Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Piloting technological understanding and reasoning in Icelandic schools

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

Abstract

A pilot research was undertaken in Icelandic schools during the 2013–2014 school year, in order to explore students’ technological understanding and reasoning at the ages of 11 and 13. The survey included a questionnaire regarding mechanical movement, power and thermodynamics, while the project considered the congruity between students’ undertakings within Design and Craft education in the national curricula and their ability to understand technology. This article examines the literature and considers the value of technology lessons within Icelandic Design and Craft education, in terms of students’ technological competence. Data was collected using a questionnaire distributed to three elementary schools and is highlighted with the researchers’ reviews of the national curricula. Findings were discussed and conclusions drawn and the results highlighted a general lack of understanding in technology, within the context of students’ daily lives. In addition, there were differences between boys and girls.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualisation: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arnot, M., Gray, J., James, M., Rudduck, J., & Duveen, G. (1998). Recent research on gender and educational performance. London: OFSTED/HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, O. (1997). Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien kehittyminen peruskoulussa [Student’s development in technical abilities in Finnish comprehensive school]. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, O., & Hansen, R. (2002). Defining and measuring technical thinking: Students’ technical abilities in finnish comprehensive schools. Journal of Technology Education, 14(1), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, M. (1987). Techniques for classroom interaction. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. (2011). Sex/gender and the media: From sex roles to social construction and beyond. In K. Ross (Ed.), The handbook of gender, sex and media. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Marketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakers, J. (2005). Technology education as solo activity or socially constructed learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakers, J. (2006). Introduction: Defining technological literacy. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyrenfruth, M. J. (1990). Technological literacy: Characteristics and competencies, revealed and detailed. In H. Szydlowski & R. Stryjski (Eds.), Technology and school: Report of the PATT conference (pp. 26–50). Zielona Gora: Pedagogical University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practising representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappa, 78(5), 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasse, C. (2011). Kulturanalyser i organisationer. Begreber, metoder og forbløffende læreprocesser. København: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (2010). Embodied technics. Milton Keynes: Automatic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingerman, A., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: A model for enactment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://www.iteaconnect.ora/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf.

  • Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and mathrelated outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychological Science, 18(1), 13–18.

  • Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physics Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 3, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. 5). Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, K. L. (2008). Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory and problem-solving behaviors. Physics Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 4, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maryland Technology Literacy Consortium. (2014). Maryland technology literacy standards for students. Professional development and technology measures for students, teachers and school administrators. Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/techlit/.

  • Menntamálaráðuneytið. (2014). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla. Reykjavík: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2014). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mechanical.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. P. (1994). Internal combustion engine: Concise encyclopaedia of science and technology. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuleaux, F. (1963). The kinematics of machinery. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather, K. N. (2004). The second instalment of the ITEA/Gallup Poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association (ITEA).

  • Rosengrant, D., Heuvelen, A. V., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand freebody diagrams? Physics Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 5, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Søndergaard, K. D. (2009). Innovating mental health care—A configurative case study in intangible, incoherent and multiple efforts. PhD Dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish School of Education, Aarhus University.

  • Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutopo, S., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Impact of a representational approach on students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding in learning mechanics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 1–24 .

    Google Scholar 

  • Technically Speaking. (2006). Technical literacy. Retrieved January 3, 2007 from the National Academies: National Academy of Engineering. Website: http://www.nae.edu/nae/techlithome.nsft.

  • The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2014). Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/reasoning.

  • The Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2014). Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://www.oed.com/.

  • Thorsteinsson, G. (2002). Innovation and practical use of knowledge. Data international research conference 2002 (pp. 171–177).

  • Uicker, J. J., Pennock, G. G., & Shigley, J. E. (2003). Theory of machines and mechanisms. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 165–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J. (2010). Different matters of invention: Design work as the transformation of dissimilar design artefacts. PhD Dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish School of Education, Aarhus University.

  • Weinburgh, M. (1998). Gender, ethnicity, and grade level as predictors of middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Georgia State University. Retrieved from: www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/1998AETS/s5_1_weinburgh.rtf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Craft, School of Education, University of Iceland, V/Stakkahlid, 105, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Gisli Thorsteinsson

  2. Department of Arts and Craft, Telemark University College, Postboks 155, 3672, Notodden, Norway

    Brynjar Olafsson

Authors
  1. Gisli Thorsteinsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brynjar Olafsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gisli Thorsteinsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thorsteinsson, G., Olafsson, B. Piloting technological understanding and reasoning in Icelandic schools. Int J Technol Des Educ 26, 505–519 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9301-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9301-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation