Advertisement

Exploring the capability of evaluating technical solutions: a collaborative study into the primary technology classroom

  • Eva Björkholm
Article

Abstract

Within the field of technology education, evaluating technical solutions is considered as an important topic. Research indicates that pupils have difficulties in evaluating technical solutions in terms of fitness for purpose, i.e. how effective a technical solution supports its intended function. By using the learning study, which is an iterative and collaborative research approach, the study explores the capability to evaluate technical solutions in terms of fitness for purpose, what it takes to know it and how to best enhance its learning in the primary technology classroom. Audio and video recorded interviews, teachers’ meetings and lessons are the base data for the study. A contribution of the study is the understanding of this specific knowing, and what is critical for learning and thus to an improvement of technology teaching practice.

Keywords

Primary technology education Fitness for purpose Function Teaching Learning Learning study 

References

  1. Barlex, D. (2007). Assessing capability in design and technology: The case for a minimally invasive approach. Design and technology: An International Journal, 12(2), 49–56.Google Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. (2011). Dear minister, this is why design and technology is a very important subject in the school curriculum. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 9–18.Google Scholar
  3. Benenson, G. (2001). Teachers researching, children designing. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 56–68.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlgren, I. (2007) The content of schooling—from knowledge and subject matter to knowledge formation and subject specific ways of knowing. In E. Forsberg (Ed.), Curriculum Theory Revisited. Studies in educational policy and educational philosophy: Research reports 2007:10. Uppsala University. pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
  7. Carlgren, I. (2012). The Learning Study as an approach for ‘clinical’ subject matter didactic research. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(2), 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatoney, M. (2008). Contemplation and use of technical aids in primary schools. In J. Ginestié (Ed.), The cultural transmission of artefacts, skills and knowledge: Eleven studies in technology education in France (pp. 125–147). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Coles, R., & Norman, E. (2005). An exploration of the role values plays in design decision-making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(5), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compton, V. & Compton, A. (2011). Teaching the nature of technology: Determining and supporting student learning of the philosophy of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design education. http://www04.sub.su.se:2112/ content/k0v57q33r8562g75/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 2012.
  11. de Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US-Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frederik, I., Sonneveld, W., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Teaching and learning the nature of technical artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Granath, J. Å. (2005). Learning in technology: A design theoretical approach to architecture education. In: L. Lindström (Ed.) Technology education in new perspectives: Research, assessment and curriculum development (pp. 144–160). Stockholm Library of Curriculum Studies 14. Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education Press.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, S. D., & Daugherty, J. (2008). Quality and characteristics of recent research in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 16–31.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, A., Buntting, C. & de Vries, M. J. (2011). The developing field of technology education: a review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. http://www04.sub.su.se:2112/content/m0011512152471n1/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 2012.
  18. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of the technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23(3), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Landqvist, J. (2001). Vilda idéer och djuplodande analys: Om designmetodikens grunder. [Wild ideas and in-depth analysis: About the basis for design methodology]. Institutionen för Industridesign, Konstfack (National College of Art Craft and Design). Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlag.Google Scholar
  20. Larsson, S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative studies. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 32(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development (pp. 24–28). New Orleans: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  22. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLaren, S. V. (1997). Value judgments: Evaluating design. A Scottish perspective on a global issue. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merrill, C. (2004). Action research and technology education. The Technology Teacher, 63(8), 6–8.Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2007). Technology Curriculum Support. http://www.techlink.org.nz/ curriculum-support. Accessed 7 Sept 2012.
  31. National Agency for Education, Sweden (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2011. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2687. Accessed 7 September 2012.
  32. Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 273–306.Google Scholar
  33. Oboho, E. O., & Bolton, N. (1991). Matching students’ technological thinking with the demands of a technological curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pang, M. F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Runesson, U. (2006). What is possible to learn? on variation as a necessary condition for learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Runesson, U., & Gustafsson, G. (2010). Learning study—knowledge production for teachers? Paper presented at the World Association of Lesson Studies International Conference, Brunei, Darusalam, 9–10 December.Google Scholar
  38. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Balitmore and London: The John Hopkins university press.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2003). Designing the best: A review of effective teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Teaching and Learning in the HumanitiesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Learning, School of Education and Communication in Engineering ScienceKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations