Techlink :: Classroom Practice :: Materials :: BP611: Client based student practice

Reference: Case Study BP611
Classroom Practice: Year 13
Title: Client-based student practice
Overview: Year 13 Technology teachers collaborate to develop student understanding of the processes involved in working to develop a client based outcome and to build their confidence in interacting with a client.

Background: In 2004 the three Year 13 Technology classes at Havelock North High School were assessed against the NCEA Level 3 achievement standards for the first time. Teachers found that some students had difficulty in the step up to this level, particularly in client selection and interaction. They decided to integrate the classes in the first term of 2005 with all students working with one teacher (Carol Rimmer) and a common class client. As a result all students were provided with a common framework for selecting and working with clients that they could apply in the rest of the year's work. The resulting improvement in student practice, outcomes and documentation encouraged teachers to repeat this strategy with the two wood- and metal-based technology classes in 2006. More...

Pre-planning: Year 13 metal technology specialist Jeff Arnold taught the combined class for the first term of 2006. Jeff worked with Carol Rimmer to refine his understanding of the nature of the step up in expectations in student practice from Level 2 to Level 3. Jeff selected Edges, a local picture framing company, as the common client and started planning for the initial visit and the ongoing interaction. More...

Delivery: Students first established the key milestones for the project, established a client profile and developed a range of questions for the first class visit to the client's business premises. Client responses were then discussed by the class and each student chose an issue to address. Key stages in development process were confirmed, initial key factors determined and an initial brief with draft specifications formulated.

As the unit progressed students made a number of out-of-school visits to explore the practice of a range of local technologists. After concept development and client feedback, a 'chosen concept' was finally established after further client input.

Outcomes: By the end of the first term, all students understood the relevant processes relating to identifying a client issue and interacting effectively with the client, and had identified a client for their project work over the remainder of the year. More...

What Next? Although Jeff is firmly convinced of the benefits of using this approach to teach students how to interact effectively with a client, he is looking to make further refinements for 2007 to better suit the needs of students - particularly in the area of advanced skills development. More...

Jeff Arnold:

With a trade qualification in fitting and turning, Jeff Arnold left a highly paid position in industry to attend Teachers College in 1999. In his second year of teaching he was appointed to a permanent position at Havelock North High School, a co-ed state secondary school with a roll of 1,100 students. When Jeff started teaching, Workshop Technology had moved into Design Technology at the senior level and 'Technology' was becoming a compulsory core subject in the junior school. Jeff currently teaches junior 'core' Technology and senior Metal Technology and Graphics classes.

"Right from the start of my technology teaching something seemed to change every year. As a new teacher it was hard to have to cope with that level of change."

By the end of 2004, the first year when NCEA Level 3 Achievement Standards were implemented, concerns were being expressed within the department that a number of Materials Technology students were having difficulty in identifying and liaising with a client and in documenting their practice to provide the quality of evidence required for assessment. It was a problem particular to the boys, and it was identified as exemplifying differences in the way that girls tend to work, rather than in teaching.

"In that first year students picked one project to work on for the whole year," says Jeff Arnold of his Metal Technology class. "It just got too big - in the end they didn't have the skill required to finish things to a high enough standard. Their focus was very much on the end product and the assessment requirements got lost in the process."

End-of-year discussion within the Technology Department resulted in the decision to combine the three Materials Technology classes for the first term of the 2005 programme. The idea was to start the year with a one-term, non-materials-based single client context that focussed on providing a common framework for selection of and interaction with a client. Students could then apply that knowledge and experience to their second unit with their individually selected client when they returned to their specialised classes for the remainder of the year. This would also enable teachers to focus more on skill development in their particular technological area and improve the quality of the final outcomes.

Co-HoD Technology Carol Rimmer taught the first composite class in the first term of 2005. Carol had approached the nearby Te Mata Peak Kindergarten to act as their common client. The class were to visit the client and identify issues that could be addressed. These issues would be discussed in class, and each student would negotiate one issue to address and present to the client as a conceptual design - a story board or mock-up.

Teaching began with an emphasis on the step-up between Levels 2 and 3, and with covering the terminology with which students would need to be familiar.

Classroom teaching was supported by generic instruction sheets, which are used for all the Level 3 classes and to cover the requirements of the Achievement Standards. "These sheets provide a good back-up to the teaching, and students always have them with them," says Carol. "They're not linear in a way that would restrict practice and they're designed to allow students to achieve at the Excellence level."

To experience a range of technological practice, class visits to a range of local enterprises was also integrated into the programme. "I like students to see real life examples of neat segments of technological practice. You rarely get the required breadth of tech practice from one person from industry - I like to pick up on bits from a variety of different contexts."

Carol Rimmer:

"The first student visit is crucial. I'd primed the client to give only a general overview to the students - any mention of specific outcomes by the client really limits the way the students think about issues that could be addressed. [It turned out] they came back with many more issues than the client had thought about."

Carol carefully pre-planned the first visit to Te Mata Peak Kindergarten, and arranged for students to visit in small groups. Students were told to go and look for potential issues. They took a camera and then the photographs were put on the intranet so all students could refer to them.

Back in class, potential issues were brainstormed, and a series of questions to be put to the client were collectively developed. This process ensured minimal disruption to the client during business hours. The fact that much of initial interaction between the client and students could be organised by fax was also of help here.

Students were encouraged by Carol to look at the kindergarten environment from a range of different stakeholder perspectives - for example that of the child, the parent, the teacher, the BOT, and the community. This clarified the immediate and wider stakeholders and subsequently exposed a wider range of expectations. It was also useful for identifying who was the best source of information.

The solutions that resulted were wide ranging. Each was presented by the student to the client. "The students were very confident in their individual presentations to the common client. I was very surprised. One student's presentation just blew us away. From his folder work it didn't look like he'd actually done much, but when he presented his solution, the depth of his practice and level of his understanding was amazing."

At the completion of this first unit, the Metal Technology students worked with Jeff on their major project, for which they had to identify their own client and produce a finished outcome to address an identified client issue. Jeff immediately noted a distinct improvement in the attitude of the students and their motivation compared with the previous year.

"At the start the boys were a bit apprehensive," he said, "but the way things were structured during that first unit seemed to work particularly well for them. When I took over the class again at the end of the first term I was really happy with the stage they had reached. They had gone through a process of working with a genuine client and were able to transfer that to the selection and interaction with their own client in their next project."

Preplanning for 2006 started with the Technology Department's regular November evaluation meetings. The 2005 Year 13 programme was critiqued by the teachers involved and those who would be teaching it in 2006, with a focus on the identified needs of the students who would be taking the programme.

The decision was made to again amalgamate the Wood and Metal Technology classes for the first term of 2006. Jeff would teach it this year, and he spent some time with Carol learning from her experiences, and in establishing the progression in practical
skills required and integrating that into the programme plan.

The common client was to be Edges, a local picture framing business - owned by the parent of a student in one of Jeff's classes.

Initial class discussion centred on planning methods, and the need to determine the key milestones for the project. Each student then completed the first in what would become a series of Project Milestone sheets.

With Edges as the client, the context of picture framing was explored and the initial visit to the client premises was planned. Jeff found that the students were unsure about how to interact with the client and initially looked for guidance on issues they could focus in on. They had little idea about how to develop suitable questions to ask and Jeff did considerable work helping them to phrase questions in an open manner.

The questions formulated provided a framework for the initial interaction with the client during the first visit and the information gathered was brought back to the class for follow-up discussion. Again, Jeff found that the students were looking to him to identify the specific client needs and considerable class discussion was required to provide a strong base of understanding from which they could identify their own area for further exploration. Issues identified included: security; advertising and promotion; and construction and display of products. Work then proceeded on determining key factors and formulating their initial brief and specifications.

Students then developed some preliminary concepts in consultation with the client. The brief and specifications were further refined and a preferred concept chosen for further development through to a working drawing stage - again with ongoing feedback from the client.

As part of the programme a series of visits was arranged by Jeff to look at a range of commercial technological practice. To compare and contrast practices, a visit was also arranged to Rembrandt - a much larger Napier based picture-framing business. Another visit was made to Furnware, the Hastings-based company which has become one of New Zealand's largest and most experienced manufacturer and supplier of school furniture products and systems. Here students were able to follow the product development process from design through prototyping to full-scale commercial production.

This introductory project ended with a formal presentation to the client, where each student presented their issue and conceptual design to the client in the form of a storyboard supported by back-up documentation in their folio.

In the first project the aim is to teach the students relevant process skills relating to identifying a client issue and interacting effectively with the client. In their next project they can then more easily select a specific client and identify a genuine issue. Over the rest of the year they are able to confidently use these process skills and enable the classroom teaching to re-focus on required advanced practical skills.

While Jeff found that his 2005 students still had some difficulty in selecting their client for their second project, in 2006 the class was much more confident in picking the client and sorting out the questions to ask to identify and clarify an issue.

The students clearly saw the value of having an external client and the need to be accountable to that client. They quickly realised that their outcomes had to be of a standard that would meet the client expectations and took genuine pride in the presentation of a high quality outcome.

"They're working for a common client and each one of them is accountable to that client, so they're not just fudging things to suit themselves. This year, when students said 'I'm not too sure how to do that,' I just said 'Well how did you do it in term 1?'. And they'd go off and do it." Jeff

Feedback from the client was very positive and reflected the effort that Jeff had put into the planning of both the initial and ongoing interaction. Specific positive comment was made about student motivation, the detail in the presentations, the relevance of the issues identified and the level of innovation in the solutions proposed.

"A number of boys were regular visitors to the shop to measure, take more photos, and study our manufacturing processes," says Edges Framing Consultant Suzi Merson. "Some of the concepts they've come up with are amazing and I'm looking forward to going through them in more detail"

Jeff was impressed with the way the class dealt with the client situation. "You can't help but be a bit apprehensive when they're out there representing the school," he says, "but I was very proud of the way they did it. Some had a few weaknesses but it was the start of the year and their first time at working with a client - but they all came up with feasible solutions for the issues they had identified."

With more effective interaction with the client, the students' documentation was less constrained and had considerably more stakeholder input than in the past.

The range of solutions to client issues identified for the second project included the development of:

Forming a composite class in the first term has worked very well for both students and teachers. However, continuous modification is required to better meet the needs of each successive group of students.

Jeff sees his technology programme as one which can offer students a three-year course and sees all Year 11 students as potential Year 13 students. "Continuity through Years 11-13 is really important in terms of students getting to know the teacher and what is expected of them. It means the teacher has a responsibility to always to move them on," Jeff explains.

Despite the successes of the initial 2005 programme Jeff had noted a problem with a lack of advanced practical skills. In his 2006 planning he looked to structure the programme so that he could successfully teach the range of skills identified. However he admits to having problems in achieving this goal and is looking at modifications in 2007 to better achieve his goal. Options include the inclusion of unit standards during term 1 to provide a specific skills base to be applied in the development of the final outcomes in the second project.