Students’ perceptions of authenticity in an upper secondary technology education innovation project

Figures & data

Table 1. Implementation of phase 1 and phase 2 of the innovation project activities, respective durations (hours), calendar timepoints and descriptions.

Activity	hrs.	Activity phase 1	hrs.	Activity phase 2
Introduction	1–2	The students are introduced to the forthcoming project and form groups of three to four students. They are made aware that the task is to solve a problem that they identify themselves and that they are supposed to manage the process on their own with only scaffolding support from the teacher. (August)	3	Students form groups of two to three. The CEO of the Company presents some of the long-term challenges that they are facing. A workshop lead by a representative of the Company puts the students on track with the task. (August)
Project	15–18	Students start handling their own lessons. The teacher follows their work as a bystander but also offers advice, much as a senior co-worker could be expected to do. The teacher gains insights into the students’ way of thinking as they discuss possible solutions in the groups, potentially a seamless way of assessing the process. (January – February)	40	Similar to Phase 1. The teacher follows their work as a bystander but also offers advice. In Phase 2 there is less advice but at a more advanced level, often regarding local and municipal administration, and potential partners (companies etc.) for planned projects. In contrast to Phase 1, most of the work is done out of class and the total number of hours spent are often higher than the allocated 40 hr. (September – January)
Presentation	6	Exhibition at school. Open to visitors for four hours. An individual questionnaire after the exhibition is administered to capture students’ views on project authenticity (see Appendix 1). (February)	2	Pitch of the groups’ solution before a jury composed of representatives from the Company, an international IT company and the municipality, at the Company’s head office. (January)
Report	15	The individual report on the project must be submitted at the end of March. Each student receives feedback on the report and has the possibility to improve and submit again if required, in some cases multiple times. (February – March)	15	Individual reports are produced by the students. The demands for extent and quality of the reports are high. Despite this, resubmitting is not common as the demands are known and the students have had previous experiences of the task. (February – March)
Addendum	5	Each group decides on a name for their product, logotype and name of company to market the product as well as what kind of company form to choose. It is also possible to reflect on what the group has done so far and suggest improvements. Presented by the group to the teacher only. (May)	–	The course ends with the submission of the report. Group interviews with students are conducted after grading and a few days prior to student graduation. (June)

Table 2. Distribution of participants in phase 1 of the innovation project in 2016, 2017 and 2018 showing project year, number of project groups and participating students, associated ratio of males (M) and females (F), and number of questionnaires (and response rate).

Year	Project groups	Students	Ratio (M/F)	Questionnaires (response rate)
2016	13	50	47/3	36 (72%)
2017	25	91	73/18	74 (81%)
2018	21	58	48/10	47 (81%)
Summary	59	199	168/31	157 (78%)

Figure 1. Authenticity rating (%) per authentic learning element in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 student cohorts.

Figure 2. Box plots showing the distribution of perceived authenticity rating (%) for each cohort in year 2016, 2017 and 2018 (one outlier in the 2017 cohort).

Table 3. Results of the deductive phase of the interview data analysis showing representative student perceptions of authenticity in the learning environment of the innovation project.

Elements of authenticity (Herrington et al. 2010).	Examples of students’ verbatim responses representing perceptions of elements of authenticity in the learning environment.
Authentic context	Because it is a company that we did it for, it felt particularly important that we get the correct information […] (Bobby). When the CEO came, it felt like they actually believed in us (Fred). Yes, it was actually [interesting]. To test what working life is like. Trying everything out (George).
Authentic task	It felt like a real job, nothing that we did at school to get a grade. It felt like a job, an assignment we received from an employer. I think that was what made it engaging and fun (Eric). It felt like we were doing something for real. Because if they like the idea and it is possible to do it … it might become reality. So, it feels okay. It feels like not only theory, you get some experience as well. Often with schoolwork, it is theory. One does not get a direct experience […] (Harry).
Presence of expert performances	Anyway, it was good to show what you could do [when meeting with professional inventors]. What you came up with, and so forth. You got a little nervous, it felt like professional. And this is the first time we did something [like this] so it felt a little nervous. But it still felt good. We have worked with it for a few months, so you finally had to show what you came up with (Harry). We have checked a lot with the city office and with YIMBY [Yes In My Back Yard, a pro city-development movement], lots of pdf’s with facts [from] previous similar projects (John). We have checked with the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Transport Agency … yes, what to say […] Like primary sources (Bobby).
Multiple perspectives	I also think that, even if it was fun, I do think so, I also like to check things that you have never thought of. But I also think it was […] rather demanding, considering that there were so many different sources that gave different answers. So, I thought it was fun but challenging (Eric). We complemented each other’s knowledge in several different fields. So you might not be looking for batteries, then you searched for boats instead, but also that one had a lot of common sense when it came to … and then you often looked [it] up. If it was written in one place, then maybe it was so in another place as well. Confirming the sources (Ibrahim).
Collaboration	We had a good structure to share everything. […] And we had Google Drive and were able to work at home and everyone could see what the others had done. We communicated so well in different ways (Bobby). We [divided the assignment and] gave each other a share. Then we read through each other’s sentences and maybe built on it. […] It was a bit like you started in your own box, but you had to go into each other’s boxes and add and fix. It worked very well. We worked as sounding boards for each other (Ibrahim).
Reflection	I may not look at the idea in the same way as the other two do. Then we can give each other a response, which I think is very good with group work (George). It was a project from the Company, so there was some excitement as well. You thought about it. Yes, we [Harry and George], usually hang out with each other, so while going home we discussed it too (George).
Articulation	It was in any case one of the better presentations I have made. When you present to the class so … this felt more important. A real jury, real people, real company (David). The report was … a bit difficult because it would be so damn long. It was still a little fun to produce it because you learnt how to write it. But the most fun, the most important thing, was that we had to do [the project] and think for ourselves. The report was an extra thing (Adam).
Coaching and scaffolding	[…] then we met with them, from the Company – the CEO. So we talked to her and got some input, asked some questions […] Got help with starting an idea [that] we could work with. It made it easier to talk about, to start with (David). […] we [needed] a lot of input on how we should [proceed], what was needed […] How much was actually needed to be put [into it] in working hours. And then maybe you started directly and did not postpone it (Eric). Other people who knew their thing and who gave good and positive feedback. It felt great, that response because … that’s the difference between the curriculum and a real scenario. It felt better. Better feedback, I think (Bobby).
Authentic assessment	Those who were there [at the presentation at the Company] should be there. It felt like they were really listening, which made a big difference (Ibrahim). I almost thought [the report] felt more important. Mostly because I think that the presentation felt like a pitch, where one wanted to sell in one’s report […]. Because in the report, there were all the details that you worked a lot with. The subtleties (Ibrahim).

Note: Text between square brackets inserted by author to clarify verbatim responses.

Table 4. Results of the inductive phase of the interview data analysis showing five new emergent themes of students’ perceptions of their experiences of the innovation project.

Emergent new theme	Description of theme	Examples of students’ verbatim responses representing perceptions of their experiences.
Creativity	Perception of solving problems with task appropriateness and originality	It felt like using our creativity together. You choose a road, and somebody else comes along and says that this is maybe good too. […] In the end it will not be as you had imagined, but still better. Feels like the creativity came from everybody. Together it became a good idea (Harry). It was innovative. I thought it was very good and useful to learn. Not just the task but also the idea development […] (John).
Commitment	Perception of being committed to the learning process.	Maybe that is how much it differs from other subjects. Maybe more commitment that we see from people doing the courses. It is not a ‘do the time-course’ but one is active all the time. And it’s difficult … you can’t get away with doing nothing (Ibrahim). […] you learn more when you have to look up things yourself. […] You [cannot] just hang around just because the teacher doesn’t tell you what to do all the time. [A teacher] can help, but you have your own engagement. You do have to struggle to learn things and find out things yourself […] I think it is more instructive to find out things for yourself. That is how to work with it [the task]. (Adam)
Ownership of learning	Perception of ownership of thinking process and task.	But when they told you kind of this is how it should be, then you might not think for yourself. […] so instead of asking them, maybe you thought through it yourself. You thought it was your job, I thought it through myself (George). It feels like if we have had specific instructions […] then you [the teacher] would have done the thinking for us. And then we would not have learned how to think outside of the box … (John).
Motivation	Perception of involvement in and motivation for the task	[…] you [stayed behind] for a while [in class] because you just wanted to continue because you were in a good flow (Ibrahim). I think this is a real task. I still think that this is something that not only the Company is working on, but also many other companies around the world […] I just think we got a little involved in it now (John). It was a project from the Company, so there was some excitement as well (George). [Interviewer: Would a presentation in class have been any different?] Maybe not how you would have reported it (Charlie). But the experience … the feeling would have changed (Bobby). But it was specifically the CEO’s involvement in the project that showed that they really cared about this [task to solve] and about the students, and the students’ ideas. It had a very big impact on me anyway (John).
Real-world experiences	Perception of real-world relevance and experience	[…] in a few years when we present a project […] we will be prepared and have experience (George). Feels like the closest a school can simulate a real workplace task … (Ibrahim). It teaches one, not only that one learns to take on one’s own responsibility, but it prepares one for university (John).