Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uncovering procedural knowledge in craft, design, and technology education: a case of hands-on activities in electronics

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Different knowledge types have their own specific features and tasks in the learning process. Procedural knowledge is used in craft and technology education when students solve problems individually and share their working knowledge with others. This study presents a detailed analysis of a one student’s learning process in technology education and the procedural knowledge used during learning tasks. Thus, procedural knowledge is mainly produced when acting, and includes students’ goal-directed actions related to the craft, design and technology processes and their learning content. These knowledge practices also include multiple interactions with teachers and other students. The findings show six different knowledge practices: observing, checking and asking, revising, guided representative action, self-directed representative action, and comprehended action. These knowledge practices actively relate to each other, and, in concert, they constitute chains of actions that constitute two different types of procedural knowledge: proactive knowledge and executive knowledge. We conclude by discussing how these knowledge practices can be used to develop our understanding of the teaching and learning of craft, design and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P., Schallert, D., & Hare, V. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P., De Swardt, E., & de Vries, M. (2006). Some Implications of the philosophy of technology for science, technology and society (STS) studies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(2), 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anttila, P. (2009). An expanded concept of knowledge in research on art and craft works. In L. Kaukinen, (Ed.), Proceedings of the crafticulation & education conference. techne series. Research in sloyd education and crafts science A: 14. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10224/4810/Kaukinen_verkko.pdf?sequence=2. Accessed Mar 2013.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagan, O. (2015). Kindergarten student teachers’ attitudes towards and perceptions of technology: The impact of a one year pre-service course. In M. Chatoney, (Ed.), Plurality and complementarity of approaches in design and technology education (pp. 98–105). Marseille, France. 978-2-85399-994-6. <hal-01161553>. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01161553/document. Accessed Nov 2015.

  • de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning science: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 3–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FNBE. (2004). The Finnish National Board of Education. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (online). http://www.oph.fi/download/47673_core_curricula_basic_education_4.pdf. Accessed Mar 2013.

  • Gascoigne, N., & Thornton, T. (2013). Tacit knowledge. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumaelius, L., & Skogh, I.-B. (2015). Work plans in technology: A study of technology education practice in Sweden. In M. Chatoney, (Ed.), Plurality and complementarity of approaches in design and technology education (pp. 188–194). Marseille, France. 978-2-85399-994-6. <hal-01161553>. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01161553/document. Accessed Nov 2015.

  • Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, J. (2012). Realising practical wisdom from the pursuit of wise practice. In E. A. Kinsella & A. Pitman (Eds.), Phronesis as professional knowledge. Practical wisdom in the professions (pp. 74–85). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, G. (2000). Beyond “Draw One and Make it” – Developing Better Strategies for the Use of Drawing for Design in Key Stages 1 and 2 (electronic document). https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/3391/1/Gill%20Hope%207.pdf. Accessed June 2013.

  • Hope, G. (2009). Beyond knowing how to make it work: The conceptual foundations of designing. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2009). Towards an articulation of students making progress in learning technological concepts and processes. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 407–417). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2003). Developing classroom-focused research in technology education. Canadien Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppävirta, J., Kettunen, H., & Sihvola, A. (2011). Complex problem exercises in developing engineering students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of electromagnetics. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 63–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P.-C., Hou, H.-T., Wu, S.-Y., & Chang, K.-E. (2014). Exploring college students’ cognitive processing patterns during a collaborative problem-solving teaching activity integrating Facebook discussion and simulation tools. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 51–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyle, J. (2002). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J. (2010). When Practice Makes Perfect…Sense. Art & Science of Teaching. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 81–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230–241. http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JDTE/article/view/269. Accessed Oct 2015.

  • Metsärinne, M., & Kallio, M. (2014). Experiences of classroom techniques and learning outcomes. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 19(3), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metsärinne, M., Kallio, M., & Virta, K. (2015). Pupils’s readiness for self-regulated learning in the forethought phase of exploratory production. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 85–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, E., & Hope, G. (2009). Conceptual learning in and through technology. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 255–264). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzulo, G. (2011). Grounding procedural and declarative knowledge in sensorimotor anticipation. Mind and Language, 26(1), 78–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Reprinted 1983, Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

  • Risatti, H. (2007). A theory of craft. Function and aesthetic expression. The University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Reprinted 1969, New York: Barnes & Noble inc.

  • Sahdra, B., & Thagard, P. (2003). Procedural knowledge in molecular biology. Philosophical Psychology, 16(4), 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., Star, J., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooner, P., Klasander, C. & Hallström, J. (2015). Swedish teachers’ views of assessing technological systems in compulsory school. In Chatoney, M. (Ed.), plurality and complementarity of approaches in design and technology education (pp. 357–363). Marseille, France. 978-2-85399-994-6. <hal-01161553>. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01161553/document. Accessed Nov 2015.

  • Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 245–263). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R. (1994). Procedural knowledge and processing strategies in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer Jr & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook in social cognition, volume 1: Basic processes (pp. 99–151). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toom, A. (2012). Considering the artistry and epistemology of tacit knowledge and knowing. Educational Theory, 62(6), 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, F. R. (1998). The hand. How its use shapes the brain, language, and human culture. New York: Pantheon Books.

  • Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (fourth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Anna for her collaboration and willingness to take part to our research project. We also appreciate Miikka Wikholm helping with the inter-rater checking process of the data analysis, and the other colleagues sharing our endeavor to complete our research work. We are also very grateful to Professor Douwe Beijaard (University of Eindhoven) for his critical and constructive comments for the manuscript. We also thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation, Satakunnan Rahasto for funding this project, thereby enabling the planning and execution of the intelligent clothing project, the data collection, and the first steps of the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku, P.O. Box 175, 26101, Rauma, Finland

    Matti Pirttimaa, Jukka Husu & Mika Metsärinne

Authors
  1. Matti Pirttimaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jukka Husu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mika Metsärinne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matti Pirttimaa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pirttimaa, M., Husu, J. & Metsärinne, M. Uncovering procedural knowledge in craft, design, and technology education: a case of hands-on activities in electronics. Int J Technol Des Educ 27, 215–231 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9345-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9345-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation