E-LEARNING FOR LIFE

Moving towards Technology Education: Factors
That Facilitated Teachers’ Implementation of a
Technology Curriculum
Roy Barnes
Australia has a National Technology Statement (Curriculum Corporation,
1994) that specifies the content and process of technology studies in schools.
However, as in the United States, the implementation of curricula is a state
responsibility. In the state of Queensland the implementation has been a very
gradual process with schools having the option of adopting new curricula on a
school-by-school basis or waiting until implementation becomes mandatory in
2007. The introduction of school-based management has augmented the
localization of decision-making about curricula. Decisions about curricula in
resource intensive areas such as technology education tend to reflect local
priorities. As a consequence, the technology curriculum in many schools reflects
a pre-1980’s industrial training orientation (Warner, 2001).
To a large extent, technology teachers have adopted a wait and see
approach (INTAD, 2001), and are expecting a systemic curriculum direction,
professional development, and the provision of resources (Warner, 2001). These
teachers are now “at the extreme edge of knowledge and understanding of the
content and pedagogical philosophy for the delivery of new technology
curriculum” (INTAD, 2001, p. 2). Failure to implement the new curriculum may
jeopardize the future viability of the subject area, as there is no statutory
obligation for schools to offer specialized technology subjects.
Against this general trend, a core group of approximately 40 progressive
teachers, from a total cohort of about 1150 (Warner, 2001), have chosen to
implement a school-based technology curriculum. These teachers have modified
the existing shop-based syllabi and pre-empted the new technology curriculum
mandate (Warner, 2001). This situation poses a question that has formed the
basis of this research. What factors have influenced these junior secondary
school traditional technology teachers to implement a new technology education
curriculum?
Literature Review
Historically, changes in technology curriculum have been successful only
when initiated by classroom teachers (Waltisbuhl, 1995). Green (1986) supports
this view, but adds that a new curriculum has not been implemented in
technology because the “teachers’ attitudes are steeped in prescriptive methods
derived from nineteenth century practice” (Green, 1986, p. 27). “These attitudes
have to be challenged and shown to be inadequate to the current situation and
new-ideas, programs and practices that are meaningful, feasible, and usable
have to be proposed” (Bybee & Loucks-Horsley, 2000a, p. 16).
Researchers have found that in the implementation of systemic educational
reforms, the attitude of the classroom teacher is crucial in determining the
success or failure of innovative curriculum (Hargreaves, 1994; Sarason, 1991).
To implement changes, teachers must agree with the underlying philosophy of
the curriculum (Stein, McRobbie, & Ginns, 1999). Changing a teacher’s
philosophy requires teacher development, which is a career-long process (Brady
& Kennedy, 1999). Without teacher development there is no curriculum
development and, conversely, where a curriculum has changed, there has been
teacher development (Givens, 2000).
Implementing teacher development strategies is problematic. Teachers
acknowledge the existence of programs, policy, directives, school regulations,
and recommendations but in practice they often feign what needs to be done to
comply with requirements. The curriculum students actually receive is
influenced by what teachers believe, by what peers believe and do, and by other
more elusive cultural issues (Sergiovanni, 1996; Wallace, 1998).
Hargreaves, (1997) has proposed that theories of educational change have
been ineffective because they focused on technical planning. These theories of
educational change were developed within a positivist epistemology that
provides “a set of logical rules of explanation, independent of the world and its
social practices” (Usher, Bryant, & Johnston, 1997, p. 176). The social aspects
of change are therefore ignored. Support for new theories of educational change
is based on a conceptualization of social reality that recognizes knowledge as
personal, subjective, and as being developed and interpreted within a unique
social context (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Researchers in education (Evers &
Lakomski, 1996) are using this understanding of social reality to justify
qualitative, or grounded, methods of research into the relationships of
participants rather than the technical components of an educational social
system.
This approach was deemed to be appropriate for this project as it provided
an opportunity to discern some of the elusive attitudes, beliefs, and cultural
matters which influence teacher development and therefore his/her role in the
change process. An ethnographic study using data collection through narrative
interviews was adopted. This provided an opportunity to focus on the
individual, real-world experiences of the small group of unique technology
teachers (Warner, 2001) who have implemented curriculum change. The
analysis of the data is inductive, with theory emerging from, not preceding, the
research (Cohen & Manion, 1994).
The literature review revealed a gap in knowledge in regard to factors that
influence teachers to change curriculum content and practice. The selected
methodology involved a reflective investigation of the experience of junior
secondary school technology teachers who have implemented a technology
education curriculum.
Methodology
Selection of Sites and Participants
Purposeful sampling was used to choose five information-rich schools in
which teachers had voluntarily implemented technology education. The schools
were physically different but similar in their approach to the subject area
curriculum. This ensured that the study was sufficiently in-depth and focused on
the topic. The sample size, according to the concepts of Lincoln and Guba
(1985), should be large enough to provide informational redundancy. While the
available time and resources have limited the sample size, it is not necessarily a
problem for “there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample
size depends on...what will be useful, what will have credibility, and what can
be done with available time and resources” (Patton, 1990 p. 184).
Participants were selected from a list, provided by the Industrial
Technology and Design Teachers’ Association of Queensland (INTAD), of
exemplary teachers implementing a technology curriculum in their school. This
list was reduced to six teachers by cross-referencing with a list of schools that
had been invited to participate in a Queensland government technology key
learning area syllabus trial. Teachers in these schools had implemented a
technology curriculum voluntarily, prior to the syllabus trial, and their programs
were used as the basis for the initial in-service materials. Three teachers
declined to be involved, one due to ill health. Due to concerns regarding the
limited opportunity for informational redundancy with a sample size of three,
two more participants were sought. They were identified through the
professional reference of a university lecturer.
Narrative Interviewing
In the context of this project, narrative interviews were in the form of a
discussion of the research question. Each participant was encouraged to narrate
the story of his/her experiences during the period when they were changing the
curriculum. This style of interview creates a conversational encounter that
allows the interviewee to tell a story in his/her own way and the interviewer the
freedom to respond to new material raised during the interview. Data were
collected from each participant in his/her own school environment using an
audiotape. Data Analysis
Initially, each participant’s interview was read and studied to obtain a ‘feel’
for the individual’s story. The participants had recorded a brief resume and this
was used as the basis for a descriptive profile that outlined his/her career and the
process by which he/she had experienced curriculum change. The finished
profile was emailed to each participant and his/her feedback sought to ensure
he/she was not being misrepresented. As a result of completing the profile a
much deeper understanding of the unique themes and issues within each
individual’s interview data was gained.
The next step in the analysis of the data involved an inductive two-stage
process. First, a list of the frequently recurring themes and issues was prepared
for each individual. The groups of supporting text for each theme and issue
were categorized and labeled as “factors.” The result of this process was a new
document featuring a set of factors that had influenced the participant along
with supporting excerpts from the interview data. This was repeated for all the
participants, one at a time and without reference to one another to minimize
influence from previous data. The following sample demonstrates supporting
extracts from the participant, (Oscar) of the factor “Personal Renewal.”
Oscar described how a period of personal growth affected the way he
viewed his job and the subjects he taught. Initially a number of significant
changes occurred in his life and he began to question the usefulness of his
subject area.
Oscar: I had to really evaluate what I was teaching for. Whether I was baby
sitting classes and teaching something traditional...we were one of
those subjects that didn’t really matter.
Oscar returned to University to upgrade his Diploma of Teaching to a
Bachelor of Education. This period of part-time study coincided with personal
and spiritual growth. He stated that this released his creativity and an
understanding of his role as an educator.
Oscar: Just about at the same time I’d been doing some studies for my
Bachelor of Education ...through a process of prayer and discovery etc
and just opening myself up I guess, a lot of ideas started flowing, that I
found the students responded to very well.” “...really made me start to
think more deeply and value the skills that I had and the skills that I
was teaching students, just the processes we were going through, I
realized for a lot of kids they had a lot of value.
A technology teacher from another state with broader experience in
technology education was employed at the school. This teacher became a
mentor to Oscar and challenged him with new concepts and ideas about the
subject area and the content.