Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: a European perspective

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper evolves out of a consultancy that was carried out with the European Commission over a two year period between 2001 and 2003. A working group, set within the European Commission and comprising representatives from 15 member states, as well as associated and accession countries, stakeholders and social partners involved in maths, science and technology education, was formed. Its remit was to identify good practice in maths, science and technology education across Europe and to make recommendations for policy makers in the area. One important theme which emerged during the analysis of good practice was the need to develop the type of pedagogies which would encourage the active involvement of pupils in authentic and meaningful learning experiences within these subject domains. A series of questions relating specifically to this area was therefore incorporated into the second phase of the investigation and sent out to all participating countries. Qualitative analysis of these questionnaires was carried out. Using the results of these analyses, along with information from discussions, this paper considers the situation in Europe in respect of the introduction of what are essentially social constructivist pedagogies in the field of technology and science education. It explores some of the attempts which have been made to implement such pedagogies and more importantly the barriers to their introduction which have been identified in most countries across Europe. A consideration of research literature in the field is then used to promote the argument that teacher beliefs or theories are a crucial factor in preventing change. The role of these theories in presenting barriers to change are discussed and the implications for both policy makers and for initial teacher education are analysed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1976). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Basss Publishers: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D. (2003). Developing and celebrating good practice in primary design and technology. In C. Benson, M. Martin, & W. Till (Eds.), Fourth International Primary Design and Technology Conference proceedings (pp. 5–7). Birmingham. CRIPT.

  • Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction. The Relationship Between Science and Design and Technology in the Secondary School Curriculum. London: Engineering Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, C. (2003). Developing designerly thinking in the foundation stage. In C. Benson, M. Martin, & W. Till (Eds.), Fourth International Primary Design and Technology Conference proceedings (pp. 5–7). Birmingham. CRIPT.

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C. Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullough, R. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakers, J. (2004). A comparison between current initiatives to promote science and technology education in Sweden and Scotland. Scottish Educational Review, 36(2), 206–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dakers, J., & Dow, W. (2003). European commission: Directorate-general for education and culture. Report on the implementation of “Education and Training 2010”. Increasing Participation in Math, Science and Technology. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/objectives_en.html#math (Last accessed 18th April 2006).

  • Denscombe M. (1982). The “hidden pedagogy” and its implications for teacher training. British Journal of Sociology of Education 3(3), 249–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1974). The school and society. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, W., (2005). Developing inclusive communities of learners in technology education: Practical craft skills—facilitator or hindrance. In J. Dakers & M. de Vries (Eds.), Creating communities in technology education: Special edition. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 5–17.

  • Dweck, C., Chui, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgements and reactions: A World from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Psychology Press.

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. St Ives: Penguin Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumet, M. R. (1992). Existential and phenomenological foundations of autobiographical methods. In: W. F. Pinar & W. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Understanding curriculum as phenomenological and deconstructed text (pp. 28–43). New York: Teachers’ College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., Kirton, A., Stobart, G., Robertson, P., Peffers, J., & Hutchison, C. (2003). Evaluation of Project 1 of the Scottish executive’s assessment development programme: Support for the professional practice in formative assessment: Background, methodology. observation of practice and perceptions of the project and its effects. Paper presented at 200 British Educational Research Association (BERA) conference, Edinburgh.

  • Head, G., & Dakers, J. (2005). Verillon’s Trio and Wenger’s community: Learning in technology education. In J. Dakers & M. de Vries (Eds.), Creating communities in technology education: Special edition. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 33–46.

  • Hill, A. M., & Smith, H. A. (2005). Research in purpose and value for the study of technology in secondary schools: A theory of authentic learning. In J. Dakers & M. de Vries (Eds.), Creating communities in technology education: Special edition. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 19–32.

  • Hillier, Y. (1998). Informal practitioner theory: Eliciting the implicit. Studies in the Education of Adults, 30(1), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar D. (1996) The free educational prison; metaphors and images. Educational Research, 38(1), 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITEA (2000). Standards for technological literacy content for the study of technology. Virginia: International Technology Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, D., (2004). Student teachers’ thinking about teaching and the use of reflective logs in supporting the ownership of conceptual change. Paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research (SERA) conference, Perth, Scotland.

  • Kennedy, M. M. (1997). Defining an ideal teacher education program [mimeo]. Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2006). Innovative technological performance. In: J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 159–178). Palgrave MacMillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., & Perry, D. (2001). Design and technology in a knowledge economy. London: Engineering Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1993).Technology’s challenge to science education—cathederal, quarry or company store. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, S. (2004). Separating Rhetoric from Reality: Supporting teachers in negotiating beyond the status quo. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayor, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meaning within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. (1964). Innovation in education. New York: Teachers College Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. (2006). Gender and technology. Gender mediation in school knowledge construction. In: J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 219–237). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. R., & Bruner, J. S. (1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In O. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development. USA and UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schommer-Atkins M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In: B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103–118). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learning using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: the “filtering effect” of teachers’ beliefs on understanding. Transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yero, J. (2002). Teaching in mind: How teacher thinking shapes education. Hamilton, Montana: MindFlight Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981) Are the effects of university teacher education ‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy Dow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dow, W. The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: a European perspective. Int J Technol Des Educ 16, 307–321 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-0009-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-0009-7

Keywords

Navigation