but in fact more about the practicalities of implementing change in curriculum design & delivery in order to align with 21st Century learning theories.
First and foremost I would like to ask you this question.
" What is the value for your students in changing the course design? And what evidence do you have to support your reasoning."
I think it is a fundamental step to unpack potential pathways/transitions to further education or industry employment but it needs to be strategic in meeting student/community needs. There is potential value to both pathways Skills and academic or a joint pathway within one course and in reflecting on the above question you could develop a stronger model/theory sitting behind curriculum design.
- Is it teacher understanding of what the evidence should look like? (expectation's around volume and content)
- Is it because the students do not see the value in writing or producing the written component?
- Is it that students are not transitioning from a robust junior programme that has developed the holistic technology skills that students need to succeed in NCEA?
- Is the Literacy component (Vocab capability and writing skills) a barrier or is it knowledge?
- Is it teacher knowledge and/or their underlying value of the literacy requirements what is restricting success?
Trades/Vocational courses – Run through ITO (Competenz or skills 4work) and aligned with a partnership at tertiary level. MIT is the tertiary provider most commonly used for mechanical engineering, hospitality and logistics in many schools, however they are located in south Auckland and this could be a barrier. Carpentry/building/construction and electrical engineering could be either with Unitec or MIT. Can I suggest looking at Tai poutini Polytechnic as a possible option as they are nationwide.
In terms of also running a more academic A/S based course as well as trades or instead of. I have come across and been involved with a few schools redesigning how technology is delivered in junior and senior schools. The trend is now to go for 'Product Design' courses which incorporate standards from DVC, Digital, Specialist materials as well as lit/numeracy standards into a big project.
for example:
Level 1 Product design (Metal)
A/S91059 (Literacy based) – Basic concepts used in to make products from resistant materials (4)
A/S9068 – Working Drawings through graphic practice (6)
A/S91046 – Conceptual Design (4)
A/S 91030 (Numeracy) – Applying measurement in solving problems (4)
This is enough credits for a year long course if they are doing a minimum of 5 subjects with 16/18 credits available. The only issue is there is not an external that would limit students ability to gain subject endorsement. But is this a requirement? If so you could possibly add in AS91053 (1.10) Design Elements worth (3).
The next bit of advice I can offer is around 'Context' which leads to engagement. There is evidence to support students 'especially pasifika and Maori students' when they are learning something that incorporates or values their cultural capital. Links to prior knowledge and interest/hobbies that the students have and in some cases the teachers adds value to the students learning experiences and raises engagement which also has a knock on effect with achievement.
I am going to leave you with a big picture question that has been causing quite a bit of discussion around the office.
