Technology Education: Supporting inclusive practice



The Nature of Technology:

Briefing Paper prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Education Curriculum Project

Dr Vicki Compton and Dr Alister Jones

November 2004

Rationale for a focus on the Nature of Technology

Technology is a purposeful human activity that expands the dimensions of human possibilities, and in fact challenges notions of what it is to be human. As such, it stands alongside other ways we represent and interact with our social, ethical and cultural being, for example, music, art, and science. This in itself is a compelling reason for the existence of technology education as an essential learning area for students in New Zealand to be involved with until at least year 10 (Jones & Moreland, 2003). The aim of technology education in New Zealand is to develop programmes that will support the development of a critical (Petrina, 2000) or liberatory (Davies, 2000, Compton & Harwood, 2003) technological literacy in students, which will serve them well as future informed and empowered citizens. In this paper we argue it is essential to develop sound understandings of the nature of the technology, alongside more technologically bounded notions such as technological practice and technological knowledge. Research evidence to date (Compton & Harwood, 2003, Mather, 1995, Jones & Moreland, 2003) clearly indicates that when students are provided with opportunities to develop a broad and increasingly sophisticated understanding of the nature of technology, their learning in technology generally is enhanced. This broadening has been brought about by teachers explicitly engaging their students in conversations about the nature of technology (Jones & Moreland, 2003) and the critical analysis of technological practice of others in the past and present (Compton & Harwood, 2003).

Roger Bybee (2000) makes the interesting point that in late 1999, the Newseum, a journalism museum in Virginia, conducted a survey of American historians and journalists to determine the top 100 news stories of the 20th century. He notes that the top 100 headlines in the 20th Century, an estimated 45% were directly related to technology. This ranking of news stories seems to justify increased emphasis on technological literacy, because it represents clearly what the public reads, hears, and values relative to technology. Although this work was undertaken in USA there is no reason to believe that the case would be any different in New Zealand. As a society deeply dependent on technology we are largely ignorant about the nature of technology, and the factors that underpin technological development and innovation.

The nature of technology has been explored in the philosophical writings of Idhe, (1983) who presents a useful definition of technology based on the work of the existential philosopher Heidegger. That is, technology as a ‘mode of revealing the world’ (Heidegger, 1977). Idhe (1983) explains this defining of technology through the example of the clock. As described by Mumford (1934) the clock has long been recognised as having played an important role in historical developments and it is an example Heidegger also uses when explaining technology as being far more that a product or artifact. Drawing from both these accounts, Idhe discusses the development of a ‘clock’ as the beginning of a “perception of time through technology” (Idhe, 1983). As the nature of the clock changed, so too did the nature of the perception. For example, the shift from analogue to digital necessitated a shift in the way we perceive time. That is, using an analogue clock one ‘sees’ time as a ‘spatial’ relationship, whereas with a digital clock one is forced into ‘calculative thought’ in order to ascertain a notion of time. The mental operation for telling the time changes and with it our way of being-in-the-world (summarised from Idhe, 1983 in Compton, 2001). In addition, how we define ourselves is often in terms of technological metaphors and analogies, for example the heart as a pump, the brain as a computer.

The philosophy of technology is a growing associated field of technology as evidenced by the establishment of groups such as Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) and academic journals focused on historical and philosophical issues for example, Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology and Technology and Culture. This in turn is reflective of the increasingly common philosophical debates arising from many established technological domains such as engineering, and very public debates surrounding emerging shifts within domains such as simulatory control technologies, biotechnology and food technology. In fact, it could be argued that as traditional boundaries are crossed in the establishment of new technological outcomes, focusing on the more generic underpinnings of technology is becoming more and more important in ensuring such things as fitness for purpose and assessment of risk. Philosophical reasoning and debate is critical in the development of potential ethical scenarios in order that long-term impacts may be critically explored prior to intervening in the world in ways which would fundamentally change it (Keulartz, Korthals, Schermer, & Swierstra, 2001), as well as exploring the fitness of the purpose from multiple perspectives (Barnett, 1994). The growing importance of the philosophical in the praxis of technology supports therefore, an increased focus of the same within technology education.

Drawing from lessons within science education also lends support to the inclusion of the nature of technology as key to technology education. It has been recognised by many exploring the somewhat dismal level of students’ (and indeed the general public’s) scientific literacy that a lack of understanding regarding the nature of science and a corresponding belief in ‘myths’ of science, is a common factor (for example, Driver, Leach, Millar & Scott, 1996; Hodson, 1994; McComas, 1998; Shamos, 1995; Solomon & Thomas, 1999). In addition to this, in explorations of the public understanding of science, it has been found that when people (including scientists) understand the nature of science, scientific inquiry and the scientific enterprise, they are more likely to make informed decision about scientific claims, neither rejecting them outright, nor accepting them uncritically. When people have a more robust understanding of the nature of science, they in turn develop a more critical scientific literacy, including an ability to judge the worth of an expert (Feynman, 1998; Shamos, 1995; Solomon & Thomas, 1999). Investigations in science education focusing on overt teaching of the nature of science alongside science conceptual and/or investigative development, have found positive results in student learning across all dimensions (Barker, 2001; Driver, Leach, Millar & Scott, 1996; Hipkins, Barker & Bolstad, in press; Monk & Osborne, 1997; Smith & Scharman, 1999). Whilst still in its infancy in science education, particularly within New Zealand, this would seem to be a direction well worth exploring for enhancing technology education also.

Early research in technology undertaken in New Zealand (Learning in Technology Education - LITE) regarding teachers’ (Jones, Mather & Carr, 1995) and students’ concepts of technology (Mather, 1995) also indicates strongly that understandings about technology impact in many ways of subsequent practice – whether it be what and how teachers teach technology or how students undertake their own technological practice (Jones, Mather & Carr, 1995; Mather, 1995; Mather & Jones, 1995). Subsequent interventions carried out in the early LITE research attempted to counter narrow concepts of technology, however evidence collected in second and third trials suggested these underlying concepts of technology were strongly held and difficult to expand without direct and consistent attention throughout multiple unit delivery. These findings are also supported anecdotally in the Research on Assessment in Primary Technology (RAPT) project (Moreland & Jones, 1998), LITE-Assessment research (Jones & Moreland, 1999-2000), Technology Education Assessment in Lower Secondary - TEALS (Compton & Harwood 1999-2000) and Technology Education Assessment National Professional Development-TEANPD (Compton & Harwood 1999-2000) projects.

Based on all the above, we argue that the nature of technology should be included as a strand in the revised technology curriculum. The implications of this are that learning experiences focused on developing understandings of the nature of technology would be a key focus in technology programmes from year 1 through to year 13. It would support the attainment of achievement standards in senior secondary progammes, which currently focus on technological practice, technological knowledge and skills.

Jones and Moreland (2003) discuss a broad description of progression in terms of the nature of technology reflective of early, middle and senior primary school students’ perceptions. The following table presents a summary of these findings (Extract from Figure 1: Characteristics of Progression in Learning Technology (Years 1-6), Jones & Moreland, 2003)

| |Early |Middle |Senior |

|Characteristic | | | |

| |Distinguish between made and |Knowing about a greater range of |Knowing that technology has |

|Nature of technology |natural world and people use |technologies and the differences |altered the way we think about |

| |tools and techniques to help them|between them. Better |the made world. |

| |do things. Notions of betterment|understanding of the relationship|Knowing how technology has |

| |and enhancement and initial |between technology and other |evolved over time. Aware of both |

| |understanding of the way |areas. |the positive and negative aspects|

| |technology impacts on them | |of technology |

While we currently have no analysed classroom data to develop more specific indicators of progression, this work can provide a starting point for the development of these through a sustained and focused classroom research programme. What would be required to do this is discussed further in the final section of this paper.

The next section outlines the points we see as key within the nature of technology for technology education in New Zealand.

Identifying Key Points within the Nature of Technology

We envisage the nature of technology strand would focus on students developing an understanding of the key characteristics of technology as a field of human endeavour, whereby that endeavour is driven by the overall purpose of intervening in the world to meet needs and realise opportunities. The purpose would be linked to the concept of technology as developed and developing processes, outcomes and knowledge. Understanding the unique nature of technological knowledge is also an important aspect in understanding the concept of technology. What defines technological knowledge as such, and not knowledge from other domains would be explored, as would the relationship of the epistemological claims of technological knowledge to the epistemology of other domains. Thus understanding the purpose and concept of technology would be a key point within the nature of technology strand. Exploring historical and contemporary technological developments and understanding them in terms of social, cultural and environmental impacts and implications should also be a key focus within this strand. Awareness of the human influences on technological practice and outcomes can developed by studying the ways in which individual’s and groups beliefs, values, ethical stances both constrain and/or promote technological development. Thus the impacts of and influences on technological development would be another key point within this strand.

