Advertisement

Design knowledge and teacher–student interactions in an inventive construction task

  • Bjørn-Tore EsjeholmEmail author
  • Berit Bungum
Article

Abstract

The teacher plays an important role in the Technology and Design (T&D) classroom in terms of guiding students in their design process. By using concepts developed within engineering philosophy along with a framework for teacher–student interactions the design process in a T&D classroom is classified. The material shows that four of six predefined categories of design knowledge and three of seven predefined classes of activity are present in the material. Findings suggest that two categories of design knowledge, fundamental design concepts and practical considerations, are particularly significant in the students’ work. The teacher’s influence with respect to particularly the first of these categories is crucial for the students’ design process. Direct trial is found as the students’ dominating activity for solving the technological challenges. The results indicate that it is beneficial for students to be introduced to an operational principle before they can be innovative and develop their own design configuration when they establish their fundamental design concept. Curriculum developers, designers of teaching materials as well as teachers should take into account the students’ need of sufficient time to explore their design configuration.

Keywords

Design knowledge Teacher–student interaction Design process Technological knowledge Construction task 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Research Council of Norway.

References

  1. Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlex, D., & Welch, M. (2001). Educational research and curriculum development: The case for synergy. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 6(1), 29–36.Google Scholar
  4. Bräuning, K., & Steinbring, H. (2011). Communicative characteristics of teachers’ mathematical talk with children: From knowledge transfer to knowledge investigation. ZDM, 43(6), 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bungum, B. (2006a). Teknologi og design i nye læreplaner i Norge: Hvilken vinkling har fagområdet fått i naturfagplanen? NorDiNa, 2(4), 28–39.Google Scholar
  7. Bungum, B. (2006b). Transferring and transforming technology education: A study of Norwegian teachers’ perceptions of ideas from design & technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life contexts: An alternative for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001). Comparisons and contrasts between elementary/primary ‘school situated design’ and ‘workplace design’ in Canada and England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process—Does it exist? A critical review of published models for the design process in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. (2011). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–22.Google Scholar
  13. Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology: International trends in curriculum and assessment: UK, Germany, USA, Taiwan, Australia. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19(1), 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Layton, D. (1994). Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mawson, B. (2007). Designers as teachers and learners: Transferring workplace design practice into educational settings. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  23. Rauscher, W. (2011). The technological knowledge used by technology education students in capability tasks. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts, P., & Norman, E. (1999). Models of design and technology and their significance for research and curriculum development. The Journal of design and Technology Education, 4(2), 124–131.Google Scholar
  25. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. (2011). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Staudenmaier, J. (1985). Technology’s storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Cambridge, MA: Society for the History of Technology and the MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tiles, M., & Oberdiek, H. (1995). Living in a technological culture: Human tools and human values. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2006). Curricula for subjects in primary and secondary school. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet. Available from http://www.udir.no.
  30. Vèrillon, P. (2009). Tools and concepts in technological development. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 175–197). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnmark University CollegeFinnmarkNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations