Combining Technology Programmes
Class: Years 7-8
School: Raumati Technology Centre
Teachers: Jan Barnes, Pip Timoteo, Mary Barclay, Brian Sherborne, Lois Blackett, Heather Sangster-Smith
Teachers at Raumati Technology Centre established an overview (programme of learning) to ensure full coverage of all eight Components of the Technology Curriculum, which they implemented over the next three years. Ready for the next challenge, in 2012 they trialled working in pairs across Technology learning areas.
Background
Located just down the road from host Raumati Beach School, the Raumati Technology Centre caters for 740 students in the Kapiti Coast region. A rapidly rising roll (up by 40 students in one year) and the consequent appointment of an additional teacher provided an opportunity to review the centre's operation. The team decided that on four days a week they would run only five (rather than the usual six) classes in each session, with teacher-release time providing an opportunity, amongst other things, for teachers to share their practice with each other.
- Raumati Beach School website
Jan Barnes (Electronics) and Pip Timoteo (alternately, Dyes and Pigments/Mixed Materials) share administration duties, and Jan works in Pip's room for four lessons a week. Pip teaches a lesson in Brian Sherborne's (Hard Materials) room, and Mary Barclay moves into the Electronics and Fabrics rooms to give teacher-release time to Lois Blackett. Lois also works in the Foods room, to give relieving teacher Heather Sangster-Smith release time.
Students from Raumati Beach School attend the six classroom sessions on Thursdays, with the other days reserved for the five client schools. Some sessions involve a bus delivering one group and picking up another, which means only a 10-minute break between classes on that day. Year 7/8 students work together, with the older students available to act as 'experts' while reinforcing their own knowledge and skills.
Technology Day
In 2009, the team introduced Technology Day. At the beginning of each year all students do the same Technology Day lesson in which they are introduced to/reminded about Technology concepts and terminology and work on activities. Technology Day has been so successful that the team plans to add a mid-year Technology Day in 2012 to focus on a specific area – with the first one likely to be Properties of Materials. Pip notes that beginning the year with the Technology Day has made a huge difference to student' understanding, and because teachers are all "working from the same page" it has reinforced their own curriculum knowledge.
Overview (Programme of Learning)
The team developed a two-year overview in which the eight Components are taught and assessed every year. Some Components, such as Outcome Development and Evaluation, are taught by everyone although only one teacher will formally assess it. The team expects that students will have a good grounding in Technology after two years and should be working at Level 3, with some moving on to Level 4. The overview is reviewed and revised during a November planning meeting. The team, aware that some students will be assessed on a component before having a second chance to reinforce their knowledge, is considering how they can make the overview 'flow' better for all classes. Teachers use the same terminology and definitions, and every classroom has laminated copies of the planning cycle, Technology terms, etc on the wall.
Teachers also assess aspects of their individual programmes, and students take their assessment home on the back of their work booklet. An end-of-year report given to the school contains all assessment results, and explains to parents what their child was assessed on when they were developing an outcome.
The team commitment to the two-year overview has led to an increased confidence in including curriculum knowledge in individual programmes. Working together to deliver their team programme has, teachers agree, contributed to a positive atmosphere in which they feel supported by their colleagues. "We know each other's strengths and feel secure in acknowledging what we don't know" says Pip. "It's similar to how the students operate in that you don't need to know everything, you can go and ask an expert".
Teachers are encouraged to visit each other's classrooms, both to observe and to join in the lesson. "Knowing someone is coming in is a good incentive to critique my own lessons!" adds Pip. Teachers can see how their colleagues are delivering the curriculum and pick up little tips which mightn't be mentioned during a planning meeting. Working in another classroom helps familiarise teachers with the requisite tools, skills and knowledge, and means they are less hesitant about teaching in a different Technology learning area.
With the overview firmly established and teachers moving between classrooms to teach or observe, the team was ready to "branch out" and trial how they might more effectively teach their students Technology.
Innovation
Raumati Beach School had planned an 'Innovation' theme for 2012 and asked the Technology Centre to incorporate innovation into their programme. Jan and Pip, with help from the rest of the team, looked at how the centre could be innovative and decided that this provided an opportunity to reassess their programmes and look at team-teaching. Although the innovation theme was the catalyst for change, the pair had been moving in that direction. Over the years Jan (who had moved from teaching Food and Fabrics to Electronics) sometimes swapped with Pip (who was then teaching Food Technology) so that they could teach each other's programme. They decided that this was an opportunity to extend teachers and also expose students to working in different classrooms as part of a Technology unit. "Rather than working in isolation, we're all teaching Technology and it shouldn't make any difference what medium we're working in" notes Pip.
Both agreed that it was important that change should result from encouragement rather than compulsion, so while they suggested working in pairs or threes anybody was free to could continue working on their own. Teachers could choose which areas to work in and develop a combined or individual programme. In the end, everyone decided to work in pairs, with Mary and Pip combining Fabrics and Dyes and Brian and Jan combining Hard Materials and Electronics. Lois and Heather split the Foods programme into a Food Technology and a Nutrition class. Although they mostly taught individual lessons, they did join up for some, as when both classes worked in the Food Technology room to develop soup. The Nutrition programme included hygiene (with students appalled to realise their washed hands were still dirty when a 'glow stick' passed over them), packaging and labels as well as food nutrition. Students worked on a variety of activities, such as producing recipe cards which had to meet specific criteria. The trial programme was taught to Raumati Beach School students, with students from other schools working on the usual programme.
Fabrics and Dyes
Pip and Mary designed their 12-lesson unit as a combination of individual and shared teaching. Students worked with Pip in the Dyes room for three one-and-half-hour lessons, during which she introduced the knowledge and skills they would need. They learnt how to use natural dyes and techniques for tie-dyeing, batik and tapa design, and dyed fabric for a bandanna. The class also looked at how society and the environment influences the use of dyes and pigments, how things have changed over the years, and the attributes of pigments and dyes. They then swapped over for three lessons in the Fabrics room. Mary taught her students sewing techniques and they sewed the edges of their bandannas. Each student developed a desk buddy (soft toy) using the skills they had practised.
- Unit Plan (PDF, 80kb)
- Lesson Sequence (PDF, 131kb)
The classes joined up for the last six lessons, working with both teachers and moving from the larger Fabrics room into the Dyes room as required. Students worked in pairs to develop a cushion for a junior classroom at their school. They discussed stakeholders and identified their stakeholders for the project then, armed with an Interview Ideas Guide and fabric samples, walked to the school to interview their stakeholders.
- Interview Ideas Guide (PDF, 48kb)
Back in the classroom, the students decided on their brief and completed their design plan. They were required to create a pattern for their cushion inner and cover, and incorporate dyeing and appliqué techniques on the cover. Although modelling wasn't as big a focus in this unit, the teachers explained to the students why they would need to create mock-ups, "We're making mock-ups so we don't muck up". Planning was an important focus in this part of the unit, given that the students only had six lessons to work on the cushion project. They had to keep a time-line in which they identified the resources they would need and each step of the process they would work through. Some students didn't manage to complete their outcomes but were able to come back in a lunch time to finish up. As this wouldn't be possible with the client schools, Mary and Pip would set definite time restrictions next time to push the students through each stage. Some, however, finished early and worked on dyeing or sewing activities, using samples they had already made or bringing materials from home.
Electronics and Resistant Materials
Jan and Brian's programme also started with students having three lessons in each workroom. In the following six lessons they had some combined and some individual lessons. The unit was originally planned around puppets, but was changed to mobiles partly, Jan says, because the puppet context lends itself so well to being done with Fabrics and possibly Dyes. Students created individual mobiles from MDF and incorporated an electronic circuit.
Jan taught her students about conductors and insulators, positive and negative, and how to solder. They used this knowledge to develop maze games. In the Hard Materials room, students learnt to measure, cut wood, sand, etc, and made wooden mini-stools (which many used as a bedside table or pot plant holder).
Brian and Jan emphasised modelling in their unit – students designed their mobile, drew a template on A3 paper (to match the size of the wood) and developed a model in cardboard, attaching strings to it to check that it moved as planned.
Although Jan taught her students about resistors and diodes, they didn't use these for the mobiles but were offered LEDs, motors or buzzers for their electronic circuit. Some of the advanced students completed more complicated circuits than their peers. Jan finds teaming Year 7/8 students together particularly useful in Electronics because the tiny components make it more difficult for her to demonstrate to large groups – a Year 8 can be reminded about what they learnt the previous year and explain what has to be done to their Year 7 partner.
Outcomes
Although time constraints meant that students were directed to develop cushions and mobiles, their teachers tried to give them as much opportunity as possible to develop their own (or their stakeholders') preferences within that brief. Pip and Mary report that working with a stakeholder was a valuable part of the process for their students and encouraged them to focus on what they were doing and why. Working with a partner also meant that they had to discuss their ideas, think about options or compromises and justify why they wanted to do something. Mary and Pip found one of the advantages for them in working as partners was that if one person was absent the other knew exactly what the students were working on.
In trialling the programme, the teachers also looked at the optimal timing in terms of individual and combined lessons. Jan and Brian concluded that as the combined lessons had worked well they might increase them, keeping the flexibility of working in one or both rooms depending where the students were. Jan would like three workstations, so that students can move from the Hard Materials workshop, to Electronics to a space for writing. The more choice, the more freedom they have, the more they buy into it."
Combining classes had another advantage – if a teacher was away, their partner knew what stage the students were at and what they should be working towards.
What next?
Mary and Pip plan to teach their combined unit to one or more of their other schools, although finding a stakeholder won't be quite as easy. They are considering options such as visiting the school to work with identified stakeholders there, finding stakeholders at the college or kindy close to the Centre, or possibly asking someone to come in act as a stakeholder.
Jan and Brian are still considering how they will extend their team teaching, and what context the students will work within. With the success of the trial programme, Jan is enthusiastic about the possibilities in working in larger partnerships. Wearable Art, she says, is a context which could involve three or four teachers, with students able to work in Hard Materials, Fabrics, Electronics and Dyes. She also envisages wearable art as a way to get parents visiting the centre to see their children presenting their creations in a show.
The team is reviewing their assessment schedule and will possibly allocate Components in each cycle which everyone will assess.
RSS Feed