Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assisting teachers’ understanding of student learning in technology

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes a study undertaken in New Zealand, England and Sweden and is based on the use of a tool developed by the researcher as a professional development and teaching tool in technology education for teachers of students between four and six years of age. The aim of the research was to investigate teachers’ views of the effectiveness of the tool designed to deepening their understandings of technology content and pedagogical content knowledge. The tool, technology observations and conversation framework (TOCF) was designed to guide teachers’ interactions with and observations of young children when learning technology with the aim of developing teacher insight into their own understanding of technology and how students learn technology. The tool was developed using the building of learning power theory to facilitate the identification of key dispositions and attitudes within four aspects of learning and across five pre-determined behaviours relevant to technology education. Qualitative research methods were used to investigate teachers’ interaction with the TOCF by observing their use of it, and interviewing them about their perceived developed understanding of technology content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The initial purpose of the framework, presented to the teachers prior to teaching, was to guide interactions with students to assist this development and subsequently assist their ability to teach technology effectively and give specific feedback to students in technology education. The study found that teachers felt that they gained a deeper understanding of technology education and their understanding of students’ learning in technology also developed. This article presents the final framework and teachers’ views on how they were assisted by the framework. The study offers an international perspective on ways to broaden and deepen students’ understanding in technological literacy through the development of teacher content knowledge and PCK and contributes significantly to the field of formative assessment in technology education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills: rethinking how students learn. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2014). Outstanding formative assessment: culture and practice. London: Hodder Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, G., & Carr, M. (2010). A framework for teaching learning:the dynamics of disposition. Early Years: An International Journal, 24(1), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, G., Chambers, M., Powell, G., & Lucas, B. (2013). The learning powered school: Pioneering 21st century education. Bristol: Bristol TLO Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, V., & France, B. (2007). Towards a new technological literacy: Curriculum development with a difference. Curriculum Matters, 3, 158–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, V., & Harwood, C. (2005). Progression in technology education in New Zealand: Components of practice as a way forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 253–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, A. (2011). In search of a pedagogy for primary design and technology education. In C. Benson & L. Lund (Eds.), International handbook of primary technology education (Vol. 7, pp. 167–180). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. (2017). Philosophy of technology: Themes and topics. In M. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 7–16). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education. (2013a). The national curriculum in England: framework document. London: Department of Education. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/dfe/nationalcurriculum.

  • Department of Education. (2013b). Statutory guidance: national curriculum in England: Design and technology programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdf.

  • Doyle, A., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Donal Canty, D., & Hartell, E. (2018). Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: Proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9456-1.

  • Fox-Turnbull, W. (2006). The influences of teacher knowledge and authentic formative assessment on student learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox-Turnbull, W. (2012). Funds of knowledge in technology education. Paper presented at the PATT 26 Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Themes of conversation in technology education. In: Paper presented at the International Teachnology and Engineering Educators’ Assocation Conference, Columbus.

  • Fox-Turnbull, W. (2016). The nature of primary students’ conversation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge (1st ed. Vol. 2009 Reprint). New York: Routledge.

  • Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383870310201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, J. (2018). Mastering primary design and technology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, M., & Bjorkholm, E. (2016). Epistemic habits: primary school teachers’ development of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2009). Towards an articluation of students making progress in learning technological concepts and processes. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology international trends in curriculum and assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2008). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, pp. 255–268. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y.

  • Masson, A.-L., Klop, T., & Osseweijer, P. (2016). An analysis of the impact of student-scientist interaction in a technology design activity, using the expectancy-value model of achievement related choice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge-talk amongst teachers and learners. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 55–71). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring talk in school. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking—a sociocultural approach. Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, J., & Jones, A. (2000). Emerging assessment practices in an emergent curriculum: Implications for technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 283–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Chambers, M. (2001). Enhancing student learning in technology through teacher technological literacy. Wellington: University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitiative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2009). Learning to argue, aruing to learn. In A. Jones & M. De Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 431–444). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pellergrino, J. W. (2002). How people learn: contributions to framing a research agenda for technology education (Vol. 2). Gold Coast: Centre for Technology Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohaan, E. (2009). Testing teacher knowledge for technology teaching in primary schools. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2.th ed.). London: Academic Press Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, C., & Edwards, M. (2005). Dialogue is not just talk- a new ground for educational leadership. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011). Twenty-first century learning and technology education nexus. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 34, 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Perspectives of authenticity: implementation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9168-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spendlove, D. (2015). Developing a deeper understanding of design. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Bunting (Eds.), The future of technology education: Contemporary issues in technology education series. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, W. (2002). The place of authenticity in technology in the New Zealand curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need–-and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action: The task of sociocultural analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.740005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yliverronen, V. (2018). Preschoolers’ peer collaboration on a designing task. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 23(2), 106–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinchenko, V. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 94–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand

    Wendy Fox-Turnbull

Authors
  1. Wendy Fox-Turnbull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy Fox-Turnbull.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Technology observation and conversation framework (primary)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fox-Turnbull, W. Assisting teachers’ understanding of student learning in technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 1133–1152 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9484-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9484-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation