Introduction
Method
Participants and context
Name | Year of birth | Year of teacher examination | Teaching students in grades | Teacher education in technology | Certification to teach technology |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Albert | 1971 | 1999 | 4–6 | No | Waiting for certification |
Belinda | 1965 | 2006 | 4–6 | No | Waiting for certification |
Carl | 1984 | 2014 | 7–9 | Yes | Yes |
Diana | 1959 | 1999 | 7–9 | No | Yes |
Ellen | 1976 | 1999 | 1–3 | No | No |
Fiona | 1966 | 2011 | 4–6 | No | No |
Greg | 1958 | 1990 | 7–9 | No | No |
Harold | 1973 | 1996 | 4–6 | Yes | Yes |
Irene | 1964 | 2001 | 4–6 | Yes | Yes |
Jenny | 1971 | 1996 | 4–6 | Yes | Yes |
Data collection
Data analysis
Results
Self-efficacy
Experience, education and interest
Like Diana, Fiona was not educated in technology education either, but she had education in mathematics and she talked about how this had given her experience of and familiarity with the content and structure of the syllabus. Furthermore, she explained that the lack of education and experience in technology teaching affected her in grading her students in technology: “I will be cautious when I set the grades, probably because I don’t have the experience [of technology education]”. Later she continued talking about the subjects in which she was not educated:Experience makes a big difference […]. It is in here [points to her head]. […] You know in advance what questions can be asked, where the student gets stuck and so on, it is experience. (Diana)
Some of the teachers who were educated in technology thought that the amount of technology education they had was not enough. They expressed opinions that pointed to the fact that their self-efficacy in teaching depended on their own personal interest. Harold described himself as a person interested in technology, and he thought that this interest made his teaching better and more inspiring: “Then I can bring many points of view into the teaching, which is not something you can do in other subjects that you aren’t that interested in”. Jenny pictured it like this:I have not really dug into that syllabus [technology] in the same way as I do in maths, because I have so many credits in maths. Still I believe that I have kept to the [technology] syllabus and I have studied examples of assessment, so I do have a solid basis. But somehow it still feels better to be a bit careful… (Fiona)
Jenny was educated in technology, and said that she felt “incredibly secure in technology education”. She further explained that the more you know about a subject and the more you like a subject, the better teacher you will be, if you dare to try. She compared technology to English, and explained that she would not be a very skilful English teacher: “If I taught English, I wouldn’t be the same pedagogue as I am when I teach technology”.What things made me a good technology teacher were probably the things I studied myself, my life as well as what I had learned, read and created. Sure, the education was… I got a basis, but that is not what I lean on, it is the other [my life and what I studied myself].
In the interview, she said that nowadays she was the one helping her colleagues. Even though she was more secure today than she was when she started to teach technology, she was still “much more secure in the other subjects than in technology”. Fiona also described feeling more insecure in technology teaching than in other subjects. She explained that she did not know if she was teaching at the right level or if she made technology education too easy for her students. When it came to such questions, she felt more secure in striking the right balance in the other subjects that she taught. Neither Diana nor Fiona had studied technology as part of their teacher education.At first, I did not want to [teach technology]. If you are insecure, you don’t want to, right? A good thing is that we have parallel classes and different teachers, so we cooperate a lot; we have the same pedagogical plans, the same material and so on. You get a lot of help.
Subject knowledge
Preparation
Context dependency
Collegial support
In the interviews, teachers talked about a need for meeting other technology teachers, the meetings are necessary to discuss the subject in general or, more specifically, assessment in technology. Carl expressed it like this: “My greatest need is to sit down and talk to other technology teachers about assessment”.I need more time to talk to the other technology teachers […] we have asked for cross-disciplinary teaching for a long time, and we will try to arrange that, but there is a lack of time. We need to discuss together primarily in our school. It would have been nice to get clarification and directions from above, but we won’t get that, it’s obvious. It is all about your own interpretation […] that is difficult. (Harold)
Syllabus
Harold expressed a similar view and explained: “It is the syllabus that is easiest to fulfil […] it is not lengthy and is quite easy to understand. It is the one I am most comfortable with”. Here he was comparing technology to the other subjects he taught.If you compare it with others, it is easy and clear. I think I like it. The core content is kind of tangible, the abilities [mentioned in the syllabus] are a bit like in science, but more distinct. I like it!
Resources
You have to reinvent the wheel time after time, because there isn’t that much of material to use. I should need a classroom for laboratory work. Now I have to borrow the sloyd classroom. […] Also, [the students] could bring materials from home, you can recycle things from home.
Status
Belinda and Harold thought that technology teaching had a low status in general and they talked about teachers’ lack of interest, knowledge and education, their ideas of technology as a difficult subject to teach, and lack of support from the principal, as possible explanations. Albert described this as a vicious circle: the teachers had little knowledge, which led them to think that the subject was less important which also led to a low budget, and therefore they could not teach because of the lack of materials and books. Belinda and Carl both communicated about how a lower status could depend on the lack of national tests, which took place in science and mathematics. Diana strongly emphasised that in her school all subjects had the same status and were treated the same way. At the same time, she did not portray her own situation like this. She described technology education in a different way than science education and said that they planned to teach technology at the end of the year to make the situation easier for the pupils. She expressed it like this:Well, technology is in the background, so it is. The other teachers who teach technology also teach science and mathematics. Sometimes, when we are supposed to meet and talk about the subject of technology, we talk about science or mathematics instead. […] That is a shame. […] [technology] does not get as much time as the other subjects.
Overall, the teachers in the study perceived that context dependency affected their teaching in different forms. The teachers expressed this both regarding physical context, e.g. in the form of lack of enough books and less visible context e.g. less attention compared to other subjects.In the ninth grade they have national tests [for instance, in science], and then it is much easier if the students do not have as many theoretical tasks as in other subjects. They just come to class to potter with this and that. And we do a study visit and some assignment [instead of tests] and in that way we don’t burden the students too much at the end of the school year. This is how we have planned all the technology teaching at the end of the school year.
Discussion
Self-efficacy
Context dependency
There seemed to be a general view among the interviewed teachers that the subject of technology had to be “fun” or “joyful” for the students. This made the status lower compared to other subjects like science, which was seen as difficult (e.g. Osborne et al. 2003). Teachers in this study explained that they did not think that technology had a low status in their particular school, but they believed that the subject had a low status in other schools and that the subject overall had a low status. The national tests have become central in Swedish schools, as an important way to measure results and set grades, and some teachers put a lot of effort into the tests since they are a way to verify the students’ knowledge. Since technology is not included in the tests, it could be construed as a less important subject.Schools do Design and technology as a treat at the end of a unit of work if applicable, and it is not respected as a standalone subject in the curriculum (Bell et al. p. 7).