Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Visible parts, invisible whole: Swedish technology student teachers’ conceptions about technological systems

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

Abstract

Technological systems are included as a component of national technology curricula and standards for primary and secondary education as well as corresponding teacher education around the world. Little is known, however, of how pupils, students, and teachers conceive of technological systems. In this article we report on a study investigating Swedish technology student teachers’ conceptions of technological systems. The following research question is posed: How do Swedish technology student teachers conceive of technological systems? Data was collected through in-depth qualitative surveys with 26 Swedish technology student teachers. The data was analysed using a hermeneutic method, aided by a theoretical synthesis of established system theories (system significants). The main results of the study are that the technology student teachers expressed diverse conceptions of technological systems, but that on average almost half of them provided answers that were considered as undefined. The parts of the systems that the students understood were mostly the visible parts, either components, devices, or products such as buttons, power lines, hydroelectric plants, or the interface with the software inside a mobile phone. However, the ‘invisible’ or abstract aspects of the technological systems, such as flows of information, energy or matter, or control operations were difficult to understand for the majority of the students. The flow of information was particularly challenging in this regard. The students could identify the input and often the output of the systems, that is, what systems or components do, but the processes that take place within the systems were elusive. Comparing between technological systems also proved difficult for many students. The role of humans was considered important but it was mostly humans as users not as actors on a more systemic level, for example, as system owners, innovators, or politicians. This study confirms previous research in that the students had a basic understanding of structure, input and output of a technological system. Thus, the adult students in this study did not seem to have better understanding of technological systems than school pupils and teachers in previous studies, although this is in line with previous investigations on the general system thinking capabilities of children and adults. The most important implication of this study is that students need to be trained in systems thinking, particularly regarding how components work and connect to each other, flows (especially of information), system dependency, and the human role in technological systems.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the research overview we have left out a large body of research concerned with how children and adults understand complex social and natural systems (e.g. Hmelo-Silver and Azevedo 2006; Resnick and Wilensky 1998; Booth Sweeney and Sterman 2000, 2007; Yoon 2008). Although there certainly are connections to our research—which is evident in our discussion—we focus on educational research on technological systems here.

  2. The complete survey instrument can be obtained from the first author.

  3. The maps are from different time periods but were picked out only for the purpose of seeing what the students could say about similarities and differences between the geographical distributions of the two systems.

References

  • Axell, C. (2015). Barnlitteraturens tekniklandskap. En didaktisk vandring från Nils Holgersson till Pettson och Findus. Ph.D. Thesis, Linköpings universitet, Norrköping.

  • Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The Social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16(4), 249–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23(2/3), 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones, A., & Meso, P. N. (2006). Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. 1st Anchor Books ed. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach. Rev. and updated ed.. New York, NY: Dell Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W. W. (1994). Point: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 583–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, V., and B. France. (2007). Redefining technological literacy in New Zealand: From concepts to curriculum constructs. Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology 18, Glasgow, 2007-05-14.

  • DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellul, J. (1980). The technological system. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. (2006). A systems approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, I. S., Norton, S. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (2005). Adding value to the teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyberg, P. (2003). Energi som kunskapsområde. Om praktik och diskurser i skolan. Linköping: Linköping University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallström, J., & Gyberg, P. (2011). Technology in the rear-view mirror: How to better incorporate the history of technology into technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallström, J., & Klasander, C. (2013). Technology education for systems thinking and sustainability: What Swedish pre-service technology teacher students know about technological systems. In P. J. Williams & D. Gedera (Eds.), PATT 27 technology education for the future: A play on sustainability: Christchurch New Zealand 2–6 December 2013. Hamilton: New Zealand University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, C. (1992). Edwin Chadwick and the engineers, 1842–1854: Systems and antisystems in the Pipe-and-Brick Sewers War. Technology & Culture, 33(4), 680–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of power: Electrification in Western society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 51–82). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (2004). Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingelstam, L. (1996). Complex technical systems. Forskningsrådsnämnden (FRN): Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingelstam, L. (2002). System—att tänka över samhälle och teknik. Stockholm: Energimyndigheten.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson, E. (1996). Industrialisering av älvar. Studier kring svensk vattenkraftutbyggnad 1900–1918. Avhandlingar från Historiska institutionen i Göteborg, nr 13, Historiska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg.

  • Jeppsson, F., Haglund, J., Amin, T., & Strömdahl, H. (2013). Exploring the use of conceptual metaphors in solving problems on entropy. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 70–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2003). The development of a national curriculum in technology for New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaijser, A. (1994). I fädrens spår. Den svenska infrastrukturens historiska utveckling och framtida utmaningar. Stockholm: Carlssons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klasander, C. (2010). Talet om tekniska system. Förväntningar, traditioner och skolverkligheter. Ph.D. Thesis, Linköpings universitet, Norrköping.

  • Koski, M.-I., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). An exploratory study on how primary pupils approach systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 835–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P., Franssen, M., van de Poel, I., & Ottens, M. (2006). Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: Some conceptual problems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23, 803–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Läroplan för grundskolan. (1980). Lgr 80, Allmän del. Skolöverstyrelsen: Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolverket. (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.

  • Larsson, S. (2005). Om kvalitet i kvalitativa studier. Nordisk Pedagogik, 25(1), 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Glashan, A. A., & Wells, A. W. J. (2013). The road less travelled: A pre-service approach towards the technology teaching profession. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 939–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mioduser, D., Venezky, R. L., & Gong, B. (1996). Students’ perceptions and designs of simple control systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(3), 363–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Othman, J., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2008). An investigation into the relationship between students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1531–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postholm, M.-B. (2006). Assessment during project work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooner, P., Klasander, C., & Hallström, J. (2015). Swedish teachers’ views of assessing technological systems in compulsory school. In M. Chatoney (Ed.), PATT 29 plurality and complementarity of approaches in design & technology education, Marseille, France, April 2015. Marseille: Presses Universitaires de Provence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. Rev. ed, The international library of systems theory and philosophy. New York: Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

  • Ödman, P.-J. (2007). Tolkning, förståelse, vetande. Norstedts: Hermeneutik i teori och praktik. Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Örtnäs, A. (2007). Elevers vardagsuppfattningar om tekniska system. Bachelor’s thesis, Linköping University, Linköping.

  • Säfström, C. A. (1994). Makt och mening: förutsättningar för en innehållsfokuserad pedagogisk forskning, Uppsala studies in education, 53. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Säfström, C. A. (1999). Att förskjuta perspektiv: Läsning som omvänd hermeneutik. In L. Östman & C. A. Säfström (Eds.), Textanalys. Introduktion till syftesrelaterad kritik (pp. 237–244). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerton, J. (1998). Stora tekniska system—en introduktion till forskningsfältet. In A. Kaijser & P. Blomkvist (Eds.), Den konstruerade världen: tekniska system i historiskt perspektiv (pp. 19–43). Eslöv: B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, M. (2011). Att urskilja tekniska system. Didaktiska dimensioner i grundskolan. Ph.D. Thesis, Linköpings universitet, Norrköping.

  • Svensson, M., & Klasander, C. (2012). Teacher’s professional growth in planning and teaching technological systems. Australia: Technology Education Research Conference, Surfers Paradise.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Technology Curriculum, Lpo 94. (2000). Accessed from www.skolverket.se 2013-05-17.

  • Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum. (2007). Accessed from nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz 2013-06-20.

  • Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. A. (2008). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuga, K. F. (1994). Implementing technology education: A review and synthesis of the literature, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult. Columbus, Ohio: Career and Vocational Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuga, K. F. (2004). Improving technology education research on cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Annelie Bodén and Per Norström for helping out with the distribution of the surveys. Thanks also to the TESER working seminar participants for providing valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology and Science Education Research (TESER), Department of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, 601 74, Norrköping, Sweden

    Jonas Hallström & Claes Klasander

Authors
  1. Jonas Hallström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claes Klasander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Hallström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hallström, J., Klasander, C. Visible parts, invisible whole: Swedish technology student teachers’ conceptions about technological systems. Int J Technol Des Educ 27, 387–405 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9356-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9356-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation