School-based
professional development in technology
School
development and the role of the technology adviser
This material was produced by the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ)
under contract to the Ministry of Education in 2000 and 2001. It was written
to assist teachers and schools in their delivery of the technology/ hangarau
curriculum statements. The project was jointly coordinated by personnel
from the Technology Education New Zealand (TENZ)
and National Association of Māori Mathematicians, Scientists and Technologists
(NAMMSAT) networks. Monitoring and evaluation of the material was carried
out by a national project advisory group.
|
Background
This is an outline of one aspect of the ongoing assistance that David
Gooch, Adviser in Technology, Wellington College of Education has been
able to provide for schools in his region.
The specific secondary school case studied is decile 5, with a role of
approximately 500 students.
The school began its implementation work in 1997 with the intention of
integrating technology into other core subjects. Key factors which emerged
during this initial phase included:
- this model was supported by some teachers but not by others;
- a reluctance by some staff to coordinate their activities with
others;
- the involvement of only two members of the 'technical staff at
this initial stage – others continued to deliver traditional
Workshop Craft and Design Technology programmes;
- the task of coordinating the process turned into a huge job for
the teacher who had initially accepted responsibility for the process;
- in practice very little change was actually happening in the school;
and
- a new principal was keen to see greater progress being made.
All of this contributed to greater level of support for trying a different
approach – one focused more around specialist teachers and which
therefore would bring the existing technical department more into the
process.
The development
process
In term 4 1998, the Head of Department Technical attended an in-service
course that was offered to technology leaders and SMT's relating to implementing
technology education in the secondary school. Follow up contact was made
with the course facilitator – the local secondary adviser in technology
– and arrangements made in early 1999 for a visit to the school by
the adviser.
The first visit in 1999 was to scope what had been done up to that point
in technology education at the school. A great deal of consideration had
centred around the delivery of technology units in core subjects versus
technology as a timetabled subject. During the previous two years staff
had trialled units in core subjects but had left the traditional technical
subjects without any involvement and the teachers of these subjects without
any understanding of the nature of the change required.
Throughout 1999 the adviser was able to build a relationship with the
staff and work on:
- ways/structures that technology can be implemented in the school;
- unit planning in technology;
- perceptions of technology and the technology curriculum by teachers,
parents and the community;
- implications for teachers;
- whole-staff development and understanding;
- assessment in technology;
- developing facilities; and
- management documents and policy.
In working with staff both individually and groups, an emphasis was placed
on the nature of technology and technology education and the features
inherent in a technology unit. Resource material used included:
- the Know How and Know How 2 resources;
- Delta units; and
- information from the Education Review Office on their expectations.
Some of the general issues involved were able to be addressed in regular
meetings between the HOD Technical who had taken over the coordination
of the implementation process, the principal, and the adviser.
|
