Issues of Learning and Knowledge in Technology Education

  • Robert McCormick


This article examines issues that arise from learning and knowledge in technology education. The issues examined are, first, the definition of technological knowledge and what the nature of that knowledge should be, where the concern is with how we define and think about that knowledge, especially in the context of how students learn and use knowledge in technology education. Second, the relationship between learning and knowledge in particular the inter-relationship between learning and knowledge, focusing on a situated view of learning. The third issue sees learning related to the context within which the learning takes place.

This paper will explore these three inter-related issues in four sections. First, an outline of a view of learning that privileges context. Second, there will be a consideration of types of knowledge, namely, procedural and conceptual knowledge. These two types will be elaborated upon through research done at the Open University, particularly on problem solving and design. In discussing conceptual knowledge empirical work in mathematics and science education will be drawn on, along with work on the use of mathematics and science in technology education. Third, it will be argued that qualitative knowledge should become a part of teaching and learning in technology education because it both reflects a view of knowledge stemming from situated learning, and the tasks of technology. The article will end with a research agenda for what we have yet to understand, drawing on the earlier arguments.

learning in context qualitative knowledge situated learning technological knowledge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A.: 2000, 'Perspectives on Learning, Thinking, and Activity', Educational Researcher 29(4), 11–13.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M. & Simon, H. A.: 1996, 'Situated Learning and Education', Educational Researcher 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
  4. Assessment of Performance Unit [APU]: undated, A Review of Monitoring in Mathematics 1978-82, Part 1. London, APU.Google Scholar
  5. Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (1984). Science in Schools Age 13: Report Number 1. London, Department of Education and Science, Department of Education for Northern Ireland and Welsh Office.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. & Bowers, J.: 1999, 'Cognitive and Situated Learning: Perspectives in Theory and Practice', Educational Researcher 28(2), 4–15.Google Scholar
  7. Department for Education and Employment [DfEE]/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA]: 2000, The National Curriculum Handbook for Secondary Teachers in England, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P.: 1996, Young People's Images of Science, Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  9. Evens, H. & McCormick, R.: 1997, Mathematics by Design: An Investigation into Key Stage 3. Report to the Design Council. Milton Keynes, School of Education, Open University.Google Scholar
  10. Garrett, R. M.: 1988, 'Problem-Solving in Science Education', Studies in Science Education 13, 70–95.Google Scholar
  11. Glaser, R.: 1984, 'Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge', American Psychologist 39(2), 93–104.Google Scholar
  12. Glaser, R.: 1992, 'Expert Knowledge and Processes of Thinking', in D. F. Halpern (ed.), Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 63–75.Google Scholar
  13. Gott, S. H.: 1988, 'Apprenticeship Instruction for Real-World Tasks: the Coordination of Procedures, Mental Models and Strategies', in E. Z. Rothkopf (ed.), Review of Research in Education 15 1988-89, American Educational Research Association, Washington DC, 97–169.Google Scholar
  14. Greeno, J. G.: 1997, 'On Claims that Answer the Wrong Question', Educational Researcher 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  15. Hennessy, S.: 1993, 'Situated Cognition and Cognitive Apprenticeship:Implications for Classroom Learning', Studies in Science Education 22, 1–41.Google Scholar
  16. Hennessy, S. & Murphy, P.: 1999, 'The Potential for Collaborative Problem Solving in D&T', International Journal of Technology and Design Education 9(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  17. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A. & Wearne, D.: 1996, 'Problem Solving as a Basis for Reform in Curriculum and Instruction: The Case of Mathematics', Educational Researcher 25(4), 12–21.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Järvinen, E.-M. & Twyford, J.: 2000, 'The Influences of Socio-Cultural Interaction upon Children's Thinking and Actions in Prescribed and Open-Ended Problem Solving Situations (An Investigation Involving Design and Technology Lessons in English and Finnish Primary Schools)', International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10(1), 21–41.Google Scholar
  20. Kirshner, D. & Whitson, J. A.: 1998, 'Obstacles to Understanding Cognition as Situated', Educational Researcher 27(8), 22–28.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J.: 1988, Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Lave, J.: 1996, 'The Practice of Learning', in S. Chaiklin and J. Lave (eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3–32.Google Scholar
  23. Layton, D.: 1993, Technology's Challenge to Science Education, Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, T.: 1993, 'Valid Knowledge and the Problem of the Practical Arts Curricula', Curriculum Inquiry 23(2), 175–202.Google Scholar
  25. Linn, M. C. & Muilenburg, L.: 1996, 'Creating Lifelong Science Learners: What Models Form a Firm Foundation?', Educational Researcher 25(5), 18–24.Google Scholar
  26. McCormick, R.: 1999a, 'Capability Lost and Found?', Journal of Design and Technology Education 4(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  27. McCormick, R.: 1999b, 'Practical Knowledge: A View from the Snooker Table', in R. McCormick and C. Paechter (eds.), Learning and Knowledge, Paul Chapman, London, 112–135.Google Scholar
  28. McCormick, R. & Davidson, M. (1996). 'Problem Solving and the Tyranny of Product Outcomes', Journal of Design and Technology Education 1(3), 230–241.Google Scholar
  29. McCormick, R. & Murphy, P.: 1994, Learning the Processes in Technology. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Oxford University, England, September.Google Scholar
  30. McCormick, R. & Murphy, P.: 2000, 'Curriculum: a Focus on Learning', in B. Moon, S. Brown, & M. Ben-Peretz (eds.), International Companion of Education, Routledge, London, 204–234.Google Scholar
  31. Mioduser, D.: 1998, 'Framework for the Study of Cognitive and Curricular Issues of Technological Problem Solving', International Journal for Technology and Design Education 8(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
  32. Mioduser, D. & Kpperman, D.: 2002, 'Evaluation/Modification Cycles in Junior High Students' Technological Problem Solving', International Journal for Technology and Design Education 12(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, P.: 1995, 'Gender and Assessment in Science', in L. Parker, L. Rennie & B. Fraser (eds.), Gender, Science and Mathematics: Shortening the Shadow, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordecht.Google Scholar
  34. Murphy, P.: 1999, 'Supporting Collaborative Learning', in P. Murphy (ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment, Paul Chapman, London, 258–276.Google Scholar
  35. Murphy, P. & Hennessy, S.: 2001, 'Realising the Potential-and Lost Opportunities-for Peer Collaboration in a D&T Setting', International Journal of Technology and Design Education 11(3), 203–237.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., McCormick, R. & Davidson, M.: 1995, The Nature of Problem solving in Technology Education. Paper presented to the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Bath, England, 14–17 September.Google Scholar
  37. Murphy, P. & McCormick, R.: 1997, 'Problem Solving in Science and Technology Education', Research in Science and Education 27(3), 461–481.Google Scholar
  38. Polanyi, M.: 1962, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1985, Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A.: 1996, 'In Fostering Communities of Inquiry, Must It Matter that the Teacher Knows the Answer?', For the Learning of Mathematics 14(1), 44–55.Google Scholar
  41. Scribner, S.: 1985, 'Knowledge at Work', Anthropology and Education Quarterly 16(3), 199–206.Google Scholar
  42. Technology for All Americans Project: 2000, Standards for Technological Literacy, International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert McCormick
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Curriculum and Teaching Studies, Faculty of Education and Language StudiesThe Open UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations