovative and comprehensive and serves as a model for all technology teachers and planners.

Mairi Fitzsimons:

"Technology has had to struggle to overcome perceptions that it's 'just cooking and woodwork.' But full credit to our technology teachers, they've battled to overcome these misconceptions and I think they've won. They've certainly won it with the students, there's no doubt about that, and there's a greater understanding in the community in general about the changes that have taken place."

"The way in which Technology is being taught is so fundamental to good teaching of thinking skills that maybe we need to be looking at this level of good practice across our whole curriculum and not just in technology. Maybe this is a way of teaching that is passing some subjects by."

When Technology was introduced as a compulsory subject in 1999, Havelock North High School Co-Head of Department Carol Rimmer took the opportunity to rethink the Technology programme and to undertake what was to be a long-term overhaul. "We weren't going to do what we were already doing under a different name, and just change the sign on the door."

A planning group was formed in 1998, comprising Co-HODs Doug Sutherland and Carol, a biotechnology teacher and an economics teacher. The group worked with a technology education facilitator to put in place an overall strategy, which was then presented to the department for adoption.

To help develop the Year 9 and 10 Technology programme from a very broad perspective, a larger group was formed comprising teachers from a traditional technical background and others interested in teaching Technology. This group met weekly for a year to work on changes within the department, developing units "by the boxful", an exercise that helped bring "all the thinking together and a 'whole team' ethic into the department."

The result was the introduction of a completely new Year 9 Technology programme in 1999 comprising an introductory unit and five six-week modules. A sixth module was also developed for this class's progression into Year 10 in 2000.

It became clear over the following years that new programme was not as successful as was hoped and the quality of much of the finished practical work was disappointing. In retrospect, the six-week modules were "quite academic and prescriptive, not that well suited to the classroom" and did not allow time to develop relevant domain knowledge and skills.

Each module was therefore extended to one term of four hours per week. Students changed subjects and teachers each term. This modification proved more successful, but the department did not formalise what was being taught between those four teachers, so each teacher continued to address all three components of practice. There was a lot of repetition and only limited opportunity for students to progress their learning over the year.

A planned review and more radical modification of the approach and programme, coincided, in 2005, with the possibility of working within the Beacon Practice initiative. A Beacon Practice team was established, with four members of the department joining Carol and Doug: Jeff Arnold, John Foster, Andrew Hughes and Kate McLennan. (The remainder of the department taught only one technology class or were also teaching in other curriculum areas.) The smaller size of the development group suited the detailed work required for the all-encompassing changes that were to be made. However, the group was careful to ensure the active involvement (and therefore ownership) of all teachers in the department. All key decisions made by Beacon teachers were taken to department meetings for wider discussion and acceptance. Carol believes this was essential to the ultimate success of the project.

Over the previous years, Carol had undertaken a range of professional development, including a two-year postgraduate diploma at Massey University. She was also awarded a Woolf Fisher Fellowship, under which she travelled to Britain and visited a range of schools. This knowledge and experience brought new ideas and approaches to the group, to add to their collective and individual local experiences.

The first question the Beacon group asked itself was: What do we want for our students? The group decided to create an informal list of competencies. After some very healthy debate by the group and the rest of the department, it was agreed that there were12 key areas of knowledge and skills that students should have by the end of Year 13, after five years of technology education at the school.

Twelve Key Competencies

[Students should have:]

the opportunity to enjoy their experiences in technology
undertaken technological practice
developed effective communication skills
worked within a range of community contexts
acquired knowledge and skills
developed quality outcomes
managed time effectively
respected codes of practice
analysed and evaluate their own and others practice
developed critical/creative thinking skills
been able to work independently and as a member of a group
worked within a safe environment

As a touchstone for their work, the group also drafted a mission statement for the department based on the school motto "Aim to Excel" and their own personal philosophies of what was important for technology students. The mission statement was further developed with the agreement of all technology teachers, to become:

HNHS Technology Mission Statement: To provide individual students with the opportunity to achieve to their highest abilities, effectively communicate knowledge and skills, and be adaptable to different contexts and environments through engagement in technology education.

The next step was to create a Years 9 to 13 draft strategic plan. Using the current curriculum document, the draft curriculum and technology achievement standards and the components of practice, a list of specific generic competencies to be advanced in each successive year was established:

When the new curriculum is gazetted, two new competencies for the final two new strands will be added:

These were then scaffolded through Years 9-13 for use in planning over the entire Years 9-13 programmes. This was done by first identifying the specific competencies that students had when entering Year 9, then the desired competencies that students should have by the time they left school at the end of Year 13. The desired outcomes for the end of each intermediate year were then identified as a stepwise progression towards the ultimate Year 13 outcome. The end result was a key major document to be referred to in all planning and teaching decsion-making within the Technology department: The Year 9 -13 Generic and Domain Competencies document.

As outlined on the Background page, there were fundamental problems in the way that Technology was being taught at the school in 2005 that had to be addressed for the 2006 year. Year 9 students had been timetabled for a full year of learning, four hours per week, with free choice of the domain area for each term. Timetabling was random, depending on their other option choices. Each class would be made up of students who may be taking their first, second, third or fourth technology module. All teachers taught and assessed brief development and outcome development and evaluation each term. There was little tracking of students and therefore minimal progression – planning for progression was very difficult, if not next to impossible.

It was decided to structure the Year 9 timetable for 2006 so that students came through the year as a core group. Each core group engages in four different domain areas, one per term. All teachers teach a predetermined component of practice for that term – terminology; Brief Development; Planning; Outcome Development and Evaluation – within a given context, along with key domain knowledge and skills for that area. The four domain areas are Food, Materials, ICT and Graphics:

The team came up with a non-linear technological practice cycle, introduced in its pure form in term 1, and intersected with the specific components of practice – brief development, planning and evaluation – taught in each of the remaining terms. This generic framework maintains a consistent focus for teachers and students, no matter what domain or cycle stage they are involved in. It is also very clear to all that the focus of each component of practice naturally occurs within the cycle at a number of key stages of the full technological practice process, providing a pan-cycle consciousness throughout the entire learning process.

Individual teachers within the project then developed units of work, student resources and achievement criteria for their specialist area. All teachers were consulted during this development stage. Unit outlines were developed to encompass what can be managed with a full class of mixed ability students in one term. They were flexible enough that the teacher is able to simplify a unit or extend students through it.

Once developed, this planning was checked against the key technology competencies and the strategic plan through a Competency Audit Sheet to identify any gaps and ensure that teaching was centred on the predetermined component of practice.

Jeff Arnold: "The technology cycle gives the students a solid framework to start from. They recognise the new step they are focussing on and can see how it builds on their previous term's work. It's not just one unrelated project after another."

"When we were writing the new units we didn't have to reinvent the wheel. It was usually a case of taking an existing unit and adapting the structure to fit in with the technology cycle."

"As a department the team ethos has been there from the start and we've definitely all had input into it. It's had to be able to work for everyone – so everyone has taken ownership of it."

A comprehensive new approach to teaching at Year 9 across a large number of classes in five different domains using a range of teachers required the development of an introductory teacher guide. This was a crucial document to the successful implementation for the new initiative, as it outlined the philosophies and expectations of the initiative and provided basic steps, lesson sequences and generic approaches to the delivery of the material. Through this document a common understanding was developed among teachers and students alike.

After an introduction to the entire year, students were introduced to the key terms and concepts of Technology, beginning with the term Technology itself. The technology cycle was then introduced and students undertook technological practice. They were encouraged to evaluate their key decisions verbally with the teacher to justify the practice they undertook rather than providing any formal evidence of the evaluation. At this stage teachers wanted them to understand with an issue. They were given a brief, identified the issue, identified the stakeholders and determined their needs/wants, undertook research and concept development, developed their final design and created an outcome. The module closed with an assessment activity: "How I used the technology cycle."

Term 1 teachers were aware of their responsibility to deliver the planned unit of work, as the term 2 teachers would build off that point. The collegiality of the department members, with each recognising their mutual responsibilities, helped ensure the necessary learning opportunities were presented to students.

The term 2 technology cycle now included brief development as a key competency. Students had this in their folders and on the classroom walls and were given an initial class brief that required further refinement. From this initial brief, students were taughthow to develop a final brief that included specifications that allowed their outcome to be evaluated as 'fit for purpose' for the specific issue it resolved.

The term 3 technology cycle now included planning as a key competency. Students were to planning as crucial to managing any project and shown planning tools and how they are used, and introduced to management strategies for managing time and other resources as part of their technological practice. Throughout the term students used an actual timeline and adjusted the times according to the key tasks and times they achieved. Assessment was based on this timeline and the responses to questions at the end of term.

