Viewpoints of higher education teachers about technologies

  • Adel Bouras
  • Virginie Albe
Original Paper


In the context of recent debates on technological literacy, a renewed research effort has focused on the nature of technologies.

The aim of this work, which considers ’epistemological knowledge’ as viewpoints which spring into gear in a given situation, is to use questionnaires and interviews to identify the opinions of teachers in a training institute for master technicians in Tunisia on technologies. The objective was to try and define how these teachers perceive the relations between sciences, technologies and societies and how social and cultural aspects affect their discourse on technologies.

The results of the questionnaires and the analysis of their discourses indicate that teachers essentially perceive technology as an applied science for which the ultimate purpose is progress and consumption. The relations identified by teachers between technologies, sciences and societies, reveal dichotomies between science and technology both with respect to the status teachers attribute to knowledge and to their views on its teaching.


Epistemology Nature of technologies Science Society Technology 



The authors wish to acknowledge the thoughtful insights and suggestions made by Prof. Jacques Ginestié on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on Science-Technology society. Canada: Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  2. Bybee, R. (2003). Achieving technological literacy: Educational perspectives and political actions. In G. Martin & N. Middleton (Eds.), Initiatives in technology education comparative Perspectives. Technical Foundation of America and the Center for Technology Education Research.Google Scholar
  3. Bybee, R. W., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Advancing technology education: The role of professional development. The Technology Teacher, 60(2), 31–34.Google Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bungum, B. (2005). Relating science to technology - teachers’ views as educationnally situated. Actes de la conférence de l’ESERA, 28 août-1er septembre 2005, Barcelone.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collingridge, D. (1989). Incremental decision making in technological innovations: What role for science? Science, technology and human values, 14(2), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, S., Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2001). “What ideas-about-science should be taught in school science ? A Delphi study of the expert community”, In actes de la Conference de l’AERA (April 10–14 Seattle).Google Scholar
  9. Dasgupta, S. (1996). Technology and creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Daugherty, M. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Professional development standards. The Technology Teacher, 63(3), 27–32.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, D., & Rogers, M. (2000), ’Pre-service primary teachers’ planning for science and technology activities: Influences and constraints’, Research in Science and Technology Education, 18(2), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dosi, G., Orsenigo, L. & Mazzuccato, M. (2005). "The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the Pharma-Biotech sector: Some policy issues.” In G. Dosi & M. Mazzuccato (Eds.), Forthcoming in innovation, growth and market structure in high-tech industries: The case of Biotech-Pharmaceuticals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinant and direction of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dugger, W. E. (1988). Technology - The discipline. The Technology Teacher, 48(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
  16. Dugger, W. (2001). Phase III technology for all Americans project: Creating assessment, professional development, and program standards for technological literacy. The Technology Teacher, 60(4), 27–31.Google Scholar
  17. Fourez, G. (1994). Alphabétisation scientifique et technique, essai sur les finalités de l’enseignement des sciences. Bruxelles, de Boeck.Google Scholar
  18. Fourez, G. (2002). “Les sciences dans l’enseignement secondaire”, Didaskalia,n° 21, 107–122.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, P. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gigling, M., Garnier, C., & Marinacci, L. (2000). La perception de la science et de la technologie chez des élèves du secondaire. In actes du 68ème congrès de l’Acfas (Montréal, 15–19 mai 2000).Google Scholar
  21. Ginestié, J. (2003). Quelle place pour une éducation technologique? Le complexe culturel à l’égard de la chose technique. In Colloque européen ‘La culture technique: un enjeu de société‘ (pp. 20–21) novembre 2003, Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Guerra-Ramos, M. T., Leach, J., & Ryder, J. (2003). Ideas-about-science in Mexican primary school: Curriculum requirements and teachers’ thinking. Preliminary findings. In actes de ESERA Conference (Noordwijkerhout, August 19–23, 2003).Google Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper & Row, Translated by W. Lovitt.Google Scholar
  24. Herschbach, D. R. (1995). Technology as knowledge: Implications for instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
  25. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. RestonGoogle Scholar
  26. Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L. (1996). Perceptions about technology held by primary teachers in England. Research in Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of science: An empirical study of teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, n° 11, 173–184.Google Scholar
  29. Larochelle, M., & Desautels, J. (1987). Qu’est-ce qu’une connaissance dite scientifique? Les modèles spontanés d’adolescent-e-s, Séminaire sur la représentation, n° 24, Montréal, Cirade.Google Scholar
  30. Larochelle, M., & Desautels, J. (1996). Autour de l’idée de science. Québec et Bruxelles: Presses de l’Université Laval et De Boeck Wesmael.Google Scholar
  31. Larochelle, M., Deseautels, J., & Pepin, Y. (1994). Etude de la pertinence et de la viabilité d’une stratégie de formation à l’enseignement des sciences. Rapport de recherche présenté au Conseil de Recherches en Sciences Humaines du Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s challenge to science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Leach, J., & Lewis, J. (2002). The role of students’ epistemological knowledge in the process of conceptual change in science. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 201–216). The Netherlands: Kluwer academic publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leach, J. (1996). Students’ understanding of the nature of science. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe: Current issues and themes. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  36. Legendre, P. (2004). Ce que l’occident ne voit pas de l’occident. Paris, Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, T. (1992). The nature of technology and the subject matter of technology education. A survey of industrial teacher educators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Vocational Association (St Louis, MO, December 4, 1992)Google Scholar
  38. Locatis, C. N. (1988). Notes on the nature of technology. The Technology Teacher, 47(7), 3–6.Google Scholar
  39. Mcrobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 181–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meade, S., & Dugger, W. (2005). Technological literacy standards: Practical answers and next steps. The Technology Teacher, 65(3), 32–35.Google Scholar
  41. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mittell, I., & Penny, A. (1997). Teacher perceptions of design and technology: A study of disjunction between policy and practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking?. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  44. O’Neil, D. K., & Polman, J. L., (2004). Why educate “Little Scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of research in Science Teaching, n° 41, 234–266.Google Scholar
  45. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  46. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. In M. J. de Vries, & A. Tamir (Eds.), Shaping concepts of technology: From philosophical perspectives to mental images (pp. 65–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, n° 36, 201–219.Google Scholar
  48. Staudenmaier, J. M. (1984). What SHOT hath wrought and what SHOT hath not: Reflections on twenty five years of the society for the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 25(4), 707–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. de Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education beyond the ’Technology is Applied Science’ paradigm. Journal for Technology Education, 7(2)Google Scholar
  50. de Vries, M. J. (2003). Toward an empirically informed epistemology of technology. Techné, 6(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
  51. de Vries, M. J. (2005). 80 Years of research at the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium 1914–1994 Amsterdam: Pallas Publications, 336 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Williams P. J. (2000) Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11, N°. 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut Supérieur de l’Education et de la Formation ContinueTunisTunisie
  2. 2.“Toulouse EducAgro” Ecole Nationale de Formotion AgronomiqueCastanet TolosanFrance

Personalised recommendations