Advertisement

Integrating Science and Technology in School Practice Through the Educational Reconstruction of Contents

  • Italo Testa
  • Sara Lombardi
  • Gabriella Monroy
  • Elena Sassi

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is to present a research-based framework aimed at integrating Science and Technology from the content knowledge perspective. The proposed framework identifies a common Science and Technology core, namely the scientific investigation and modelling of natural phenomena and the harnessing of their basic physics in technological objects. The Educational Reconstruction Model is adopted as a research-based route to elementarize Science and Technology contents in order to construct and adapt such common core for teaching. In the paper, first some unresolved issues of the Science and Technology interplay in current trends of Science Education curriculum reforms (Science-Technology-Society-Environment and Socio-Scientific Issues) are discussed. Then, the relevant aspects of Nature of Science and Nature of Technology that inform the framework are presented. Examples from Properties of Materials area, condensing aspects from both Science and Technology, are hence described to illustrate the enactment of the proposed framework. Finally, some implications are discussed.

Keywords

Content Knowledge Natural Phenomenon Technology Integration School Practice Technological Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (1994a). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 169–186). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aikenhead, G. S. (1994b). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aikenhead. (2003, August 19–23). Review of research on humanistic perspectives in science curricula. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) 2003 Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881–910). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press/Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  11. Banks, F., & McCormick, R. (2006). A case study of the inter-relationship between science and technology: England 1984–2004. In A. M. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 285–311). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  12. Barak, M., & Pearlman-Avnion, S. (1999). Who will teach an integrated program for science and technology in Israeli junior high schools? A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barlex, D. (2002, March 15). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & M. de Vries (Eds.), Technology education in the curriculum: Relationships with other subjects (pp. 3–12). Papers: Pupils’ attitudes towards technology, PATT-12 conference. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2011, from http://www.iteawww.org/PATT12/PATT12.pdf
  14. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bencze, J. L. (2001). ‘Technoscience’ education: Empowering citizens against the tyranny of school science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2003). A systematic review of the effects of context-based and Science-Technology-Society (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science: Review summary. York: University of York.Google Scholar
  19. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Beven, R., & Raudebaugh, R. (2004). A model for unified science and technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(1), 10–15. Retrieved on-line September, 19, 2011 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v30/v30n1/pdf/beven.pdf
  22. Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Bunge, M. (1973). Method, model, and matter. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carlsen, W. S. (1998). Engineering design in the Classroom: Is it good science education or is it revolting? Research in Science Education, 28(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naïve, novice and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cross, A. (2003). Teacher influence on pupil autonomy in primary school design and technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Danusso, L., Testa, I., & Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers knowledge about dientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 871–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. De Vries, M. J. (1994). Technology education in Western Europe. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. V). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  30. De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the ‘technology is applied science’ paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  31. DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. DiGironimo, N. (2010). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Driver, R., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Duit, R. (2007). Science education research internationally: Conceptions, research methods, domains of research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  37. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. E. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Eijkelhof, H., & Lijnse, P. (1988). The role of research and development to improve STS education: Experiences from the PLON project. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. European Commission. (2007). Science education now. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved September 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf
  40. Fensham, P. J. (1988). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 346–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fortus, D., Dershimer, C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Galilei, G. (1623). Il Saggiatore. Rome: Accademia dei Lincei.Google Scholar
  43. Gardner, P. L. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gardner, P. L. (1999). The presentation of science–technology relationships in Canadian physics textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1191–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Geraedts, C., Boersma, K. T., & Eijkelhof, H. M. C. (2006). Towards coherent science and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(3), 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gilbert, J. K. (1992). The interface between science education and technology education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 563–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gil-Pérez, D., Vilches, A., Fernández, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdés, P., & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology as ‘Applied Science’: A serious misconception that reinforces distorted and impoverished views of science. Science & Education, 14, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Herschbach, D. R. (1992). Curriculum change in technology education. Differing theoretical perspectives. Journal of Technology Education, 3(2), 4–5.Google Scholar
  50. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational construct that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–115). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2011). Trends in international mathematics and science study. On-line, http://www.iea.nl/timss_2011.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
  54. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Author. On-line. http://www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/Publications/TAA_Publications.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
  55. International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  56. James, J., Eijkelhof, H., Gaskell, J., Olson, J., Raizen, S., & Sáez, M. (1997). Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(4), 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Komorek, M. (1995, April). A model of educational reconstruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco.Google Scholar
  59. Klafki, W. (1969). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung [Educational analysis as the kernel of planning instruction]. In H. Roth & A. Blumental (Eds.), Auswahl, Didaktische analyse (10th ed.). Hannover: Schroedel.Google Scholar
  60. Klafki, W. (1995). On the problem of teaching and learning contents from the standpoint of critical-constructive Didaktik. In S. Hopman & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 187–200). Kiel: Leibniz-Institute for Science Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  61. Laherto, A. (2013). Informing the development of science exhibitions through educational research. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3(2), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lavonen, J., Byman, R., Juuti, K., Meisalo, V., & Uitto, A. (2005). Pupil interest in physics: A survey in Finland. Nordina, 1(2), 72–85.Google Scholar
  63. Lavonen, J., Gedrovics, J., Byman, R., Meisalo, V., Juuti, K., & Uitto, A. (2008). Students’ motivational orientations and career choice in science and technology: A survey in Finland and Latvia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(2), 86–103.Google Scholar
  64. Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  66. Lee, O., Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Berkheimer, G., & Blakeslee, T. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Levinson, R., Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Science & technology concepts in a design and technology project: A pilot study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(2), 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lewis, T., Barlex, D., & Chapman, C. (2007). Investigating interaction between science and design & technology (D&T) in the secondary school – A case study approach. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lijnse, P. L. (1998). Curriculum development in physics education. In Andrée Tiberghien, E. Leonard Jossem, & Jorge Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education. An I.C.P.E. Book © International Commission on Physics Education 1997, 1998. On line http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ICPE/TOC.html. Accessed 21 Oct 2010.
  71. McRobbie, C. J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Elementary school students approaches to design activities. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  72. Meheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: Variation and change in state standards for reading and mathematics, 2005–2009. On-line, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011458.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
  74. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  75. National Science Teachers Associations. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  76. Nuffield Foundation. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. On-line, http://www.pollen-europa.net/pollen_dev/Images_Editor/Nuffield%20report.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2010.
  77. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). On-line, http://www.pisa.oecd.org/. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
  78. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pellegrini, G. (2011). Giovani e studi scientifici universitari. I risultati dell’indagine IRIS [Teens and academic scientific studies. Results of the IRIS survey]. In M. Bucchi & G. Pellegrini (Eds.), Science & society 2011 yearbook. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  80. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Raizen, S. A. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rennie, L. J., Treagust, D. F., & Kinnear, A. (1992). An evaluation of curriculum materials for teaching technology as a design process. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(2), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Richmond, P. E. (1973). New trends in integrated science teaching (Vol. 2). Paris: Unesco.Google Scholar
  85. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  86. Roth, W. M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Russell, T., Longden, K., & McGuigan, L. (1991). Materials: Primary space processes and concepts exploration (SPACE) research project. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13, 39–48.Google Scholar
  90. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sassi, E., Monroy, G., & Testa, I. (2005). Teacher training about real-time approaches: Research-based guidelines and materials. Science Education, 89(1), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2010). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. Paper presented at the annual conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  98. Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand, C. M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. W. (2007). Real time physics: Active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28, S83–S94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stein, S. J., Ginns, I. S., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). Grappling with teaching design and technology: A beginning teacher’s experiences. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vicentini, M. (2006) Un Quadro Epistemologico per il ruolo degli Esperimenti nella Fisica e nella didattica della Fisica [An epistemological framework for the experiments in physics and physics education]. Unpublished document.Google Scholar
  104. Williams, P. J., Iglesias, J., & Barak, M. (2008). Problem based learning: Application to technology education in three countries. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(4), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2004). Creating change? A review of the impact of design and technology in schools in England. Journal of Technology Education, 15(2), 46–65.Google Scholar
  106. Yager, R. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3–15). New York: Sunny.Google Scholar
  107. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-40670-6.Google Scholar
  110. Ziman, J. M. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Italo Testa
    • 1
  • Sara Lombardi
    • 2
  • Gabriella Monroy
    • 1
  • Elena Sassi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Vocational School Giordani-StrianoNapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations