Development of a Technology Education Cascading Theory through community engagement site-based support

Technology Education has developed over the past 50 years from a skills-based school subject that focussed on tool usage and product making that assisted learners with future employment to a programme for studying technological literacy that develops technological problem-solving skills through hands-on project designs (Ritz and Bevins 2016). Technology Education (TE), even though it took over half a century to develop, is now a stand-alone subject and is offered within the school curriculums of many countries. However, most of the teachers are still faced with the hurdles of TE pedagogy and didactics (Pudi 2007). It is against this background that the study purports to share fresh perspectives on how the action research approach, within community engagement with ill equipped TE teachers, has led to the development of a TE cascading theory. This study intends to respond to the following research question: How did community engagement, site-based support with teachers constituted the development of a TE cascading theory?

Even though Technology or Technology Education as a subject in South Africa (SA) is as old as the country’s democracy, many studies are still confirming that the majority of teachers are still struggling with both the content knowledge and pedagogy of the subject. In support of the preceding statement, Mapotse (2017: 169) stressed that the situation for Technology teaching was exacerbated by many educational changes that had taken place in South Africa over the last few decades. These changes included the overhauling of curricula followed by a strategic and symbolic review which was also a sign of change since the first democratic election of 1994. For example, understanding educational transitions is vital to addressing basic skills shortages and improving the life chances of all South African learners (Isdale 2016). Williams (2012: 12) also emphasise that Technology Education has been around in some schools and in some countries for a long time. Technology Education even though it has been around in some schools and some countries have endorsed it in their national curriculum, but other countries in Saudi Arabia like Oman have not embrace this move. The country’s Education Ministry still liken Technology to ICT (Information Communication Technology). It is therefore surprising that there is still no consensus about what Technology should be, how pupils learn when they study it, and what are effective teaching strategies in teaching the subject. Some of the notable problems that contribute to the education crisis in South Africa are numerous unqualified or under qualified teachers, large numbers of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, incompetent teaching and poor learner results. This study intends to display how action research practitioners can actively involve their participants through community engagement practices as part of displaying participants’ empowerment and how the participants benefitted from previous action research cycles.

Many TE teachers still lack Technology Pedagogic Content Knowledge (TPCK) to teach this subject with confidence and every chance of success, for example, judging by the plethora of letters and comments made in debates about Technology, it appears that the TE books that are imported from other countries, especially European countries, falls short of achieving the ideals of the subject from a South African perspective (Pudi 2007). The teachers in this study were taken through action research (AR) spiral cycles and I served as an AR practitioner. How the AR practitioner goes about presenting this report is first to frame the study within the co-enquiry theory also known as collaborative or cooperative theory and its application in the research study. Second, the practitioner discusses how the TE challenges were realised. The AR practitioner further proceeds by explaining the research methodology and finally presents findings of the study.

This study focussed on the challenges Technology Education teachers encounter in their classrooms when presenting their lessons plans due to lack of content knowledge. Carr and Kemmis (1986), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), Zuber-Skerritt (1996), Smith (2001), Calhoun (2002) claim that maximizing the effectiveness of regular classroom teaching involves the need for constant studying of one’s own situation in order to understand better the teaching process. During the reconnaissance study, data gathering instruments were administered to the participants so that they could better reflect on their Technology teaching situation. This was a fact-finding mission prior to unfolding the AR process, in which participants could examine their own educational practice systematically and as cautioned Ferrance (2000: 7) the participants could carefully apply the techniques of research to bring about change in it.

Within all the definitions of AR there are four basic themes that stand out, namely empowerment of participants, collaboration through participation, acquisition of knowledge and social change. In conducting AR, the researcher structured routines for continuous confrontation with the data gathered on Technology teaching by senior phase teachers. Theory is needed to reveal and unpack the research question of this CE project which states that, how did community engagement site-based support, with TE teachers, constituted the development of a cascading theory?

In accord with the main research question, the research objectives including relevant questions sought to find out more about the participants’ Technology teaching and focussed on the following aspects: (a) The nature of Technology teaching, (b) How senior phase Technology teachers at selected schools in the Gauteng Province teach Technology, and (c) How these teachers develop the AR-based intervention strategies that can be employed to improve other incapacitated TE teachers. The research team used the TE national policy as the benchmark for intervention. The AR practitioner or the researcher did arranged a contact sessions of a weeklong for three hours a day. The TE teachers were taking turns to present sections within a TE theme which they are just comfortable in delivering. The aftermath of their presentation was a joint growth and strength in TE which reflect collegiality among the research team. The researcher together with the TE teachers in Grade 8 and 9 were engaged in the following activities as they unpack the annual TE curriculum from the policy document:

As an AR practitioner, this is an opportunity to explain to the co-researchers how they should take AR as incipient in their classrooms. The TE teachers are brought to the basics of contextualising their teaching and to ameliorate learners’ performance in their TE mid-year examinations (end of term 2 within an academic year). The three schools were encouraged to set a common examination paper and the researcher thoroughly moderated it for quality assurance purposes. A school excursions was also organised in term 2 and learners are organised to visit a company that is dealing with the theme at hand, namely, milling company for corn to meal–meal processing.

The researcher did organise these electronic components and conducted few demonstration lessons with the co-researchers as most have never seen how a real component looks like, save a picture in a text book. It was this time of the year, term 4, were learners are competing to come up with a technological solution to address the identified problem within their schools. Prices are awarded to the best projects, all this are sponsored by the researcher.

It was here in term 4 were the teachers’ check their acumen of their learners from three different schools by jointly set up the common examination paper as it was done during mid-year. The AR practitioner still stand as the moderator to check if the paper content as to whether it has covered the theme well according to learners’ level.

The objectives above are outlined for the purpose of addressing identified challenges. These reverberation consequences suggested AR approach as an intervention to equip Technology teachers to improve their Technology teaching practice within the South African context. This intervention brought forth the design of the Technology Education cascading theory.

The accounts below are extracted from both observations and the interviews with TE teachers. AR aims to generate findings that are useful within a specific context rather than findings that are applicable across many different situations (Jantan 2010). The generated findings of this study were as follows:

From Table 1 the researcher can deduce that out of ten TE teachers from three different schools only one teacher has a Technology qualification. One teacher suggested that the department should, ‘intensify the training of teachers offering this Technology subject through in-service programs.’

As the researcher made some observations around all three schools, there was no ordered environment earmarked for Technology teaching, learning and practices. As one teacher stressed, ‘if possible the National Department of Basic Education should provide the schools with technological workshops and laboratories, or Technology centres.’

It was further observed that teacher–learner ratio impedes the ‘hands-on’ nature of Technology asclasses are a bit overcrowded, and class management and assessment were negatively affected. One TE teacher during the interview recommended that, ‘learners must always be given projects and report back must be done immediately, so as to encourage learners.’

TE teachers declared that some of the Technology themes within their annual work schedule were not given any attention as they serve as a challenge to them. One teacher recalled and reflected that, ‘since I was given an opportunity to sharpen my skills on Technology drawing and indeed it brought light to me gradually, so by that I believe as well that I have gained some strategies on orthographic (3D) and 2D drawing that I may use with my learners to improve their drawing skills. I can now teach my learners resistor colour coding and resistance calculations which I never done before’.

During some interviews, teachers acknowledged that the subject was not allocated a budget by the financial committee of the school. In support of a TE budget and to curb the issue of lack of resources, one teacher mentioned that, ‘schools must have an annual budget for the subject. Every Technology class must resemble a Technology class.’

Action research came at the right moment for these teachers, as they can now observe that they have been empowered to teach the subject with confidence and are able to share pedagogy and knowledge with their colleagues. All structured AR contact sessions were used as a stage to empower Technology teachers and sustain their desire to learn more, hence attendance was very good, and their TE classroom practice challenges were addressed.

Most of the Technology teachers within this study from the three sampled schools are under qualified to teach this subject. TE classes are conducted in a normal classroom with all other subjects. No practical engagement and related activities within the TE class are possible as the schools are without Technology laboratories or workshops. Teachers raised a concern about resources and support from their schools’ management teams. Action research was rolled out once a week per term to equip these TE teachers.

The theory developed in this study is Technology Education Cascading Theory in the sense that co-researchers end up running the project with, or without, an AR practitioner. During the initiation of the project, the researcher took the first TE teachers from School A (SE Secondary School) and spent the whole year with them on the AR spiral cycle’s facilitation of observation, planning, action and reflection per term, covering all the annual TE themes. The researcher served as an AR practitioner and TE teachers served as participants. As the researcher adopted a new school each year, the TE teachers from the adopted school served as participants. The equipped teachers from the previous year were elevated to be the practitioners and the researcher became the facilitator. In short, each year the TE team members changed their role as new cohort of teachers are added into the programme, as displayed in Fig. 2, Table 2 below.

Figure 2 displays the TE cascading theory in a picture format. It starts with one school at the apex and grows yearly as a new cohort of TE teachers are added, as reflected in the three columns. The community engagement project in 2016 was in its third year. The project started in 2014 with one school, SE Secondary, which had only three TE teachers. In 2015, SS Secondary School was recruited to join the team as AR participants and SE Secondary School teachers served as AR practitioners while the researcher continued to assume the role of an AR facilitator. In 2016, the team recruited the third school, ST Secondary School to be the AR participants. When the new school was recruited all the team members changed their roles. When ST Secondary School join the team in 2016, then my role as a principal researcher turned to that of an AR observer. TE teachers from SE Secondary School became AR facilitators whilst the ones from SS Secondary School have taken a role of AR practitioners. This is an ongoing study which will depend on the availability of funds to cascade even further.

This small scale study sheds some light on the challenges TE teachers have for not possessing any pedagogic content knowledge. This makes it difficult for them to deliver lessons covering all the themes of Technology in one academic year within their classrooms. The majority of teachers in this study said that they do not have any qualification to teach this subject. It is not surprising because the subject was introduced in South Africa’s new educational dispensation, meaning that during their training at different higher institutions or colleges the TE course was not yet offered. There is a need for stakeholders to embark on a massive training program for these TE teachers nationally, by whatever means. In this study, AR was sought to empower these TE teachers from three different schools. It is also clear that teachers need sufficient training and time to be empowered with the pedagogy, didactics and content knowledge of Technology Education. Both collaborative enquiry theory and developmental paradigm have the potential for innovation, depth and reliability of research outcomes that manifest in the process of mutual learning. Mutual learning is also one of the core values of action research in the sense that it embraces different ways of knowing in order to enhance collective knowledge and overcoming epistemological barriers that see one way of knowing as better than the other.

Prachagool et al. (2016) support this study’s conclusion by highlighting four ways that the Education Council/Department of Education could enhance the quality of education through professional development. Firstly teachers need a system and mechanism to promote teaching skills, managerial skills, and a support system that can be flexible enough to provide effective instruction. Secondly, teachers need a system that propagate and refine teacher competency in classroom management. Thirdly, teachers need a friendly teaching environments that promote teacher’s decision making in schools. Finally, teachers need incentives and/or any psychological factors that enhance their teaching. Hence, the AR practitioner resorted to awarding the Technology teachers within this project with bursaries from the practitioner’s community engagement funding to register for a one-year certificate for TE teachers’ professional development. This adds value to this CE project in the sense that at least there is the possibility that these TE teachers can have a Technology Education qualification at the end of their CE participation. This AR journey contributed to the development of TE cascading theory of ‘each one, teach one’ in this site-based teacher professional development study. This was made possible based on the time spend in the field (three consecutive years) by the research team as outlined in Fig. 2, Table 2.