This paper highlights some of the many key features in delivering an Initial Teacher Training course for trainees focussing upon Key Stage 2 (primary) and Key Stage 3 (secondary) design and technology teaching. Effective pedagogy and assessment methods are identified as essential principles in ensuring trainees can establish coherence across the primary/ secondary divide

Spendlove, David

English

Loughborough University Library: Open Journals

'Building Bridges or Bungie Jumping?'An ITT ResponseAbstractThis paper highlights some of the many keyfeatures in delivering an Initial TeacherTraining course for trainees focussing uponKey Stage 2 (primary) and Key Stage 3(secondary) design and technology teaching.Effective pedagogy and assessment methodsare identified as essential principles inensuring trainees can establish coherenceacross the primary/ secondary divide.The term 'Building Bridges or BungieJumping' is used to describe the differingapproaches adopted by schools in managingthe phase transition of Key Stage 2 pupils(primary) to Key Stage 3 (secondary). A'Building Bridges' approach is one where aplanned link is created between two stable,well-planned phases of education (Key Stage 2to Key Stage 3) and students are transferredalong with effective and usable informationacross the divide. The 'Bungie Jumping'approach, however, is one where all partiesjump from one phase to the next, assured thateverything is going to be all right and hope forthe best.The 'Building Bridges' approach is clearlyembedded within good practice and it isthrough adopting this philosophy that some 20initial teacher training (ITT) providers (Ofsted,2000: I) are delivering specialist Key Stage2'3 teacher training courses.The rationale behind the existence of aspecialist Key Stage 2/3 transition course indesign and technology is based upon theTeacher Training Agency (TTA) circular 1/96,which advised that new courses could bedeveloped to cover Key Stage 2/3 (7-14 yearsof age). The courses were to enable the greateruse of specialist teaching at Key Stage 2 andto provide additional opportunities forincreasing Key Stage 2 understanding withinthe secondary school.Certain features were seen as essential increating an ITT response at Liverpool JohnMoores University (LJMU) including:providing an opportunity for raisingstandards in primary design andtechnology (where only 4% of teachershave a qualification in design relatedactivity)increasing the understanding withinsecondary design and technologydepartments of pupils' prior experiencesand therefore aiding transitionimproving recruitment to teaching byincreasing diversity of courses offered(design and technology remains a shortagesubject)developing teachers who could adopt anidentifiable co-ordinating role to overseetransition with design and technology,irrespective of the phaseto provide specialist design and technologyco-ordinators for the limited number ofmiddle schools remaining.Whilst developing an ITT response there weremany issues to be resolved which served toillustrate the significant differences that existwithin both phases and the demands that werebeing placed upon trainees. These included:developing specialist subject knowledge.Secondary design and technology traineesare required to attain one higher tier andone lower tier of the DATA MinimumCompetences. For the Key Stage 2/3course it was felt that trainees needed to beable to offer at least three and possibly allfour areas (resistant materials, food,textiles, control systems) at the lower tier.This would increase their marketabilitywhilst ensuring they could deliver and co-ordinate all areas within the Key Stage 2/3spectrum. In addition, trainees would alsocomplete one major project in a chosenarea which would not only be comparablewith work at the higher tier of the DATA'sMinimum Competences, but also ofsufficient rigour to meet the subjectrequirements of degree level work.meeting both primary and secondaryrequirements. Trainees have to be able tomeet the requirements and standards forthe award of Qualified Teacher Status(QTS) (Annex A) (Annex I) to be able todeliver the core subjects at Key Stage 2,lCT requirements at Key Stage 2/3 (AnnexB), primary English (Annex C), primarymathematics (Annex D, primary science(Annex E) and the National Literacy andumeracy strategies.providing teaching experiences in bothsectors. A cohesive teaching opportunityin both primary and secondary schoolsover the three years of the course wasessential. In addition, a final teachingpractice consisting of a placement in theprimary sector followed immediately by aplacement in the secondary sector (orsecondary followed by primary)subsequently meant shorter blocks ofteaching in both sectors (with theassociated difficulties) had to beestablished.an understanding of transition issues bothat a general and at a design and technologysubject specific level. This included anunderstanding of differing teaching stylesand learning styles, assessment methods,Senior Lecturer,Liverpool JohnMoores Universityschool organisations and managementstructures and transfer of pupils andinformation.The task appears almost impossible,particularly when it is considered that allcomponents of the course are to be