Insights into the intrinsic and extrinsic challenges for implementing technology education: case studies of Queensland teachers

This study, embedded within the Researching School Change in Technology Education (RSCTE) project in Queensland, Australia, aimed to gain insights into the intrinsic and extrinsic challenges experienced by teachers during the implementation of technology education within primary school settings. The official publication and launch of the Technology years 1–10 syllabus and associated curriculum materials by the Queensland Studies Authority during 2003 saw the first formal Technology curriculum for primary schools in Queensland. The Queensland Government announced that all Queensland schools were to aim for full implementation of this new Key Learning Area (KLA) by 2007. This presented a challenge for Queensland teachers as they began to understand this new KLA and subsequently, were required to implement technology education for the first time. Education Queensland released a number of different strategies that were designed to assist this implementation, including research partnerships with universities. Thus, the RSCTE project, a partnership project between Education Queensland and Griffith University included implementation research within schools. Through the identification of insights into intrinsic and extrinsic challenges, this study, while recognising the limitations of transferability beyond the case studies presented, provides suggestions to assist the implementation of technology education.

[1]  Chris Merrill.  Action Research and Technology Education , 2004 .

[2]  Ann Marie Hill,et al.  Reconstructionism in Technology Education , 1997 .

[3]  Glenn Finger,et al.  Researching School Change in Technology Education , 2004 .

[4]  M. Hoepfl.  Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers , 1997 .

[5]  Rodney L. Custer,et al.  Examining the dimensions of technology , 1995 .

[6]  A. Montagu.  A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms , 1959 .

[7]  M. Patton.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[8]  Brent Mawson,et al.  Beyond `The Design Process': An Alternative Pedagogy for Technology Education , 2003 .

[9]  Léonie J. Rennie,et al.  Teacher Collaboration in Curriculum Change: The Implementation of Technology Education in the Primary School , 2001 .

[10]  Brian Lewthwaite.  “Are you saying I'm to blame?” Exploring the Influence of a Principal on Elementary Science Delivery , 2004 .

[11]  Frank Banks.  Developing professional knowledge during initial design and technology teacher education , 1996 .

[12]  Glenn Finger,et al.  Teaching Technology: from intention to implementation - The story so far... , 2005 .

[13]  Bronwen Cowie,et al.  New Zealand Teachers' Experiences in Implementing the Technology Curriculum , 2004 .

[14]  Claes Klasander.  Understanding Technological Systems : Classroom Implications for a Systems Approach , 2004 .

[15]  Campbell J. McRobbie,et al.  Authentic Program Planning in Technology Education , 2001 .

[16]  Gwendolyn M. Lloyd.  Two Teachers' Conceptions of a Reform-Oriented Curriculum: Implications for Mathematics Teacher Development , 1999 .

[17]  L. Cohen,et al.  Research Methods in Education , 1980 .

[18]  Marilyn Fleer,et al.  Technology for children: Developing your own approach , 1999 .

[19]  Campbell J. McRobbie,et al.  Perceptions of Curriculum Implementation Needs in Design and Technology , 2004 .

[20]  Piet Ankiewicz,et al.  The Essential Features of Technology and Technology Education: A Conceptual Framework for the Development of OBE (Outcomes Based Education) Related Programmes in Technology Education , 2003 .

[21]  Glenn Finger,et al.  Teaching Technology - Design Briefs and Rich Tasks: Contradictions and Challenges Facing Future Teachers. , 2002 .

[22]  Darrell L. Fisher,et al.  The Application of a Primary Science Delivery Evaluation Questionnaire , 2004 .

[23]  Kay Stables,et al.  Critical Issues to Consider When Introducing Technology Education into the Curriculum of Young Learners , 1997 .

[24]  H. Gardner,et al.  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences , 1983 .

[25]  Léonie J. Rennie,et al.  Science Teaching and Learning in Australian Schools: Results of a National Study , 2001 .

[26]  Sarah J. Stein,et al.  Recognising Uniqueness in the Technology Key Learning Area: The Search for Meaning , 2000 .

[27]  Ann Marie Hill,et al.  Problem Solving in Real-Life Contexts: An Alternative for Design in Technology Education , 1998 .

[28]  Marilyn Fleer,et al.  Working Technologically: Investigations into How Young Children Design and Make During Technology Education , 2000 .

[29]  Senta A. Raizen.  Making Way for Technology Education , 1997 .

[30]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[31]  Vicki Compton,et al.  Reflecting on Teacher Development in Technology Education: Implications for Future Programmes , 1998 .

[32]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[33]  David Carless,et al.  Managing Systemic Curriculum Change: A Critical Analysis of Hong Kong's Target-Oriented Curriculum Initiative , 1997 .

[34]  Campbell J. McRobbie,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Describing Technology Education Classrooms , 2002 .

[35]  Richard K. Coll,et al.  Technology and Technology Education: Views of Some Solomon Island Primary Teachers and Curriculum Development Officers , 2003 .

[36]  S. Merriam.  Case Study Research in Education , 1988 .

[37]  K. Thompson.  Cognitive and Analytical Psychology Howard Gardner .Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York, Basic Books, 1983. , 1985 .