The term 4 technology cycle now included outcome development and evaluation as key competencies. Students were taught to how to undertake ongoing evaluation of their technological practice. This included evaluating their research findings and concept ideas as well as evaluating their ideas during the development phase of their practice. Following the creation of their technological outcome students were taught how to evaluate the success of their product in terms of how it had met the brief specifications and the effectiveness of the technological practice they had undertaken.

Year 9 student reflection:

"In the Year 9 course we got to learn what each of the Year 10 technology options was all about so it definitely helped us with our choices."

"I liked what I was doing in all of my Year 9 subjects, but in technology there's more choice and freedom to go where you want than in other subjects."

"I thought the way we were introduced to the technology cycle was very good – slowly introducing something new each term."

"I liked the evaluation work we did – you could see what was good and what wasn't so good."

"There was a good balance of doing things and writing and we learned a lot of different skills over the year."

Some very high quality student work has come out of this approach and 2006 teachers have seen student outcomes at the end of the year improve. This is attributed to the technological progression happening over the year in the Technology cycle and the quality of the domain knowledge and skills being taught.

Departmental feedback on the changed approach has been very positive. At regular departmental meetings teachers reported on the progress in their classroom, and discussed strategies for teaching the key competencies and making changes within the present structure. Interclass moderation of student work ensures that all teachers have the same expectations and are assessing consistently against agreed assessment criteria. Student feedback, both written and verbal, has been very positive. Data collected at the beginning and end of 2006 showed that student understanding of technology had improved considerably.

During each term, students were assessed using a set of achievement criteria based on the components of practice and the specified domain knowledge and skills. Reports showing student achievement were sent home at the end of each term.

At the end of the year parents were given a comprehensive document showing achievement over the whole year, rather than individual term reports as in previous years. A term 4 teacher could change a term 2 grade if, for example, a student's brief development had improved. The KAMAR system was used and fitted comfortably with the school reporting criteria – see Year 9 sample report.

Through ongoing complete records meant teachers in later terms would know which students to push or which needed extra help in a particular field. This information will also be used to track these students through Year 10 in 2007 and during senior Technology.

Carol notes that while they have always had great support from senior management, one of the unexpected outcomes has been the buy-in from everyone at the school.

In 2007, the Year 9 class moved into a new Year 10 programme that was rolled out across the whole department.

In creating this new programme, the team had identified and come up with solutions for a number of issues. In Year 10 there were two terms of compulsory Technology, offered as single terms occurring in any order and at any time of the year. This made it impossible to ensure progression because of the random nature of timetabling. The ten-week time slot in each term also made it difficult to advance knowledge and skills, and many students did not have time to complete their projects.

For 2007, the team negotiated a two consecutive term course in one of the following domain areas: Materials – Wood, Metal, Fabric, Electronics; Graphics; ICT; Food and Nutrition. The new 20-week course divides into three parts:

Carol had trialled this approach in 2006 and found it changed student outcomes dramatically – the extra time enabled her to extend the top students and develop the less able.

It was felt that the technology cycle established for Year 9 needed to be refined for Year 10 to further reflect the dynamic nature of technological practice. The team developed a new one that included flow-through practice of research, planning and evaluation.

The team developed a new set of key competencies that scaffolded the generic competencies, domain knowledge and skills through from Year 9. From this they developed the new unit outlines (Electronics, Fabric, Food; Metal, and Wood)

For Year 10 common technology assessment criteria were again used across domain areas and assessment information was available from Year 9 to provide continuity for both teachers and students. Students receive an end-of-module report at the end of the second term. The Year 10 assessment schedules link Grade 3 to Level 4 of the Curriculum and to the Indicators of Progression for technological practice. There are five schedules based on the following criteria:

Baseline data was again collected at the beginning of the course, and will be when the course finishes, and the KAMAR system will again be used for end-of-year-reporting – see the Year 10 sample report.

Shelley Smith and Sandie Anderson, ICT teachers: "We really like what we've come up with and the changes we've been able to bring in. The Year 9 course is really working well for us and our students are definitely enjoying it. We were able to stay fully involved in the development process through the regular department meetings. The development work was presented and discussed by the whole department. Our feedback was then incorporated in to the material being produced."

The group is working on getting more students at senior level; there are five Level 1 classes, three Level 2 classes and three Level 3 classes. Although Technology is a core subject at Years 9-10 it is still timetabled as an option, which possibly adds to that barrier technology teachers are trying to break through.

Teachers have detailing the scaffolding of the key technology competencies for Year 11, Year 12 and Year 13. Generic units of work have been developed for each level – see Year 11 Generic Unit; Year 12 Generic Unit; and Year 13 Generic Unit. Specific senior units of work are being developed: Kate McLennan will be working with food technologists; Jeff Arnold with an inventor with expertise in plastics; John Foster is integrating electronics into his senior courses; Andrew Hughes continues to develop key design ideas in his classes and Doug Sutherland is exploring the benefits of functional modelling.

Success has meant that the whole department is constantly seeking to improve the delivery of their programmes, and with a new curriculum on its way there are further challenges ahead.

The increased collegiality in the group is leading to more effective responses to whole school initiatives such as literacy.

Principal Bill Adam: "Our technology department was doing very well under the existing system, but Carol and Doug recognised that the new technology curriculum brought with it an opportunity to move the department from what many on the outside thought was a pre-industrial training ground to deliver a subject which would have real academic integrity. And that's what they've done."

"Other staff in other departments doubted whether the adjustments required could be made. The proof is there to see – clever kids are now taking the subject, and they do well. They find that technology extends them and is as demanding in its own way as any of the other 'academic' subjects they can do."

"Our students appreciate the challenges the technology staff put in front of them, their insistence on excellence and the support they are prepared to give them."

Some schools retain an expectation that technology can be a dumping ground for lower ability kids. You need to focus on the needs of the top 10-15% of students and ask yourself how we can best accommodate their needs in the subject – these are the ones that will set the high standards and bring other students through the doors. It's these high grades that give a subject its credibility in the school.

Principal Bill Adam: "Establishing the co-HOD role was a sensible pragmatic way of recognising that we had two established, committed members of the department who had different but complementary skills... and it was a clear signal to the rest of the school that I rated what they do."

Mairi Fitzsimons: "Having two strong characters complementing each other has been really important... because they could have been competing. This is something other schools could take out of our development and work towards a greater level of sharing of responsibility."

The establishment of Co-HOD Technology roles was a key step in successfully embedding Technology into the school curriculum at Havelock North High School.

At the start of the implementation process in 1999, Carol Rimmer was HOD Home Economics; she had taught at the school for 20 years, since her arrival from the UK. Doug Sutherland was HOD Graphics and Design Technology. He had started teaching at the school in 1978, left after five years for Waitaki Boys' High School in the South Island, and returned to Havelock North in 1989.

As members of the original Technology Curriculum implementation group set up by the school management team both teachers were well aware of the magnitude of the change which would be required. Acknowledging their complementary skills and experience, they quickly recognised the benefits of pooling their individual commitment and expertise and in sharing the responsibility for managing the change process within the department.

The concept of a shared position was raised with senior management, who also saw the benefits and soon established the co-HOD Technology roles. "If you're trying to make changes of this magnitude you have to have the people who can drive it," says Principal Bill Adams. "We had two highly-regarded and capable PR holders with different but complementary skills and making this appointment was a clear signal that we rated what they do and what they were aiming to put in place."

In establishing the roles, divisions of responsibility were not formalised. Each teacher retained their existing area-specific responsibilities – Carol in Home Economics and Doug in Graphics – but jointly dealt with the myriad of responsibilities in the evolving learning area of Technology. The PR structure in the school was re-organised so the positions were allocated of three management units to each.

The value gained from the teachers' complementary skill sets was immediately illustrated in the subsequent redevelopment of the school's outmoded technology facilities. Carol's clear understanding of the requirements for the delivery of high quality technology education programmes added to Doug's architectural and workshop experience, ensuring that the needs of staff were identified and followed through in the final design.

"Doug's experience meant that he could oversee the re- design of the building," says Carol. "He kept saying to us: 'What is it you want?' and 'What can we do?'. Then he'd go away and sketch out something, and ask 'Will this work?' One thing we definitely wanted was a central resource area for all staff. Also, as co-HODs, we didn't want separate offices – we wanted to be seen to be working together."

"Being based in a shared office next to the resources means that either Carol or I can quickly deal with problems as they arise," says Doug. "The whole department uses the same workroom and being able to work together has been tremendous for team-building."

