Intellectual property: what do teachers and studentsknow?

Louise Starkey Æ Susan Corbett Æ Ann Bondy Æ Susan Davidson

Published online: 7 July 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract As society changes from an industrial to a knowledge era increasing impor-

tance and value is being placed on intellectual property rights. Technology teachers need to

have pedagogical content knowledge of intellectual property if they are to incorporate it

into their learning programmes to enable students to consider how to respect others’

intellectual property rights, how to protect their own ideas and how they can legitimately

make use of others’ intellectual property. A survey of technology teachers and a small

sample of students was undertaken to ascertain their knowledge of intellectual property and

any misconceptions which may exist. The findings reflect an awareness of relevant con-

cepts but confusion between key terms such as patent, copyright and registered design.

Keywords Intellectual property � Technology education � Student rights

Background

Technology education was introduced into New Zealand schools as part of the 1993

National Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education 1993). It came in the form of the

technology curriculum (Ministry of Education 1995), with the aim of supporting techno-

logical literacy through the integration of three strands in technology programmes in the

classroom in order to enable students to experience technological practice. These strands

were:

• Technological knowledge and understanding

• Technological capability

• Technology and society (Ministry of Education 1995)

Thus technological practice was seen as the vehicle through which students could

develop their technological literacy within seven identified technological areas including;

L. Starkey (&) � S. Corbett � A. Bondy � S. DavidsonVictoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 17-310, Karori, Wellington, New Zealande-mail: louise.starkey@vuw.ac.nz

123

Int J Technol Des Educ (2010) 20:333–344DOI 10.1007/s10798-009-9088-6

materials, food, ICT, structures and mechanisms, electronics, biotechnology, production,

and processes.

After more than 10 years of implementing the 1995 curriculum, it was noted that the

nature of students’ technological literacy development was limited in depth, breadth, and

critical analysis (Ministry of Education 2007). This led to the realisation that technological

practice within identified areas was not enough. Research was undertaken to address these

limitations, resulting in a revised technology curriculum (Compton and France 2007)

where three strands (technological practice, nature of technology and technological

knowledge) combine to provide students with all knowledge types important in supporting

their developing technological literacy (Ministry of Education 2007). The naming of the

technological areas as in the 1995 curriculum had often resulted in them being treated as

‘‘subjects’’, however, it has been established that learning in technology goes beyond these.

Students are able to explore a range of historical and contemporary examples of technology

and can work towards meeting the generic achievement objectives from all three strands in

response to authentic contexts, which in turn contribute to the whole of technological

literacy. During the time of the 2007 curriculum development, it was becoming apparent

that the integration of intellectual property rights was integral to students’ developing

technological literacy, a component that had not previously been specifically identified.

The dominant pedagogical approach used by teachers implementing the curriculum in

New Zealand is one where students respond to needs and opportunities by using available

resources, both practical and intellectual to research, design and develop technological

outcomes. The teacher guides the students through the process, which includes considering

the intellectual property rights of others at the research and design phase, and their own

rights if their product warrants it. Thus the expectation is that the students understand the

basic concepts of intellectual property, and the teacher has enough knowledge or under-

stands how to access information to provide advice and guidance on particular aspects as

and when needed by the students.

For economic, citizenship and cultural reasons, knowledge about intellectual property

rights had become increasingly relevant to the broader community. Intellectual property

and its legal protections were seen as economically important to a knowledge economy, in

which citizens faced potential liabilities under intellectual property laws and there was

potentially a detrimental an effect upon citizen groups due to private ownership of cultural

intellectual property and a reduced public domain (Corbett 2005).

By 2005, a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Singapore,

Australia, and Canada, had already developed educational programmes on intellectual

property rights for school students and their teachers. For example, the Australian website

innovetED1 provided an extensive list of teacher resources including Australian case

studies which focus on:

…innovation, intellectual property and how Australians have protected their ideas.

From the fiercely protected ‘Coffee Club’ trade mark to the pink glow of ‘Eagle

Boys’, these case studies describe some of the heroes of the intellectual property

scene. (www.innovated.gov.au/Innovated/html/i031.asp)

In the United Kingdom, the patent office had developed a THINK kit2 resource for sec-

ondary school students of design and technology and business. The THINK kit package

contained a simple outline of intellectual property concepts as well as several case studies

1 http://www.innovated.gov.au.2 www.ipo.gov.uk/education.htm.

334 L. Starkey et al.

123

of genuine recent innovations in the areas of, respectively, sport, music, technology,

design, and food (Corbett 2005).

Singapore’s intellectual property education website3 in 2005 was advertising national IP

camps for school students, assembly talks for schools by a member of the Intellectual

Property Office of Singapore and a trade mark competition for school students.

As noted by Corbett (2005), New Zealand had limited intellectual property information

provided in a format suitable for schools. Both the Ministry of Economic Development and

the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) had informative websites4 with

links to basic intellectual property information as well as (in the case of IPONZ) practical

advice on how to proceed with applying for patent, trade mark and registered design

registrations. These websites were passive–each was a very useful source of information

for persons who were already aware of the issue of intellectual property rights and perhaps

more importantly, already persuaded of the relevance of intellectual property rights to their

own enterprise. At that time, the New Zealand Techlink website5 contained case studies of

technological based business ventures, such as Spoon Biscookies and Andrea MooreDesign which were developed as resources for New Zealand technology teachers. Intel-

lectual property rights were rarely mentioned in the case studies. For example, the

description of the technological process used by an award winning student who had

developed an innovative technological process for reducing the cost of domestic hot water

from idea through to prototype testing did not include any reference to assertion of relevant

intellectual property rights (Corbett 2005). The researchers believed that integrating

intellectual property considerations into the existing online Techlink case studies could

help New Zealand teachers to see the relevance to their own teaching practice (Corbett

et al. 2007).

The researcher argued that, as in all areas of teaching and learning, in order to achieve

maximum effectiveness it is important that unique contexts such as the national charac-

teristics of a country should be acknowledged within educational materials. These include

the local physical environment, cultural practices and ethnicity. Thus, while New Zealand

could emulate and learn from other countries, it was important that a uniquely New

Zealand resource be developed for New Zealand teachers and students. For this reason, the

preliminary research described in this paper was carried out to inform the development of

information and resources for New Zealand teachers and students about intellectual

property in technological processes. The aim of the research was to find out what

knowledge and misconceptions technology teachers and students had about intellectual

property rights and processes.

The research discussed in this paper represents the first stage of a larger project intended

to support and enhance the Gif-Technology Education Initiative6 by providing teachers and

students with information about intellectual property rights relevant to the their techno-

logical activities. The fundamental objective of the project, within the context of tech-

nology education, was to ensure that New Zealand students would be equipped to

participate in a knowledge society—not only able to respect others’ intellectual property

rights, but to be aware of how to protect their own ideas and how they can legitimately

make use of others’ intellectual property (Corbett 2005).

3 www.iperckidz.gov.sg.4 www.iponz.govt.nz.5 http://www.techlink.org.nz.6 See http://www.techlink.org.nz/GIF-tech-education/.

What do teachers and students know? 335

123

The researchers sought the assistance of a small selection of Beacon Practice7 schools

to describe their consideration of intellectual property rights in their technological pro-

cesses. Beacon Practice was an initiative set up in selected secondary school senior

technology courses, providing support to teachers to build capability in technology

teaching and to develop community interaction for student–enterprise partnerships.

Methodology

A written survey was used to gather data about teacher and student understanding of

intellectual property processes. The survey had two parts; the first part included a number

of intellectual property terms and asked participants about their knowledge of the terms. It

included key intellectual property concepts relevant to the technological process such as

patent, copyright and registered design, and included other terms such as trade mark and

counterfeit and was identified as either ideas students were likely to know about or would

need to consider during the technological design process as outlined in the New Zealand

Curriculum (2007). The second part asked respondents to select one of three innovations or

inventions and describe how the developer of the product could protect their intellectual

property rights and avoid infringing another person’s intellectual property rights.

The survey was sent out to technology departments in all secondary schools across New

Zealand. There were 109 teacher responses or 30% to the survey. A small sample of

students was asked to complete the survey, and this was administered by technology

teachers in two Beacon Practice schools, midway through the 2007 academic year. The

groups surveyed included four classes of students; a year 10 technology extension group of

seven students, a year 11 textiles class, and 2 year 12 classes, one with a more academic

focus than the other. The total number of students who took part in the survey was 39.

The written definitions of intellectual property terms were collated from the surveys.

The researchers then examined the responses for each term, deciding if each one aligned

with the correct definition. Responses which were partially correct or incorrect were

examined further, and common errors and misconceptions were identified.

Findings

The survey asked the teachers and students whether they were familiar with aspects of

intellectual property and to write down what they thought each one meant. The results are

collated in Table 1.

The greatest amount of confusion by survey respondents is within the areas of patents,

copyright, and registered design, which are the three most relevant areas (shaded) of

intellectual property for teaching and learning in technology. There was a great deal of

overlap in the definitions given for these three terms. The responses will be discussed

separately below.

Patent

A patent is a way to register and legally protect an invention. A correct definition was

given by 22% of the participating teachers. A further 44% of the respondents gave a

7 See http://www.techlink.org.nz/GIF-tech-education/beacon-practice/index.htm.

336 L. Starkey et al.

123

definition which contained some correct ideas but were too vague to be deemed correct.

The most common misconception was that patents protect designs (17%). A design can

only be patented if it is of an invention or process, not of how something looks; that type of

design would have to be protected by a registered design. The intention of the respondents

writing design was unknown or was unclear so these were interpreted in the analysis as not

being correct.

The next most frequent misconception was that patents cover ideas or thoughts (15%).

A patent application has to be more substantial than simply an idea. A third common

misconception was that patents protect something from being copied (9%). It seems that

there was some confusion with copyright and several respondents did use the word

copyright in their explanation of patent. Another misconception given by several

respondents was that a patent applies worldwide when it is only valid in the country or

countries in which the patent application has been made.

Patents are relevant to the technology classroom where students are inventing and

developing products that could have potential market value. In one Beacon Practice school a

teacher had taken out a patent on a product he had invented. The process and application had

been shared with the students and an intellectual property lawyer had spoken to the students.

The students from this particular school all reported that they knew what a patent was and

one student wrote a correct definition. The students took a minimalist approach to the

written responses so it is possible that more students could have given a correct definition.

In the classes where the teachers did not hold patents themselves 66% of the students

reported that they didn’t know what a patent was and none were able to define a patent.

Copyright

Of the 82% of teacher respondents who defined copyright, 26% correctly noted that it

protects written, visual, and audio works from being copied. The students were more

familiar with copyright than with other terms, with 16/39 noting that ‘it stops your workfrom being copied’. The most common misconception about copyright was that a person

needs to do something to get it, such as register a piece of work or get a licence. In fact, a

copyright applies immediately to a created piece of work (though the burden of proof of the

Table 1 Intellectual property knowledge

Intellectual property term Students (n = 39) Teachers (n = 109)

% Which saidthey had notheard of this

% Who gave acorrect definition:

%Which said theyhad not heard of this

% Who gave acorrect definition

Patent 45 1 0 22

Brand 7 51 0 62

Counterfeit 51 23 1 58

Indigenous knowledge 65 2 23 29

Fair dealing 45 0 16 0

Copyright 2 16 0 26

IP licence 80 0 54 4

Trade mark 15 31 1 48

Registered design 51 0 18 2

What do teachers and students know? 337

123

date, originality etc remains with the creator.) Other misconceptions arose from not

knowing that the work does not need to be published, a copyright protection is not bought,

and protection is not just against commercial gain by others for using your work. Copyright

does not apply to ideas unless they are written down or otherwise recorded. Four of the

students confused copyright with plagiarism.

Registered design

A new or original shape, pattern, or decorative finish applied to an article by any industrial

process or means can be protected by registering it at IPONZ. An individual hand-crafted

design could be protected provided the article can be replicated in a systematic process.Unlike patents and copyrights, several respondents noted that they had not heard of this

term (18%). Only 54% of the teacher responses and 5/39 of the students gave definitions

for this term, and only two of these were correct.

There was some confusion between registered design, patents and copyrights with some

respondents noting that a registered design was similar to or the same as a patent or

copyright, it applied to something that didn’t quite meet patent standards or that it was a

prerequisite or the first step in the patent application process. Other misconceptions were

that registered designs were the same as trade marks, that they were rights over products or

production, or that they were plans.

Brand

A brand can be an important consideration as students develop their own products as

teenagers can desire to emulate aspects of popular brands. The clearest response was given

by a student who noted that a ‘brand is the representative image of a business’

This term garnered the highest number of correct definitions by the teacher participants

(62%). A brand is something that identifies the goods of a particular manufacturer; this

could be not only a name, but a logo or even a colour. While a brand can be registered if it

meet the criteria for a registered trade mark, it is not necessarily the case. Even an

unregistered trade mark or brand may be able to claim some legal protection. A brand is

not patented. 50% of the students said that a brand was a label or a company name. One

confused it with trade mark, which is understandable as the brand is the trade mark for

some manufacturers.

Indigenous knowledge

This is knowledge that has been developed and/or passed down through a particular

indigenous culture. This category is not technically intellectual property, since it is gen-

erally outside the limits of the maximum terms of protection provided by intellectual

property law. However, if something (such as a remedy) is used by an indigenous group,

while it cannot be claimed as novel and qualify for a patent, in that country (thus the

indigenous community cannot profit from their knowledge), there have been instances of

pharmaceutical companies obtaining a patent for products based upon an indigenous

remedy. Hence there is an ongoing tension between indigenous communities and the

intellectual property rights system, which is a market economy development. Indigenous

knowledge was correctly defined by 29% of teacher respondents and one student. Over half

the students and 23% of the teachers said they had never heard of this term before.

338 L. Starkey et al.

123

Misconceptions included that indigenous knowledge was registered, it was ‘base’ or ‘basic’

knowledge, it was ‘known by all’, or it was ‘tacit’.

Fair dealing

Copyright law permits certain limited uses of copyrighted works for public benefit (for

example fair dealing with a copyright work for research or private study is permitted by the

Copyright Act 1994, s43). No participants gave a correct definition, although four came

close with partially correct answers. These mentioned limited copying rights or getting

permission, but were deemed too vague to be fully correct. Of the incorrect answers, 24

thought fair dealing was acting in an ethical manner, such as being honest or morally

correct. Eight respondents thought it had to do with fair trade, and a further nine said it was

about consumers paying a fair amount or the author getting fair pay for their work. Four

people simply said it was legal rights. Eighteen said they had not heard of this term, three

were not sure if they had, 22 had heard of it but gave no definition, and eight left it blank.

Other public good uses, similar to fair dealing, that are permitted under copyright

legislation include educational uses. For example, the Copyright Act 1994 section 44(2)

permits the making of one or more copies of all or part of a literary dramatic, musical or

artistic work by a teacher or student (provided the copying is not done by a reprographic

process): ‘‘In the course of preparation for instruction; or for use in the course of

instruction; or in the course of instruction; or after the course of instruction’’.

This provision allows technology students and teachers to copy a product provided it

has not been protected by a registered design, for example, an item of clothing. Any

copying must be carried out by the teacher or a student on the course and the copying must

only be for the purpose of the course of instruction. Students could not sell any copied

articles they make in class. The provision works another way too—it will allow students

within a class to copy one another’s original creations for the course of instruction (Corbett

2007).

Intellectual property (IP) licence

Four of the teacher respondents correctly defined this as a legal agreement between an

owner of intellectual property and another person or business, allowing them to use the

intellectual property as specified in the agreement. There seemed to be few misconceptions

with this term, it was unfamiliar to 51% of the teacher respondents and 82% of the

students, while a number had heard of it but clearly weren’t sure what it meant. Six

participants confused mistook IP in this sense for internet protocol.

Trade mark

A trade mark is a brand or logo distinguishing the goods or services of one trader from

another. Sometimes it can be registered as a trade mark at IPONZ. A registered trade mark

is entitled to display the � symbol. Most people were familiar with this term; 47%

correctly defined it, and an additional 15% said trade marks were registered, rather than

can be registered. There was some confusion (as opposed to misconceptions) with the term

trade mark with 9% talking about copyright or patent. The nine incorrect definitions often

confused trade mark with a copyright or patent.

What do teachers and students know? 339

123

How to protect inventions and designs

After defining various IP terms, survey respondents were asked to imagine they had

developed a new product (they could choose a computer game, a cure, or a piece of

furniture), then describe (a) how they would check that their idea was original and not

already in existence and/or protected by someone else, and (b) what they would do to then

protect their product. The choice of products was to try and have something that would suit

the range of specialities that technology teachers bring to the classroom with them.

