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

ABSTRACT

Background

Authenticity in schools has been highlighted as important for improving students’ engagement and learning, and to prepare them for future job markets, especially in science and technology.

Purpose

This study investigates students’ perceived authenticity of a developed innovation project when implemented in an upper secondary technology education program.

Sample

Three cohorts of students (n = 199) attended a first-year technology course at a Swedish upper secondary school in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. In addition, eleven students from the 2016 cohort were interviewed two years later to obtain their views on how the innovation project in the first-year course influenced their performance in a subsequent advanced technology course taken in 2017–2018.

Design and Methods

Groups of students participated in the first phase of an innovation project in the first-year course, a five-week module, cooperatively designing solutions to real-world problems. A Likert scale questionnaire measured the degree of perceived authenticity in line with Herrington, Reeves and Oliver’s (2010) key elements. Focus group interviews were conducted after the second phase – a 20-week follow-up module in the subsequent advanced course – about how authentic they perceived the first and second phases to be.

Results

A questionnaire measured the degree of perceived authenticity of the students for the first phase, for each of the three years. Coaching and scaffolding received the highest ratings across all three years, whereas Reflection was perceived as having the lowest authenticity. In a qualitative component of the study students found both phases positive, and five new themes of students’ perception of their experiences were revealed.

Conclusions

The similarities in perceived authenticity between the three cohorts suggest consistency in students’ perceptions of authenticity. However, they did not feel that the project gave them the opportunity to reflect on their learning. According to interviews conducted two years later, they perceived their experiences of the innovation project as having induced creativity, commitment, ownership, motivation, and real-world connection, although at times it was also a challenge to think for themselves and to collaborate with others.

KEYWORDS:

• Student perceptions
• authentic learning
• innovation
• technology education
• high school

Introduction

From the standpoint of the child, the great waste in the school comes from his inability to utilize the experiences he gets outside the school in any complete and free way within the school itself; while, on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school. That is the isolation of the school—its isolation from life. (Dewey 1900, 89)

The quote above is from an observation made by John Dewey in 1900. A century later, Hill and Smith (1998, 32) found the situation to be surprisingly similar: 'Education for the new millennium must provide authentic educational experiences for our youth. Closing the gap between school life and workplace life is an important step in this direction.' These similar observations made one hundred years apart still largely reflect schooling in the current millennium.

Authenticity and authentic learning are described extensively in the literature, but with a major caveat – there is no universal and clear-cut definition for what specific elements constitute authentic learning or authenticity per se. From the introductory quotes we can deduce that applying what has been learnt in school in daily life or bridging the gap between school life and a real-world workplace, represent two definitions of authenticity. Shaffer and Resnick (1999) identify four related ‘kinds’ of authentic learning, namely, i) learning that is personally meaningful, ii) learning that relates to the real world outside school, iii) learning that relates to a particular mode of a discipline, and iv) learning where the assessment reflects the learning process. However, not only are there disagreements around definitions for the term authenticity but also for whom education should be viewed as authentic (Anker-Hansen and Andreé 2019). Teachers’ perspectives and the perspective of technological praxis (e.g. engineering) of authenticity are two valid alternatives (Turnbull 2002). However, students’ perceived authenticity is perhaps most valid, and for them authenticity is also a motivational variable (Behizadeh 2011; Behizadeh and Engelhard 2014) because, as Ryan and Deci (2000) assert, ‘intrinsic motivation results in high-quality learning and creativity’ (p. 55).

Nevertheless, previous studies have found for instance, that despite teachers insisting that innovation projects are authentic, they still find it difficult to motivate students because the students themselves do not view the activities as authentic, nor do they connect them to future technology-related everyday activities or professions (e.g. Rees Lewis et al. 2019). Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane (2000) also found in their study that introduced a space mission project in the classroom that ‘student learning was anchored around a mock space shuttle mission […] In spite of this complex and weeklong activity, most students viewed the actual simulation more as a theatrical event as opposed to an opportunity for learning’ (p. 90). Thus, even ambitious, well-defined authentic projects may fail if they do not take students’ views of what is authentic into account. This can affect both the genuine feeling of a connection to real-world activities, and how students react to classroom activities in themselves. There are studies such as those by Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane (2000) that have attempted to move from merely assuming that certain learning environments are authentic to empirically investigating students’ perceptions of authentic contexts. However, there are few technology and STEM education studies that systematically investigate authentic learning from the students’ point of view.

