TECHNOLOGY

in the

NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM

A Submission on the Draft

Education Forum
November 1994

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Education Forum acknowledges with gratitude the assistance of Mr Andrew Breckon in the preparation of this submission.

Mr Breckon is currently Senior Education Inspector (Curriculum) with Lincolnshire County Council. He is Chief Executive designate of DATA (The Design and Technology Association - a professional body aimed at supporting the teaching of design and technology in schools). He was a member of the English National Curriculum working group for Technology and an added member of the National Curriculum working group for Science. He was Vice-Chairman of the Secondary Examination Council (SEC) committee that dealt with design and technology throughout the 1980s and was seconded as chairman of a committee to develop grade-related criteria for design and technology. He was secretary of the Association of Advisers and Inspectors in Design and Technology 1986-89. He is a former member of the Design Council's education committee, and is currently a member of the Engineering Council's education committee, an adviser to the Technology Enhancement Programme (TEP) and a member of the Academic Board of Hull University. He has been Chief Examiner for A and AS level Design and Technology for 13 years. He has acted as an adviser to both the BBC and ITV on over 100 programmes for schools and 8 programmes specifically for teachers. He has advised on technology in Hong Kong, Germany and Cyprus. In 1985 he represented the United Kingdom at a UNESCO conference in Paris on Science and Technology and was editor of the conference papers. He has written 6 textbooks on design and technology, extensive programme notes and a number of major articles on design and technology.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The creation of a new curriculum framework is a most challenging undertaking. The government is to be commended for taking up this challenge and for seeking to introduce technology in the context of The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education 1993a, hereafter Framework). Adapting established subjects like mathematics to the requirements of Framework has proved difficult, but with technology it is doubly so since there is no consensus as yet as to what it actually is.

Framework provides a structure of principles, essential learning areas and essential skills. The description of technology in Framework has a welcome emphasis on 'design and make'. However, this description is elaborated in the specific proposals of the draft of Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1993b, hereafter Technology) in ways which widen the compass of technology considerably and could make it difficult to give it a clear focus and identity. Further, while the overall structure of Framework is sound there are some concerns and omissions.

A major concern arising from Framework is the eight levels structure for achievement objectives, the case for which is poorly argued. Another concern is the lack of any indication of the time that a student should spend on a particular subject area, and this is particularly important with something new like technology. It has been found necessary in England and Wales both to clarify the nature of levels and to provide guidelines for the allocation of time.

Another omission in Framework is the lack of attention to the issue of differentiation - of coping with students of different abilities, levels of achievement and post-school aspirations. The implicit assumption is that all students will proceed along the same curricular pathways and will benefit from the same methods of instruction. In practice this may disadvantage the less academically inclined, and lead to a curriculum which is not well articulated with vocational training beyond school.

The specific proposals in the draft of Technology seem to represent more an aspiration than a serious attempt to set out what might be achieved in practice. As proposed, Technology demands 'super teachers', highly motivated students, flexible staff who collaborate very well and have open access to resources for students. England and Wales were similarly over-ambitious in their first attempts to introduce technology into their national curricula and inspectors have reported that this has actually led to a lowering of standards of achievement in secondary schools.

The proposals in Technology are characterised by an openness to allow teachers and students to exploit this area of learning how they wish. In putting their trust in flexibility, however, the authors fail to determine in an explicit manner what is essential and must be taught at each stage of a student's development. This means the normal building blocks of skills, knowledge and attitudes in technology are not necessarily going to be secured at any level. As a result there are serious dangers of a lack of continuity and progression.

Technology is a practical subject and that is rightly emphasised, but the proposals do not adequately address the associated knowledge and understanding. There is a clear need for a much better defined field of knowledge at the different levels in each of the technological areas. The authors' view that technological knowledge will be acquired through activities is unrealistic for many students. The implementation of technology will have sufficient challenges for teachers and teacher trainers without the added problem of an insecure knowledge and skills base. This leads to confusion over what should be taught, where, and by whom. Failing to deal with these questions will put at risk technology's place within the curriculum. Ambiguity, overlap or gaps can lead to a failing curriculum without a sense of direction, and one in which teachers can easily lose their confidence with a consequent decline in standards of achievement.

The advice on implementation is not only vague in many areas, but is also somewhat inconsistent with previous material in Technology. In particular, the cross-curricular approach conflicts with the modes of delivery and this may lead to confusion. Some consider that all strategies for implementation should be left open, an option that may appeal when one is unsure which approach is the most appropriate. However, this does not help teachers in their work. Equally, it leads to teacher training which lacks clarity of purpose because it has to be applied in a wide variety of contexts, from subject specific to a totally immersed form of technology that emanates from all other learning activities in the school.

If the government wishes to introduce a quality technological curriculum into its schools, it should be more precise about the range of activities, the designing and making skills and the knowledge and understanding it would see forming the core learning at each stage, and discuss and exemplify the attainment required to achieve each of the levels. This more concrete approach will ensure a minimum entitlement for all students. It will also help secure clear standards of achievement and assist the teacher trainers in focusing their efforts in the early stages of development. The model of delivery can then be focused in a manner which enables the government to allocate resources to meet real need. For example, if the teaching of microelectronics is essential at levels 4 to 6, schools know they must train a member of staff to undertake that activity and not decide to leave it out because they do not have the staff expertise.

Once this minimum entitlement at each level has been defined and is being introduced, the government should introduce a development programme to gradually broaden the base of the subject to meet a much longer-term objective of an interdisciplinary approach - assuming that this is the long-term objective. This leads to the conclusion that the proposals in Technology require a fundamental reworking of structure and content.

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

The introduction of Framework is similar in strategic terms to the work of many other governments which are showing increased interest and involvement in formulating what should be taught in schools. This arises from the perceived need to establish a minimum curriculum entitlement for students, the need to increase the accountability of schools for what is being taught, learnt and achieved - especially with increased devolution of resources to individual schools - and the need to raise educational standards in an increasingly competitive world.

The challenge of introducing a national framework for the school curriculum is not proving an easy exercise in any country. In England and Wales the introduction of the National Curriculum has caused a series of difficulties in a number of curriculum areas (Irwin, 1994, pp.35-39). However, despite these difficulties, there is evidence of improved and more balanced curriculum provision for students, especially in primary schools, and some subsequent raising of standards. This is not consistent in all subjects, and technology is one subject where some (including Her Majesty's Inspectors) would argue standards have fallen; and certainly there is little evidence of standards improving since 1990 (Smithers and Robinson 1992, p.5; see also NCC 1992 , 1993a and b, HMI 1992).

The statutory Orders set for technology in England and Wales were perhaps the most ambitious of any proposals in terms of curriculum development (DES 1990, NCC 1990). However the Orders were criticised for being confusing, too demanding and very broad, and not necessarily built on good practice. They were presented as a team approach to teaching technology, linking a wide range of subjects some of which had not worked together before. Interestingly they were not directly linked to science. The implementation was not tied to comprehensive and coherent training, in part because the trainers were unsure of the requirements of the regulations.

The New Zealand government's overall plans are set out in Framework, which establishes the principles, describes the seven essential areas of learning and the essential skills, and addresses the important areas of attitudes and values. This structure provides a starting point for the development of a national curriculum.

Many governments are naturally trying to use the opportunity of introducing a national curriculum to update, revise and modify the existing curriculum for schools. Governments are also attempting to introduce some new curricular experiences that are relevant for students who are going to be living and working in the twenty-first century. In addition, many governments are seeking methods of assessing the effectiveness of the teaching and learning in schools. This usually takes the form of methods of measuring the overall performance as a nation for international comparisons, for example national mathematical capability at certain ages. Some governments also want to measure on a regular basis the performance of individual schools. This notion of accountability through international or individual school league tables places a constraint on curriculum planners, as the very nature of teaching means that some aspects that should be taught may be very difficult to assess in a valid manner. The development of a curriculum that can be rigorously assessed may be different from one that it is desirable to teach. This will be very significant in relationship to technology.

The government is to be commended for including technology as one of the seven essential learning areas. This is a bold step especially in light of the difficulties many countries have experienced over the last decade with the introduction of technology.

There is no doubt that the inclusion of technology as an essential learning area is a valid objective that is worthy of pursuit. The introduction of technology will help to provide students with some of the essential skills, knowledge, understanding, attitudes and values for living and working in a technological society. However, all aspects of New Zealand society will need to show commitment to this objective, because it is very difficult to introduce a sound technological education and it is very expensive.

Many countries which are currently attempting the introduction or development of technological education are finding the exercise very demanding and contentious and achieve only limited success. For instance the English and Welsh national curriculum formally introduced technology in 1990 and this was based on more than 20 years of developments. There have now been five sets of revised technology proposals within six years, and still all is not well (Smithers and Robinson, 1992 and 1994).

There are many constraints that cause difficulties for governments and schools in trying to implement a quality technological curriculum. This submission examines some of the constraints in order to provide a context for analysing the New Zealand proposals. It will look in some detail at what may constitute technology and its possible relationships with science and other subjects. It will also review in depth the strategies set out in Technology. It will not comment on the 'possible learning experiences' and 'assessment examples' for the six strands and eight levels except where necessary to illustrate or inform the views expressed on the strategies. Possible resource and training implications will be considered. Finally, recommendations are made as to the way ahead.

This submission draws heavily on the experience of England and Wales as this educational jurisdiction has probably gone further than any other in developing technology as a compulsory part of a national curriculum. Consequently its experience has much to offer New Zealand which is embarking on a similar route. Comments will tend to focus more on perceived weaknesses in Technology than on its strengths in the interests of brevity.

It is worth remembering that one of the key methods of technological development occurs through trial and error. This appears to be the common international method of introducing technology into the school curriculum. However, there are lessons to be learned which can reduce the danger of false starts and consequent waste of effort and disillusionment, and help to secure an early and respected place for technology education. However, it must be recognised that frequent refinement will be required as technology changes, and more is learnt about the teaching and learning of the subject. Also, the goal of a technologically literate society with high numbers of technologically capable students is certainly worthwhile pursuing whatever the difficulties and challenges that need to be overcome.

Finally, by way of introduction, it should be stressed that this submission is substantially based on the relevant official curriculum texts. As in all textual criticism, it is quite possible that the process results in views being attributed to the authors of the texts to which they would not subscribe.

SECTION 2 TECHNOLOGY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER SUBJECTS

This section addresses the nature of technology, the relationship between technology and science, and subject relationships across the whole curriculum. Because the science/technology relationship has been examined at length in a recent Education Forum publication (Jenkins 1994) with particular reference to the New Zealand curricular material (Ministry of Education 1993b and c), it concentrates on some of the constraints facing the implementation of technology in New Zealand and the strategies employed in other countries to tackle the problems. These constraints can significantly influence the definition of technology and the mode of working in the subject.

A major constraint facing almost all countries in developing technology education is that they are working from a position of limited provision and experience. This is in contrast to most other curriculum developments for which there is not only a sound research base but also a tradition with definitions, content and teaching strategies that are already developed. Thus, while improvement in traditional areas tends to require refining existing curricula rather than initiating major changes, technology requires clear definition of basic issues such as scope and content. This may involve major changes in philosophy and content to those embraced by the heterogeneous collection of subjects, such as home economics and woodwork, that tended to be considered as constituting technological education.

In many countries, developments in technology are trying to reflect current or future technological practices in the world of work. Unfortunately this causes major problems and is generally not the mode of working in most subjects. For example, current practice in teaching science may well fall significantly behind modern methods of working scientifically.

The lack of an internationally agreed definition of what constitutes technology and the interdisciplinary nature of the subject make it very difficult to establish the fundamental concepts and knowledge base upon which technology should be built. This is exacerbated by the changes in technologies that take place as a modern society develops. Clearly many countries are looking for answers to questions such as: How do students learn in technology? How is technological capability developed? What are the essential educational building blocks in technology? What are the core technologies to teach? What are the core skills for technological education? What is the relationship with science, and is technology applied science? These are some of the questions that need to be addressed in formulating a technological education programme for schools.

Technology has many meanings, the range of which broadens when used in conjunction with other words, for instance medical technology, biotechnology, food technology, manufacturing technology, space technology, systems technology and information technology. Thus not only may a definition of technology vary but also its meaning may change in differing contexts (Jenkins, 1994, p.5). However, it is possible to draw out some aspects of technology that may be helpful in formulating, if not a definition, at least a series of terms that may describe technology. For instance technology involves creating or modifying products, it may translate scientific and other knowledge into a practical application, it is inherently functional as it involves creating or improving with a purpose in mind. It is not so much about 'right' answers as about creating the best answers at any point in time.

As Jenkins (1994) has observed, the view that technology is "the mere application of prior scientific knowledge" must be rejected, although technology will frequently use science in technological activities. In fact technology frequently puts scientific discovery into a worthwhile context and in many ways enhances the discovery. Good technological education occurs where activities are designed by teachers to utilise some scientific facts in a practical way that enables students to show understanding of the concepts by creative application in a less than familiar context.

A second and very significant constraint is that, in most countries, technology is being added to the curriculum without guidance about what should be removed to make space for technology, or without extending the length of the school day. Thus technology is being added to an already crowded curriculum. Associated with this constraint is the manner in which different countries have tried to establish technology. However, some governments have tended to avoid making a clear decision on the strategy for implementation, either because of the resource implications or because they do not really know the most appropriate approach.

Below are brief descriptions of the four implementation strategies that have been tried in England and Wales.

Strategy 1. The introduction of technology into the school curriculum through science education.

This approach has some logic as almost all technological activities are based on scientific concepts. However, this has not been a particularly successful route for development for a variety of reasons. Science teachers tend to have great difficulty with the practical application necessary for the development of technology because they lack specific skills and knowledge, especially in the making of products. Technology requires a certain empathy in teaching with an open-end mode of working on activities that science teachers frequently find difficult. In addition, and perhaps most significantly, governments have also placed increased emphasis on science teaching with the consequence that science teachers, who are usually in short supply - especially physicists - have tended to concentrate on their work in science.

Strategy 2. The introduction of technology through practical subjects such as workshop practice, craft and home economics.

This route has been attractive because such subjects provide the practical applications necessary. However, they are often subjects with relatively low status in the curriculum, especially for the high ability academic students. Also, such a route has difficulties in that many teachers do not have the knowledge or skill base necessary, and without careful implementation there is a lack of public acceptance. This has been a significant problem in England and Wales where the academic and more vocational curricula tend to clash. Where appropriately qualified teachers exist, this area provides some of the best technology teaching and learning.

Strategy 3. The introduction of technology through teaching as a cross-curricular activity.

This approach is intellectually appealing as it meets the interdisciplinary nature of technology and doesn't necessitate any dismantling of the existing curricular provision. This strategy suggests that technology can be placed as a layer of curriculum experiences across subjects that can be brought together through teachers working in teams. There are examples of this working, but only in some individual establishments. There is no clear evidence of this strategy for teaching technology, or any other cross-curricular initiative, being successfully sustained over a very wide range of schools in the 11 to 16 year age range. However, there are some good examples of work in the 5 to 11 age range. Thus this approach is a questionable model for sustained long-term development of technology. In England and Wales it certainly has not been a success, especially where large teams are involved.

Strategy 4. The introduction of technology through a new separate subject taught like science or mathematics.

This approach has been tried in pockets, but not as a recommended strategy for a national curriculum. It will tend to provide a narrower approach to technology, and it would significantly disrupt the current curriculum provision. However, it would ensure that quality teaching time was given for technological education. Such a strategy could make technology more focused and improve the quality of work even though it would be a narrower course in the experiences that are given. Clearly such a strategy would focus the provision of training for the technology teachers and the resources required. Such a strategy would be a bold approach, but in the medium and long term could be the most effective strategy for quality provision of technology in a national curriculum.

The advice or guidance on the strategy or strategies for implementation is crucial to the successful introduction of a technological curriculum, because it not only affects the training of teachers, the resource requirements, the respect that students give to this essential area of learning, but also the inherent cultural attitudes to technology in society. It is most unlikely that future citizens will respect, or wish to be engaged in, technological work if their experiences of technology in schools are incomprehensible and lack a clear focus. Certainly the failure of the current English national curriculum area has not provided the stimulus and positive attitudes that were hoped for.

The third constraint, which has already been touched upon, is the lack of suitably qualified teachers to teach this subject. The lack of a sound knowledge base hinders teacher development and, depending on the strategy for implementation, the nature of the training changes. Clearly, if a cross-curricular approach is recommended, the training has to be rather broad and will engage a large number of teachers. If it is single subject focused, the number of teachers requiring training is much smaller, but the training may require much greater depth.

A fourth constraint is the physical resource requirements. The teaching of modern technology is an expensive undertaking in terms of the equipment and materials that are required, as well as the environment in which it is taught. Here curriculum developers have a difficult task of developing skills and knowledge that reflect modern technology in a meaningful context. Naturally this is not always easily achieved and thus simulations or models become the norm. The relevance of these as motivational activities and as worthwhile educational experiences constantly needs to be challenged if students are to be engaged in technology. The difficulty of achieving this is exacerbated by the range of technologies and their differing nature.

One of the significant challenges to technological education in England and Wales was the relationship of technology to other subjects. It was interesting that art and design showed little interest in being directly involved in technology, although the teaching of functional design and graphics are critical aspects that many art departments could assist with. Home economics managed to integrate the work in textiles into technology courses very well. However, the differing emphasis in the teaching of food-related activities continues to cause problems. While food technology is a valid area of technology, there is a sharp division of opinion over how well this can be represented in schools. The critics suggest that in practice it tends to become home economics under another name to the detriment of both technology and learning essential living skills like cooking.

An area that made big initial strides into technology was business studies; it took a very broad definition of systems and related it to business practice. This has been found not to fit the English approach to technology particularly well, although it has a contribution to make.

Science and mathematics were not directly related in the technology Orders, although in primary schools science and technology are frequently taught in an integrated manner. In contrast, in secondary schools science teachers have been fully engaged in delivering the science curriculum which has been subject to major changes, and many have not had any time to devote to technology. Also, some science teachers found that the technology Orders lacked the rigour of electronics and the scientific principles and concepts that were present in previous technology courses, and they were, therefore, less well motivated to take part.

SECTION 3 FRAMEWORK AND
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TECHNOLOGY

This section looks briefly at the Framework document and relates it to Technology.

In the Foreword to Framework the Secretary for Education points out the need to update the curriculum and makes the link between a country's prosperity in today's and tomorrow's competitive world economy and the education system. Few would disagree with this or with the stated need for an increasingly skilled and adaptable workforce which has an international and multicultural perspective. The Foreword goes on to recognise the balance between the interests of individual students and the requirements of society and the economy.

These points, coupled with the need to raise standards, provide a sound rationale for planning the new national curriculum framework. The Secretary for Education seeks to promote new emphases in learning areas that are important to the country's health and growth, such as technology, second language learning, and so on. This places great relevance on technology teaching and its links to the 'health' of the country. However, Framework is also concerned to allow schools the freedom to develop programmes that are appropriate to the needs of their students. This point will be considered later in this submission: major difficulties in terms of progression and continuity in learning can result if the government is too flexible in its approach and has poorly defined the minimum entitlement for students.

The Secretary for Education recognises the resource and professional development needs related to the reforms and the need for consultation and a sense of ownership by schools.

Framework's Foreword provides an overall rationale for the reforms, giving a context for the inclusion of technology. The framework has an overall structure including seven essential learning areas, one of which is technology, and eight essential skills. Framework then indicates the place of attitudes and values in the curriculum as well as outlining the policy for assessment at school and national level.

The principles set out in Framework establish some criteria upon which to review the proposals for technology:

• Do the proposals provide direction for learning and assessment in technology?
• Do the proposals provide achievement objectives against which students' progress in technology can be measured?
• Do the proposals help learning in technology progress coherently throughout schooling?
• Do the proposals link learning to the wider world?

However, it is difficult to be confident in the adequacy of these questions when considered in the context of the principle that the national school curriculum should allow schools sufficient flexibility to respond to individual learning needs, and perceived local and national needs (Framework p.6). It is difficult to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, prescription for national needs and students' entitlement and, on the other hand, flexibility to meet individual student needs and the needs of the local community. Failure to do so has led to difficulties in many countries and to be over-flexible is to cause confusion. It is a particular danger in a new area like technology that does not have a well established tradition to build on.

Certainly the lack of clear definition and differing interpretations of aspects of technology in England and Wales have led to immense teacher unease, lack of confidence and invalid assessments. This has culminated in a series of major reviews of the technology Orders.

The seven essential learning areas described in Framework have won widespread acceptance. They are more coherent than the narrowly focused proposals in England and Wales, and allow a balance to be struck between arts and sciences, the practical and the academic, and between tradition and the future. Students will be able to give up technology after Year 10, although it is intended that English/Maori, mathematics and a science subject remain compulsory until the end of year 11. Students can still choose to continue with technology and there is a requirement to maintain a balanced curriculum. Much of the best individual and project work is, in fact, developed at the 15 to 18 year age range when students have developed a broad range of skills and knowledge with the perseverance to tackle meaningful and demanding projects.

Framework (p.13) sets out a definition of technology and follows this by explaining the areas of activity, the mode of working and the subjects that may contribute to technology. The definition: "Technology is the creative and purposeful use of human knowledge, skills and physical resources to solve practical problems. It involves developing objects, systems or environments" is a satisfactory starting point. It establishes technology as a practical/technical subject with a content centred around the practical organisation of knowledge and skills. Much of what follows on page 13 of Framework clarifies aspects of the definition about which there could be reservations.

The major weakness of the definition, when taken out of the context of the other material on page 13, is the second sentence. Technology is more than developing objects, systems or environments. Technology is also about the design and making of objects, systems or environments. Thus the definition is limiting and suggests a constraint that doesn't exist. Also, the definition's breaking of the end product into object, system or environment is unnecessary, and it mirrors England's original statutory Orders 'artefact, system or environment' model that has now been dropped and replaced by one word "product". Perhaps a more relevant definition of technology in schools for New Zealand within the context of the extended statement could be:

Technology is the practical application of knowledge, skills and resources to design, develop and make useful products.

Other aspects of the description of the technology essential learning area potentially stretch the compass of technology into much wider territory, for example into social anthropology and the history of science, and could weaken the coherence and integrity of the subject (Irwin pp.20-23). The cross-curricular approach suggested will be addressed later in this submission (Section 8).

The list of essential skills set out in Framework is internationally acceptable although the term "competitive skills" is rarely used. It is a realistic skill to try to develop for students, as it certainly could have benefits, although such skills are immensely difficult to assess. A well structured technology course should, to varying degrees, encompass all eight groups of essential skills in a purposeful manner and provide real opportunities for students to develop in these areas. The skills place some emphasis on group work, co-operation and self management and these are very important areas in the teaching of technology.

The inclusion of a section on attitudes and values is to be welcomed. However, the exclusion of any mention of the development of constructive attitudes to living and working in a technological society and valuing, maintaining and improving the environment is disappointing. Technological education could contribute significantly to this type of study.

Framework provides that curricula must be written in an eight level format, but there is no clear rationale for eight levels, nor is any argument provided as to the number of years for which such a model is suitable. As Howson (1994, p.9-12) has observed, 8 levels over 13 years of schooling would seem to be too few and undermine two of the major arguments for the model - providing an incentive to progression and the basis for reporting to parents. Also difficulty has been anticipated in respect of other curricula about understanding what exactly achieving a level might mean (Education Forum, 1994, in respect of English and Howson, 1994, on mathematics). Similar difficulty can be expected in technology as the differences between achievement objectives at the various levels are extremely vague and will rely on subjective interpretation.

A further critical issue, also raised by Howson (1994, p.3-7), is that of differentiation, or how to cope with students of different abilities, levels of achievement and post-school aspiration. Framework opts for differentiation by individual rate of progress through a common curriculum and notes that "In any one class, students may be working at a range of levels. ... They will work at their own rate while being encouraged to strive for higher goals" (Framework p.12). This, if adopted as a form of class organisation, could pose considerable difficulties for secondary schools which are generally used to whole class teaching.

The issue of differentiation does not only involve the issue of pedagogy; it also raises the issue of whether one curriculum is suitable for all students. Technology provides, in line with Framework, that all students will proceed along one curriculum pathway albeit at different speeds and with different end points. The assumption here is that the same technology curriculum is equally satisfactory for students who may give up technology before they reach the senior school as for those who intend to go on to study technology at degree or advanced diploma levels. The danger of the one curriculum approach is that, in the interests of enhancing the status of technology as a school subject, it will, as it has in England and Wales, be overly intellectualised, "emphasising problem-solving, design and evaluation in complex or highly generalised contexts" (Bierhoff and Prais, 1992). This is likely to both fail to provide the more academically inclined students with the opportunity to develop practical skills at a high level and disadvantage and demotivate the less able for whom the route to higher education might be through training associated with practical work.

The section on assessment in Framework (p.24) advises that the curriculum will provide clear learning outcomes against which students' progress can be measured. The use of assessment for formative purposes is valid and essential for effective teaching and learning. However, the criteria for formative teacher assessment and criteria for national testing are different. The teacher needs broad guidance to give formative indicators. External assessment through national tests requires tight, unambiguous criteria if such tests are to be valid and worthwhile. Problems would arise if the assessment against the level criteria are to be used for school or national monitoring; however, it is understood that this is not intended. The proposed achievement objectives in Technology are extremely vague and hardly constitute the clear learning outcomes anticipated in Framework. At best, they might be used for broad formative assessment by teachers, though the paucity of levels is a distinct drawback for reporting and incentive purposes.

One of the failures of the curriculum framework is the lack of any recognition of time required to teach the proposals (Howson, 1994, p.4). This is a major weakness and will lead to problems in the future. Clearly those who developed the seven essential learning areas must either have formulated the time to be spent teaching what they defined, or must have been given a brief of the time ministers expect each area to be given at each stage. If neither took place the proposals almost certainly will lead to an overcrowded curriculum. If guidance was given then that should be shared with schools.

A lack of guidance about time allocation has caused major difficulties in England and Wales which, together with other concerns, led to the review by Sir Ron Dearing, Chairman of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority [SCAA] (Dearing 1994). Dearing found it necessary to suggest the number of hours per year to be spent on each subject. As regards the New Zealand curriculum, it is impossible to know what percentage of curriculum time technology education should have, whether older students should have more than younger students, or vice versa. Time allocations can only be a guide, but some notion of the appropriate weightings to give different subjects at different stages is essential for curriculum planning.

One surprising aspect of the proposals set out in Framework, especially in the light of the desire to prepare students for living and working in a technological society, is the lack of any requirements or guidance on the use of information technology in New Zealand schools. In the England and Wales during the last fourteen years great efforts have been made to increase students' awareness of information technology. A significant amount of training and resource provision has gone into the development of capability in information technology. In order to give it an assured place in the national curriculum it was included within the technology Orders. It is, however, expected to be delivered through a range of subjects, and in the recent revision has been set out as a separate set of requirements. Few would argue that information technology should not have a key role in the curriculum of all our schools, and the Framework should be reviewed to reconsider the inclusion of information technology as a compulsory element within or throughout the seven areas of learning.

This submission includes an analysis of the proposals in Framework to establish the relevance and principles surrounding the inclusion of technology as an essential learning area. This exercise became more necessary than initially envisaged because the draft proposals in Technology did not always build accurately on the statements contained in Framework.

SECTION 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE REVIEW
OF THE DRAFT TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM

The review of the draft proposals for technology is not an easy exercise because of the relative lack of experience with the subject. Also, analysis can be made against differing criteria. One method is to review against the principles established in the Framework document, or against the description of technology as an essential learning area (Framework p.13). Another method is to review against the proposals set out in other countries' proposals, or against conclusions about what constitutes good practice in technology. None of these methods appears totally satisfactory, thus a combination of methods will be used to illustrate certain issues that require further consideration by those charged with developing the final curriculum statement for technology. Much will depend on forming an accurate view about current school and teacher capabilities and aspirations. Success will only be achieved if the introduction of technology is pitched at an appropriate level for teachers, and relevant and practical support is provided.

A research base has clearly been used to inform the technology proposals (Jones et al., 1991). However, some features of the New Zealand proposals have similarities to the 1990 statutory Orders for England and Wales, and this is worrying because of the relative failure of that work. It is, therefore, important that New Zealand curriculum developers note the weaknesses teachers and Her Majesty's Inspectors have found in the English and Welsh proposals.

The introductory television programmes "Know How!", professional development, and a sensible time scale should contribute to successful implementation. The authors of Technology are to be congratulated on the vast range of illustrative material set around each achievement objective to show possible learning experiences and assessment examples. However, there are a number of surprises, not least that the authors did not retain the generally clear focus of Framework, but seem to have broadened its compass to include virtually the whole of human life. (Language similarly imbues the whole of life but nevertheless can be clearly structured as a subject.) Whether this is the result of a deliberate change in direction or emphasis or merely a textual inaccuracy is difficult to know. However, it raises questions about the coherence of the draft. In England and Wales, subtle changes of phrase or terms were used to explain changes of emphasis but these were lost on teachers and caused confusion. One of the clearest messages from the work in England and Wales is that teachers in technology want and need clear unambiguous documentation about teaching technology.

An important conclusion reached by this submission is that quality technology education should initially be achieved with a narrower focus and through a tighter specification than presently envisaged in Technology. After several years, once a tradition of standards has been achieved, it may be possible to broaden the base.

In Sections 5 to 8 that follow, each part of the proposals in Technology will be considered.

SECTION 5 THE INTRODUCTION, THE AIMS OF TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AND ITS FORMAT AND PRESENTATION (Technology pp. 6 to 9)

5.1 The Introduction

The introduction to Technology states that "Our technology has grown from crafts, from traditional knowledge, and from people seeking to improve their lives, solve problems, and satisfy their needs and wants" (Technology p.6). This statement indicates a craft base for developing technology education with an emphasis on learning to make or learning through making. However, this emphasis is not maintained in later parts of the document.

The last but one paragraph of the introduction states that learning in technology is unique as a learning area in its emphasis on the integration of intellectual and practical abilities and its focus on know-how as well as knowledge itself. The same paragraph also emphasises the creative and problem solving nature of the subject as well as the need to work in teams and manage resources effectively. The last paragraph places emphasis on investigating artefacts and systems, to develop ideas to improve or modify them, and the fostering of an integrated approach to learning. It also stresses the inter-relationship of technology and society.

This introduction is disappointing in that, unlike the definition in Framework, it does not stress the 'design and make' aspect of school technology education - it refers to developing ideas, but not necessarily making the product. The introduction refers to the investigation and understanding of the artefacts and systems, but not the developing of objects and environments mentioned in the Framework definition.

The introduction needs restructuring to give a better overview in terms of both the justification for the inclusion of technology education within the school curriculum and an explanation of what the subject is intended to cover. As presently written it betrays woolly thinking about what technology learning is intended to achieve (in contrast to the more precise ideas of Framework).

5.2 The General Aims of Technology Education

The general aims of technology education are given as:

o technological knowledge and understanding;
o technology capability; and
o understanding and awareness of the relationship between technology and society.

The problem with these aims (and the 'strands' and 'achievement objective themes' that are related to them) is their high level of abstraction. Nor is it clear how they are related to some of the much more specific aims in the learning area description in Framework (p.13) such as "Technology education develops a range of skills, including those of problem solving, design, construction ... ".

It is not satisfactory simply to assert that technological capability will result from pursuing the four strands without explanation about what is meant by this concept and how this capability might be developed. Jenkins (1994, p.2, citing Anning et al. 1992) notes that a research agenda is emerging on precisely such questions as "how children 'learn' technology, how their technological capability develops and may be enhanced by teaching, how such capability can be reliably assessed and how teachers of technology should be trained". The "relatively insecure foundations of 'technological capability' ", he says, is one of the factors which led him to ask whether the New Zealand curriculum might benefit from a "somewhat narrower and more sharply focused set of objectives, learning and assessment activities" (Jenkins, p.26). Given the lack of a good empirical research base, the government should err on the side of caution and start with limited aims about what constitutes 'technological capability' and should advise teachers how it might be developed.

The general aims are said to lead directly to six strands and to "their associated objective themes". It is unclear what is added by the 'themes' as these are largely the strands, which are expressed as nouns, repeated in present participial form. The idea of trying to link directly general aims to 'achievement objective themes' through strands would seem to be more concerned with schematic appeal than conveying the essential learning of technology. It is an unnecessary complication at this stage of structuring technological education, particularly if, as recommended in this submission, its coverage is narrowed and more sharply focused. The proposed set of general aims, strands and achievement objective themes should be revised in simpler and more focused form reflecting what might be realistically achievable. It is essential that these aims are widely understood and broadly shared among stakeholders in technology education. This is quite fundamental because if teachers, educational planners, the community (including parents and industrialists) and the government don't have clear and shared aims, the subject could quite easily disintegrate.

To broaden the aims the report goes on to state eight further points for a balanced technological curriculum. These in general terms broaden the aims and provide a better platform for understanding what a technological education might try to achieve. However, they are very general and, therefore, unlikely to be of much practical assistance to teachers, students and others involved.

5.3 Format and Presentation

The format and presentation section of Technology (pp.8-9) shares many aspects of the 1990 English technology statutory Order which made it unworkable. An ambitious and overly complex model is offered which does little to identify the essence of technology education. Six strands are shown diagrammatically as interweaving with seven possible technological areas within six contexts. Technological activities take place at eight different levels in each strand. While technology education lacks an obvious kernel, all the lessons from experience with the English national curriculum emphasise the importance of simplicity and clarity if it is to be introduced successfully.

5.4 The Strands

There are too many strands, and they need to be simplified. Between two and four strands would suffice. There are two important considerations here.

First, providing separate strands for the identification of needs, design, production, communication and evaluation processes is unnecessary and unrealistic. The process of designing is iterative and the proposals burden the teacher with unnecessary complexity. In England and Wales an attainment target related to the identification of needs and opportunities was quickly recognised to be irrelevant for teachers. The identification of needs and opportunities is extremely difficult to specify clearly and any sense of hierarchy in terms of level of difficulty is not easy to determine. For example, which is easier and therefore at a lower level - designing something identified by oneself or designing according to someone else's design brief? While the identification of needs is important, it is immensely complex and often conceived within the mind or by chance experiences. Thus achievement objectives cannot be related to this activity.

The "implementation and production of technological solutions" strand does, in fact, cover far more than making technological solutions. It covers the whole process of generating ideas, developing a chosen idea, planning, and the production of a solution - much more than all the other three stands related to the "technological capability" aim. The title of the strand is, therefore, inappropriate.

The "communication and presentation", and "reflection and evaluation" strands both have value as part of the whole process of designing from conception to realisation and evaluation, but are very much sub-sets of that process. These four strands should, therefore, be combined into one, or at most two, strands. If two strands are needed, 'conception and the design activity' could be one, and the 'modelling' or 'making and evaluation' the other. This would be in keeping with current reform in England and Wales. However, this would still involve an artificial distinction, and forming one strand representing the holistic process of design, making and evaluation would be preferable.

The second consideration concerns the remaining strands of "technological knowledge and understanding" and "technology and society". A sound knowledge base in technology is essential, so the creation of the former of these strands is fundamental. However, whether "technology and society" should be a key element within the "technological knowledge and understanding" strand or kept separate is a finely balanced point. They could, in fact, easily be combined into one statement. The paragraph that follows the list of strands on page 8 clearly indicates a relatively holistic process which reinforces the argument for combining the strands.

Uncertainty remains about what is intended to be covered by the "technological knowledge and understanding" strand, and this is increased by the sentence:

As they carry out their tasks, they will be refining their approach through reflection and evaluation and developing a more complete understanding by constructing technological knowledge.

This is the only reference to the manner in which knowledge is related to the technological process, and it is not clear what the authors mean. Is knowledge only taught as and when it is needed? Is it gained through the experiences of the project? Is the knowledge in technology based purely on a 'need to know' principle, and, if not, how is it taught, where and when?

Teaching on a 'need to know' basis is more likely to mirror the work of modern technologists. However, technologists already have a very sound knowledge base of technological principles and processes, and students also need a solid knowledge base before they can produce quality systems, environments, or products. Any group of students that seeks to generate technological solutions without some knowledge base is likely to have great difficulty in finding good answers (McCormick et al. 1994). Furthermore, if clear building blocks of knowledge are not provided at each level, students will be unable to progress to higher levels. Attempts to teach science through working as scientists do, such as the Nuffield projects in England and Wales, have failed and been abandoned in their pure form of guided discovery.

The technology curriculum could be set out much more clearly and helpfully to teachers if it were based on two strands:

• technological knowledge and understanding; and
• designing and making.

If it were thought necessary to retain more strands, one further fundamental point must be considered. At present the strands are not weighted, and thus it could be inferred that they should all be of equal weight in the school curriculum. This could present difficulties. For example, the third strand, "implementation and production of technological solution", describes the major element of the technological activity and would seem deserving of greater weight than some of the other strands. Again, is it intended that the same level of attention be applied to "technological knowledge and understanding" as to "technology and society"? This type of question must be addressed. In the English and Welsh national curriculum equal weightings proved to be a major problem, and specific loadings were subsequently introduced.

5.5 Achievement Objectives

The achievement objectives are stated to form a generic core. However, it is not clear what is meant by "generic" in this context. It possibly means that any one objective, at any level, could be achieved through any technological area. The generic nature, especially in the area of knowledge and understanding, could lead to such an experience, but it may not always occur. This term needs to be more clearly defined.

If the achievement objectives are to define the skills, knowledge and understanding achieved at different levels from a range of activities, then that would be a sound basis for developing them.

This two sentence section also states that "Students will be working towards these [achievement objectives] over a period of time, in a range of technological areas, contexts, and activities." While the notion of "working towards" can be readily accepted, the technological areas, contexts and activities are open to very wide interpretations, which is unhelpful.

The achievement objectives clearly form an integral part of the technology education proposals. Their role needs to be thought through very carefully if the whole system is to be rigorous and capable of being built upon coherently over a number of years.

5.6 The Levels

The statement on levels conforms in principle with the requirements of Framework. However, there remain major questions as to whether the guidance they will provide for assessment and reporting purposes - two of the main reasons for the eight levels approach - will be meaningful and rigorous, and capable of substantiating valid assessments. Given the general nature of the achievement objectives, it is unlikely that the levels will prove satisfactory for external assessments, though they may be satisfactory as rough 'markers' for internal or school transfer purposes.

The issue of levels as set out in Framework has recently been reviewed by Howson (1994, pp.9-12) and much of what he said in the context of the mathematics curriculum applies to Technology.

5.7 The Technological Areas

The "technological areas have been selected to facilitate the development and organisation of the technology curriculum in schools." This is a very strange statement at the start of the section on defining the technological areas. Surely the technological areas have been selected because together they form a sound basic foundation in technology. It is important to note that the seven areas are very different in nature, for instance "design and graphics" are enabling processes and a means of communicating technological thinking, whereas "biotechnology" is a specific, knowledge-based technology. Equally the "information and communication technology" area is an enabling technological process, whereas "food technology" is subject specific. These distinctions would not be a problem if all students worked in all the areas, but it appears to be up to the school to decide which ones are to be studied.

The titles of the areas also present difficulties. First, food is a material, but is listed separately from "materials technology". Also, it is not clear what is implied by the term "process technology". The second concern is the very limited, one sentence, definitions of these areas. Technology contains no further detailed explanation, and teachers are left to find further information from the possible learning experiences. The uncertainty that will be caused by this lack of detail is likely to be increased by the advice that the list of areas should not be seen as "exhaustive or exclusive" which implies that schools could decide to include other technological areas.

5.8 Learning experiences

The concept of providing examples of learning experiences is sound as they can help the teacher with ideas about how the achievement objectives could be met. However, they do not provide a knowledge and skill base at any level, and this is a major concern about the overall presentation of the material. Another less important, but still significant, point is the lack of structure in the presentation of the learning experiences. Currently it is difficult to pick out the essential steps in each of the technological areas at each level, which leads to the lack of precision and rigour in the proposals. Such progressive steps of development need to be explicit for teachers so they can plan their work coherently. The building up of knowledge and skills is also important if school courses in technology are to be well articulated with, and provide a sound underpinning for, applied science and technology education post-school.

The emphasis on knowledge and understanding as having their proper place in the technology curriculum is not, however, without its dangers as Smithers and Robinson (1994, p.17) have pointed out:

As well as a pathway to higher education we need a national curriculum which supports vocational education generally and provides practical work to help develop the qualities of precision, perseverance and patience for success of any kind. Essential skills like being able to cook seem especially vulnerable. So keen have some home economists been to present themselves as technologists, and thereby comply with the design rhetoric, that the simple idea of teaching children to prepare good nutritional food ... is in danger of being lost.

The initial technology curriculum in England and Wales was heavily criticised for intellectualising vocational education and emphasising "problem-solving, design and evaluation in complex or highly generalised contexts ... [with the result that] ... the element of making in practical subjects in British schools has consequently been marginalised in recent years to the point where it is hardly possible for pupils to develop their practical skills to high levels" (Bierhoff and Prais 1993). The current review of the curriculum may reverse this trend by allowing greater specialisation in a more limited range of materials.

5.9 The Contexts

The contexts were an important aspect of the 1990 English proposals. However, they were found to be of more schematic interest to curriculum developers than genuinely helpful to teachers. The current arrangements now merely recognise the need to work in a range of different contexts from which design opportunities can be drawn.

The place of contexts in Technology is appropriate although the diagram on page 9 appears to over-emphasise their significance. The diagram itself represents something of a mishmash - an interweaving of strands, technological areas and contexts. A context is better seen as providing a setting for the technological area to be taught, and the technological capability strands are the modes of working that lead to an outcome as a "technological system, environment, or product" or some combination of these outcomes.

5.10 Conclusions

The material on pages 7, 8 and 9 of Technology are fundamental to the whole nature and method of working in technology. The low level of detail and the lack of clear principles in some of this material are matters of concern. There is an overall lack of clarity about the proposals which suggests the authors may not have come to a clear view of what technology actually is. In particular, there is a lack of precision about the minimum knowledge and skill entitlement for students upon which a coherent technological curriculum can be built, and which would enable students to have continuity and progression in their learning.

SECTION 6 APPROACHES TO TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESSENTIAL LEARNING SKILLS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
(Technology pp. 10 to 13)

6.1 Approaches to Technology Education

The section on approaches to technology education starts with the positive and welcome statement that "All students have the right to achieve in technology". However, it is clear that teachers and students must know what needs to be achieved. At the end of the first paragraph it states: "Teachers and students should select content and contexts that are appropriate to meet the learning needs of all students." This suggests individual planning for students and little need for a platform of knowledge and understanding. Some choice for teachers and older students regarding the context in which they tackle their technological activities is desirable, but such a vague content specification does not help teachers develop students' capabilities.

6.2 Technology in the Classroom

The section on "Technology in the Classroom" begins with the statement: "Technology involves knowing and doing" and it goes on to state that "Technology is derived from a variety of knowledge bases, values, processes and skills". Despite the explicit references to knowledge, nowhere does the report define clearly what the knowledge base should be and what minimum knowledge bases are required at any level to enable learning at higher levels. Jenkins (1994) has discussed the importance of determining the amount of scientific knowledge that students are likely to need if they are to advance their technological understanding and of arranging for its provision. Some guidance on such matters is highly desirable.

The requirement that classroom teaching approaches should be "flexible", "open", and "collaborative" makes the task of teaching and learning immensely complex and difficult and requires highly supportive and well motivated students. It is not difficult to agree with the philosophy outlined in this section as an ideal, and a similar approach was suggested in the English national curriculum. However, as the English system has found to its cost, such a complex teaching and learning methodology requires very highly skilled teachers who are totally committed and students with a similar level of commitment. Such approaches may be possible with older students aged 15 to 18. However, a much more structured approach will be essential up to the age 15 if the whole of New Zealand is to benefit from a sound and rigorous foundation in technological education.

6.3 Community Links

The short paragraph on community links is disappointing because this is undoubtedly one of the best contexts for technological education, and it could well be expanded significantly. The idea of the mentoring role for people from the community has value, but students need to be sufficiently mature to place that advice and mentoring in context. In most cases, such people can only make a significant contribution on a regular basis to older students. Projects with community support in England have considerable success, but the mentor needs to be very able at balancing the input and allowing the students to find out for themselves. It is not easy to find skilled people who are readily available and capable of working with younger students. On the other hand, the mentor can be very useful in group projects with older pupils.

6.4 Learning

On page 11, Technology sets out a list of teacher attributes and practices which will assist in the achievement of learning outcomes. It is an impressive list with which few would disagree because it covers almost everything. It aspires to perfection and implies that only 'super teachers' will be able to deliver the activities. However, the curriculum must work with ordinary teachers and ordinary pupils, and to be helpful the list of teacher attributes should identify what is most important for students of different abilities and ages. Teachers tend to benefit from specific guidance on suitable approaches to technology, especially with younger children.

6.5 The Development of Essential Learning Skills through Technology

In pages 12 and 13, Technology describes the contribution technology can make to the essential skills set out in the Framework document. It rightly suggests that technology can contribute to all the essential learning skills, though it might usefully be noted that different curricula contribute to the essential skills in different degrees. It is disappointing to see only very brief mention of physical skills.

The treatment of skills raises a major concern about the intended purpose of including technology in the New Zealand curriculum. Is it to be a vehicle for learning to work together through broadly defined technological activities? Is it learning to develop students with technological capabilities to design and make? Is it learning about technology through designing and making? In England and Wales, after all the attempts at revision, the way of setting out technology that has won widespread agreement is based on a hierarchy of designing and making skills combined with a body of knowledge and understanding.

In different parts of this report there are differing emphases, which are neither age-related nor in any coherent structure. This is likely to lead to great confusion for teachers. Certainly if technological capability is the key general aim, then these broad amorphous purposes are a serious concern. A clearer, and tighter, focus on the purposes of technological education is required.

SECTION 7 ASSESSMENT AND
EVALUATION IN TECHNOLOGY
(Technology p. 14)

If using teachers' judgments based on a loose framework of achievement objectives is considered satisfactory, the arrangements for assessment are acceptable. Certainly the emphasis on using assessment formatively and as a diagnostic tool is sound. There are sufficient statements, as well as flexibility within the statements, for teachers to make broad judgments about students' performance related to what can best be described as the "technological process".

The nature of the New Zealand proposals implies knowledge is obtained on a 'need to know' basis and there are no compulsory technological areas that need to be studied. Thus there is no sound foundation for the assessment of technological knowledge. The only basis for assessment of technological knowledge is whatever may have been applied within, or could be inferred from, the context of a project. This is a fundamental flaw in the proposals. However, given the present structure of the proposals, there is little more that can be written into the achievement objectives to give more precision, validity and reliability. In the 1990 English proposals the same strategy was adopted for assessment and proved unworkable. Almost all technology examinations do have defined knowledge that is explicitly assessed in order to define grades for students, and assessment for the levels should reflect the intrinsic nature of technology.

While the statement that "Assessment practices must address the variety and scope of the programme as experienced by the students" can be accepted, this process should have, running parallel within it, a minimum entitlement of knowledge and skills at each level that provides a sound basis for future work. This could be independent of the activity, although projects can be related to the fields of knowledge through appropriate planning.

The reference made to students working in group and collaborative technological activities can also be accepted as part of good practice. However, such activities should only take a proportion of total time. Also, much clearer guidance on how group work is to be assessed will be required if it is going to be a significant part of the course.

Concern has already been expressed about the proposed assessment arrangements (section 5.6). The achievement objectives, even with the assessment examples, will not provide a rigorous basis for producing valid information that can be used in published data about a school's performance, or as a basis for any external assessment audit. They can only provide some guidance for teachers in terms of assessment for formative purposes.

However, the aims of formative and summative assessment must be complementary since assessment is taken as a signal as to what is important in the curriculum by both teachers and students alike. School-based assessment, national standardised tasks, the national monitoring and university bursary examinations should all be directed to the designing and making skills and the knowledge and understanding that are the core of technology.

SECTION 8 IMPLEMENTING THE
TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM
(Technology pp. 15-16)

This section of Technology, which many would regard as the key to demonstrating what technology is to be in practice, unfortunately confirms many concerns already expressed.

It states that the achievement aims and objectives provide the framework for the planning of a school's technology programme. It goes on, in the subsequent section at pages 18-123, to suggest possible learning experiences and assessment examples in each of the strands at all of the eight levels. The key point is that the achievement objectives are measures of outcome and not of input. However, when technological output is measured through project work, often in the context of group activity, it is clear that students are likely to receive significantly different experiences. In simple terms, technology educational input does not equal technology educational output. Teachers need more than simple suggestions of input activity. They need a clear knowledge and skills base for each level if a sound platform in technology education is to be built.

In the second paragraph on implementation, the notion of different balances of time in relation to the achievement objectives is mentioned, and there is a recognition that the achievement objectives are broad. It is noted that the achievement objectives contain reference to "knowledge, skills and attitudes". However, it is questionable whether the achievement objectives do, in fact, specify knowledge. They merely describe the use, analysis, or application of knowledge in a generic form.

The section correctly points out that achievement in a particular objective will not necessarily be dependent on a single unit of study. It goes on to observe that the way the technological activity is defined will dictate the achievement objectives. These points are helpful as general guidance, but as they are not 'illustrated' they do not help teachers with the implementation of the programme.

The statement that "The attainment of the broad achievement objectives may involve two years of learning at levels 1 to 5 and one year at levels 6, 7 and 8" needs to be expanded. Is this because levels 1 to 5 are designed to be larger steps? Is it because technological growth is slower in younger students? Is it because teachers will spend less time on technology while teaching levels 1 to 5? It is not satisfactory to make such statements without providing the rationale for them.

The third paragraph outlines what is considered to be a balanced approach to technology - "students should experience five or more different technological areas and a range of contexts." The intention appears to be that such balance will be achieved over a period of "one to two years". These statements are vague. It is not clear why the structure could not be much more explicit. Some of the defined technological areas are fundamental to technology education and should be compulsory each year or "period of time", for example "Design and Graphics", "Materials Technology" and "Control Technology".

The report then goes on to state that "Technology is not located exclusively in one subject" and that "All subjects can contribute to and enhance technology". This is only true because of the view adopted in these proposals about the way technology education should be implemented. Possibly in an ideal situation schools could adopt such an approach. However, it is highly unrealistic for the majority of schools. In England and Wales there are few, if any, examples of this, despite the adoption of a similar philosophical approach.

The same broad, cross-curricular approach led in England and Wales to low levels of achievement and poorly motivated students. This was reported both by Her Majesty's Inspectors in their annual reports for 1990/1, 1991/2 and 1992/3 and in a report written for the Engineering Council (Smithers and Robinson 1992). These reports were one of the prime reasons why the review of the English and Welsh technology curriculum that began in 1992 was instituted. As a consequence of low achievement, the trend in England and Wales has been towards an increasingly sharper focus in technology to help improve the standards.

Technology assigns responsibility to each school for developing an implementation process to provide a balanced technology education and, indirectly, the delivery model. Three possible approaches are suggested:

Model 1 - a school approach which distributes technology education in a coordinated way to existing subjects.

Model 2 - providing a timetabled subject called technology that may be modified from "old" subjects and taught by specialist teachers or a group of teachers from a range of disciplines.

Model 3 - an approach combining models 1 and 2.

This paragraph appears inconsistent with the previous insistence that all subjects can contribute to and enhance technology. However, for the first time Technology departs from a highly theoretical model and faces the reality of implementing technology in actual schools. Unfortunately it does not adequately explain the models. In model 1, for instance, the notion of "distributing technology" to existing subjects is an interesting idea, but a number of questions arise such as how to distribute technology, what aspects of technology should be distributed, to which subjects, and how does technology relate to the subject being taught (see Jenkins, 1994, on the complex technology/science relationship). It is not adequate to leave this to schools without much greater practical guidance.

Taking the view that technology is a process without any specified knowledge base makes any distribution across subjects extremely difficult. The distribution of a technological knowledge base would be relatively simple, although teachers in the subject disciplines affected would not necessarily like it. However, a process-based curriculum requires a very close inter-related teaching approach. Model 1 alone reflects the philosophy of the proposals, but its viability is doubtful. Model 2 is much narrower, not in line with the philosophy, but more realistic and pragmatic in terms of delivery. Also, the possibly disdainful description of existing subjects as "old" may indicate that the authors do not favour this model.

In short, the philosophy in Technology indicates the choice of one model while pragmatic concerns suggest another. This is likely to lead to confusion and teachers, the community and students are going to be insecure and lack confidence in the subject. This tension between practical concerns and what might be seen as theoretically desirable is the same one that confronted the English and Welsh system and caused considerable problems. It is a tension which the New Zealand government would do well to resolve before implementation. Without some clear idea of how technology is to fit in, it may have a 'now-you-see-it, now-you-don't' quality, and while apparently taught and assessed it may be difficult to identify the substance.

Technology goes on to suggest that schools should select a model which suits their circumstances and develop modules accordingly. This is the first mention of a modular approach and is one that appears to sit uncomfortably with model 1 above. The justification for the approach is that "technology could then be taught in substantial sections rather than diluted within a subject". However, technology is not always diluted within a subject, and can be enhanced through greater depth of knowledge and understanding of other subjects.

Technology then describes a modular approach for technology. It gives an indication of time and length of study, provides examples of modules and their links to other subjects, and ends by recommending that schools try such approaches. A modular approach could have merits, but the proposals are not written in a format that makes the development of modules easy.

In terms of the current proposals, modules could be written that are focused on:

• technological areas;
• skills and attitudes;
• contexts;
• achievement objectives strands.

However, none of these formats would help deliver a coherent technological programme. Technology appears to have been written more with regard to a theoretical model of cross-curricular activities, from which technological experiences and achievement are expected to emerge, than any clearly thought out practical programme for teaching the subject. It is, of course, possible in certain schools with the correct mix of staff and a certain philosophy about teaching and learning to achieve such a form of technology teaching. However, for the vast majority of schools a different approach to implementation is required if technology is to be successfully implemented. The proposals feel unreal; they need to be grounded in reality.

Clearly, if the government considers that a modular approach to technology is the most effective method of implementation, it should rewrite the proposals to facilitate such a model. The establishment of compulsory and optional modules, each with a knowledge or skill base at the different levels, could be a sound starting point. Entry levels for modules, for example a start to biotechnology at level 5, could be set. At present none of the basic entitlement students should expect from a course in technology is clearly established.

Much work will be required if technology education is to be successfully implemented. To obtain quality delivery, less theoretical and more pragmatic models may be required - which, as previously noted, has been the direction of technology education reform in England and Wales over the last 4 years. A more pragmatic, modular, approach, with single subject or small groups of subjects taking the focus, would bring greater coherence and likelihood of achieving wide success.

There are very few references in Technology to different types of schools and the different ages, abilities, aspirations and achievement levels of students. This is another illustration of the lack of overall guidance in this implementation section. There are no references, for example, to pupils who are technologically gifted or who have learning difficulties in this area of work. Yet the structuring of the proposals for technology will significantly influence the effectiveness of delivery.

It is important that the material is written and structured in a form that will best facilitate good levels of achievement with each level providing a good basis for subsequent progress. This could still allow for a high degree of flexibility in actual delivery. It is also important that curricular materials and methods of implementation allow for differences in students so that all are not forced along the same path. This forces curriculum developers to consider what forms a balanced education for all types of student (Howson, 1994, p.12). A further important consideration is the linkage of technology with higher education post-school. Its role as a stepping stone to both employment and higher education needs to be spelled out.

The severe conceptual weaknesses betrayed under the 'general aims of technology education' are writ large in the inadequate attempt to suggest how the technology curriculum might be implemented. This requires a complete rethink to come up with some practical proposals. The particular examples of 'learning experiences' and 'assessment tasks' need to be clearly linked into the overall structure showing how students are to be provided with graduated experiences - and knowledge and understanding - and assessed to show what level of performance they have reached.

SECTION 9 IMPLICATIONS FOR
RESOURCING AND TRAINING

The resourcing of technology can be very expensive in terms of training, equipment, materials and environments in which technology should be taught. The current proposals imply an 'all modes of organisation should be kept open' approach to the introduction of technology.

This open approach to organisation may be based on the view that no one has found the one 'correct' approach and that no single strategy for implementation should, therefore, be recommended. While it has a certain pragmatic appeal, the signal it sends to teachers about the government's commitment to the implementation of a significant change in the school curriculum could be less than helpful in persuading the teaching profession to adopt technology education.

It is significant that those holding the 'all modes approach' have a broad philosophical view on technology delivered in a cross-curricular mode. In England and Wales this proved unworkable. Cross-curricular approaches tend to divide a teacher's attention. If a learning area is to be a component of the curriculum it is important it should have its own slot. Unless a subject has its own time allocation and separate independent examination, it tends to be taught more in the breach than in the substance.

Many teachers will need training in the technological process and in the delivery of technology education. In the 1970s and early 1980s in England and Wales modular technology courses were introduced for the 14 to 16 year old age range. It was hoped the science teachers and craft teachers would work together on such courses. Although the science teachers made a significant contribution to the knowledge aspects of electronics, energy, and so on, they had little empathy for the work related to the application of that knowledge and its use with materials. Gradually courses that continued to expand were taken over by craft teachers or, more often, by specialist technology teachers trained in designing and making and having a good range of technology-related knowledge. This was expanding satisfactorily until the introduction of the national technology curriculum which very significantly broadened the base of technology and changed the philosophy of the subject. England and Wales are still seeking to recover from that.

In resourcing technology the approach adopted is crucial. Initially a tightly defined technology is to be preferred to the broad brush approach. It may be narrower than the ideal, but it allows training and resources to be tightly focused, quality standards to be identified, and high expectations set. Once the focused approach has been established, teachers seeing opportunities will begin to expand its horizons, and the subject will grow and mature.

The government's strategic planning with a television series is highly commendable, but much of this will be wasted without a coherent basis for technology. For instance, the training a physicist needs in electronics and control is very different from the requirements of a workshop technology teacher. A school will undoubtedly need to devote significant resources to training of staff in teaching methodology and in developing skills to help students learn through technology. Teachers will also need to increase their own knowledge. All this is very costly in terms of time, effort and money, and much of the expenditure may be wasted if it is not clearly directed.

In England the Open University was initially very helpful in teacher training and that, combined with very significant local authority and central government funds, helped to improve teachers' knowledge and understanding in technology. However, when the actual technology Orders became law, the resources were not available in the same manner as in the 1980s. The emphasis on supporting teachers was through written materials rather than practical courses, which were much less satisfactory.

It is understood that some significant curriculum development projects in England and Wales did considerable harm to the introduction of technology through the promotion of unrealistic modes of working. The government may need to consider how schools should best gain access to suggestions for implementing the curriculum.

The idea of using a wide range of staff coordinated in their work generates increased costs in secondary education because of the time required for team building and regular meetings. This can provide major constraints on timetabling of teaching staff.

The challenge of having the most appropriate equipment for teaching technology requires careful planning and significant investment in developing cost-effective resources. Initially in England the technology proposals tended to result in many workshop areas being cleared of lathes and other equipment, such as cookers for home economics, to provide space for graphics and modelling. This has changed as educationalists have come to recognise that technology must be much more than card and paper.

