Download pdf - Pupils’ Perceptions of Technology in the Secondary School Curriculum: a case study

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 27 October 2014, At: 04:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Pupils’ Perceptions of Technology inthe Secondary School Curriculum: acase studyAlun C. McCarthy a & Dennis Moss ba Department of Technology , Pen‐y‐Dre High School , MerthyrTydfil, Mid Glamorgan, United Kingdomb School of Education , University of Wales College of Cardiff ,42 Park Place, Cardiff CF1 3BB, South Glamorgan, UnitedKingdomPublished online: 02 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Alun C. McCarthy & Dennis Moss (1990) Pupils’ Perceptions of Technologyin the Secondary School Curriculum: a case study, Educational Studies, 16:3, 207-216, DOI:10.1080/0305569900160301

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569900160301

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0305569900160301

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569900160301

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1990 207

Pupils' Perceptions of Technology inthe Secondary School Curriculum:a case studyALUN C. MCCARTHYDepartment of Technology, Pen-y-Dre High School, Merthyr Tydfil,Mid Glamorgan, United Kingdom

DENNIS MOSSSchool of Education, University of Wales College of Cardiff, 42 Park Place, CardiffCF1 3BB, South Glamorgan, United Kingdom

SUMMARY This paper reports a study of pupils attitudes to Craft Design Technology (CDT),Technology (GCSE) and Technology A level in a Mid Glamorgan secondary school.Technology is regarded by the pupils as being intellectually demandng and having a high'employment value'. This seems to attract more able pupils (of both sexes) than would be thecase for other CDT subject areas. Pupils perceive CDT: Technology to have the characteristicsof Science subjects rather than those of Arts or Crafts. A significant proportion of femalestudents in this case study are attracted to study A level Technology and investigations arecontinuing to identify the underlying reasons for this.

Introduction

Historically technological subjects in schools have been regarded as low status, craftorientated subjects with a strong gender bias towards male pupils. The mainobjective of craft subjects in the 1950s and 1960s was to teach boys to correctly usewoodworking and metalworking tools with little emphasis on design or invention.

However, initiatives such as Project Technology (1967-72) and the Design andCraft Project (1968-73) did much to try and change attitudes to this area of thecurriculum (Eggleston, 1988). The then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, in hisspeech at Ruskin College in October 1976 expressed great concern about the need to"relate thinking about curriculum to the needs of British Industry" (Brennan,1977).

As a result of these and other factors, significant changes were brought about inthis curriculum area. The old craft subjects of Woodwork and Metalwork wereincorporated into Craft Design Technology (CDT), a new name to reflect a newphilosophy for the subject. The need to be creative and original was a requiredelement of the curriculum and, in order to foster such skills, this aspect of the CDTcurriculum was emphasised. However, until fairly recently, this new subject had

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4

208 A. C. McCarthy & D. Moss

failed to appeal to a significant number of female pupils and seemed also not toappeal to significant numbers of the most able pupils in any year group.

Through the last 20 years the needs of industry have changed. The traditionalapprenticeships available to woodwork and metalwork specialists have all butdisappeared and instead new technologies have developed. The need is forindividuals with experience of new metals, such as plastics, and of new technologies,such as information technology. Most importantly, the experience of managing adesign project from initial needs analysis to evaluation of the product is seen as acrucial aspect of the development of new small innovative industries. CDT has beenobliged to step away from its Craft base and to emphasise all aspects of the designprocess. Of the three components of CDT, Penfold (1988) believes that"Technology has the appropriate depth of subject knowledge potentially to wrestCDT from its nineteenth century origins and make it a meaningful study... especially for the academically more able". So today we have a subject which inmany respects has been transformed from what it represented a quarter of a centuryago. The recent National Curriculum proposals related to Design Technology as afoundation subject are likely to result in further development along this road.

Aims of this Study

(1) To identify the factors which influence pupil choice of Technology orCDT courses.

(2) To measure the overall perceptions of the pupil towards Technology interms of its usefulness, difficulty, interest etc.

(3) To ascertain the extent to which more able pupils are attracted to thesubject.

(4) To ascertain the extent to which girls are attracted to the subject.

Background to the Study

This study was carried out in a single comprehensive school, Pen-y-Dre in MerthyrTydfil, Mid Glamorgan. This particular school is an 11-18 coeducational schoolwith a large, active CDT department. At the time of the study (1988-1989) theschool acted as the Technology provider for all advanced level pupils in the MerthyrTydfil locality although some local schools continued to offer A level CDT. It wastherefore ideally suited for a case study on the perceptions of the pupils towardstechnology in the curriculum.