Fexibility within the shared role is seen as a big advantage. "Whoever is the appropriate person at that time will take responsibility," says Doug. "And if one or other of us is overloaded at some point, the other can step in and remove a bit of the load." Curriculum development, department meetings, staff and student issues, communication with parents are all dealt with by either HOD. Carol has extensive national qualifications and curriculum development experience in Technology and thrives on the written aspects of the HOD work, such as producing departmental reports. Doug's acknowledged advocacy skills and day-to-day pragmatism are highly valued, and staff will usually go to him with rooming or equipment issues. However, the shared nature of the role means that it's the person available who picks up the next job. They make a point of meeting at least once a week to keep each other fully informed and to ensure that tasks do not overlap.

Another advantage is having 'two pairs of eyes' and the opportunity to use each other as sounding boards. "If there's something we want to take to the whole department I'll always sound my ideas out against Doug, and vice versa, before we take it to the group," says Carol. "That means there are no surprises and we are always seen to present a united front. That unity is absolutely critical when you're working together."

"We often move offsite to catch up over a coffee and discuss what we're doing, where we're going, and what we need to do next," says Doug. "Sometimes it only takes quarter-of-an-hour, sometimes longer. Its about making time to discuss those little things that you've never had time to talk about in school."

Carol and Doug are confident that the shared nature of the HOD role has worked well and is clearly evident in the enthusiasm and collegiality of the staff and the in the level engagement of the students. Staff recognise the advantages of having access to two experienced senior HODs, and are equally comfortable in their interactions with both.

Both have been active in a professional capacity at both a regional and a national level and say that the scope of this activity has significantly influenced what they have been able to bring to the school.

The experience at HNHS suggests that developing a successful partnership at HOD level centres on the ability to communicate well and to work together to achieve the goals that have been set. Professional respect, a willingness to listen to the another's viewpoint and being prepared to change your position on an issue are all key components – however, ultimately success depends on developing an agreed understanding of where you want to go.

In 2006, the Havelock North High School Beacon Practice team invited a large group of Hawke's Bay teachers to an afternoon workshop on the work they had been doing with their Year 9 and 10 classes. The team generously shared the resource material they had developed by way of a CD-ROM given to all attendees.

Among the participants was Karamu High School, and HOD Dale Prebble and two others from the Technology department liked what they saw: "We had been looking to make changes to our Year 9 programme so this workshop came along just at the right time," said Dale.

The Year 9 programme at Karamu High School was made up of four units of work – in Hard materials, Soft materials, Food and Electronics – each for three hours a week. However, in the past, timetabling constraints had meant that some students couldn't do a unit in one particular term, and had to make it up by doing two units in another.

Timetable changes for 2007 resulted in each Year 9 class having one unit per term – so the department had an opportunity to re-organise the programme to ensure better continuity between the four units.

"We had been operating as four separate areas and although we now had the chance to make better links between the areas we weren't sure how it could be done. Seeing the way Havelock had developed their technology cycle and were adding to it each term was of real interest to us. We had a similar cycle but we were just reinforcing it again and again in each of the units."

Dale and his staff were impressed with the way the structure of the Havelock North Year 9 programme promoted student progression, and how this progression was assessed and reported on. It convinced them that it would be possible to re-structure their own programme along similar lines.

"Having access to the CD resources really cut down on the work we had to do – particularly with the assessment schedules. It gave us a very clear idea of the overall assessment picture and how we could set it up and report on it."

Enthused, Dale drafted possible structures for the Year 9 Technology programme at Karamu and presented them to the others in the department for discussion.

"It was great to be able to take the CD material and quickly adapt it to meet our needs – there was no need to go back and re-invent any wheels. We worked through it over a series of meetings during term 4 and ended up getting buy-in to the agreed structural changes from the whole department."

With some fine-tuning in the week before the start of the new school year, the programme was ready for implementation from term 1 2007. Half way through the year, Dale was happy with the success achieved. "Staff have been very pleased with it and the resources we designed have been well used by all teachers. Different teachers have used them in slightly different ways, but its meant that all students have been getting the same background information, which is then taken through and developed by their next teacher."

"This consistency in approach has given students an understanding that technology is one broad subject rather than a collection of different areas. And it's really helped in our reporting of student progression – we're now reporting less, but giving more meaningful information."

One year on, Dale reflects back on the importance of that initial presentation by the Havelock North staff. "It was good to have teachers standing up and showing what they had achieved, and to have a range of teachers presenting. They all gave a slightly different slant on the process, which was useful, but there was a real team involvement and it was obvious that their whole department had been involved in the development process. That presentation clearly showed how different technological areas were all following the same process, and convinced us that we could do something similar."