The things that belong: a grounded theory study of student categorizations of complex technical artifacts
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.
KeywordsTechnical artifact Classroom exemplar Student conceptions Categorization Grounded theory Variation theory
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Charmaz, K. (2011). Constructing Grounded Theory, 1. Ed., re. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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).
- Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Goldstone, R. L., & Kersten, A. (2003). Concepts and categorization. In Handbook of psychology, pp. 597–621. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei0422.
- 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
- Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning. Göteborg studies in educational sciences: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Mortimer, E . F., & El-Hani, C . N. (Eds.). (2014). Conceptual profiles: A theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Murphy, G . L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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