Pen-y-Dre comprehensive school offered Technology as a Common Syllabus(CS) subject (i.e. combined 'O' level and CSE later to become GCSE) in 1985 andoffered Advanced level Technology for the first time in 1986. In forms four andfive, GCSE CDT:Technology is taught to mixed ability groups while in the sixthform the lower and upper sixth groups are taught separately. Over the past decadethe school has been successful in attracting an increasing proportion of pupils toCDT related subjects in the fifth year as can be seen from Table I.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Pupils' Perceptions of Technology 209

TABLE I.

pupils as

MaleFemale

Percentage of all 5th formexamination candidates inCDT subjects

1979

451

1989

5420

TABLE II.

MaleFemale

A level enrolments

1979

00

for CDT

1987

71

courses

1989

1110

Apart from the overall increase, it is obvious that a significant minority offemale pupils now opt for this subject. This trend is reflected in A level enrolmentsas shown in Table II.

It was this trend towards CDT subjects and the obvious interest shown byfemale pupils which first raised our interest and inspired this study.

Methodology

A total of 40 pupils following Technology courses in years 4-7 were asked tocomplete a questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to measure their attitudestowards CDT:Technology (at GCSE level) and Technology (at A level) in termsof the following factors.

(1) Reasons for choosing Technology.(2) Perception of Technology in relation to other subjects.(3) Perception of Technology in relation to gender.(4) Differences in perception of Technology between GCSE and A level.

Different questionnaires were used for GCSE and A level pupils although thedifferences were merely cosmetic modifications to allow the questions to be directedon a course basis. Of 34 questionnaires circulated to GCSE pupils, 30 (16 frommales, 14 from females) were returned completed (approximately 90%) while 10A level pupils (seven males, three females) all returned their completedquestionnaires. The full details of the study are reported by McCarthy (1989) butthe main findings are reported here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Results

(1) Reasons for Choosing Technology

GCSE pupils were asked whether they would have preferred to study a subject otherthan CDT: Technology had the subject options allowed this. Only four pupils (twomale, two female) indicated this to be the case suggesting that, for the majority ofpupils, the choice of CDT:Technology was a positive choice. When asked what hadinfluenced their choice it became clear (see Table III) that the pupils exercised apersonal choice of subjects with few external factors having any effect, and thattheir perception of the "currency value" of the subject in the future was verypositive.

TABLE III. Reasons for choosing CDT:Technology

Interest in new subjectsNot interested in others on

offerTold to by parentsFriends opted for the subjectDo not care what option is

followedBelieve it to be useful in future

GCSE

53

000

22

A level

40

000

8

All males

51

000

18

All females

42

000

12

(2) The Influence of Years 1-3 on Option Choice

Pupils are, of course, likely to be most influenced in their option choice by theirsubject experiences in the lower school. When the pupils were asked how much theyenjoyed the CDT work in the lower school and whether their earlier experiences hadinfluenced their option choice for GCSE the responses were very positive. Over93% of pupils had enjoyed the year one to three programme with 50% of all pupils(64% of all girls) saying it was "very enjoyable". However only 37% of all pupils(50% of all girls) indicated that this had had a strong influence on option choice inyear four.

It would seem that in the case of CDT Technology at least, option choice isrelated to career prospects.

(3) Perceptions of Technology in Relation to Other Subjects

The perceived currency value of the subject was confirmed when the pupils wereasked to rate the usefulness of all subjects in helping to obtain employment. Pupilswere asked to rate all subjects on a five point scale of:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4


5=extremely valuable,4=quite valuable,3 = about average,2=of less value than most subjects,1= of little value.

The weighted mean responses to 33 subjects were calculated on a possible scoreof + 5 down to + 1 . The responses of males and females for the top 10 subjects areshown in Table IV.

TABLE IV. Male and female ratings of the employment value of subjects rated highest by all pupils

123456789

10

Females

MathsEng. Lang.Eng. Lit.BiologyChemistryPhysicsCDT^TechnologyComputer StudiesGeographyBusiness Studies

Score

5.004.714.643.793.793.793.573.433.073.00

123456789

10

Males

MathsPhysicsCDT: TechnologyEng. Lang.Computer StudiesCDT:Design CommunicationsEng. Lit.BiologyBusiness StudiesChemistry

Score

4.884.754.634.444.314.194.133.943.883.88

The very high ratings attributed to CDT:Technology by both sexes is anindication of the way perceptions of the subject have changed in recent years andalso an interesting indication of the female pupil perceptions of job opportunitiescompared to their counterparts of the past. Remember that Table IV shows theratings for the top ten subjects in a total list of 33 subjects.

The complete list contained subjects whose content reflected the older craftrelated subjects. Their position in the rank are shown in Table V where it can beseen that pupil perceptions are obviously related to the modern emphasis given todesign in the CDT: Technology course.

TABLE V. Pupils' ratings of CDT:Technology compared with traditional craftsubjects

CDT: TechnologyCDT design+realisationCraft Design:WoodCraft Design: MetalCateringTextiles

Male (rank of 33)

31315171623

Females (rank of 33)

71123222132

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Table V is one significant indication of how CDT: Technology is rated incomparison to other subjects. However another aspect relates to the level at whichthe subject is offered at GCSE. Craft Design:Wood and Craft Design:Metal have agrade C limit enforced by the examination system since they are equivalent to oldCSE courses rather than O level courses. Pupils were asked whether they wouldhave opted for CDT:Technology if it too had had a grade C limit. Verysignificantly, 60% of the GCSE pupils (50% of boys and over 70% of girls)indicated that they would probably not have opted for CDT:Technology with a Cgrade limit.

It would seem then that by increasing the status and value of the subject in thisway, large numbers of pupils became interested who would previously have seen theoption as limiting their career prospects.

This attitude was confirmed when the group were asked whether they wouldhave opted for craft-based subjects such as Metalwork or Woodwork or TechnicalDrawing if CDT Technology had not been available on the curriculum. Theresponses are shown in Table VI.

TABLE VI. Percentages of pupils who would take craft based subjects as analternative to CDT:Technology

Overall (%) Yes, male (%) Yes, female (%)

Metalwork 3.3 6 0Woodwork 33.3 25 43Technical drawing 63.3 75 50

These findings suggest greater potential female interest in some craft subjectsthan is suggested by CSE entries to these subjects between 1973 and 1983. This maybe due to the impact of the Women into Science and Engineering project (WISE,1984). However they also confirm that CDT:Technology is able to attract pupilswho are not prepared to follow craft related subjects.

The GCSE pupils were then asked whether they might consider opting forTechnology at A level. The responses were as shown in Table VII.

TABLE VII. GCSE pupils indicating the possibilityof studying Technology at A level

Male Female All

Yes certainly 6 8 14Yes possibly 7 4 11No unlikely 2 0 2No definitely 1 2 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4


The results show a very positive attitude to the subject indeed. However thispositive approach is not based on the facility with which the subject is studied.When asked to rate the difficulty of all subjects on a five point scale of:

5=very difficult,4=quite difficult,3 = about average,2=fairly easy,l=very easy,

then a surprising correlation between male and female responses was obtained asshown in Table VIII.

TABLE VIII. Difficulty rankings of the five mostdifficult subjects

PhysicsCDT: TechnologyMathsEnglish LiteratureEnglish Language

Male

3.193.132.882.812.44

Female

4.433.572.793.212.43

The overall picture which emerges is one in which pupils appear to opt forCDT:Technology because they personally believe that the qualification will beuseful in later life. They do this despite the perceived difficulties of the subject.Overall the subject enjoys high status within the minds of the pupils.

In order to investigate further the pupil perception of CDT:Technologyagainst other subjects, a profile of responses was constructed which asked pupils torate science, arts, CDT:Technology and other CDT subjects in terms of 16 skillattributes. Pupils were invited to complete such a profile separately for Sciences,Arts, CDT:Technology and for Wood/Metalwork subjects (CD, Metal and CDWood). The results are summarised in Figures 1-3 and we are able to see that theprofile for CDT Technology is a closer match to the overall profile for Science thanfor Arts or for Wood/Metalwork.

The weighted mean scores for these responses are summarised in Table IXwhich again demonstrates that CDT:Technology and Sciences are perceived in asimilar manner.

Most notably the influential factors which show close agreement are ability atMathematics, Science, Logical Thinking and Quick Thinking. These factors allscore very poorly for Metal/Woodwork pupils. The female pupils rated all factorsmore positively with respect to CDT:Technology than did the male pupils with theexception of the factor referring to language skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Good at ArtGood at English

LogicalWell behavedIndependent

Good with handsCautious

Quick thinkingGood at science

Good at languagesFriendly

UsefulKeen on homework

IntelligentHardworking

Good at Maths

-0.5 0.5 1.5

FIG. 1. Pupil ratings of Technology and Science subjects.








Good at Maths

-0.5 0.5 1.5

FIG. 2. Pupil ratings of Technology and Arts subjects.

Discussion

The data which have been presented here are of course simply a representation ofthe attitudes of a selection of pupils to Technology. We are aware that the sample isof limited size and drawn from only one school. However the consistency of theresponses over a wide range of questions does suggest that the responses are reliableand valid. However work is now in progress to expand the study to otherinstitutions offering Technology at A level to see to what extent the attitudesreported here are reflected nationally and to try and identify more precisely thefactors which influence such positive attitudes. At the same time the attitudes ofnone-CDT pupils are also being monitored to see whether their perceptions ofschool subjects differ in any ways from those of Technology pupils.

It seems to be clear that at least in this one particular school the subject has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4









Good at Maths

-1 -0.5 0.5 1 1.5

FIG. 3. Pupil ratings of Technology and Wood/Metal Craft subjects.

TABLE IX. Factor weightings attributed to subjects in Science, CDT: Technology, Arts andCDT:Metalwork/Woodwork by male and female pupils

Factor

Good at MathsHardworkingIntelligentKeen on homeworkUsefulFriendlyGood at LanguagesGood at ScienceQuick thinkingCautiousGood with their handsIndependentWell behavedLogicalGood at EnglishGood at Art

Science

1.61.341.00.241.571.0

-0.041.641.371.440.740.81.471.531.00.57

Mean

Arts

0.170.970.940.570.770.941.4

-0.040.470.430.270.60.80.771.170.8

weighting on a + 3 to

CDT: Technology

1.81.71.030.641.241.07

-0 .031.51.571.131.471.171.31.570.970.63

—3 scale

CDT:Metalwork/Woodwork

0.10.170.0

-0 .740.740.4

-0 .47-0 .34

0.20.131.970.070.030.2

-0 .071.07

been presented to pupils in a manner which has generated an attitude of respect andvalue for the subject among the pupils. We were surprised to find that peer groupand parents had an apparently small effect on the choice of Technology as an optionat GCSE and A level. The effectiveness of organisations such as the TrainingCommission and the Department of Trade and Industry in advocating the future

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4


importance of a technological education would seem to have been extremelyinfluential on this study group.

We should also bear in mind that the study school in question is located some30 miles north of Cardiff in an area of South Wales which has seen significantchanges in employment opportunities in recent years. The old heavy industries haveall but gone and been replaced by numerous examples of the so-called "sunrise"industries which exploit the very ideas and technologies which are featured in the Alevel Technology course. It is not so surprising then that pupils raised in an areasuffering from high unemployment should value highly a subject which must seemto offer a direct route to local employment. Our current research activities in thisarea are designed to investigate this aspect of pupil preference in more detail.

Two aspects of the work are of particular interest. The number of femalepupils opting to study Technology is very high when compared with otherinstitutions offering the qualification at A level and Pen-y-Dre probably representsone of the few institutions which has a balance of the sexes in the A levelprogrammes. At present we cannot identify any reasons why this should be so butwe are continuing to monitor the situation. A comparative study with the otherinstitutions will clearly help in this respect. The second area of special interest isthat CDT: Technology is perceived as an intellectually demanding subject by thepupils and this seems to have drawn more able pupils to the A level course thanmight have been the case in the past. Thus the choice of subject in this case may beseen as a combination of "employment value" and "academic credibility" whichplaces it on a par with Physics, Mathematics and English in the eyes of the pupils.

It would seem that we are seeing the beginnings of the target identified byUnderwood (1986) when he said:

We have now had a decade of massive pioneering work to establishrecognition in the curriculum of school technology... The necessity toestablish this recognition within schools is perhaps the most necessary partof our work.

REFERENCES

BRENNAN, E.J.T. (1977) The great debate: some personal reflections, Vocational Aspects of Education,29.

EGGLESTON, J. (Ed.) (1988) The Best of Craft Design and Technology (Stoke-on-Trent, TrenthamBooks).

MCCARTHY, A.C. (1989) Technology in the secondary school curriculum: a pupil perspective,unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff.

PENFOLD, J.B. (1988) Craft Design and Technology: past present and future (Stoke-on-Trent, TrenthamBooks).

UNDERWOOD, A. (1986) An integrated design and technology curriculum, in: A. CROSS & B.MCCORMICK (Eds) Technology in Schools, p. 335 (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:18

27

Oct

ober

201

4