Abstract
While the ready-made Lego™ Robotics kits are popular in schools and are used by students at both primary and secondary year levels, using the Picaxe microcontroller (chip) to create simple electronic devices, including robotic devices is less popular. The latter imposes an additional challenge as a result of the need to construct the universal board with the chip in it—a challenge embraced in the cross-disciplinary mechatronics program in this study. This paper reports on how teachers from five Australian secondary schools put into practice technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) developed from expert-led workshops and explores factors (intrinsic and extrinsic) that influenced the implementation. The results show that different strategies were adopted by the schools in implementing the programs. While teacher attitude played an important role in influencing the program’s success, being able to identify where the program sits within the curriculum and planning around timetable and facility constraints were also important factors to consider. The research indicated that teachers’ TPCK was most challenged in non-obvious areas such as diagnosing where faulty soldering joints were.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anteby, M. & Khurana, R. (2007). A new vision. Retrieved June 25, 2010 from http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/anewvision.html#e.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
DEST, Commonwealth of Australia. (2000). Commonwealth quality teacher programme. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
DEST, Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Australian government quality teacher programme: Client guidelines, 2005 to 2009. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.qualityteaching.deewr.gov.au/agqtp/.
Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 749–760.
Finger, G., & Houguet, B. (2009). Insights into the intrinsic and extrinsic challenges for implementing technology education: Case studies of Queensland teachers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 309–334.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
Järvinen, E., Karsikas, A., & Hintikka, J. (2007). Children as innovators in action—A study of microcontrollers in Finnish comprehensive schools. Journal of Technology Education, 18(2), 37–52.
Jones, A., Harlow, A., & Cowie, B. (2004). New Zealand teachers’ experiences in implementing the technology curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 101–119.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49, 740–762.
Lewis, A. (2002). School reform and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 488–492.
Ng, W. (2003). The status of computer-based technologies and science education in the Southern Metropolitan Region of Victoria, Australia. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computer based learning in science (Vol. II, pp. 94–106), Cyprus.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R. Y., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Education Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Phillips, P. (2008). Professional development as a critical component of continuing teacher quality. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/issues/vol331.HTM#vol_26_1_a.
Raizen, S. A. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 59–70.
Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Reviewing the relations between teachers’ knowledge and pupils’ attitude in the field of primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 15–26.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 1–22.
So, H. J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116.
Stables, K., & Kimbell, R. (2006). Unorthodox methodologies: Approaches to understanding design and technology. In M. J. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 313–330). Rotterndam: Sense Publishers.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by the Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The initiative is called the Australian Schools Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics. We would like to thank Tony Stevens for his research assistance in the project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9156-6
Appendices
Appendix 1
See Table 3.
Appendix 2
Appendix 3: Teachers’ interview questions
-
1.
Please explain the background to the school’s involvement in the Picaxe project
-
2.
Can you describe your own background in terms of Picaxe?
-
3.
Are there any similar types of technologies that have been used in your school to achieve the same outcomes as those proposed for the Picaxe project?
-
4.
Please describe your involvement in the project from the early times to the period just after the fair in (June/July)
-
5.
What were some of the challenges your school faced in terms of getting the project running?
-
6.
Probe above in terms of:
-
a.
Management support
-
b.
Infrastructure
-
c.
Project team support
-
d.
Attitudes: staff/students
-
a.
-
7.
What were some of the highlights of the project for you?
-
8.
Did you ever feel frustration during the project? What led to this?
-
9.
If you were ever to implement a project like this again (‘you had your time over again’) what would you do differently?
-
10.
In what ways do you believe this type of technology might benefit students in the learning process? (Probe)
-
11.
In what ways could this product hinder students in the learning process? (Probe)
-
12.
What was the development environment like at your school—would you describe it as collegiate, leader-personality driven (who?) or some other approach (specify)?
-
13.
Did you have any contact with other schools? What happened?
-
14.
General comments?
Appendix 4
An example of how observations were documented.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nicholas, H., Ng, W. Factors influencing the uptake of a mechatronics curriculum initiative in five Australian secondary schools. Int J Technol Des Educ 22, 65–90 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9138-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9138-0