Introduction

While technology education in Sweden’s primary schools is compulsory, it tends to get little attention, due to low status and few educated technology teachers, compared to other subjects such as mathematics, physics, and language (Skolinspektionen [The school inspectorate], 2014). However, technology can be regarded as a crucial subject. Included in the technology curriculum is understanding and knowledge of humans’ surroundings and learning to identify various aspects of technology. Likewise, the organisation of the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA, 2020) asserts that it is important for students to understand how technology impacts human lives, society, and the environment and how technological products, systems and processes are used and developed. This is important due to students’ future possibilities and the need to take informed actions and to critically value technology (e.g., Koski, 2014).

A common approach in technology education is that technology is a practical subject in which there is no need to develop theories about its teaching, for example, focusing on different kinds of constructions. When students just build and construct without reflecting, it is challenging for the teacher and the student to understand what they might learn during technology work. It is arguably convenient to start teaching in technology with technological artefacts as the focus because this is what students mostly perceive as technology (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b) and some scholars even argue that the teacher must start there (Blikstein et al., 2017). However, this approach risks primary school students having vague concepts of technology. Su and Ding (2022) concluded that students generally understand technology from a perceptual consciousness and seem to define technology based on its contemporary characteristics; for example, as an object that requires electricity to function. Following this, young students mostly referred to technology as objects (Su & Ding, 2022) or examples of technological artefacts (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b).

Ankiewicz (2016) stated that students’ concepts of technology are insufficient and that they mainly perceive technology as a recent phenomenon and as artefacts or products. Because students do not generally conceive technology as a process, primary school technology education plays a significant role in shaping and developing students’ understanding of technology (Su & Ding, 2022), which could be looked upon as central to developing technological literacy: understanding what technology is, how it evolves, how it is created, and how society and technology are interrelated (ITEEA, 2020). In turn, being technologically literate, students may be aware that they are capable problem-solvers and can make informed decisions involving technology (ITEA, 2006).

Kilbrink (2016) stressed the role of teachers in supporting students’ learning, specifically in explaining how theory and practice are intertwined. This means creating learning situations that involve interactions with both theory and practice within the same object of learning. By asking questions and together with students’ discussions, teachers can support students’ development and reasoning in technology. In this context, teachers must create communicative learning situations where students’ opportunities to understand technology in a broader sense can develop (e.g., Kilbrink, 2016). Teachers’ questions and explanations may support student-centred interactions and can be based on their prior knowledge, such as that regarding technology (e.g., Bumaa & Nyamupangedengua, 2021).

In this context, we want to explore the ways in which primary school students, in interactions with fellow students and teachers, expand their understanding of how technology is manifested. This understanding involves various aspects of technology—object, activity, volition, and knowledge (Mitcham, 1994)—that in student interactions become visible and thereby possible to identify, classify, and analyse. We are interested in what ways students become able to communicate an understanding of how technology can be manifested by using verbal language to formulate ideas and construct understanding together (e.g., Hennessy et al., 2020; Howe et al., 2019; Mercer, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978).

The aim of the present study is to explore how primary students develop and expand their understanding of technology manifestations during a teaching sequence in technology education. This means following four learning activities in the classrooms, involving interactions between students, their teachers, and available artefacts. The interactions in this study consider the discussions between students in small groups (2–4 students in each group) and between teacher and student in whole-classroom discussions (e.g., Mercer & Littleton, 2007). The research question posed in the present study is:

In what ways do students’ understanding of how technology is manifested expand during a series of classroom activities?

Theoretical starting points

The concept of technology

The concept of technology has been defined in several contexts and by different researchers and organisations. For instance, ITEEA (2020) defined technology as when the natural environment is altered to fulfil human needs and desires through human-designed products, systems and processes. Technology can also pertain to producing and utilising artefacts (Mitcham, 1994). This term can be understood as making activities, or knowledge primarily considered as an activity carried out by humans (Mitcham, 1994).

Mitcham (1994) described technology as four modes of manifestation: objects, knowledge, activity, and volition (see Fig. 1). De Vries (2016a, 2016b) emphasizes that Mitcham’s manifestations of technology could be related to ontological considerations (technology as objects), epistemological perspectives (technology as knowledge), methodological approaches (technology as activity) and ethical and aesthetical considerations (technology as volition). Technology as object “is the most […] immediate, […], mode in which technology is found manifest […]” and it includes humanly manufactured material artefacts, such as clothes, utilities, utensils, tools, structures, and machines (Mitcham, 1994, p. 161). According to Mitcham (1994), technology as knowledge concerns skills of making and using technological artefacts, thus mental knowledge. Technology as activity is related to the fact that knowledge and volition are banded together in constructing artefacts. Thus, technology as activity can be related to various human actions: crafting, inventing, designing, manufacturing, working, operating, and maintaining. In Mitcham’s (1994) description, technology as volition is associated with different kinds of will, motive, and intentions. The framework provides a philosophical richness to technology, which brings different inputs to technology. Moreover, it provides theoretical and practical opportunities for overlapping technologies, for example, playing with toys where technology as object overlaps technology as activity and using pure technical skills where technology as activity overlaps technology as volition. The four modes of manifestations of technology as object, as activity, as knowledge and as volition cannot be entirely separated. In addition, the framework can be a way into philosophical questions, reflections, and discussions regarding the description of technology. (Mitcham, 1994).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mitcham’s manifestations of technology (Blom & Abrie, 2021; Mitcham, 1994)

Full size image

On the other hand, de Vries (1996, 2016a, 2016b) described three different types of technology: experience-based technologies, macrotechnologies, and microtechnologies. According to de Vries (2016a, 2016b), experience-based technologies (for example, the wooden spoon) are technologies that have been developed through human experimentation throughout history and not on fundamental scientific theories. Macrotechnologies (for example, the invention of the steam engine) are based on fundamental theories such as mechanics and electromagnetism, related to macroscopic structures. The third type of technology, microtechnologies (such as the electric toothbrush), plays an important role in microscopic technology, for example, in the development of the transistor.

Furthermore, de Vries (2016b) argued that technology may include a vast number of basic concepts. These can be arranged into five categories: designing (elements in designing, such as optimising, invention and practical reasoning), system (concept of systems and subsystems, such as artefacts, structure and function), modelling (visualisation, abstraction, prototype, etc.), resources (such as material, humans and information), and values (sustainability, risk/failure, effectiveness, etc.). Various concepts have been employed in technology to clarify the functioning of artefacts and are considered central to students developing an understanding of how society and technology affect each other (de Vries, 2016b; Koski, 2014) and are therefore taught in schools.

De Vries (1996) delineated that students often look upon technology as microtechnologies (‘high-tech’) and more seldom as experience-based technologies. Technological artefacts are humans’ first meetings with technology and any object that has been modified, which can be further described from its physical and functional aspects (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b; Kroes & Meijers, 2006). Additionally, artefacts are the outcome of a technological process where knowledge plays a significant role (Mitcham, 1994).

A technological process is an activity that is interdependent on humanity and, in its widest sense, the modifying of nature according to human needs and desires and as the making and using of artefacts (Raat & de Vries, 1987; see also de Vries, 2016a, 2016b; Banks, 2006; ITEA, 2007; Pearson & Young, 2002). Many descriptions of technology include the interrelationship between society and technology and how they mutually affect one another (e.g., Dakers, 2018; Raat & de Vries, 1987). Additionally, the work of Su and Ding (2022) highlighted the importance of this interrelationship and stated that technology could be identified as humans’ activities to modify the natural environment to fulfil human needs.

Considering that technology is increasingly prevalent across various occupations, it is essential for students to acquire proficiency in design skills, practical technical skills, and competence in handling technological artefacts (Raat & de Vries, 1987). Technical skills are a type of knowing-how (knowledge that cannot easily be verbalised or expressed in propositions) and as knowing-that (knowledge is expressible in various accepted propositions) (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b; McCormick, 2006). Knowing-that is the knowledge of technological concepts that can be learnt through, for example, teaching. Another part of technological knowledge that cannot be verbally expressed is knowledge that must be visualised, such as pictures. This kind of knowledge must be taught and learnt in another way, such as through images to support learning (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b). Moreover, de Vries (2016a, 2016b) distinguished between two different forms of technological knowledge: conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge. Conceptual knowledge includes knowledge of factual information and theories, while procedural knowledge includes the ability to solve design problems and may be partially expressed through propositions (see also McCormick, 2004, 2006).

Previous research on students’ understanding of technology

As mentioned above, it is essential for students to become technologically literate in order to achieve the competencies necessary to make informed decisions about technology issues in their lives. According to Clough et al. (2013), developing an understanding of the nature of technology is critical for students to become technologically literate and to make informed decisions about its use. However, several studies have shown that students often have limited and vague conceptions of technology, referring to it primarily as artefacts (Blom & Abrie, 2021; Jarvis & Rennie, 1996b; Su & Ding, 2022; Svenningsson, 2020).

Furthermore, Blom and Abrie (2021) found that students (9th and 10th-grade South African students) had limited perceptions of technology. They used Mitcham’s typology (Ankiewicz, 2019; Mitcham, 1994) of technology when analysing the students’ perceptions of technology. The students most often referred to technology as objects and/or activities and thus disregarded technology as knowledge and will. A majority of students related technology to new electronic objects and the technological activity to designing, making, and using technology (Blom & Abrie, 2021). This is consistent with the results of an interview study with Grade 3–6 students, starting with a picture quiz following a combined writing/drawing activity, conducted by Jarvis and Rennie (1996a). The study found that students most commonly associated technology with modern devices such as computers and that their descriptions of technology became increasingly complex and coherent as they grew older. These findings suggest that utilising visual support, such as images, can be an effective way of supporting students’ learning of complex technological concepts and promote a deepened understanding of technology.

In the same way, Su and Ding (2022) investigated the perceptions that Chinese primary school students aged 9–12 had regarding their understanding of the concept of technology, technologies’ effect on human life and the relationship between science and technology. The researchers utilised images to promote the students’ descriptions of technology as well as individual interviews with the students. The results indicated that students described technology from various aspects, such as the dimensions of its features, production, function, operation, and use. Su and Ding (2022) concluded that primary school students, in the study, had an insufficient understanding of the concept of technology and had difficulty comprehending the relationship between science and technology. Nevertheless, although some studies found that students perceive technology in a limited sense, Su and Ding (2022) stated that, regarding Mitcham’s typology, all four aspects of technology were represented in their study’s findings.

Svenningsson (2020) found similar results: students describe a narrow view of technology. Svenningsson investigated what aspects of technology are covered in 164 students’ (aged 12–15) descriptions of technology and adopted a deductive analysis method to quantify students’ descriptions of technology. The students most commonly described technology as object, especially modern electrical objects. Svenningsson explored other ways in which students probably described technology. The students’ descriptions are related to Mitcham’s framework of the manifestations of technology, and the results indicated that students could describe technology more broadly by using all four manifestations of technology. However, the most common was students’ descriptions of technology as objects and activities (Svenningsson, 2020).

Similarly, to Su and Ding (2022) and Jarvis and Rennie (1996a), Lind et al. (2019) conducted a study in which students aged 13–14 used images as support when describing technological systems to their fellow students in order to develop their understanding of technological systems and their features. The findings indicated that a large number of students were able to describe and develop an understanding of technological systems and their components with the support of images during interactions.

In brief, the research studies presented here, based on Mitcham’s typology, agree that students of various ages have a limited understanding of technology and most often view it as artefacts (objects). Some students described technology as activities. Nonetheless, students need support to develop and expand their knowledge and comprehension of technology. This is an important aspect of learning technology because students need to comprehend major technological concepts as well as the interrelationship among technology, society, individuals, and the environment in order to become technologically literate (ITEA, 2006). Additionally, if students realise that technology affects them, it can provide them with agency and responsibility. Although the studies discussed highlight the importance of developing students’ understanding of technology, there is a lack of empirical research focusing on students developing an understanding of how technology is manifested during technology work in primary school. The present study aims to address this gap.

Methodological considerations and analytic perspectives

Setting and participants

As described, the aim of this study is to advance understanding of how students, during a series of technology activities, expand their understanding of how technology is manifested. To approach the research question, we adopted a qualitative research method grounded in a sociocultural perspective on learning, which implies exploring students’ learning through spoken interactions, communication, and reasoning together (Hennessy et al., 2020; Jakobsson & Davidsson, 2012). This means that we strove to arrange communicative situations, in which the students were encouraged to discuss, explain, and talk about technology. In this study, the tablet camera constitutes decisive support. Mercer et al. (2019) indicated that new dialogues and interactions develop around digital artefacts, such as a tablet camera and its photographs. The tablet camera helps the students focus attention on a certain object and the photographs aim to provide appropriate support for the students to evolve discussions in the follow-up dialogues between students (e.g., Hennessy et al., 2020; Lind et al., 2019). In other words, framing and amplifying the artefact helps them in further discussions and interactions with fellow students. The photographs may also help the students express their understanding of technology in a way other than the conventional school language (e.g., Cappello & Lafferty, 2015). Further, Capello and Lafferty (2015) argued that working with a camera enhances students’ learning as the images and the visual process help the students visualise their knowledge. This is applicable to the subject of technology.

The study was conducted in a multicultural municipal school in the southern part of Sweden and followed two teachers’ regular teaching in technology in Grade 2. In all, 46 students, aged eight, in two classes, were involved. The school was selected based on its geographical closeness, availability, and accessibility of participants. The students were familiar with small group talk and therefore often practised listening and talking skills (Littleton, et al., 2005). The vocabulary and concepts of technology had not been taught previously in the class and, as part of developing an understanding of technological manifestations, the students must utilise basic concepts (for example, artefacts, components, and technological systems) to describe technology.

The starting point for the study was Svenningsson’s (2020) study on students’ descriptions of technology. In the study, Svenningsson utilised Mitcham’s typology (described on p. 2–3) of technology to classify, analyse, and quantify students’ descriptions of technology. The students achieved a score for each of the four aspects of Mitcham’s typology they used. The results from each student were summarised and called the ‘Mitcham score’. The sum of the scores was in the range of 0 to 4 points. We will be inspired by, but not fully utilise, Svenningsson’s ‘Mitcham score’ to analyse the results, considering that our aim is to explore students’ understanding of technology. We will adopt Mitcham’s (1994) typology of technology, which could be suitable, according to previous research, when analysing students’ descriptions of technology as it includes concepts found in students’ descriptions of technology (Blom & Abrie, 2021; de Vries, 2016a, 2016b; Su & Ding, 2022; Svenningsson, 2020).

Collecting data

For data collection, we utilised video (3 pieces of equipment) recordings of the students’ interactions and discussions. In addition to the video recordings, several audio recorders (10 pieces of equipment) were placed in the student groups’ workplaces. In this way, it was conceivable to get close to the students’ interactions by being able to see and listen to the material repeatedly (Cohen et al., 2011). The data were collected in two classes during a three-week teaching sequence and comprised four occasions of 60–120 min each (see Fig. 2). The regular teachers were responsible for the teaching and learning activities. The overall purpose of the teaching sequence was to enable students to perceive technology in their nearby surroundings. The four data collection occasions constituted pre-decided learning situations from the whole teaching sequence. This meant that the students had approximately seven lessons, four of which were recorded. The four occasions were selected because these classroom activities provided possibilities for taking pictures, time for discussions and working in groups. Activities 1 and 4 constitute the first and last lessons in the sequence.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The classroom activities

Full size image

In the first activity, the students were to look for ‘technology’ in the classroom based on the question: “What is technology? Take photos of what you perceive as technology, keep the images, and use them in your conversations”. On the second occasion, students’ tasks were to photograph what they perceived as technology that was not powered by electricity. Here, technological concepts, such as artefacts, components, and technological systems, were introduced to give the students opportunities to learn and develop a subject-specific language. This activity was related to the findings in the first one, where the focus became electronic devices. Thirdly, the class went outside in the nearby surroundings to look for technology. The teachers emphasised technology, both inside and outside the classroom context, to give the students opportunities to widen their view and thereby support students’ understanding of how technology is manifested. The students received the same assignment outdoors as in the classroom activities. Thus, the photographs were used in the follow-up discussions between students and teachers in the classroom.

During the final activity, a bicycle was moved into the classroom (see Fig. 3). The idea was to give the students opportunities to identify what technology is and why it is technology. Additionally, they were to identify and explain various components and technological systems. This activity provided opportunities for the students to use essential technological vocabularies such as technological artefacts and technological systems. As Mercer et al. (2019) indicated, a combination of dialogic pedagogy and digital tools could provide an impact on students’ learning and interaction in the classroom.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The classroom activity

Full size image

Ethical considerations

As the students in the present study were young, it is ethically required to obtain informed consent from the guardians, even though the data collection was taking place in an ordinary teaching situation (Shammo & Resnick, 2015; Utbildningsdepartementet [Department of Education], 2021). Accordingly, we applied for and received ethical approval from the scientific council (Codex, 2022). We received informed consent from both the guardians and 36 out of 46 students. This figure indicates that some of the students were part of the teaching but not part of the data collection. In addition, the students who did not provide consent to participate were never recorded on purpose. However, sometimes when the activity in the classroom involved moving around in the room, some students randomly appeared in the audio or video recordings. As we transcribed the interactions, we removed the part of the recordings where these students appeared. This action took place after the whole data collection was finished. All students were de-identified and given fictitious names that were made up by the researchers.

Analytic process

Before starting the analysis, data in which non-participating students accidentally occurred were removed. This meant that the collected data were reduced from approximately 31 h to 18 h. Thereafter, the analytic procedure started and comprised three separate but interrelated phases. The first phase consisted of identifying all situations in which students expressed ways in which technology can be manifested. This was done by using the critical incidents (CI) technique (Angelides, 2001). A CI could be described as the interpretation of the significance of a situation (Angelides, 2001), which characterises and reveals a particular feature of a student’s behaviour, such as a question, an action, or an expression of understanding (Cohen et al., 2011). In a classroom, a CI could be a minor event that appears when students discussed something that could bring perspective to their perceptions and understanding of technology in some way, and might only occur once (Cohen et al., 2011).

The second phase took a deductive approach using Mitcham’s typology of technology and the four modes of manifestation: Objects, Knowledge, Activity, and Volition. During the interactions, there were several situations where students’ utterances did not align with Mitcham’s typology, such as when students described artefacts in terms of their colour or size. These utterances were interpreted as appearance perspectives and therefore not considered. The choice of framework for interpretation is grounded in the fact that this is a well-explored model (e.g., Ankiewicz, 2019; Blom & Abrie, 2021; Su & Ding, 2022; Svenningsson, 2020) and that it contributes to increasing our understanding of how eight-year-olds consider and understand how technology is manifested. Mitcham’s (1994) modes of manifestation seemed applicable to analysing the students’ statements. Furthermore, the framework was found to be fruitful as it could be used for this data material to explore how the students’ discussions expanded during the four activities. In all, we identified 523 critical incidences, which were distributed as Objects (328), Knowledge (144), Activity (64), and Volition (88). However, in this phase of analysis, we found that the categorisation, based on Mitcham’s typology, tended to be too wide, and the literature described above opened up for describing each mode in different subcategories. The mode Object could, for example, refer to tablets, cars, and spoons. According to de Vries (2016a, 2016b), this could be categorised into micro-technology, macro-technology, and experience-based technology (described on p. 3). When it comes to the modes of Knowledge, Activity, and Volition, we also found them too broad, so we constructed subcategories. This meant that knowledge was expanded with procedural and conceptual knowledge (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b), activity with resources, operating/interacting, designing, and manufacturing (Mitcham, 1994; Raat & de Vries, 1987), and finally volition with ethics, intentions, and values (de Vries, 2016a, 2016b; Mitcham, 1994; Pearson & Young, 2002; Raat & de Vries, 1987; Su & Ding, 2022). The framework is visualised in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Framework of how technology can be manifested (de Vries, 1996, 2016a, 2016b; Mitcham, 1994; Pearson & Young, 2002; Raat & de Vries, 1987; Su & Ding, 2022)

Full size image

The third phase of the analysis comprised a detailed categorisation as the critical incidents were sorted into the subcategories. This was initially done utilising a protocol (Appendix) and then negotiated with co-authors if differences were discovered. The results of the analysis are described both through excerpts of student discussions related to different manifestations of technology and through describing the quantification of the critical incidents.

Findings

The description of results will first comprise an overall view of CI related to technology manifestation and Mitcham’s typology. Thereafter, each activity will be highlighted and the subcategories of technology manifestation (subcategories of Mitcham’s technology) will be in focus.

Thus, the CI were first categorised into technology as Object, Activity, Volition, and Knowledge. The findings are displayed in Table 1. The results demonstrate an increased number of CI: from 44 CI in the first activity to 319 CI in the last. It was also evident that the students increasingly considered all types of technology manifestations during the teaching sequence as the work proceeds.

Table 1 Number of critical incidents (CI)
Full size table

In the next phase of the analysis, the recognised CI were further analysed and categorised into subcategories of technology manifestation. The findings are described with the starting point in the different activities. For each activity, there will first be an overall description of the number of CI related to the categorisation framework. Thereafter, examples of utterances and dialogues will be presented. Finally, the findings show a summary of all activities, including how the CI is distributed based on the subcategories.

Activity 1—what is technology? (in the classroom)

In the first activity, the students worked unconditionally with the question “What is technology?” and used a tablet camera for documentation. The students’ photographs, as well as the subsequent dialogues, focus mainly on technology as an object and, specifically, the aspect microtechnology. However, a few CI comprise Objects and Experience-based, Activities and Resources and, Volition and Intention. These results are described in Table 2.

Table 2 Protocol aspects of technologies, number of CI within activity 1
Full size table

The most common CI in this activity—Object—Micro-technology—was found in all student groups and the excerpt in Fig. 4 constitutes a significant example of this.

In Fig. 5, Ava lists different devices that she knows as technology. When the teacher asks why those things are technology, she argues, on behalf of the group, we think because they conduct current. All student groups discussed and argued that technology is manifested as electrical, modern objects/artefacts, such as computers and mobile phones. When students mentioned these artefacts, the incidents were categorised as Objects and Micro-technology. On the contrary, if the students recognised the need for electricity to power the objects, these incidents were categorised as Activity and Resource, as electricity is considered a resource to make the artefact work. Short statements are displayed in Table 3.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Excerpt from activity 1

Full size image
Table 3 Short statements from activity 1
Full size table

Activity 2—what is technology? (in the classroom, no electricity)

In the next activity (Activity 2), the students worked with the question “What is technology?” but were now requested to exclude electric-powered tools. They used the camera in a similar way as in the first activity. The students looked for artefacts that function without electricity and identified, for example, several experience-based objects (scissors, chairs, and tables) that have been developed through human history, not based on scientific theories.

The protocol (Table 4) shows that the students, with support from the teacher’s questions and explanations as well as interacting with fellow students, expanded their way of discussing technology manifestations.

Table 4 Protocol subcategories number of CI—activity 2
Full size table

In the students’ discussions, the technology manifestation of Objects now includes all three subcategories Experience-based technologies (32), Micro-technologies (22) and Macro-technologies (5). Furthermore, the students’ descriptions, in addition to Objects, now refer to all the other typologies of Activity, Volition, and Knowledge, where Activity is the most common of the latter three.

Two examples of Volition and Intention are shown in Excerpts 2.1 and 2.2, where Ruth and Milad describe the importance of technology, for example, scissors and iPad; “Because they help us in life”, and “We need them” (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Excerpts from activity 2

Full size image

Due to the task, the students do not focus on electrical devices but instead take pictures of scissors, chairs, tables, and pens. Thus, their discussions open up for other manifestations of technology than Objects and Micro-technologies. Table 5 shows additional examples of CI within each typology.

Table 5 Short statements from activity 2
Full size table

Activity 3—what is technology? (outdoors)

In the third activity, the students display and discuss their photos of technology taken in their outdoor neighbourhood. From the results, the students here include other subcategories to Objects in their discussions. This means that both Experience-based technologies (40) and Macro-technologies (16) are more commonly represented in the students’ discussions compared to the first activity, where the most frequently mentioned manifestation was Micro-technologies (28). Technology manifested as Volition is more often present (31) than in the first activity (4). The protocol is displayed in Table 6.

Table 6 Protocol Subcategories number of CI—activity 3
Full size table

To further clarify the categorisation, Table 6 constitutes examples of CI in Activity 3. In Excerpt 3.1 (Fig. 7) Ava and Anne discuss technology outdoors. Ava points to her photo and says that these are technologies because they are made by humans, where made by refers to Volition and Intention as the object is manufactured by humans with a specific intention.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Excerpts from activity 3

Full size image

Kajal further argues that her photo of a pram (Object and Macro-technologies) is for the children so they can sit without walking (Volition and Intention). Finally, Dilara shows a photo of a garbage can (Object and Macro-technologies) and states that you don’t […] throw it out there on the floor. More examples of the categorisation of CI from this activity are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Short statements from activity 3
Full size table

Activity 4—technology on a bike

In the last activity, the students used the camera for taking pictures of technological details on a bike, such as technological components and systems central to the bike’s function. These images were then displayed and discussed in groups. Due to the task, the CI for this activity had a large focus on technology as Objects. This is seen in the protocol (Table 8) and the students most frequently perceived details on the bike as Objects and Experienced-based technologies (181). CI representing Activity and Operating/interacting, Activity and Resources as well as Volition and Intentions were also represented to a high extent.

Table 8 Protocol subcategories number of CI—activity 4
Full size table

Again, to exemplify CI related to the protocol in Activity 4, Fig. 8 comprises excerpts from students’ group discussions.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Excerpts from activity 4

Full size image

In Excerpt 4.1, Cy argues that You need a chain otherwise you can’t cycle then it doesn’t cycle then you just push it. This could be interpreted as him trying to explain the “pedalling” system of the bike. Additionally, John describes what happens if the system stops functioning …because if the chain jumps off it will come … if the chain jumps off it will come, what is it called, then you must push because then you keep pedalling but so it doesn’t work. Furthermore, John describes the action demanded to handle the issue if the chain jumps off, to push to move.

In this activity, the typology Knowledge received greater attention and the number of CI related to that increased compared to the other previous ones. For example, a student identified the brake lever […] one that brakes and describes its features and function related to the bike’s functioning. Here the students relate Objects (the brake) to the other manifestations such as Volition (you can stop), Activity (It brakes) and Knowledge (This one that brakes).

The teachers’ creation of learning situations involving students utilising photographs, which was interrelated with interactions, questioning, explanations, and claims (e.g., Kilbrink, 2016) led to an expanded understanding of technology and especially technology manifested as knowledge (51), such as by problematising students’ statements with how and why questions. However, Xu et al. (2022) implied that teachers’ and students’ perceptions and understanding of technology are strongly intertwined: in order to improve student’s abilities to develop a correct understanding of technology it is essential that teachers fully and accurately comprehend the concept of technology themselves (e.g., Rohaan et al., 2010) (Table 9).

Table 9 Short statements from activity 4
Full size table

The results from all four activities show that the students increasingly refer to more typologies and subcategories during the teaching sequence. This is evident in the protocols where the number of CI increase between the activities, but the students also expand their ways of considering technology as more subcategories are included during the teaching sequence. As previously shown, the students’ initial descriptions of technology refer mostly to electrical objects, but with support from the tasks and group discussions the students’ descriptions of technology subsequently also include non-electric objects, how we use technology and explanations for how technological systems work.

In order to summarise all incidents, Table 10 displays all identified CI included in the data material for this study. This means that, within each activity, every categorised incident is represented as typology and subcategory. Table 10 may be described as the students expanding their ways of discussing what technology is and how it can be manifested during the teaching sequence. In Activity 4, where the bike was present, there was a large focus on the typology Object, but it is worth noting that the other typologies (Activity, Volition, and Knowledge) are present and well represented in student discussions (see Table 10).

Table 10 Summary of activity 1–4
Full size table

Limitations of the study

This study was conducted following ordinary classroom activities, which means that the data collected are limited to two classrooms and 36 participating students. Throughout the four data collection occasions, both students and teachers were observed engaging with technology and investigating key concepts such as artefacts, components, and systems. While data was not collected during the intervening lessons, students continued to work with technological concepts related to technology during this period. Some data regarding non-participants were excluded before the analysis process started, which could make it difficult to capture the full picture of these students’ perception of how technology is manifested. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings. However, together with previous research, this study can help increase our understanding of students’ perceptions of technology and their presumed technological literacy development.

The context in which the study takes place is complex because a lot of things play a role in the students’ interactions, such as the interrelations between students and the learning environment. It is likely that the changes—in students’ description of the manifests of technology—partly vary because of the varied amount of collected data and partly due to the teaching the students are partaking in (for instance, the second activity where the students where to find technologies not powered by electricity, promoted students thinking beyond microelectronic devices)—the learning involves discussions regarding what technology might be. We used critical incidents as a method for analysing students’ interactions. One weakness is that it relies on the individual researcher’s perceptions and interpretations of significant situations, such as when a specific critical incident starts and ends. Moreover, turning qualitative data into quantitative data is challenging. Counting and comparing data, as done here, could be looked upon as influencing the findings of the study. However, as the aim of the study was to investigate how a group of students deepen their understanding of how technology is manifested, we argue that this approach contributes to a broader view of the students’—in this context—developing an understanding of technology.

As mentioned earlier, teachers intervening in students’ interactions, with questions, claims and explanations, will hopefully affect students’ learning in technology. The participating group members must respect each other’s ideas in order to be able to learn from each other, which could be more demanding to some participants than others. This could also lead to a suppressed willingness to partake and share thoughts, which may expose any kind of misunderstanding of the concepts discussed in the classroom. Therefore, it is understandable that some students do not participate in whole-class discussions so as not to expose their lack of understanding.

Discussion and implications

In this study, we aimed to explore how primary school students expanded their understanding of how technology is manifested. Initially, the students took photographs of and talked about technology mainly as Objects (Micro-technologies). This is in line with previous research, as students often mentioned different electronic devices when they were asked to identify and describe technology. It is likely that students discussed technology from the perspective of modern high-tech artefacts, functioning through electricity and that this also might be a prevailing discourse in society (Ankiewicz, 2016; Blom & Abrie, 2021; Jarvis & Rennie, 1996a; Svenningsson, 2020).

In Activities 2 and 3, the teachers intentionally change focus and the students are instead asked to take pictures of non-electrical technology and technology in their neighbourhood. Here, the students are challenged to use new words and an emerging expanded understanding of technology manifestations arises. The situation allows students to utilise these words to move beyond their earlier understanding when discussing everyday concepts in technology (e.g., Daniels, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, the spoken interactions, where the students communicated and reasoned, helped them to learn and develop new knowledge together with fellow students (Hennessy et al., 2020; Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The current understanding is deployed in new situations, as the students get new assignments, such as discussing and interacting with newly photographed images (Daniels, 2008).

In the fourth activity, it became clear that when students point out Objects, they also relate the object to other manifestations such as technology as Activity. Here, students most often describe the using and making of the artefact (Operating and Manufacturing), which is in line with Blom and Abrie (2021), as well as identifying materials (Resources) on the bike. In some utterances, students try to explain a manufacturing process, such as the making of glass. Thus, within this activity, the students not only mention different manifestations on their own, but also connect and relate the different typologies to one another. These results indicate a more advanced understanding of the manifestations compared to only discussing technology from separate manifestations.

Clough et al. (2013) argued that a meaningful context supports students’ development of technology understanding and, in this study, the everyday surrounding in the classroom and outdoors could constitute a meaningful context. It is enhanced by the work with cameras. When the images are discussed and negotiated in the student groups, the visual process supports the students in making their knowledge visible (Capello & Lafferty, 2015). Self-taken photos seem to be incitement to more interactions and increase focus on details leading to an expanded understanding of technology (e.g., Lind et al., 2019). When preparing learning activities, teachers play an essential role in forming these interactions (e.g., Vrikki et al., 2019) and concluding whole-class discussions can support students in building on, sharing and challenging ideas, providing arguments as well as reflecting on technology. Students’ development of technological understanding is central to their development of technological literacy: becoming aware of how technology affects them and in what ways they can affect technology (Frederik et al., 2011; ITEA, 2006; Su & Ding, 2022).

In summary, the findings suggest that students, with the support of photographs, interactions, questioning and learning activities, develop and expand their understanding of how technology is manifested during project work in technology. The findings further demonstrate that primary students are competent to develop and expand their understanding of technology manifestations. In line with Su and Ding (2022), our analysis shows that students can learn and utilise all four manifestations and several subcategories of technology. This means that the teaching and learning activities impact students’ understanding of technology as Object as well as developing an understanding of technology as Activity, Volition, and Knowledge. Thereby, students develop an expanded understanding of the manifestations of technology.

Another outcome of this study was an extended framework for analysing students’ perceptions of technology manifestations. As argued in the methodological considerations and analytic perspective, Mitcham’s (1994) four typologies of technology manifestations turned out to be too wide for the analytic framework in the present study, and previous research opened the way for describing each typology in different subcategories. For this study, the model was used for categorising the CI, but the framework could also be used for future research. Specifically interesting are the results from Activity 4, where students start to relate different typologies and subcategories to one another. Another interesting approach could be to use the framework concerning students’ development of technological literacy or how students reach empowerment for making informed decisions involving the future (e.g., ITEA, 2006; ITEEA, 2020).

The extended framework can also contribute to teachers’ planning and implementation of a work area in technology. This means that it could serve as a tool for securing a wide perspective on technology manifestations. In addition, when making knowledge and abilities of the technology subject visible to students, the framework might help students to an expanded understanding. The extended framework may allow teachers to identify aspects and details of technology education that need to be focused on and possibly developed. Mitcham (1994) claimed that a framework should provide guidance, allowing adjustments and opportunities to develop in relation to new ideas.