Research in Science & Technological Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/crst20

Students’ perceptions of authenticity in an upper

secondary technology education innovation
project

Joachim Svärd, Konrad Schönborn & Jonas Hallström

To cite this article: Joachim Svärd, Konrad Schönborn & Jonas Hallström (01 Sep 2022):
Students’ perceptions of authenticity in an upper secondary technology education innovation
project, Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2022.2116418

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2116418

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 01 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1438

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crst20
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2116418

Students’ perceptions of authenticity in an upper secondary

technology education innovation project
a b a
Joachim Svärd , Konrad Schönborn and Jonas Hallström
a
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden;
b
Department of Science and Technology (ITN), Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Background: Authenticity in schools has been highlighted as Student perceptions;
important for improving students’ engagement and learning, and authentic learning;
to prepare them for future job markets, especially in science and innovation; technology
education; high school
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 experi­
ences of the innovation project as having induced creativity, com­
mitment, ownership, motivation, and real-world connection,
although at times it was also a challenge to think for themselves
and to collaborate with others.

CONTACT Jonas Hallström jonas.hallstrom@liu.se Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL)
Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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 alter­
natives (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,
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

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 technolo­
gists, 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 pursu­
ing 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.
4 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

● 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 fin­
ished 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 perfor­
mance (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 ‘21st 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 stu­
dent 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 corre­
spondence with a PBL perspective, methods of assessing learning outcomes included
expert appraisal, group oral presentations, design reports and group discussions.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

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 knowl­
edge, 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.
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 tech­
nology (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
6 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
hrs. Activity phase 2
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)
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)
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)
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)
– 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)

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.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

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 compo­
nent 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.
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 partici­
pants consented to all the former. Participants’ anonymity was protected and all partici­
pant 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 evalua­
tors (e.g. Alias, Masek and Md Salleh 2015; Cassidy 2007; Kaufman 2019; Lew, Alwis and

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%)
8 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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 authen­
ticity 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).
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

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 authen­
ticity (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.
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%.

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).
10 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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

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

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
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 11

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 tran­
scripts 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.
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 per­
ceived 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 dis­
cussion 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
12 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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).
Authentic context
Authentic task
Presence of expert performances Anyway, it was good to show what you could do [when meeting with professional
Multiple perspectives
Collaboration
Reflection
Articulation
Coaching and scaffolding
Examples of students’ verbatim responses representing perceptions of elements of
authenticity in the learning environment.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
[. . .] 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).
(Continued)
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 13

Table 3. (Continued).
Elements of authenticity
(Herrington et al. 2010).
Authentic assessment
Note: Text between square brackets inserted by author to clarify verbatim responses.
Examples of students’ verbatim responses representing perceptions of elements of
authenticity in the learning environment.
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).

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 devel­
opment 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 trans­
mitters 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’ experi­
ences 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
14 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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 Examples of students’ verbatim responses representing
theme Description of theme perceptions of their experiences.
Creativity Perception of solving problems with It felt like using our creativity together. You choose a road,
task appropriateness and and somebody else comes along and says that this is
originality 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 Maybe that is how much it differs from other subjects. Maybe
the learning process. 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 Perception of ownership of thinking But when they told you kind of this is how it should be, then
learning process and task. 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 [. . .] you [stayed behind] for a while [in class] because you
motivation for the task 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 Perception of real-world relevance [. . .] in a few years when we present a project [. . .] we will be
experiences and experience 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).
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 15

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 brack­
ets) 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 environ­
ment, 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 environ­
ment 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
16 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

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 educa­
tion 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).

ORCID
Joachim Svärd http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3202-8051
Konrad Schönborn http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8888-6843
Jonas Hallström http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0829-3349
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 17

References
Alias, Maizam, Alias Masek, and Hasanul Hadi Md Salleh. 2015. “Self, Peer and Teacher Assessments
in Problem Based Learning: Are They in Agreements?” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
204: 309–317. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.157.
Allen, I. Elaine, and Christopher A Seaman. 2007. “Likert Scales and Data Analyses.” Quality Progress
40 (7): 64–65.
Anker-Hansen, Jens, and Maria Andreé. 2019. “In Pursuit of Authenticity in Science Education.”
NorDiNa, Nordic Studies in Science Education 15 (1): 498–510. doi:10.5617/nordina.4723.
Autio, Ossi 2019. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Technology Education.” The Eurasia
Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences, Antalya, Turkey 15: 45–54.
Barak, Moshe. 2020. “Problem-, Project- and Design-Based Learning: Their Relationship to Teaching
Science, Technology and Engineering in School.” Journal of Problem-Based Learning 7 (2): 94–97.
doi:10.24313/jpbl.2020.00227.
Battelle For Kids. “Partnership for 21st Century Learning”. n d. http://www.p21.org/
Behizadeh, Nadia 2011. “Authenticity as a Motivational Variable in Academic Writing.” Paper pre­
sented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Georgia Educational Research Association (GERA),
Savannah, GA.
Behizadeh, Nadia, and George Engelhard. 2014. “Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure
Perceived Authenticity in Writing.” Assessing Writing 21: 18–36. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2014.02.001.
Bozalek, Vivienne, Daniela Gachago, Lucy Alexander, Kathy Watters, Denise Wood, Eunice Ivala, and
Jan Herrington. 2013. “The Use of Emerging Technologies for Authentic Learning: A South African
Study in Higher Education.” British Journal of Educational Technology 44 (4): 629–638. doi:10.1111/
bjet.12046.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braund, Martin, and Michael Reiss. 2006. “Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The
Contribution of Out-of-school Learning.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (12):
1373–1388. doi:10.1080/09500690500498419.
Cachia, Romina, Anusca Ferrari, Kirsti Ala-Mutka, and Yves Punie. 2010. Final Report on the Study on
Creativity and Innovation in Education in the EU Member States. Louxembourg: European Union.
Cassidy, Simon. 2007. “Assessing ‘Inexperienced’ Students’ Ability to self-assess: Exploring Links with
Learning Style and Academic Personal Control.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
32: 313–330. doi:10.1080/02602930600896704.
Chen, Juebei, Anette Kolmos, and DU Xiangyun. 2020. “Forms of Implementation and Challenges of
PBL in Engineering Education: A Review of Literature.” European Journal of Engineering Education
46 (1): 90–115. doi:10.1080/03043797.2020.1718615.
Chris, Dede, Korte Spence, Robert Nelson, Gil Valdez, and David J. Ward. 2005. Transforming learning
for the 21st century: An economic imperative. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved
from https://bit.ly/2MUfV32
Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7 ed.
Oxon: Routhledge.
Conley, David, and Elizabeth French. 2014. “Student Ownership of Learning as a Key Component of
College Readiness.” American Behavioural Scientist 58 (8): 1018–1034. doi:10.1177/
0002764213515232.
Dewey, John. 1900. School and Society. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago press. http://www.guten
berg.org/files/53910/53910-h/53910-h.htm
Edström, Kristina, and Anette Kolmos. 2014. “PBL and CDIO: Complementary Models for Engineering
Education Development.” European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (5): 539–555. doi:10.1080/
03043797.2014.895703.
EU (Council of the European Union). 2008. “Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of
the Governments of the Member States, Meeting within the Council of 21 November 2008 on
Preparing Young People for the 21st Century: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools.”
Official Journal of the European Union C: 319/21.
18 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

Field, Andy. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4 ed. London: Sage Publications .
Garland, Ron. 1991. “The mid-point on a Rating Scale: Is It Desirable.” Marketing Bulletin 2 (1): 66–70.
Gibbs, Graham. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications .
Gulikers, Judith TM, Theo J. Bastiaens, and Rob L. Martens. 2005. “The Surplus Value of an Authentic
Learning Environment.” Computers in Human Behavior 21 (3): 509–521. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.028.
Hart, Peter 2006. “How Should Colleges Prepare Students to Succeed in Today’s Global Economy?”
http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/Re8097abcombined.pdf
Herrington, Jan n d. “Authentic Learning” http://authenticlearning.info/AuthenticLearning/Home.
html
Herrington, Jan, and Ron Oliver. 2000. “An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic Learning
Environments.” Educational Technology Research and Development 48 (3): 23–48. doi:10.1007/
BF02319856.
Hill, Ann Marie. 2018. “Authentic Learning and Technology Education.” In Handbook of Technology
Education, edited by de Vries and de Vries. Cham, Switzerland: Springer 473–487 . doi:10.1007/
978-3-319-44687-5_36.
Hill, Ann Marie, and Howard A. Smith. 1998. “Practice Meets Theory in Technological Education:
A Case of Authentic Learning in the High School Setting.” Journal of Technology Education 9 (1):
29–41. doi:10.21061/jte.v9i2.a.3.
Hill, Ann Marie, and Howard A. Smith. 2005. “Research in Purpose and Value for the Study of
Technology in Secondary Schools: A Theory of Authentic Learning.” International Journal of
Technology and Design Education 15 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1007/s10798-004-6195-2.
Jan, Herrington, Thomas C. Reeves, and Ron Oliver. 2010. A Guide to Authentic e-learning. New York:
Routledge.
Johnmarshall, Reeve, Steven G. Cole, and Bradley C. Olson. 1986. “Adding Excitement to Intrinsic
Motivation Research.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1 (3): 349.
Kaufman, James. 2019. “Self-assessments of Creativity: Not Ideal, but Better than You Think.”
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 13 (2): 187–192. doi:10.1037/aca0000217.
Kaufman, James, and Ronald Beghetto. 2009. ““Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of
Creativity”. Review of General Psychology 13 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0013688.
Lederman, Linda Costigan. 1990. “Assessing Educational Effectiveness: The Focus Group Interview as
a Technique for Data Collection.” Communication Education 39 (2): 117–127. doi:10.1080/
03634529009378794.
Lewis, Rees, G Daniel, Jamie Gorson, Leesha V. Maliakal, Spencer E. Carlson, Elizabeth M. Gerber,
Christopher K. Riesbeck, and Matthew W. Easterday. 2018. “Planning to Iterate: Supporting
Iterative Practices for Real-world Ill-structured Problem-solving.” Rethinking Learning in the
Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count 1: 9–16.
Lima, R. M., P.H. Andersson, and E. Saalman. 2017. “Active Learning in Engineering Education: A (Re)
Introduction.” European Journal of Engineering Education 42 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/03043797.2016.
1254161.
Magdeleine, Lew, W.A.M. Alwis, and Henk Schmidt. 2010. “Accuracy of Students’ self-assessment
and Their Beliefs about Its Utility.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (2): 135–156.
doi:10.1080/02602930802687737.
Matell, Michael S., and Jacob Jacoby. 1972. “Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert
Scale Items? Effects of Testing Time and Scale Properties.” Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (6):
506–509. doi:10.1037/h0033601.
Murphy, Patricia, Stephen Lunn, and Helen Jones. 2006. “The Impact of Authentic Learning on
Students’ Engagement with Physics.” The Curriculum Journal 17 (3): 229–246. doi:10.1080/
09585170600909688.
Nicaise, Molly, Terresa Gibney, and Michael Crane. 2000. “Toward an Understanding of Authentic
Learning: Student Perceptions of an Authentic Classroom.” Journal of Science Education and
Technology 9 (1): 79–94. doi:10.1023/A:1009477008671.
Puente, Gómez, Sonia Maria, Michael van Eijck, and Wim Jochems. 2011. “Towards Characterising
design-based Learning in Engineering Education: A Review of the Literature.” European Journal of
Engineering Education 36 (2): 137–149. doi:10.1080/03043797.2011.565116.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 19

Purcell-Gates, Victoria, Sophie C. Degener, Erik Jacobson, and Marta Soler. 2002. “Impact of
Authentic Adult Literacy Instruction on Adult Literacy Practices.” Reading Research Quarterly
37 (1): 70–92. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.1.3.
Rees Lewis, D. G., C. K. Riesbeck, E. M. Gerber, and M. W. Easterday. 2019. Assessing Iterative Planning
in Learning Environments for Real-World Design. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Lyon:
France.
Rotherham, Andrew J., and Daniel Willingham. 2010. “‘21st-Century’ Skills. Not New, but a Worthy
Challenge.” American Educator 34 (1): 17–20.
Ryan, Richard, and Edward Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definition and
New Directions”. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.
1020.
Shaffer, David Williamson, and Mitchel Resnick. 1999. ““Thick” Authenticity: New Media and
Authentic Learning.” Journal of Interactive Learning Research 10 (2): 195–216.
Simonton, Dean Keith. 2017. “Big-C versus Little-c Creativity: Definitions, Implications, and Inherent
Educational Contradictions.” R. Beghetto and B. Sriraman edited by Creative Contradictions in
Education. Creativity Theory and Action in Education. Vol 1: 3-19. Springer : Cham. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-21924-0_1.
Skolverket. 2011. “Subject Plans in Upper Secondary School in English.” https://www.skolverket.se/
download/18.4fc05a3f164131a7418107e/1535372300598/Technology-swedish-school.pdf
Svärd, Joachim, Konrad Schönborn and Jonas Hallström. 2017a. ”Design of an authentic innovation
project in Swedish upper secondary technology education”. Australasian Journal of Technology
Education, 4:1-15. https://doi.org/10.15663/ajte.v4i1.48
Svärd, Joachim, Konrad Schönborn and Jonas Hallström. 2017b. ”Does Authentic Learning Work?
Evaluating an Innovation Project in Upper Secondary Technology Education in Sweden.” PATT-34
Proceedings: Technology & Engineering Education. Fostering the Creativity of Youth Around the
Globe. Philadelphia: Millersville University.
Swedish Research Council. 2017. Good Research Practice Vetenskapsrådets Rapportserie, VR1710.
Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.
Teknikdelegationen. 2010. “Vändpunkt Sverige – Ett ökat intresse för matematik, naturvetenskap,
teknik och IKT.” In [Turning Point Sweden - an Increased Interest in Mathematics, Science,
Technology and ICT.] SOU, 28. Stockholm: Teknikdelegationen.
Tsybulsky, Dina. 2019. “Students Meet Authentic Science: The Valence and Foci of Experiences
Reported by high-school Biology Students regarding Their Participation in a Science Outreach
Programme.” International Journal of Science Education 41 (5): 567–585. doi:10.1080/09500693.
2019.1570380.
Turnbull, Wendy. 2002. “The Place of Authenticity in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum”.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education 12 (1): 23–40. doi:10.1023/
A:1013056129283.
Victoria, Purcell-Gates, Nell K. Duke, and Joseph A. Martineau. 2007. “Learning to Read and Write
Genre- Specific Text: Roles of Authentic Experience and Explicit Teaching.” Reading Research
Quarterly 42 (1): 8–45. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.1.1.
Wibeck, Victoria. 2010. Fokusgrupper. 2 ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur. [Focus groups].

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?
20 J. SVÄRD ET AL.

○ 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
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 21

○ 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