From: Doug.Purdy@f19.n267.z1.fidonet.org (Doug Purdy)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.tech
Subject: Tech ed
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 09:05:18 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:267/19 - QMS Connection, Queensbury NY

 > Hi Doug.
 > Interesting reply. Sounds as if you would like to see
 > technology taught more on the top level without some of
 > the older basics first?.

Older basics? hmmm. I am not sure what you mean? Shop skills like material
 processing? I would say that I still do that. {Remember I teach middle school
 whose thrust is generic rather than occupational}. I teach only the material
 processing skills necessary to complete whatever problem solving method. Let
 me explain how my course evolved into this. We have 10 modules (units). 5 in
 7th grade and 5 in 8th.

Here is a list of module titles followed by some examples of activities we
 use.

   * 7th Grade *
History of Technology -Research on a CD-ROM and make a display
Resources of Technology - Play a game and research global resources
Problem Solving With Technology - Solve Problems by making model solutions
Systems of Tech... - Assemble. and use open and closed loop systems
Impacts of technology On People and the Environment - Recycle Paper

   * 8th Grade *
Choosing Resources for Technology - Test a product and compare to others
Processing Resources for Tech.. - Process Energy, Info, Materials ex Desktop
           Publishing
Controlling Technological Systems. Program and operate closed loop
    systems with various sensors.
Impacts of technology on Society and Occupations - Occupation report, future
forcasting.
Problem solving with systems.

One example is that for history, we use to have the kids make a bow saw as an
 example of a historical tool. 4-5 weeks later, they are putting the finish on
 and we figured out that we were making a buck say not a bow saw. Well, now we
 used over 1/4 of the course to teach less than 1/5 of the data. It seemed a
 little like industurial arts. We tend to use modeling materials now. We have
 lost the make and take aspect in its pure sense, but they just as proud of a
 well designed vehicle made out of LEGO parts and programmed to operate on a
 computer as they were the more traditional products.

 > Hopefully I will be teaching full time next year and here
 > in N.S.W, we are implementing the new Design & Technology
 > syllabus. This document and the support material that
 > comes with it, is lacking in one area. Disadvantaged and
 > students with learning difficulties. To make the subject
 > interesting and therefore hope to stimulate some form of
 > cognitive retention, it has been taught on a hands on,
 > experiential level.

That is the only way. We forget what we see, we learn what we do. And if you
 really want to be sure you know it, you have them teach it to someone.

 > I am very interested to find out ways teachers have used
 > to modify this antiquated style.

I hope you are not saying anitquated for hands on. My course is 75% or more
 hands on. It is the only way to learn. I believe it is the change that is
 necessary for our system. Science is leaning more towards hands on here and
 others should follow. CCT (chapter, chalk, and talk) is outdated now a days.

For students who do poorly on the academic part of the course, we simply base
 most of our evaluation on their achievement hands on.

Doug



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!267!19!Doug.Purdy
Internet: Doug.Purdy@f19.n267.z1.fidonet.org