In pursuing this gap, the present study takes students’ perceptions of authenticity as its starting point, for although students should not be the arbiters of what is authentic or not, it is still the case that it is the students’ everyday life and future workplace that constitute the targets of authentic learning. A socio-cultural conception of authenticity is defined as students’ participation in practices and activities of professional scientists and technologists, or activities that correspond closely to these practices (see Murphy, Lunn, and Jones 2006). Therefore, authentic learning in school, ‘should provide experiences that are more in line with the sorts of activities that scientists and technologists do in the real world of science and that such experiences should include student-directed tasks and more open-ended enquiries’ (Braund and Reiss 2006, 1375–1376). Such tasks share many similarities with Project-Based Learning and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in contexts such as engineering projects (e.g. Barak 2020; Chen, Kolmos & Du, 2020; Edström and Kolmos 2014).

The above-mentioned socio-cultural conception of authenticity forms the basis of a research program to study authenticity from the point of view of students, in relation to an innovation project in upper secondary school technology education. In a similar vein as in PBL, Herrington and Oliver (2000) unpacked key aspects of authentic learning for students, and in 2010, Herrington, Reeves and Oliver went on to define these aspects as nine elements of authenticity of learning environments. We mapped characteristics of these nine elements onto the design of an innovation project, and in support with associated literature, aimed it at upper secondary technology education students:

• Authentic context – Preserving the complexity of a real-life setting. Ideas can be explored at length. The learning environment should provide a context that students perceive as authentic by representing how knowledge will be used in the real world (Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Martens 2005; Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

• Authentic task – Real-world relevance. Requires production of knowledge rather than reproduction. Students may perceive a task as more authentic when it is presented as a process of discovery and is personally relevant (e.g. Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

• Presence of expert performances – Access to experts or to the way an expert or professional would think and act. Students often learn better from someone better than them. Perceiving learning situations as authentic will require involving role players outside of the formal classroom in representing how real-world problems are tackled (e.g. Rees Lewis et al. 2018).

• Multiple perspectives – Different perspectives on the topic of the innovation project. Information from a multitude of available sources. When students can contrast information and knowledge from different perspectives, they might perceive the task as more authentic (e.g. Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

• Collaboration – Task performed in groups. Appropriate incentive structure for pursuing whole-group achievement. Social interaction and debate during problem solving is important in perceiving the learning environment as authentic (e.g. Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

• Reflection – Opportunities to reflect and compare the output of the project with other students and experts. Students may perceive learning as authentic when they are able to reflect on their learning (e.g. Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

• Articulation – Public presentation of arguments behind a project to enable defence of position and ideas.

• Coaching and Scaffolding – The teacher’s role is supportive, rather than simply transmitting knowledge. Collaboration where more able partners can assist. Students’ perception of an authentic learning situation is favoured when teachers are guides and scaffolders rather than information transmitters (e.g. Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

• Authentic assessment – Seamless integration of assessment and task. Crafted finished products or exhibited skills rather than exercises or tests (Herrington et al. 2010; Svärd, Schönborn and Hallström). Students may be less likely to perceive a learning task as authentic when traditional grades are used to evaluate performance (Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000).

Many of the above elements of authentic learning are being increasingly highlighted as key concepts in relation to how nations and companies can compete effectively (Chris et al. 2005; EU (Council of the European Union) 2008; Hart 2006). It follows that many of these concepts have also taken central stage in school curricula reform in the Western world in recent years (e.g. Cachia et al. 2010; Teknikdelegationen 2010), and are often manifested in perspectives such as the ‘21^st Century Skills’ movement (Battelle For Kids, n.d.; Rotherham and Willingham 2009). Technology is viewed as a subject that not only requires, but also promotes, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation (Gómez Puente, van Eijck and Jochems 2011; Skolverket 2011; Svärd, Schönborn and Hallström), which are all seen as potential components of authenticity and the basis for the project in focus here.

The aim of this study is to investigate students’ perceived authenticity of a developed innovation project when implemented in an upper secondary technology education program. Specifically, the following research questions are posed:

• How, and to what extent, did students perceive the innovation project as authentic?

• What themes around perceived authenticity did students reveal in focus group interviews following the innovation project?

The innovation project and its implementation in a technology education program

An innovation project can take many potential forms. Implementation of the innovation project in the current study was underpinned by a problem/project-based learning (PBL) approach, where students’ solving of authentic, real-world, complex, and open-ended problems are placed at the forefront (Edström and Kolmos 2014). The characteristics of the project correspond to Chen et al.’s (2020) synthesis of PBL practices at the curriculum and project level. In this regard, salient characteristics of the project included solving problems collaboratively in small student groups, and solving problems which are student defined, or inspired from real stakeholders (e.g. companies or municipalities). From a learning skills perspective, high importance was placed on promoting collaboration, creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and communication. Additionally, in further correspondence with a PBL perspective, methods of assessing learning outcomes included expert appraisal, group oral presentations, design reports and group discussions.

Before entering the main part of the technology project, it was necessary for the students to first acquire basic generic and technology-specific knowledge and skills. These include problem-solving skills, basic insights in material properties and processing, and fundamental drawing techniques, including the use of Computer-Aided Design, CAD. Students were encouraged to plan their own work, adopt their acquired skills and knowledge, and test their abilities in an authentic real-life project. The nine elements of authenticity (Herrington n.d.; Herrington et al. 2010; Svärd, Schönborn and Hallström 2017a) were mapped to the project context.

The study was made up of two different phases: one in grade 10, the first year of upper secondary education, as a part of the mandatory Technology 1 course (Teknik 1, in Swedish), and the second one in grade 12, the third year, as part of an elective advanced technology course, Technology Specialization (Teknik Specialisering, in Swedish).

Phase 1 of the innovation project was implemented at the school that the first author taught at (Table 1). The main component consisted of a five-week period when the students spent more than 20 hours of the total allocated teaching time of 40–45 hours, on the project. The students worked collaboratively in small groups, usually comprising of three or four students that were tasked with solving a real-world problem of their choice. Any problem that appeared to lack a trivial solution was encouraged as a starting point. Specific instructions on how to proceed were not given. However, within the scaffolding support offered to the students, advice was offered as one could expect from a senior colleague or mentor regarding the suitability and project potential. But for the main part the students had to plan and carry out their own projects. This included searching for necessary information, appropriating materials and manufacturing techniques, analysing the potential market, and calculating the financial aspects of the project process and output. The project period culminated in an exhibition where the students exhibited their results, mostly as models (physical models or images displaying the design and function) but also sometimes as operational prototypes. At the exhibition, the students were required to explain to invited professional inventors, fellow peers, and interested viewers, how their product or service functioned. The groups received substantial feedback from the inventors. These feedback experiences were also added to the individual written report that was completed the following weeks, enabling further reflection on the task. At the end of the year the groups delivered a presentation to the teacher in which they could add new insights and knowledge regarding their product and/or service in issues such as protection of the environment, design, industrial design rights, trademarks and patents, and possible types of business entities suitable for their project and product.

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)

Phase 2 of the innovation project constituted a followed-up advanced technology course two years later where the students, in groups of two to three, came up with solutions to a problem presented to them by a municipal company (Table 1). The task involved solving sustainable transportation and related problems in a greater city area. Solving such community related problems can foster engagement when learning technology (Hill and Smith 2005). Phase 2 was thus centred on increasing citizens’ general quality of life, and included, for example, improving transport systems and efficiency, providing better living conditions for citizens, and decreasing air and noise pollution. The areas of intervention were broad, and the students were able to choose any problem within the areas suggested by the local politicians. The open possibilities made phase 2 of the project much like the first phase, offering a wide range of problems and with multiple routes to potential solutions. Phase 2 started in September after an introduction of the task by the CEO of a municipal company and a subsequent workshop held by a senior manager of the same company. Students worked on different solutions to the task that they had been given for almost five months. At all times they had the possibility to ask representatives of the company for necessary information and feedback on their ideas. After presenting their results at the company’s headquarters, the project closed with a substantial technical report.

Methods

Study settings and context

The study was performed at a Swedish upper secondary school in 2016, 2017 and 2018. All participating students were enrolled in the Technology program, in which the course Technology 1 is one of the compulsory prerequisite courses. In each of 2016 and 2018 the module comprised of two classes with the same teacher, and in 2017 three classes and two teachers.

As presented in Table 1, the study consisted of two parts: a semi-quantitative component conducted over three years involving 199 students (phase 1) and a qualitative component comprising eleven students (phase 2). In the semi-quantitative component, three cohorts of students reported their perception of authenticity (Table 2) through Likert-scale questionnaires about phase 1 of the project. The qualitative component involved semi-structured interviews with four groups of students from the 2016 cohort after they took the follow-up advanced technology course (phase 2) in 2017–2018. The grades (from the Technology 1 course taken in 2016) of the eleven interviewed students ranged from the highest to the lowest grade.

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%)

Ethical principles for research established by the Swedish Research Council (2017) were adhered to throughout the research process. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, were told that they could terminate their participation at any time, and that the collected data would only be used for research purposes; the participants consented to all the former. Participants’ anonymity was protected and all participant names, company entities and the municipality concerned are anonymized.

Questionnaires were delivered, and the interviews were performed, by the first author in relation to his own students. The potential bias that might arise in student responses was ameliorated by making sure that data collection was performed after grading and, in the case of the interviews, also after the first author switching jobs which included departing the school where the study took place.

Data collection

Written authenticity rating questionnaires (phase 1)

Following phase 1 of the innovation project, an individual questionnaire was employed to obtain students’ perceptions of authenticity after the exhibition (last lesson) of the module (see Table 1). Using students’ own thoughts or perceptions when self-rating a construct has been shown to often mirror the views of otherwise independent evaluators (e.g. Alias, Masek and Md Salleh 2015; Cassidy 2007; Kaufman 2019; Lew, Alwis and Schmidt 2010). A Likert scale was chosen for this purpose as it is a familiar and a common tool used to rate one’s own perceptions (Allen and Seaman 2007). Albeit so, Matell and Jacoby (1972) caution that when using Likert scales with few rating options, the selection of the ‘middle alternative’ is much more pronounced than when using a Likert scale with seven or more rating options. Therefore, a four-point Likert scale representing the rating options ‘Unauthentic’, ‘Slightly Authentic’, ‘Moderately Authentic’, and ‘Authentic’ in response to each of the different presented statements (also see Garland 1991) was chosen. The questions about the project were designed in such a way as to obtain students’ opinions about the nine elements of authenticity. The 13 questions were not formulated to ask for the students’ perceived authenticity explicitly but were instead designed for us to be able to extract that information indirectly by, for instance, alluding to examples of real-world scenarios and their perceptions of such (see Appendix). The participant number and gender distribution in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 project groups together with the questionnaire response rate are provided in Table 2. Student ages ranged from 16 to 18 years old with most students being male in all three cohorts.

Focus group interviews following the advanced technology course (phase 2)

Fifteen male students from the 2016 Technology 1 cohort went on to take the advanced Technology Specialisation course in 2017–2018. The advanced group project component of this course lasted five months with the objective to solve a real-world problem presented to each student group each comprising three students by representatives of a local municipal company in Sweden (Table 1).

Four months after the project ended and the course was graded, semi-structured focus group interviews (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011; Lederman 1990; Wibeck 2010) were held with four project groups, representing eleven students in total. The interviewer/first author had by this point ended his tenure at the school and had no direct possibility to influence any actions in respect of the students’ future endeavours. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes and was audio recorded and fully transcribed verbatim. Following analysis, representative interview excerpts of relevance were translated into English.

Data analysis

Analysis of the authenticity rating questionnaires

The questionnaire comprises 13 questions about the project, which are each answered through a four-point Likert scale. Likert scales have been used previously to measure perceived authenticity (i.e. Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobsen and Soler 2002; Purcell-Gates, Duke and Martineal 2007). The questionnaire was designed to reflect students’ opinions about the nine elements of authenticity. Three items had adjunctive, open-ended, follow up questions offering the students a possibility to provide more descriptive answers. When calculating the authenticity perception for each of the groups, the four points in the scale (Unauthentic, Slightly Authentic, Moderately Authentic, and Authentic) were assigned scores of zero, one, two and three, respectively. A mean rating score for each element of authenticity was calculated as a percentage (e.g. Bozalek et al. 2013). Only groups that comprised two or more answering students were analysed. The mean value of respondent scores in each group was interpreted as the general view of the group (e.g. Field 2013, Chap. 1).

Analysis of the focus group interviews

Interviews were transcribed and subsequently analysed in Swedish (Braun and Clarke 2006; Gibbs 2007). The method of data analysis was qualitative and hermeneutic, using thematic analysis informed by the six phases described by Braun and Clarke (2006). The initial two phases were (1) familiarizing ourselves with the data, which included repeated reading of the entire dataset and noting initial ideas; and (2) generating initial codes, which meant that relevant features of the interview data was coded in a systematic way. Any text section relating to the research questions was thus assigned a descriptive code, and each such section contained between two and ten sentences of transcript. The first two phases were performed in an explorative manner, to find comprehensive patterns in the data. We performed an open-ended reading and coding of the student utterances, not necessarily connected to elements of authenticity. The next phase (3) was to collate codes into potential themes, which were first generated deductively in the light of the nine elements of authenticity (Herrington, Reeves and Oliver 2010; Svärd, Schönborn and Hallström). Secondly, themes that were expressed in phase 2 and not necessarily encompassed by Herrington et al’s. (2010) framework, were generated inductively from the students’ responses. The subsequent phase (4) involved the hermeneutic inspection of whether the themes reflected both the coded extracts and the whole data set, as well as subsequently revising themes to reduce any overlap between them. Phase (5) consisted of finally defining and communicating themes in relation to the nine authenticity elements as well as to the emergent aspects of authenticity gained inductively from the students’ answers. The final phase (6) involved compiling example data and translating quotes into English to exemplify and represent the nature of the themes.

Results

Written authenticity rating questionnaires

As shown in Figure 1 all nine elements of Herrington et al.’s (2010) framework were represented in students’ authenticity ratings for all the three years wherein phase 1 of the innovation project was implemented. Overall, and on average, Coaching and scaffolding received the highest ratings across all three years, whereas Reflection was perceived as having the lowest authenticity relevance.

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

The overall mean rating values of authenticity per group in the three years are provided in Figure 2 below. Across the three cohorts, the median value was in the range 65% – 68%, corresponding to means in the range 66% – 68%.

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).

Focus group interviews

The focus-group interview transcripts were analysed thematically in a deductive and an inductive process, as described above. The deductive phase of the data analysis revealed all nine elements of authenticity as described by Herrington et al. (2010). Students from all groups suggested that phase 2, the advanced course, was much in line with phase 1 (two years earlier), and that the previous experiences helped them focus on the task at hand (Table 3).

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.

The interviews showed that students were positive to the authentic character of the two phases of the innovation project overall. For instance, according to the students, advantages of an authentic context lay in the fact that a genuine municipal company was involved, and that they related to the bigger picture of a real problem in the city in phase 2. According to the students, advantages of an authentic task were found in performing a long-term task that a municipal company required, also in phase 2. Regarding presence of expert performances, the students interacted with different authorities, companies, and professional inventors, which was deemed as a positive experience. Collaboration was mainly carried out online, and consisted of exchanging thoughts and workload within the group, which was also considered as positive, as was Reflection, which was done by the students in discussions, in fact checking, and in getting feedback from the Company during phase 2 of the project. In this sense, Reflection deviates from the results of the questionnaires but in the interviews, it was related to phase 2 of the project.

Negative aspects that were expressed, for example, concerned the multitude of sources that had to be checked for credibility and integrated into the project, can all be viewed as signs of authenticity as real-world problems are often ill-defined and complex.

As presented in Table 4 below, inductive analysis of the focus-group interview transcripts revealed five new emergent themes, reflecting the students’ perceptions of their own experiences of the innovation project, namely Creativity, Commitment, Ownership of learning, Motivation and Real-world experiences.

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).

The five new themes also reflect the participating students’ perceptions of their own investment in the innovation project (e.g. Cachia et al. 2010; Hill and Smith 2005; Lima, Andersson, and Saalman 2017; Rotherham and Willingham 2010). In this regard, the project was perceived as a creative endeavour, with views that the creativity originated from the group collectively, as one student stated (Hennesy and Amabile, 2010; Kaufman and Beghetto 2009; Simonton 2017). The students also perceived that the project required commitment and engagement, which also involved difficulties and demands since students had to find out information and knowledge for themselves. Similarly, according to the students, regarding ownership of learning it was considered gratifying but also demanding to own the work but also to do all the thinking themselves (cf. Conley and French 2014). Furthermore, the experience was also perceived as motivating and exciting because it had real-world relevance, which motivated the students to perform to the best of their ability. In turn, this induced motivating feelings among the students through the full-hearted involvement by the Company, especially the fact that the CEO was also engaged (e.g. Autio 2019; Reeve, Cole, and Olson, 1986; Ryan and Deci 2000). Finally, the students also expressed that the project had given them real-world experiences, perceiving the assignment as ‘a real workplace task’ that will be relevant for future activities such as entering working life or embarking on tertiary education .

Discussion

Our findings provide insight into students’ perceived authenticity of an innovation project implemented in an upper secondary school technology program. We structure the discussion of the results by revisiting the two specific research questions of the study.

Presence and extent of students’ perceptions of the innovation project as authentic

With respect to exploring how students perceived authenticity of the project considering Herrington et al.’s framework, our deductive analysis confirmed that all nine elements were present in students’ perceptions (Figure 1). The result that the element of Coaching and scaffolding received the highest perception ratings (80%), might be due to students being highly stimulated by being supported and guided during their own problem solving during critical moments, rather than instructed directly (Herrington et al., 2010). Our finding that the Reflection element had the lowest perceived authenticity (45%) might imply that there were insufficient opportunities for students to self-reflect on the development of their evolving solutions. Such perception might be enhanced by explicitly integrating moments in the module where students are encouraged to reflect on the process actively and regularly, through activities such as recording and keeping a log or reflective report of their ideas (Herrington et al., 2010; Herrington and Oliver 2000; Chen et al., 2000).

An encouraging finding from the study was the extent to which students perceived the innovation project as authentic. Overall, students rated their perceived authenticity as ranging from 66% to 68% on average. This extent of perception of the projects may have also been associated with use of an array of articulation techniques and authentic assessment methods as advocated by a PBL approach (e.g. Chen et al., 2000), such as presentations at an exhibition or at a company, consultations with the teacher (both individual and in group), and a written design report. Interestingly, the extent of these rating values corresponds with previous work by Bozalek et al. (2013) who investigated the authenticity of 21 groups of university projects in various disciplines by also applying Herrington’s nine elements. A comparison reveals some salient similarities between the findings of the respective studies. For example, the mean perceived authenticity in our study resonates with the average level of perceived authenticity across all nine elements presented by Bozalek et al. (2013, 634, Figure 1). The revealed similarity serves as a validation of the Herrington framework as a tool for classifying students’ perceptions of authentic learning environments. In addition, both studies identified high perceptions of coaching and scaffolding (80% and 74%, respectively), which highlights students’ favorable perception of teachers being supportive guides rather than knowledge transmitters as is the case in certain PBL-inspired approaches.

Nature and quality of students’ perceptions of the innovation project as authentic

Results from the interviews indicated that the innovation project was largely perceived by the students as meaningful, albeit demanding, in terms of the key facets of an authentic learning environment as postulated by Herrington et al. (2010). The analysis also revealed other newly emerging themes of perceived authenticity, relating to the students’ experiences of the project: Creativity, Commitment, Ownership of learning, Motivation and Real-world experiences. The new themes could be viewed as a complement to those of Herrington et al. (2010), since the latter concern perceptions of the project learning environment but the former concern the students’ own experiences of, and personal investment in, the project. Hill and Smith (2005) suggest that an authentic learning project should comprise of (approximate equivalents to Herrington et al, 2010, in brackets) Mediation (Multiple perspectives), Distribution (Collaboration), Situatedness (Authentic context), Multiple literacies (Multiple perspectives), Motivation, Identity, Career planning, Human relationship (Collaboration), Teacher attributes (Coaching and scaffolding), and Embodiment. Embodiment in this context is described as ‘learning involving the body and, especially, emotion’ (Hill and Smith 2005, 26). Hill and Smith’s (2005) Motivation align with our new inductive themes of Motivation, and possibly also Real-world experiences, the latter of which could also be said to partially align with the Career planning theme.

A major difference between the frameworks suggested by Herrington et al. (2010) and Hill and Smith (2005), is that the former describes features of the learning environment of an authentic project, whereas the latter describes both specifics of the learning environment, motivational attitudes of students and outcomes of such a project. A novel result of this study is that we investigated students’ perceptions in a more structured manner, first perceptions of the – possibly – authentic learning environment made available in a PBL-based innovation project and then the students’ perceptions of their own experience of and investment in the project. This is important because it is not enough to only create a potentially authentic innovation project on its own; students must also perceive it as such and, furthermore, they need to perceive their own contribution and investment as relevant and meaningful (cf. Shaffer and Resnick 1999). For example, it is crucial that they see various scaffolding and input by experts in the project not as a staged mock-up or theatrical events but as meaningful opportunities to learn (e.g. Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane 2000). In contrast with previous findings on students’ perceptions of authenticity (e.g. Rees Lewis et al. 2019), our results show that the students conceived of the nine elements of the project learning environment as largely authentic, except for Reflection and possibly also Authentic task in the quantitative analysis. In the qualitative analysis it is apparent that the students perceived the authenticity of the project learning environment as largely meaningful and relevant. The emergent themes from the qualitative analysis also point to other aspects of their experiences of the project, in particular the existence of an increased – compared to ‘traditional’ teaching – perceived motivation, ownership, and real-world relevance of the project. However, at the same time, they felt that this came with more work and frustration in the groups because of them having to think more independently. It is noteworthy that some students also felt that they became more creative when working together, and at the same time, also thought that they invested more work and commitment into the task.

Although the above findings say little about the actual authenticity of the technology project content itself, they nevertheless strengthen the validity of Herrington’s et al. (2010) framework as a viable set of elements for creating a meaningful, motivating, and real-world relevant learning environment in PBL-based innovation projects (cf. Chen, Kolmos, and Xiangyun 2020). The emergent themes also imply that these kinds of projects can create a sense of ownership of students’ learning, which, when coupled with an increased motivation, may be a reason the students also felt more committed and wanted to invest in the technology project, although it was at times a time- and work-consuming task that sometimes led to frustration in the groups. It is interesting that perceived creativity came up as a theme in the interviews, and not only because it was an integral part of the innovation project. Creativity is also a component of the so-called 21st century skills (Batelle For Kids, n.d.) and a critical element of the subject Technology in upper secondary school in Sweden (Skolverket 2011). Students felt that creativity could thrive in such a project context (Simonton 2017).

Conclusions and implications

This study addresses the issue of for whom technology education should be considered authentic, which to date has not been addressed in the literature in earnest. In pursuing this gap, the present study therefore took students’ perceptions of authenticity as its starting point. Although students should not be the arbiters of what is authentic or not, it is still the case that it is the students’ everyday life, motivation and future workplace that constitute the targets of authentic learning. Our study suggests that the implemented technology education project is in line both with content as described by Herrington et al. as well as outcomes as described by Hill and Smith (Herrington et al. 2010; Hill 2018; Hill and Smith 2005; Svärd, Schönborn and Hallström). The interviews revealed that the students found the task to be true to real life situations as well as motivating, which is related to earlier assertions made by Shaffer and Resnick (1999) and Braund and Reiss (2006) (also see Murphy, Lunn, and Jones 2006). However, the students also found the innovation project challenging and demanding, in particular, because of the existence of multiple perspectives on finding solutions to the task and having to rely only on coaching and scaffolding from the teacher and others involved, such as the inventors and the Company. This meant that a significant responsibility was placed on the students themselves to execute the project. They also became anxious when presenting their projects to real technologists and innovators at the close of the experience. Overall, in line with findings also shown in science education contexts (e.g. Tsybulsky 2019), the study showed that most students were positive to the innovation project and perceived it as authentic.

