Advertisement

Students’ Use of Science and Mathematics in Practical Projects in Design and Technology

  • Berit Bungum
  • Bjørn-Tore Esjeholm
  • Dag Atle Lysne
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 2)

Abstract

Design and technology (D&T) is often seen as having a potential for students to work with science and mathematics in practical and meaningful contexts. This chapter presents results from a video study of three D&T projects run in different schools in North Norway. The study shows that knowledge in mathematics and science was represented to a very little degree in student projects in D&T, even if the projects were designed to do so. Through an inductive analysis informed by perspectives on technology and technological knowledge from research literature, we identify four issues that contribute to explaining why this is the case: (1) problem solving by other means, (2) focus on product quality, (3) task requires specialised knowledge and (4) concepts and procedures not necessary for the purpose. All these issues are related to the nature of technology as knowledge and activity rather than to pedagogy, and the results suggest that D&T as a domain of knowledge should be represented in the curriculum in its own right and not as an arena for learning science and mathematics. Still, D&T projects can be utilised as contexts for experiences forming a basis for learning in science and mathematics.

Keywords

Design and technology Technological knowledge Video studies Contexts for science learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research group will thank the participating teachers for their collaboration during the student projects and for constructive feedback on the data. We also thank the Research Council of Norway and Finnmark University College for financial support.

References

  1. Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary school curriculum. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
  2. Bencze, J. (2001). ‘Technoscience’ education: Empowering citizens against the tyranny of school science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273–298. doi: 10.1023/A:1011247002142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boon, M. (2006). How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 27–47. doi: 10.1080/02698590600640992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bungum, B., Esjeholm, B. T., & Lysne, D. A. (2014). Science and mathematics as part of practical projects in technology and design: An analysis of challenges in realising the curriculum in Norwegian schools. NorDiNa, 10(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  5. de Vries, M. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  6. Dundas, A. A. (2011). Hva skjedde med teknologi i skolen? En studie av læreres erfaringer med teknologi og design i grunnskolen. Master thesis, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  7. Gardner, P. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1080/03057269408560037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, R. (1997). The value of a utilitarian curriculum: The case of technological education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1), 111–119. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-5598-4_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes, T. P. (1986). The seamless web: Technology, science, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Social Studies of Science, 16, 281–292. doi: 10.1177/0306312786016002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. (2013). The developing field of technology education: a review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212. doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4.
  11. Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19(1), 43–79. doi: 10.1080/03057269108559992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255–268. doi: 10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159. doi: 10.1023/A:1008819912213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. McCormick, R., & Evans, H. (1998, August 27–30). The use of mathematics in secondary school D&T. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Belfast. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000808.htm. Accessed 19 Nov 2014.
  16. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Norman, E. (1998). The nature of technology for design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 67–87. doi: 10.1023/A:1008827820764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norton, S., & Ritchie, S. M. (2009). Teaching and learning science and mathematics through technology practice. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Petrina, S. (1998). Multidisciplinary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 103–138. doi: 10.1023/A:1008889513151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1), 65–72. doi: 10.1023/A:1008865104461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sidawi, M. M. (2007). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 269–287. doi: 10.1007/s10798-007-9045-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Staudenmaier, J. (1985). Technology’s storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Cambridge, MA: Society for the History of Technology and the M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  23. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2006). Curricula for subjects in primary and secondary school. Oslo: The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.Google Scholar
  24. 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 International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berit Bungum
    • 1
  • Bjørn-Tore Esjeholm
    • 2
  • Dag Atle Lysne
    • 1
  1. 1.Programme for Teacher EducationThe Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of TechnologyNarvik University CollegeAltaNorway

Personalised recommendations