Responses further emphasised the confusion teacher participants held about the dif-

ferences between copyrights, patents, and registered designs. It was also evident again that

people were unsure how work was copyrighted, indicating that they would ‘check’ or ‘get’

copyrights. Only six out of the 92 respondents who chose a product type correctly

answered both parts ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the question; others got one or the other right, or

partially right and partially wrong.

Computer game

Seventeen people ticked they were answering according to developing a new computer

game. Provided they are original, computer games are protected by copyright because

software is defined as a literary work in copyright law although the situation is complex.

The modern computer game is likely to comprise several categories of copyright work such

as music, graphics (artistic work), dialogue (literary work), each of which might have been

created by a different author. Generally the copyright in works created by employees

belongs to their employer, so it is likely that all copyrights in a commercially produced

game belong to the games development company. Software can be patentable if it results in

a commercially useful output and any new console or mechanical or electrical device

associated with the game might be patentable if novel. To protect their intellectual

property, developers should keep their plans and progress confidential until ready to put the

game on the market, and prior to producing the game, check the patent and trade mark

registers and search the internet for similar games.

No one correctly answered the question–what to check and then how to protect their

product–though a few respondents got one or the other part partially right. Four survey

respondents correctly said that they would search the market to see if a similar game

existed, and one said they would check trade marks. Two of these people and two others

said that they would somehow check to see if their idea for a computer game already had

copyrights, though they did not specify how they would do this (other than one person

saying they would check a copyright register, which shows a misconception about copy-

right), and one of these said they would also check trade marks.

Seven respondents said they would check patents, and one of these also said they would

check registered designs. Four people gave a vague response that they would check IPONZ

or an IP register. Three people admitted they did not know what they should do to check

that their idea was not already protected by intellectual property rights by another person.

When describing what they would do to stop another person from copying their com-

puter game and using or selling it, nine respondents wrote copyright, although only one

correctly described how to prove the date. Two people said they would register or get a

copyright, demonstrating a misconception about copyright processes. Ten respondents said

they would get a patent (six of these were ‘copyright’ respondents). Three respondents said

they would ‘register’ their game (including two of the ‘copyright’ respondents); a fourth

person said they would register the design. Two said they would register the brand and

340 L. Starkey et al.

123

trade mark. A final answer outside the box was that they would put a block on the CD,

making it inaccessible without a user name and pin registration—ironically this kind of

technological device is being used more and more by creators of digital works. It is

objected to by copyright theorists on the grounds that it is contrary to copyright law in that

it prevents any use of a copyright work, even permissible uses such as under fair dealing.

New cure for pimples using all natural products including manuka

Eleven survey respondents chose this product. This type of cure might be patentable if it is

novel and not known in New Zealand. Developers should check the patent register and also

search the internet for similar cures. If it is an indigenous remedy, then it is good practice

to check with the relevant iwi for consent to use. If the cure is not patentable, the best way

to proceed would be to trade mark the product and flood the market, building up a

reputation for quality.

In all, four people answered both parts (a) and (b) of the question correctly. Six par-

ticipants correctly said they would check existing patents, and an additional person said

they would need to see if the cure really is new. Two people vaguely said they would check

IPONZ, including one that said to check patents. The other ‘IPONZ’ respondent said there

was no need to check overseas because Manuka is a New Zealand product. The three other

participants did not know what to do.

As for how to protect their cure, eight correctly said they would patent it, though one of

these also said they would register it. Another person said they would register it with

IPONZ. One person left this blank. One inventive answer was, ‘stuff all, other thanproducing better product…’.

No one mentioned anything about the possibility that this cure could already be in use

by an indigenous group, even though it specifically was said to contain an endemic

product, manuka honey.

Furniture

The underlying drawings and designs of furniture are protected by copyright if they are

original. However, registering it as a registered design would give more certain protection.

A person creating a piece of furniture should check the register of designs for existing

products to ensure he or she does not infringe on a design. It would be advisable to keep the

plans confidential until they were registered, as registered designs are required to be novel

(similar to patent requirements).

The furniture design option was the most popular among the survey participants: 66

ticked this choice. However, only two people correctly answered both parts of the question.

Eight people correctly said that they should check registered designs to ensure their idea

was not already protected by someone else, and another two said they would check IPONZ

(though it is impossible to know exactly what they would check). Five people said they

would check copyrights, or ‘copyright designs’ (including one who also said they would

check registered designs). Most of the respondents (34) incorrectly said they would check

patents (including four who also said registered designs and two who said copyrighted

designs). Six people said they would check the internet, shops, and other sources for

existing products, and five people said they would hire lawyers or get legal advice about

how to check for existing furniture designs (one person described this as using overrated

and expensive attorneys). One person thought that an honest belief that their idea was

What do teachers and students know? 341

123

original would suffice, and another said that if they followed a ‘design process’, using lots

of sources, than their design would be original. An interesting response was ‘[I] wouldmake it and let others worry about me; haven’t had problems before.’ Eleven people did

not know what to do, and two others left this question blank.

Twenty respondents correctly mentioned copyright as a way to protect their furniture

design, although two thought they had to ‘register’ a copyright. Eight people correctly said

they would register their design, and six others vaguely said they would just ‘register’ it.

Again getting a patent was the most popular choice of how to protect their design: 37 said

they would do this. A couple of people mentioned checking the market for copies of their

ideas, and three said they would prosecute through the legal system.

These responses for the three choices of products illustrated a lack of depth of

knowledge of how intellectual property rights apply to the development of technological

products, such that could occur in a senior technology classroom. Such content knowledge

is part of the technological literacy component of the technology curriculum.

Students considering other people’s intellectual property rights

Students were asked ‘‘What would you have to check to ensure that someone else does not

have intellectual property rights over this product or design?’’ Some students gave more

than one thing that they could do. Some did not suggest anything. The responses are

grouped together without distinguishing which product they chose to consider.

The most common response involved checking copyright, with thirteen students men-

tioning copyright. Six students suggested making sure the product was different (to avoid

any issue). Three students noted that you should check the web for similar designs, which

may reflect the idea that you can search the web for existing patents. Checking patents was

specifically mentioned by two students. Other suggestions included checking existing

products, checking to see if a design is registered and using an intellectual property lawyer.

While the students had the idea that you could look up to see whether someone else had

somehow claimed ownership of a design or product through the internet (through a patent,

copyright or registered design), only one student answered this question giving an accurate

range of options. Seven students were focused on checking brand names or trade marks rather

than products or designs which may be because these were included in the previous question.

Protecting intellectual property rights

Students were asked ‘‘What can you do to stop another person from copying your product

or design and using it or selling it?’’ Students again focused on copyright with 24 students

suggested putting a copyright on their product or design. Seven students suggested getting

a patent. Six of these students were part of a group who had had a patent lawyer as a guest

speaker in class and had a teacher in their school who had taken out patents. Three students

suggested that they would not tell anyone and another student would use confidentiality

agreements. Four students would consider registering their product or design. One student

would seek a lawyer’s advice; another student suggested she would sue. Three students

suggested that they would sell their product under a known brand or get a trade mark

registered. One student was very clear and accurate about a range of ways he could protect

his intellectual property rights.

The responses reflect that students are able to apply the knowledge they have about

intellectual property to the technology process of developing original products.

342 L. Starkey et al.

123

Where do students get their ideas about intellectual property?

The students were asked how they found out about intellectual property to see if it is the

teachers who are currently the main source of knowledge for the students. Seventy percent

of the students indicated that they hadn’t learnt anything about intellectual property. All of

these students had somewhere in the survey indicated they knew something about intel-

lectual property. A reason for this apparent contradiction could be that these students were

not aware of being taught anything about intellectual property, as they could have learnt

about it through informal learning. The thirty percent (nine students) who did indicate that

they had learnt about intellectual property identified school, parents, a guest speaker,

teachers, an expose or show and reading as ways that they found out about intellectual

property.

Discussion

The digital era is a time when technology has become available that allows access to

information, ideas and people from a wide range of locations at anytime. The introduction

of ubiquitous access to digital technologies, information, ideas and people in a networked

world, where information can be found in seconds (with the right key words), mashed,

connected, further developed and shared using Web 2.0 applications, may be contributing

to change in the nature of knowledge, teaching, learning and curriculum. The evolving

technology curriculum reflects these broader changes in society, including the nature of

intellectual property as a component of technological literacy. This has implications for the

knowledge technology teachers need.

Effective teachers have a good understanding of pedagogical content knowledge (Alton-

Lee 2003). Pedagogical content knowledge includes how and when to teach specific

content and methodologies associated with a specific subject (Shulman 1986). Under-

standing of intellectual property processes is an aspect of content knowledge needed by

technology teachers, necessary to draw on when deciding how and when to teach students

about intellectual property law. The teachers in this study had some knowledge of intel-

lectual property, but the knowledge appeared to be limited, which in turn was likely to

limit student learning. The survey of technology teachers reflected confusion between

patent, copyright, and registered design which are the three most relevant areas of intel-

lectual property for teaching and learning in technology. Where a teacher had in depth

knowledge it was reflected in the students’ learning. One of the teachers in a Beacon

Practice school had an in depth knowledge of the patent process and it was evident in one

of the student groups’ responses that this knowledge had been integrated into the students’

learning programme by applying that pedagogical content knowledge.

For teachers to be able to effectively integrate intellectual property law into the teaching

of technology processes, it needs to become part of their personal pedagogical content

knowledge. This would ultimately help students understand how to respect others’ intel-

lectual property rights, how to protect their own ideas and how they can legitimately make

use of others’ intellectual property.

This study explored the content knowledge of technology teachers in New Zealand and

a small sample of students. The findings are being used raise awareness of the integration

of intellectual property to teaching practice and to help inform the focus of professional

development or support for technology teachers on a national and local level. This example

of the use of empirical research to inform curriculum or teacher development within the

What do teachers and students know? 343

123

context of a changing social and economic world could be applied in alternative contexts

and is aligned with current theories on effective teacher professional learning (Timperley

et al. 2007).

Conclusions

In the complex context of education the curriculum is constantly changing as the world in

which schooling is situated evolves. One area of significant recent change in a global

environment has been access to information, and hence ideas about intellectual property

rights and responsibilities are developing within the technological world. This research

used survey methodology to ascertain the alignment between teachers’ content knowledge

and aspects of intellectual property rights relevant to the pedagogical approach encouraged

by the New Zealand curriculum (2007).

The survey of technology teachers’ knowledge of intellectual property found that they

were unable to correctly explain relevant intellectual property law, and there was confusion

between registered designs, patents and copyright. A teacher who is unsure of this content

knowledge is likely to encounter difficulty teaching his or her students how to respect

others’ intellectual property rights, how to protect their own ideas and how they can

legitimately make use of others’ intellectual property, which are aspects of technological

literacy. By integrating information about intellectual property into existing case studies on

the internet and having teacher resources available for download it is possible that if

teachers recognise a need to learn this content knowledge it will be available in a way that

makes it easy to integrate into their teaching programmes.

A similar survey will be completed after the resources have been available for a year to

ascertain any change in teacher knowledge of intellectual property.

Acknowledgments The research was carried out in 2007 by Victoria University of Wellington academicstaff; Susan Corbett, Ann Bondy and Louise Starkey, as part of a larger research project entitled IntellectualProperty in Technology Education: Professional Support Materials. The project was funded by the NewZealand Ministry of Education and is accessible through http://www.techlink.org.nz.

References

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis iteration.Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Compton, V., & France, B. (2007). Towards a new technological literacy: Curriculum development with adifference. Curriculum Matters (3). Wellington: NZCER.

Corbett, S. (2005). Educating the community about intellectual property: A lesson for New Zealand. NewZealand Intellectual Property Journal, 4, 128–134.

Corbett, S. (2007). Case study BP616: Kiwi made. Accessed 16 February 2009 from www.techlink.org.nz/GIF-tech-education/beacon-practice/Materials/BP616-Kiwi Made.

Corbett, S., Bondy, A., & Starkey, L. (2007). Intellectual property in technology education: Supportmaterials for the Ministry of Education. Accessed 16 February 2009, from www.techlink.org.nz.

Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media.Ministry of Education. (1995). Technology in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Ministry of Education. (2007). Technology curriculum support. Accessed 16 February 2009 from

http://www.techlink.org.nz/curriculum-support/pdfs/technology-curriculum-support.pdf.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,

15(2), 4–14.Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development:

Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

344 L. Starkey et al.

123