As demonstrated by Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Martens (2005), if students themselves do not perceive a learning environment as authentic, there is a lower chance that it will positively influence their performance on the intended real world problem-solving task. The findings of this study provide various insights into upper secondary students’ perceptions of authenticity in an innovation project adopted in technology education. Future research directions include probing whether such projects help students to engage more in their learning processes, and how such modules might help to frame students’ ideas about their own future innovation skills.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

Evaluation of the innovation project questionnaire

Read the questions and answer options carefully. Take your time.

1. Have you made use of the knowledge that you have gained in school to manage the project?

○ Not at all

○ To some extent

○ Mostly

○ Yes, always

2. Has it been possible for you to get the kind of information that you needed to solve the task?

○ No

○ To some extent

○ Mostly

○ Yes

3. Did you perceive the project as real (e.g. that it could have been you developing a product for a real market, as an employee or as a self-employed person)?

○ Not at all

○ To some extent

○ Mostly

○ Yes, very realistic

3b. Please tell us more. What made you feel that way? (Free text answer possibility)

4. How many sources have you got information or inspiration from?

○ Only school material

○ 2–3 different sources

○ 4–5 different sources

○ Many different sources and not only through the internet.

5. Did you have access to the sources you needed?

○ Yes, mostly

○ Yes, sometimes

○ Lacked sometimes

○ Lacked mostly

5b. If you missed something, what could that have been? (Free text answer possibility)

6. Do you think the cooperation within the group worked?

○ Not at all

○ To some extent

○ Mostly

○ Yes, always

7. In what ways have you cooperated in the group?

○ We worked on individual parts and put them together as a finished product.

○ We made some parts together, but most parts individually, and put it together as a finished product.

○ We made most parts together, but some parts individually, and put it together as a finished product.

○ We have done almost everything together.

8. Have you learned anything from other groups’ work?

○ Nothing

○ Yes, a little

○ Yes, quite a lot

○ Yes, a lot

9. Have you changed your mind regarding aspects in the project after talking to people in or out of the group?

○ Not at all

○ Yes, once after discussions within the group

○ Yes, once after discussions with someone outside of the group

○ Yes, multiple times

10. Are you happy with how your group presented during the exhibition?

○ Not at all

○ To some extent

○ Quite happy

○ Yes, definitely

11. Have you felt support from people outside of the group?

○ Not at all

○ Too little

○ Could have been more

○ Enough

12. Do you think that your product or service was as ready as you had wanted?

○ Not at all

○ No, could definitely be better

○ Could be a little better

○ Yes, we are happy as it came out

12b. Could your product/ service have been improved? In what ways? (Free text answer possibility)

12c. What made the product/ service as good as it became? (Free text answer possibility)

13. Could you answer the questions regarding your product/ service during the exhibition?

○ Not at all

○ Could have been better

○ Quite well

○ Very well

Supplementary notes on the design and implementation of the questionnaire in Appendix:

The questionnaire was designed to measure the degree of authenticity of the nine elements defined by Herrington et al. (2010). The provided English items were originally administered in the Swedish language, and correspond to the following elements of authenticity:

• Authentic context – Q1 and Q2

• Authentic task – Q3 and Q3b

• Presence of expert performances – Q4

• Multiple perspectives – Q5 and Q5b

• Collaboration – Q6 and Q7

• Reflection – Q8 and Q9

• Articulation – Q10

• Coaching and scaffolding – Q11

• Authentic assessment – Q12, Q12b, Q12c and Q13