Construction Technology, Grades 10 - 12
Survey Results
Question # / Answer3. / 1. / If the construction industry is the focus there are so few university bound students taking construction courses this direction seems unnecessary.
2. / most students are not university bound
3. / The students we get are not university bound.
4. / I presently teach at a school that is considered a "academic" school. There are many students that enjoy and excel in the area of construction technology but often can not register in the course because they need the "U" courses to graduate. Many of the students I teach will move on to a post secondary institution and pursue a career in technology. They may become a trades person,architect or a engineer. Every year I lose the senior students(engineers) because they can not take construction technology because they need the "U" credits to graduate. By promoting construction technology as a "U" credit my program would get the credit it deserves.
5. / The content is clearer now than previously.
6. / i agree with this statement
7. / .
8. / allows students a stronger focus on Construction as it pertains to them at a university or college level. In other words, we will be preparing them better for post secondary versus apprenticeship education
9. / There needs to be a fundamental shift in thinking that the trades are only for the kids 'who can't'. This philosophy has been around for decades and has always been decided by academics and administrators who don't understand what is required to be successful in the trades - until they pay for someone who can't figure out the problem with their car, or can't fix their roof or properly build their addition! ACADEMIC students need to convinced that university degrees are often useless or don't lead to great paying careers. There are great business opportunities where workers and contractors can easilt make 6 digit figures.
10. / The designation change may attract students geared towards university that perhaps would not have considerd opportunities in technical education.
11. / This type of a change would enable a broader range of students to explore post-secondary destination options without limiting them to a specific pathway. It could ensure that students have a better sense of the opportunities and complexity of work in the construction sector.
12. / There will be insufficient students to support a University/College program in most schools. These students will lose out.
13. / Not sure what Universities offer for Construction--College seems more appropriate
14. / as long students wll benefit , and build their future .
15. / Opens up technology programs to students who want to attend university and will not sign-up for a course without a "u" attached to it. Thus increasing numeracy and literacy skills in those students who would normally steer clear from "c" tech programs.
16. / Risk losing the work place students?? Practical, hands on experience is an integral part of teaching technology.
17. / Colleges have learned to adapt to our shortcomings, students have a lack of basic definitions and history.
18. / By grade 12 most of my students are either workplace or college bound, the rest take my course because they share a love of woodworking. Most Students would not take a course if "University" was a descriptor.
19. / Any academic stream kids who are targetting university technological studies have zero room in their schedules for tech courses. You either have to bring back gr 13 or accept that students going into high education only have room to do the academnic prep in 4 years of high school. As a professional engineer with 20+ years of experience in the construction and facilities management fields I can say unequivocally that the role of high school for students bound for higher education is strictly to give them the academic skills, let them leard the practical skills in university, college or on the job site.
20. / need more focus on electricity courses too be taught in the grade 10-12 level for college / university streamlining
21. / many students would not take and there for benefit from taking a grade 11 or 12 course unless it will help them get into university. it would be a great way to encourage students to take the subject who may not normally consider it as an option. Many tech. courses have a more hands on approach to how things work and go together. this would be of benefit to someone who wants to go into engineering (as an example)
22. / I would like to see the the construction technology distinations be changed from "Work Place" to "Apprenticeship Preparation" to ensure students understand that the potential is bigger than just a job (workplace) but rather a bright future as a Tradesperson following their apprenticeship.
23. / There are similar programs being offered at both Colleges and Universities that the student may wish to apply to. Greater numbers of 'academic' students may take the courses which would enhance their future careers in subjects such as engineering and may expose them to learning, understanding and experiences that they may not otherwise have gained. Removes the stigma that tech students are not smart and the falicy that if you aren't good at academics, you must be good with hands-on work
4. / 1. / I like the idea of the course goal being a general introduction to WOODWORKING, not construction. The word construcion should NOT be included in any of the Gr.10 document. Students can specialize in either Furniture or Construcion at the senior levels. Leave out any reference to either area in Gr.10 and use Woodworking Technology or Wood Technology as a title of the Gr. 10 course instead.
2. / love the idea of cabinet making now in the curriculum
3. / Great idea to allow us to focus on cabinet making or fine furniture or house building.
4. / There has to be a strong push, Provincially, to educate guidance counsellors about the value of these courses within the educational plans of students.
5. / i think all construction courses should be the same.
6. / I was designated a Tech Design Teacher because the custom woodworking industry is unregulated. I would like to be deemed qualified to teach this subject area because I was trained to do all of the things you mention here. There has to be a way for someone to prove competency in this area because this is a new stream to broad based technology and asking a framer or a plumber to teach this will only hurt the students.
7. / kjh
8. / My department head attended this new curriculum presentation in Toronto and asked if there was going to be any 'meat' to this or are we just to expect the usual course outline information. It sounds that we are only to expect the latter. Why is this? Why, for one example, can't I expect a detailed unit on the most up to date building materials and methods used in the construction or cabinetmaking industries today. When other teachers I teach with have resources coming out of their ears (Science and French for example), why do technology teachers continually get so little?
9. / I have two concerns about the woodworking course within the construction umbrella. Was there not room to include a college destination course in this area? Many colleges (Conestoga, Humber, Algonquin, Seneca, OCAD and others) have courses with a woodworking focus. By emphasizing design and use of cnc equipment I think this could be a viable option. My second concern relates to the fact that some Faculties of Education have forced graduates with a woodworking background to accept qualifications in Manufacturing. There should be some acknowledgement of this fact and a grandfathering type clause that gives these teachers the appropriate Construction qualification without having to take ABQ and AQ courses.
10. / The breakdown to very focused programs will leave most schools with lack of shop space to support the program. Students will be disinterested in focus programs but do take and succeed in the broader based program now offered. I feel the new curriculum will lead to the closing of many Construction shops which are not equipped to deal with the changes. What about current teacher qualifications?
11. / Use differiented learning techniques to compensate the change in learning styles.
12. / Stop the miopic view of trades as a carpenter building a house, this overview is at a Grade 10 level, higher skills and knowledge need to be addressed in later years.
13. / I'm very excited about the custom woodworking course - I feel that this was missing from the previous document.
14. / The Custom woodworking course proposed is a great idea; this would allow me to focus on the renovation/cabinetmaking side. The breakdown of the construction courses into the different areas would allow Teachers to specialize in their areas of specialty. Thus providing a better course for student and Teacher.
15. / I like the more generic nature of the new descriptions but I am very concerned with the split of the college and workplace courses around the "engineering technology" title. Some of my kids wil eventually go to college but are not interested in getting an E level credit (this reads "tech for dummies" for most kids and parents). On the other hand it would be impossible, particularly in a small school to pidgeonhole a program aound one of the "engineering technology" focus area and maintain enrolement. We teach the current courses at the C level and I've been told that splitting the levels (C and E in the same class) is not going to fly. At a recent PD a rep from Algonquin college encouraged us to "teach our programs in such a way to maintain enthusism, college can take it from there". I feel that the new setup attempts to get us to teach content which is already taught at college. Many of my students are weak, lack basic skills and need several years to gain proficiency in such simple things as measurement, applied math, and communication skills. These kids are not academically oriented THOUGH they may apply to college AND be accepted. I don't believe that we should accept that our kids will always perform at a low level but that is the reality that I, as a classroom teacher at this point in time, find to be the case. The requirements to access the college system are minimal and the college level courses are to a great extent "dumbed down" even as compared to 15 or 20 years ago. In addition to this, my experieince in the electrical industry allows me to say with conviction that more and more the trades (ie target of the E level programming according to the curriculum docs) require higher level training in order to be successful in their trade, this means that although they don't need the "engineering technology" realted content of the C level courses, they need some of the old C level background to be successful in trade-school. To summarize, I like the broad generic categories in the the new system but the specificity of the C level courses leaves alot to be desired. Out of 60 or so kids I teach in a given semester only 6-10 of them would indicate to me that their aspirations fall within any of the "engineering" areas (construction managment, interior design etc.) LETS TEACH THE BASICS AND LET THE COLLEGES TAKE UP THE PROCESS FROM THERE. I agree with the fellow from Algonquin, lets teach to maintain enthusiasm an interest.
16. / It would be nice to include an area of emphasis on Art and Craft.
17. / the new curriculum has still not addressed being trade specific.. a new electrical pathway from grade 9-12 should be encorporated and empahsis on the college / university destination. with lack of trades this is a no brainer i would think you should be trying too tap into
9. / 1. / Leave out the words "construction sector" so as to not refer to a specific area of sepcialization. Instead use Woodworking Technology or Wood Technology etc.
2. / Examples of projects, complete with plans, should be readily available for all teachers. Budgets need to be increased to reflect the opportunity for the students to learn while doing.
3. / Large topics such as hvac and electrical are grouped in small sentances while the old overendanded topics are cut and pasted from the old document.
4. / These examples and expectation have much greater relevance to what actually hapens in the profession than in the previous curriculum
18. / 1. / good job
2. / We need funding to replace old equipment.
3. / This and the other courses within construction all have enough content for 220 - 330 hour credit courses (two or three credits each).
4. / Passport to Safety should be completed by each student.
5. / I didn't see much on the environment in the document. There is a huge opportunity to cover emerging technologies for energy conservation and also for understanding the need for sustainable building materials. Also, there is much evidence today of the effects of the materials in the home and health. This is another opportunity to point out the benefits of using certain materials on human heatlh in the longterm.
6. / great start for the trade.
7. / This is the same old song, woodshop for the high tech ontario, the trades and college will still have blank slates for apprentices.No higher learning or history of architecture. My highest concern is the lack of asbestos awareness in Health and Safety.
8. / I strongly feel that this is a more realistic curriculum
9. / Good work!
10. / Minimise expectations, focus on basics, let the colleges take it from there
11. / A wonderful improvement!!!!
25. / 1. / The option of emphasizing these new areas of construction are a good addition. Some may think each area must be covered. This would instill panic at the prospect of trying to teach such a variety with limited equipment.
2. / Project ideas and plans should be made available on a provincial level so that the plans can be adapted to local circumstances.
3. / They are specific and measureable.
4. / very good
5. / is a good idea when the course is develop by ppro in their own field
6. / keep it simple keep expectations low
36. / 1. / Some areas of the Gr. 11 course are too in depth for the grade level. The Gr. 12 course seemed very (too) similar to the Gr.11 course.
2. / ministry should be aware that teaching these courses will only succeed with having the proper infrastructure and up to date equipment.
3. / We need the funding to implement these courses, tools and machinery are expensive. Please do not promise funding and then not deliver ( TEERF , and TERRI ).
4. / This and the other courses within construction all have enough content for 220 - 330 hour credit courses (two or three credits each).
5. / Passport to Safety should be comleted by al. students.
6. / student will be the befenit
7. / Outside sources in touch with the modern workforce should be hired to build ciriculum. The current old guard are in no way in touch with the modern ontario, its focus on licenced trades or into developing a fresh approach.
8. / I believe this is the appropriate direction for us to be going with Construction Technology.
9. / "Workplace" doesn't mean "Apprenticeship". Apprenticeship candidates require greater foundation of skills and learning skills than someone who just works in the construction sector.
39. / 1. / bravo! Finally cabinetmaking back!
2. / Aloow for other areas of specialisation like set construction.
3. / This course will emphasize the design, fabrication and installation of cabinetry components for residential and / or commercial production. Students will gain hands-on experience by using a variety of materials, processes, tools and equipment commonly used in cabinet making. Students will interpret drawings, develop story sticks, make material lists, cut and assemble cabinet components with necessary hardware according to industry standards.
4. / no
5. / feed back from other teacher will be helpful
6. / Trim carpentry/built-ins:Where carpentry meets cabintmaking
7. / No
43. / 1. / yes
2. / More examples would help.
3. / Re you refering to the 2 sentances for electrical and HVAC?
4. / I felt that I understood what the expectation really meant.
46. / 1. / The level of depth of knowledge for the Gr.11 course is too detailed. Better suited for Gr.12.
2. / This and the other courses within construction all have enough content for 220 - 330 hour credit courses (two or three credits each).
3. / entertainment industry construction
4. / see writing team input
5. / will be study in detail for ideas
6. / We do not need any more material on residential housing, how about industrial or comercial????
7. / Structural Steel
8. / See # 39
9. / No
58. / 1. / The descriptor reads like a workplace hands-on course and the topics sound like an advanced type University course. The proposed possible areas of emphasis sound daunting to teach by most Woodworking/Construction teachers currently teching.
2. / This course will not run in a small school do not have enough engineer type students to be successful. Give this course to Science (physics)
3. / These courses have too much emphasis on theory for a course in which students learn by doing.
4. / sound great
5. / Cover the off as Overall Eopectations so teachers know what must be covered.
6. / make the curriculum generic and general, NOT specific. Most schools have a limited population of tech students with a broad range of interests, we can't teach such specific curriculum and still have kids interested in taking tech