New Zealand Teachers’ Experiences inImplementing the Technology Curriculum

ALISTER JONES, ANN HARLOW and BRONWEN COWIE

Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, PB 3105Hamilton, New Zealand (E-mail a.jones@waikato.ac.nz)

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the results of a national study to investigate teachers’experiences in the implementation of the technology curriculum in New Zealand schools fromyears 1–13. This investigation of the implementation of the technology curriculum is partof a larger study being undertaken nationally in all curriculum areas (National SchoolsSampling Study) to explore how effective the curriculum is in practice and how the resultscan inform future developments. National focus groups, questionnaires and case studiesare used to explore how the curriculum is being implemented. The questionnaires weredistributed to over 10% of New Zealand schools. The key findings indicate that most primaryschool teachers are aiming for curriculum coverage, have moderate levels of confidencebut are concerned about curriculum overcrowding. Years 7 and 8 teachers are mainly con-cerned about assessment, whereas secondary school teachers are constrained by existingstructures in schools.

Keywords: curriculum implementation, national curriculum, teacher experiences

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses New Zealand teachers’ experiences in implementingthe technology curriculum three years after it became compulsory for allstudents from years 1–10. Data on teachers’ experiences of implementingthe technology curriculum were gained from a national study called theNational School Sampling Study funded by the New Zealand Ministry ofEducation and carried out by the Centre for Science and TechnologyEducation Research and the Wilf Malcolm Institute for Educational Researchat the University of Waikato.

A previous article (Jones 2003) discusses the development of NewZealand technology curriculum in detail. The general aims of technologyeducation in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry ofEducation 1995) were to develop: technological knowledge and under-standing; an understanding and awareness of the interrelationship betweentechnology and society; technological capability in a range of technolog-ical areas. In the New Zealand technology curriculum the technological areasinclude: materials technology; information and communication technology;electronics and control technology; biotechnology; structures and mecha-nisms; process and production technology; and food technology. A drafttechnology curriculum statement was trailed in schools during 1994. Thisprovided teachers and others such as business and community groups torespond to the draft statement. The responses indicated that teachers were

International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 101–119, 2004. 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

supportive of the general structure and philosophy of the document. Thefinal statement was released in October 1995 and full implementationoccurred by February 1999.

The National School Sampling Study started in 2001 provided an oppor-tunity for teachers who had been involved in implementing Technologyin the New Zealand Curriculum to share their experiences. The primarypurpose of the study is to seek feedback from teachers about the effec-tiveness of the curriculum in practice. The key aspects to be investigatedinclude: background and experience of teachers, general issues related toimplementation, practice, support, the curriculum documents, impact andcompliance issues. In this paper we discuss the structure of national schoolsampling study, the methods of data collection, the national results andimplications of the findings for technology education.

METHOD

The structure of the National School Sampling Study encompasses nationalfocus groups, questionnaires and case studies. In this paper we will discussthe results of the national questionnaire on the technology curriculum andthe general questionnaire as the findings related to the implementation ofthe technology curriculum.

Content

The content of the questionnaire came from three major sources. Firstly,how teachers, at a series of teacher focus groups talked about their cur-riculum experiences that enabled the research team to identify importantissues. Secondly, the questions posed by the Ministry of Education panelswere considered, and thirdly, the views of subject experts were sought. Arolling series of pilot studies of draft questionnaires were carried out with:national subject experts; teachers in nearby schools; and subject associa-tion teachers in technology. The interaction identified items that were, bynegotiation, amended or deleted, and in a few cases new items written.Further pilot work took place. This iterative process enhanced the reliabilityand validity of the questionnaire. The content can be summarised as follows:impact of structure; strands content; achievement objectives; support andresources; professional development; implementation; essential skills;funding; individual needs; assessment; reporting achievement; inclusive-ness; integration; challenges; and levels.

Sample

A sample of ten percent of all types of New Zealand schools – state,private and integrated was required for this study. There are approximately2900 schools in New Zealand. Factors taken into account when drawingthe sample were:

102 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

• Randomisation and stratification;• Within each school type that the number of schools in the sample

represented ten percent of all schools for the same type;• Decile approximation – that the sample for each school type repre-

sented as near as possible the national number of schools for each ofthe decile ranges;

• Geographical coverage – to provide a regional and urban-rural coveragewithin each school type as possible;

• Independent (private) schools – to include a representative number ofindependent schools;

• Integrated schools – to include a representative number of integratedschools.

In the sampling, the researchers were guided by statistical data relating toNew Zealand schools. Data included the regional location of the schooland the school type (e.g., whether a school was classified as a full primary,contributing, intermediate, secondary, a composite/restricted composite oran area composite school, or if it was a special school, or the Corre-spondence School). In addition, the researchers referred to school’s decile1

ranking, the school status (i.e., a state school, a private or independentschool, or a state/integrated school) and also other information. Other detailstaken that guided the research related to the school gender (co-educationalor a single sex school), and the geographical status (urban or rural andgeographical location). A rural school was a school situated in an area wherethe population was less than 1,000 on census night. From the last census,a total of 868 schools are classified as rural schools. If a particular schooldeclined to take part and a replacement school was required, the researcherswould ‘borrow’ from one of the other sample groupings by selecting aschool with similar characteristics. Some schools were unable to take partdue to commitments and were replaced. School replacement took intoaccount the need to stratify the deciles accordingly so that the samplereasonably matched the national total and distribution. Schools drawn inthe sample were approached and invited to participate and in the case ofsecondary, area and intermediate schools, principals were contacted bytelephone and letter; primary and other principals were contacted by letterwith a follow-up telephone call made to those who did not respond withina week. The rate of agreement to participate was very high in all schoolcategories, helped by reminders and explanations by telephone, and bysupport statements or letters from teacher leaders and teacher unions. Onagreeing to take part, a principal nominated a contact teacher to act as an‘agent’ to receive, distribute, collect and return questionnaires. Teachernumbers were indicated along with numbers of ‘specialist’ teachers oftechnology.

The response rates for the first round of questionnaires were high, withover 90% schools returning questionnaires. Eight hundred and fifty-one(851) teachers from a wide variety of schools completed the technologyquestionnaire. The analysis of quantitative data is based on the total number

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 103

of technology questionnaires returned (n = 851). Qualitative data havebeen reported from a smaller sub-sample (n = 500).

RESULTS

The major content of this paper discusses the results of the questionnairedesigned to investigate teachers’ experiences in teaching from the NewZealand technology curriculum statement. Overall, the results provide abroad sweep of information about teachers’ experiences, and the generalimpression is that most teachers are reasonably positive about teaching fromthe curriculum statement. However, there are variations between teachersin different kinds of schools and within school types, and especially betweenprimary and secondary school teachers. As highlighted earlier, in order tofind out how useful teachers had found the technology curriculum statementthe questions asked of teachers were framed around the structure of thestatement, covering areas such as the structure of the curriculum, the supportand professional development for technology teachers, assessment andreporting issues and strategies for curriculum implementation.

BACKGROUND OF THE TEACHERS

In the survey group there were 537 teachers who taught at year levels1–6, 84 who taught at year levels 7–8, and 221 who taught at year levels9–13 and only 9 who taught at special type schools. The majority of teacherswere from state schools (94%), which were co-educational (97%) and urban(88%). There was a reasonably even spread across all deciles (7–14% ineach decile). Most teachers were classroom/subject teachers (67%).Leadership positions in technology were held by 34% of teachers. The mainleadership position held by teachers was that of curriculum or syndicateleader (11%). Secondary teachers were more likely to have responsibilityfor a technological area, which was the second most popular type ofleadership position (9%). The largest category of teachers had been teachingfor more than 15 years (46%). Most of the teachers who had a leadershipposition in technology had been teaching for more than 15 years (56%).

Confidence

Across all school types two thirds of teachers expressed a medium levelof confidence in teaching technology and one-fifth a high level of confi-dence. Few teachers (11%) regarded their confidence as low. Teachingexperience was the most important factor contributing to the degree ofconfidence in teaching technology as well as professional developmentwas seen as an important factor.

104 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

CURRICULUM STRUCTURE

A comprehensive curriculum statement sets out the requirements of tech-nology programmes in schools from year 1 to year 13 (Jones 2003). Almosthalf of the teachers found the technology curriculum statement user-friendlyin some ways. One-third found it user friendly, and some very user-friendly(4%). It was rated not user-friendly by only 16%. Overall, primary and inter-mediate teachers felt that the statement was more user-friendly thansecondary teachers. There was a general degree of satisfaction with thecurriculum statement in that only one third of teachers (33%) wanted tomake changes. The largest group who wanted to make changes to thestructure/organization of the curriculum statement was secondary schoolyear 9–12 teachers (50%). The most popular changes would be ‘makingit more simple to understand’ and ‘including better developed learningand assessment examples’. But analysis of the answers of the teachers inthe sub-sample (n = 500) shows that some had difficulty interpreting thelanguage and translating the ideas into practical classroom activities:

It is in academic jargon. It needs to be written so it is more easily understood. At themoment everyone I talk to sees it differently – even advisors. Whose interpretation dowe follow? (Secondary teacher)

Some wanted it to be simpler to understand (23%), with better-developedlearning and assessment examples (14%). The achievement objectives, thestrands and the learning outcomes were not clear to some teachers (16%),nor was some of the terminology, for example ‘technological principles’:

Specific learning objectives given for each technological area at each level in thecurriculum. (Secondary teacher)

More clarification of the terms and ideas contained in the foldout back cover. Moreinformation about the types of knowledge and understanding involved in each techno-logical area. (Secondary teacher)

Philosophy does not come through the AOs – tendency for inexperienced teachers to teachto a particular AO. The Conceptual, Procedural, Societal, Technical planning formatused in the LITE technology contract was much more effective. (Primary teacher)

In terms of organisation, a reduction in what must be covered was calledfor (10%). A few teachers felt that the statement should be divided intotechnological areas for ease of use (7%); some felt it would be useful tohave guidance as to how technology could be integrated with other cur-riculum areas (6%); other teachers berated the loss of skill instruction thatthey felt the technology curriculum had caused (3%).

The technology curriculum statement has been of most help in planning,gaining an overview of the progression of key technological ideas, achievingconsistent understanding of the curriculum levels and in assessing studentachievement. Over 85% of primary teachers found the curriculum statementalways or sometimes helpful in planning their classroom programmes,whereas only 27% of secondary school teachers found this aspect of thestatement particularly helpful. Approximately three-quarters of all teachers

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 105

sometimes found the curriculum statement helpful in gaining an overviewof the progression of key ideas. Fewer secondary school teachers thanprimary teachers said they always found this to be the case. Primary teachersappeared to have used the curriculum statement for guidance on curriculumlevels more than secondary school teachers, of whom 30% said whichthey not very often or rarely referred to the curriculum statement forguidance on levels. However, after three years most teachers now usedschool schemes rather than the curriculum to plan and assess in tech-nology. There were similarities in the responses from primary and secondaryschool teachers to the question about assessing student achievement –approximately 60% of teachers across all school types had found thecurriculum statement always or sometimes helpful in this area. More primaryteachers (over 40%) than secondary teachers felt the objectives of thecurriculum were ‘about right’. A higher percentage of secondary schoolteachers thought the objectives were too broad. Overall the results show thatprimary teachers found the curriculum statement more helpful than sec-ondary school teachers. The technology curriculum was new for primaryteachers whereas for many secondary teachers they felt they were alreadyteaching aspects of technology in the designing and making activities ofhome economics and wood and metal work.

Implementation

In terms of implementing the curriculum strands (technological knowl-edge, technological capability, technology and society) more than one-thirdof teachers usually combined all three strands while 30% ‘sometimescombined strands and sometimes taught the strands separately’ 27%addressed objectives from all three strands. Nearly half of the teachersgave more or less equal emphasis to each strand however 53% of secondaryyear 9–15 teachers placed more emphasis on technological capability. Itwould appear that primary teachers have been much more successful inintegrating the three strands in the technology teaching whereas secondaryteachers place a greater emphasis on technological capability.

Assessment and reporting issues

Student achievement in technology was reported mainly to parents (92%).There was more communication between teachers about achievement intechnology by primary and intermediate teachers (85%) than at the sec-ondary level (64%). Reporting achievement in technology was mainly inrelation to the achievement objectives and levels (88%).

Teachers used a variety of strategies for assessing technology. The mostpopular way of assessing student learning in technology was the use of‘practical tasks’ (81% ‘mostly’ or ‘often’), followed by ‘observation’ (78%‘mostly’ or ‘often’) and ‘products’ (56% ‘mostly’ or ‘often’). Primary schoolteachers often used observation and interviews/conferencing to assessstudent learning in technology. Intermediate teachers used a wider variety

106 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

of assessment methods, including pre-tests/post tests, products, practicaltasks, peer assessment, observation and school exemplars. Secondaryteachers most often used products, practical tasks, observation, and schoolexemplars.

Most teachers reported that they assessed specific learning outcomesahead of achievement objectives. Secondary teachers assessed the wholetask and technological processes, and over 50% of teachers assessedstudents’ knowledge and understanding and specific technology relatedskills. Specific learning outcomes were the most popular focus of assess-ment overall (75%), while 52% of teachers reported that they assessed theways students were meeting the achievement objectives. Although 70%of teachers found the curriculum statement to be always or sometimeshelpful in assessing achievement, many reported having difficulties withassessment in technology. The most popular way of assessing studentlearning in technology was the use of ‘practical tasks’, however there wassome lack of agreement/guidance on what to assess and the feeling that therewas too much paperwork for the required assessment. Large classes, the‘time’ factor, and establishing level accuracy, were also issues, but onlynoted by less than 20%:

Why assess every AO in every strand? This is unrealistic and not done or expected inany other curriculum area. Very easy to say ‘assess anecdotally’, but with 140+ and apractical based class there must be some sort of quantitative system in place or you willhave teachers unable to cope. (Technology teacher in a primary school)

The lack of guidance – we waited in vain for a lead on assessment from the technologycontract advisors. (Primary teacher)

Assessing to the AOs, then having to report differently to parents, as they know little aboutAOs. (Intermediate teacher)

The problems were different in the different types of school, and at theprimary level teachers were concerned about finding appropriate forms ofassessment for the junior years and felt that they needed more guidance,both in planning and in assessment:

Lack of resources to help with planning, therefore units that could be better plannedand therefore taught. Therefore skills, knowledge, processes not improved a lot in unit.(Primary teacher)

Exemplars are needed so it is much clearer what is an achievement at each level . . .the present levels are very much left up to the teacher. Of the 3–4 courses I have attendedthis has never been addressed. (Primary teacher)

One issue that was frequently reported by specialist teachers at the inter-mediate level was that of large classes:

As we have large classes and limited time it is difficult to assess everything I wouldlike to. Many students have difficulty reading and writing at their level and cannot completework. Individual conferencing is more accurate but there is not enough TIME. We have7 client schools and as they are here for a limited time it is difficult to assess all theAOs we would like. We have over 110 different students through our workshops in a week.(Intermediate technology teacher)

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 107

Secondary teachers saw technology as a fragmented learning area:

Difficulty in assessing a progression and tying student work together when it is taughtby different teachers teaching different technological areas. (Secondary teacher)

These secondary teachers were beginning to look outside the curriculumstatement for guidance:

In the past we have collected data on student achievement against the levels andobjectives of the curriculum. We have found it VERY difficult to write descriptors todifferentiate between levels. Now that achievement standards have been written for years11–13, there seems a slightly different emphasis with different language used to thatused in the technology curriculum document.

We don’t use the achievement objectives for assessing or reporting. We assess and reporton some essential skills within strand A and B using grades, not levels. Students andparents wouldn’t understand it otherwise.

Assessment issues were different in the different types of school. Secondaryschool teachers were more concerned with the amount of paperwork requiredthan teachers in other schools and were influenced by qualification require-ments. At the primary level teachers were concerned about findingappropriate forms of assessment for the junior years and felt that they neededmore guidance, both in planning and in assessment. Teachers were usingthe curriculum statement to guide them in their assessment of studentachievement, but depending on the type of school taught in, there areassessment issues that need to be addressed. Much more work needs tobe undertaken in the area of assessment in technology both at the class-room and reporting level.

SUPPORT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Support

With the introduction of the technology curriculum, an extensive programmeof professional development was offered to teachers (Jones & Compton1998). The publication ‘Implementing Technology in NZ Schools, Years 1–8’(Ministry of Education 1999a) had been used by more than 50% of teachersin all schools apart from secondary year 9–15, special and secondary cor-respondence schools. Over a quarter of teachers were still using the KnowHow material developed in 1997 (see Jones & Compton 1998; and Compton& Jones 1998). The Know How tapes were mainly used initially to gain abroader understanding of the curriculum.

At the beginning to get a broader understanding of the technology curriculum.(Intermediate teacher)

Initial expectations of technological teaching. Helping to facilitate other teachers. Unitideas. (Intermediate teacher)

In addition the Ministry of Education has published various resources toassist teachers in their implementation of the technology curriculum.

108 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

Classroom Practice in Years 1–8 (Ministry of Education 199b) is espe-cially popular – these publications were most widely used by primary schoolteachers for whom they were designed. When asked ‘In what ways haveyou found these publications helpful?’ teachers in the sub-sample respondedthat they had used them mainly for getting ideas for teaching units andfor seeing relevant examples of work (42%).

Ideas for teaching units that can be adapted. Seeing problems that have occurred andhow others solved them. (Primary teacher)

Secondary teachers (particularly year 9–13) would not have been expectedto have used the Classroom Practice publications. However one secondaryteacher said:

(They) have given me the knowledge of what students have learnt in Y1–8 and helpedplanning of courses for Y9, 10 students. (Secondary teacher)

Less than half of the teachers (38.7%) in this survey had found other supportmaterials that were particularly helpful in their teaching of technology.Of these teachers, many listed titles of books, both resource books and booksabout implementing the curriculum, but the most popular resource wasthe internet with many sites that teachers had found to be helpful to boththeir teaching and student learning, especially the Ministry of Educationsite.

Other questions about support materials revealed that teachers weremainly concerned with gaining access to ‘practical ideas’ to use in theirtechnology teaching. A number of teachers in the sub-sample (n = 500)had suggestions about the kinds of support materials they would like,especially practical ideas, units, planning formats, equipment such as videosand software, student resources, and teacher guidebooks. Primary teachersfocused on practical ideas and materials:

Electronics and control kits/ updated videos/school journal material with planning formats/assessment ideas including peer and individual. (Primary teacher)

Intermediate teachers were also looking for ideas and ways to help themshow their students technology in practice:

Workable assessment ideas and examples. Videos on industrial practice of topics suitablefor Y7 & Y8 – we can’t take our students to bakeries, factories etc. (Intermediate teacher)

Secondary teachers were interested in more sophisticated equipment:

Video interactives. (Secondary teacher)

Professional development

Nearly three-quarters of the teachers (73%) had received professionaldevelopment in technology. ‘Other teachers in the school’ had been the mostuseful source of knowledge to almost 50% of teachers, particularly sec-ondary school teachers, who also mentioned teachers in other schools. For75% of teachers professional development had been helpful and 28% had

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 109

found it had given them a depth of knowledge and ideas so that they couldplan and implement the technology curriculum.

I was part of the LITE contract – it gave me ways of planning, assessing, understandingthe curriculum. It stretched me and the children – gave outstanding quality of work.(Primary teacher)

Nearly a quarter had found that professional development had clarifiedthe curriculum document (statement) for them. A smaller percentage (11%)had gained increased confidence in specific technological areas throughprofessional development.

In the sub-sample (n = 500) there were 123 teachers (24%) who hadnot found professional development to be helpful:

It enabled me to see where the rest of technology education was at – pretty depressingreally! (Co-ordinator of secondary electronics programme)

Nearly 10% had felt that the professional development had been tootheoretical and that the advisors had little practical experience – secondaryteachers had found this to be the case more than primary teachers. Others(7%) recognised that it had only been an introduction to the curriculum.

I’ve found that not all teachers are as far along the track as me – so it can befrustrating. (Primary teacher)

Did not help – a technology specialist taught them – they have a myopic view! (Primaryteacher)

Teachers in the sub-sample were most interested in receiving professionaldevelopment in the specific technological areas (26%). They were alsointerested in planning and teaching skills (23%) as this teacher explained:

I want to know how to give the children adequate guidance without answering the questionfor them. (Primary teacher)

Secondary teachers were interested in developing programmes and also inlinking technology education and NCEA (Qualification):

Release time e.g. one month to visit/observe what other schools are doing in technologyeducation, and to re-evaluate ‘design and make’ technology education. Then (we could)prepare materials and strategies to move successfully into a full technology educationprogramme. (Secondary teacher)

In the teaching of technology for levels 2, 3 NCEA. (Secondary teacher)

Some teachers wanted to know more about progression, assessment andreporting achievement (18%) and some would like to gain more informa-tion on practical contexts and ideas (15%).

Professional development had helped many teachers to gain confidencein teaching technology. Teachers were most interested in receiving pro-fessional development in the specific technological areas. Information onplanning and teaching skills was requested and they were also interestedin knowing more about progression, assessment and reporting achieve-ment.

110 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

According to 88% of all teachers surveyed, all students up to and includingyear 10 in their school studied technology. The majority of teachers (64%)considered that the technology curriculum should be compulsory for allstudents to the end of year 10, as it provided students with important lifeskills, for example communication and problem-solving skills. Teachersin the sub sample who answered ‘no’ were asked to explain why all studentsin their school did not study technology; not compulsory for year 10 (n =8), pressure from other subjects, and timetable (n = 7), and staffing/studentnumbers (n = 6). The reasons were different depending on the type of schoolthe teachers taught in. In primary schools it was either because of difficultieswith staffing or large class sizes, or the perception that technology wasnot ‘studied’ as such, since it was a part of other curriculum areas.At intermediate level where students attended a technology centre orspecialist classes, there were some students who were not be included inthe technology classes as they had not paid their fees to the school. Somesecondary schools made technology compulsory for year 9 only, so year10 students did not necessarily study technology. Pressure from othersubjects in the timetable and staff/student numbers impacted on the possi-bilities of every student being able to study technology at the secondarylevel. In some secondary schools technology was integrated with othercurriculum areas.

The findings revealed that just as the curriculum statement sets outdifferent ways of approaching the teaching of technology in schools, tech-nology was indeed being implemented in different ways, mainly dependanton the type of school. Over 60% of schools were integrating technologywith other learning areas. This was particularly evident in primary schools(71%), where teachers teach all curriculum areas. They tended to inte-grate technology into languages and science. Secondary school technologyteachers taught technology in blocks or modules or as a new subject withits own timetable slots. Since the curriculum was introduced approximatelyone-third of primary schools and fifty percent of intermediate and secondaryschools had changed the way in which the curriculum was implemented.Improved planning, implementation and/or assessment were cited asexamples of changes made, particularly in primary schools. In secondaryschools it was more likely to have been new content that was covered ora timetable change.

Teachers detailed a wide range of pedagogical approaches that had beensuccessful in their teaching of technology. These included: choosing topicsof relevance to students; practical, hands-on learning activities; a ‘problem-solving approach’; and group or co-operative learning approaches. Aprimary school teacher offered this example:

I use co-operative work groups, with appropriate roles assigned to oversee particulartasks e.g. production manager, research and development officer, advertising executiveetc. (Primary teacher)

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 111

Some teachers were concerned about ensuring skills development:

Year ones need lots of teacher support for hot glue gun, tape etc. (composite area schoolteacher)

Teach the basic skills first!! Then expand into curriculum requirements. Pupils will thenhave pride and real ownership of outcomes. (Hard materials teacher in technology centreattached to primary school)

Teachers tended to favour a student-centred approach to teaching technology.The ‘problem solving approach’ was listed by some teachers (21%) as beingsuccessful in their teaching of technology. Many teachers responding tothe question listed several effective strategies, for example:

New rooms and facilities; additional staffing especially for IT; willingness of teachersto change teaching styles and methods of assessment; design briefs which allow for bothgenders and all abilities to reach their full potential; use of computers to allow for research,design and other applications for the success of project work. (Secondary school teacher)

It was evident that students had been working on varied types of projectsin technology. There was a trend for intermediate and secondary studentsto work on individual projects. Students in primary schools ‘sometimes’worked on individual projects. Over 50% of students across all types ofschool ‘sometimes’ worked on group/team projects and 33% worked onthem frequently. Over 50% of students across all types of school ‘some-times’ worked on teacher-directed projects. Secondary students were morelikely to work ‘frequently’ on teacher-directed projects. Although nearly50% of students across all types of school ‘sometimes’ worked on self-selected projects, there was less likelihood of students working onself-selected projects than on other types of projects (37% rarely workedon self-selected projects).

It was rare (71%) for students at any school to be able to visit expertsat their place of work, but 26% did so sometimes and 3% often. Primaryand intermediate students were more likely to have field trips where theywere able to work with experts. This was a rare occurrence for mostsecondary students. Nearly half of the primary teachers said that they hadhad experts visiting the classroom, whereas this was much less so forintermediate and secondary school teachers. In summary, more than 50%of respondents reported that they rarely involved people from the com-munity who have technological expertise. Overall, primary school teachersappeared to involve experts in the community more often than teachers inother types of school.

Overall, there was a general degree of satisfaction with the scope to makedecisions and adaptations when implementing the technology curriculumstatement, with 41% finding the scope considerable and 53% finding itsufficient. Few teachers (6%) said they had no scope to make their owndecisions and adaptations.

Most of the teachers stated that their teaching had changed as a resultof the technology curriculum statement, but a quarter said it had not changed

112 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

at all. Reasons given by the sub-sample (n = 500) for changes in teachingas a result of the technology curriculum statement focused mainly on lessteacher direction, more problem solving and a different focus, for example,on the process rather than the product and more hands-on type work. Acomment from a secondary year 9–13 teacher shows a degree of frank-ness:

Adapted teaching in that I use many different teaching styles for many individuals andtheir individual projects – I am more a resource centre than a dictator, which suits mystyle of teaching. (Secondary teacher)

Teachers had found that student-centred approaches were effective inimproving student learning in their classes. Primary teachers, in partic-ular, had been able to employ activity-based co-operative activities thatencouraged student enquiry, and were also able to involve the students inthe planning, developing and evaluation of lessons.

Most teachers (60%) were happy with their implementation of thetechnology curriculum. Secondary year 9–13 school teachers were lesshappy with their implementation than teachers in other schools. Teachersin the sub-sample (n = 500) stated that their implementation was suc-cessful because the students achieved well and enjoyed the lessons:

I am achieving the objectives; children are progressing in their knowledge and experience.I do understand what I am teaching. I am learning too and the children enjoy it. It’s funto teach. (Primary teacher)

Generates excellent learning opportunities. Focused, high interest levels and outstandingthinking from children. (Primary teacher)

Teachers also found that it was beneficial to be supported by good pro-fessional development and team planning:

My university and advisory work have given me an excellent background into the manyissues involved. Constant reviews allow us to enhance programmes. (Area school teacher)

Had excellent professional development which encouraged us to build a wonderful facilityfor technology. We work as a syndicate team and pool ideas. Everyone is enthusiasticabout the subject. (Primary teacher)

Most of the teachers in the sub-sample (n = 500) who were not happywith their implementation felt that they needed further professional devel-opment. Some teachers felt that the facilities they taught in hindered theirimplementation:

No, I am not happy yet – we are building a purpose-built facility, as we would like tobe able to give year 7 and 8 students the opportunity to have a full technology pro-gramme at the school. (Primary teacher)

More secondary teachers than teachers from other schools felt that theirschools needed to be involved in planning for coverage of the technologyprogramme in order for them to able to implement the curriculum.

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 113

TECHNOLOGICAL AREAS TAUGHT

There are seven technological areas in which students are expected tocarry out their technological activities and teachers are expected to developlearning approaches and technological activities within the technologicalareas which will best help their students achieve the objectives of thecurriculum. Materials technology and food technology were reported tobe the most widely taught technological areas in New Zealand schools,which could be explained by the fact that the previous home economicsand workshop materials curricula were replaced by the technology cur-riculum. All other technological areas were being taught in schools, withbiotechnology the least widely taught.

Across all school types materials technology (93%) and food technology(92%) were reported to be the most widely taught technological areas.Biotechnology was the least widely taught area (71%). Most primaryteachers covered all the technological areas in their teaching; the mostpopular areas were materials technology and structures and mechanisms.It is interesting to note that over 70% of primary and intermediate schoolteachers reported that their school teaches both biotechnology and elec-tronics and control technology. More secondary school teachers answeringthe questionnaire were teachers of materials technology than other areas.In addition to the traditional technological areas of food and materialstechnology, secondary schools were offering some courses in electronicsand control technology and in information and communication technology,but had not developed courses in the other three technological areas tothe same extent as primary schools. Biotechnology was considered to beone of the more difficult areas to teach as well as electronics and controlwhereas food and materials technology were considered the easiest.Production and process technology as well as structures and mechanismswere considered to be of medium difficulty.

The amount of teacher knowledge was identified as the most importantfactor influencing the ease of providing technological experiences (75%).Facilities (71%) and other resources (55%) were also considered to beinfluencing factors. More primary teachers felt that teacher knowledgewas important whereas more secondary teachers felt that facilities wereimportant. Few teachers had been able to access community links andspecialist teachers to help them in their delivery of technology. Primaryschool teachers covered all the technological areas in their teaching. Fewerteachers in middle schools taught electronics and control technology, andfood technology perhaps because specialist technology teachers oftencovered these areas. At secondary school level, biotechnology seemed tobe the least frequently covered. Overall it appears that apart from thetraditional technological areas of food and materials technology, secondaryschool schools have not developed courses in other technological areas tothe same extent as in primary schools.

114 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

THE CHALLENGES FOR TECHNOLOGY TEACHERS

The general impression from the findings was that technology was beingimplemented across all school types and at all levels. However, on lookingmore closely at the three main school systems, primary, intermediate andsecondary school, it was clear that the challenges of the curriculum ateach level were different. Teachers were asked to list the three majorchallenges they had faced in implementing the technology curriculum:• The prime concern of teachers was the difficulty of resourcing the

equipment needed to implement the technology curriculum (50%);• What was termed a ‘crowded curriculum’ was found to be a major

challenge for 32% of all teachers, in particular the primary teachers;• Teachers expressed the need for up-skilling or professional develop-

ment in technology education and in particular a specific technologicalarea (22%);

• Understanding the curriculum was one of the major challenges for 22%of all teachers.

Primary school teachers reported a moderate level of confidence (70%) inteaching technology and appeared to be well on the way to providing tech-nological activities for their pupils in many of the technological areas. Theyasked for more support, in the form of practical ideas and nearly 60% ofprimary teachers said that a major challenge was the difficulty they had withresourcing and equipment. Their second major concern (32%) was how tofit technology into an overcrowded curriculum. As teachers who teach allareas of the national curriculum, primary teachers reported overcomingthis to a certain extent by integrating technology with other subject areas.In many primary schools, teachers were expected to cover all technolog-ical areas over a period of two to three years. Primary teachers often usedobservation and interviews to assess student learning in technology. Atthe primary level teachers were concerned about finding appropriate formsof assessment for the junior years and felt that they needed more guidance,both in planning and in assessment.

Intermediate school teachers fall into two distinct groups, specialisttechnology teachers of subjects such as materials technology, food tech-nology and biotechnology, and classroom teachers who teach all or mostareas of the national curriculum. The specialist technology teachers have hadto up-skill from the traditional subject areas of cooking, sewing and wood-work/metalwork to one or a combination of the technological areas. Theysaid that they found it difficult to incorporate the traditional skills thatwere an essential part of how they used to teach prior to the technology cur-riculum. They continue, on the whole, to work out of poor facilities notspecifically designed for the technology curriculum, and they work withoutdated equipment. They tend to teach large classes over short periodsof time and reported having concerns about how to make assessment man-ageable. Specialist technology teachers perceived barriers to involvingexperts from the community in technology programmes as they were

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 115

restricted by timetabling and class size. Intermediate school teachers useda wide variety of assessment methods, including pre-test/post-tests, products,practical tasks, peer assessment, observation and school exemplars.

Although many secondary school teachers have new facilities in whichto work, they have had difficulties with establishing technology in theirschools either because of timetable constraints, management decisions orlack of enthusiasm on the part of former home economics and wood/metalteachers. Fifty-three percent of secondary school year 9–13 teachers placedmore emphasis on technological capability. Concerns about the level ofstudent knowledge and skill to be able to cope with requirements of thecurriculum were expressed by 31% of secondary school teachers. Bio-technology was the only technological area that secondary school schoolsdid not cover so well. Secondary school teachers most often used products,practical tasks, observation and school exemplars in the assessment oftechnology.

DISCUSSION

When the technology was introduced into New Zealand schools it was anew curriculum for all teachers. This major evaluation of teacher experi-ences in introducing the technology curriculum provides interesting insightsinto how teachers have implemented this part of the New Zealand cur-riculum framework. Technology teachers have had to adapt more than inany other curriculum area to new ways of teaching. They have found thesubject challenging yet have taken technology in their stride, and believein the value of the subject for their students. The technology curriculumhas clearly established itself in the culture of New Zealand schools.

There was a general degree of satisfaction with the curriculum state-ment that had been most helpful to teachers in their planning, gaining anoverview of key technological ideas, and achieving consistent understandingof the curriculum levels. Most teachers considered the technology cur-riculum statement to be user-friendly or user-friendly in some ways. Primaryand intermediate teachers considered the statement to be more user-friendlythan secondary teachers. There was a general degree of satisfaction with thecurriculum statement in that less than 35% of teachers wanted to makechanges. The largest group who wanted changes to the structure/organisa-tion was secondary teachers. The most popular changes would be ‘makingit more simple to understand’ and ‘including better developed learningand assessment examples’. The technology curriculum statement has beenof most help in planning, gaining an overview of key technological ideas,achieving consistent understanding of the curriculum levels and in reportingstudent achievement to parents and caregivers.

Generally speaking the primary school teachers said they covered allthe technological areas in their teaching. There were fewer teachers atintermediate schools teaching biotechnology, electronics and control tech-

116 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

nology, and food technology; this could be because specialist technologyteachers often cover these areas. At secondary level, biotechnology seemedto be the least well covered by teachers responding to the questionnaire.Secondary schools have not developed courses in biotechnology, struc-tures and mechanisms or production and process technology to the sameextent as in primary schools. Food Technology and Materials Technologywere considered to be the easiest technological areas in which to provideexperiences for students. Electronics and Control Technology andBiotechnology were considered to be the most difficult. Amount of teacherknowledge was the most important factor influencing ease of providingtechnological experiences. Facilities and other resources were also con-sidered to be important factors. More primary teachers felt that teacherknowledge was important whereas more secondary teachers felt that facil-ities were important.

