Abstract
The research reported in this chapter was underpinned by the interpretive-constructivist paradigm utilising a Fourth Generation Evaluation methodology. The purpose of the research was to examine conflicting rationales for the implementation of technology education and Education for Enterprise and to evaluate a professional development project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education. From http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl11124_v1/quality-teaching-for-diverse-students-in-schooling.doc
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (Vol. 2). Los Angeles: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.). Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dykes, R. (2002). Information literacy – A separate skill or a new approach to learning? Computers in NZ Schools, 14(2), 26–30.
Gentry, E. (2000). Creating student-centered, problem-based classrooms. Huntsville: University of Alabama in Huntsville. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://aspire.cs.uah.edu/
Gibb, A. A. (2008). Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: Insights from UK practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 6(2), 48.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life contexts: Alternatives for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203–220.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., et al. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holly, M. L., & Mcloughlin, C. (1989). Perspectives on teacher professional development. London: Falmer Press.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interactions between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lai, K. (Ed.). (2001). E-learning: Teaching and professional development with the internet. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.
Lewis, K. (2002). An enterprising future: Evaluating the young enterprise scheme. Enterprise New Zealand Trust. Retrieved from http://sme-centre.massey.ac.nz/files/Complete_final_ENZT_report.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2009). Te Kete Ipurangi. What is education for enterprise? Retrieved from http://education-for-enterprise.tki.org.nz/About-Education for Enterprise/Why-focus-on-Education for Enterprise/Defining-Education for Enterprise
Mitchell, L., & Cubey, P. (2003). Characteristics of effective professional development linked to enhanced pedagogy and children’s learning in early childhood settings: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Muller, J. (2011). Through other’s eyes: The fate of the disciplines. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistics and sociological perspectives (pp. 13–34). London: Continuum.
Resnick, L. B. (1989, February). Developing mathematical knowledge. American Psychologist, 44(2),162–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.162
Rhea, D. (2005). Bringing clarity to the “Fuzzy front end”. A predictable process for innovation. In Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 145–154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for k-16 Education (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. (2002). A review of problem-based learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education., 20(1), 16–26.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1–5.
Wood, D. (2007). Professional learning communities: Teachers, knowledge, and knowing. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 281–290.
Young, M. F. D. (1998). The curriculum of the future. London: Falmer Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Sullivan, G. (2017). Technology Education: Education for Enterprise (E4E) in New Zealand (A Connected Curriculum). In: Williams, P., Barlex, D. (eds) Contemporary Research in Technology Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2819-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2819-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2817-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2819-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)