Due Term 4, Week 9

Weight: 20%
Design & Technology
PROJECT PROPOSAL Teacher: Miss Reid

Year 12 E-Mail: [email protected]

Outcomes assessed Materials
H1.2 relates the practices and processes of designers and producers to the major design  PowerPoint, keynote,
project
H4.1 identifies a need or opportunity and researches and explores ideas for design Google slides or other
development and production of the major design project  Laptop, tablet
H5.1 manages the development of a quality major design project
H5.2 selects and uses appropriate research methods and communication techniques

Requirements
Rationale Font size must be no smaller than 12-
Part ONE: A designer is someone who identifies a problem, need, want or point
gap in the market and brings forward a solution. For your major design
project you must identify a need through research, and conceptualize a For the whole portfolio document you
solution for a product, system or environment, accompanied by a portfolio. are required to not exceed more than
For this first part of your MDP you are required to bring forward a Project 80 written A4 pages OR 40 written A3
Proposal with a number of headings listed below presented in a portfolio. pages printed on ONE side only.
This task shows the research and conceptualization stage of your overall
For this Project Proposal assessment
MDP.
should be equivalent to approx. 11-12
Part TWO: You must create a multimodal presentation in the style of a pages (A3)
business pitch similar to the show ‘Shark Tank’. You must sell your idea
and proposal to the class through a video, PowerPoint or similar equaling
around 8 minutes.

Portfolio Headings
1. Identification of the need
2. Exploration of the need
3. Final Design Proposal
4. Areas of Investigation
a. Cost
b. Materials
c. Existing solutions
d. Target market
e. Tools and Techniques
5. Identification of parameters and possibilities
6. Criteria for success
7. Time Action Plan
8. Finance plan
SAMPLE SCAFFOLD:
“Although formative assessment is useful for gathering evidence to be used as feedback to improve
learner performance, it can also be integral to effective teaching on a day-to-day basis.” (Booth, 2017)
Formative assessment is based on the works of Black and William (1998) where they have defined the
approach as a range of learning activities that are modified to reach ultimate student engagement
through working closely with students to recognise what stage of learning they are currently in, what
stage they should be in and how they can achieve that to ultimately improve future teaching and the
student to improve future learning. (Booth, 2017)

One of the founding members of the approach, William, explains that they may have made a mistake by
naming the movement using the word “assessment” as people think of exams and tests and they like to
think of the movement rather as “responsive teaching”. The Assessment Reform Group (1999) states
“The term “formative” itself is open to a variety of interpretations and often means no more than that
assessment is carried out frequently and is planned at the same time as teaching. It may be formative in
helping the teacher identify areas where more explanation or practice is needed. But for the pupils, the
marks or remarks in their work may tell them about their successes or failures, but not how to make
progress towards future learning” (p.7). Graduate Standard 5.1 of the Teaching Standards states
teachers must “Demonstrate understanding of assessment strategies, including informal and formal,
diagnostic, formative and summative approaches to assess student learning.” Highlighting the need for a
balance of multiple forms of assessment, not just exams and tests. This is imperative for teacher and
learner success. (AITSL, 2019)

It is imperative to have diagnostic tests in order to identify student capabilities but in order to explore
students’ full potential, informal testing should be taken into consideration in order to fulfill the goal of
“responsive teaching”. For example, like formative assessment has often failed in the classroom due to
the above-mentioned views of it not being a progressive approach to student learning, standardized
tests such as NAPLAN also do not leave room for differentiation among students due to the students not
being given ways in which they can progress in their learning goals. In the recent results for the
NAPLAN examinations, a gap can also be clearly seen between learners of Indigenous backgrounds
compared to those of non-indigenous backgrounds. Indigenous students often benefit from the
differentiation of assessments as well as curriculum and pedagogy, and especially achieve better results
and have higher engagement levels when learning about their culture, according to Quality Teaching
research. (Purdie, Ellis, Stone, 2004) Thus, why would we not take this into consideration when issuing
formative assessments such as standardized tests?
Ford (2012) shares that standardized tests, especially NAPLAN, is actually “culturally inappropriate”.
The test is not offered in indigenous languages therefore the test is seen to further benefit to the
interests of White people. (Ford, 2012) If a Teacher must differentiate school based assessments for
diverse learners in order to improve understanding and learning, but the same standard is not set for this
form of National assessment, then the necessity of the NAPLAN should perhaps be reconsidered. In
order for the full learning potential of students to be reached, they must be given the learning
environment to be assessed in methods that follow differentiated assessment strategies.

Leahy et al (2005) lists ways in which formative strategies can be more successful and effective on a
day to day basis, improving learner performance through approaches such as incorporating learning
intentions, success criteria, eliciting evidence of student learning, feedback, peer and self assessment. A
large emphasis on teaching practices is establishing the learning intensions, objectives and outcomes
and Sadler (1989) explains that student understanding of these intentions is paramount for students to
hold similar concept and same priorities to that of the teacher, where students receive the clarification of
the intended learning behind the tasks and projects they undertake. For example, sharing with student’s
ways in which what they are learning can be used across other areas of the curriculum and in their
future studies and careers to become informed citizens that can successfully contribute to society.
Sharing with students a success criteria and what a successful assessment task looks like provides
students with a scaffold and on-going reflection so that student learning can meet the intended goals. It
provides the opportunity for positive student teacher communication and meaningful feedback
surrounding how the student can meet the success criteria. Eliciting evidence of student learning is often
done through asking questions and often this is done verbally in a whole class setting, which can prove
problematic, as it doesn’t indicate each students learning. A more reliable example of student
understanding could come from online quiz’s using platforms such as Kahoot or similar, or asking
students to recall information using an exit slip. The teacher can use these results to diagnose effective
teaching and learning immediately and use the information to provide any differentiation that may be
needed before moving onto the next topic or task. (Booth, 2017) Sadler (1989) goes on to highlight the
importance of feedback and how it is imperative for effective teaching and learning: Feedback provides
teachers with information on levels of student knowledge and understanding as well as which skills have
been successfully attained or are still yet to be attained, it allows the student to ameliorate any gaps in
their learning; it is an aid for teachers in the selection and designing of suitable tasks or activities, and it
also allows teachers to alter or adjust teaching strategies and approaches in order to close any gap that
exists. Peer and self assessment is another essential approach as “students can only achieve a learning
goal if they understand that goal and can assess what they need to do to reach it” (Black and Wiliam,
2006: 15) Highlighting that it is imperative for learners to understand how to advance their learning as
well as their peer’s. The interaction of the aforementioned strategies provides opportunity for teachers
and students to recognise that the learning is following the indented objective and ultimately facilitating
Quality teaching and learning environments.

Another way in which schools are attempting to improve student outcomes and effective assessment is
through the integration of technology (ICT). New pedagogical frameworks that are being implemented,
such as Hunter’s (2016) High Possibility Classrooms, have been seen to “better align students digital
lives outside school with learning that is premised on inquiry, solving real-world problems and critical
thinking”, ultimately proving that creating formative assessments through the incorporation of ICT can
foster teachers and learners improved engagement to keep learning on track not only for now but for the
future. (Hunter, 2016)
As well as Hunter’s HPC, there are a number of other frameworks surrounding technology integration,
including ICOT and TPACK. Programs such as ICOT (Classroom Observation Tool) are a “good
example of a student-centered classroom where students create the learning, support their peers, and
direct the follow-up.” (Penchev, 2013). The TPACK (Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge)
framework has forced teachers and the education system as a whole to revaluate the ways in which
they are integrating technologies into their classrooms and how these digital and non-digital tools can be
used to increase student engagement. (Hunter, 2016) In order to create a “fresh conceptual framework
for technology integration… in Australian primary and secondary school classrooms.” Hunter used
research to build on these existing frameworks. Prensky (2011) highlights the difficulty of keeping
students engaged and encouraging participation of basic tasks but the incorporation of ICT into the
classroom is prompting an increased response rate among learners due to their “comfortability and
everyday use of technology”. According to Prensky, this generation of learners are considered “digital-
natives”, showing the need for stimulation though these types of technological pedagogies and the
positive results that follow. (Prensky, 2011) Highlighting students desire to improve and engage when
working with tools and tasks they are more familiar with. (Atkinson, 2000) Through Hunter’s framework
we are reminded that the accommodation and adaptation of diverse needs and the revaluation of
assessment strategies and pedagogical approaches is applicable to a wide range of KLA’s and is an
opportunity to explore issues such as the enrichment of subject matter, differentiation, increasing
creativity, among other approaches outlined. These approaches can specifically relate to the content of
Design and Technology, where it is impossible to have an engaged student body and successful
assessment results for teacher and learner without the integration of relevant and modern technologies.

In order for students “to develop confidence, competence and responsibility in designing, producing and
evaluating to meet both needs and opportunities, and to understand the factors that contribute to
successful design and production” (BOSTES, 2013), teachers must use assessment in a productive
way, incorporating strategies mentioned above to achieve ultimate learner engagement and successful
results.
References:

ACARA. (2014). 10 Facts About the Australian Curriculum [Ebook] (1st ed., pp. 1-10). Retrieved from
http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Australian_Curriculum_-_10_Facts.pdf

Assessment Reform Group (1999) Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. Cambridge:
Cambridge School of Education.

Black P and Wiliam D (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment.
London: King’s College School of Education.

Black P and Wiliam D (2006) Assessment for learning in the classroom. In: Gardner J (ed) Assessment
and Learning (2nd ed). London: SAGE, pp. 11–32.

Booth, N. (2017). What is formative assessment, why hasn’t it worked in schools, and how can we make
it better in the classroom? | impact.chartered.college. Retrieved 7 October 2020, from
https://impact.chartered.college/article/booth-what-formative-assessment-make-better-classroom/

BOSTES. (2013). HSC Design and Technology Marking Guidelines Major Design Project. Retrieved 7
October 2020, from http://web3.singleton-h.schools.nsw.edu.au/HSC%20Seminar%20Day%202016/
archive/2017/Presentation%20Notes/des-and-tech-st6-mgd-mdp.pdf

Butler R (1988) Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-
evolving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology 58(1): 1–14.

Department for Education (2015) Final Report of the Commission on Assessment Without Levels.
London: The Stationery Office.

Hunter, J. (2017). High Possibility Classrooms as a pedagogical framework for technology integration in
classrooms: an inquiry in two Australian secondary schools. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 26(5), 559-571. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2017.1359663

Ford, M. (2012). Achievement Gaps in Australia: what NAPLAN reveals about education inequality in
Australia. Race Ethnicity And Education, 16(1), 80-102. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/full/10.1080/13613324.2011.645570?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Guide to accreditation | NSW Education Standards. (2019). Retrieved from

http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/teacher-accreditation/how-accreditation-works/!
ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zijRwNzQw9TAy9LYxcDQ0cjb09fAyDfYyMHc30w1EV-
LtbABWE-
BuaGXmZG_mHmupHEaPfAAdwNCBOPx4FUfiND9ePQrXCwBzsAxMTb1M3A0N3c1N0BVi8SMiSgtzQ
0AiDTE8AplATXw!!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

Home | Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education Students | ACER. (2019). Retrieved
from https://teacheredtest.acer.edu.au
How the Standards are organised. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/understand-
the-teacher-standards/how-the-standards-are-organised

Leahy S, Lyon C, Thompson M and Wiliam D (2005) Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and
day-by-day. Educational Leadership 63(3): 18–24.

Sadler R (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional

Science 18: 119–144.

Penchev, N. (2013). Supporting Technology Integration in the Classroom. Middle Ground; Westernville,
16, 24-25

Prensky, M. (2011) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Do they really think different? On the Horizon,
9(6), 1-6

Project advice | NSW Education Standards. (2020). Retrieved 7 October 2020, from
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/stage-6-learning-areas/technologies/
design-and-technology-syllabus/project-advice

Purdie, N., Ellis, L., & Stone, A. (2004). Engaging Indigenous Students at School: An Evaluation of the
Deadly Vibe Magazine.

Wiliam D (2013a) Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from the
Middle 21(2): 15–20.

Wiliam D (2013b) Example of a really big mistake: Calling formative assessment formative assessment
and not something like “responsive teaching”. Twitter blog available at:
https://twitter.com/dylanwiliam/status/393045049337847808 (accessed 25 June 2017).