Approximately two-thirds of teachers said they integrated technology intoother learning areas. Implementing technology in blocks/modules was alsopopular with nearly 40% of all the teachers’ schools. Primary schools tendedto integrate technology into languages and science. Intermediate and sec-ondary schools integrated technology into home economics and workshoptechnology. Across all school types teachers ‘usually combined all threestrands’ in their technology units or ‘sometimes combined strands andsometimes taught the strands separately’. However secondary teachersplaced more emphasis on technological capability. ‘Practical tasks’ wasthe most popular way of assessing student learning in technology, followedby ‘observation’ and ‘products’. Primary school teachers often used obser-vation and interviews/conferencing to assess student learning in technology.Intermediate teachers used a wider variety of assessment methods, includingpre-tests/post tests, products, practical tasks, peer assessment, observationand school exemplars. Secondary teachers most often used products,practical tasks, observation, and school exemplars.

Teachers detailed a wide range of strategies that had been successfulin their teaching of technology, and the trend appears to be one of choosingtopics that are relevant to students’ needs, involving the students in prac-tical, hands-on activities, encouraging a ‘problem-solving approach’ andusing group or co-operative learning approaches. It was evident that studentswere working on varied types of projects in technology: approximately 50%of all students ‘sometimes’ worked on individual projects, group/teamprojects, teacher-directed projects, and self-selected projects. Intermediateand secondary students worked on individual projects more often thanstudents at primary school level. Teachers rarely involved people from thecommunity who have technological expertise. Primary school teachersappeared to involve experts in the community more often than teachers inother types of school. Teachers detailed a wide range of teaching approachesthat had been effective in improving student learning, and the trend was oneof involving the students more in the planning and direction of the lessons,having the students work in a co-operative way and being involved in

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 117

hands-on, practical activities. The majority of teachers were happy with theirimplementation of the technology curriculum. Primary school teachers weremore satisfied than secondary teachers. Reasons given for satisfactionfocused mainly on the view that students enjoyed the units of work and wereachieving, and teachers felt that they were covering requirements.

Nearly three-quarters of the teachers had received professional devel-opment in technology. Teachers reported that it helped most of all to givea ‘depth of knowledge’ or ‘ideas’ to help them implement the curriculum.The most useful source of knowledge to almost half of the teachers wasother teachers in the school. Advisors, books and journals and teachers inother schools were also considered useful. Teachers were most interestedin receiving professional development in the specific technological areas.They wanted information on planning and teaching skills. They were alsointerested in knowing more about progression, assessment and reportingachievement, as well as gaining more information on practical contextsand ideas.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national study of the implementation of the technologycurriculum in New Zealand schools and reports on teachers’ experiences.Technology education has obviously become more established in primaryschools compared with secondary schools. However this research is basedprimarily on teacher self report data and may not reflect actual classroompractice in terms of technology learning outcomes. The classroom-basedresearch of Moreland and Jones (2000) indicates that although teachersare implementing the technology curriculum, technology educationoutcomes were not always being prioritised. Further research is requiredto examine what is occurring at the classroom level.

Professional development has had a significant effect in helping in theimplementation of technology in New Zealand schools. The emphasis onprofessional development in the beginning of the implementation phaseof the curriculum has had a positive impact in terms of teachers knowingabout the curriculum and in many ways what are technology-learningactivities. However, the professional development has not been on-goingand although teachers are aware of the technology curriculum, much moreresearch is required to examine the impact on student learning.

In secondary schools the change has not been as great as in primaryschools. Existing school structures, existing facilities, examinations havehad an impact on curriculum implementation is secondary schools. Thestrong subject subculture (Goodson 1985; Paechter 1991) of workshoptechnology, home economics and graphics has also had a major impact.Given the lack of a technology subject subculture in New Zealand, othersubjects’ sub-cultural impact on technological classroom practice becomesvery complex (Jones 1999).

118 ALISTER JONES ET AL.

Assessment and progression are key issues for the future that wereidentified by the teachers in this study, this is consistent with researchagendas in the field which point out that this is a significant area of studyif the field of technology in schools is to progress (Jones & Moreland 2003).

NOTES

1. Schools are rated in decile groupings (1 lowest – 10 highest) based on the school’scommunity socio-economic status.

REFERENCES

Compton, A. & Jones, A.: 1998, ‘Reflecting on Teacher Development in TechnologyEducation: Implications for Future Programmes’, International Journal of Technology andDesign Education 8(2), 151–166.

Goodson, I. F.: 1985, Social Histories of the Secondary Curriculum, Falmer Press, Lewes.Jones, A.: 1999, ‘The Influence of Teachers’ Subcultures on Curriculum Innovation’, in J.

Loughran (ed.), Researching Teaching, Falmer Press, London.Jones, A.: 2003, ‘The Development of the New Zealand Technology Curriculum’,

International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13(1), 83–99.Ministry of Education: 1995, Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Learning Media,

Wellington.Jones, A. & Compton, V.: 1998, ‘Towards a model of Teacher Development in Technology

Education’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8(1), 51–65.Jones & Moreland: 2003, ‘Developing Classroom Focused Research in Technology

Education’, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 3(1),51–66.

Moreland, J. and Jones, A.: 2000, ‘Emerging Assessment Practices in an Emergent Curriculum:Implications for Technology’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education10, 283–305.

Paechter, C.: 1991, Sub-Cultural Retreat: negotiating the Design and Technology Curriculum.Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference.

NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES 119