Characteristics of technological outcomes

Small groups of students could be provided with a range of familiar objects (for example, concrete block, rock, pen, Weet-Bix, apple, plant, potato, potato chips, stick, walking stick, and so on) and asked to select which of these they consider to be technological outcomes – giving reasons for their selections. Some of the objects could be the same for each group to see if different groups categorise the same object differently.

Students discuss their reasons for selecting objects as being technological outcomes as a class, and the teacher draws out a shared definition of a technological outcome from these discussions. Students could be asked to select a technological outcome and describe this to the class while the rest of the students close their eyes. The remaining students then try to guess what the outcome is. The teacher models questions that get the students thinking about describing both the physical and functional nature of the outcome.

The teacher could then provide students with two sets of technological outcomes.

One set could be technological outcomes that have been developed for a similar purpose and environment but from different historical eras (for example, chalk, quill, pencil, pen, and handheld computer tablet).

The other set could include technological outcomes that have been developed for a similar purpose and in a similar era, but for different environments (for example, make-up brush, toothbrush, hairbrush, nail brush, hearth broom, and yard broom).

Ask students to describe the physical and functional nature of each of the technological outcomes and make links to how and why the outcomes within each set differ.

Students achieving at level 1 could be expected to:

• identify technological outcomes
• identify possible users of identified technological outcomes;
• describe a technological outcome in terms of what it looks like
• describe a technological outcome in terms of what it does.

 Students achieving at level 2 could be expected to:

• identify Technological Outcomes and explain how they differ to other objects;
• identify a Technological Outcome and describe the relationship between its physical and functional attributes; and
• describe the physical and functional attributes of a technological outcome, with the description implying who possible users may be.

Return to top ^

Students could explore two related examples of technological products and technological systems; for example, a billy and an electric jug, and a non-sprung wooden clothes peg and a plastic spring clothes peg.

Students could identify and explain why the examples could be called products or systems. Students describe the way in which the physical attributes of their technological outcome allows it to carry out the function it has been designed for, and suggest how fit for purpose each outcome appears to be.

Students could discuss how changing the environmental condition or the age of the users might impact on how successfully the outcome could be used.

The teacher could provide the students with a partially developed brief that includes a conceptual statement and the performance specifications for a technological outcome. Depending on the prior knowledge and experience of the students, these may be related to the earlier examples, (for example, a peg for keeping food fresh once opened) or completely unrelated.

In pairs, students explore a range of design ideas and evaluate these against the requirements provided in the brief as to how the technological outcome should function. Students could also discuss other functions that a modified version of the design could be used for by different people in different situations. A whole class discussion could focus on differences and similarities in the design ideas and link these to the relationship between the physical and functional nature of technological outcomes.

Students achieving at level 2 could be expected to:

• explain why technological products and systems can be described as technological outcomes
• describe the physical nature of a technological product and explain how this allows the outcome to function in a certain way
• describe the physical nature of a technological system and explain how this allows the outcome to function in a certain way.

Students achieving at level 3 could be expected to:

• develop designs of a range of technological outcomes that could provide a given function and describe their physical nature
• evaluate designs and explain which they consider could be described as a "good" or "bad" design.

Students achieving at level 4 could be expected to:

• identify the proper function of selected technological outcomes and suggest possible alternative uses
• explain what might happen to the outcome, the user, and/or the environment if selected technological outcomes were used to do things they were not designed for.

Return to top ^

Students could explore an historical event to explore why a technological outcome malfunctioned. For example, the Challenger disaster could be explored to develop student understandings about how proper function relies on the outcome being used in the context it was designed for, and changing this context can result in outcome malfunction.

Students could then explore the technological outcome they are currently developing (for example, a stool) in terms of its ability to function in a range of contexts (for example, used on different types of surfaces – such as wooden floors, carpet, concrete, and grass) and potential ways of being used; for example, being stood on, swung on, and/or supporting more than one person.

Students could discuss ways in which they could maximise the outcome's reliability and/or efficiency across multiple contexts. Particular attention should be paid to the implications of decision making that establishes acceptable operational parameters, and what evidence and reasoning students need in order to justify design decisions with regards to the physical and functional nature of their technological outcome.

Students achieving at level 3 could be expected to:

• describe the physical nature of a technological outcome they are developing and describe how it could function and why it would be suitable for particular users
• explain how changes to the physical nature of their outcome could enhance its fitness for purpose.

Students achieving at level 4 could be expected to:

• describe the proper function of the selected technological outcome
• explain how the technological outcome might be able to be used by end-users for purposes other than what it was originally designed for
• discuss the likely impact of using technological outcomes in alternative ways.

Students achieving at level 5 could be expected to:

• explain how explorations of their own outcome in various contexts allowed them to gain a deeper understanding of how they could modify their design to reduce user misuse and/or inappropriate environmental location
• explain the concept of malfunction, and use the selected technological outcome to illustrate the difference between malfunction and failure due to wear and tear
• explain why the technological outcome malfunctioned and identify changes in its design should you be developing the outcome today.

Return to top ^

Students select an incident where a socially significant technological outcome has malfunctioned, (for example, the Cave Creek platform collapse) and examine the reasons provided for the failure. Students explore, in particular, what physical and functional design elements appeared to be prioritised and how this was justified at the time of development and after the malfunction.

Implications of the event are explored in terms of subsequent technological outcome development and the development of, or modification to, codes of practice to minimise future risks. Lessons learnt from all events investigated in the class are summarised and linked to how technological outcomes and technological knowledge is enhanced through exploring the reasons for the failure.

Students identify an existing technological outcome in their local environment and analyse it in terms of its wider socio-cultural and historical context.

Suggestions for how this outcome could be modified to enhance it in some way could be explored and a feasibility study carried out to form the basis of a proposal for future developments. This could provide the basis for the student to undertake their own technological development in the future.

Students achieving at level 4 could be expected to:

• describe the proper function of the technological outcome that failed
• explain how the failure of a technological outcome occurred, and how this related to the relationship between its physical and functional nature
• explain what changes to the physical attributes of the technological outcome could have been made to better suit the intended user/s or physical environment.

Students achieving at level 5 could be expected to:

• explain the concept of malfunction and use the selected technological outcome to illustrate the importance of context on judging an outcome as fit for purpose
• explain why a technological outcome malfunctioned
• undertake a contemporary evaluation of the fitness for purpose of the technological outcome based on experiences and/or knowledge available now
• explain how the risk of a selected technological outcome malfunctioning could be reduced.

Students achieving at level 6 could be expected to:

• discuss how the technological outcome that failed was part of a socio-technological environment and how the interactions between the technological outcome, people, and social and physical environments impacted on the failure
• describe the socio-technological environment that surrounds the selected technological outcome and identify relationships between other technological product and technological systems
• discuss the impacts and implications of the way technological outcomes, people, and social and physical environments interact in a selected socio-technological environment.

Students achieving at level 7 could be expected to:

• explain how decisions about the physical and functional nature of a technological outcome that failed reflects the prioritization of certain design elements over others
• discuss how the failure of the technological outcome impacted on subsequent decisions for related technological developments and/or operational guidelines
• analyse the selected technological outcome in terms of how design elements have been prioritised
• establish an argument for the retention or redesign of the selected technological outcome.

Students achieving at level 8 could be expected to:

• critique the development of a technological outcome that failed in terms of decisions made about its fitness for purpose prior to and post its failure in situ and discuss how consideration of broader issues may have influenced the decision making
• provide a feasibility study for the future development of a selected technological outcome that could be improved to increase its fitness for purpose in the broadest sense; the argument should reflect a sound understanding of historical, cultural, social, and geographical influences and impacts.