The reason for the move to 'card and paper' was that it provided a medium in which all teachers involved in technology teaching could work. This has been referred to in some publications as lowering technology to the 'lowest common material'. The equipment required for areas such as biotechnology and process technology could be very expensive, especially if students are going to be actively involved in 'design and making' in these areas.

The environments in which technology is taught are also very important. Technology requires a stimulating environment that encourages students in the belief that working in technology is interesting and exciting. This has implications for the cultural attitudes that young people may develop towards technology. A nation needs young people who are positive and wish to be involved in improving existing technologies as well as creating new technology to enhance people's lives. A nation also needs people who can question the broader effects of technology.

Once the framework for technology is approved, a clear strategic plan is required for the next eight to ten years to initiate and then enrich technological provision. The training of staff is the most important aspect, and this requires a clear view about what technology is intended to be (Smithers and Robinson 1994). It is also vital that schools should have proper work areas and equipment. Unfortunately, the specific proposals in Technology have clouded the message through insecure ideas and little concrete advice about how to attain high quality teaching and learning. This leads to greater difficulties in determining the resource base and training requirements for the implementation of technology education.

SECTION 10 RECOMMENDATIONS

1 The Technology proposals should be re-thought and re-written so as to turn the description of technology presented in Framework into a practical curriculum.

2 The essential learning areas and skills should be given a clear focus and set out as two strands:

• designing and making; and
• technological knowledge and understanding.

3 The technological areas should be reconsidered and categorised as those which should be compulsory and those that may be optional. In addition there is a need to define the specific content clearly so teachers and students know what to expect from the subject.

4 The eight levels of achievement objectives should be framed so as to set out clearly the expected standards of achievement in designing and making and technological knowledge and understanding at each of the levels.

5 Exemplars should be developed showing how:

• school-based assessment;
• nationally standardised assessment tests; and
• national monitoring of standards;

might look in practice.

6 There should be a reappraisal of the short-, medium- and long-term objectives for technology education. Less ambitious objectives should be set for the short and possibly medium term to better enable a consistent implementation of technology with quality resourcing and learning experiences. The focus for technology education could be widened after a period of several years once a tradition of standards has been developed, experience has been gained and, more generally, a secure place for technology education has been established.

7 The role of technology in the curriculum needs to be clarified. While it is important to provide a pathway to technology in higher education, it is also important to maintain support for vocational education generally and provide practical work to help develop qualities of precision, perseverance and patience. More curricular differentiation may be required to cater for students of different abilities, aptitudes and interests.

8 Guidance should be provided about the appropriate time that should be made available for the teaching of technology at various age levels.

9 The training of teachers will require a significant level of funding to influence change. The training must aim to give confidence to teachers and this will be helped by the adoption of a more focused structure for technology education in the short and medium term.

10 Schools must be adequately resourced to enable them to put in place the necessary work areas and equipment.

11 Information technology is a vital tool for many areas of the curriculum and attention must be given to where it is to be taught. Although it has 'technology' in the title, it is wrong to regard it as exclusively the domain of design and technology; it is the modern equivalent of pencil and paper and the abacus.

REFERENCES

Anning, A., Driver, R., Jenkins, E.W., Kent, D., Layton, D., and Medway, P. (1992), Towards an Agenda for Research in Technology Education, Leeds, Education for Capability Research Group, Occasional Publication No. 8, University of Leeds.

Bierhoff, H. and Prais, S.J. (1993). "Britain's Industrial Skills and the School-Teaching of Practical Subjects: Comparisons with Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland", National Institute Economic Review 2/93, Number 144, May.

Dearing, Sir Ron (1994), The National Curriculum and its Assessment, School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, London.

Department for Education and Science (DES), (1990), Statutory Orders for Technology, HMSO, London.

Education Forum (1994), English in the New Zealand Curriculum - A submission on the Draft, The Education Forum, Auckland, April.

Howson, G. (1994), Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum, The Education Forum, Auckland, August.

HMI (1992), Technology - Key Stages 1,2 and 3: A Report by HMI on the First Year 1990-91, HMSO, London.

Irwin, M.D.R. (1994), Curriculum, Assessment and Qualifications - An Evaluation of Current Reforms, The Education Forum, Auckland, May.

Jenkins, E.W. (1994), The Relationship Between Science and Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, The Education Forum, Auckland, October.

Jones, A.T. et al. (1991), Technology Education Policy Papers, papers written as part of the Technology Education Policy Project, Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

McCormick, R., Murphy, P., and Hennessy, S. (1994), "Problem-Solving Processes in Technology Education", International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4 (1), 5-34.

Ministry of Education (1993a), The New Zealand Curriculum Framework, Learning Media, Ministry of Education, Wellington.

Ministry of Education (1993b), Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum - Draft, Learning Media, Ministry of Education, Wellington.

Ministry of Education (1993c), Science in the New Zealand Curriculum, Learning Media, Ministry of Education, Wellington.

National Curriculum Council (NCC) (1990), Non Statutory Guidance for Technology, NCC, York.

National Curriculum Council (NCC) (1992) National Curriculum Technology: The Case for Revising the Order, NCC, York.

National Curriculum Council (NCC) (1993a), Technology: Programmes of Study and Attainment Targets: Recommendations of the National Curriculum Council, NCC, York, September.

National Curriculum Council (NCC) (1993b), Technology: Report on National Curriculum Council Consultation, NCC, York, May.

Smithers, A. and Robinson, P. (1992), Technology in the National Curriculum - Getting it Right, The Engineering Council, London.

Smithers, A. and Robinson, P. (1994), Technology Teachers, The Engineering Council, London.

Other works consulted during the preparation of this submission included:

Black, P. and Harrison, G. (1985), In Place of Confusion: Technology and Science in the School Curriculum, NCST, Nottingham.

Breckon, A. (1990), Design and Technology in the National Curriculum, Design and Technology Teaching, Volume 22 , No. 1, Trentham Books.

DES/HMI (1991), Aspects of Primary Education - The teaching and learning of Design and Technology, DES, London.

DES/HMI (1991), Aspects of Primary Education - The teaching and learning of Information Technology, DES/HMI, London.

Eggleston J. (ed), (1992), Teaching Design and Technology, Open University Press.

Kimbell, R. (1991), The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology, SEAC/APU.

APPENDIX A
EDUCATION FORUM
The Education Forum has been formed to contribute to education policy through research and debate on the current issues, structures, and expectations at all levels of New Zealand education.

The Forum believes that New Zealand education requires an approach to learning and achieving which encourages all individuals to reach their full potential, and which will take New Zealand to the leading edge of international performance and achievement.

The Forum is an association of individuals who have a common concern for the future direction of New Zealand education. The membership is drawn from primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of education, together with leaders of industry and commerce.

The principles incorporated in the above statements include the following:

A commitment to excellence and high expectation in all human endeavour, based on a lifelong desire for learning.

The belief that the community/government should ensure that all young New Zealanders have access to quality education.

The teaching of values and life skills which will preserve the dignity of the individual and the integrity of the family.

The acceptance of healthy competition for both individuals and the education sector.

The encouragement of cooperation, creativity, adaptability and enterprise.

The encouragement and recognition of personal responsibility, goal setting and achievement in all endeavours, through self discipline and hard work.

The acceptance of a compulsory core curriculum in primary and secondary schools.

The necessity for high standards of assessment of student performance and of accountability of teachers and institutions.

The promotion of a New Zealand cultural identity.

The key involvement and responsibility of parents in their children's education.

The emphasis on the value of parental choice and the self-management of education institutions.

The development of closer links between education institutions and industry.
PO Box 22-012 Auckland 6
Telephone: 09-276-7059 Facsimile: 09-276-0670

APPENDIX B

MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM

Mr Simon Arnold
Chief Executive Officer
New Zealand Manufacturers Federation

Mr Michael Barnett
General Manager
Auckland Chamber of Commerce

Mr John Boyens
Principal
Meadowbank School

Mrs Alison Gernhoefer
Principal
Westlake Girls' High School

Mr John Graham
Company Director

Sir Alan Hellaby
Company Director

Dr John Hinchcliff
President
Auckland Institute of Technology

Mr Alan Jones
Industrial Relations Manager
Fletcher Challenge

Mr Roger Kerr
Executive Director
New Zealand Business Roundtable

Ms Jennie Langley
Langley Meo and Associates

Brother Pat Lynch
Executive Director
New Zealand Catholic Education Office

Mr Steve Marshall
Chief Executive Officer
New Zealand Employers Federation

Mr Phil Raffills
Principal
Avondale College
Auckland

Mr Theo Simeonidis
Chief Executive Officer
Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Mr John Taylor
Headmaster
Kings College
Auckland

Ms Claudia Wysocki
Headmistress
St Margarets College
Christchurch