The Grounding of a Discipline: Cognition and Instruction in Technology Education

  • Michael A. De Miranda


Technology education has long struggled to establish itself as an equal partner in general education and often struggled to gain recognition for the value of its instruction. Frequently technology educators tout the effectiveness of their programs based on anecdotal evidence gathered from their classroom experiences on how their instructional methods empower students to learn. Although technology education originated without any meaningful input from cognitive science research, it appears that technology education instruction methods are remarkably consonant with findings from cognitive science that define good instruction. Specifically, there is considerable accord between how instruction in technology education and cognitively based instructional models such as collaborative learning, socially distributed expertise, design/engineering, and project-based instruction can be connected. The role of the cognitive research findings on instruction could inform a long over-due theoretical grounding of instruction in technology education. The absence of research on learning and instruction in technology education could be attributed to a lack of theoretical grounding in this relatively new field. This paper examines four cognitively based models of instruction and reviews the relationships between research in the cognitive sciences on learning and instruction in technology education. The consonance between the research recommendations from the cognitive sciences and practice in technology education instruction could serve to stimulate debate on the theoretical grounding of an emerging field of study.

cognitive science instructional theory technology education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1989, Science for all Americans, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Aronson, E. & Patnoe, S.: 1997, The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom, Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Aronson, E.: 1978, The Jigsaw Classroom, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, E. L.: 1995, The Basic School: A Community for Learning, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. & Vye, N. J.: 1989, 'A Perspective for Cognitive Research and Its Implications for Instruction', Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 173-205.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C.: 1993, 'Distributed Expertise in the Classroom', in G. Salamon (ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, Cambridge University Press, New York, 188–228Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L.: 1992, 'Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings', Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L.: 1985, 'Mental Orthopedics the Training of Cognitive Skills: A Conversation with Alfred Binet', in S. Chipman, J. Segal, & R. Glaser (eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills: Current Research and Open Questions 2, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 319–337.Google Scholar
  10. Bruer, J. T.: 1993, Schools For Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Buch, A.:1999, 'Learning and Construction in Engineering Jobs', in H. S. Olsen & K. Forrester (eds.), Adult Education and the Labour Market V: Papers from the Seminar of the ESREA (European Society for Research into the Education of Adults) Research Network 5, Frederiksberg, Roskilde University Press, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 7–16.Google Scholar
  12. Cajas, F.: 2001, 'The Science/Technology Interaction: Implications for Science Literacy', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(7), 715–729.Google Scholar
  13. diSessa, A. A.: 1992, Images of learning. Unpublished manuscript. Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  14. Educational Testing Service: 1996, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Author, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Educational Testing Service: 2000, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Author, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Exxon Education Foundation: 1984, Science Education in the United States: Essential Steps for Achieving Fundamental Improvement 1, The Foundation, New York, NY, 21–44.Google Scholar
  17. Goodlad, J. I.: 1993, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M.: 1996, Creating Exemplary Teaching Materials to Enhance Scientific and Technological Literacy, Science Education International 17(4), 3–7.Google Scholar
  19. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: 1987-88, Second International Science Study, Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Preliminary Report, Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. International Technology Education Association: 2000, Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, Author, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  21. Minstrell, J.: 1984, 'Teaching for the Development of Understanding of Ideas: Forces on Moving Objects', in Observing Classrooms: Perspectives from Research and Practice, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  22. National Research Council: 1996, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. National Science Board Commission on Pre-college Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology: 1983, Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Author, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 912)Google Scholar
  24. National Science Foundation, & US Department of Education: 1980, Science and Engineering Education for the 1980s and Beyond, The Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. L.: 1998, 'Teaching and Practicing Thinking Skills to Promote Comprehension in the Context of Group Problem Solving', Remedial and Special Education (RASE) 9(1), 53–59.Google Scholar
  26. Pea, R. D.: 1993, 'The Collaboration Visualization Project', Communications of the ACM 36(5), 60–63.Google Scholar
  27. Pea, R. D. & Gomez, L. M.: 1993, 'Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments: Why and How', Technological Horizons in Education Journal 5, 35–47.Google Scholar
  28. Pearson, G. & Young, A. T. (eds.): 2002, Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More about Technology, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Petrina, S.: 1994, 'Curriculum Organization in Technology Education: A Critique of Six Trends', Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 31(2), 44–69.Google Scholar
  30. Petrina, S.: 1993, 'Under the Corporate Thumb: Troubles with Our MATE [Editorial]', Journal of Technology Education 5(1).Google Scholar
  31. Ralph, J., & Dwyer, M. C.: 1988, November, Making the Case: Evidence of Program Effectiveness in Schools and Classrooms (Criteria and Guidelines for the US Department of Education's Program Effectiveness Panel). US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. Rannikmae, M.: 2001, "sTL Teaching-Immediate and Longitudinal Influence on Students' Learning', in Science and Technology Education: Preparing Future Citizens. Proceedings of the IOSTE Symposium in Southern Europe (1st, Paralimni, Cyprus, April 29-May 2, 2001). Volume I [and] Volume II, p. 10.Google Scholar
  33. Resnick, L.: 1987, Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Roper, J.: 1989, 'Technology Creates a New Physics Student', The Physics Teacher 27(1), 26–29.Google Scholar
  35. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M.: 2000, 'Engineering Competitions in the Middle School Classrooms: Key Elements in Developing Affective Design Challenges', The Journal of the Learning of Sciences 9(3), 299–324.Google Scholar
  36. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K.: 1991, Students Transition from an Engineering Model to a Science Model of Experimentation. Unpublished manuscript, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  37. Sirotnik, K. A., & Soder, R. (eds.): 1999, The Beat of a Different Drummer: Essays on Educational Renewal in Honor of John I. Goodlad, P. Lang, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Slavin, R. E.: 1987, Cooperative Learning: Student Teams, National Education Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, T. A., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Kelly, D. L.: 2000, Profiles of Student Achievement in Science at the TIMSS International Benchmarks: US Performance and Standards in an International Context. (International Study Center, Lynch School of Education). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Boston College, MA.Google Scholar
  40. Sternberg, R. J.: 1998, 'Principles of Teaching for Successful Intelligence', Educational Psychologist 33(2-3), 65–72.Google Scholar
  41. Sternberg, R. J. & Williams, W. M. (eds.): 1998, Intelligence, Instruction, and Assessment: Theory into Practice [Monograph]. (Serial No. 080582510X)Google Scholar
  42. Spector, J. M., & Anderson, T. M. (eds.): 2000, Integrated and Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction and Technology: Understanding Complex Domains, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  43. US House of Representatives, 105th Congress, Second Session: March 24, 1998, Educating our children with technology skills to compete in the next millennium: Joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science and the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families of the Committee Education and the Workforce. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Whimbey, A. & Lochhead, J.: 1980, Problem Solving and Comprehension: A Short Course in Analytical Reasoning, The Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. De Miranda
    • 1
  1. 1.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations