Abstract
During the last 10 years, curriculum documents in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Hong Kong, and New Zealand have emphasized the importance of students’ developing technological literacy. In utilizing research findings to consider future curriculum needs, there is the danger that the field may come to be understood in light of the research undertaken, not in light of what needs to be done. Past research has tended to focus on curriculum issues and the defining of the subject. If technology education is to advance as a curriculum area of worth and as a focus of research, then much more of our research effort must be on student and teacher learning in technology. This paper argues that classroombased research must become the focus of research over the next 10 years. While there is published research on what students do when involved in technological activities, we still lack significant research on students’ learning in technology and on ways in which this learning can be enhanced. Teacher and student conceptualization of technology is a complex issue and requires an understanding of the many factors that influence it. Classroom culture and student expectations appear to influence strongly the way in which students carry out their technological activities. Student learning in technology can be enhanced by effective formative interactions occurring between teacher and student and between student and student. Part of technology assessment should provide evidence of progression in learning, about which we currently know very little. This paper describes some fruitful areas of classroom-based research that could inform technology curriculum development.
Résumé
Au cours des 10 dernières années, la documentation sur les curricula en Australie, au Royaume-Uni, aux États-Unis, au Canada, à Hong Kong et en Nouvelle-Zélande ont mis l’accent sur l’importance de l’alphabétisation technologique des étudiants. Par le passé, les recherches étaient surtout centrées sur des questions de curricula et de définition du sujet. Si nous voulons que l’enseignement des technologies devienne un domaine d’apprentissage significatif chez tous les étudiants, il sera nécessaire de concentrer ultérieurement nos efforts sur la recherche dans les salles de classe. En effet, bien que les travaux sur la définition du sujet soient encore très importants, on en est maintenant arrivé au point où l’enseignement des technologies doit surtout mettre l’accent sur un apprentissage accru dans la salle de classe. Cette insistance sur les classes de technologies met en évidence quatre aspects importants et reliés entre eux: l’apprentissage des technologies chez les étudiants, l’évaluation, les interactions particulièrement formatrices et le développement de notions de progression. Les premières recherches ont montré que, si on concentre les efforts sur ces aspects, il est possible d’améliorer l’apprentissage des étudiants et de fournir une base solide pour développer les curriculums.
Notre recherche montre que, pour améliorer et soutenir l’apprentissage des technologies, il est nécessaire d’axer le savoir des enseignants sur les résultats d’apprentissages technologiques spécifiques et détaillés, conjointement à des approches pédagogiques adéquates. Il est particulièrement important d’utiliser un cadre bien défini pour centrer l’attention des enseignants sur les aspects conceptuels, procéduraux, sociétaux et techniques de l’apprentissage des technologies chez les étudiants. Nous ne concevons pas ce cadre comme absolu et défini dans ses moindres détails, mais bien comme un outil analytique général susceptible d’aider les enseignants à réfléchir sur les caractéristiques de l’apprentissage des technologies. Il s’agit en fait d’aider les enseignants à réfléchir sur ce que les étudiants peuvent contribuer à la classe et comment cette © 2003 Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education contribution peut servir de base sur laquelle on peut construire. L’étude met en évidence la nécessité de se concentrer sur certains aspects essentiels de l’enseignement, de l’apprentissage et de l’évaluation. Grâce au cadre proposé, les enseignants sont passés de l’utilisation de concepts technologiques généraux à l’utilisation de concepts plus spécifiques liés à différents secteurs technologiques. Les enseignants ont pu choisir des tâches plus adéquates, qui permettaient aux étudiants d’accroître leurs connaissances des technologies. Le fait de passer d’un type d’enseignement où l’on fournit une expérience technologique à un autre type où l’on donne aux étudiants l’occasion de développer des résultats d’apprentissages technologiques, est significatif. Les enseignants se sont sentis plus sûrs d’eux lors des interactions formatrices, en particulier lorsqu’il s’agissait de réagir de façon adéquate, sur des questions technologiques, auprès des apprenants. Nous avons donné des conseils lorsqu’ils étaient jugés nécessaires, ce qui a mené à des interactions plus significatives. Non seulement avons-nous mis d’avantage l’accent sur les échanges permettant aux étudiants de développer des compétences techniques particulières, mais aussi sur les aspects conceptuels et procéduraux, plutôt que sur les aspects sociaux et de gestion. De plus, nous avons accordé moins d’importance aux éloges comme seule forme d’interaction formatrice pour insister sur la nécessité d’aider les étudiants à aller de l’avant, à réfléchir et à évaluer leurs propres progrès. Au résultat, nous avons pu noter chez les étudiants une meilleure compréhension de la nature des technologies, une meilleure compréhension des concepts et des procédés, une utilisation plus appropriée et plus prolifique du vocabulaire technique, une meilleure compréhension du but des activités, une certaine capacité d’identifier leurs propres lacunes, une motivation accrue, un plus grand intérêt pour les technologies et une transposition plus efficace des connaissances provenant d’autres parties du curriculum.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1997). Formative assessment and science education. Research report of the Learning in Science Project (Assessment) for the Ministry of Education. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato.
Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or foe? Theory and practice of assessment and testing. London: Falmer Press.
Black, P., Brown, M., Simon, S., & Blondel, J. (1996). Progression in learning: Issues in evidence in mathematics and science. In M. Hughes (Series Ed.), Teaching and learning in changing times (pp. 153–171). Oxford: Blackwell.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Brown, J.S., Collins A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Bruner, J. (1968). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: W.W. Norton.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Education Psychology, 79(4), 474–482.
Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H., & Simpson, T. (2000). The effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on education outcomes. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Crooks, T.J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.
Crooks, T., & Flockton, L. (2000). Technology assessment results: National education monitoring report. Dunedin, New Zealand: Education Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago.
de Vries, M. (2000). Can we train researchers and teachers to make a team? Win-win strategies in technology education. Paper presented to the 1st Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, Australia, 1–3. December.
Gilbert, J.K. (1994). The interface between science and technology in schools. SAMEpapers 1994. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, 144–164.
Gipps, C. (2000). Classroom assessment and feedback strategies of ‘expert’ elementary teachers. Paper presented at AERA Conference, New Orleans, 24–27. April.
Goodson, I.F. (1985). Social histories of the secondary curriculum. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Gustafson, B., & Rowell, P. (2001). Design technology with children—Productive pathways for teachers. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference, St Louis.
Hansen, R., & Froelich, M. (1994). Defining technology and technological education: A crisis, or cause for celebration. International Journal Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 79–207.
Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1–41.
Hennessy, S., McCormick, R., & Murphy, P. (1993). The myth of general problem solving capability: Design and technology as an example. The Curriculum Journal, 4(1), 73–89.
Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in student learning of technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 83–96.
Jones, A. (1999). the influence of teachers’ subcultures on curriculum innovation. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching (pp. 155–171). London: Falmer Press.
Jones, A. (2001). Developing research in technology education. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 3–14.
Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1993). Analysis of student technological capability (vol. 2). Working papers of the Learning in Technology Education Project. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.
Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1994). Student technological capability: Where do we start? SAMEpapers 1994. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, 165–186.
Jones, A., Mather, V., & Carr, M. (1995). Issues in the practice of technology education. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato.
Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2001). Frameworks and cognitive tools for enhancing practising teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. SAMEpapers 2001. Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato, 238–264.
Kimbell, R. (1994). Tasks in technology. An analysis of their purposes and effects. International Journal Technology and Design Education, 4(3), 241–256.
Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology: International trends in curriculum and assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: Schools Examination and Assessment Council.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education—Some areas of need. Journal of Technology Education, 10, 41–56.
McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Harrison, M. (1992). Teaching and learning technology. London: Addison-Wesley.
McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem solving processes in technology education: A pilot study. International Journal Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 5–34.
McCormick, R., Sparkes, J., & Newey, C. (Eds.). (1992). Technology for technology education. London: Addison-Wesley.
Mavromattis, Y. (1997). Understanding assessment in the classroom—Phases of the assessment process: The assessment episode. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 381–399.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moreland, J. (1998). Technology education teacher development: The importance of experiences in technological practice. Unpublished MEd thesis. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
Moreland, J., & Jones, A. (2000). Emerging assessment practices in an emergent curriculum: Implications for technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 283–305.
Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Forret, M. (2001) Making progress: Learning in technology. Position paper for Technology Exemplar Development. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato.
Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Northover, A. (2001). Enhancing teachers’ technological knowledge and assessment practices to enhance student learning in technology: A two-year classroom study. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 155–176.
Murphy, P., McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving in design and technology: Uncharted waters. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Northover, B.A. (1997). Teacher development in biotechnology: Teachers’ perceptions and practice. Unpublished MEd thesis. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
Olson, J., & Henning Hansen, K. (1994). Research on technology education. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (vol. 5, pp. 225–239). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Paechter, C. (1991). Subject subcultures and the negotiation of open work: Conflict and cooperation in cross-curricular. Paper presented to St. Hilda’s conference, Warwick University.
Perrina, S. (1998). The politics of research in technology education: A critical content and discourse analysis of the Journal of Technology Education, volumes 1–8. Journal of Technology Education, 10, 27–57.
Pinch T., Hughes T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of technological systems. London: MIT Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sadler, D. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiliam, D. (1994). Assessing authentic tasks: Alternatives to mark-schemes. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 48–67.
Zuga, K. (1997). An analysis of technology education research in the United States based upon an historical overview and review of contemporary curriculum research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 203–217.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, A., Moreland, J. Developing Classroom-Focused Research in Technology Education. Can J Sci Math Techn 3, 51–66 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150309556551
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150309556551