Bee Aware Month - Bee on the Point

During the Christmas holidays, I was introduced to a neighbour that runs a couple of bee hives in the backyard and it had me thinking. With all the building on the Point, what are we doing to support the bees in the area?


How might we develop a campaign to get people to create spaces for supporting insect life on the Point. (Hobsonville Point) though others could come up with another slogan.

Design outcomes

• Logo development (Bee on the Point)
• Poster
• Brochure
• Graphics for packaging Design for seeds that could be laser cut into the package
• Video to support that could go on community facebook
• Infographic on counting bees - see below to be part of the Great Kiwi Bee Count

A range of software could be introduced as students would need to use different software depending on their outcome. This would involve some workshops for students to learn different design applications as well as training in how to design an outcome for the laser cutter. Cut and score lines.

While these are just suggestions to get ideas started. Students could come up with their own unique ways to include different Design Outcomes.

Students would need to develop an inquiry into what these could look like, as well as to research bee friendly plants, this could include an investigation into what different flavours could be developed of honey using specific plants.
Finding seeds that could be purchased to include in packages to the community for them to plant using the Design Outcomes.

Timeline
Would need to be created before Bee Aware Month September.

Counting Bees
The Great Kiwi Bee Count is like a digital census for bees and the trends it reveals will help apiculture scientists learn more about how bees and other pollinators are doing in New Zealand.

Best of all, it will take just two minutes of your time! Here's what to do:
* Find a plant in your garden or neighbourhood that's in flower.
* Go to The Great Kiwi Bee Count page on your smartphone or tablet.
* Count how many bees and other pollinators you see over a two-minute period.Copied from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/plan-bee/96169350/take-part-in-the-great-kiwi-bee-count

Ideas and resources:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/garden/94799038/join-nz-gardeners-plan-bee-register-your-beefriendly-garden-on-our-map
https://www.fortheloveofbees.co.nz/
https://www.pollinatorpaths.com/
https://www.fortheloveofbees.co.nz/schools-as-sanctuaries

http://www.treesforbeesnz.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/141390/TfB_2013_Flowering-Times-National-Level.pdf

Technology Scholarship 3%?

Over the past number of years, I have been looking at the Scholarship numbers and percentage and have been asking myself a question, why does Technology Scholarship seem to be always below the 3% that other scholarship subjects are.

Here is the Technology Scholarship data for the past 7 years.

	Scholarship Subject	Cohort	% Cohort Awarded Scholarship (including Outstanding)	Scholarship (excluding Outstanding)	Outstanding
2017	Technology	3979	1.73	59	10
2016	Technology	3898	1.64	54	10
2015	Technology	3990	1.43	52	5
2014	Technology	3650	1.56%	49	8
2013	Technology	1502	3	40	5
2012	Technology	1868	2.94	48	7
2011	Technology	1771	2.26%	35	5
2010	Technology	1538	3	40	6
		Scholarship		Outstanding Scholarship
		Mark Range	No. of Candidates	Mark Range	No. of Candidates
2017	Technology	13-18	59	19-24	10
2016	Technology	13-18	54	19-24	10
2015	Technology	13–19	52	20–24	5
2014	Technology	13-18	49	19-24	8
2013	Technology	12-19	40	20-24	5
2012	Technology	14-19	48	20-24	7
2011	Technology	14-19	35	20-24	5
2010	Technology	14-21	40	22-24	6

If you are wondering why I am pulling this data together it is to start the challenge and fight for the last part of the Digital Technologies curriculum puzzle,

It is since the changes in 2014 when the strands of Technology came into being. Before that, it was just the Generic Technologies standards. Since the strands of Technology came in, including Digital Technologies that is why the number increased from 1500 to now almost 4000 students. 

But have things gotten better with this...

The numbers say it all. From being 3% of the cohort to get Scholarship, we are now getting 1.5 to 1.7%. 

Funnily enough the NZQA scholarship results website states 

"The Technical Overview Group Assessment applies discretion in the setting of cut scores: The 3 percent criterion is applied with discretion of plus or minus 5 students. Cut scores are set such that all students at or above the cut score have demonstrated performance at the Scholarship standard.

*Note: There are reasons why the percentage of the Level 3 cohort achieving Scholarship is significantly higher for Latin than for other subjects:

• Latin has a very small Level 3 cohort. The large proportion of the cohort awarded Scholarship reflects this.
• Up to five candidates in addition to 3% of the Level 3 cohort can receive Scholarship in each subject. Because Latin is undertaken by a very small number of candidates and has a very small Level 3 cohort, this discretionary flexibility resulted in a high percentage of the Level 3 cohort receiving awards."

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/awards/new-zealand-scholarship/scholarship-results/overall-2017/#subject

But hang on, do I read correctly, "The 3 percent criterion is applied with the discretion of plus or minus 5 students." 

We have a 1.73% this year, no mention of why Technology has a lower percentage, even going back to previous years results, no mention of why it is lower than 3% criterion.

So I went back to 2016 in the data.

It seems that 173 students entered scholarship, 54 were awarded Scholarship and 10 were awarded Outstanding.

64 students were awarded scholarship. here is hoping my maths is right.

64 / 3898 *100 = 1.64%

Now to get the 3% cut off, 117 students would need to be awarded scholarship. That would mean that out of the 173 students did scholarship 56 would not be awarded. 

So maybe it is because there are not enough numbers entered.

However, I started checking out other areas of scholarship,

going with the same data from 2016

I looked at Photography

2016

Photography

3004

2.96

80

9

Photography had 284 entries in 2016

Ok, so they had an extra 101 entries above what Technology had, but they made 2.96% of the 3% criterion.

How for the past 4 years have we gotten less than 2%. Surely there is something wrong with the current system.

My question is, who sets the Technology Scholarship Assessment Specification, is it NZQA or is it the Ministry of Education. If it hasn't been meeting the requirements for 4 years now, what can be done to support the lifting of achievement for our students?

Is there PLD provided, to be able to support teachers/students to be able to reach the 3% criterion?

Why is there not a mention on the scholarship results webpage why Technology Scholarships do not meet the 3% criterion? Being able to provide a reason? 

Is there a possibility of providing what schools have obtained scholarships in technology for the past 4 years?

UPDATE:

Who sets the Technology Scholarship Assessment Specification?

The NZ Scholarship Technology Scholarship Assessment Specification is set annually by NZQA, in consultation with the Panel Leader.

If it hasn’t been meeting the 3% criterion requirement for 4 years now, what can be done to support the lifting of achievement for our students? 

The annual Scholarship Assessment Reports comprehensively describe the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful scholarship submissions. I have attached a copy of the 2016 Assessment Report available on our website. The 2017 Assessment Report will be available for teachers and students at the beginning of term 2. In addition, where possible, we publish annotated exemplars which teachers and students can use.

All NZ Scholarship resources published on our website can be found at: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/awards/new-zealand-scholarship/scholarship-subjects/scholarship-technology/

Is there PLD provided, to be able to support teachers/students to be able to reach the 3% criterion?

NZQA is not resourced to provide PLD to support teachers and students. PLD is generally organised through school clusters and subject associations.

Why is there no mention on the scholarship results webpage why Technology Scholarships do not meet the 3% criterion? It would help being able to provide a reason? 

"The Technical Overview Group Assessment applies discretion in the setting of cut scores: The 3 percent criterion is applied with discretion of plus or minus 5 students. Cut scores are set such that all students at or above the cut score have demonstrated performance at the Scholarship standard."

Candidates entered for New Zealand Scholarship Technology must meet the Scholarship Performance Standard (93601). They are assessed on their ability to demonstrate high-level critical thinking, abstraction and generalisation, and to integrate, synthesise and apply knowledge, skills, understanding and ideas to complex situations. (http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/awards/new-zealand-scholarship/)

Candidates who have met the criteria given below can be considered for Scholarship or Outstanding:

Scholarship Performance Descriptor

The student will demonstrate aspects of high level:

·         analysis and critical thinking

·         integration, synthesis, and application of highly developed knowledge, skills, and understanding to complex situations

·         logical development, precision and clarity of ideas.

Outstanding Performance Descriptor

In addition to the requirements for Scholarship, the student will also demonstrate, in a sustained manner, aspects of:

·         perception and insight

·         sophisticated integration and abstraction

·         independent reflection and extrapolation

·         convincing communication.

Technology Scholarships to date have not met the 3% criterion because less than 3% of  the entries have demonstrated performance at the Scholarship standard i.e candidates have not gained a minimum score of 13 out of a total of 24 marks available (Scholarship) or a minimum of 19 out of the total marks available (Outstanding). 

The decrease in the percentage of candidates who have been awarded Scholarships in Technology since 2013 is consistent with the increase in the cohort numbers.

I have been going through the numbers that NZQA have provided.

While we are a new contender to the Technology Scholarship, I would think after 4 years that there would be better stats to help encourage teachers. 

What I am thinking about at the moment is... This goes to show that the current technology scholarship is not meeting the digital technologies area and that a separate scholarship needs to be created to handle this. 

I am currently writing a response back.

Out of the 104 entries for digital technologies, only 23% of the students were awarded a scholarship. While I have read through all the material that has been provided, is there going to be guidance from the panel on how this could be improved for digital with such a poor percentage awarded. There seems to be way better opportunity for Textiles and Food to be awarded scholarship,

What should the equitable return theoretically be?

Sounds like a good one for my Spiral of Inquiry

Getting to know technology scholarship and what this means for students this year. How can I improve in the way that I teach/feedback/feedforward students towards technology scholarship.

Changing mindsets including my own

I started a class that is looking at creating 3d printed objects with the idea of how do we do recycling better in our school. This was supposed to be a way to get students investigating and seeing what the bottles that they drink from are made of and what happens to them afterwards.

The recycling bins at school

Just some of the bottles that we looked at. Interesting that the Powerade bottle had no markings showing what number recycling it was.

However, it has carried on, students are designing new ideas and bins through tinkercad on how these could actually be made and work. There has been one conversation that keeps going, it is around why not promote recycling through a gamification.

An idea from overseas.

However the students want to link towards the TimeOut Zone idea, where you get to play for tickets and get something from it.

Collect a number of tickets and you get a hot wheels car or lego set/piece.

Interesting ideas, However for a commercial crusher is $6,000.

I also got sent this from one of the parents tonight, who engages with her son on the learning at school.

Bottle and can crushing machine aids charities and environment 

The reverse vending machine
http://www.abc.net.au/radio/brisbane/programs/breakfast/reverse-vending/8529710

There is also what DB Export are doing, where they are turning bottles into crushed sand.

I continue to challenge the ideas, but also in the back of my head, I am saying, why are we not trying to do this, how can we do this, it is possible, and can raise awareness.

Not just a 3D printed object

Good evening,

There was a post on the digital technologies group this week;

Has anyone got a Level 2 assessment that could include 3D printing? It doesn't need to be DT standard. Could be Generic or other.

as well as

I have access to a small 3D printer for the first time this year. I would love some ideas for my Year 10 class on items they could make in SketchUp and 3D print. So far they have printed their name and a little person which I found the idea for on www.thingiverse.com. I would like to utilise the printer more and would love to know what others are doing. Any ideas, advice? Thanks

It is great to see teachers starting to embrace new technologies in their classroom. This started a conversation at school around how do we use 3D printers, is it an outcome that people just want to develop? or should we be looking at the innovation, engagement with learners, inspiring students to look at social good?

I have a students in my WALLE module, LEGO EV3 robotics where students are developing concepts of understanding of automated systems. This students loves to have something tactile with him, it is a way of him being able to concentrate better in class.

Another student has tactile putty with him and is developing his own spinners. Both of these students have some form of learning difficulty.

 

 
We have talked about fitgit cubes and other outcomes throughout the year, but when these emails came through, I started to think, not only of our students who are in our classrooms, but other students as well.

How could Technology Achievement Standards work to help students develop an understanding of their fellow students, but also assist to help better learning outcomes.

Through our Innovate Learning Environment I was able to go have a conversation with them about the idea. It just so happened that most of the gear on the desk was yo yo's fidget spinners, tactile putty, it helped the conversation start. What amazed me was that the class went quiet while the students spoke, the teachers, teacher aides and other students all started listening to what was being talked about and said. Some teachers also talked about how they have had to adapt to change as normally they would have banned these items from class. However through the conversation that we were having, it highlighted how its helped them to concentrate. How it was different from the pen clicking and the finger strumming.

Some of my thoughts that have lead me to this idea.
The ideas come from my students around concentration, entertainment, keeping focus, tactile, simple rather than complicated, Quiet (imagine clicking the pen, or tapping fingers)

The ideas come from the fidget widget, yo yo's, tactile putty, spinners. This is not around a distraction, but as a way to help them maintain focus within the classroom.

Stakeholders can be the ADHD kids in class or school.

Looking at the prototyping assessment for Technology Level 2 - Prototyping, allows for this type of development to happen. It could be used at other NCEA Levels as well.

Developing a Resource called the fidget widget.This assessment activity requires you to make and trial a prototype from a teacher-approved brief. The prototype is to develop a design outcome that helps students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Poor Gross Motor Control (Weak muscles, struggle to do activity for a long period of time).

Upon completing this activity, you will submit:

• your prototype
• evidence of how you selected suitable materials, components, tools, and equipment
• evidence of how you used the results of ongoing testing and stakeholder feedback to make and refine your prototype
• evidence of trialling your garment to justify its fitness for purpose, including an explanation of any decisions you made to accept and/or modify your prototype.

Developing an idea for a need or opportunity is what Technology is about. The Technology essence statement:

Technology is intervention by design: the use of practical and intellectual resources to develop products and systems (technological outcomes) that expand human possibilities by addressing needs and realising opportunities. Adaptation and innovation are at the heart of technological practice. Quality outcomes result from thinking and practices that are informed, critical, and creative.

Technology makes enterprising use of its own particular knowledge and skills, together with those of other disciplines. Graphics and other forms of visual representation offer important tools for exploration and communication.

Technology is never static. It is influenced by and in turn impacts on the cultural, ethical, environmental, political, and economic conditions of the day.

When you read the statement and think about what the idea is about, students can see opportunities and start to think of the ideas, rather than just develop a 3D printed outcome.

I attach the following Technology_Level_2_Prototyping Achievement Standard Assessment, it would have to be modified to work within your school, but I hope it would provide an idea of the potential for students.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7XxvF_5OWc_Y0gwbHNOclBVaGdhZHdSeTlNZ3JIWHdiQ1Vv

Lower levels

Since we are looking at technological products from the curriculum have developed a focus around transformation and manipulation of plastics. First we are looking at the different filaments that can be used, how they are made and the lifecycle of them.

This then leads to an activity that is being developed by the Print Lab, Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/weareprintlab/
In this lesson plan, students will design and 3D print a 1:50000 scale model of Mount Everest and its surroundings. Each student will be assigned a contour map to analyse before designing it in 3D and preparing it for 3D printing. 16 tiles will be created that assemble to form the 3D contour model.

This leads to a social good project around community and infrastructure, similar to getting students interested in their community project that happened in Christchurch a number of years ago that led to the the Margaret Mahy Playground being formulated and constructed. What is it that students see as needed in their community. This is getting students to look at what is required as part of a community, where it should be placed. This is getting students to create concepts, prototype and refine their designs that they will develop their classroom community for as each student will be required to develop a different part or function.

Another idea is to look at individual towns/cities of New Zealand and find the symbol that they are famous for, develop a map of New Zealand and use the 3D Printed symbols to help students identify the town/city.

Hope this gives you some different ideas.

Integrating drama and technology

Over the past semester, I have been working with an integrated module, NOGRAM, linking drama and technology.

Planning document

We have been looking at how to create resources and ideas for teaching year 5 students aspects of computer science. Students investigated ideas from the csunplugged.org website, as well as differing activities within class.

Today was the learning and teaching aspect of this, where students got to teach another group and discuss their resources.

What was put on the board weeks ago.

 

Here are some of the photos from today's teaching lessons.

What has come out of this...

 

 

  

 





Some of the discussion at the end,

One of the fantastic resources one of the students has made, though need to get them to share the documents that have been created in google drive.

It is great to see this on the csunplugged.org website