deliveredwithin a 3-year programme (to make itmarketable alongside secondary LTTprogrammes). However, the reality is different.Within the design and technology componentsof the course, trainees spend approximatelytwo days a week on subject specificapplications. As time is limited it has to beused efficiently and effectively; trainees focusupon design and technology activities as partof a continuum rather than primary focus andsecondary focus. Particularly relevant to thisis the adoption of research (Kimbell et al)which focused upon 'Transition: Exploring theYear 6-7 Boundary'.This work carried out as part of the'Understanding Technological Approaches'(UTA) project examined the differences inapproach between primary and secondarydesign and technology activities. Essentially,the research characterised the primary (Year 6)design and technology activities as beinguncertain, capitalising upon tacitunderstanding, whilst contextualised withchildren operating autonomously. In addition,children acted independently, with the teacherfacilitating progression.'Primary teachcrs appear to be concernedto allow pupils to experience technologyand to capitalise on their tacitunderstandings. Through experientialactivities (and often using play) primarychildren develop tacit understanding aboutall kinds of technological matters ... Theyincreasingly make sense of the made worldthrough these tacit understandings.'(Kimbell et aI, 1996: 108)Within the secondary design and technologyactivities, Year 7 activities were characterisedby the teacher acting as an instructor,imparting explicit understanding, withcarefully controlled steps and knownoutcomes. For Year 6 children this meansbetween ending primary and starting insecondary (usually separated by a short spaceof six weeks) they have to dispose of theirconceptual understanding of design andtechnology for the adoption of a differingmodel. A new model that often has little to dowith the old, which is less contexualised, oftenless valid, yet which is often given greatercredibility as it is often associated withspecialist knowledge and formal examinationsystems.'Secondary teachers by contrast. areconstantly seeking to make theseunderstandings explicit so much so thatthey spend a lot of time instructing pupilsabout them: 'This is how X works; this ishow Y moves; and this is the proper way totake Z apart' ... One cannot helpspeculating that the middle ground betweenthe two positions is the most fertile forchildren's learning.' (Ibid)This research would appear to support the veryconcerns that currently exist with regard totransition of pupils. It is not merelyorganisational factors such as a big school,new teachers and discrete lessons that impactupon pupils in the early secondary years; it isthe very nature of the subject pedagogy. It isthis philosophy that those involved with KeyStage 2/3 design and technology endeavour toengender with ITT undergraduates at LJMU toovercome the conceptual barriers that arecreated for children during transition in designand technology.Ultimately, the lack of continuity for childrenmeans a lack of progress or even a dip inperformance within the early years ofsecondary education. This is oftencharacterised by the development of a poorattitude towards school, a lack of motivationand pupils being turned off school, with aslightly stronger trend for boys identified(Galton et at, 1999).'I have become increasingly concerned atthe discernible drop in both motivation andpcrformance of youngsters in the early partof secondary education (Key Stage 3) andthat. in particular. boys perform badly atthis stage.Too little is currently expected of pupils inthe first year of secondary education ...There must be no gap. no falling back, buta real transition, which ensures that pupilprogress continues smoothly from junior ormiddle school into secondary education.'(Blunkett, 2000)However, the impact of teaching style and theuse of contextual projects are just two facets ofa complex myriad, which result in the twophases of education being treated separately. Inpreparing future teachers for both phases thesimilarities and best practice from both phaseshave to be drawn together to illustrate anappropriate and workable model of design andtechnology.Within the course, modules are devoted todeveloping cross phase understanding in keyareas including cross phase leT and crossphase issues relating to assessment.The area of assessment is considered as apriority as the assessment practices of teachersin both sectors appears to be open to scrutiny.A major factor, which impacts upon pupiltransition, is that teachers within the secondarysector often appear sceptical of Key Stage 2assessment results. Research by Schagen(2000) for NFER ( ational Federation forEducational Research) identified that transferinformation was predominantly only seen byheads of year and not subject teachers. Wheninformation was seen the following commentswere identified as being typical:'You can assume that children will havedone certain tOpICSin primary school. butnot necessarily that they will understandthem:'Primaries often say that children havedone things. but it does not seem like it:'It is useful to know what pupils havesupposedly covercd but you cannot takethis at face value:It is clear that confidence in each other'sability to asses and use information is anintegral part of any coherent education system.However, as already identified, the differencesin design and technology pedagogy could leadto the above assumptions being reinforced.To some extent there may be value insecondary school teachers' perceptions ofprimary practice. Although primary practiceoften illustrates the best examples of deliveryof design and technology activities there areoften weaknesses in assessment methods. Thisis often due to limited understanding andtraining in design and technology (4% ofprimary teachers have some designexperience). Research by Moreland and Joneshas indicated that although primary teacherswere able to engage pupils in designerlyactivities they found it difficult to assessactivities accurately, as they were not alwayssure what they were assessing.'Many of thc teachers were unable toidentify the procedural and conceptualtechnological learning outcomes of thetasks to any great detail. Thereforeinteractions were frequently praise-basedand related to the task completion, ratherthan related to enhancing students'understanding with regard to conceptualand procedural aspects: (Moreland ef ai,2000: 299)Teachers therefore did not assess with anydegree of confidence and ultimately assessedactivities which they felt more easily able toidentify and discriminate. Although this mayappear valid in the short term; long termstudents were not receiving formative feedbackrelating to their designerly task.'One teacher made comments for 29students with 24 of these commentsreflecting social and managerial aspects:another recorded comments about students'ability to communicate ideas: anotherrecorded comments about the students'ability to take turns when reporting toothers and another commented on astudents' group co-operative skills: (Ibid,2000: 300)As the majority of graduates from the KeyStage 2/3 design and technology will progressto a co-ordinating role (trainees study a subjectleadership module as some will take on a co-ordinating role within their first year) it isessential that they can define design andtechnology activities with clarity and have aclear understanding of assessment principles.As part of this, trainees carry out a researchproject looking at the differing approaches toassessment in both phases.The need for a coherent approach to pupiltransition is clearly high on the Government'sagenda. However, the concept of a specialistKey Stage 2 or Key Stage 3 teacher is notalways fully understood by existing teachers inboth sectors. Ultimately the ideal scenariowould be for every department in thesecondary school to have at least one transitionspecialist who could co-ordinate in a highlyspecialised mailller the transfer of pupils andinformation from the primary to secondaryschool. Ideally the transition subject specialistwould link and liaise with their equivalents inthe primary school to ensure pupils maintainprogress across the divide.What is apparent at present is that too manyschools adopt a 'bungie jumping approach'resorting to one off visits and tasters (whichcan actually contribute to studentdissatisfaction upon arrival in the secondaryschool) without considering key issues relatingto assessment, pedagogy, etc. No educationalsystem can afford to have children's attainmentand progress stand still (or worse still regress)with the subsequent side effects of de-motivation and underachievement. It istherefore heartening to see that the QCAnational schemes of work now contain atransition element, which is one short stepalong the long road in establishing coherencein pupil transition.The first cohort of trainees completing the KeyStage 2/3 design and technology coursegraduated in July 2000. They splitapproximately 50% going into primary and50% going into secondary (with one going onto teach in a Sixth Form College). Theirprogress is being monitored to see how theyimpact on pupil transition in addition to usingtheir experiences as a feedback mechanism forfurther development of the course.ReferencesGalton, M., Gray, J. andRuddick, J. (1999) TheImpact of SchoolTransitions andTransfers on PupilProgress andAttainment, DfEEResearch ReportKimbell,R., Stables, K.and Green, R. (1996)Understanding Practicein Design andTechnology,Buckingham: OpenUniversity PressMoreland, J. and Jones,A. (2000) 'EmergingAssessment Practices inan EmergentCurriculum: Implicationsfor Technology',International Journal ofTechnology and DesignEducation 10Ofsted (2000) Report ofa Survey of InitialTeacher TrainingCourses for the 7-14Age Range (Key Stage2/3), London: HMSOLJMUConferenceHandbook (March 2000)Changing Schools;Meeting the Challengesof Key Stage 2/3Transition, LiverpoolSchagen, S. (2000)Bridging the Gap? TheNational Curriculum andProgression fromPrimary to SecondarySchool, NFERBlunkett, D. (2000) NewDrive on SecondarySchool Standards,http://www.dfee.gov.uk!news/00/002

'Building Bridges or Bungie Jumping?' An ITT Response

https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JDTE/article/view/542/516

'Building Bridges or Bungie Jumping?' An ITT Response

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Library: Open Journals