Purpose and Concept of technology

As outlined earlier the purpose of technology is to intervene in the world in order to meet needs and realise opportunities. In this way it seeks to extend the made world in ways which will have planned and unplanned implications for what it is to ‘be’ human. The parameters for the purpose of technology are provided by the concept of technology within which it is embedded.

There have been numerous papers and books written in recent years relating to, and exploring, the diversity of concepts of technology. These have ranged from those dealing almost exclusively with exploring, and frequently contesting, the nature of the relationship between technology and science (for example, Allsop & Woolnough 1990, Gardner 1994, and Layton 1993), to those taking a 'wider' more sociological perspective (for example, Cockburn 1993, McGinn 1990, McCormick, Murphy & Hennessy 1994, and Wajcman 1991). Due to philosophical and historical arguments by those such as Gardner (1994), the view of technology as some form of subset of science, has largely been replaced by most theorists in the field of the philosophy of technology and those working in technology education, by a view of science and technology as two autonomous and distinctive fields (Gardner, 1994). However, the same cannot be said so conclusively for others - including many practicing technologists and scientists particularly in domains such as engineering where the dominant knowledge base since the renaissance period has tended to be science. Importantly for technology education, this shift has often not occurred in the general public understanding of technology, nor therefore can it be assumed it is so for teachers and students. However, since the introduction of the technology curriculum in 1995, school technology is often usually seen as distant from science and closer to technical or craft concepts of technology.

The concept of technology explored in many of the sociological texts listed above, is often also based on a narrow, restrictive concept of technology, albeit of yet a different kind. They are not narrow in terms of applied science or craft, but rather they are narrow by way of taking a materialist artefactual focus (Mather, 1995). This has meant that while critical theorists, for example, Cockburn, (1993), and Rothschild, (1983) provided a much needed and powerful critique of ‘technology’, this was somewhat limited to a critique of the technological artefact. More recent writers have addressed this however, with a reconceptualisation of technology itself as situated human activity, reliant on and reflective of social, cultural, political and environmental location (Barnett, 1995; Lewis and Gagel, 1992; Hansen, 1997; Pacey, 1983; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Wajcman, 1991).

Just as different concepts of technology drive different critical agendas, they also drive curriculum development in technology education. Within education therefore, we see a diversity of concepts of technology resulting in a range of curricula foci. This relationship is complex as the same curriculum statement can often serve to support different, often contradictory, concepts of technology. Other areas within the same country also tend to portray technology differently, both in terms of each other and to the specific technology statements. For an example of this, see the references to technology in the Social Studies, Mathematic and Science curricula statements in New Zealand, and compare these to the Technology statement. Black (1994) discusses the diversity both between and within, countries regarding both the concept of technology and its educational purpose. He goes on to explain five different perspectives of technology within technology education. These five perspectives (Black, 1994, pp 114-115) are summarised as follows:

• Technology as craft skills;

Here the concept of technology is primarily linked to making things. The educational purpose would seem vocationally oriented.

• Technology as Design and Make;

The concept of technology here is an expanded version of the first, in that it incorporates elements of design as distinct from making from prescription as focused above. Again the educational purpose is primarily vocational.

• Technology and Science;

Here the concept of technology is essentially applied science - reducing often to applied physics. Educational purpose still could be considered vocational but in a very different sense to the first two. Linkings made to general education - specifically for future citizenship of technological societies.

• Technology as Design and Make in the context of the application of scientific principles;

Here the concept of technology focuses on the process of design and manufacture however, the focus includes that of exploring the questions of 'purpose and value' in the context of solving problems using scientific or mathematical principles. The educational purpose of this perspective would seem to be a more focused attempt to educate people as future citizens.

• Technology as Practical Capability;

The concept of technology here is primarily centred around a complex process that focuses on co-operation, defining of needs, designing, implementing and evaluating solutions. Educational purposes are for “citizenship, broad vocational fitness, and personal development by way of the development of the synthesis of the powers of analysis, decision, manual and aesthetic skill, evaluation and collaboration”.

The development of technology education in New Zealand over the past decade has had the benefit of reflection on other countries forays into the area. The concept of technology provided in the 1995 technology curriculum, most closely aligns with Black’s fifth perspective in terms of capability. However, the New Zealand position also has two additional aspects - technological knowledge, and the relationship between technology and society. Whilst it could be argued these aspects are fully intended as being included in Black's capability, they are given more prominence in the New Zealand statement, highlighting their importance to the concept of technology. Related also to the inclusion of these additional aims, is a widening of the educational purpose of technology education in New Zealand context. Along with Black's stated purposes of citizenship, there is another purpose - that of education for social change (Mather, 1995). This purpose is linked to the aim of a liberatory technological literacy as introduced earlier.

As discussed elsewhere (Compton, 2004), there is a growing body of literature that considers technological knowledge exists as distinct from, and fundamentally different to, other knowledge domains (for example, Baird, 2002; Custer, 1995; Layton 1993; McCormick, 1997; McGinn, 1990; Staudenmaier, 1985). Technological knowledge includes understanding resources and their part in enabling the success of a technological outcome, including the physical properties of resources, and their current and long-term availability and viability. System/process knowledge focuses on understanding the way things work together as part of an overall outcome. Technological knowledge also includes understanding the social and physical environment of any technological development or site. It includes knowledge of appropriate ethics, legal requirements, cultural or domain protocols and the personal/collective needs of the end-users and technologists specific to the development as well as the site where the outcome/s of the development may be located.

As part of understanding the nature of technology, understanding the distinctiveness of its knowledge base is essential. Understanding the nature of technological knowledge rests on an understanding of its ontological and epistemological assumptions. Following on from a view of technology as a situated and purposeful activity embedded in the made world and impacted on by social, cultural, environmental, political and economic perspectives and contexts at both local and global levels, technology can be thought of as holding to an ontological process view of the world. That is, what the made world is, and what it is to be human within that world, are mutually constitutive. In keeping with this, the knower and what is known and created in a material sense, are similarly interlinked - as illustrated above in the ‘clock’ example.

Epistemologically, technological knowledge in keeping with sociocultural and constructivist theories, accepts a concept of knowledge as a social construct, the validation of which usually located in a pragmatic theory of truth, where knowledge in any domain is validated by agreement within that domain. However, as Baird (2002) discusses, the epistemic criteria for judgment of knowledge in the domain of technology should be materialist or referenced to the ‘made’ rather than natural world as in the case of science, or the ‘imagined’ world as in the case of art and music.

This is not to say that the natural and imagined worlds are not important in technological endeavours. Technology constantly draws knowledge from other domains, and operationalises this for the purpose at hand. However, technological knowledge as distinct from this works to give the material primacy, acknowledging that “the things we make bear our knowledge of the world, on a par with the words we speak” (Baird, 2002, p.1). Baird goes on further to argue the need for an epistemological shift by explaining that other domains (science for example) may hold to a “justified true belief” or similarly propositional criteria for validating knowledge, whereas in technology this should be replaced by an intertwining of a “materials sense of truth with the notion of function.” (Baird, 2002, p.4). Knowledge therefore, within the domain of technology, is validated in relation to successful ‘function’.

The implications of this epistemological shift require a reconceptualisation of the “key features” of knowledge such as “detachment, efficacy, longevity, connection and objectivity”. (Baird, 2002 p.6). Baird explains how these features can all be explored in a material sense whereby truth is replaced by function[1]. These implications amongst others, would need to be explored in depth to fully understand the nature of technological knowledge.

While technology employs knowledge from a range of other domains, Device knowledge is a term used unique to technology literature. It is argued as important in technology as it has as its referent the ‘material’ rather than ‘natural’ world (Gott, 1988). As such, device knowledge would appear to be in keeping with Baird’s suggested epistemological shift from propositional ‘truth’ to ‘function’ and reflects the knowledge that successful artefacts bear – in both symbolic and literal ways. Device knowledge can be argued as existing as both tacit and explicit knowledge (Compton, 2004). As technological knowledge is an additional strand, this point under the nature of technology will concern itself only with the nature of technological knowledge – not the specific knowledge categorised as such. However, the two would obviously work together in classroom practice, rather than expecting students to develop an understanding of the nature of technological in a purely abstract sense.

Table 1 below explores some of the characteristics of the nature of technology as an attempt to further define the area. Returning to examples from science education, specifically with regards to how it defines the nature of scientific knowledge as part of the nature of science, provides a starting point for this exploration by providing an indication of categories that would seem important to think about when defining the the nature of technology, inclusive of the nature of technological knowledge.

Table 1 – Exploring characteristics of the nature of Science and Technology

(Drawing from Smith & Scharman, 1999; and Baird, 2002)

|Category |Science |Technology |

|Object |Explain the natural world based on empirical |Intervene in the world to adapt, modify, |

| |data. |create the made world. Empirical data one |

| | |source amongst many, emotions, beliefs, |

| | |possibilities also key data sources. |

|Values associated |Universalism, theory with largest explanatory|Specificity, that which provides best ‘fit for|

| |power – highest parsimony/simplicity. |purpose’ with highest elegance/minimal |

| |Predictive power. |engineering concept. Proven success. Always |

| |Self corrective |looking to improve/efficiency/optimise. |

|Epistemological Basis |‘Truth’ |Function |

| |Detachment |Not context bound for meaning – can be used |Deployment of function for alternative |

| | |without reference to context of discovery. |purpose, as long as fit for new purpose. |

| |Efficacy |Able to be depended on |Critical characteristic of functional |

| | | |epistemology – it must work. |

| |Longevity |Able to be depended on into the indefinite |Due to material nature – wear and |

| | |future |tear/environmental effects on function reduces|

| | | |long-term dependability so this is able to be |

| | | |calculated and provided as |

| | | |parameters/qualifier of function. |

| |Connection |Connect human thought with the world - |Connect human thought with the world – |

| | |connects how the world is with how we think |functions connect how an artifact behaves with|

| | |it is. |how we want it to behave. |

| |Objectivity |Attempts to remove human voice from that of |Success of function/fitness for purpose must |

| | |the world. Based on empiricism and logical |be seen as such by all key stakeholders – |

| | |coherence. |objectivity of function. Based on situated |

| | | |acceptance within stated parameters. |

From this discussion it can be seen that the concept of technology has implications for both understanding the purpose of technology as a creative and intervening force in the made world, as well as implications for the purpose of technology education. This will involve a growing understanding of what makes technology a discipline in its own right. A broadening understanding of the characteristics of technology and technological development, including how it relates to other areas will be an important aspect of this.

Impact of and influence on technological development

As stated, consideration of the nature of technology indicates that technological knowledge and practices are socially constructed and context dependent and are situated within their historical, cultural and institutional setting (Wertsch, 1991). Technology therefore, is an activity that involves not just the social context, but also the physical context, with thinking being associated with and structured by the objects and tools of action. This in turn requires a focus on the interaction between technology and society as it relates to technological development.

A focus on understanding the complexity of the impacts of and influences on technological development reflect an “integration of the social shaping and social impact perspectives on technology” (Bijker, 1992, pg 97). In the past many theorists have taken a dichotomous view, electing to focus on social impact or social shaping of technology. Technological determinism has developed out of the social impact theories where technology, once it has been introduced into society is depicted as ‘taking on a life of its own’ (Marx & Smith, 1994). The idea that technological development determines social change is well established and part of the way in which many writers describe technology. This view can provide useful insights into understanding the technological world both in the past and present. In contrast to technological determinism, social determinism theories hold to a notion that “societies can employ ethical conceptions to exert conscious, willful control over the norms of practice involved in technological development” (Bimber, 1994, p81-2). However, we assert that neither technological nor social deterministic perspectives on their own can provide the full picture of technology and technological development.

A sociotechnological stance does more than put technological and social determinist perspectives together as reflected in the interactive view - which retains the technological and the social as separate and stable categories (Bijker & Law, 1992). Instead, a sociotechnological stance supports a ‘seamless web view”, whereby the social and technological are mutually constitutive and unstable. Such a treating of technology and society as a “seamless web”, rather than “distinct categories” can be managed by what Bijker has coined, the development of a “technological frame” for analysis and exploration of past, current and future technological developments (Bijker, 1992, pg 98). We argue understanding the complex relationship between technology and society from a sociotechnological stance is essential for technology education and students should be given the skills and opportunities to investigate the basis of technological innovation and development using Bijker’s technological frame within this stance. Students developing levels of critical awareness of the way in which the lived world is constructed is crucial in the development of a sense of empowerment. People cannot initiate change if they do not understand the frameworks upon which any change is dependent.

In many ways understanding the sociotechnological relationship is not only about learning the ‘rules of the game’ but being in a position to critique these rules and feel empowered to change them should you find them to be inappropriate. This will involve exploring historical and contemporary technological developments and understanding them in terms of social, cultural and environmental impacts, and implications. Awareness of the human influences on technological outcomes will be inherent in this as the ways in which individual’s and groups beliefs, values, ethical stances are seen to constrain or promote technological development.

Work to be done

Although the suggested nature of technology strand pulls from some ideas captured in Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1995), specifically that intended by AOs 3, 7 and 8, it should not be assumed a shared understanding of the nature of technology has been developed by teachers to date. This is particularly relevant as we are suggesting a movement on from the stance taken in the 1995 document, which did not clearly articulate the sociotechnological basis as described in the second point above.

This paper provides an argument for why the nature of technology should be a strand in technology education, and an outline of what such a strand might include. Considerable work must now be undertaken to ensure that the two points discussed above, would provide a substantive body of material that could underpin technology programmes from year 1 to year 13. This would require the development and trial of ideas in a range of classrooms as part of technology units, investigation of effective pedagogical strategies, and an exploration of the impact of such ideas on the learning inherent in the other strands – namely technological knowledge and technological practice. This in turn would need to be supported by sustained research into how these strands could best work together to support students in developing a technological literacy that is liberatory in nature.

Implementation of technology education generally, and more recently the introduction of technology achievement standards in senior secondary programmes, would strongly suggest that teacher understandings of the nature of technology as discussed above, is still limited. In addition, these understandings are impacted on by a number of external factors such as personal experiences of technology, past subject subcultures, students’ expectations of technology, parent/caregiver expectations, valuing of the area within schools, and perceived value of technology by tertiary institutions. Therefore, research should also be undertaken to establish teacher understandings of the nature of technology and their professional development needs.

References

Allsop, T. & Woolnough, B. (1990). The Relationship of Technology to Science in English Schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 22 (2), 127-136.

Baird, D, (2002) Thing Knowledge – Function and Truth. Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology. Winter 2002, 6 (2).

Barker, M. (2001) Science for Citizenship: Engaging with the Future Through History, Narrative and the Nature of Science. SAMEpapers 2001, pp. 2-18.

Barnett, M. (1994). Designing the future? Technology, Values and Choice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 51-63.

Barnett, M. (1995) Literacy, technology and 'technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5, 119-137.

Bijker, W. (1992) The Social Construction of Fluorescent Lighting or How an Artifact was Invented in its Diffusion Stage. In W Bijker & J Law (Eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Technological Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1992) (Eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Technological Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Bimber, B. (1994) Three Faces of Technological Determinism. In L Marx and M Roe Smith (eds) Does Technology Drive History? Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Black, P. (1994) Technology in the School Curriculum. Paper 10 of Papers from Science, Mathematics and Technology (SMT) Education in OECD Countries. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (114-117).

Cockburn, C. (1993) The gender/Technology Relation: Taking Shape. Paper presented at Sex/Gender in Techno-Science Worlds, University of Melbourne. Australia. 26th June - 1st July, 1993.

Compton V.J. (2001) Developments in Technology Education in New Zealand 1993-1995: An analysis of the reflections of key participants. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Compton V.J. (2004) Technological Knowledge: A developing framework for technology education in New Zealand. Briefing Paper prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Education Curriculum Project.

Compton, V.J., & Harwood, C. D. (2003) Enhancing Technological Practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 13(1), 1-26.

Compton, V.J. & Jones, A.T. (1998) Reflecting on Teacher Development in Technology Education: Implications for Future Programmes. International Journal of Design and Technology Education. 8(2), 151-166.

Custer, R. (1995) Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5 219-244

Davies Burns, J. (2000) Learning about technology in society: developing a liberating literacy. In J. Ziman (ed.) Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 299-311.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996) Perspectives on the nature of science. In R. Driver et al. (1996) Young People's Images of Science. Buckingham:Open University Press. pp.24-44.

Feynman, R. (1988) 2nd edition. The Value of Science in What do you care what other people think? London: Unwin Hyman.

Gardner, P. (1994) Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education 24 pp.1-28.

Gott, S., (1988) Apprenticeship Instruction for Real-World Tasks: the coordination of Procedures, Mental Models and Strategies. In E. Rothkopf (ed.) Review of Research in Education, 15, 1988-1989, American Educational Research Association: Washington. 97-169.

Hansen, K. (1997) Science and Technology as Social Relations: Towards a Philosophy for Liberal Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 7, pp. 49-63

Heidegger, M. (1977) The Question Concerning Technology in Basic Writings, translated by Krell, D., New York: Harper and Row.

Hipkins R., Barker, M., & Bolstad R. (in press) Teaching the ‘nature of science’: modest adaptations or radical reconceptions. International Journal of Science Education.

Hodson, D. (1994) Science Fiction: the misrepresentation of science in the curriculum. Paper presented at The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, September 1994.

Idhe, D. (1983) The Historical-Ontological Priority of Technology Over Science. In Durbin, P.T., and Rapp, F. (ed.s) Philosophy and Technology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 80. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Jones, A. (2001) Researching and Enhancing Teacher and Student Technological Literacy. NARST symposium 25-28 March 2001.

Jones A (2003) The development of a National Curriculum in technology for New Zealand International Journal of technology and design education.13, 83-99.

Jones, A. & Compton, V. (1998) Towards a Model for Teacher Development in Technology Education: From research to practice. International Journal of Design and Technology Education 8(1), 51-65.

Jones, A., Mather V & Carr, M. (1995) Issues in the practice of technology education. Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato. Hamilton p125.

Jones, A., and Moreland, J. (1998) Assessment in technology education: developing an initial framework for research. Paper presented to Australasian Science Education Research Association '98, Darwin July 9-12 1998.

Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2003) Developing classroom-focused research in technology education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 51-66.

Keulartz, J., Korthals, M., Schermer, M. & Swierstra, T. (2002) Ethics in a Technological Culture: A Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach. Chapter One in Keulartz, J., Korthals, M., Schermer, & M. Swierstra, T. (Ed.s), Pragmatist Ethics for a Technological Culture. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Netherlands.

Layton, D. (1993) Technology’s Challenge to Science Education: Developing Science and Technology Education. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Lewis, T. and Gagel, C. (1992) Technological literacy: a critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies 24 (2) pp.117-138.

MacKenzie, D and Wajcman, J.(eds) (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Marx L & Roe Smith M (eds) (1994) Does Technology Drive History? Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Mather, V.J. (1995) Students’ Concepts of Technology and Technology Education: Implications for Practice. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Waikato, Hamilton.

Mather V & Jones A (1995) Focusing on Technology Education: the effect of concepts on practice. SET 4, item 9

McCormick, R. (1997) Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7 pp.141-159.

McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994) Problem solving processes in technology education: a pilot study. International Journal Technology and Design Education, vol. 4 (1), 5-34.

McGinn, R. (1990) What is technology? In L. Hickman (ed.) Technology as a Human Affair. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill pp.10-25.

Ministry of Education, (1995) Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum. Learning Media: Wellington.

Monk, M., Osborne, J. (1997) Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405-424

Mumford, L. (1934) Technics and Civilization. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pacey, A. (1983) The Culture of Technology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Petrina, S. (2000) The Politics of Technological Literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10: pp.181-206.

Rothschild, J. (1982) Women, Technology and Innovation. Oxford: Pergammon Press.

Shamos, M. (1995) The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Smith, M., & Scharmann, L. (1999) Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education 83 (4) 493-509.

Solomon, J., & Thomas, J. (1999) Science education for the public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education 33 pp. 61-90.

Staudenmaier, J (1985) Technology’s Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Society for the History of Technology and The MIT Press.

Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991) Voices of the Mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

-----------------------

[1] See Table 1 for a summary of Baird’s discussion of these key features.

-----------------------

Key Features of Knowledge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download