Advertisement

The things that belong: a grounded theory study of student categorizations of complex technical artifacts

  • Michael T. RückerEmail author
  • Niels Pinkwart
Article

Abstract

Technical artifacts play a central role in teaching and learning about technology. The artifact exemplars used in the classroom to illustrate and discuss various technological concepts should therefore be carefully chosen in order to actually support the abstraction and successful transfer of these concepts. Research from the learning and cognitive sciences strongly suggests that this requires an understanding of how students actually perceive and conceptualize various technical artifacts, what similarities, differences and features are most salient and meaningful in their eyes. In this paper, we propose a grounded theory of how students differentiate and relate various complex technical artifacts. The core of our theory is formed by four hierarchically ordered juxtapositions: (1) technology versus non-technology, (2) everyday versus specialized, (3) private versus public, and (4) luxury versus necessity, which divide the realm of technical artifacts into five broad categories: high technology, household technology, public technology, real technology, and no/low technology. Our claim is that these differentiations and categories are generally salient and meaningful for students. Based on the theory of variation, we outline how they might help educators make more informed and systematic selections of exemplar artifacts to use in the classroom.

Keywords

Technical artifact Classroom exemplar Student conceptions Categorization Grounded theory Variation theory 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10798_2017_9419_MOESM1_ESM.zip (13.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 13991 kb)

References

  1. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.775712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & van Keulen, H. (2015). Students attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charmaz, K. (2011). Constructing Grounded Theory, 1. Ed., re. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.Google Scholar
  4. Collier-Reed, B. I. (2009). Exploring learners’ conceptions of technology. In M. Schafer, & C. Mcnamara (Eds.) 17th Annual conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, pp. 76–82.Google Scholar
  5. Collier-Reed, B. I., Case, J. M., & Linder, C. (2009). The experience of interacting with technological artefacts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Compton, V., Compton, A., & Patterson, M. (2012). Reading technological artifacts: Does technology education help? In PATT 26 conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26–30 June; 2012, number 073, pp. 126–134. Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
  7. de Vries, M. J. (2013). Transfer in technology through a concept-context approach. In Transfer, transitions and transformations of learning, pp. 13–22. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. de Vries, M. J. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers, 2 edn. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32945-1.
  9. DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.495400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. http://archiv.ipn.uni-kiel.de/stcse/stcse.html (visited on 06/21/2017).
  11. Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Firat, M. (2017). Growing misconception of technology: Investigation of elementary students’ recognition of and reasoning about technological artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 183–199. doi: 10.1007/s10798-015-9351-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14222-7.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. doi: 10.1007/s10798-010-9119-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ginns, I. S., Norton, S. J., & Mcrobbie, C. J. (2005). Adding value to the teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 47–60. doi: 10.1007/s10798-004-6193-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstone, R. L., & Kersten, A. (2003). Concepts and categorization. In Handbook of psychology, pp. 597–621. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei0422.
  17. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 233–252. doi: 10.1007/BF02765185.Google Scholar
  18. Guo, J.-P., Pang, M. F., Yang, L.-Y., & Ding, Y. (2012). Learning from comparing multiple examples: On the dilemma of similar or different. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 251–269. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9192-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heit, E. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 569–592. doi: 10.3758/BF03212996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Impedovo, M., Andreucci, C., Delserieys-Pedregosa, A., Coiffard, C., & Ginestié, J. (2015). Technical objects between categorisation and learning: An exploratory case study in French middle school. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(2), 32–45.Google Scholar
  21. Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L. J. (1996). Understanding technology: The development of a concept. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 977–992. doi: 10.1080/0950069960180809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L . J. (1998). Factors that influence children’s Developing perceptions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 261–279. doi: 10.1023/A:1008826320260. ISSN: 0957-7572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koski, M.-I., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). An exploratory study on how primary pupils approach systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 835–848. doi: 10.1007/s10798-013-9234-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning. Göteborg studies in educational sciences: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  26. Lo, M. L., Pong, W. Y., & Chick, P. P. M. (Eds.). (2005). For each and everyone: Catering for individual differences through learning studies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20. doi: 10.3102/0013189X032001017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Artifact categorization: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 85–123). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1504_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mortimer, E . F., & El-Hani, C . N. (Eds.). (2014). Conceptual profiles: A theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, G . L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian children’s perceptions about technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 37–52. doi: 10.1080/0263514950130104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosch, E . H. (1978). Cognition and categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Principles of categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.Google Scholar
  38. Solomonidou, C., & Tassios, A. (2005). How do Primary School Students Conceive Technology and its Use in Everyday Life? In Kommers, P. and Richard, G., editors, Proceedings of ED-Media 2005 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, pages 1916–1923, Norfolk, VA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  39. Solomonidou, C., & Tassios, A. (2007). A phenomenographic study of Greek primary school students’ representations concerning technology in daily life. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 113–133. doi: 10.1007/s10798-006-0007-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Svensson, M., & Ingerman, Å. (2010). Discerning technological systems related to everyday objects: mapping the variation in pupils’ experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 255–275. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9084-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Svensson, M., Zetterqvist, A., & Ingerman, Å. (2012). On young people’s experience of systems in technology. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(1), 66–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations