Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fundamental Issues Regarding the Nature of Technology

Implications for STEM Education

  • SI: nature of science
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science and technology are so intertwined that technoscience has been argued to more accurately reflect the progress of science and its impact on society, and most socioscientific issues require technoscientific reasoning. Education policy documents have long noted that the general public lacks sufficient understanding of science and technology necessary for informed decision-making regarding socioscientific/technological issues. The science–technology–society movement and scholarship addressing socioscientific issues in science education reflect efforts in the science education community to promote more informed decision-making regarding such issues. Now Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) education has emerged as a major reform movement impacting science education. STEM education efforts emphasize literacy across the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, but with rare exceptions, treat issues of technology superficially and uncritically. Informed decision-making regarding many personal and societal issues requires technological literacy beyond merely becoming an enthusiastic designer or skilled user of technology, but the science education community has given little attention to what such literacy entails. Here, we present results of an extensive review of the literature regarding the nature of technology (NOT) in order to identify key issues among scholars who study technology. We then provide predominant perspectives among those scholars and suggest which identified NOT issues are most essential to address as part of STEM education efforts that seek to promote informed personal and societal decision-making.

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

  • *Aibar, E., & Bijker, W. E. (1997). Constructing a city: the Cerdà plan for the extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(1), 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D., Coyle, M., DeVriese, K., & Schneider, C. (2008). Emergent qualitative document analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 127–151). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans: a Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Anders, G. (1972). Commandments in the atomic age. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds), Philosophy and technology (pp. 130–135). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: a philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of Bakelite: toward a theory of invention. In W.E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, T. Pinch, & D. G. Douglas (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 159–187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: a philosophical inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botsman, R. (2017). Who can you trust? How technology brought us together and why it might drive us apart. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, E., & MacDonald, S. (1982). Revolution in miniature: the history and impact of semiconductor electronics. Cambridge University Press.

  • *Brey, P. (2007). Theorizing the cultural quality of new media. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 11(1), 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brey, P. (2010). Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bruun, M. H., Hanghøj, S., & Hasse, C. (2015). Studying social robots in practiced places. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 19(2), 143–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bunge, M. (1972). Toward a philosophy of technology. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds).Philosophy and technology (pp. 62–76). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bunge, M. (1985). Philosophical inputs and outputs of technology. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.). Philosophy of technology: the technological condition (pp. 172–181). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. (1992). Student perceptions of technology and implication for an empowering curriculum. Research in Science Education, 22, 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. (2015). The glass cage: where automation is taking us. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cera, A. (2017). The Technocene or technology as (neo) environment. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 21(2–3), 243–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25(1), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2013). Teaching about the nature of technology: Issues and pedagogical practices. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology: implications for learning and teaching (pp. 373–390). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Niederhauser, D. S. (Eds.). (2013). The nature of technology: implications for teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou, C., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Coolen, T. M. T. (1987). Philosophical anthropology and the problem of responsibility in technology. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Technology and responsibility (pp. 41–65). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cravens, C. (1996). The German-American science of racial nutrition. In H. Cravens, A. Marcus, & D. M. Katzman (Eds.), Technical knowledge in American culture: Science, technology, and medicine since the early 1800 (pp. 127–145). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • *De Mul, J. (2010). Moral machines: ICTs as mediators of human agencies. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(3), 226–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • *De Vries, M. (2005). Teaching about technology: an introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: an introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J. T. Glennan, S. & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.

  • *Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eubanks, V. (2015). Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farivar, C. (2018). Habeas data: privacy vs. the rise of surveillance tech. New York, NY: Melville House Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Feenberg, A. (2010a). Between reason and experience: essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Feenberg, A. (2010b). Ten paradoxes of technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Feibleman, J. K. (1961). Pure science, applied science, technology, engineering: an attempt at definitions. Technology and Culture, 2(4), 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetterman, D. (2010). Ethnography: step-by-step (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florman, S. C. (1987). The civilized engineer. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Florman, S. C. (1996). The existential pleasures of engineering. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners take all: the elite charade of changing the world. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 445–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gyekye, K. (1995). Technology and culture in a developing country. In E. Katz, A. Light, & W. B. Thompson (Eds), Controlling technology: contemporary issues (pp. 139–156). New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Heidegger, M. (1927/1996). Being and time: a translation of Sein und Zeit. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  • *Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York, NY: Garland Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Heilbroner, R. L. (1967). Do machines make history? Technology and Culture, 8(3), 335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, (1), 1), 1–1),38.

  • Hijmans, E. (1996). The logic of qualitative media content analysis: a typology. Communications, 21, 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2016). Values underpinning STEM education in the USA: an analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 101(2), 278–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hottois, G. (1987). Technoscience: nihilistic power versus a new ethical consciousness. In P. Durbin (Ed.). Technology and responsibility (pp. 69–84). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huesemann, M., & Huesemann, J. (2011). Techno-fix: why technology won’t save us or the environment. Vancouver: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In W.E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, T. Pinch, & D. G. Douglas (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 51–82). Cambridge, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hughes, T. (1991). Technological momentum. In E. Katz, A. Light, & W. B. Thompson (Eds), Controlling technology: contemporary issues (pp. 287–296). New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ilardi, V. (2007). Renaissance vision from spectacles to telescopes. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2007). National educational technology standards for students: the next generation (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

  • *Jalbert, J. E. (1987). Phenomenology and the autonomy of technology. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Technology and responsibility (pp. 85–98). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jarvie, I.C. (1972). Technology and the structure of knowledge. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey(Eds.), Philosophy and technology (pp. 54–61). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. (2015). How we got to now: Six innovations that made the modern world. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jonas, H. (1979). Toward a philosophy of technology. Hastings Center Report, 9(1), 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jonas, H. (1984a). The practical uses of theory. Social Research, 51(1). 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1984b). The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, S., & Hartman, S. L. (2018). Debate, dialogue and democracy through science: using controversial issues to develop scientific literacy and informed citizenship. Science and Children, 56(2), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Katz, E. (2009). The big lie: human restoration of nature. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 443–451). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen, A. (2008). The cult of the amateur: how blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kline, S. J. (1985). What is technology? In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: the technological condition: an anthology (pp. 210–212). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman, M. L., Mesa, J. C., & Milton, K. (2009). Cell towers and songbirds. Science Scope, 33(3), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, …’—pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kranakis, E. F. (1982). The French connection: Giffard’s injector and the nature of heat. Technology and Culture, 23(1), 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kroes, P. (1995). Technology and science-based heuristics. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of technology (pp. 17–39). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kroes, P. (2009). Design methodology and the nature of technical artifacts. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 139–155). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kroes, P. (2010). Engineering and the dual nature of technical artefacts. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: creations of mind and matter: a philosophy of engineering design. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J. (2013a). Implications of the nature of technology for teaching and teacher education. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology: implications for learning and teaching (pp. 391–410). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J. (2013b). Promoting middle school students’ understanding of the nature of technology. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology: implications for learning and teaching (pp. 391–410). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J., & Buckmiller, T. (2015). Making the shift from school manager to instructional leader: using the nature of technology framework as a tool for analysis. International Journal of Education, 7(1), 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kuhn, T. S. (1969). [The principle of acceleration: a non-dialectical theory of progress]: comment. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11(4), 426–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanier, J. (2011). You are not a gadget: a manifesto. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Latour, B., & Venn, C. (2002). Morality and technology the end of the means. Theory, Culture and Society, 19(5–6), 247–260.

  • *Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 600–620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Light, A. (2009). Ecological restoration and the culture of nature: a pragmatic perspective. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology. (pp. 452–467). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lopez Cerezo, J. A., & Mitcham, C. (1995). The social assessment of technology paradox. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 15, 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Macfarlane, A., & Martin, G. (2002). Glass: a world history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Marcus, A. (1996). The inventor of the mustache cup: James Emerson and populist technology, 1870-1900. In H. Cravens, A. Marcus, & D. M. Katzman (Eds.), Technical knowledge in American culture: science, technology, and medicine since the early 1800s (pp. 93–109). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Marx, K. (1976/1847). The poverty of philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

  • Matthews, M. R. (1992). History, philosophy, and science teaching: the present rapprochement. Science Education, 1(1), 11–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: from nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: the contributions of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, R. P. (2016). On knowing: the social sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: the extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Merchant, C. (1985). Mining the earth’s womb. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: the technological condition: an anthology (pp. 417–428). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mesthene, E. G. (1972). How technology will shape the future. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey(Eds.), Philosophy and technology (pp. 116–129). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mesthene, E. G. (1997). The role of technology in society. Technology and Values, 71–86.

  • *Michelfelder, D. (2009). Technological ethics in a different voice. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 198–207). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: the path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C., & Briggle, A. (2012). Theorizing technology. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 35–50). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C., & Schatzberg, E. (2009). Defining technology and the engineering sciences. In D. Gabbay & A. Meijers (Eds.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 27–63). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths: science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mitchell, L. (2015). Karmic cascades: ranking content and conditioning thought on reddit.com. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 19(1). 69–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Monkkonen, E. H. (1990). America becomes urban: the development of US cities & towns, 1780–1980. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York, NY: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mumford, L., (1964). The myth of the machine [Vol. 2]: The pentagon of power. New York, NY: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2002). Technically speaking: why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1979). Three assessments of science, 1969-1977: technical summary. Education Commission of the States National Assessment No. 08-2-21.

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (1986). Science indicators: the 1985 report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (1998). Science and engineering indicators 1998. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. (2016). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • *Noble, D. (1991). Social choice in machine design: the case of automatically controlled machine tools. In E. Katz, A. Light, & W. B. Thompson (Eds), Controlling technology: contemporary issues (pp. 267–286). New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2010). Living with complexity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ortega y Gasset, J. (1972). Thoughts on technology. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and technology (pp. 290–313). New York, NY: Free Press.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: how engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pieters, W. (2010). Reve {a, i} ling the risks: a phenomenology of information security. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(3), 194–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 399–441.

  • *Pitt, J. C. (1987). The autonomy of technology. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Technology and responsibility (pp. 99–114). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pitt, J. C. (1995). Discovery, telescopes, and progress. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of technology (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J. (2017). Connecting science and technology: exploring the nature of science using historical short stories. The Science Teacher, 84(9), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: public discourse in the age of show business. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasinen, A. (2003). An analysis of the technology education curriculum of six countries. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Three approaches to measuring children’s perceptions about technology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 755–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rescher, N. (1980) Unpopular essays on technological progress. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richtel, M. (2014). A deadly wandering: a tale of tragedy and redemption in the age of attention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D., & Bybee, R. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. Vol. II, pp. 545–558). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha Fernandes, G. W., Rodrigues, A. M., & Ferreira, C. A. (2018). Conceptions of the nature of science and technology: a study with children and youths in a non-formal science and technology education setting. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 1071–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rotenstreich, N. (1972). Technology and politics. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey(Eds.), Philosophy and technology (pp. 151–160). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rothenberg, D. (1995). Hand’s end: technology and the limits of nature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rubinoff, L. (1977). Technology and the crisis of rationality: reflections on the death and rebirth of dialogue. World Futures: Journal of General Evolution, 15(3–4), 261–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research. Contemporary trends and issues in science education series. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagan, C. (1990). Why we need to understand science. The Skeptical Inquirer, 14 (3). Retrieved from http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_we_need_to_understand_science

  • *Sassower, R. (1997). Technoscientific angst: ethics and responsibility. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schatzberg, E. (2006). Technik comes to America: changing meanings of technology before 1930. Technology and Culture, 47(3), 486–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90, 965–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York, NY: Guilford Press

  • *Sclove, R. E. (2009). Strong democracy and technology. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 278–292). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Segal, H. P. (1985). Technological utopianism in American culture. Syracuse University Press.

  • Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Selinger, E. (2009). Transfer and globalization. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 321–343). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shepard, P. T. (1995). Technological neutrality and the changing normative context of applied science research. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of technology (pp. 163–184). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shrader-Frechette, K. (1987). The real risks of risk-cost-benefit analysis. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Technology and responsibility (pp. 343–357). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991). Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shrader-Frechette, K. (2007). Technology and ethics. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: the technological condition: an anthology (pp. 187–190). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Skolimowski, H. (1972). The structure of thinking in technology. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and technology (pp. 42–49). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology for education: technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 275–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tala, S. (2013). The nature of technoscience. Chapter 4. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology: implications for learning and teaching (pp. 51–84).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York, NY: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? In M. Shortland (Ed.), Scientific literacy papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *van der Laan, J. M. (2016). Narratives of technology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Verbeek, P. P. (2010). Accompanying technology: philosophy of technology after the ethical turn. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Volti, R. (2005). Society and technological change (5 th Ed.). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachter-Boettcher, S. (2017). Technically wrong: sexist apps, biased algorithms, and other threats of toxic tech. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1143–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875–2905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2018). Technology, culture, and values: implications for enactment of technological tools in precollege science classrooms. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 139–166). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Weinberg, A. M. (1966). Can technology replace social engineering In E. Katz, A. Light, & W. B. Thompson (Eds), Controlling technology: contemporary issues (pp. 109–116). New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *White, L. J. (1962). Medieval technology and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *White, L. J. (1972). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey(Eds.), Philosophy and technology (pp. 259–267). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winner, L. (1978). Autonomous technology: technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winner, L. (1985). Social constructivism: opening the black box and finding it empty. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: the technological condition: an anthology (pp. 233–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winner, L. (1990). Engineering ethics and political imagination. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology (pp. 53–64). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design. Bristol: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Woodruff, R. (1991). Artifacts, neutrality, and the ambiguity of “use”. In E. Katz, A. Light, & W. B. Thompson (Eds), Controlling technology: contemporary issues (pp. 209–217). New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3–15). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: theory, research and practice. Chapter 34. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: a deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., Kahn, S., & Newton, M. (2016). Humanitas emptor: reconsidering recent trends and policy in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 465–476.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physics Department, Keene State College, Keene, NH, 03435, USA

    Jacob Pleasants

  2. Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture, Texas A&M University, 335 Harrington Tower, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

    Michael P. Clough

  3. Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture, Texas A&M University, 443 Harrington Tower, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

    Joanne K. Olson

  4. Department of Philosophy & Humanities, Texas A&M University, 418 YMCA, College Station, TX, 77843-4237, USA

    Glen Miller

Authors
  1. Jacob Pleasants
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. Clough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanne K. Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Glen Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. Clough.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pleasants, J., Clough, M.P., Olson, J.K. et al. Fundamental Issues Regarding the Nature of Technology. Sci & Educ 28, 561–597 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00056-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00056-y

Search

Navigation