The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education 9781350238411, 9781350238442, 9781350238428

Table of contents :
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
Illustrations
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1: General Introduction
Part I: Conceptualizing Technology Education
Chapter 2: Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education
Chapter 3: Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education
Chapter 4: Design and Technology Education in England
Chapter 5: Overview of Chinese High School General Technology Education: Rationale and Current Status
Chapter 6: Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development
Chapter 7: Technology Education’s Place in STEM: The Relationship and Role of Technology in STEM Education, Using the United States as a Case Study
Part II: Technology Education in the Curriculum
Chapter 8: Introduction to Technology Education in the Curriculum
Chapter 9: Thinking: Nurturing Independent Design Thinking and Decision-Making
Chapter 10: Doing: Skills, Knowledge, and Understanding in Conceptual, Theoretical, and Practical Contexts
Chapter 11: Communicating: The Importance of Communication in a Technological Literacy Era
Chapter 12: Including: Thinking Toward an Inclusive Curriculum for Technology Education in German Primary Schools
Chapter 13: Assessing: How to Get Feedback Back on Track in Technology Education
Chapter 14: Collaborating: The Purpose and Potential of Collaboration with Stakeholders and Other Disciplines
Chapter 15: Facilitating: The Role of Learning Environments in Technology Education Curricula
Part III: Pedagogy for Technology Education
Chapter 16: Introduction to Pedagogy for Technology Education
Chapter 17: Project-Based Learning: Authentic and Effective Learning in Technology Education
Chapter 18: Task-Based Learning: An Opportunity for Focused Learning in Technology Education
Chapter 19: Design Learning: Pedagogic Strategies That Enable Learners to Develop Their Design Capability
Chapter 20: Play-Based Learning: Play Pedagogies for Technology Education
Chapter 21: Digital Learning: The Role of Digital Technologies in Technology Education
Chapter 22: Interdisciplinary Learning: New Perspectives on Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning: Shifting Pedagogies of the Profession and the Muddy Puddle of STEM Teacher Associational Fluency
Chapter 23: Risky Learning: How to Master a Risk and Safety in Technology Education Learning and Working Environments
Part IV: Technology, Education, and Society
Chapter 24: Introduction to Technology, Education, and Society
Chapter 25: The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education: Fostering Technological Multiliteracies
Chapter 26: Industrial Perspectives: Translational and Transactional Agendas
Chapter 27: Cultural Perspectives: Technology and Culture: The Sociocultural Role of Technology Education
Chapter 28: Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives: Developing a Technological Identity within Curricular and Non-Curricular Programs
Chapter 29: Extracurricular Perspectives: Valuing Technology beyond the Classroom
Chapter 30: Social and Technological Perspectives: Technology’s Influence on Society
Afterword
Contributors
Index

Citation preview

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Also Available from Bloomsbury The Bloomsbury Handbook of Popular Music Education, edited by Zack Moir, Bryan Powell, and Gareth Dylan Smith The Bloomsbury Handbook of Reading Perspectives and Practices, edited by Bethan Marshall, Jackie Manuel, Donna L. Pasternak, and Jennifer Roswell The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning, edited by Douglas Bourn

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education Edited by David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 Copyright © David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff and contributors, 2023 David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff and contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. xv constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Grace Ridge Cover image © Anete Lusina / pexels.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3502-3841-1 ePDF: 978-1-3502-3842-8 eBook: 978-1-3502-3843-5 Series: Bloomsbury Curriculum Handbooks Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www​.bloomsbury​.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Dedication This book is dedicated to educators, policymakers, and stakeholders around the globe who have led, shaped, and advocated for technology education, and for those who continue to do so.



vi

Contents

List of Illustrations x Foreword xii Acknowledgments xv 1

General Introduction  David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff 1

Part I  Conceptualizing Technology Education

7

2

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education  David Gill 9

3

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education  Jeffery Buckley 14

4

Design and Technology Education in England  Stephanie Atkinson 28

5

Overview of Chinese High School General Technology Education: Rationale and Current Status  Meidan Xu, Jianjun Gu, and P. John Williams 42

6

Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development  Jim Tuff and David Gill 60

7

Technology Education’s Place in STEM: The Relationship and Role of Technology in STEM Education, Using the United States as a Case Study  Greg J. Strimel 76

Part II  Technology Education in the Curriculum

95

8

Introduction to Technology Education in the Curriculum  David Wooff 97

9

Thinking: Nurturing Independent Design Thinking and Decision-Making  Belinda von Mengersen 101

10 Doing: Skills, Knowledge, and Understanding in Conceptual, Theoretical, and Practical Contexts  David Morrison-Love 122 11 Communicating: The Importance of Communication in a Technological Literacy Era  Yakhoub Ndiaye 136 12 Including: Thinking Toward an Inclusive Curriculum for Technology Education in German Primary Schools  Franz Schröer and Claudia Tenberge 156

Contents

13 Assessing: How to Get Feedback Back on Track in Technology Education  Eva Hartell 170 14 Collaborating: The Purpose and Potential of Collaboration with Stakeholders and Other Disciplines  David Wooff, Ryan Beales, and Elizabeth Flynn 188 15 Facilitating: The Role of Learning Environments in Technology Education Curricula  Matt McLain and Sarah Finnigan-Moran 198 Part III  Pedagogy for Technology Education

215

16 Introduction to Pedagogy for Technology Education  Matt McLain 217 17 Project-Based Learning: Authentic and Effective Learning in Technology Education Osnat Dagan 223 18 Task-Based Learning: An Opportunity for Focused Learning in Technology Education  Andrew Doyle 240 19 Design Learning: Pedagogic Strategies That Enable Learners to Develop Their Design Capability  Remke M. Klapwijk and Kay Stables 255 20 Play-Based Learning: Play Pedagogies for Technology Education  Pauline Roberts and Marianne Knaus 274 21 Digital Learning: The Role of Digital Technologies in Technology Education  Deborah Winn 288 22 Interdisciplinary Learning: New Perspectives on Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning: Shifting Pedagogies of the Profession and the Muddy Puddle of STEM Teacher Associational Fluency  Michael A. de Miranda 304 23 Risky Learning: How to Master a Risk and Safety in Technology Education Learning and Working Environments  Eila Lindfors 322 Part IV  Technology, Education, and Society

339

24 Introduction to Technology, Education, and Society  Dawne Irving-Bell 341 25 The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education: Fostering Technological Multiliteracies  Jonas Hallström 346 26 Industrial Perspectives: Translational and Transactional Agendas  Rónán Dunbar, Niall Seery, and Joseph Phelan 356 27 Cultural Perspectives: Technology and Culture: The Sociocultural Role of Technology Education  Mishack T. Gumbo 368 28 Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives: Developing a Technological Identity within Curricular and Non-Curricular Programs  Thomas Kennedy 382 viii

Contents

29 Extracurricular Perspectives: Valuing Technology beyond the Classroom  Mike Martin 401 30 Social and Technological Perspectives: Technology’s Influence on Society  Dawne Irving-Bell 410 Afterword  Ed M. Reeve 423 List of Contributors 425 Index 434

ix

Illustrations

Figures 3.1 5.1 7.1 8.1 11.1 13.1 13.2 16.1 18.1 18.2 18.3 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 21.1 21.2 21.3 22.1 22.2 23.1 23.2

Interaction of mind and hand process model adapted from Kelly et al. (1987) 16 The samples of warning triangles for motor vehicles are provided 53 Example engineering performance matrix for one core concept related to engineering design 89 Dimensions of a technology education curriculum 98 Automatic Remote Control Pan Tilt System 140 Venn diagram of wind power and water power 181 Research design in Purdue studies 1 and 2 184 Banks et al.’s (2004) subject construct model 218 Progression of jointing techniques in woodwork 241 Stages of task-based learning 244 The purposes of teaching technology (Doyle, 2020) 248 There is no clock in the new Delft city hall and train station (©Meccano)257 A moving cat in a tree signals the time 258 Prototyping the time—indicators 258 Agency is developed—ideas are explained 259 Prototype and implemented final design of the time indicator 259 The APU Design and Technology iterative model of designing 262 Scaffolding design projects starting from specific briefs to open contexts267 Five key strategies for formative assessment from the Make Design Learning Visible approach 270 Collective drawings on how to think divergently 271 Digital technologies are embedded in many aspects of life and industry 291 Example slides from game 299 A sample of student outcomes from the final task of the game 300 iSTEM pedagogy contexts and content in engineering and technology education instruction 311 Teachers co-planning interdisciplinary content 315 A pillar drill working station with guards and safety area 323 The model for safety culture management in TE education 328

Illustrations

23.3 23.4 26.1 26.2

Heinrich’s triangle from 1931—the ratio between near-misses and injuries The cheese model of accident causation Contextual translations: The industry–education nexus Transactional model for technology education

330 331 362 365

Tables 1.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 9.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 13.1 15.1 15.2 15.3 19.1 21.1

Comparing Benefits and Limitations of Curriculum Approaches for Technology Education 4 Teaching Hour Arrangement 53 Experiment 1: Shape, Size, and Ground Spacing 55 Experiment 2: Structural Stability 56 Experiment 3: Visual Discrimination of Shapes 56 Experiment 4: Wind-resistant Stability 56 Provincial/Territorial Technology Curriculum Terminology 65 Engineering Practices and Knowledge Domains Concepts 88 Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy Content Organization89 Engineering design-based lesson plan model (adapted from AE3 & ASEE, 2020) 91 Table Providing a Simple Visualization of Where Specific Design Thinking Modes Can Occur in Design Processes Models 104 Checklist for Communication during Teaching (Prozesky, 2000) 150 Written Communication: Handouts (Prozesky, 2000) 150 Principles in the Design of Multimedia Communication Modalities 151 Reactions to Feedback (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015, p. 107) 172 Levels of Supervision (D&TA, 2014, p. 6) 200 Storage of Materials and Components 202 Six Approaches to Classroom Management 204 Links between Twenty-First-Century skills and Design Skills (Klapwijk et al., 2019) 260 Digital Technologies in Technology Education 290

xi

Foreword Chris Humphries C. B. E.

One of the most engrossing and accessible books in recent years—Suzie Sheehy’s The Matter of Everything—was published in April 2022 and paints a beautifully detailed picture of global developments in particle physics since the late nineteenth century. The book opens with the story of Wilhelm Röntgen’s 1895 experiments with cathode ray tubes at a point in history when international scientists, as Sheehy puts it, “agreed that the subject of physics was almost complete.” The smallest particles making up the substances of the universe (science then believed) were atoms, and the forces of gravity and electromagnetism bound our universe together. Then Röntgen observed that his cathode ray tube was causing a phosphor screen across his lab to glow (something that physics theory at that time could not explain), and that the rays from the tube were detectable on the other side of the wooden doors into the adjoining lab. X-Rays had been discovered and the myth of the atom as the smallest particle was about to be overturned. The rest of Sheehy’s book sets out the results of a further 11 technological experiments in physics over the last century that fundamentally shook the foundations of science— including the discovery of dozens of new particles from positrons to pions, and neutrons to neutrinos and, eventually, 127 years after Röntgen, the Higgs Boson. All of which led to some of the most important discoveries and inventions of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: X-Rays, CT Scanners, MRI Scanners, carbon dating, and radio astronomy, to name but a few. Technology has been traditionally defined (quite inaccurately, in my view) as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry” (Oxford English Dictionary) or “the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life” (Britannica​.c​om). Each of these definitions carries the clear implication that relevant scientific knowledge typically precedes, and informs or shapes, the development and application of technology. Yet what Sheehy’s book highlights is that the relationship between science and technology is far more complex and intertwined than these simplistic definitions suggest. As often as not, the results of technological experiments undermine rather than reinforce current scientific theories, and Sheehy documents how hard the scientific community will often fight to resist changing the underlying science until the results of diverse experiments leave them very little room for maneuver. Throughout history, the development of technology has as often preceded and revised the science on which it is supposedly “based,” as it has derived from it.

Foreword

From the first discoveries of the club and fire, then the first arrowhead and flint knife, through the creative tools of the stone mason, the spinning jenny, the steam engine, and on to the destructive weapons of war, technology has as often been created by accident or fortuitous experimentation as by planned design and deduction from scientific principles. To draw on two of the authors in this handbook, Hallström argues (based on the work of Chakrabarty and Dakers) that “Technology and technological endeavour are as old as humanity itself, even to the point of an actual co-evolution of humans and their tools at the dawn of homo sapiens,” and Martin agrees when he writes: “Technology is inextricably linked with our humanity.” This sets out the powerful hypothesis that our human past, present, and future have been, are, and will continue to be, so inextricably linked with technology that we could not live successfully without it. Any historical study of the development of global industry since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (Industry 1.0) in the eighteenth century, through to today’s Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things will find repeated evidence of such linkages. Technology persists, progresses, and advances for one simple reason: because it enables humans to do things better—or faster, or cheaper, or in greater volumes, or more precisely. As Perttu Polonen (2022), the Finnish futurist, pointed out recently, “Technology always outperforms us—it’s why we create it in the first place.” Some people may argue that technology has not always been a positive boon to humanity—it has been used over the centuries to terrorize, control, and demean as well as to enhance, enrich, and advance. While it is unquestionably true that technology can be, and has been, used for both good and ill (and among other things this handbook explores the question of the instrumentality of technology), the choice at the end of the day is for humanity to make. Decades ahead of his time, Buckminster Fuller, the visionary engineer who first coined the phrase “Spaceship Earth,” and has often been called the grandfather of sustainability, reminded us that “We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims.” Today, in the 2020s, the world faces a growing range of extraordinary challenges, in health care, poverty, pollution, climate change and the environment, food, and water supply and security, and now in the very defense of democracy and freedom. Of course, it is from within in our heads and our hearts that most answers to these challenges must come, but it is also clear from its pre-eminence in our lives today, that technology will continue to have an inextricable role to play. So how does society ensure that the choices we make about technology and its contribution will fall, mostly at least, on the side of good rather than ill? It’s simple. We must understand technology, manage its development, and make clear and constructive decisions about its use. We must recognize and appreciate what technology can do if we are going to be able to make clear and informed choices about what we should do. And that’s where education comes to the fore—that’s what education allows us to do! Hence, an important question that sits at the very heart of this Handbook of Technology Education is: Why does the study of science and mathematics theory so xiii

Foreword

dominate the school and college curriculum to the detriment of the study of technology and its application to the real world? Why is it, as Hallström puts it, that “comprehensive, pre-university technology education . . . often has to struggle for its place in the school curriculum, despite the fact that it constitutes the foundation for all tertiary education”? The excellent collection of chapters in the handbook not only examines this question in depth, seeking to both understand its origins and challenge the prejudices and assumptions that have got us to this point, but then goes on to help educators understand how this detriment can successfully be challenged, and to explore the curriculum and pedagogical changes we can and must make if we are to ensure that our secondary and tertiary education systems create both the scientists and the technologists that humanity will need to address the challenges of the century that lies ahead of us. This handbook is a recommended reading not just for teachers who wish to ensure that our youth are adequately equipped to make the right choices for their and our futures but also for academics and educational policy makers who far too often rank theory ahead of practice, science ahead of technology, and thinking ahead of doing. I genuinely believe that all our futures depend on it.

Reference Polonen (2022). Keynote [speech]. International forum for visionaries & leaders: Steering education: From imagination to impact, Riga, Latvia, June 3. https://futures2050​.lv

xiv

Acknowledgments

As an editorial team, we would like to thank Bloomsbury for the opportunity to write this handbook. In particular, Alison Baker and Anna Elliss, who have guided us throughout the process. We appreciate all the feedback and insightful suggestions that have shaped this handbook into what you read today. We thank and acknowledge the professionalism and expertise of our contributors, and know that this book will inspire the next generation of technology educators around the world. We are grateful to the scholars and researchers, at home and around the globe, who have nurtured, challenged, and inspired us. Last, but definitely not least, we thank our families, who have given us the encouragement and space to work on this handbook. Without their support, we would not have been able to achieve what we have.



xvi

Chapter 1

General Introduction David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff

Why Did We Write This Handbook? First, this is not the book we set out to write! When we contacted Bloomsbury, we had an idea for a book based on a journal article, but the publisher came back to us with a “counteroffer” to submit a proposal for their curriculum handbook series. Second, we aimed to make the handbook a collaborative endeavor, with each member of the editorial board taking responsibility for a part, and co-creating the handbook as a coherent whole. Therefore, the editors are listed alphabetically by surname, rather than hierarchically. So here we are proud to be publishing what we hope is the first of many future editions of the Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education, and we are delighted to have been successful in our aim of drawing together an international team of contributors to write a scholarly handbook comprised of carefully curated chapters, rather than a collection of research articles or position pieces written in isolation. This first edition sees thirty-six contributors, representing twenty-eight institutions, from fourteen countries spanning five continents. Before moving further to outline the rationale, structure, and format of the book it is worth noting that we have sought throughout to embrace the unique perspectives each of our authors brings. In editing we have worked to keep each text as close to the authors’ original submission as possible, to help ensure and retain authenticity. Hence as you weave between the chapters and various sections, you will note differences between technology education’s curricular terminology, focus, and content from country to country. For example, in England the subject is called Design and Technology and focuses on designing and making, whereas in the United States, Engineering and Technology, focusing on STEM and technological literacy, has become more common. This is intentional, and we believe has been instrumental in supporting us to create this truly unique, international text that represents the breadth of the subject’s expression around the world. This is a truly international effort, but we can do better and look forward to extending our reach in the next edition! This handbook is written for anyone involved with technology education, working with children and young people from the early years through to upper secondary. So, what do we mean by technology education? There are many different expressions of the

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

subject around the world, but typically we are referring to the subject as a discipline where students apply technological knowledge in the context of real-world problems. This often involves project-based learning where students are engaged with designing and making activities or working collaboratively to solve problems, but a fundamental element that is common across the globe is the principle of learning-by-doing. To avoid confusion, this handbook is not about other elements of education that involved technology, such as information and communication technology (ICT) or educational technology (Ed-Tech), although these are mentioned as and when appropriate. This book is about the subjects variously known as design and technology (England), design and technologies (Australia), technology (Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, etc.), and technology and engineering (USA) and so on. In each country, technology education has its own unique histories, purposes, and priorities, ranging from the development of children and young people’s design capability through to technological literacy, but there are uniting principles of technological ways of knowing and knowledge for action.

How Is the Handbook Structured? The handbook is divided into four parts, with each part overseen by a member of the editorial team: ● ● ● ●

Part I: Conceptualizing Technology Education (Editor: David Gill) Part II: Technology Education in the Curriculum (Editor: David Wooff) Part III: Pedagogy for Technology Education (Editor: Matt McLain) Part IV: Technology, Education, and Society (Editor: Dawne Irving-Bell)

Part I explores the origins of technology education through six chapters and exemplifies a number of iterations of the subject as experienced around the globe, including the contributions from the continents of Asia, Europe, and North America. In Part II, contributors unpack seven dimensions of technology education in the school curriculum, considering different ways of knowing that embody the head, hand, and heart. Part III seeks to develop our understanding of aspects of technology education’s pedagogy, across the phases of education from early years through to secondary school, with diverse themes ranging from play to safety. Finally, the chapters in Part IV reflect on the role and impact technology education plays within society, exploring technology beyond the classroom, the importance of the subject, and the potential benefits of a good technology education.

What Is the Handbook About? Technological knowledge is complex, as it cannot be simply classified as hierarchical (i.e., you need to learn certain concepts before others) as opposed to non-hierarchical or 2

General Introduction

segmented knowledge (i.e., knowledge or experiences that can be taught in any order). The knowledge base for the subject is knowledge for action and is often taught just-intime to be applied in the context of a project, rather than being tested through recall. It involves conceptual (knowing that something is the case), procedural (knowing how to do or achieve something), and strategic (knowing when to do something) knowledge. This is often simplified to knowledge (knowing that) versus skills (knowing how), which we believe is an unhelpful dichotomy that risks demoting practical and creative learning in the curriculum. Different technological ways of knowing are dynamic and context driven. It is important for technology educators to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the subject, its epistemology (relevant bodies of knowledge) and ontology (theories of action and experience), as they influence how the subject is arranged (curriculum) and experienced (pedagogy). They should also be mindful of teleological (understanding of the purposes it serves) and axiological (understanding associated value judgments and ethical) issues in relation to their subject. Part I of this handbook presents a number of conceptualizations of technology education exploring how different countries around the world approach the subject. Technological knowledge and experience together contribute to curriculum design, which in primary schools is often in a learner- or problem-centered curriculum model and subject-centered in most secondary schools. Each approach has benefits and limitations (Table 1.1) but is normally outside of the sphere of influence for most classroom teachers, with decisions about how the school curriculum is arranged and constructed being under the control of school leaders under the direction of national guidance. Therefore, it is important for technology educators to be able to articulate the implications of the whole school or system approaches on the level of the individual subject. Technology educators need to consider the role of curriculum structure, instruction, content, assessment, and evaluation. As stated earlier, the curriculum structure is usually predetermined by school leaders or authorities. However, the limitations of a subjectcentered approach can be mitigated by cross-disciplinary planning and discourse, and the use of cross-curricular activity days. Similarly, the project-based learning approaches common to technology education provide opportunities for problem-centered learning to take place within both subject- and learner-centered curricula. It is also important to balance the assessment of the outcomes from students’ learning (the product) with the learning journey leading up to a summative assessment point (the process). A technology curriculum that focuses solely on the “product” (typically a made or constructed object) risks narrowing attention to technical skills and quality, as opposed to the “process” of learning, being innovative, and taking risks. Therefore, a balanced technology curriculum should be mindful of both product and process. In the choice of instruction methods, the technology educator demonstrates pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which draws on the teacher’s knowledge of the subject, teaching and school context to determine the most appropriate/effective pedagogical approaches to delivering the curriculum in their classroom. Methods 3

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 1.1  Comparing Benefits and Limitations of Curriculum Approaches for Technology Education Approach Subject-centered

Learner-centered

Problem-centered

Description

Benefits

Limitations

The curriculum is arranged into separate subjects with discreet lessons.

Typically focuses on Limited opportunities disciplinary areas taught for cross-curricular by specialists in specialist activities. classrooms. Potential for subject Enables bodies of silos where content knowledge to be identified can be taught in and taught discretely. isolation. Easier to timetable than There can be interdisciplinary teaching. an emphasis on knowledge acquisition and recall, rather than application. The curriculum is Treats students as It is difficult to plan arranged around individuals. and standardize a students’ needs and Empowers students to curriculum without interests. direct and shape their own common elements. learning. Requires high levels of expertise and support for teachers. The curriculum is Supports authentic and It is difficult to take arranged to engage interdisciplinary learning the individual students with exposing students to realneeds and interests problem finding life issues, contexts, and of students into and problemproblems. account. solving. Emphasizes the relevance It is difficult to of learning and assess creative encourages creativity and and collaborative collaboration. learning outcomes.

like demonstration, where the teacher shows students how to perform a technique or procedure, are by nature restrictive and tend to result in similar outcomes. Whereas other forms of teacher modeling that exemplify thought-action processes, without demonstrating one “right” approach, are more appropriate for facilitating creativity and innovation using more expansive teaching methods. For example, the teacher might model a technique for solving problems or generating ideas that (a) responds to a different context or brief to what the students are working on and/or (b) highlight other solutions and narrate their thinking process. In the current political context that some countries find themselves in, such as the rising tide of so-called knowledge-rich ideologies that pit curriculum content against curriculum experience, the current and future leaders of technology education need to 4

General Introduction

be aware of alternative ideologies and how to argue coherently for their subject. An education system that prioritizes one way of knowing over others risks creating zerosum curricula, where practical and creative learning (for example) becomes devalued if performance measures favor traditional “academic” subjects—or vice versa. A true non-zero-sum curriculum, where individual or groups of subjects are not vying for control or pre-eminence, values a broad, balanced, and diverse curriculum experience that develops learners as individuals, for future education and employment, as well as contributing to societal change and cohesion

Who Should Use This Handbook? This handbook draws together international perspectives on contemporary praxis in technology education from philosophy to empirical research. It is aimed at pre- and in-service teachers, postgraduate researchers, academics, and policy makers interested in technology education, in the compulsory schooling phases (e.g., K–12). The structure is particularly designed to support the education and training of pre-service teachers and teacher educators in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes with carefully commissioned chapters by leading authors in the field. Chapters discuss technology education as it can be experienced by children and young people, inside and outside of the classroom, across the world. The purpose of this book is to present pragmatic and research-informed perspectives on technology education, seeking to represent shared and divergent themes in the subject’s curricular origins and contemporary expression, curricular and pedagogical principles, and its wider impact on industry and society. The chapters are intended to work in concert with individual authors bringing their expertise, experience, and perspective within the general aims of the handbook. The contributors for each Part worked together, collaboratively, to peer review and shape individual chapters into coherent sections.

How Could You Use This Handbook? How you use this handbook will depend on your current role or relationship with technology education. Teacher educators may use specific chapters as pre- or postsession readings for lectures, seminars or workshops, or as essential reading for their modules/courses. Pre-service teachers will also want to dip into chapters to inform their academic assignments and help them to reflect on aspects of theory and practice in the technology classroom. We hope that the handbook will also provide opportunities for debate and dialogue around the tensions and controversies in technology education. 5

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

With chapters being written as scholarly position pieces, the contributors have drawn on both personal experience and empirical research. The handbook is intended to be a reference text, with each chapter an essay, rather than a monograph to be read cover to cover. Whether you are a beginning or experienced teacher, academic or policy maker, we hope that you will select chapters that both reinforce and challenge your current understanding of technology education; recognizing that it is multifaceted and evolving around the world. Postgraduate researchers and academics may use it to identify curriculum themes and signature pedagogies, as well as potential gaps in the literature and opportunities for new scholarship.

When Should You Use This Handbook? This handbook can arguably be used by anyone with an interest in technology education for whatever reason they deem suitable. As the handbook draws together international perspectives on contemporary praxis in technology education from philosophy to empirical research, it is designed to appeal to, and be of use to, a wide range of interested parties. Pre-service teachers, and teacher educators, will find this of use in areas of thought stimulus, contextual grounding, and global awareness in a vast array of technology education curricula which align with the training of aspirant teachers. It can be used to support existing programme materials, to act as a catalyst for assessment/ coursework, and to help offer a contemporary perspective to a wide range of topics. Practicing technology educators, academics, scholars, and teachers will also find the content helpful in providing a valuable source of reference for undertaking further studies, scholarly writing, or original research. As stated above, this handbook presents pragmatic and research-informed perspectives on technology education; through the global lens of individual authors who bring their individual expertise, experience, and perspective to the fore in their contribution. The handbook will also be of value to those seeking to understand the nuances of technology education, encompassing design, technology and engineering in the wider context of national examinations, or the derivation of policies at a regional, national, or international level. Thus, the handbook will be of use in drafting such policies, practices, and procedures. Each part begins with a summary introduction from the lead editor. This is most helpful in being able to understand the coherence between chapters within a section, and it provides an opportunity to identify cognizance between the topics covered in each section of the handbook. This will be most helpful in expanding understanding of subjects that align, or contrast, with ones they are already familiar with. It may be that they are familiar with them in their own context and are looking for a different perspective, or maybe the perspective of someone in a different country—in which case, this handbook can be used to provide such a view.

6

PART I

Conceptualizing Technology Education



8

Chapter 2

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education David Gill

Where to start on such a broad and complex subject as technology education? If I were to start from my own local context, this might be an easier task as there would be some familiar conceptual footholds to brace my climb. However, this analogy could cause some confusion for a reader already familiar with other historical curricular developments, as biology or math curricula are almost universally understood across modern educational jurisdictions. Therefore, wouldn’t logic dictate that technology education from the United Kingdom should look very similar to technology education in the Netherlands, the United States, or China? Well, the easy answer to this is yes and no. Yes, in the sense that you will find curricular areas within compulsory education around the world that share theoretical, conceptual, and pedagogical leanings toward the power of learning by engaging both head and hands. No, in the sense that while broader content areas such as material processing, transportation, communications, and control systems may be found within international curricula, what happens in classrooms can vary quite a lot depending on the political, economic, and cultural conditions of the local context. The name itself sheds some light on the difficulty of compartmentalizing and analyzing the international developmental path of the curriculum area as the moniker “technology education” can be contentious as it is just the latest attempt at naming the unnamable. As technology education grew out of various forms of manual education during the latter half of the last century, it has attracted many titles and roles since the dawning of compulsory public education. Craft, vocational education, industrial arts, sloyd, design and technology, technological education, career and technology studies, engineering education, maker education, and the almost ubiquitous and colloquial “shop class,” that seems to refuse to die, are some of the terms that have been used to describe this area. With so much connotation and interpretation attached to these names, it can be difficult to know if you are comparing and analyzing the same thing. So, returning to my original question, you can see that it would be much easier to describe the developmental path of a local context, but that would not paint a clear picture of the international phenomena we describe here as technology education. To do that I will have to lean on some of my friends who have their own contextual lens and perhaps together we can start to

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

get a clearer picture of the issues, trends, and themes that run through this otherwise seemingly diverse group of curricula. To address the developmental path of technology education this part of the handbook has gathered evidence and examples from the international community. Part I starts with an overarching view on the international developmental phenomena of technology education. Buckley’s chapter entitled “Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education” tackles the thematic issues addressed earlier and weaves a concise and logical map of the historical and philosophical roots of modern technology education. Following this map are four chapters that support Buckley’s findings by adding concrete evidence from England, China, Canada, and the United States. The major themes that Buckley reports are succinctly illustrated within the local context of these international jurisdictions. So how does Buckley start us off in the right direction? Buckley’s chapter will be of interest to anyone who is uninitiated to both the historical and pedagogical development of technology education. This chapter establishes a baseline of context for the rest of the section and much of the entire handbook. By dividing his attention between the historical roots and goals and the pedagogical variations that have accompanied the area’s development, Buckley has aligned technology education with the major shifts of thought that have happened over the last century or more in general education. Technology education’s history is traced from the Aristotelian non-dualistic idea of the inability to separate techne from episteme (doing and thinking) to the modern interpretation of a subject with a focus on the “interaction of mind and hand.” While Buckley does point to a strong philosophical base, he also highlights the historical issue of the subject being associated with non-academic pursuits, thereby generally giving the curricula a negative stereotype within educational settings. The close relationship with local trade, apprenticeship, and industry seemed at odds as researchers, administrators, and policy makers began to shift the area from vocational to general education and this inter-generational process has left the subject marked with various associated pros and cons. While these internal forces were working on transforming the subject from colloquial and exclusive to universal and inclusive, other theoretical and pedagogical developments exerted their own forces on the process. Technology education as a curricular subject does not exist in an educational vacuum. Buckley makes this clear when he stated that “the primary overarching shift has been from a predominantly behaviorist philosophy to a more constructionist philosophy.” The history of technology education’s idealized theoretical and pedagogical stances is well documented in this chapter, which outlines the changes from behaviorist to cognitivist to constructivist/constructionist pedagogy being favored as the foundation for supporting teaching and learning practices. He rightly notes that regardless of what stance is favored that it is possible, and probable, that technology education can still be delivered through a variety of ideologies—therefore reinforcing the tension of competing interpretations of the value of the subject. Buckley ends his chapter with a short discussion on the effect this shifting ground has had on the assessment methods that have been accepted in the past and others that are challenging their dominance. With the groundwork 10

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education

now established the remaining four chapters of this section detail and reinforce these developmental trends from the local contexts of England, China, Canada, and the United States. Atkinson’s reflective analysis on the development of design and technology as a national curriculum subject in England again strikes close to the themes identified earlier. In her chapter entitled “Design and Technology in England” she gives the reader a detailed account of the rise and fall of the subject from the industrial and educational influences of the 1950 and 1960s to local changes in educational governance and leadership that gave rise to the more centralized control of curriculum development and implementation during the 1970 and 1990s. These changes ushered in an era of “Craft, Design and Technology (CDT)” and its inclusion in the National Curriculum in 1990. She then follows the political tensions associated with the lack of resources, proficiency in teaching, accountability, assumptions of the epistemological weakness of the subject, and assessment that led to the revamping and renaming of the curriculum several times until it reached its current 2013 National Curriculum form. Notwithstanding this narrative of ups and downs, Atkinson leaves the reader with a hopeful vision of design and technology’s future as she outlines several initiatives and developments that may have a significant impact on the status and implementation of the subject. While England has a very long tradition and history of technology education other countries have a much more recent entanglement with the idea. Xu, Gu, and Williams outline such a case in their chapter entitled “Overview of Chinese High School General Technology Education.” Throughout this chapter the authors describe in detail the structure, organization, and hierarchy of Chinese general technology education over its relatively short fifteen- to twenty-year history. This national curriculum subject is very similar to other international curricular areas that include designing, making, and evaluating activities. They discuss how general technology is “based on practice, focusing on creating and embodying the integration of science, technology and humanities” and that there are multiple core literacies associated with its study. From this point they go on to describe the compulsory high school courses “Technology and Design One and Two” by outlining the associated assessment levels of achievement in relation to the aforementioned core literacies. To give readers an even greater understanding of what general technology looks like in the classroom, examples of three technical cases used with students are highlighted within the areas of discussion, experiment, and design and make. Xu, Gu, and Williams end the chapter with a succinct analysis of the Chinese implementation in relation to other international jurisdictions— noting many of the same issues and trends that are present in more established systems. While China’s implementation is very recent, they do share the characteristic of offering a national curriculum with centralized oversight with England, but not all countries share this reality as the next two chapters reveal. Canada encompasses a vast and diverse geographical region that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Artic oceans. This geographical diversity is also matched by a plethora of cultural, economic, and political views that are tied together to form a 11

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

national tapestry. A part of that tapestry is the fact that Canada has no national ministry of education and constitutionally education falls to the provincial and territorial governments. As Tuff and Gill point out in their chapter entitled “Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development,” this has had an impact on the developmental pathways of the subject across the country. These developments could be viewed as a microcosm that paralleled international developments of the subject. As the national scope is so large, Tuff and Gill focus their attention on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In their chapter they outline how there was no vocational or technical education in the secondary school system until the late 1970s and early 1980s and then trace the subsequential legislative and curricular initiatives that were established and ushered in both elements of technology education and skilled trades for the students of the province. Again, this overview captures some of the recurring themes already presented of a lack of social capital, economic and political pressures, and a gap in teacher education and philosophical acceptance. Moving from this example the last chapter of this part addresses another decentralized system with more of an emphasis on several external forces that have influenced the direction of technology education. Strimel introduces the reader to the current conceptualization of technology education within the landscape of STEM and engineering education, from the context of the United States. His chapter entitled “Technology Education’s Place in STEM” summarizes the competing ideologies found within the rise of STEM and engineering education in and outside traditional technology education circles. This chapter relies heavily on identifying the ambiguity of technology education finding acceptance in state curricula since its shift from Industrial Arts in the late twentieth century. Strimel paints a picture of technology education’s place within school and the push to expand STEM which he describes as paralleling each other. He posits that this overlap has only weakened technology education’s prominence and is one factor that is presented for organizations such as the International Technology and Engineering Educators Associate’s (ITEEA) move to include “engineering” both in their name and the standards and curriculum they develop and support. From a classroom perspective, Strimel moves on to highlight the evolution of technology standards and the various pedagogical approaches that compete and can be misunderstood by practitioners, thus bringing to the reader’s attention the recurring theme of a lack of qualified teachers to teach the moving target that is technology and engineering education in the United States. With this all said, hopefully it is apparent to the reader that situating technology education within an international scope of general compulsory education is still not a straightforward task. While each of the chapters presented in this section emphasize the deeply contextualized nature of the subject there are also a group of shared themes. Many of the challenging themes center on what might be termed an identity crisis and could be viewed as a fatal weakness, but rather than problematizing the diverse nature of technology education, it might be better to take a more positive perspective. There is strength in diversity and this strength has been highlighted in this section by identifying a second set of themes that focus on common threads that could be considered binding. 12

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education

Threads such as technological problem-solving, designing and making, student autonomy, strong connections to life beyond school, and the interaction of mind and hands all speak to unifying characteristics that cut through local differences. Or I could be wrong, but I challenge you to read ahead and make up your own mind.

13

Chapter 3

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education Jeffery Buckley

Introduction Technology education is still a relatively new introduction to general compulsory education curricula. Less like more established fields, such as mathematics or the natural sciences, there often still exists a degree of conceptual ambiguity or uncertainty which can underscore challenges to the status and position of technology subjects. For instance, it is not uncommon for external stakeholders to conflate the fields of technology education (which could be philosophized as thinking through technology and thinking and teaching about technology) with educational technology (the combined use of computational hardware and software with educational theory to facilitate teaching and learning generally). Further, within technology education a clear epistemological boundary—the nature and remit of relevant knowledge—can be hard to define as learning about technology can and does occur across many subject areas. Moreover, as technology education offers space to consider technological advances within society, there is a dynamic and ever-evolving body of knowledge for technology educators and learners to engage with. The vocational and/or handicraft history of technology education in many countries also provides a unique dimension to the field’s evolution and to current curricula within schools. While a vocational heritage may be a phenomenon shared across many countries, the varied nature of industrial developments internationally has, at least partially, resulted in varied manifestations of technology education curricula (cf. Buckley et al., 2020). Similarly, for instances where technology education has evolved from handicraft, cultural traditions have often shaped or influenced technology school curricula. As the field continues to evolve it is important that stakeholders have an understanding of its historical and philosophical origins so as to prevent reliance on dominant or prevailing assumptions. In a core text on this topic, de Vries (2016) notes the benefits of being familiar with the philosophy of technology, and I would contend these same benefits extend to having an understanding of its historical roots:

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

There are at least four reasons for technology educators to get acquainted with this discipline. The philosophy of technology can be a source of inspiration for determining the content of a curriculum, it can yield insights into how to construct teaching and learning situations, it can provide a conceptual basis and proper understanding of technology which can help technology educators respond to unforeseen situations while teaching about technology, it can help to position the teaching of technology among other subjects, and it can help identity [sic] the research agenda for educational research in technology education. (p. 7) Taking inspiration from the concept of constructive alignment, this chapter will focus broadly on four areas: (1) the vocational and handicraft history of technology education, (2) how goals of technology education have evolved as technology education transitioned from vocational to general education, (3) how pedagogical philosophies within technology education developed in response to these goals, and (4) how assessment practices have and are changing to ensure validity in capturing how technology students evidence their learning and capability.1 Concluding thoughts will be offered as a synthesis to the chapter and to problematize general future steps which readers can reflect on in terms of their relevance to different contexts. While generalizations will be made with respect to technology education internationally, specific developments from a number of countries, most prominently Ireland, will be cited as concrete examples of these generalizations. Importantly, this chapter focuses on technology education within secondary-level curricula (pupil ages ≈ twelve to eighteen). Technology education in many countries also exists at the primary level; however, this will not be discussed within this chapter. As the aim of this chapter is to contextualize developments in technology education and as technology education is arguably still within a period of philosophization, reflection on current relevant discourse will also be provided with respect to the developing intent of the field.

Vocational, Industrial, and Craft History When considering the current state of technology education internationally, much discourse describes the field as having evolved from vocational or handicraft education. Contemporary technology education, which often evokes quite strong constructivist and constructionist narratives, is frequently contrasted with the behaviorist epistemology and provision of vocational-technical education which emerged during the Industrial Age and in many countries persisted until the late 1900s to early 2000s. While mastery of craft remains an important object of learning for students of technology education today, aspects of the field such as nurturing and assessing designerly thinking or the negotiation of provisional knowledge are in stark contrast to the student experience of vocational-technical education. The origins of technology education, however, could be considered to date back much further than the Industrial Age, as the thinking of ancient 15

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Greek philosophers offers much as a foundation for technology education discourse today. While discussed by other ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Xenophon, and Plato, the virtues of knowledge of epistêmê, which is often described as knowledge, or more specifically at times “scientific” knowledge, and technê, which relates to art, craft, or skill, as considered by Aristotle are of significant importance in how technology education is currently conceived. The Interaction of Mind and Hand process model developed by the Technology Education Research Unit (TERU) in the UK (Figure 3.1) for example is seminal to current descriptions of technological activity. Aristotle’s interpretation of technê was that it was not separable from epistêmê as it involved theoretical understanding, a synthesis which reflects the Interaction of Mind and Hand model. Aristotle’s view that technê and epistêmê could not be separated aligns much more with views associated with the design-based pedagogy prominent in today’s technology education than it does with the more purely vocational provision of technical education. So, it is perhaps useful to consider contemporary technology education internationally as having evolved through Industrial Age technical education or handicraft education, but as having evolved from much earlier thinking with respect to the nature of technological activity.

Figure 3.1  Interaction of mind and hand process model adapted from Kelly et al. (1987). 16

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

While technology subjects across the world tend to have emerged after a form of industrial or handicraft education, with subject areas including wood craft, metal craft, textiles or needlework, cooking, and mechanical drawing, this process occurred at different paces and points in time in different countries in response to changes in social and political values. To contextualize this process by example, Seery et al. (2011) provided a concise summary as it occurred in Ireland. Through charting a timeline of the development of technology education as it evolved from technical education, they explain how the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act of 1899 was an initial step, resulting in the establishment of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in 1900 whose remit included the development of technical education in Ireland. This was followed by the Vocational Education Act of 1930 which saw vocational educational schools being created at quite a rapid pace. In tandem with the political dimension of this journey, using graphical education to focus their discussion, Seery et al. (2011) also illustrated the progression from vocational to general education through evolving school curricula and changes to national assessment practices. Despite this process taking different routes in different countries, it is worth reflecting on this example to gain a sense of how educational policy and practice have typically interfaced into current formulations of technology curricula. Additionally, across different countries there were variances in the nature of initial technical education. For example, graphics or communication graphics, usually in the form of technical or mechanical drawing, was and remains the focus of a discrete subject in some countries such as Ireland, whereas it was not or was integrated within subjects focusing on craft in other countries such as Sweden. While it is important to understand and reflect on the idiosyncrasies within the historic roots of technology education across different countries, some general characteristics of early technical education are important to note when considering the current state of technology education. In line with social values at the time, technical education was traditionally viewed as being a place for male students, or at least within pools of subjects considered under the umbrella of technical education, certain disciplines were viewed as male oriented and others viewed as female oriented. For example, while there were no formal regulations stating this, in England and New Zealand boys who engaged in technical education were stratified into subject areas relating to wood and metal crafts with girls having to study subject areas relating to cooking or textiles. This mindset largely related to the position that technical education at secondary level functioned as a precursor to trade education or apprenticeships, which themselves were gendered. A ripple effect of this can still be seen in many countries today where technology subjects remain optional within general education curricula. Taking Ireland again as an example, while the gender gap in technology education uptake is slowly reducing, female representation in the national examinations at the end of lower-secondary education (pupil ages ≈ twelve to fifteen) remains in the range of 10–25 percent across the suite of four technology subjects. A further implication of the stereotyped narrative that technology education is for male 17

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

students or that it is not for female students is the cyclical effect of gendered pedagogical decisions. If the students are predominantly male, educators may tailor their teaching to a male demographic thus further propagating a gendered stereotype for the field. Another generalization of traditional technical education is a perspective that it was non-academic or at least less academic than subjects traditionally found in comprehensive education such as the natural sciences, mathematics, and modern and classical languages. With learning objectives centering around vocational and craft skills, technical education was viewed as having less of a focus on cognitive skills and was thus considered to be of lower educational status. Even today, in most countries school subjects which have a more apparent focus on cognitive skills considered as “academic” tend to be held in higher esteem than subjects which appear more vocational. There are many negative implications for this, such as the negative stereotyping of technology teachers and students, the possible holding of lower expectations of technology students, and the lesser emphasis on technology within national curricula, or the broader STEM or STEAM remit. Strimel (Chapter 6 of this volume) elaborates on the relationship between technology education and STEM. Possibly one of the most negative implications of this narrative can exist when such views are held by students or teachers of the technology subjects themselves. Much like Aristotle’s perspective, technology subjects do intend to foster theoretical understanding of pertinent concepts and I would contend two things at this point: (1) that technological, designerly, and craft activity all involve and can be conduits for higher-order thinking and (2) that craft (the activity commonly stereotyped as characteristic of technology education and as being non- or lower-order with respect to cognition and thinking) offers a wealth of educational merit, including and beyond cognitive development such as in terms of conation and affect. However, there is a danger that, stemming from prevailing but under-evolved discourse, interpretations of the field by internal stakeholders could result in practices and learning outcomes more akin to technology educations’ predecessor, technical education, rather than the general learning outcomes viewed as important in today’s society.

Evolving Goals of Technology Education With the agenda of trying to mitigate such misinterpretations of the intent of modern technology education and in trying to facilitate thinking around the potential of technology subjects, it is prudent to contrast the historic goals of technical education with discourse on the contemporary goals of technology education. Technical education at secondary level in many countries initially began in forms of technical schools and was often separated from more general or comprehensive schools. Technical education and the pupils who attended these schools were often viewed as less academic in comparison to their general education counterparts, with pupils engaging with subjects that would typically lead to a trade, apprenticeship, or other vocational employment. 18

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

The development of technical education was progressed to train pupils in areas of national or local need as opposed to general education which had a much broader remit and saw pupils usually having more options after the completion of their compulsory schooling. By way of example, in 2017 in preparation for a reform of Ireland’s technology education at lower-secondary level, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) published a document called “Background Paper and Brief for the Review of Junior Cycle Technology Subjects” which offers a brief review of the historical development of technology education from early technical education. In this, they noted explicitly that the development of technical schools was done to address local needs, and concern for pupils to acquire technical knowledge and practical skills existed to fulfill the agricultural and industrial needs of the state. It is actually quite an interesting phenomenon for the subject to have provision tied directly to community needs. To contrast technical education with subjects from general comprehensive education, it would seem rather absurd to suggest that one community receive a different level or emphasis of provision of algebra or trigonometry in mathematics, or of a particular era in history, an energy type or measurement in physics, or of a verb tense in a modern language, than another community. Yet, this is exactly what occurred at a community level in technical education to meet local vocational needs, a practice which resulted in quite varied provision. This example from Ireland is worth reflecting as a comparator to how technology education has developed in Canada. Tuff and Gill (Chapter 5 of this volume) describe the decentralized evolution and governance of technology education in Canada, highlighting how curricula vary across provinces and territories. Technology education in Ireland is centrally governed; however, how technical schools were able to align provision with local needs has many parallels with the modern Canadian context. A further contrast between technical and general education in Ireland was that in technical schools there were no explicit syllabi, instead broad principles were provided by the Department of Education to ensure vocational education within these technical schools could be tailored to meet the needs of their local communities. Such provision demonstrates the rather limited intentions for pupils who were held by those governing technical education provision in comparison to pupils who attended general education. A lecture provided by Hugh Warren in 1961, who at the time was the principal of the South East London Technical College, provides an account of technical education across a number of countries which illustrates its development up to this point (Warren, 1961). In his lecture, Warren speaks of technical, vocational, and apprenticeship education in Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany, America, and the Soviet Union, and he notes how technical education by the 1960s had become “a normal, respectable and often sought-after form of post-primary education” (p.5), and that in the years preceding his lecture, secondary-level technical schools internationally had seen: ● ●

an attempt to make vocational education more in line with general education; a rise in the age at which pupils specialized in their education; 19

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

● ● ●

a close link with apprenticeship; clearer progression toward higher technical qualifications; an increase in provision for girls’ occupations.

Each of these were all noteworthy developments and it is clear that the goals of technical education were progressing toward being more general and more in line with the state of technology education today. From a general education perspective, Warren acknowledged how technical or vocational education in some countries such as France had become a part of the general education system. In other countries, such as the Netherlands, concurrent general education was provided in technical schools. While moving toward more general education, Warren also noted that technical education still provided a pre-apprenticeship type of training which further exemplified a function of this form of schooling, and his calls for reform of apprenticeship education to reflect advances in automation mirror how technical education goals evolved in line with industrial development: As the industrial pattern has changed from individual single-unit production to conveyor belt mass production so has the instruction given in apprenticeship varied in character. Hand-skill of a high order is still necessary in many trades, and it is rightly a source of great pride that such fine skill can be attained by human hands. It is not, however, such a sure basis for pride that the need for such hand-skill still exists in modern productive methods. Automation with its accompanying feed-back principle has in theory eliminated all need for human skill. Potentially it can replace all productive processes involving human skills. It is not, of course, always economic or practicable to do this but hand-skill will more and more become a past practice. Apprenticeship training must, therefore, reflect the changing profile of skill. In most trades a combination of science, technology, and hand-skill is now necessary. The two former can best be imparted by the college, and the latter is a divided responsibility between employer and the college. Clearly, therefore, the apprentice must spend his time partly in college, and partly in the works. (pp. 7–8) Developments in technology education today still see recognition being given to industrial development. Indeed, arguably one of the advantages of the broader goals of contemporary technology education is the opportunity for educators to adopt modern technological case studies in their teaching. More than this, technology education today in many countries often allows for greater flexibility in provision in terms of core and optional or elective areas of study. A nice example of this is the syllabus for teaching technology education for New York State which has a wide range of elective courses, including AC/DC electronic theory, aerospace, architectural drawing, computer-aided design, history of technology, photography, and product design and engineering (http:// www​.p12​.nysed​.gov​/cte​/technology​/pub​/techedoutline​.pdf). However, as the concept of technology has evolved and as technology education has transitioned into general education, processes of reform now have wider-reaching considerations to reflect more general goals that extend beyond knowledge linked with industry. A prominent 20

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

philosopher of technology, Carl Mitcham, extended the interpretation of technology to include technology as objects, knowledge, activity, and volition. This philosophization of technology as a broader construct aids in contextualizing the more general goals of technology education as they exist today in comparison to the goals of technical education. Now, as a general education field, discourse on the goals of technology education has shifted largely toward the concepts of technological literacy and technological capability among others. Indeed, these concepts have progressed from academic consideration into educational policy. For example, technology education in the United States has a guiding document on standards for technological literacy (ITEEA & CTETE, 2020, p. 153), in which it is defined as “the ability to understand, use, create, and assess the human-designed systems and artifacts that are the product of technology and engineering activity.” To demonstrate the international adoption of such broad goals, Xu and Williams (Chapter 4 in this volume) expand on the interpretation of technological literacy as it is interpreted within the development and provision of technology education in China. In Ireland, the secondary-level technology syllabi all reference an overarching goal of developing technological capability, which Gibson (2008, p. 11) proposed as the capability to produce “meaningful practical solutions to real problems framed within an appropriate set of values and underpinning by appropriate knowledge.” While technological literacy and capability are perhaps the most commonly referenced broad goals of technology education within national policy documents, it seems appropriate now to note how at least at a theoretical level, academics discuss a broader range of goals, such as technological perspective, technacy, technological competency, technological knowledge, and more. A further aspect which is now often a central feature of technology education curricula is design or designerly ability. While historically design was an element of technical education, in recent decades it is becoming much more prominent and changing in nature with an agenda of authenticity and the use of design as a pedagogical activity. The discourse around design, particularly in England, is quite interesting and much work has been conducted in this area. The Orange Series of publications established by professors Ken Baynes and Phil Roberts in the 1990s and the e-scape project driven by researchers in TERU feature prominently in technology education literature today, and there is now debate around the emphasis which should be placed on both the technology and design dimensions at the secondary level. Of course, this type of discussion around the goals of technical and technology education is inextricably linked with pedagogical philosophies and it is therefore of importance to note how thinking in this area has changed over time as well.

Pedagogical Paradigms in Technology Education Perspectives on pedagogy in technology education have changed considerably since early technical education in line with changes in the intent of related subjects. The 21

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

primary overarching shift has been from a predominantly behaviorist philosophy to a more constructionist philosophy. Understanding this transition while at the same time acknowledging developments in the intended goals of technology curricula can aid in contextualizing the current state of technology education and in furthering the field. Early technical education, due to its bidirectional relationship with apprenticeships and goals around mastery of craft, traditionally evoked a behaviorist philosophy around teaching and learning. Educators, often skilled craftspeople prior to their engagement as teachers, would demonstrate best practices in processing, with pupils observing and replicating this behavior. Behaviorist theory, developed primarily by Watson, Pavlov, Thorndike, and Skinner centers around observable physical behaviors which can be manipulated by making environmental changes. Conditioning, both classical (associating an involuntary response with a stimulus) and operant (associating a voluntary behavior with a consequence), are cornerstones of behaviorist theory wherein pedagogical goals involve provoking a desired response from pupils exposed to a stimulus. From a behaviorist perspective, the role of a teacher is to (1) identify how to elicit desired responses from pupils, (2) arrange learning environments such that stimuli become associated with desired responses, and (3) provide opportunity for learners to demonstrate desired responses in the presence of associated stimuli and receive subsequent reinforcement (positive or negative) based on their behavior (Gropper, 1987). Scheurman is perhaps more explicit in adopting the metaphor of a teacher as a transmitter whose primary function is to break information and skills into more manageable increments, present them in an organized manner, and reward behaviors which closely mirror what they view as correct or optimal responses. This mastery approach to learning aligned with perspectives on developing craft proficiency in technical education as teachers would demonstrate best practices and intended outcomes of a particular skill, scaffolding students as they progressed through more difficult or complex skills constantly moving toward mastery of their craft. When considering the intent of early technical education, it is quite apparent why such pedagogical approaches would be adopted. Still today, as mastery of craft remains a central feature of many technology curricula internationally, behaviorist learning outcomes and aligned pedagogies remain present. The shift from a predominantly vocational-technical education toward a more general technology education has seen a change in the narrative around appropriate pedagogy. During this time the philosophy of technology became a field, the construct of technology was broadened, and subject-specific learning outcomes that extended beyond the development of craft skills emerged commensurate with general educational goals. Beginning in the early 1950s but becoming prominent in the 1970s through work on human problem-solving, metacognition, deep and surface learning, and expertise, cognitivist views of learning gained traction. Unlike the behaviorist perspective of learning which is that the mind was seen as a “black box” which could not be observed (and thus explicit behaviors offered evidence of learning), the cognitivist perspective is that the mind can be understood and thus learning relates to the development of wellorganized knowledge structures (which could be assessed in an educational context). 22

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

This philosophical shift is apparent in technology education learning outcomes as they have changed over time, and is exemplified in the evolution of technology education in South Africa where in the mid-1990s there was a shift from a content-based curriculum to an outcomes-based curriculum. The progression to an outcomes-based curriculum was a shift away from traditional behaviorist aims and objectives approach, where learning outcomes mirrored the verbiage of, for example, Blooms Taxonomy in favor of the identification of broader outcomes which students should be able to demonstrate upon completion of their schooling. While both a behaviorist and cognitivist philosophy are still apparent in the technology classroom (and technology education research), particularly in relation to learning outcomes, modern technology education discourse and practice, at least with respect to the intended curriculum and provision, largely aligns with a constructionist philosophy. Pedagogy in contemporary technology education has been heavily influenced by philosophers such as Dewey and Kolb, who advocated for active and experiential learning. Like cognitivist theories, constructivist theories (inclusive of both Piaget’s cognitive constructivism where the focus is on the individual learning through experience and Vygotsky’s social constructivism where the focus is on learning through social interaction), reject the metaphorical idea of a teacher as a transmitter. Unlike cognitivist theories, however, constructivist theories place preference on the viewpoint of the learner constructing knowledge with the teacher acting more as a facilitator. Papert’s constructionism was based on constructivism, and he defines it relatively so (Harel & Papert, 1991): Constructionism—the N word as opposed to the V word—shares constructivism’s connotation of learning as “building knowledge structures” irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe. (p. 1) This focus on external artifacts as part of the learning process captures why it is a philosophy adopted favorably in contemporary technology education discourse. Technology education remains an applied field with a “make” element still arguably at the forefront of its pedagogical philosophies. What has changed over time is the intent of this make element and the complexity in which it is adopted by technology educators. Indeed, to further evidence how far philosophical discourse of technology pedagogy has come, rather than solely operating under assumptions of a behaviorist ideology, there is now debate around problem-based and project-based learning methodologies and signature pedagogies such as demonstrations and critique that are being observed and reflected upon. Herein is probably the most apparent reason for a need to consider the roots of technology education with respect to progressing the field or interpreting pertinent policy documents. It is very possible to interpret and deliver technology education today in line with a variety of ideologies. It is actually quite easy to rationalize a behaviorist, 23

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

cognitivist, constructivist, or constructionist worldview for technology education, and it is quite possible that this may always be the case. What is needed of stakeholders is to critically decide what technology education should and could be, both in advocacy for students, the field, education systems, and society as a whole, and to progress in line with the best available current evidence. One dimension of such, which ties all of this discussion together, is assessment.

Assessment Assessment in technology education has been at the forefront of much theoretical debate and empirical work and is the final piece of the constructive alignment lens which underpins this discussion. While design was present in early technical education to a degree, the greater focus on mastery of craft meant that for learners to demonstrate expertise they needed to reproduce high levels of craft within artefacts. Of course, there was variation in these artefacts, but the capacity to demonstrate capability through these was rather limited due to interpretations of capability at the time and curricular intent. In these circumstances, and today with respect to declarative and procedural knowledge, criterion referenced assessment (the use of grading rubrics) can be both valid and reliable. However, with the inclusion of more general intended learning outcomes in contemporary technology education, tasks are often design-based, ill-defined and open-ended, seeing learners generate evidence of their learning (such as portfolios and artefacts) with significant variation. Indeed, making reference to contemporary technology education Kimbell (2007, p. 67) describes how “learners can be excellent in design and technology in dramatically different ways.” This shift towards the designerly, which is reflective of authentic technological activity, creates validity and reliability issues in terms of assessment. Such problems include that grading rubrics may not be sufficiently comprehensive relative to the unpredictability of open-ended learner outputs, and that teacher’s expert holistic impressions of performance may not align with results coming from the sum of marks given in accordance with rubric criteria. An assessment question of “how many marks should I award this piece of work relative to this criterion” is difficult to answer reliably for designerly outputs. TERU, in response to this, through the e-scape project introduced adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ) into technology education. As one of the largest research projects to date in technology education, outcomes from the e-scape project embody how technology education has evolved over time and illuminate possible directions for its future. One of the most significant contributions of the project was in the use of ACJ. Hartell and Buckley (2021) provide a comprehensive overview of ACJ, but in brief it involves comparative judgement wherein two pieces of work, in technology education this is typically portfolios generated in response to a design brief, are shown to an assessor who has to answer a question similar to, “which 24

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

piece work shows greater evidence of [learning/technological capability/technological literacy].” Having to make one holistic binary decision is more reliable than having to assign marks against a list of criteria. This process then happens repeatedly, where the assessor makes several binary comparisons. Further, this process typically includes a large cohort of assessors and by capturing the views of many people individual biases in assessment are mitigated. The result is that a probability rank of the included work is produced which reflects the consensus of the entire cohort of assessors. This process usually has very high levels of reliability (typically 95% agreement within the cohort) and high validity due to bias mitigation, assuming appropriate people make up the cohort of assessors. This rank presents work from best to worst, but importantly does not give an indication of grades, only relative distances between the work. All the work could be excellent, or it could all be quite poor, or there could be a significant range in quality. A next step, external to ACJ, can take place whereby the rank is transposed into percentage grades or alpha-numeric grades if desirable. Additionally, the rank could be used formatively to support discussion with and amongst students to support their learning. Hence, ACJ offers an alternative to traditional criterion reference assessment that offers significant advances in terms of reliability and validity, particularly for the nature of student activity reflective of contemporary technology education.

Concluding Thoughts Reflecting on this chapter, and the history of technology education, the timeliness of developments within the field is rather interesting. Restricting this to the components of constructive alignment (learning outcomes, pedagogy, and assessment) and to the transitionary period from technical education to current-day technology education, it does appear that at least explicitly pedagogical developments preceded those of assessment and learning outcomes (perhaps not tacitly, but explicitly in terms of policy documents). A significant shift was seen away from technical education as design-based pedagogies became more prominent within technology education enacted practice. In response to the need created from this, ACJ was developed as a mechanism which allows for the feasible, reliable, and valid assessment of this type of activity and of the outcomes from this type of activity. Finally, and quite interestingly, we now see national policy documents reframing learning objectives much more broadly to reflect, for example, outcomes or key skills in accordance with cognitivist epistemologies—and many of us who are invested in technology education are in fact watching such policy develop internationally to meet current enacted practice. However, the varied pace of these developments across the history of technology education has created problems for provision today. There is a theory-practice divide and a need for frameworks which constructively align in a valid and meaningful way, the learning outcomes, assessment practices, and pedagogy of technology subjects. There 25

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

is variation in enacted practice and a difficulty in establishing a clear epistemological boundary due to the inherent breadth of technology education as a field. There are demographic, most notably gender-related, representation issues which exist due to historic educational goals and provision, and there is potential for historic representation issues to perpetuate similar issues today. With reference to an idea that hopefully illustrates clearly a change in thinking between technical and technology education, it is worth reflecting on the coherent summary offered by Stables (2014), who succinctly captures the complexity of interpreting and delivering high-quality technology education today as it relates to its relationship with vocationalism, both historic and current: The issue of vocationalism is also a very real one for Technology Educators—where the balance between educating for life and educating for a technological job can bring different priorities both in curriculum and in assessment, resulting in summative assessments that focus less on a holistic view of capability within a practice-based discipline and more on specific and isolated vocationally-related knowledge and skills. This split view is compounded by different paradigms operating with curriculum and assessment in what Shepard (2000) identifies as a disjuncture between assessment systems still operating on a behaviourist paradigm while curriculum and “instruction” have moved towards new paradigms of constructivist and sociocultural learning. (p. 126) To conclude with a quote from Williams (2016), the idea of “looking back to move forward” is quite important for technology education as it is currently seeing significant international reform. It is at this stage hopefully quite clear that understanding the intent of technology education is critical with respect to making decisions around appropriate learning outcomes, pedagogy, and assessment and that understanding the evolution of technology education from technical education is important in terms of developing a construct of the subject’s intent.

Note 1 In this chapter, it is important to note some other relevant texts, beyond those contained within this edited collection, about the history, philosophy, and thinking about and within technology education. While there are several texts on these topics, those mentioned here have been published relatively recently and have quite broad remits so could be useful for those interested in delving deeper into this area. The Springer Contemporary Issues in Technology Education series (ISSN: 2510-0327) offers a library of books and edited collections on technology education, which includes Teaching about Technology: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology for Non-Philosophers (ISBN: 978-3-31932945-1), a text aimed at technology educators on the philosophy of technology education. Additionally, the Brill International Technology Education Studies (ISSN: 1879-8748) series also offers several relevant books. For example, it includes the International Handbook of

26

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

Research and Development in Technology Education (ISBN: 978-90-8790-879-9) which provides a series of chapters describing the historical development of technology education across a number of countries, and Reflections on Technology for Educational Practitioners (ISBN: 978-90-04-40551-6) which includes a compilation of chapters on the philosophy of technology in technology education. Finally, the Springer Handbook of Technology Education (ISBN: 978-3-319-44687-5) presents chapters associated with both the philosophy of technology education and its history.

References Buckley, J., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Canty, D., Doyle, A., & Pears, A. (2020). Framing the constructive alignment of design within technology subjects in general education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​ -020​-09585​-y. de Vries, M. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Switzerland: Springer. Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching, 14(1), 3–15. Gropper, G. (1987). A lesson based on a behavioral approach to instructional design. In Instructional theories in action (pp. 45–112). New York: Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​ /9780203056783​-3. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Connecticut: Ablex Publishing. Hartell, E., & Buckley, J. (2021). Comparative judgement: An overview. In A. Marcus Quinn & T. Hourigan (Eds.), Handbook for online learning contexts: Digital, mobile and open (pp. 289–307). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-030​ -67349​-9​_20. ITEEA & CTETE. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: Defining the role of technology and engineering in STEM education (Pre-publication copy). Virginia: International Technology and Engineering Educators Association and the Council on Technology and Engineering Education. https://www​.iteea​.org​/File​.aspx​?id​=175203​&v​ =61c53622. Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO. Kimbell, R. (2007). E-assessment in project e-scape. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 66–76. Seery, N., Lynch, R., & Dunbar, R. (2011). A review of the nature, provision and progression of graphical education in Ireland. In E. Norman & N. Seery (Eds.), IDATER online conference: Graphicacy and modelling (pp. 51–68). Loughborough: Design Education Research Group, Loughborough Design School. Stables, K. (2014). Assessment: Feedback from our pasts, feedforward for our futures. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 121–42). Singapore: Springer. Warren, H. (1961). The nature and scope of technical education. https://arrow​.tudublin​.ie​/cgi​/ viewcontent​.cgi​?article​=1020​&context​=ditbk. Williams, P. J. (2016). Research in technology education: Looking back to move forward . . . again. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 149–57. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-015​-9316​-1. 27

Chapter 4

Design and Technology Education in England Stephanie Atkinson

Introduction This chapter traces the development of the subject internationally known as technology education, which in England as part of the United Kingdom (UK)1 has been called design and technology (D&T) since the early 1990s. The subject began its curriculum journey over a century ago as a recognized school subject called “handicraft” with its very early beginnings firmly established in the master/apprentice model used during the Middle Ages. As an element of schooling handicrafts were taught as single material, craft-skill-based courses such as metalwork, woodwork, sewing, and cooking for those deemed not academically able (Atkinson, 1990, 2019). Since then, it has developed through a number of iterations into what is now a modern, forward-thinking, creative, subject that is valuable for all young people to study. The mixture of embedded activities now involved has been shown by many researchers to develop human qualities such as creativity, critical thinking, rigor, intrinsic motivation, responsibility, and selfdirectedness, thus fostering important characteristics required for young people to meet the challenges of our ever-advancing technological society. As suggested by leading industrialists and practicing teachers in the YouTube video Design or Decline (Design and Technology Association [DATA], 2015) the subject content of D&T also helps to provide young people with the knowledge, skills, and experiences required for a modern innovative workforce. In 2013, the most recent English National Curriculum document (DfE, 2013, p. 1) proclaimed that Design and technology is an inspiring, rigorous and practical subject. Using creativity and imagination, pupils design and make products that solve real and relevant problems within a variety of contexts, considering their own and others’ needs, wants and values. They acquire a broad range of subject knowledge and draw on disciplines such as mathematics, science, engineering, computing and art. Pupils learn how to take risks, becoming resourceful, innovative, enterprising and capable citizens. Through the evaluation of past and present design and technology, they develop a critical understanding of its impact on daily life and the wider world. High-quality

Design and Technology Education in England

design and technology education makes an essential contribution to the creativity, culture, wealth and well-being of the nation. As an important prime mover of the subject the author of this chapter sets out to trace and explain in detail the convoluted journey that D&T in England has taken. The chapter begins by describing the subject’s early beginnings and its rise to prominence internationally at the time of the introduction of the first National Curriculum for the subject in 1990. It discusses the strong curriculum position it then held as a mandatory subject for all pupils to study up to the age of sixteen, through to the latest iteration of the National Curriculum in 2013. Throughout, the various government educational initiatives and interventions that have affected its growth and progress over the years are examined. Woven into the narrative at pertinent places are the beliefs and opinions of various stakeholders who were involved in developing the original concept in the late 1980s through to those who are still involved in shaping the subject at this present time within the UK. These are people such as leading researchers (e.g., Kimbell, Barlex, Stables, and Dakers), educationalists (e.g., Aylward, Baynes), industrialists (e.g., Dyson, Peacock, Powell), professional associations (e.g., DATA; Royal Academy of Engineering; the Design Council), and UK government departments. An important aspect of the chapter is an insight into the various distinct and significant features of the subject content itself. These are considered alongside ongoing developments of technologies that have affected what is taught and how it is taught. Despite these technological developments the subject has continued to retain the three fundamental original activities of designing, making, and evaluating that made the subject so unique, and at the forefront of developments of this aspect of the school curriculum across the world in the 1990s. These decisions are reflected upon alongside the numerous other factors that have shaped the twists and turns in the subject’s progress. Factors such as the ongoing issue of a lack of a single vision for the subject across the UK and the unfortunate issue that has never been overcome, this being that in England2 there is no accepted single word such as “literacy” or “numeracy” to denote the activities that take place in D&T, leading to muddled messages. Together, these have led to unfortunate consequences for those trying continually to argue for the importance of D&T, particularly to those in the UK government responsible for initiating educational changes in recent years. Changes that have led to design and technology’s neoteric and precarious position within schools throughout England today.

D&T’s Place in the Development of Technology Education Globally England is not the only place in the world to provide, and believe in, a curriculum that covers similar subject matter. Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Malta, 29

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Israel, China, South Africa, Botswana, France, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United States, and Canada all offer their own adaptation of D&T for their students to study. In a number of instances countries meticulously copied the English D&T model. In some other countries the English framework was used as a starting point for the development of their own version of a D&T curriculum. There have also been those countries who have designed their own schema for the subject, one that was based on local educationalists’ and curriculum leaders’ beliefs and understanding of what was important to include, based on pertinent historical roots pertaining to their own country. The umbrella term “technology education” encapsulates all the differences, although the actual name given to the school subject has varied from country to country and the way each nation has incorporated it into their school curriculum has tended to differ. In certain counties the teaching has been integrated within the science curriculum leading to a more technological than design-led subject. Some have chosen a vocationally oriented approach to delivery and others have taken fundamental aspects of the subject and taught them within other compulsory subjects, making the subject more explicitly interdisciplinary in nature. While others have treated it as a dedicated subject that utilizes knowledge and skills taught in other curriculum disciplines within the school, very much in line with the English model.

Influences on the Development of Design and Technology Industrial Influences: Collaboration between Industry/ Government and Education A positive but blurred relationship exists between the world of work and what is taught in schools in England. This relationship has always been recognized, although the form of that relationship has varied across time. In the early days of technical subjects taught in schools, the importance of developing craft and technological skills that led directly into jobs in various trades and industrial contexts was of great importance. This, however, had a negative effect on the perception and status of the subject within schools, as these technical subjects were then not considered necessary or suitable for students who were bound for university or who were to become “white-collar workers” or “professionals.” By the late 1950s advocates for a broader view of educational content were to be found. For instance, C. P. Snow (1959) spoke out about the imbalance between the two intellectual cultures found in Western society in his famous 1959 Rede Lecture. He argued that the traditional values of a literary culture, which he believed had always dominated education at the expense of science and technology, must be re-dressed, as he believed literary culture’s supremacy was causing Britain’s decline as a world power. 30

Design and Technology Education in England

During the 1960s the education/work relationship changed. A belief that what was taught in schools should not be dictated to by a particular skillset required in a specific career became evident. While at the same time the importance of preparing students for the world of work by developing life skills which were critical for a thriving and diverse economy was recognized. It has always been accepted within the UK D&T community that high-quality D&T makes an essential contribution to the development of such life skills as: decision-making, creative thinking, critical thinking, communication skills, problem-solving skills,; empathy, interpersonal skills, and resilience. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s industrialists, educationalists, and forward-thinking teachers worked together to make changes to the technical subjects taught in schools. Progress was slow in certain areas of the country, while in some Local Education Authorities (LEAs) such as Leicestershire and Bedfordshire, with the LEA led by creative, forward-thinking directors of education, innovative new approaches became well established. Eventually, early in the 1980s the push for change had gathered enough momentum for the government to be persuaded that innovation within education was essential and needed to be centrally controlled, so that it happened across the whole country. This led to the renaming and re-grouping of practical subjects into a new subject called craft, design and technology (CDT), merging resistant materials (wood, metal, plastics) and encompassing other radical content changes. No longer were students taught only craft skills; they were encouraged to design whatever they were making. In this new government-led centralized curriculum teachers had to reconcile two conflicting demands: they were required to give maximum freedom to students to develop their own ideas and pursue any direction that the student’s design took them, while providing a structure that enabled them to feel secure, act responsibly and safely, and achieve a satisfactory outcome that met expected learning objectives. Unfortunately, the teachers required to teach these new skills were in short supply. In the early stages of the transition there was little appropriate training for existing teachers and few initial teacher training (ITT) courses that could provide the new skill set, mainly because those teaching the student teachers were themselves ill-equipped, beyond their excellent craft skills, to teach design skills and the new philosophical understanding required for the activities expected in CDT. At the same time as CDT was becoming established there was further collaboration between industry/government and education in the form of the Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative (TVEI). A positive effect of TVEI for CDT in schools was the injection of money from industry. This provided much-needed expertise and hardware and promoted a holistic approach to the design process carried out by students, encouraging business awareness and industrial links. This shaped the whole curriculum in many secondary schools and influenced CDT with the addition of mini-enterprise activities and the development of information technology (IT) skills, alongside developing design skills and practical competencies in all three resistant materials. TVEI’s purpose was to help prepare students aged fourteen to eighteen for the demands of working life. Eventually, a lack of continued financial support from industry and the demise of the 31

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Local Education Authority and advisory infrastructure upon which TVEI depended (due to the move toward greater central government control of all aspects of education in the UK) led to the initiative being superseded by the introduction of the government-led National Curriculum (NC) in 1990. This new NC was a legal requirement for children aged five to sixteen in all state schools in England and Wales. No longer could CDT be taught just to those who chose the subject because they were interested in it, or to those who saw its relevance to their future occupations. The new law meant that the subject needed to be something quite different from the subject offered in the past as its content needed to be germane to all. It needed to be broadly based with transferable skills in order to make it a preparation for life, not a vocation.

Governmental Influences: The National Curriculum for England and Wales The purpose of the NC was to ensure that all children studied essential subjects in order to provide them with a well-round education, which the government felt had not been in place across every school up to this point. CDT was renamed D&T and was included as one of the ten compulsory subjects. The term “Craft” was dropped from the title to get away from its past connotations as a purely skills-based subject only appropriate for those who were less able. Being included as a compulsory subject gave D&T the status that it had never had before—it was a very exciting time to be teaching or involved in school D&T. All state schools had to provide D&T for all students. Training implications were enormous. Every teacher who understood the new philosophy, as well as those who did not, needed support to provide D&T for all, rather than only for those who in the past had chosen to opt for the subject. Changes in Different Iterations of the NC The first Statutory Instruments3 for D&T NC in 1990 explained the integrated, crosscurricular nature of the subject. The influence of the successful TVEI initiative was very evident in its structure and content. What was set out was highly ambitious. It was expected that in order to develop and deliver the new D&T curriculum the subject areas of CDT, home economics, art and design, business studies, and information technology would all work together as a team, being aware of, and building upon, knowledge gained in other curriculum areas such as science, mathematics, and humanities. The idea being to prevent students from missing vital areas of knowledge or experience either because they were not included in a subject area or because the school had chosen not to tackle them. However, the new “design” rather than craft-based curriculum was insufficiently supported by adequate in-service training and therefore caused many teachers considerable heartache. There were some who thrived teaching the new curriculum, providing many examples of projects that stretched students’ capability and fulfilled the 32

Design and Technology Education in England

expectations of NC D&T. Unfortunately, there were too many instances where design projects that were set, or solutions that students designed, required skills beyond the capability of the students and some of the teachers, for plausible solutions to be made, or the designs were so simplistic that students did not develop the expected skill sets appropriately. It also quickly became evident, that instead of CDT departments pulling together and working as teams to build a strong new subject base, unhelpful splits were occurring. D&T teachers could be found divided into those who embraced the new curriculum and worked together with colleagues from other subject areas and those who continued to teach as they had always taught, in some cases ignoring the need for design activity and continuing to teach only craft skills. While there were those who only wished to teach the tangible “hard” technology such as electronics, mechanics, and pneumatics rather than the intangible soft technologies, and did little to develop students’ design capability. In another group there were those who did use the design process as the vehicle for their teaching, but many of them lacked the necessary scientific or mathematical background to teach the “hard” technologies required to make the students’ designs function successfully. It was also the case that members of the D&T teams who had taught home economics (Cookery) felt threatened, as they believed their subject was being fragmented and some aspects no longer valued. They were skeptical about their students being asked to design plates of food and recipes of their own through experimentation with ingredients. There were also many business studies teachers who believed that their additional role within D&T was taking time away from essential elements of their business studies curriculum. Within a very short time of NC D&T being established it became obvious that teachers were not finding it easy to translate the new approach into effective classroom practice. Significant concerns regarding what was occurring in schools under the guise of NC D&T were raised by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI),4 the Engineering Council, and teachers themselves. By 1993, after a period of consultation, Sir Ron Dearing as the chairman of the National Curriculum Council published new recommendations (National Curriculum Council, 1993). He found no argument with the principles that supported the existing order in terms of keeping designing and making as the core activity of NC D&T, although his report emphasized the need for students to develop more in-depth skills and understanding that would support design and making activity in respect of the quality of students’ outcomes. The report explained that there should be increased manageability, a reduction in complexity, and a better balance and greater clarity between process and content in relation to practical skills that students should acquire. It suggested that students should develop their D&T capability through three measures: focused practical tasks; investigating, disassembling, and evaluating products; and retaining the use of projects in which students designed and made products using a range of materials. Slimmed-Down D&T Curriculum In the next two iterations of the NC in 1995 and 1999 the philosophy and content of the curriculum changed little as the government agreed that the principles found in 33

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

the earlier orders continued to be appropriate. Although in each document increased priority was given to technology by emphasizing such aspects as the development of students’ understanding of industrial practices and the application of systems and control. However, with hindsight it becomes evident that the lack of changes to the NC caused the beginnings of a decline in the progress of D&T in England (UK). In these iterations it was the significant changes to the NC in general that had repercussion for D&T. In 1995, a “slimmed-down” version of each NC subject documentation was introduced. Its objective being to reduce the volume of content which teachers must by law teach, and which they had found difficult and time consuming to manage. Level descriptors that provided teachers with information about what students must learn, what they must teach and use when assessing student performance, were reduced from ten to eight. It soon became apparent that as long as teachers had been teaching when the earlier, fuller version was in use, then the new slimmer version posed no concern with implementation. However, for new teachers the latest version lacked detail (especially in terms of additional guidelines) and caused many of them issues in trying to understand the missing underpinning philosophy supporting the expectations of the document. In the 1999 NC an even bigger generic change was included. The focus of the whole NC was transformed to allow more time for teaching literacy and numeracy. This had consequences for all subjects, as such a move detrimentally squeezed time apportioned to each subject, as more time was allocated to studying English and mathematics. Added to this all subjects were expected to support the development of literacy and numeracy skills in the context of their specific subject. In D&T this meant that the necessary breadth and depth of subject content became even more difficult to cover. Plans for the next reforms in 2007 were abandoned due to a change in government and it was not until 2010 that an “expert review panel” reported on a new framework for the NC. This led to further significant changes in the NC structure, with the government producing a draft edition early in 2013 followed by the final version later in the same year. In terms of D&T, after vociferous debate, protestations, and condemnation by the whole D&T community both in education and beyond, including the voices of many famous industrialists regarding the very backward-looking draft edition, the final version was revised significantly and is still in use today. The content and underlying philosophy within the latest version, as quoted in the opening paragraph of this chapter had minor changes to words that were no longer fashionable, but the central tenet of the subject remained very much the same as it had been in the first iteration in 1990, with designing, making, and evaluating at the heart of its philosophy. For many sticking to the traditions of the past and failing to embrace more explicitly new technologies required to drive the subject forward, was a great disappointment. As stated by Barlex (2011) in the Comment Section of the Royal Society of Arts website: “I see the role of D&T as providing pupils with the experiences of their hands being the cutting edge of their minds and a sense of what it means to be a shaper of the landscape. This is D&T’s unique contribution to education. But it is quite clear that for many teachers the subject has lost its way.” 34

Design and Technology Education in England

Of possibly even more consequence in terms of the position that D&T now holds within schools, than the unadventurous latest D&T NC, was the decision made by the Expert Panel5 in 2011. In their publication of The Framework for the National Curriculum in preparation for the 2013 NC, they stated that along with information and communication technology and citizenship, D&T had weaker epistemological roots than other subjects that formed the NC. Therefore, as the NC needed to be slimmed down further the panel’s decision was that these three subjects should be removed from the core and reclassified as part of the basic curriculum. So, after D&T’s rise to being considered an “essential subject” throughout a student’s education in 1990 to no longer being considered fit to be a core subject was a crucial blow to the D&T community. This decision meant that once again D&T was no longer compulsory for students to study after the age of fourteen. The consequence of this was, and still is, being felt by both industry and education. With fewer students studying D&T beyond the age of fourteen, there has been a decline in those going on to study to become engineers (Armitage et al., 2020), designers (Long, 2021), or choosing to train to become the future teachers of D&T (House of Commons Education Committee, 2017).

Government Influences: National Examinations in D&T This leads into another aspect of government influence upon D&T. Changes made to the examination system in English schools have also influenced the shape of the D&T curriculum. Early in the subject’s history trade examinations such as City and Guilds examinations were the only national qualifications available. External school examinations regulated by the government across all school subjects were first introduced in 1951 with the General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary Level (O Level) taken by students at the age of around sixteen, and the GCE Advanced Level (A Level) taken in the final year of secondary education by students who were around eighteen years of age. In terms of examinations related to D&T there was a GCE O Level examination in handicraft with separate examinations in woodwork, geometrical and mechanical drawing, and metalwork. However, only 20 percent of the full ability range were expected to take O Level examinations, meaning that 80 percent of students left school with no formal qualifications. It took fourteen years after the introduction of GCE examinations before anything was done to overcome this situation. In 1965 the government introduced the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE). This examination provided a leaving certificate for the next 40 percent of the ability range of students aged sixteen. Examinations were offered across the same range of academic subjects as the O Level examinations, plus a number of vocationally oriented subjects. The CSE allowed for practical design and make activities to be included in the examinations. These proved popular and were more appropriate for assessing design capability than the format used in O Level examinations, which were very theory based, although the O Level examinations did include a timed practical skills test. 35

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

The next big change came over twenty years later when in 1988, due to the proliferation and repetition of examinations across O Level and CSE, the government introduced a single examination system which replaced them both—the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). This was not seen just as a change to the national 16+ examination system. It was a major curriculum development, with coursework and the assessment of designing and making artifacts in subjects like D&T becoming commonplace. Previously coursework had only been available in CSE examinations. Also, during the 1980s there was the introduction of several national vocational qualifications (NVQs), including a TVEI certification (TVEI itself is discussed in an earlier section of this chapter). These were designed to provide occupational competencies specific to a given trade or job role and combined studying in school with work-based learning. Teachers of D&T were often involved with NVQ students as well as their GCSE and A Level students. Early in the 1990s NVQs led to the introduction of a general national vocational qualification (GNVQ). The intention of this qualification was to lay the broad foundation of skills and knowledge required for employment within industry and to play an important role in increasing the employability of young people. The qualification was designed to be completed as a stand-alone option or alongside NVQs and GCSE qualifications. This provided scope for progression from GNVQs to Modern Apprenticeships and National Traineeships. In 2008 a more flexible and easier-to-complete Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF) was introduced, and in 2011 NVQs were placed into the QCF. However, in 2015 the QCF was reviewed and found to be a system that encouraged formulaic, generic qualifications using a universal structure that did not suit either employers or students. Over the next three years the QCF was transitioned to the Regulated Qualification Framework (RQF). This was designed to offer a simpler system for managing vocational qualifications and providing students with the opportunity to study qualifications at their own pace, while placing greater emphasis on outcomes, the purpose of the qualification and innovation. Such qualifications continue to be popular with students for whom the GCSE and A Level routes are inappropriate, with some D&T teachers continuing to be involved in teaching these D&T-related qualifications alongside their D&T GCSE and A Level students. For the past thirty years A Level D&T examinations at the end of secondary education have provided the ideal opportunity for students to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and understanding that are at the heart of D&T. A Level D&T gave students the opportunity to design and make artifacts to meet the needs of a user that the student had identified for themselves. These were very often of an extremely high standard and equal to that produced by university degree-level students. During their A Level D&T study students developed such skills as: being creative; solving problems; learning about materials, processes, and tools; understanding the effect of products on the environment and people; learning practical skills; learning about technologies and using them wisely; making finished products to be proud of. This set of knowledge, skills, and understanding has been shown to be just as important and appropriate for 36

Design and Technology Education in England

those not continuing with a D&T-oriented career as for those who were continuing with their D&T study into higher education. However, in recent years opportunities afforded by studying and taking a GCSE or A Level examination in D&T have diminished. They have been curtailed on three fronts. First, the growing pressures for schools to achieve ever-improving grades is unfortunately preventing teachers from encouraging students to take the risks required for creativity to flourish in their D&T activity and in particular in examinations at both GCSE and A Level. Second, in order to reduce assessment demands the examinations have replaced projects based on student choice and coursework assignments. These are now carried out in the form of controlled tasks that are quick and easy to mark. Tasks that almost resemble the old GCE tasks, and which were abandoned in the 1980s. Third, in 2010, the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) was introduced by the government. This is a performance/accountability measure. It measures the proportion of students in a school who secure a good grade at GCSE level in the five core subjects of English, mathematics, science, history, or geography and a language. D&T is not included, thus reinforcing the view that D&T is not an important subject to study. The downturn in numbers of students who choose to study D&T as one of their additional options at GCSE level means that even fewer students are going on to study D&T at A Level and subsequently applying to study related subjects at university or moving directly into careers in industry requiring D&T skills.

Summary This chapter has provided the reader with an insight into the complex and at times challenging journey that D&T in England has taken over the past sixty years. This has been retold through the eyes of the author who entered the teaching profession as the first qualified female woodwork teacher in the UK in 1965. Someone who has continued to champion D&T’s development through the good and difficult times, due to an unwavering belief in the reasons for the subject’s very existence as part of every child’s education, as exemplified in the quotation at the beginning of the chapter. The author’s assessment of D&T’s precarious position has recently received affirmation and clarification in publications from the subject’s national organization, DATA, and from Amanda Spielman, England’s Chief Inspector for Schools. In Spielman’s speech at the 2019 Innovate Conference where D&T in schools and colleges was the theme, she discussed D&T’s difficulties, referring to the problems as “a perfect storm” (Spielman, 2019, p. 2). Her speech summed up the causal issues for the meteoric twothirds decline between 2003 and 2017, in those studying for D&T GCSE examinations at the age of sixteen. She stated that she did not believe that the decline was solely due to the introduction of EBacc. She then provided her list of reasons for the loss of the subject’s popularity. These mimicked those found in the previous sections of this chapter. 37

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Such factors as D&T no longer being a compulsory subject at the age of fourteen; the introduction of vocational qualifications that were equivalent in standing to D&T; a lack of teachers with the necessary expertise which she believed was caused by the slimmeddown version of the NC fifteen years previously; the high cost of teaching D&T in terms of space, raw materials, and “equipment of increasing sophistication” (Spielman, 2019, p. 4); a consistent shortfall in D&T teacher recruitment; and a lack of teachers with D&T subject expertise in primary schools, meaning less students interested in the subject when they progressed to secondary school at the age of eleven. In terms of DATA’s (2019) summary of what they believed had caused “the perfect storm,” they specifically highlighted aspects that were the consequence of government decisions such as: insufficient curriculum time due to the focus on literacy and numeracy; insufficient time for student teachers to develop deep-rooted subject knowledge alongside pedagogical knowledge; the influence of EBacc restricting the curriculum offered; the retention and recruitment crisis of D&T teachers; the reduction in D&T GCSE and A Level examination entries; continued school austerity measures; the absence of a national training program; and ongoing reluctance of schools to release teachers to undertake CPD. So, what has been seen as the solution? Even though the government has put in place obstacles that have caused the demise of D&T there is much support nationally for a resurgence of D&T, particularly from UK industry and manufacturing. Many industries have provided encouraging initiatives. For instance, James Dyson has set up the James Dyson Foundation to promote a D&T curriculum based on iterative design and projectbased learning. The Foundation has provided free resources to enable teachers and parents to deliver engaging activities that target an engineering approach. It has delivered workshops to offer students the opportunity to learn about engineering in practice from experts at Dyson. It has also run a successful international design competition to inspire and celebrate young inventors. Alongside this and other such industrial companyled initiatives there has been support from institutions such as the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Their support culminated in a report: “Big Ideas: The Future of Engineering in Schools” (Finegold, 2016). Using data from their own workshops and research activity, they presented an analysis of the current situation and a set of recommendations which they believed, if acted upon, could result in what they called “a more effective future” (Finegold, 2016, p. 2) for D&T. DATA has also been proactive in supporting the subject’s prospects, setting up links between schools and industrial partners aimed at helping D&T teachers to develop industry-related knowledge and skills which they could pass on to their students. While they also promoted the value of D&T and the range of careers and opportunities that it could lead to, on their website and at every public opportunity possible. An example of support for an engineering focus to D&T has come from Make UK, the UK Manufacturers Organisation. They published a report called “Making Design and Technology Manufacturers Business” (Make UK n.d.). The report discussed the importance of D&T; what D&T offers; the decline in uptake; what they believed 38

Design and Technology Education in England

was driving its downfall; and their ideas of D&T as a “modern” subject. The report ended with recommendations that included rebranding D&T as design, technology, and engineering, supporting their view that there is growing importance in acquiring practical skills for the world of work. Although, they did agree that other key D&T skills not associated with engineering remained important. The report ended with a plea for manufacturers, employers, teachers, and young people to combine their efforts, as they believed this was required in order to influence the future of the subject in the eyes of the government. A subject which they agreed was vital for the economic well-being of the nation. Two other eminent examples of national support for D&T have come from a different sector: the Victoria and Albert Museum (the V&A) and the Royal Society of Arts (RSA). The RSA has for many years supported and developed various innovative educational initiatives, including ones that targeted design activity, while the V&A has recently launched a very ambitious school program called V&A Innovate. This program is available for every school in England and was created to champion D&T as an essential curriculum subject and exciting career pathway. The V&A’s offering is made up of an online resource hub, featuring free, downloadable resources with toolkits and animated video guides, alongside a series of recorded interviews with contemporary designers and makers regarding their practice. They also organize a popular design competition each year. These last two examples plus the DATA and James Dyson Foundation approach are not seen as wishing engineering to take over the subject. They provide a more nuanced, moderated view of the inclusion of engineering within the D&T curriculum, agreeing that the links need strengthening, while still believing in the retention of the underlying D&T philosophy. Finally, the government has put in place a renewed focus on the curriculum after admitting that they had placed too much weight on outcomes (test and examination results) in their Ofsted inspection of schools’ regime, in recent years (Ofsted, 2019). It is hoped that their emphasis on the curriculum rather than school results will allow schools to be more flexible in what they can offer students to study. It is anticipated that this may lead to more students once again choosing to study D&T. So even though the previous sections of this chapter have shown that D&T in England has sunk to a precarious position, there is recognition from both internal and external parties that some form of technology education remains an essential part of a school’s curriculum. The significance of the knowledge, skills, and understanding that are offered to those who study D&T is understood and supported by many. There is also a willingness from the D&T community to embrace change. However, there remains an underlying anxiety, that the subject, as we know it, could be lost in a push from very powerful engineering lobbies that are trying to persuade the government that an engineering-focused curriculum is what is required. If this should happen there is a belief that the subject would lose its appeal to students who enjoy and learn so much from the breadth and depth of experience offered in D&T, as part of their general education. It is hoped that the voices of those who support D&T education 39

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

for all, rather than a narrower engineering-focused curriculum for the few (who wish to choose a professional career aligned to that choice) will be heard by those in the UK government. As it is the government who will decide in the next iteration of the NC what changes will be introduced. It is hoped that when that time comes, they will stand by their stated belief that D&T can make “an essential contribution to the creativity, culture, wealth and well-being of the nation” (NC, 2013, p. 1) and that D&T will remain a vital part of the education of all children in schools in England for the foreseeable future.

Notes 1 The reader needs to be aware that although the countries that make up the UK: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, all have a subject area teaching design and technology activities as an important aspect of their school curricula, there are different National Curricula for each country, and that these each have subtle differences. This chapter has chosen to focus on design and technology in England, as England has tended to lead the development of this aspect of the school curriculum. 2 The term “technacy” to describe a fundamental skill alongside “literacy” and “numeracy” was first coined by Australian Kurt Seeman in his PhD in 1987. He defined the term as the holistic understanding of technology in relation to the creation, design, and implementation of projects, indicating competency in scientific and technological problem-solving, experimentation and communication. This term has been adopted widely in Australia, however, it is not a term that is used in the UK, even today. 3 Statutory instruments (SIs) are a form of legislation in the UK which allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. 4 Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) are employed by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) a non-ministerial government department which reports directly to Parliament. Their role is to inspect and regulate services providing education and training for learners of all ages. 5 The Expert Panel was a group of four leading educationalists set up by the government to “develop a robust evidence base to inform the drafting of new Programmes of Study and build a detailed framework for the National Curriculum, taking account of the requirements set by the highest performing international jurisdictions” (DfE, 2012). It also reflected the views of teachers, subject communities, academics, employers, higher education institutions, and other interested parties.

References Armitage, L., Bourne, M., Di Simone, J., Jones, A., & Neave, S. (2020). Engineering UK 2020: Educational pathways into engineering. https://www​.engineeringuk​.com​/media​/232298​/ engineering​-uk​-report​-2020​.pdf (accessed July 14, 2021).

40

Design and Technology Education in England

Atkinson, S. (1990). Design and technology in the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Education, 2(1), 1–12. https://scholar​.lib​.vt​.edu​/ejournals​/JTE/ (accessed January 11, 2021). Atkinson, S. (2019). Technology teacher education in England. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of teacher education (pp. 2054–9). Berlin: Springer. Barlex, D. (2011). What to do about D&T? Royal Society of Arts, Comment page December 20, 2011. https://www​.thersa​.org​/comment​/2011​/12​/what​-to​-do​-about​-dt (accessed May 8, 2021). Department for Education (2012). Remit for review of the national curriculum in England: Governance and membership. London: DfE. https://webarchive​.nationalarchives​.gov​.uk​ /20130107141129​/http:/​/www​.education​.gov​.uk​/schools​/teachingandlearning​/curriculum​ /nationalcurriculum​/b0073043​/remit​-for​-review​-of​-the​-national​-curriculum​-in​-england​/ governance​-and​-membership (accessed July 14, 2021). Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: Design and technology programmes of study. London: DfE. https://www​.gov​.uk​/government​/publications​/national​ -curriculum​-in​-england​-design​-and​-technology​-programmes​-of​-study (accessed January 11, 2021). Design and Technology Association. (2015). Design or decline. https://www​.youtube​.com​/watch​ ?v​=ImhA0OkeKsQ (accessed January 11, 2021). Design and Technology Association. (2019). The D&T association’s response to Ofsted framework consultation. https://www​.data​.org​.uk​/news​/association​-response​-to​-ofsted​ -framework​-consultation/ (accessed May 22, 2021). Finegold, P. (2016). Big ideas: The future of engineering in schools. London: Institution of Mechanical Engineers. House of Commons Education Committee (2017). Recruitment and retention of teachers: Fifth report of session 2016–17 – HC199. London: House of Commons. Long, M. (2021). Is university the only way to get into design? https://www​.designweek​.co​.uk​/ issues​/17​-23​-may​-2021​/design​-without​-university/ (accessed July 10, 2021). Make UK (n.d.). Making design and technology manufacturers’ business. https://www​.makeuk​ .org (accessed July 22, 2021). National Curriculum Council. (1993). Report on national curriculum council consultation. York: NCC. Ofsted. (2019). Ofsted’s new inspection arrangements to focus on curriculum, behaviour and development. https://www​.gov​.uk​/government​/news​/ofsteds​-new​-inspection​-arrangements​-to​ -focus​-on​-curriculum​-behaviour​-and​-development (accessed July 7, 2021). Snow, C. P. (1959). The rede lecture; the two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://s​-f​-walker​.org​.uk​/pubsebooks​/2cultures​/Rede​-lecture​-2​-cultures​.pdf (accessed April 6, 2021). Spielman, A. (2019). Speech at innovate conference Victoria and Albert Museum July 10, 2019. https://dera​.ioe​.ac​.uk/​/33812​/1​/Amanda​%20Spielman​%20speaking​%20at​%20the​ %20Victoria​%20and​%20Albert​%20Museum​%20-​%20GOV​.pdf (accessed July 6, 2021).

41

Chapter 5

Overview of Chinese High School General Technology Education Rationale and Current Status Meidan Xu, Jianjun Gu, and P. John Williams

Introduction Technology has been one of the eight major learning areas of the Chinese high school curriculum structure for more than fifteen years. General technology and information technology are the two branches of this technology curriculum and have their own curriculum aims, structures, and rationales. Information technology, also called information and communications technology (ICT) in other countries, is a compulsory course for primary and middle schools in order to meet the requirements of talent training in the information age with the rapid development of information technologies. It aims to cultivate students’ information literacy and information technology operation ability and is a designated learning field characterized by operation, practice, and inquiry. General technology, characterized by design learning and operational learning, is a curriculum based on practice, focusing on creating and embodying the integration of science, technology, and humanities. General technology is designed to help students to construct tacit technological knowledge and procedural knowledge through technological activities, strengthen students’ hand-brain coordination and knowledge-practice integration, improve students’ abilities of pattern expression and materialization, and cultivate students’ ability to solve technological problems, enhance students’ understandings of technological culture, and form accurate technological understandings and personality qualities. Therefore, five elements of discipline core literacy were proposed in the High School General Technology Curriculum Standard (2017 version).

Technology Discipline Core Literacy Discipline core literacy refers to values, essential qualities, and key competencies in learning a particular subject, which is the concentrated embodiment of the educational

Chinese General Technology Education

value of the subject. There are five discipline core literacy elements contained in general technology: technological awareness, engineering thinking, creative design, pattern expression, and materialization capacity. 1. Technological awareness: refers to the perceptions and understandings of technological phenomena and problems. It requires students to form basic technological concepts, technological norms, technological standards, and patent awareness of the artificial world and the relationships between human and technologies, to make a rational analysis on the influence of a certain technology field on humans, society, and the environment, to form an awareness of technology safety and responsibility, ecological civilization and environmental protection, and technological ethics and morality, to understand the nature of technology, make out the connections of technology and human civilization, and to develop good understandings and active adaptation of technology culture. 2. Engineering thinking: refers to a kind of planning thinking with systematic analysis and comparative trade-off as the core. It requires students to understand the diversity and complexity of systems and engineering, to use the method of system analysis to analyze the elements and overall planning of a specific technological field, and to use the methods of simulation and simple modeling to design. In addition, students can understand and apply basic ideas and methods such as structure, process, system, and control, and make simple risk assessment and comprehensive decision-making. 3. Creative design: refers to a series of problem-solving processes in which innovative solutions are conceived based on technological problems. On the basis of finding and clarifying problems, students can collect relevant information, use humantechnology relationships and related theories for comprehensive analysis, and put forward creative ideas in line with the design principles. In addition, students are able to conduct technological test and technological exploration, and observe, record, and analyze it accurately, evaluate and optimize design schemes based on various social and cultural factors. 4. Pattern expression: refers to the visual description of technological objects in one’s mind or real life. It requires students to know the common technology patterns such as machining drawings and control block diagrams, to analyze the pattern characteristics of technological objects, to draw simple technological drawings using 2D or 3D design software or by hand, to express design ideas through patterns and realize the transformation of thinking between tangible and intangible, abstract and concrete technological language. 5. Materialization capacity: refers to the ability to use technique to transform ideas and proposals into useful objects, or to improve and optimize existing objects. It requires students to know the properties of common materials and the use of common tools and basic equipment, understand some common process methods, and form a certain operating experience. In addition, students can select, test, and 43

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

plan materials; choose and use tools; and complete process design and product production according to the requirements of project design. Moreover, students are asked to complete the molding, assembly, and testing of models or products independently and have strong hands-on practice and creative ability. They can experience the spirit of excellence on the quality of technological manufacturing, and then form rigorous and meticulous working attitude of striving for excellence in making and doing.

Curriculum Structures and Content For high school students, general technology is compulsory. However, general technology has three different types of courses, which are compulsory, selective compulsory, and optional. The compulsory course of general technology is required for every high school student, which is used to meet high school graduation requirements, consisting of two modules: Technology and Design One and Two. The selective compulsory course of general technology is not totally required for every high school student, they can choose one or more of these modules according to their interests and career plans. It is used to meet students’ needs of further education, employment, and individual development, which consists of four modules: Technology and Life, Technology and Engineering, Technology and Vocation, and Technology and Creation. The optional course has four modules: Chinese Traditional Technology, New Technology Worldwide, Technology Application, and Modern Agricultural Technology; its main function is to meet students’ individual career development needs, and students may or may not choose the these four modules. Later, we will focus on the content of the two modules of the compulsory course of general technology, which are usually required to be taken in year one or two of high school.

Technology and Design One With the rapid development of science and technology, technology has become an important factor to respond to social changes, and design is the key to the development of contemporary technology. Four units are included in this module: “Technology and Its Nature,” “Technology Design Process,” “Technique and Concept Design,” and “Technological Exchange and Evaluation.” Content Requirements There are nine content requirements in Technology and Design One, which aim to lay a comprehensive foundation for students to deepen their basic understandings of 44

Chinese General Technology Education

technology, experience the general process of technology design, and form the basic core quality of the subject. 1. To perceive the universality and importance of technological phenomena in life, understand the nature of technology through activity experience and case analysis, and form positive technological values. 2. To combine with Chinese traditional technology culture and personal growing experience, know the relationship between technology and humans, nature and society, understand how the historical development of technology related to human and social changes, and form a positive attitude toward technology and a sense of responsibility for using technology. 3. To become familiar with the general processes of technological design, experience in the practice of technological design such as finding and clarifying problems, making design proposals, making models or prototypes, optimizing design schemes, and writing specifications of technological works. 4. According to general principles, use design analysis methods to formulate a complete design scheme in line with the design requirements. Through technological tests and other methods, different proposals are compared, weighed, and optimized to form the best solution. 5. To compare the characteristics, application environment and basic processing technology of common materials, master the connection methods of some common materials, and select and plan materials according to the design scheme and product use. 6. To master the use of simple woodworking, metalworking, electronic, and electrical tools, understand the use of several kinds of digital processing equipment (such as laser engraving machine, laser cutting machine, 3D printer). To make a model or prototype of a simple product by selecting the proper processing technology according to the design scheme. 7. To explain the types of technological languages and their application, interpret simple machining drawings, electronic circuit drawings, renderings, assembly drawings, and other common technological drawings. To use manual drawing tools and simple drawing software to draw sketches and simple three views, and communicate design ideas and results with others in appropriate technological language. 8. To explain the significance and characteristics of technological tests, carry out simple technological tests in combination with the design and evaluation of technological works, write technological test reports, and experience the fun of technological exploration and technological innovation activities. 9. To make an overall evaluation of the product design process and the final product from the perspectives of technology functionality, reliability, innovation, culture, and patent protection, write an evaluation report, and form a preliminary awareness of intellectual property protection. 45

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Technology and Design Two Structure, process, system, and control are the basic concepts of Technology and Design Two, which contains basic technological principles and technological ideas and methods. Four units of “Structure and Design,” “Process and Design,” “System and Design,” and “Control and Design” are included in this module. Content Requirement There are ten content requirements in Technology and Design Two, which aim to help students understand the rich connotation and wide application of technological principles and improve their ability to use technological principles to analyze and solve practical technological problems. 1. To understand the unique value of structures to technological products and their functional realization from the perspective of dynamics, know the general classification of structures and simple stress analysis, and appreciate classic structural cases from a technological and cultural perspective. 2. To analyze the factors affecting the strength and stability of the structure through technological testing or technological inquiry, and write the test report. 3. To combine the actual needs of life for a simple structure, draw a design pattern, and make a model or prototype. 4. To understand the meaning of process and time sequence, read and draw simple flow charts, analyze the basic elements of process design and process optimization, and experience the basic ideas and methods of process design. 5. Combined with technological requirements, to conduct the process design and optimize existing processes, and express with a flow chart. 6. To understand the meaning, basic composition, and main characteristics of a system from the perspective of technological application and learn the basic methods with technological cases. 7. Through technological exploration, the factors affecting system optimization are analyzed and the basic methods of simple system design are preliminarily learned through the design practice of simple systems, and the ability of system and engineering thinking is enhanced. 8. To understand the meaning of control, control systems, and its application in production and life and realize the characteristics of manual control, automatic control, and intelligent control through case analysis. 9. To be familiar with the basic composition and working process of simple open loop control system and closed loop control system, understand the role of controller and actuator, comprehend the interference phenomenon and feedback principle, and use block diagram to express the working process of the control system. 46

Chinese General Technology Education

According to the requirements of a control system, determine the independent variables and dependent variables, carry out a simple control system design, make a simple control system device, and conduct commissioning and evaluation.

Levels of Achievement Levels of achievement refers to students’ summative learning performance after completing all courses, and the description of achievement at each level is based on five discipline core literacy elements. There are five levels of achievement. 1. The five descriptions of achievement of level one are as follows: 1.1 Combined with specific technology cases, deepen the understanding of the nature and development history of technology, and form technological affinity and rationality. Explain the relationship between technology and human, nature and society, and distinguish the purposiveness, practicality, comprehensiveness, duality, and patent characteristics of technology. Pose a sense of safety, norms, ethics, environmental protection and responsibility in the use of technology, and form a sense of cultural understanding and adaptation of technology. 1.2 Explain the relationship between technology and engineering briefly, carry on the technological design analysis with the method of system analysis, and form the technological ideas and methods such as the relationship between human-technology, integration of Ji and Tao, trade-off decision, scheme optimization, technological test, innovative design and so on; Combined with specific cases, illustrate the social values and multi-culture reflected by technology and understand the cultural and aesthetic characteristics of technology. 1.3 Experience the general process of technological design, understand the general principles of the technological design and method, according to the requirements and specification, draw lessons from the existing technological design case, try to make two or three solutions to the same technological problems, compare and weigh, preliminary has the basic ability and experience to solve the problem of design technology, and form the effective transfer. 1.4 Illustrate the types of technological languages and their applications with technological examples, interpret technological drawings such as simple machining drawings and electrical circuit, draw simple three views, express design ideas with simple sketches using manual and computer software. 1.5 Understand the properties, processing technology and connection methods of commonly used materials such as metal, wood, and electronic 47

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

components, make and assemble models or products; Explain the significance, characteristics and common types of technological tests; Design and implement simple technological tests; Analyze test data, form test conclusion, write technological test report. 2. The five descriptions of achievement of level two are as follows: 2.1 Combined with technological cases in daily life; explain the basic concepts and principles of structure, process, system, and control in the field of technology; list their wide application in daily life; and analyze the historical development of technological products from the perspective of technology culture. Learn to understand that the basic ideas and methods of the spacetime concept, system concept, engineering modeling, structure, and function of technology affected by multiple factors such as multiple demands, value orientation, and scientific and technological development, and develop the consciousness for norm, quality, environment, and innovation. 2.2 Understand the basic characteristics of systems and be able to analyze technological problems using system analysis methods; know the connection between system and engineering; analyze the factors affecting system optimization through technological exploration; analyze simple system design; preliminarily master the basic methods of simple system design; and enhance the ability to solve practical technological problems by using systems and engineering thinking. 2.3 Describe the general classification of structures, perform a simple stress analysis, and evaluate typical structures from a technological and cultural perspective. Conduct simple structural design based on requirements and problems, draw design drawings, and make models or prototypes. Explain the meaning of the links and time sequences in the process, read and draw simple flow charts, analyze the basic factors and their relationships in the process of process design and process optimization, carry out process design, or optimize the existing process according to the specific technological requirements. 2.4 Use manual drawing tool or 2D or 3D design software to draw structure chart, flow chart, and control system block diagram; express a simple design scheme; illustrate the characteristics of manual control, mechanical control, and intelligent control through a case study; explain the basic composition and working process of simple open loop control systems and closed loop control systems, understand the role of controller and actuator, understand the simple feedback and interference phenomena and their basic principles; and express with block diagram. 2.5 Analyze the basic characteristics of the controlled object and determine the control and controlled variables. Design a simple control system, make a control system device, learn to debug and run, and put forward 48

Chinese General Technology Education

an improvement plan. Analyze the strength and stability of the structure and the control, interference, and feedback of the control system through technological tests, and write test reports. According to the design requirements of the scheme, select materials and tools, and according to the time sequence and process of the scheme, complete the control system model or product forming and assembly with high quality. 3. The five descriptions of achievement of level three are as follows: 3.1 Combined with a specific technological field such as costume design, smart home, electronic control, robot design, and production, independently collect and analyze relevant data to judge the development trend and evaluate the positive or negative impact of a technology on human beings, society, and environment. Understand the relationship, occupation, and society; initially establish the consciousness of occupation and responsibility; and to form the ability of career development planning. 3.2 Experience the technological culture through the analysis of specific technological cases and engineering projects. Understand the cultural implication of technology and engineering practice activities through the practice of technology and engineering design; identify the characteristics and details of the problem; clarify the restrictive conditions and influencing factors; and propose possible solutions for a specific technology and engineering problem by using the systematic analysis method. 3.3 In the design of simple technological scheme, try to use simulation test or mathematical model to identify various factors and carry out systematic decision analysis and evaluation. Discover users’ demands in various aspects; systematically analyze technological problems to be solved; collect and process-relevant information through multiple channels; and try to design multiple schemes with creative thinking and methods. 3.4 Interpret common technological drawings in mechanical, electronic, and technological fields; express design ideas with detailed sketches; and record design ideas, processes, and results with design documents and logs. 3.5 In the design of simple technological scheme, try to use simulation test or mathematical model to identify various factors and carry out systematic decision analysis and evaluation. Discover users’ demands in various aspects; systematically analyze technological problems to be solved; collect and process-relevant information through multiple channels; and try to design multiple schemes with creative thinking and methods. 4. The five descriptions of achievement of level four are as follows: 4.1 Synthesize various data and information to make a judgment on the impact of a certain technological field on humans, society, and the environment. Form a correct view of technology and ecological civilization; properly 49

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education



4.2



4.3



4.4



4.5

participate in the discussion and decision-making of technology development and application; use trend methods to make judgments on the future development of a certain technology. For the more complex problem situation in a technological field, use the method of system analysis to concretize the task, form possible solutions, and constantly optimize and improve. Preliminary use of a simple simulation test or mathematical model for a technical scheme to make performance and risk assessment, and form a certain system and engineering thinking. Use user model analysis methods to refine the unique needs of users and identify specific technical problems to be solved. According to the design requirements, design multiple schemes by using creative thinking and creative techniques, and make comprehensive comparison and trade-off to form a certain design innovation ability. Combined with different technological fields, use common technological drawings for scheme design expertly. Present simple design schemes with 2D and 3D design software, and continuously optimized and improved. Analyze the design scheme and select the appropriate materials according to the design requirements; have a preliminary tool thinking and craftsman spirit and complete the molding and assembly of models or products; carry out high-precision technological test and simple program test for models or products, and write simple technological test and program test report.

5. The five descriptions of achievement of level five are as follows: 5.1 Integrate multiple technological fields and investigate and analyze how individual and group values and ethical norms affect technology development; analyze and evaluate the personal, social, and environmental impacts of key technologies; make technological decisions and establish firm socialist concepts of ecological civilization. 5.2 Integrated use of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, art, and other aspects of the knowledge, and integrated multiple technical areas of the scheme design: use simulations or mathematical models to evaluate design options, attempt to conduct trend analysis, and risk assessment. 5.3 Use of a variety of methods comprehensively, explore the potential needs of users, understand technical problems from multi-perspective, and form a sensitivity to users’ needs and technological problems. Using mathematical and engineering methods to compare and balance, choose the best scheme in the design of a number of schemes, or improve the original scheme. Design technological tests and carry out technological explorations by oneself. Proficient in the general methods of technological design and innovation to form a strong ability of design innovation. 50

Chinese General Technology Education





5.4 Select and comprehensively use drawings or other technological languages to express design ideas and form the ability of thinking transformation with technological language. 5.5 According to the design schema, select the materials and tools comprehensively, and have a certain sense of material planning and tool thinking; carry out technological tests and comprehensive scheme tests with high accuracy for models or products, write technological tests and scheme test reports, and be able to evaluate and optimize in terms of quality, efficiency, form, and process.

The five levels of achievement in each discipline’s core literacy element not only provide an evaluation standard for academic performance evaluation in general technology but also set the necessary parameters of questions, differences, and difficulties for compiling the technological cases.

Technological Cases Used in General Technology Teacher Education The third section of this chapter describes some technological cases derived from the textbooks of Technology and Design One and Two. The three cases are related to the value, structural function, and control mode of technology, respectively, reflecting the close connection between daily life, industrial production, ancient Chinese architecture, and technology.

Case One: Dujiangyan Irrigation System—a “Living” Water Conservancy Museum Dujiang Irrigation System is a large ancient water conservancy project which was built around 256 BC by Li Bing and his sons, the magistrate of Shu County in Qin State during the Warring States Period. It is based on the principle of hydrodynamics in the form of a diversion. Its main engineering planning is scientific, the layout is reasonable, the coordination is clever; has jointly designed the water division, the water conduction, the backwater, the water diversion, and the flood discharge function; has formed the scientific integrity of the controlled engineering system. Dujiang Irrigation System project has created a water conservancy form in which human and nature coexist harmoniously. It has functions of irrigation and drainage, as well as water transportation channel, and has produced a variety of benefits in the aspects of water supply, water transportation, environmental protection, and flood 51

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

control in Chengdu and the surrounding towns. It has also generated a variety of cultural phenomena and has become a “living” water conservancy museum. The construction of Dujiang Irrigation System transformed the Chengdu Plain from “annual flood and famine” to “fertile fields with thousands of miles of land, neither droughts nor famine,” and turned Chengdu, which benefited directly, into a “Land of Abundance.” Discussion: please illustrate the important role of technology in realizing the harmonious coexistence of human and nature in the process of human rational development and utilization of nature.

Case Two: Series of Experiments for Testing Warning Triangles for Motor Vehicles Teaching Aims 1. Experience the process of testing for multiple conventional technological requirements of the warning triangles for motor vehicles, understand the technological standards, learn to read the technological drawings, select the corresponding technological test methods to carry out the test, and write the technological test report. 2. Experience simple wind tunnel design and making process, learn to use structure and system analysis methods to design a simple wind tunnel, test and optimize it. 3. Experience the process of test data analysis and application, identify the technological problems of the warning triangles for motor vehicles, try to put forward a variety of solutions, understand the relationship between people and technology, and form normative and safe technological awareness. Material Preparation Different kinds of warning triangles; Measuring implements; Spring scales; Plastic plates; Axial flow fans; Electromotors.​ ● ● ● ● ● ●

Teaching Hour Arrangements: Five Classes, See Table 5.1. Teaching Process 1. Create situation: There was a serious car accident on the expressway, two people were killed and ten were injured. The reason was that the driver forgot to place the warning triangle. A warning triangle is placed behind a car in the event of a breakdown to warn other cars to avoid and slow down, and an unqualified warning triangle does not serve as a warning to traffic safety. Thus, what is a qualified warning triangle? How to identify and buy qualified warning triangle products? 52

Chinese General Technology Education

Table 5.1  Teaching Hour Arrangement Class The first class The second class The third and fourth class The fifth class

Teaching content The shape, size, ground spacing, and structural stability of warning triangles for motor vehicles The visual discrimination of shapes of warning triangles for motor vehicles The wind-resistant stability of warning triangles for motor vehicles The application of test data of warning triangles for motor vehicles

2. Determine the content of the technological experiment: Assemble a warning triangle. Read “People’s Republic of China National Standard Triangle Warning Plate for Motor Vehicles” (GB19151-2003) (hereinafter referred to as “Triangle Warning Plate National Standard”), familiar with the shape and size, ground spacing, structural stability, wind stability, and the shape of the visual discrimination. 3. Select samples for the experiment. Experiment 1: Test the shape, size, and ground spacing of warning triangles for motor vehicles Situation 1: The warning triangles for motor vehicles on the market have different shapes, as shown in ​Figure 5.1, but they basically have the shape of a triangle. Do you think they meet the Triangle Warning Plate National Standard?

Figure 5.1  The samples of warning triangles for motor vehicles are provided. 53

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

●

●

●

Read section 4.2 of Triangle Warning Plate National Standard, and fill in the national standard data for shape, size, and ground spacing in Table 5.2. Select the six warning triangles for motor vehicles provided as the test samples and choose appropriate measuring tools to conduct a technological experiment. Fill out and analyze the test data in Table 5.2.

Experiment 2: Test the structural stability of warning triangles for motor vehicles Situation 2: According to the statistics of the traffic department, some traffic accidents are caused by the tipping of the warning triangle placed by drivers, which fails to play a warning role. When a motor vehicle breaks down, how would you put the triangle warning signs on the road to ensure that they will not fall down? ●

●

●

●

Read sections 4.6 and 5.6 of the Triangle Warning Plate National Standard and fill in the national standard data for structural stability in Table 5.3. According to the requirements of the national standard technical test method, to formulate the technological test program, pay attention to the “assembly,” “bottom solid,” “applied test force,” and “vertex displacement measurement” technological characteristics of six triangle warning plates samples. Prepare test experiment, select test samples with qualified shape and size, and carry out technological experiment. Fill out and analyze the test data in Table 5.3.

Experiment 3: Test the visual discrimination of shapes of warning triangles for motor vehicles Situation 3: When the car was broken down on the road, the driver can use the retroreflective performance of warning triangles to remind other motor vehicles to avoid, which requires the warning signal provided by the warning triangles can be clearly visible. Could you identify the most visually discerning triangle warning signs? ●

●

● ●

●

54

Read sections 4.3 and 5.3 of Triangle Warning Plate National Standard and fill in the national standard data for visual discrimination of shapes in Table 5.4. According to the requirements of the national standard technical test method, to formulate the technological test program, to design and make a simple visual discrimination test device, to meet the requirements of the test angle of observation, the radiation angle, and illuminance indicators. Select test samples qualified in shape and size to carry out technological experiment. Fill in the test record form as shown in Table 5.4, process the test data, analyze the test results, and write the test report. Explore the relationship between the unit structure of reflector and enhanced luminance.

Table 5.2 Experiment 1: Shape, Size, and Ground Spacing Technological Requirements General Requirements

Shape and Size

Group Spacing

National Standard

Testing data Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 5.3 Experiment 2: Structural Stability Technological Requirements

Testing data National Standard Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Table 5.4  Experiment 3: Visual Discrimination of Shapes Technological Requirements

Testing data National Standard Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Table 5.5  Experiment 4: Wind-resistant Stability Technological Requirements

Testing data National Standard Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Experiment 4: Test the wind-resistant stability of warning triangles for motor vehicles Situation 4: Bad weather will increase the probability of traffic accidents, which puts forward higher requirements for the performance of the triangle warning plate. How can the warning triangle on the road not fall when there is a strong wind? Can you design a simple wind tunnel to simulate real airflow and test the wind stability of the warning triangle?

●

●

●

●

●

56

Read sections 4.10 and 5.10 of Triangle Warning Plate National Standard and fill in the national standard data for wind stability in Table 5.5. According to the requirements of the national standard technical test method, to formulate the technological test program, to design and make a wind tunnel device, to meet the requirements of “airflow direction and dynamic pressure” and “simulated pavement roughness.” Select test samples qualified in shape and size to carry out a technological experiment. Fill in the test record form as shown in Table 5.5, process the test data, analyze the test results, and write the test report. Design a triangle warning plate device which can be automatically placed and recycled on the expressway.

Chinese General Technology Education

Compare the technological standard differences of triangle warning plate in different countries. Situation 5: With the further implementation of the “Belt and Road” initiative, it will be more convenient to drive along the “Silk Road Economic Belt.” So, can the warning triangle we carry be used in different countries? Are there differences in technical standards for warning triangles in different countries? Can it form a global warning triangle technical standard? ●

●

●

●

Search the technological standards of the triangle warning plate for motor vehicle in Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. Compare the differences of technological standards of triangle warning plate in different countries from the aspects of structure, color, reflectivity, brightness, and stability. Analyze the reasons for the differences of technological standards and put forward some suggestions for the revision of the technical standards of motor vehicle triangle warning plate in China. Investigate the traffic conditions of various countries and put forward the assumption of the global vehicle triangle warning plate technological standards.

Case 3: Making an Automatic Watering Device for a Pot Plant Teaching Aim Experience the process of making a potted plant automatic watering device, and understand the meaning and significance of control. Situation Chen and his family are going away for two weeks on vacation. The potted plants on the balcony of their house are not watered regularly. She wanted to make an automatic watering device to solve the problem of unattended plants. Problem Analysis Make a watering device, which can pour rainwater in the drink bottle into the water tray below the flowerpot, so that the water tray maintains a certain amount of water, soil automatically absorbs water from the water tray, so as to maintain a moist environment for plant growth. How do I divert rainwater from the drink bottle to the water tray? How to keep the amount of water in the tray at a certain level? Activity Preparation One beverage bottle; Two flexible plastic straws; Hot melt glue stick; ● ● ●

57

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

● ● ● ● ●

One water tray; One flowerpot; Electric soldering iron; Scissors; Hot melt glue gun.

Main Processes 1. Set up a plant hydrating device with an electric iron in the beverage bottle near the bottom position, up and down the line to make two holes. 2. Plug in two straws and trim the lower end of the straws into a long one and a short one. 3. Apply the hot melt adhesive to the connection between the straw and the bottle wall to make it sealed. 4. When the glue is dry, put water on it, cover the bottle tightly, and you can give the plant water. 5. Insert the two straws into the water receiving tray. When the water level in the water receiving tray is lower than the inlet pipe, air enters the bottle, the pressure in the bottle decreases, and water flows into the water receiving tray from the outlet pipe. 6. Until the water levels with the inlet pipe, the outlet pipe is no longer flowing, so that the water in the water tray is maintained at this height. This completes the replenishment of the water tray for the plant and maintains the water that the plant needs for growth. Discussion: analyze and discuss the relationship between the water level of the water intake tray and the position of the intake pipe.

Conclusion Chinese general technology has been established nearly eighteen years since the implementation standard of high school technology curriculum was issued in autumn 2004, and it has made outstanding achievements. First of all, the establishment of general technology curriculum in high school effectively makes up for the lack of technological literacy of students in the nine-year compulsory education in China. Second, general technology with “design learning and operation learning” as the main characteristics continuously deepen the connotation of technological literacy. Moreover, the implementation of a general technology curriculum in senior high school has constructed diversified teaching methods and course setting methods. However, compared with the curriculum standards of technology and design/ engineering of primary and secondary schools in the United States, Australia, the United 58

Chinese General Technology Education

Kingdom, and Japan, general technology has more emphasis on students’ mastery of the concepts and principles of technology and engineering, and less emphasis on interdisciplinary design, and the integration of science, mathematics, and humanities. Moreover, ethical issues in technology and engineering are rarely mentioned, few test items in technological ethics and engineering professional ethics, which is not beneficial for developing students’ critical thinking. Therefore, general technology also faces a series of challenges: first, in the cultural background of the utilitarian tendency of “taking the college entrance examination as the guide,” as a subject not included in the college entrance examination, general technology is easy to be ignored by parents, students, and schools. Second, technology education is often confused with educational technology, and most scholars have many misunderstandings on the cognition of general technology. Moreover, the sustainable development and team building of general technology teachers in high schools still need to be strengthened, and there is a lack of professional general technology teachers. Therefore, the subject orientation, teacher training, and professional support of general technology in high school still need further attention.

59

Chapter 6

Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development Jim Tuff and David Gill

Introduction While various political educational configurations exist throughout the international community, generally there is a separation between centralized national ministries and curricula and decentralized localized ministries and curricula. Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are examples of political jurisdictions that maintain national curricula and standards through centralized ministries of education, while the United States and Canada have decentralized structures that place education within the local jurisdiction of states and provinces. The differences in political educational organization have had an impact on technology education’s development and implementation. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the advantages and disadvantages, challenges and opportunities, and the influence of local factors on technology education presented by decentralized political educational configurations, using Canada as an example. Canada is a federation consisting of a national government, ten provinces, and three territories. Provincial and territorial governments share responsibilities with the national government, but education falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Because these structures are entrenched in the Canadian constitution, direct federal involvement in education has been limited. While there is cooperation between provinces and territories through organizations such as the Council of Education Ministers, Canada (CMEC), the federal government only has the ability to influence educational agendas through financial means (Gill, 2017), therefore curricular decisions ultimately stay at the provincial and territorial ministry level. The mosaic of regional differences across the national landscape of Canada has led to a diverse implementation of technology education. Local cultural and economic influences are seen as having a direct impact on the domains and concepts that are considered valuable to teach in technology classrooms (Hill, 2009). Technology education is much more susceptible to political and economic trends than other core curricula as its history places it in the lineage of vocational and industrial education. The sharp swing to reintroduce skilled-based curricula in the province of Newfoundland and

Decentralized Technology Education

Labrador (NL), as a response to political and industrial pressure (Haché, 2007), is an example of fluidity in the domains and concepts of technology education. Although K–12 education in Canada is not administered at a federal government level there are many levels of cooperation among the provinces and territories. There are distinct economic regions that group together provinces and territories that are within close geographical proximity to one another and share common economic interests. There is a Northern region, a Western region, a Central region, and an Eastern region. A brief review of the status of technology education curricula development and implementation in all provinces and territories will be provided, but a more detailed discussion and review will be afforded to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Each region exhibits varying levels of cooperation among its provinces and territories, but there are some notable regional curricular interests in technology education. Canada’s most easterly province, Newfoundland and Labrador, provides a rich example of how the evolution of technology education curricula has been influenced by political and economic forces. The province has primarily relied on its natural resources for economic survival which has involved the exploitation of its fishing, mining, forestry, oil and gas, and hydroelectric assets. However, increasing regional, national, and international economic pressures have forced the province to transform its once dominant focus on natural resources to more global economic domains of information technology, skilled trades, and technical trades. Newfoundland and Labrador became part of Canada in 1949 after being a colony of England for more than four centuries and much of its early educational system was based on a British model. However, as the province gained a strong foothold within Canada and the greater North American education environment, shifts in curricular development occurred, especially in vocational, industrial arts, and technology education disciplines.

Decentralized Technology Education Curriculum Development within the Canadian Context The delivery of education in Canada is a decentralized model whereby each of its thirteen provinces and territories has jurisdictional control over all matters pertaining to education program development and delivery. The federal government provides no direct oversight or governance responsibility and there is no ministry of education at the federal level that the provinces and territories must rely upon for guidance and support. With autonomy for education delivery, the provinces and territories are free to develop educational programs and curricula that best suit their unique jurisdictional needs, thus allowing the opportunity for a diversity of education program offerings throughout the country. Technology education curricula development, in particular, has experienced several different approaches that have captured the economic and political influences on education experienced in each of the thirteen jurisdictions. 61

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Canada is an expansive country1 that can be viewed as four major regions delineated by geographical boundaries, political structures, different economies, and diverse demographics. The Northern region of the country is divided into three territories: Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut; the Eastern region is divided into four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick; the Central region is divided into two provinces: Quebec and Ontario; and the Western region is divided into four provinces: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. The provinces in the Western region, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, rely heavily on an economy driven by farming, mining, and land-based oil and gas resource harvesting and export. Provinces in the Eastern region, such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, rely heavily on an economy driven by fishing, forestry, mining, and marine-based oil and gas resource harvesting and export. The uniqueness of provincial economies has impacted how technology education curriculum development has progressed. Although Canada does not have a federal department of education there are several non-governmentally led organizations that provide some level of coordination and oversight to the provinces and territories. The CMEC is one such organization that provides pan-Canadian leadership to the provinces and territories. The CMEC serves as a forum to discuss policy issues; a mechanism through which to undertake activities, projects, and initiatives in areas of mutual interest; a means by which to consult and cooperate with national education organizations and the federal government; and an instrument to represent the education interests of the provinces and territories internationally. (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2021) Essentially, the CMEC provides a conduit for the provinces and territories to collaborate on common interests in K–12 and advanced education, plus to provide advocacy for Canadian education at the international level. Although there has been no direct influence on technology education curriculum development from the CMEC perspective, there has been indirect influence through education policy development that has impacted general education curriculum development. As an example, the CMEC is currently addressing the topic of global competencies noting, “global competencies at CMEC is a pan-Canadian effort to prepare students for a complex and unpredictable future with rapidly changing political, social, economic, technological, and ecological landscape” (Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training, 2021). Another intergovernmental organization that serves just the Eastern region provinces, or the four Atlantic provinces consisting of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, is the Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training (CAMET). As noted on the CAMET website: CAMET is dedicated to further enhancing the level of cooperation in public and post-secondary education by working on common issues to improve learning for all Atlantic Canadians, optimize efficiencies, and bring added value to 62

Decentralized Technology Education

provincial initiatives and priorities. (Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training, 2021) CAMET was established in 2004 and replaced the previous organization, the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation (APEF), which played a significant role in developing high-level curriculum foundation documents that guided curriculum development in the four provinces. Of note was the development of the Foundation for the Atlantic Canada Technology Education Curriculum (Department of Education, 2001) document that outlined high-level curriculum outcomes and provided direction for Technology Education curriculum development in the Atlantic provinces. The vision statement reads, “Technology education for Atlantic Canada fosters the development of all learners as technologically literate and capable citizens who can develop, implement, and communicate practical, innovative, and responsible technological solutions to problems” (p. v). The document further lists five general curriculum outcomes (GCOs), including technological problem-solving, technological systems, history and the evolution of technology, technology and careers, and technological responsibility, plus key-stage curriculum outcomes (KSCOs) detailing what students should know and understand at the end of four key stages (end of grade 3, end of grade 6, end of grade 9, and end of grade 12) (Department of Education, 2001). Each of the four KSCOs is delineated for each of the five GCOs. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador still develops technology education curricula that are aligned with the GCOs and KSCOs noted in the 2001 document and specific courses and modules are developed from those outcomes. At the intermediate level (ages twelve to fourteen) and including grades 7–9 in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are four compulsory technology education modules.2 The grade 7 communications technology module focuses on the encoding, transmission, and decoding of messages through various media and relationships: machine to machine, machine to human, and human to machine. This takes the form of structured drawing, graphic design, animation, and audio and video editing. The grade 8 production technology module focuses on residential construction problems, and the development of student skills in the areas of separating, combining, forming, finishing, and conditioning of various resistant materials. Computer Science 8 addresses computational systems within the context of computer programming and opportunities within the technology sector. Moving from a foundation of designing and creating block-based programs, students are presented with a final innovation challenge that requires a coded solution. The fourth intermediate technology education module is grade 9 energy and power. The energy and power module focuses on the creation of electricity from renewable energy sources and the environmental and societal impacts of non-renewable energy sources. Taken together, the four compulsory modules represent a comprehensive cross-curricular technical area of study for intermediate students. The curricula are grounded in the use of a design process to solve technological problems through a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. 63

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

At the secondary level (ages fifteen to seventeen) there are four technology educationii and six skilled trades courses.3 Unlike their intermediate counterparts, they are elective courses, meaning students do not have to complete any of the courses to meet the province’s secondary school graduation requirements. The technology education courses predominantly focus on digital technologies and physical computing and control. Computer Science 1204 delivers a foundation base of block, text, and physical computer programming skill outcomes prior to outlining an innovation challenge for students in which they must identify a problem and then design and program (“code”) a solution. Communications Technology 2104 and 3104 are complementary courses that start with modern media communication’s technologies such as video production and animation and end with students working with mobile app development. Each course relies on a design process framework where students work within the multiple media to develop and evaluate various solutions to identified problems. Robotics Systems 3205 deals with problems associated with remote vehicles and has direct connections with Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore industries. Students are introduced to the hardware, software, programming, and manufacturing techniques required to construct their own robotic system within the context of a given design scenario. While the six remaining courses are categorized as skilled trades with the idea of emphasizing manual labor skills, in reality three of the six courses are pedagogically aligned with technology education but focus on material processing and power and energy rather than primarily digital technologies. A fourth course is career oriented and relates to occupational health and safety practices. Design and Fabrication 1202 and 2202 primarily focus on design and make activities and start with manual techniques and tools and move on to digital manufacturing and part assembly (CNC, 3D printing, etc.). Power and Energy 3201 focuses on traditional internal combustion engines and alternative forms of power production (solar, wind, hydro) within a familiar design challenge context. The two remaining courses, Residential Construction 3201 and Skilled Trades 1201, are primarily career exploration courses focusing on interprovincial standards within the context of the construction industry. They offer no in-depth design aspects, but rather focus on the techniques, skills, and processes of home construction and finishing and have been noted as the decedents of former secondary vocational education. While there is a separation of technology education and skilled trades courses, it would appear to be mostly an administrative and political device. All the courses offered within the Newfoundland and Labrador context, with the exceptions noted earlier, share the pedagogical foundations of technology education and the idea of technology literacy within general education. As well, the provincial teacher education program is titled Diploma in Technology Education, thus emphasizing the focus on pedagogical practices associated with technology education curricula delivery. As noted previously, curriculum development in K–12 public education in Canada is the responsibility of each of the country’s provinces and territories. A brief summary of each jurisdiction’s curricular offerings will show that there are some common curriculum areas covered by each, such as mathematics, science, social studies, and 64

Decentralized Technology Education

language study aligned with language policies of the province or territory. However, a review of technology education curricular offerings presents a very diverse listing that demonstrates the unique approaches undertaken with the subject area in each jurisdiction (see Table 6.1). Technology education curricula are sometimes grouped within different Table 6.1  Provincial/Territorial Technology Curriculum Terminology Province/Territory

Technology Curriculum Terminology

Newfoundland and Labrador Technology Education Skilled Trades Nova Scotia Technology Education Skilled Trades Communication and Information Prince Edward Island Technology (ICT Integration) Communication and Information Technology (ICT) Career and Technical Education New Brunswick Technology Education Skilled Trades and Applied Technology Information Computer Technology Mathematics, Science and Technology Quebec CEGEP Program (Unique to Quebec) Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan Alberta

British Columbia Nunavut

Northwest Territories

Yukon

Computer Studies Science and Technology Technological Education Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Technology Education Practical and Applied Arts Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Career and Technology Foundations Career and Technology Studies Applied Design, Skills, and Technologies Science and Technology (Northwest Territories Curriculum) Career and Technology Studies (Alberta Curriculum) Science and Technology Career and Technology Studies (Alberta Education curriculum) Literacy with Information and Communications Technology (LWICT) Applied Design, Skills, and Technologies (British Columbia Curriculum)

Ages (Grade Levels) 12–17-year olds (7–12) 15–17-year olds (10–12) 12–17-year olds (7–12) 15–17-year olds (10–12) 5–14-year olds (K–9) 15–17-year olds (10–12) 14–17-year olds (9–12) 11–13-year olds (6–8) 14–17-year olds (9–12) 14–17-year olds (9–12) 5–16-year olds (K–11) (1–2 years after grade 11 completion) 15–17-year-olds (10–12) 6–13-year olds (1–8) 14–17-year olds (9–12) 5–17-year-olds (K–12) 12–17-year olds (7–12) 14–17-year olds (9–12) 5–17-year-olds (K–12) 10–14-year olds (5–9) 15–17-year olds (10–12) 5–17-year olds (K–12) 5–11-year olds (K–6) 15–17-year olds (10–12) 5–11-year-olds (K–6) 10–17-year olds (5–12) 5–17-year olds (K–12) 5–17-year olds (K–12)

65

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

program headings within the provinces and territories with some combining them with other subject disciplines, and others using technology education as an umbrella term to account for a variety of related curricular offerings. Reasons for the inconsistent terminology across the country are historically based on some jurisdictions realigning curricular program groupings upon curricular refresh cycles or aligning with education policy changes enacted by the provincial and territorial government administrations. Hill (2009) completed a comprehensive survey of the status of technology education delivery throughout Canada that detailed the technology education programs offered within each of the thirteen provinces and territories. Hill had conducted a similar survey in 2003 and within the span of six years leading up to the 2009 survey she had documented many changes and approaches to technology education delivery that had occurred across Canada. Elshof (2015) conducted a review of technology education curricular offerings across six Canadian provinces and noted, “Technology education in Canada is a complex organic hybrid of courses, programs, and formats,” and stated, “there is no curriculum area that has the variety of different courses, programs, and outcomes as technology education” (p. 420). Although it is not the intent of this chapter to provide an in-depth review of the current state of technology education delivery in Canada, it is important to note for the purposes of this chapter’s discussion the diversity of technology education curricular offerings undertaken by each of the provinces and territories, as they offer insight into curriculum development priorities. Regional differences and values have contributed to this diverse nature, as cultural and economic influences have had a direct impact on the development of local curricula (Hill, 2009). As Hill (2009) noted in her 2009 survey, “Reporting for each province/territory uses terminology specific to each province/territory” (p. 67) and that direction is adhered to in the ensuing review. As well, a focus on the broader term “technology,” as opposed to the more specific term “technology education” ensures all related curriculum areas are captured. Table 6.1 denotes some common technology education curricula categories among some provinces and territories and diverse categories among others. Due to their low populations and budgeting priorities the three territories access curricula from other provinces or share among themselves. Thus, this results in a common technology education curriculum being offered in Canada’s Westernmost provinces and Northern territories. Note that Manitoba and Saskatchewan offer very different programming groupings, Ontario offers a very broad range of technology curricula, and the province of Quebec delivers a unique secondary school experience with the addition of its CEGEP (Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel) program, or its general and vocational college program that extends the secondary school experience by one year. The four Eastern region provinces, or Atlantic provinces, share common technology education terminology, as was noted earlier with its involvement in the regional intergovernmental organization, CAMET. It is clear that a decentralized model of technology education curricula development is employed within Canada and the provinces and territories have taken ownership within their jurisdictional boundaries. 66

Decentralized Technology Education

The Evolution of Technology Education Curriculum Development within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador The province of Newfoundland and Labrador consists of both island and mainland portions with a total population of 520,000 covering a land mass exceeding 405,000 square kilometers. The island portion, Newfoundland, accounts for approximately 95 percent of the total provincial population and hosts its largest city and capital, St. John’s. From a natural resource perspective, Labrador is home to two large mining developments, plus it hosts two of the province’s main hydroelectric developments, Churchill Falls and Muskrat Falls. There is a rich fishing industry in both regions of the province, plus the island region of Newfoundland hosts several mining sectors, smaller hydroelectric assets, a flourishing forestry industry, and a lucrative offshore oil and gas industry. Combined, the natural resource sectors account for the majority of the province’s wealth and has historically been the basis of the province’s employment opportunities. However, as natural resource levels reduce, such as declining fish stocks, and market demand for non-renewable resources, such as oil and gas, wanes, there has been a strategic shifting of attention toward a technology-driven sector and the possibilities it offers. As the economy and resource sectors have evolved within NL over the course of the past seventy years, or since the province joined Canada in 1949, there has been a parallel evolution in the curricula developed for its public education system. The development of technology education curricula and its predecessor programs have been noticeably linked to developments in the province’s financial and industrial growth and demonstrates how the province’s autonomous control over its curricula development has benefited the province and fostered innovation. Being the youngest province in Canada, NL’s public education system has matured within the past seventy years with increasing attention toward adoption of Western education program and curriculum development ideology. Technology education curriculum development within the province has aligned with similar curriculum development in neighboring provinces but the uniqueness of NL’s economic base, demography, and political priorities led to a varied timeline and implementation The autonomy over education programming that provinces and territories within Canada experience is most evident in the various education reports, task forces, and studies completed by each of the jurisdictional governments. The evolution of curriculum development in NL can be easily traced to recommendations stemming from education reports completed by the provincial government. There have been several landmark education studies conducted by the provincial government that have led to the eventual establishment of technology education programming at the K–12 school level, and each study was predicated on the economic, demographic, and societal realities of the day. As NL experienced its own issues, its autonomy with education programming allowed it to focus on solutions that best aligned with its own environment. Thus, there were several 67

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

reports that spoke directly to solving NL’s unique problems in education and society, and each report launched the province into a new era of programming at the K–12 school level. A few of those reports have significant bearing on the development of technology education curriculum development.4 The 1967/1968 Royal Commission on Education and Youth provided an early road map for the introduction of pre-vocational education into NL secondary schools; the 1970 Provincial Task Force on the Integration of Academic and Vocational Education was the impetus for the launch of industrial arts education in NL secondary schools; the 1979 Task Force on Education report, titled, Improving the Quality of Education: Challenge and Opportunity, recommended the province add a grade 12 year to the then current K–11 program and offer pre-vocational courses in all schools, along with other recommendations to improve the public school system; a second Royal Commission on Education in NL, titled Our Children, Our Future, conducted in 1992 recommended inclusion of a technology education curricula in the school system; the 2000 Report of the Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery in the Classroom titled, Supporting Learning, strengthened the need for curriculum renewal in all subject areas and recommended increased budget allocations; and, the 2007 Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Skills Task Force titled, All the Skills to Succeed, reinforced the province’s commitment to the skilled trades sector and bolstered the presence of skilled trades programming at the secondary school level. It is clear that the evolution of technology education curriculum development in NL has its early roots in vocational education programming delivered at the post-secondary level. However, vocational education has a complex history within Canada. While industrial proponents called for a federal program of vocational education starting in the late nineteenth century, Canada’s constitution complicated matters as education is a provincial jurisdiction. Through a series of acts in the early twentieth century, the federal government provided funding to the provinces for the establishment of vocational education, but its development has been uneven between each province (Lyons et al., 1991). As an example of this uneven approach, funding did not reach Newfoundland and Labrador until after confederation in 1949, but it was channeled into creating a post-secondary system with very limited inclusion of vocational or technical education at the K–12 level (Haché, 2007). The 1967/1968 Royal Commission on Education and Youth outlined a plan for the expansion of vocational education training at the postsecondary level. Six new additional vocational institutions were established within the province in 1970 that delivered vocational programming to post-secondary students that also led to the development of pre-vocational training opportunities for secondary-level students. Beginning as a trial in the 1972 school year, secondary students would attend the post-secondary institutions on a limited schedule, typically one-half day a week, that would provide them access to quality instructors and learning resources. There was no vocational programming, or any type of technology education programming offered in NL schools up to that time, but there was a desire by the provincial government of the day to expand the skilled and technical training offered at the vocational level to the Public K–12 school system in the province. The province was still in a building 68

Decentralized Technology Education

phase where there was increasing demand for new infrastructure that would enable diversification of the economy. Skilled labor and skilled tradespeople were required and training programs at the vocational level were supported to address that need. However, parental expectations for their children’s social mobility hampered the development of vocational education as academic streams continued to be held in higher esteem, thus leading to low enrolments in those early vocational programs (Lyons et al., 1991). Industrial arts programming at the secondary level of schooling began to emerge in the mid-1970s as a result of recommendations set forth in the Provincial Task Force on the Integration of Academic and Vocational Education, which was established in late 1970. The task force recommended a more comprehensive curriculum to be developed that would account for the varying abilities and interests of students. There had been a serious student dropout problem occurring in NL secondary schools in the early 1970s and the programming available in the school system was heavily scrutinized for its relevance and applicability to a wide range of learners. Support for pre-vocational learning opportunities and access to curriculum that would prepare students for a wide range of post-secondary and employment opportunities was sought. The pre-vocational programming recommendations led to the development of industrial arts programming at the secondary school level that saw courses addressing building construction in wood and metal, electricity and electronics, power mechanics, drawing and planning, marine industries, and home maintenance (Cooper, 1988). To complement the introduction of the new curricula the Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland, the province’s only university, established a Diploma Program in Industrial Arts Education as a means of preparing teachers to deliver the new curricula. The three-summer diploma program was offered to current teachers who sought upgrading in the area of industrial arts education teaching and was designed to provide practical experiences for teaching the courses that were implemented at the secondary school level (Cooper, 1988). The government of Newfoundland and Labrador supported the new industrial arts education programming in schools through resourcing of equipment, remodeling or development of new industrial arts facilities at the school level, and professional development supports for teachers tasked with delivering the new courses. There was a view that providing access to more non-academically based programming would address the growing student dropout problem. However, by the late 1970s there was a growing concern among education policy makers about the breadth and depth of school curriculum, and the noticeable absence of curriculum to address the technological change occurring in society. The 1979 Task Force on Education report, titled Improving the Quality of Education: Challenge and Opportunity, recommended curriculum adaptation to deal with those concerns and set forth a rationale for the development of technology courses for the secondary school system. But it would be several more years before change was enacted. The roots of technology education, as experienced in the province today, are deeply planted in the second Royal Commission on education in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Commission’s report Our Children, Our Future was released in 1992 and was particularly 69

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

critical of the province’s high school system of the day as it surveyed the education system since the release of the 1979 Improving the Quality of Education: Challenge and Opportunity report. In a government document responding to the commission’s findings, technology education was named as a new curriculum area that would consolidate and modernize the existing computer and industrial education curricula. Technology education, as a new curriculum focus, had been introduced in 1987 into the Diploma in Industrial Arts Education program that Memorial University offered as a means of introducing Industrial Arts teachers to technology education program philosophy (Cooper, 1988). As early as 1990 provincial industrial arts courses were being modified to include components of technology education. For example, the course description for the industrial arts course, Design and Planning 1101, was renamed to Design Technology 1101 to account for the inclusion of technical problem-solving and the use of computers for technical drawing and graphic representation (Reid, 1992). Technology education programming officially began to replace industrial arts programming at the beginning of the 1991–2 school year (Vivian, 1994) and over the course of the next decade there was a gradual delisting of industrial arts courses in schools as the transition to a complete technology education program continued. The slow pace of transitioning from industrial arts to technology education programming was due to fiscal challenges at the government level to fund new technology education learning resources, equipment and facilities, and the greater challenge of transitioning industrial arts teachers to technology education teachers through professional development and teacher education programs. Regarding the latter, the Faculty of Education at Memorial University transformed its Diploma in Industrial Arts Education teacher education program to a Diploma in Technology Education teacher education program in 1991 to supply the provincial schools with a highly trained teacher workforce to deliver the new curriculum. Beginning in 2001 technology education curricula were developed for the first time for the intermediate grades, grades 7–9 (twelve to fourteen year olds), and a renewal process of existing secondary school technology education curricula was well underway. By 2006 there were new directions occurring in curriculum development in the province and a focus on skilled trades programming surfaced that added and, to some extent, superseded the ongoing developments in technology education curriculum development. The emergence of skilled trades programming at the secondary school level in NL was a result of the booming mining and oil and gas sectors in the province at the time. NL had boasted several mega project developments beginning in the mid-1990s, including the building of offshore oil drilling platforms and development of mining sites, requiring significant numbers of skilled trades workers to build and support the infrastructure needs of those projects. With rising oil prices and increasing demand for oil and gas globally, NL was well positioned to rapidly expand its offshore oil industry and capitalize on its rich resources. Increased demand for skilled trades workers to build and support the oil and gas industry prompted the provincial government in 2006 to establish a Skills Task Force to review and report on the status of the overall skilled trades industry. Coinciding with the launch of the Skills Task Force in 2006 the province also took the bold move to implement new skilled trades programming at the secondary 70

Decentralized Technology Education

school level, complete with a very supportive budget for skilled trades resources procurement, education facility upgrades, and teacher professional development programs. The Skills Task Force submitted its final report, All the Skills to Succeed, in 2007 and within that report there were several references to the role the secondary school system must play in the fostering of a robust skilled trades environment within the province. In particular, there was acknowledgment that the new secondary skilled trades curriculum being implemented in the schools would have a positive impact and that further awareness of the value of career opportunities within the skilled trades sector should be promoted with all students in the public education system. Skilled trades courses covering residential construction and maintenance, design and fabrication, power and energy, and occupational health and safety have been developed to prepare students who wish to continue their studies at the post-secondary level and to bring greater awareness of the discipline to a wider student audience. At the time of writing another development is emerging in the technology education curricula discipline with NL. In May 2021 the government of NL announced a new program titled Technology Career Pathway (TCP) that would see a limited number of secondary students enroll in a technology-focused secondary school program that would provide them direct access to technology programs at the provinces’ two post-secondary institutions, Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic. The TCP focuses on computer programming skill development and specifically: This pilot and future TCP programs will help narrow that skill gap in the technology industry while providing young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with early exposure to an industry with significant job prospects. Future TCP programs can focus on areas such as cyber security, infrastructure and web development. (Department of Education, 2021) The province is developing the TCP program as a support for the growing technology sector in the province that is noting a shortage of skilled computer programmers to fill their current and anticipated job positions. The partnerships created with the two postsecondary education institutions harken back to the pre-vocational programming noted at the beginning of this section. The TCP will avail of currently developed secondary technology education curriculum and will also require the development of new courses to cater to the specific requirements of chosen computer programming languages.

Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development: Challenges and Opportunities This final section of the chapter considers the challenges and opportunities associated with a decentralized curricula development model and discusses its broader impact within the context of the technology education discipline. 71

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

This chapter has postured some of the opportunities a decentralized curricula development model offers and presented how the model has been employed in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The unique demographic, geographic, economic, and cultural profile of the province has required a curriculum that bears the tenets of a Western education program in most subject disciplines, but a more fluid and customized curricula in the discipline of technology education. The ability of the province to continually adapt its curricula to respond to the changing needs in its industry, society, and schooling without having to attain cooperation and collaboration with other provincial or territorial jurisdictions is a major strength of a decentralized model of curriculum development. Combining the viewpoints and input of regional industry partners, government, educators, researchers, and the general public, as captured in the government-commissioned reports discussed earlier, ensures there is a strategic synergy established among all of them. Challenges can also be encountered with a decentralized technology education curriculum development model. Having a narrow focus on regional priorities when developing curricula may not account for the educational innovation and trends occurring globally. As students progress through their education endeavors in the twenty-first century there is greater emphasis toward ensuring they are prepared for a future that extends well beyond their regional footprint. A centralized curricula development model can account for broader educational ideals and capture the collective priorities of many regions, possibly leading to a more well-rounded educational experience for the student that is more aligned with the greater populace. A centralized curricula development model may also be more efficient to develop and sustain as curriculum development can be streamlined for a wider audience, procurement of common learning resources can benefit from large-scale purchases and economies of scale, and professional learning programs for educators can be refined through the collaborative efforts of a larger educator base.

Summary The decentralized curriculum development model in place in Canada has afforded opportunities for program diversity in technology education that accounts for regional, economic, and political differences among the country’s thirteen provinces and territories. The diversity is most noticeable through the different program headings employed across the country, such as technology education; skilled trades; career and technical education; science and technology; and, applied design, skills, and technologies. There is also diversity evident within the different program offerings across grade levels and student ages with some provinces and territories only offering technology education programming to grades 7–12 (twelve to seventeen year olds), while others offer the programming to K–12 (five to seventeen year olds). Each of the thirteen jurisdictions 72

Decentralized Technology Education

has developed its own technology education programs through its own education policy development that was based on their uniqueness. For example, provinces and territories with economies based on natural resource extraction and development have developed programming that prepares a future workforce for those sectors (e.g., Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador), whereas a province such as Ontario has developed programming for a broader technological sector that includes a greater focus on computer programming and manufacturing areas. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador provides a clear example of how a national decentralized curriculum development model has fostered a unique technology education program that has evolved from direct economic, demographic, and political influences within its boundaries. It is evident that government-commissioned reports and reviews were instrumental in directing the development of technology education programming beginning with pre-vocational opportunities in the early 1970s, industrial arts curricula in the 1970s through to the early 2000s, technology education curricula in the 1990s through to current day, skilled trades programming from 2006 to present day, and finally the emergence of computer programming as a supplement to both technology education and skilled trades programming. The reports and reviews captured the state of the province’s economy of the day and combined that with political will and the desire of the public to forge a better future for the students of the province. The province has enjoyed its autonomy with education policy but has endeavored to align its developments with its neighboring Atlantic provinces, while also keeping pace with best practices implemented in other regions of the country. Opportunities and challenges offered by a decentralized curriculum development model have had an impact upon the development of technology education curricula within Canada. Each of the provinces and territories has developed technology education programs with the intention to provide the best possible learning experiences for their own students. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been adapting and modifying its technology education programming since the early 1970s to account for those changing and evolving realities within its own jurisdiction. Courses have been developed to prepare students to enter post-secondary and employment areas within the fields of skilled trades, manufacturing, robotics, engineering, and information and communications technology, including computer programming and software development that have aligned with the province’s economic development realities. Although other provinces and territories within Canada offer similar courses, the particular emphasis Newfoundland and Labrador has given to technology education curriculum development is contextual and unique. The decentralized curriculum development model existing in Canada provides a platform for the field of technology education to flourish and thrive at the provincial and territorial levels. Innovative, contextual, and relevant technology education curricula are developed without the confines of national oversight that sets out to account for all the educational needs present across the country, but instead are developed with a focus on local and regional needs that are ever-changing and dynamic in nature. 73

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Notes 1 Canada encompasses nearly 10 million square kilometers of land with a total population exceeding 38 million people. It ranks as the world’s second largest country by total land mass area but ranks thirty-ninth in the world by total population. The country boasts many populous cities and urban regions that account for 81 percent of the population total, indicating the population density in rural areas to be quite low. 2 Newfoundland and Labrador Technology Education curriculum guides can be found at: https://www​.gov​.nl​.ca​/education​/k12​/curriculum​/guides​/teched/. 3 Newfoundland and Labrador Skilled Trades curriculum guides can be found at: https://www​ .gov​.nl​.ca​/education​/k12​/curriculum​/guides​/skilledtrades/. 4 NL reports and reviews are archived at Memorial University of Newfoundland’s Queen Elizabeth II Library: https://www​.library​.mun​.ca/.

References Cooper, L. (1988). A report on the development of a program entitled technology education: With specific applications in industrial technology. [Unpublished master’s thesis], Memorial University of Newfoundland. Council of Atlantic Minsters of Education and Training [CAMET]. (2021, March 11). About CAMET. https://camet-camef.ca/. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC]. (2021, March 11). Council of ministers of education, Canada: Over 50 years of Pan-Canadian leadership in education. https://www​ .cmec​.ca​/11​/About​_Us​.html. Department of Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2001). Foundation for the Atlantic Canada technology education curriculum. https://www​.gov​.nl​.ca​/education​/files​/ k12​_curriculum​_documents​_teched​_te​_found​_nf​-lab​_full​.pdf. Department of Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2021, May 17). Minister Osborne announces high schools chosen for first year of technology career pathway pilot program. News Releases. https://www​.gov​.nl​.ca​/releases​/2021​/education​/0517n02/. Elshof, L. (2015). What is a Canadian technology education? Questions of distinction and sustainability. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(4), 418–29. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14926156​.2015​.1091903. Gill, D. (2017). Teaching intermediate technology education in newfoundland and labrador [Thesis], University of Calgary. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.5072​/PRISM​/27985. Haché, G. J. (2007). Revitalizing technology education with apprenticeship studies. In J. R. Dakers, W. J. Dow, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Teaching and learning technological literacy in the classroom (pp. 347–52). Faculty of Education. University of Glasgow. http://www​.iteea​ .org​/File​.aspx​?id​=39541​&v​=cbfe53da. Hill, A. M. (2009). The study of technology in Canada. In A. T. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 65–85). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lyons, J. E., Randhawa, B. S., & Paulson, N. A. (1991). The development of vocational education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 16(2), 137–50. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​ /1494967.

74

Decentralized Technology Education

Reid, C. G. (1992). Technology education in Newfoundland: Goal emphasis. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. The University of New Brunswick. Vivian, K. W. (1994). A multivariate analysis of three factors which affect the present and future delivery of technology education in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. The Ohio State University. http://search​.proquest​.com​/ docview​/304101626​/abstract​/1D43AAAFF2F64D11PQ​/1.

75

Chapter 7

Technology Education’s Place in STEM The Relationship and Role of Technology in STEM Education, Using the United States as a Case Study Greg J. Strimel

Introduction If one were to examine the recent economic/political landscape of the United States, they would likely come to the conclusion that technology education should be thriving within schools. For example, the innovation capabilities of the workforce are often touted as key to the country’s economic success, makerspaces have become a household term, and engineering within primary and secondary schools has gone viral—all of which have been philosophically connected with the goals of technology education programs in the United States. Thus, the country has seemingly portrayed a strong desire for technology education. In addition, with the rise of the STEM education movement at the turn of the century, the technology education profession seemingly had the opportunity to strengthen its role in the general education of the nation’s youth. While these opportunities may continue to exist, technology’s place within STEM education—as viewed by those within the profession—has often been misinterpreted, misunderstood, and marginalized by school leaders and the general public. This may be attributed to the continual evolution of the subject’s epistemology1, its inconsistent position within a school’s curriculum, the stigma (warranted or not) with “shop”2 classes of the day’s past, and/or the misalignment between the philosophy of technology education and the generally accepted definition of technology. Furthermore, without a solid understanding of technology as its own curricular area, it has been most often represented as educational technology—or the use of instructional technology to primarily enhance the teaching of other school subjects. To better address some of these concerns, and in an effort to align technology education with the STEM education movement, in 2009 the related professional

Technology Education's Place in STEM

organization, the International Technology Education Association, positioned itself to be both the “T” and the “E” in STEM, and rebranded the school subject as technology and engineering education. As a result, throughout the nation and at all levels, technology education programs have been incorporating engineering content (e.g., engineering design practices, engineering sciences, engineering careers, computational thinking, quantitative reasoning, and predictive analysis) and engineering course titles (e.g., engineering design and development, engineering applications of computer science, engineering for all) at an increasing rate. But, as this change was occurring, there was also an effort to promote integrated STEM as a pedagogical approach to learning. This approach was seemingly based on a similar rationale and foundation for technology education; and in some ways, the integrated approach has nearly emerged as a metadiscipline in schools. Further blending boundaries between the STEM school subjects, in 2013 the national science education standards included engineering and technology as a “disciplinary core idea” within science learning. This information and history can sound complex and these nuances can make the implementation of technology education in schools complicated. However, gaining an understanding of STEM education in relation to technology education’s place within the STEM movement can better prepare teachers to take on significant roles in their future careers and better position valuable learning experiences for all students. Throughout this chapter the relationship between technology education and STEM education will be further examined within the context of the United States. Specifically, this chapter will describe technology education’s place within US schools, the role it plays in the STEM education landscape, what it looks like within the classroom, and ongoing trends and issues related to the school subject.

Technology’s Place within STEM Education Technology education as a school subject has had an interesting and complicated history within the United States. This involves not only the continual changes of the subject from a primary/secondary school perspective but also its relationship to the larger and more broad STEM education movement as well as its alignment to postsecondary STEM learning. A look into this historical storyline can provide insights into the philosophical underpinnings of the school subject, shed light on the content deemed beneficial to teach, as well as the ways in which to teach it, and provide opportunities to learn from the past to make informed decisions for the future of students. Therefore, the following subsections will first discuss the history of technology education in the United States, and then detail the addition of engineering to the school subject, its alignment with post-secondary education, and the role it plays within the STEM education movement.

77

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

The History of Technology Education in the United States Technology education as a school subject in the United States, similar to many other countries, has had a long history of frequent change. These frequent changes have often been made in an effort to provide the most appropriate content and pedagogies for all students to become technologically literate and maintain the vitality of the democratic society (Strimel et al., 2016). Since the 1800s numerous adaptations of the school subject have occurred to mostly address a variety of economic demands external to education. As such, the subject has transitioned through many names ranging from manual training, to manual arts, to industrial arts, to technology education, and most recently, technology and engineering education. These changes certainly have had some benefits but have also led to epistemological arguments, confusion around the content to be taught in classrooms, and sometimes a mismatch between the preparation of future teachers and the local demands of the schools in which these teachers become employed (Volk, 2019). For example, content in technology classrooms can stretch from more “traditional” metalworking and woodworking to topics such as computer-aided design, robotics, and control systems while also emphasizing the skills necessary to design, make, and innovate. Perhaps, Dakers (2014) stated it best, that “due to the complexity of the technologically textured world we inhabit, a world that is emergent and in a constant state of change, the concept of technological literacy can only ever be expressed in terms of an ongoing process” (p. 2). While this view may seem fitting for the subject, it does present challenges for its implementation in schools and communicating purpose. Regardless of these changes, the central goal for technology education has always been aimed toward the development of technological literacy for all students, regardless of career path, through the study of the human-made world. However, through the constant change of the subject and the emergence of a broader STEM education movement, technology education has struggled to effectively communicate its role in an evolving STEM landscape. For example, the “T” or technology in STEM is typically interpreted in three different ways (National Research Council, 2014). First, the “T” represents technology education as the school subject that has emerged from industrial arts. Second, the “T” represents the educational technologies used to facilitate learning. Lastly, and likely the most prevalent view within STEM education today, it represents the tools, such as computers, software, sensors, and other data collection instruments used by scientists, engineers, and/or mathematicians. Accordingly, the National Research Council (2014) even states that technology is not a true discipline of study. Instead, it defines technology as comprising the entire system of people and organizations, knowledge, processes, and devices that go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as well as the artifacts themselves. Throughout history, humans have created technology to satisfy their wants and needs. Much of modern technology is a product of science and engineering, and technological tools are used in both fields. (p. 14) 78

Technology Education's Place in STEM

As a result of this broad view of technology, technology education has continued to face a positioning problem within a school’s general curriculum. In the United States, technology education is often situated under the umbrella of career and technical education (formerly known as vocational education) which consists of programs designed to provide students with the technical and academic skills necessary for success in a selected career pathway. While the career and technical education label can bring with it funding as well as political and corporate support, it also means that technology education is not often viewed as a part of a student’s general education requirements—leaving many students without valuable opportunities to design, make, and innovate. Consequently, technology education has struggled in establishing its position and, as a result, it is mostly offered as an “elective” course in schools and is delivered incoherently across the country. As a result of this lack of coherence, some technology-oriented learning activities can be seen implemented in classrooms, across the grade levels, without increases in sophistication, rigor, or authenticity. This can be illustrated through one such activity of “designing and building a bridge to hold the most weight.” It is not uncommon to find students building model bridges and destructively testing them as an activity within primary classrooms, secondary classrooms, and even in post-secondary courses without the scaffolding of more in-depth knowledge and practice (Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education [AE3] & American Society for Engineering Education [ASEE], 2020). Due to the complexities detailed in this section, technology teachers are found to be a varied group of people from different backgrounds and with different goals. These individuals come from technology teacher preparation programs, from other school subjects, as well as from industry through alternative paths to teacher licensure (Volk, 2019). Some of these technology teachers are then hired to oversee traditional laboratories or “shops” where students build artifacts from wood, metal, plastic, and other materials. Others teach a broader perspective on technology and its interaction with society, viewing technology as key to understanding topics such as manufacturing, construction, transportation, and communication. And, some teachers provide instruction for specific career pathways related to technology fields. However, more recently, more technology teachers have begun teaching engineering which has offered a potentially, more unified lens to view the school subject and strengthen its position in STEM education. It is fairly evident now, based on the title of the school subject, the changes to the country’s professional organization and standards, and course curriculum, that the United States has embraced engineering as part of the subject more so than some other places around the world.

Emergence of Technology and Engineering Education The most recent shift in technology education occurred in 2009 when the related professional organization, now known as the International Technology & Engineering

79

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Educators Association, added the word “engineering” to the school subject’s title. This change, which was based on scholars in the field and responses from the organization’s membership, sought to position the field to be both the “T” and the “E,” and hopefully better communicate its role in the STEM education movement. This change can be attributed to beliefs that engineering (1) is better understood and valued by the general population, (2) offers a framework to define, communicate, and organize curricula, (3) enhances connections to mathematics and science, (4) increases the rigor of the practices taught, (5) revitalizes the “making” of quality products, and (6) provides alignment to post-secondary programs/careers (Strimel et al., 2016). As a result of this change, technology education programs throughout the nation have incorporated an engineering focus at an ever-increasing pace. This has been evident through the extent at which programs and curriculum providers have renamed their courses to include engineering and included more content and practices of the engineering disciplines. In regard to the addition of the “E,” engineering literacy can be viewed as closely related to, and overlapping with, technological literacy. As stated by Strimel et al. (2020): Whereas technological literacy represents understanding of the destination of human ingenuity (e.g., construction, manufacturing, medical, transportation) and the human interactions with those technologies, engineering literacy is concerned with the journey that inventors, innovators, makers, designers, and literate citizens participate in while improving and interacting with the systems, products, and services of our world. These interactions require that an engineering literate person become familiar with associated scientific, mathematical, and technical knowledge. However, the term “technological literacy” is often confused or misrepresented as “technology literacy” or even “computer literacy” by policy makers and in school systems. With the rise of computer science education in P-12 schools, the distortion will likely continue to grow. (p. 3) According to the same National Research Council (2014) STEM education report that detailed technology as “not a true discipline,” engineering, however, is described as a defined discipline that is both a body of knowledge—about the design and creation of human-made products— and a process for solving problems. This process is design under constraints. One constraint in engineering design is the laws of nature, or science. Other constraints include time, money, available materials, ergonomics, environmental regulations, manufacturability, and reparability. Engineering utilizes concepts in science and mathematics as well as technological tools. (p.14) While this report details technology as not a true discipline, many of those who teach and study technology education can see the close relationship between this definition of engineering and the philosophies of technology education. Also, one can see fairly clearly from this definition how technology is positioned within STEM education from 80

Technology Education's Place in STEM

the broader education community’s perspective. This position is one of being the tools that aid in engineering, science, and mathematics. Technology, however, has not been the only school subject to integrate engineering into its content and practices. As a result of the emphasis on STEM education, in 2013 the national standards for science education also included engineering within the study of science. But, engineering within these standards is mostly positioned as a vehicle for achieving science learning or, in other words, engineering-oriented activities are promoted to provide the context for learning science concepts. Consequently, the science standards have placed the practices of engineering design and scientific inquiry on the same level of importance for science teachers. Although engineering is now an integral component of science education in the United States, the science standards document specifically states that these standards do not represent the full scope of engineering courses or pathways and that the development of engineering-specific courses can be encouraged. This has left an opportunity for engineering learning to occur as a distinct component of a student’s general education in technology and engineering classrooms. While this integration of, or focus on, engineering may help remove the long-standing confusion regarding the subject of technology, there still remains a need for a better understanding of what engineering content knowledge teachers need for different grade bands and how to scaffold the learning appropriately. This information requires a body of research on student learning that provides insights to establish the teaching of in-depth and authentic practices/concepts of engineering in ways that are accessible to all students.

Post-Secondary Alignment of Technology and Engineering Education With the addition of engineering in place within schools, it can be valuable to look at the alignment of technology education with post-secondary engineering education. Even though technology educators are a small teaching force when compared to other subjects, they have played, and continue to play, an important role in exposing students to engineering ideas and practices in the United States (National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2017). Moreover, the emergence of engineering at the post-secondary level has certainly played a role in shaping technology education in primary and secondary schools over its history. In essence, the history of engineering at the post-secondary level echoes many of the same themes that underlie the development of industrial arts/ technology education/technology and engineering education. For instance, both have experienced shifts and splits in philosophies/epistemologies, often centered around the balancing of learning theory and practical skills. In fact, the theoretical foundations of engineering share a similar starting point with the idea of manual training and the recognition of all students being able to benefit from the use of tools, equipment, and 81

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

materials in a laboratory setting, which helped birth industrial arts at the turn of the twentieth century (NAE, 2017). Therefore, earlier forms of technology and engineering education in the United States were closely aligned with post-secondary engineering studies and, in some cases, were originally intended to serve as a potential precursor for these studies in higher education (Strimel et al., 2016). However, as shifts in philosophies/epistemologies occurred, the gap between what is offered as technology education at secondary level and engineering-related programs at the tertiary level seems to have grown. For example, at the higher education level, the United States now has engineering and engineering technology degree programs while at the secondary level there is technology and engineering education, engineering within science classrooms, and programs that are just broadly referred to as STEM programs. That being said, one view can be that a realignment to post-secondary engineering fields could help strengthen the school subject and provide connections with content and practices across the spectrum of the engineering discipline (Dearing & Daugherty, 2004; Wicklein, 2006; Strimel et al., 2016). This alignment may provide technology education with a connection to post-secondary studies in engineering-related fields. But, the goal of technology education does not need to solely focus on preparation for a specific career. Just as students in a secondary biology class do not have to become a biologist, students in a secondary engineering class do not have to become a mechanical engineer. However, coursework focused on engineering and technological literacy can provide all students with beneficial knowledge and skills as well as authentically introduce them to relevant career pathways beyond secondary school.

STEM Education Movement and Technology While technology education was evolving as a school subject in the United States, a national push to expand STEM education also began to take place. Generally, the rationale for this STEM movement was the country’s need to prepare the next generation of global citizens capable of solving issues of the twenty-first century. A specific emphasis within this rationale was the need for improving mathematics and science achievement among US students as their proficiency in these subjects was reported to be trailing behind other countries on international assessments. Today, the most recent vision for STEM education in the United States is to leverage advanced knowledge of how people learn to create transformative learning experiences for all students that will (1) help drive new innovations across disciplines, (2) promote the use of computational power to accelerate scientific discoveries/technological breakthroughs, and (3) support creative ways to work across disciplinary silos to solve big challenges (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2020). As a result of the STEM education movement throughout the beginning of the twenty-first century, STEM has become a nationwide educational “buzz word” used by politicians, educational leaders, business executives, and now the general 82

Technology Education's Place in STEM

population. While STEM has worked its way into our general vocabulary, it continues to be used to represent anything from the individual disciplines within the acronym to integrated approaches to learning. This coincides with efforts for enhancing STEM literacy (reflecting the broad knowledge/skills for all students to understand issues, make informed choices, and participate in civic discussions) and/or STEM literacies (reflecting the specific skills required in each disciplinary area) (Tang & Williams, 2019). In addition, the STEM acronym is sometimes expanded upon to include an emphasis on other subject areas, such as arts and/or agriculture to become STEAM. One could even view it now as a one-size-fits-all term for branding/marketing educational programs or initiatives regardless of whether or not they adhere to the transdisciplinary practices of integrative, inquiry-driven, and/or design/problem-based learning championed by education experts. For example, adding STEM to the title of a curriculum package, teacher training program, or summer camp may be used to help broaden the market in which the providers can sell and deliver their educational products. This may or may not be a bad approach to providing access to educational activities. The point, however, is that the now broad characteristics of the “STEM” acronym could allow for the adoption of limited integrative approaches to teaching and learning that may be best positioned to enhance the education of a nation’s youth. As such, this may potentially hinder STEM education from achieving the hopes of a transformative change to teaching and learning from a national perspective. Also complicating the implementation of STEM, some schools have added “STEM time” or separate STEM classes to the school day. Rather than rethinking traditional approaches to education, this approach may just provide an “add-on” or a new meta-discipline to the standard classroom approach and limit resources for enhancing integrative approaches to instruction within the disciplines. Moreover, this dedicated school time to STEM is often positioned to teach a variety of hands-on activities to students which in many cases are representative of the ones that may be typically found within technology and engineering classrooms. However, sometimes these STEM activities are merely perceived as a fun escape from “normal coursework.” And, in some cases they may take the form of hands-on, minds-off activities due to their limited connections to more advanced activities or a lack of scaffolding for the concepts and practices deemed valuable to teach. This is of course not representative of all STEM education initiatives today. There are numerous impactful learning experiences under the STEM education umbrella happening across schools. But perhaps Wells and Van de Velde (2020) provide the most logical view of the original intention of STEM: STEM is an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It is not a discipline, not a meta-discipline, not a field of study, not a curriculum, nor is it a single school subject to be taught. STEM is a concept intended to promote integrative approaches to teaching and learning. A concept meant to go beyond the traditional siloed, mono-disciplinary approach with an experiential learning approach where students integrate disciplines within authentic, relevant learning scenarios. (p. 220) 83

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Regardless of how STEM education initiatives have been implemented, the movement certainly spurred new interest in technology and engineering-related activities such as robotics clubs/competitions, makerspaces, and coding projects. However, the work around the STEM education agenda has seemingly overlooked technology education as a significant component. This could be attributed to two factors: one, that many did not associate the “T” with the technology education subject, and two, there was a lack of confidence in technology education’s ability to achieve the literacy goals set out in STEM. Therefore, the “T” was mostly represented as the technologies used in the practices of science, mathematics, and engineering (Williams, 2011). As Wells and Van de Velde (2020) state, “core subjects, such as science and mathematics, were deemed critical in educating students, while those such as technology education were viewed as ancillary as they were often relegated to elective courses” (p. 220) or career-specific preparation. Since technology education did not hold a coherent or secure position within a school’s general curriculum (Williams, 2011), the important elements of the subject were, in many cases, unnoticed or found elsewhere for the STEM education movement. For example, makerspaces in schools became a major trend with STEM education initiatives as arguments arose that schools no longer taught students practical making skills with the disappearance of “shop class” or industrial arts. These issues may have been ascribed to the following factors: 1. Technology was/is a newer, lesser-known school subject. Many political and educational leaders were likely exposed to industrial arts classes when they were in school rather than technology education courses. And, this exposure may have been limited as these classes were often elective classes that likely did not have broad participation across demographics. 2. People assuming that industrial arts or “shop” classes were no longer part of the educational equation as the classes became known as technology classes. 3. The general public perception of technology was that it is comprised of the tools/ products/processes used by people rather than a subject of study. Therefore, instead of helping establish technology education as a core subject, one may view that the focus on STEM may have exacerbated technology education’s problems related to the positioning, and understanding of, its role in schools. However, two opportunities seemed to surface for technology education within the STEM education landscape. First, was the embracing of integrated STEM pedagogical approaches. This was perceived as an opportunity for technology education as its core pedagogy is viewed, by academics in the field, as one that embraces and capitalizes on an integration of multiple disciplinary content and practices demanded of the learner as they work toward a plausible design solution with a reference towards authentic practices and contexts. (Wells & Van de Velde, 2020, p. 222) 84

Technology Education's Place in STEM

With this integrated approach, it was believed that student learning could be enhanced by teaching the content of two or more STEM domains together, bound by crossdisciplinary STEM practices, within authentic contexts (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). As such, technology education scholars began advocating for the implementation of a technology/engineering design-based learning approach as the key to integrate the STEM disciplines and foster authenticity in learning while enhancing student interest in STEM fields (Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Wells & Van de Velde, 2020). These promotional efforts continue today in an attempt to make relevant the teaching practices of technology education and to showcase its importance within STEM education. The second opportunity was related to the increasing emphasis on engineering within the STEM education movement. Engineering, as a discipline, may not share the same drawbacks as technology education (i.e., the confusion with teaching the use of computers) or STEM education (i.e., the vague interpretations of the acronym). For example, engineering is a defined discipline at the post-secondary level with centuries of development and refinement to integrate scientific knowledge, mathematical truths, and technological capabilities to develop solutions to a variety of problems (AE3 & ASEE, 2020). From a primary and secondary school perspective, however, engineering was the newest and least developed component of STEM. As such, the development of engineering teaching and learning across schools was uniquely positioned to support connections between the knowledge and skills of the academic disciplines while being more recognizable, and respected, by the general population (Strimel et al., 2016). Adding engineering to technology education has apparently brought a refreshing new view on the field from a recognition standpoint and potentially from a curriculum perspective. And, if implemented appropriately, engineering may help position technology education to achieve some of the intended outcomes of STEM education and provide the knowledge/skills for students to confront the complex challenges of the future. Consequently, technology education programs continue to integrate more engineering content and often include engineering in the titles of their courses. While the STEM education movement may have provided some opportunities to expand the impact of technology education, Williams (2011) identified a series of concerns between STEM initiatives and the role of technology education. These concerns, which included (a) the STEM movement overwhelming the insecure position of technology education in schools and (b) the undervaluing of the important elements of technology education to favor the more secure subjects, highlighted the potential for STEM education to decimate technology education’s position within schools across the country. Although many of these concerns have played out to be true in the United States and the subject struggles to hold a consistent and coherent place within the general curriculum, learning relevant to technology does occur in schools—just in a variety of shapes and forms. However, this does allow for technology and engineering educators to take the opportunities provided with integrated STEM learning practices and the implementation of engineering to create long-lasting and meaningful impacts on student learning. 85

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Inside the US Technology and Engineering Classroom Although there have been some historical challenges, technology and engineering learning continues to happen in schools today. While this learning occurs in different types of classes with a variety of names and under different subject areas, there are shared resources and pedagogical approaches that are used to support the teaching of technology and engineering in schools. The section will highlight the curriculum frameworks and standards relevant to technology and engineering education as well as some related pedagogical models and curricula.

Standards and Frameworks As technology education was emerging from industrial arts during the second half of the twentieth century, academics began working to articulate the importance of technological literacy and determine the content for the study of technology in primary/ secondary schools. Aligning with the “educational standards movement” of the 1990s, this work was assembled into the Standards for Technological Literacy. These standards were published in 2000 by the International Technology Education Association and became the basis for most technology education programs in schools across the country. Within the standards document, it defined technological literacy as the ability to use, manage, and understand technology. The standards themselves detailed the content for the study of technology which included learning how to (1) design and develop products, (2) determine and control the behavior of technological systems, (3) assess the impact and consequences of technological development, (4) explain the nature and evolution of technology, and (5) apply technological concepts and principles related to information, physical, and biological systems. Based on this information, technology school curriculum generally included coursework in the specific areas of technology— such as communications, manufacturing, transportation, construction, and medicine/ health—as well as in the relationships between technology and society. The Standards for Technological Literacy, which were revised in 2002 and 2007, did devote significant attention to the practice of engineering design. But, with the increasing emphasis on engineering in K–12 schools and the addition of engineering to technology education in 2009, an update to these standards was needed with a logical emphasis on engineering. As a result, the Advancing Excellence in P–12 Engineering Education project was launched in 2018 to address the addition of engineering to technology education and help establish an epistemological basis for the teaching of engineering as it continues to expand in schools (AE3, 2018). This project specifically sought to develop a coherent curricular framework for scaffolding the teaching and learning of engineering across schools in an effort to provide guidance for (1) defining engineering content, (2) revising standards, and (3) developing curriculum, instruction, assessment, 86

Technology Education's Place in STEM

and professional development. Through a review of literature, a Delphi study, and a series of focus groups, the first report of this project provided a working definition for engineering learning at the primary/secondary school level. This definition detailed engineering learning as three-dimensional and included: 1. The Engineering Habits of Mind (i.e., optimism, persistence, collaboration, creativity, conscientiousness, and systems thinking) that students should develop over time and teachers should model through their instruction. 2. The Engineering Skills/Practices (i.e., engineering design, materials processing, quantitative analysis, and professionalism) in which students should become competent. 3. The Engineering Knowledge (i.e., engineering sciences, engineering mathematics, and technical applications) that students should be able to recognize and access to inform their Engineering Practice. In addition, this project established a taxonomy of content in alignment with these areas to support the teaching of engineering with increased sophistication over time (see Table 7.1). This information was then leveraged to inform the development for the Framework for P–12 Engineering Learning (2020) published by the American Society for Engineering Education and the revision of the Standards for Technological Literacy which now are titled the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (2020). The Framework for P–12 Engineering Learning (2020) provides guidance for including engineering within the nation’s schools in what is believed to be a more prominent, authentic, equitable, and coherent manner. This guidance includes a definition of the three dimensions of engineering learning, principles for pedagogical practice, and common learning goals that all students should reach to become engineering literate. The framework also offers instructional planning support for teachers to teach engineering within socially relevant and culturally situated contexts. This includes a set of core, as well as auxiliary, concepts, and sub-concepts to scaffold authentic learning toward a targeted performance goal. Each concept and corresponding sub-concepts are organized within an engineering performance matrix (see Figure 7.1 for an example). Accordingly, the framework is positioned to help engineering programs continue to grow and connect with others across the country while also tailoring their instruction to the unique needs of their school communities. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (International Technology & Engineering Educators Association [ITEEA], 2020) organized the broader content for technology into three main areas. This included core disciplinary standards, technology and engineering practices, and technology and engineering contexts. These organizers are described in Table 7.2. The Standards for Technology and Engineering Literacy (2020) are now promoted by the ITEEA to be implemented across all states to inform the development and revision 87

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 7.1  Engineering Practices and Knowledge Domains Concepts DIMENSION

PRACTICE

Engineering Practice

Engineering Design

CORE CONCEPTS ● ● ● ● ●

Material Processing

●

● ● ● ●

Quantitative Analysis

●

● ●

Professionalism

● ● ●

DIMENSION

DOMAIN

Engineering Knowledge

Engineering Sciences

● ● ● ● ●

Engineering Mathematics Engineering Technical Applications

● ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

Problem Framing ● Decision Making Information Gathering ● Project Management Ideation ● Design Methods Prototyping ● Design Communication Engineering Graphics Measurement & ● Casting/Molding/Forming Precision ● Separating/Machining Manufacturing ● Conditioning/Finishing Fabrication ● Safety Material Classification Joining Computational ● System Analytics Thinking ● Modeling & Simulating Computational Tools Data Collection, Analysis, & Communication Professional Ethics ● Impacts of Technology Workplace Ethics ● Role of Society in Honoring Intellectual Technological Development Property ● Engineering-Related Careers AUXILLARY CONCEPTS Statics Mechanics of Materials Dynamics Thermodynamics Fluid Mechanics Engineering Algebra Engineering Geometry & Trigonometry Electrical Power Communication Technologies Computer Architecture Process Design Structural Analysis Environmental Considerations

● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

Mass Transfer & Separation Chemical Reactions & Catalysis Circuit Theory Heat Transfer Engineering Statistics Engineering Calculus Hydrologic Systems Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnics Chemical Applications Mechanical Design Electronics

of technology education programs today. The Framework for P–12 Engineering (2020) can be used in tandem to support the development of in-depth and authentic engineering learning initiatives as well as provide the curricular building blocks, or sequenced set of knowledge/subskills that students should master to reach the designated learning goals related to engineering and technological literacy. 88

Technology Education's Place in STEM

Figure 7.1  Example engineering performance matrix for one core concept related to engineering design.

Table 7.2  Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy Content Organization Core Disciplinary Standards ●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

Nature & Characteristics of Technology & Engineering Core Concepts of Technology & Engineering Integration of Knowledge, Technologies, & Practices Impacts of Technology Influence of Society on Technological Development History of Technology Design in Technology & Engineering Education Applying, Maintaining, and Assessing Technological Products & Systems

Practices ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Systems Thinking Creativity Making & Doing Critical Thinking Optimism Collaboration Communication Attention to Ethics

Contexts ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

●

Computation, Automation, Artificial Intelligence, & Robotics Material Conversion & Processing Transportation & Logistics Energy & Power Information & Communication The Built Environment Medical & Health-Related Technologies Agricultural & Biological Technologies

89

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Pedagogical Models and Curricula A common feature of the teaching of technology and engineering, or integrated STEM, is pedagogical practice related to design-based learning (Wells & Van de Velde, 2020). This involves planned instruction that enables learners to activate prior knowledge and construct new knowledge through the practice of designing solutions to problems. This pedagogical practice is often muddled with other popular approaches in STEM (i.e., problem-based learning and project-based learning). For example, project-based learning is often described as a teacher-structured approach where students learn specific concepts or demonstrate current competencies through the creation of a designated output. On the other hand, problem-based learning can be described as an approach that uses a problem as the focus and stimulus for learning new information. This approach can enable teachers to serve more as facilitators for learning and the instructional activities to incorporate more of the student’s voice in a self-directed problem-solving experience. However, through problem-based learning there may not be an explicit need to design a novel or innovative product or system as there is with design-based learning. As such, design-based learning has become a common feature of technology and engineering as well as STEM in general. There are a few examples of this type of instruction found within technology and engineering education such as:

●

●

●

Engineering Design-Based Lesson Plan Model: This is a model or template to support educators in identifying the authentic and rigorous engineering concepts and sub-concepts that they need/wish to teach, recognizing the progression in which to teach it, and crafting it within socially relevant and culturally situated contexts for the school community (see Table 7.3). Conceptual Framework for Integrated STEM Learning: This model demonstrates how educators can connect situated learning, engineering design, scientific inquiry, technological literacy, and mathematical thinking as an integrated system by using a community of practice (see Kelley & Knowles, 2016). PIRPOSAL Model: This model is a pedagogical framework intended for use as a guide for classroom implementation of integrative STEM education. This guides students and instructors through the elements of (P)roblem identification, (I) deation, (R)esearch, (P)otential solutions, (O)ptimization, (S)olution evaluation, (A)lterations, and (L)earning outcomes in the process of developing an engineering solution that will function as prescribed in the specifications of a social/human need (see Wells, 2016).

Oftentimes, the way in which technology and engineering education is implemented in the classroom is based upon curricular programs that are marketed to schools by curriculum vendors. In the United States there are a variety of curriculum vendors or providers

90

Technology Education's Place in STEM

Table 7.3  Engineering design-based lesson plan model (adapted from AE3 & ASEE, 2020). Engineering Design-Based Lesson Plan Model Lesson Content Elements: Lesson Contextual Elements ● ● ● ● ●

Overview/Purpose Engineering Concepts/STEM Standards Learning Objectives Enduring Understanding(s) Driving Question(s)

● ● ● ●

Socially Relevant Issue/Challenge/Problem Culturally Situated Context Career Connections Required Student Prior Knowledge & Skills

Lesson Plan Structure and Details Engage

Sets the context for what the students will be learning in the lesson as well as captures their interests in the topic by making learning relevant to their lives and community. Explore Enables students to build upon their prior knowledge while developing new understandings related to the topic through student-centered explorations. Explain Summarizes new and prior knowledge while addressing any misconceptions the students may hold. Engineer Requires students to apply their knowledge and practices to identify a problem and then design/make/evaluate/refine a viable solution. Evaluate Allows a student to evaluate their own learning and skill development in a manner that supports them in taking the necessary steps to master the lesson content and concepts.

that offer instructional materials and training for schools to purchase. All of the major curriculum providers in the technology and engineering education space specifically use engineering in the titles of their programs and courses. In most cases, there is minimal or no use of the word “technology” in these titles. This may be attributed to some of the earlier discussions in this chapter around the view of engineering as a discipline and technology not being seen as a true discipline within the STEM education landscape. Regardless, to highlight the programs related to technology and engineering that do exist in the United States, a summary of some popular curricular programs is provided: ●

●

●

Engineering Is Elementary: a program focused on bringing engineering, science, and computer science together in the early grade levels. This program consists of grade-specific titles such as wee engineering, engineering everywhere, and engineering adventures. Project Lead the Way Engineering: a program focused on empowering students to step into the role of an engineer and adopt a problem-solving mindset. This includes high school course titles such as principles of engineering, civil engineering & architecture, and engineering design & development. Engineering by Design: a comprehensive K–12 integrative STEM program delivered by ITEEA to help develop the next generation of innovators, designers,

91

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

●

and engineers. This includes course titles such as invention & innovation, foundations of technology, and engineering design. Engineering for US All: a high school program that provides curriculum to help students learn and demonstrate engineering principles, skills, and practices with opportunities for them to earn college credit.

Ongoing Opportunities Within the US STEM education landscape, there exist several challenges for technology and engineering, as well as the broader approach of integrated STEM pedagogy that presents ongoing opportunities for improving student learning. The first pertains to the equity of, and access to, high-quality technology and engineering learning. Unfortunately, in the United States a student’s exposure to this type of learning is too often left to chance based on where they live which is regularly linked to their family’s socio-economic status as well as demographics. As such, it is important to promote opportunities for all students to participate in technology and engineering programs and help them foster an appreciation of, and capabilities for, design, innovation, and engineering from an early age. In addition to access to learning, technology and engineering classrooms, as well as the related career fields, face biases that can create unwelcoming environments for underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, people with disabilities, and women. Therefore, an ongoing need is to determine effective ways to address equity and inclusion within classrooms in order to move toward democratizing technology and engineering learning and advancing a nation’s technological output designed for the whole of society. Accordingly, another need is for empirical evidence to showcase the influence of technology and engineering on student learning and the effectiveness of implementation efforts. This provides an opportunity for educators to become active in educational research. As seen in the context of the United States, another ongoing need is to clearly and actively communicate a coherent and relevant role of the subject within STEM. This can then be leveraged as an opportunity to establish authentic and in-depth learning experiences that intentionally scaffold across the grades and connect with post-secondary education. Taking this action can help to address the inconsistency and inequity issues related to technology and engineering education as well as spread awareness of its importance to the general literacy of all students. While addressing these opportunities is critical, building the capacity for continuing the teaching of technology and engineering within primary and secondary schools is a must. This includes determining not only what educators need to know and be able to do in order to be effective but also how to recruit and prepare them to be educators. The continual evolution of technology education has decimated the number of teachers prepared to teach the subject as well as the programs within universities designed to prepare them to do so (Volk, 2019). Therefore, an 92

Technology Education's Place in STEM

opportunity exists not only to spread awareness of the pathways to becoming a teacher but also by creating new approaches toward preparing people to teach technology and engineering concepts. As stated by Volk (2019) traditional technology and engineering teacher education programs are no longer relevant in the United States and for the most part are non-existent today.

Conclusion As seen in the context of the United States, technology education has had a complicated history that has been confounded by the introduction of the STEM education movement at the turn of the century. This has presented many challenges for the existing school subject to remain relevant within schools today. But, with every challenge an opportunity emerges. As educators, one can learn from the lessons of the past and be encouraged to take on these opportunities to influence the lives of students and better prepare them all for the future by supporting their development of technology and engineering literacy. So, regardless of where technology and engineering learning occurs in schools, let us continue to keep equity at the forefront of our teaching. Teachers of the subject need to strive for authenticity and depth in the learning experiences we create, continue to build upon the problem-solving capabilities of our students, leverage meaningful making experiences in our instruction, and make the effort to connect our classrooms with the interests, communities, values, and families of our students (AE3 & ASEE, 2020). Then, we as educators can continue to strive toward providing the best technology and engineering learning experiences for all students under the now broad umbrella of STEM education.

Notes 1 A subject’s epistemology can be described as the nature of, and the values and practices related to, the knowledge within the subject. 2 “Shop class” was a colloquial name used in the United States for the Industrial Arts school subject that represented its use of workshops to teach skills related to crafts such as woodworking and metalworking.

References Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education (2018). Engineering a national imperative: Phase 1 establishing content and progressions of learning in engineering. International Technology & Engineering Educators Association. https://www​ .iteea​.org​/Activities​/2142​/AEEE​_P12​/AEEEResources​/AEE​EPha​se1R​eport2018​.aspx. 93

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education & American Society of Engineering Education (2020). A framework for P-12 engineering learning: A defined and cohesive educational foundation for P-12 engineering. American Society of Engineering Education. https://doi​.org​/10​.18260​/1​-100​-1153​-1. Dakers, J. (2014). New frontiers in technological literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dearing, B., & Daugherty, M. (2004) Delivering engineering content in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(3), 8–11. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www​.iteea​.org​/STEL​.aspx. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, G. J. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. National Academy of Engineering (2017). Engineering technology education in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi​.org​/10​ .17226​/18612. National Science Foundation (2020). STEM education for the future: A visioning report. Alexandria, VA: Author. Strimel, G. J., Grubbs, M. E., & Wells, J. G. (2016). Engineering education: A clear decision. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 76(1), 19–24. Strimel, G. J., Huffman, T. J., Grubbs, M. E., Kim, E., & Gurganus, J. (2020). Establishing a taxonomy for the coherent study of engineering in secondary schools. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 10(1), 23–59. Tang, K. S., & Williams, P. J. (2019). STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education (Oxford), 7(3), 675–97. Volk, K. (2019). The demise of traditional technology and engineering education teacher preparation programs and a new direction for the profession. Journal of Technology Education, 31(1), 2–18. Wells, J. G. (2016). PIRPOSAL model of integrative STEM education: Conceptual and pedagogical framework for classroom implementation. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 12–19. Wells, J. G., & Van de Velde, D. (2020). Technology education pedagogy: Enhancing STEM learning. In Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools (Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, pp. 219–44). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Wicklein, R. (2006). 5 Good reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25–9. Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design &Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1).  https://ojs​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/DATE/ article/view/1590.

94

PART II

Technology Education in the Curriculum



96

Chapter 8

Introduction to Technology Education in the Curriculum David Wooff

Technology education occupies significantly different positions in the curriculum depending on where you are in the world. In some countries it occupies a dedicated space that follows from one phase of education to another (e.g., from primary education to secondary education, from elementary school to middle school to high school) where it resides in a national system designed to promote and nurture progression and higherorder thinking skills in technology education. In others, it is less defined and fights for space in an overcrowded and congested curriculum, marginalized to one side, or conflated with other subjects under the banner of “Creative” or “STEM” (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Irrespective of its place in the curriculum, or the local, regional, or national drivers which define its position. Technology education comprises a series of dimensions, all of which are interconnected to each other. This relationship (Figure 8.1) shows not only the interdependency of each on the other but also the significance that each has, or the void which would be left if one dimension was missing. This part of the handbook will explore each of these dimensions in turn, considering what they are, what they mean, and what significance they have in both defining technology education and the place technology education has in the curriculum. The interconnected nature of these dimensions illustrates the lack of a hierarchical system that places one above the other. For the sake of organization within this part of the handbook, these dimensions appear in the order illustrated in Figure 8.1 starting at the top of the diagram and going clockwise. The first dimension Thinking is covered in Chapter 9 by Belinda von Mengerson. She takes us through a journey considering what part thinking has to play in the process of design and realizing one’s ideas. Drawing on the seminal work of De Bono, with his thinking-hats, she digs into the concepts of creative (divergent) thinking, critical (convergent) thinking, and reflective (heuristic) thinking. She also considers what role Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has to play in this. Using these as foundations, she explores the ideas, and work, of many well-known protagonists in the areas of design and technology, and technology education. The chapter draws to an end by concluding that working within fixed curricula definitions which does not allow for flexibility

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 8.1  Dimensions of a technology education curriculum. and the furtherance, expression, and exploration of ideas by individual students will only limit and stifle their creative thinking. This chapter lifts the lid on elements that should be considered when designing any curricula framework to encourage and surface student creative thinking. Leading on from Thinking, the second dimension, Doing, is covered in Chapter 10 by David Morrison-Love. This chapter starts from the premise that doing is an absolute fundamental keystone within technology education because without it technology education would be the study of a subject about technology education rather than a subject that is studied with the aim of helping students master technology education so they can become technologists. The chapter presents three starting points: the interconnectivity between doing and thinking, the reliance of doing on developing knowledge, and understanding of materials, and the need for students to learn about technology in order to become proficient in its use. It concludes by drawing these perspectives together in order to better understand their symbiotic nature, which in turn ensures a coherent, stimulating, and rounded curriculum offering in technology education. The next dimension, Communicating, is covered in Chapter 11, where Yakhoub Ndiaye starts by setting out why communication is essential in the teaching of technology education and design and technology. He considers the nuances of technical communication and the significance of effective literacy-based instruction in order that students develop their own understanding in technology education, and also that they develop their own communication skills in this hugely significant area. It is clear from 98

Introduction to Technology Education in the Curriculum

this chapter, that in order for students to be able to understand both what is being asked of and from them while needing to be able to communicate their own ideas, thinking, and understanding. As Ndiaye concludes, communicating in technology education maters! Following on from communicating, the next dimension considered is Including which is covered in Chapter 12 by Franz Schroeer and Claudia Tenberge. In this chapter they contextualize inclusivity through effective curriculum design for technology education in German primary schools. Drawing on the UN Convention for Rights of Persons with disabilities and the current practice in German primary schools, the chapter also provides an overview of established curricular guidelines and subordinate proposals on curriculum development through the lens of inclusivity. Implications from the lack of consistency, and definition, around the term “inclusion” in German and international educational contexts emerges as the chapter progresses. The chapter concludes by considering the mechanisms needed for curricula change in order for technology education, and indeed the wider curriculum, to be capable of being fully “inclusive.” Eva Hartell considers the next dimension, Assessing, in Chapter 13. It is clear that assessing is a huge subject matter in its own right, covering vast volumes of texts stretching back over decades, and subject to equal debate and scholarly inquiry in the future. With this in mind, she focuses on the specific area of feedback in technology education, what the current state of feedback is, and how to “get it back on track.” Quality, quantity, and timeliness of feedback are discussed, along with a discussion of its proven success in supporting learning, when it is process- and task-oriented and focused on students’ metacognitive abilities. Considering feedback as part of a process, where feedback is used to modify a process and actually impact on the next step moving forward is an important thread which runs throughout this chapter. To this end, the chapter concludes by suggesting that in order to get feedback “back on track” this is an approach that must be both understood by both students and teachers and one that needs to be adopted—otherwise what is the purpose of providing feedback if it is not to be acted upon. The penultimate dimension, Collaborating, is covered in Chapter 14 by David Wooff, Ryan Beales, and Elizabeth Flynn. This chapter considers collaborating within disciplinary areas of technology education, for example, textiles technology and electronic products, as well as considering elements that share commonality across subject disciplines such as designing and making. It goes on to look at how technology education works in collaboration with cognate subject areas such as those covered in the subject of STEM and also wider collaboration with other curricula subjects. Having discussed these collaborations, the authors conclude that technology education provides a universal platform for collaboration with all other curricula subjects, which cements its position in a fully formed curriculum offering. The final dimension, Facilitating, is covered in Chapter 15 by Matt McLain and Sarah Finnigan-Moran. In it, they explore the place, and role, specialist classrooms take in enabling the facilitation of high-quality technology education. As well as covering the practicalities of subjects, including materials storage and handling and the use of 99

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

specialist tools and equipment, it also considers the role intelligent design plays in enabling spaces to manage risk. Following on from discussion of physical space, the chapter considers Wubbels’s six approaches to classroom management (behavioral, internal control, ecological, discourse centered, curricular, and interpersonal) and what part they play in the pedagogy of technology education. This leads nicely into the final discussion around the use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) and technology-enhanced learning (TEL). In conclusion, the authors outline the significance that specialist learning environments plays in enabling teachers, and curriculum designers, to plan and deliver an authentic learning experience in technology education. There is no way I can do justice to the knowledge, wisdom, and insight of the authors in this part of the handbook in such a brief introduction, however, I hope that I have been able to provide a very brief overview of the chapters in this part and show the coherence of them as being essential part of a balanced, yet stimulating and engaging curriculum. Each chapter clearly goes into much greater depth around its individual topic, or curricula dimension as I have termed them, but I hope that readers can see that each has the ability to be an expansive subject in its own right. As illustrated in Figure 8.1 the interconnectivity between the dimensions which form individual chapters in this part is undeniable, this of course leads to cross-over and cross-referencing between chapters which is to be anticipated when considering the holistic theme of Technology Education in the Curriculum. However, it is important to recognize that this only plays one part in the wider debate about technology education, its value, worth, and global presence, many of the other elements in this debate are covered throughout this handbook that brings together a unique group of authors who provide a global perspective, and insight, into this most important curriculum subject. Technology education is on an evolutionary journey, its place in the curriculum, aim, purpose, value, and worth are continually being challenged and redefined, regionally, nationally, and internationally. It is up to you, the reader, to add your contribution to the future of this subject, be that as a teacher, educator, curriculum designer, scholar, academic, policy maker, or employer; and hopefully this handbook, and this section, helps you to do exactly this.

100

Chapter 9

Thinking Nurturing Independent Design Thinking and Decision-Making Belinda von Mengersen

Introduction To design is to think. Thinking plays a crucial role in designing. Thinking accrues knowledge during design processes. Yet, the articulation of modes of design thinking in curriculum and guiding documents remains limited (Lewis, 2005, 2009). For instance, the cavalier way that creative and critical thinking are often expressed in curriculum rationale statements, as a keystone of design and technologies education—and yet, following documents including guides for teachers tend to lack full expressions of what is meant or expected in learning and teaching contexts in design and technologies education by creative thinking, assuming it will be spontaneously interpreted and applied by educators. Often, creative and critical thinking are casually linked, the two terms strung together in this way without thoughtful articulation of either of their use or their perceived role in design education contexts. Of the two thinking modes creativity is less clearly defined, as it is perceived to occur organically as opposed to critical thinking in which skills and dispositions are articulated, taught, and practiced in many domains. Yet, according to Wells, “creativity isn’t necessarily something that comes naturally. In schools it is something that may be considered serendipitous, but it must be nurtured, developed, inspired and inherent in pedagogical approach” (2013, p. 634). McGlashan observes that “the selection of strategies and implementation methods that engender creative responses in students, is usually left to an individual teacher’s interpretation” (2018, p. 377). Kimbell concluded “that there is no single definition for or description of design or design thinking” (Kimbell, 2009, p. 5) in the research on design thinking, and Lewis reflects that creative performance is not readily or completely captured by content standards (2005, p. 35). In this chapter, we will consider how thinking and ideation occur in design—through specific thinking processes, including creative, critical, and lateral thinking, ideation, and reflection.

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Models of Design Thinking Awareness of design processes, along with modes of design thinking that are used in designing, “provides a most advantageous methodology to guide teaching and learning” (McGlashan, 2018, p. 377) in design and technology education. Wells describes design as “the fusion of integrated thinking” and considers that “the most effective tool we can provide for our developing technologists is the ability to ‘think creativity like a designer’” (Wells, 2013, p. 627). While researchers and educators observe the formulaic limitations, stilted linearity, and sequential nature of design process models (Mawson, 2001; Wells, 2013) they remain a guiding tool for many educators. Design process models commonly appear in curriculum-shaping documents, where the intention is to enable educators to foster design thinking. One limitation of these models is that they attempt to simplify the acknowledged complexity of designing. Simple models of design processes implicitly require another layer of comprehension—an understanding of the various modes of design thinking that occur in design. So, while the limitations of design process models are acknowledged, they are used here to demonstrate how modes of design thinking work alongside designing processes. Once the modes of design thinking are perceived, can be articulated, and applied, increased self-efficacy in designing is more likely to emerge, enabling learners to construct their own knowledge. Ideally, the most effective models for designing are those that have been individualized, redesigned, or subsumed by the user. An educator or student equipped with a working knowledge of modes of design thinking can reconfigure them to develop an individual iterative design process. Design thinking modes become clearer when viewed individually or in relation to a model for a design process. Gardner is known for his theory of multiple intelligences (2006), prosing “five minds for the future” (2008), including the disciplined, synthesizing, creating, respectful, and ethical minds that all play a role in design cognition. According to McGlashan (2018) and Lewis (2005, 2009), it is the most obtuse of these which is the most vital but least established in design and technology education, the creating mind that “puts forth new ideas, asks and seeks answers to important un-asked questions” (Gardner, 2008, p. 156). In the double-diamond design process model (UK-Design-Council, 2021) several design thinking modes are implied (but not explicitly stated). A four-phase design model—the double-diamond (discoverdefine-develop-deliver)—was developed by the Design Council, UK, in 2005 (inspired by the Banathy divergence-convergence model, IDEO, and research into design thinking) to communicate design processes. A version of the double-diamond method is used widely in design education programs. This model provides a simple visual analogy for lateral thinking—balancing divergent (discover/develop) and convergent (define/deliver) thinking stages in repetition. The original double-diamond method outlined four phases, in which a design thinking mode can be attributed to each phase (Hambeukers, 2019):

102

Thinking

1. Discover: a deep dive into the problem we are trying to solve (divergent thinking). 2. Define: synthesizing the information from the discovery phase into a problem definition (convergent thinking). 3. Develop: think up solutions to the problem (divergent thinking). 4. Delivery: pick the best solution and build that (convergent thinking).

Sequence of the Original Double-Diamond Model At different stages during design processes, design thinking modes operate like a set of colored lenses. The idea of looking at a design problem through different lenses was conceptualized in Edward de Bono’s six thinking-hats: blue—organization and planning; green—creative thinking; red—feeling and instincts; yellow—benefits and values like optimism; back—risk assessment; and white—information gathering (2017). De Bono developed a thinking course based on the precept of lateral thinking as creative thinking in which the six thinking-hats act as practical lateral thinking tools in educational contexts. De Bono is credited for changing the perception of creative thinking as a random activity hinging on intuitive insight or momentary inspiration to something that can be actively fostered through a systematic thinking process. Consequently, De Bono’s six thinking-hats are one of the best-known strategies for developing creativity in education to enable design thinking. The value of De Bono’s model in this context is that it serves to make design thinking visible. Thinking in design requires the designer to look at different facets of a design problem through a range of different lenses (following the principles of user-centered design to consider the needs of an intended user in a specific context). In one statebased curriculum, in Australia for instance, these facets are described as product design factors, including user-centered design, innovation, creativity, sustainability, materials, and technologies (VCAA, 2017). A product design process model used in this curriculum includes the following stages: investigating and defining, design and development, planning and production, and evaluation. In this example, the facets are contemplated in the “research phase”: stage 1, investigating and defining; step 4— research (VCAA, 2017, p. 10). Two modes of thinking in design processes are creative (divergent thinking) and critical thinking (convergent thinking). We observe in Table 9.1 that stage 1, the investigating and defining stage, requires both creative and critical thinking modes as does stage 2, design and development, and so on. This is where the visual symbolism of the in-and-out (e.g., double-diamond) as an expression of shifting between convergent and divergent modes of thinking can support the clarification of how these modes of thinking work within design processes. As design thinking is non-linear, and many of the models imply linearity—it is important to consider how and where thinking processes intersect with models of design processes to enhance metacognitive awareness of processes in design. 103

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 9.1  Table Providing a Simple Visualization of Where Specific Design Thinking Modes Can Occur in Design Processes Models Design Process, Design Thinking Modes example 1 and Reasoning Double-Diamond Method Model developed by professional designers (2021)

Design Process, Design Thinking Modes example 2 and Reasoning VCAA (2017), The product design process: Stages and steps Model developed by curriculum designers for design education Discover, insight Creative Thinking Stage 1, Investigating Creative Thinking into the problem (divergent thinking) and defining, Step 4, (divergent thinking) Deductive reasoning Research Deductive and Inductive (Based on evidence Reasoning acquired from six (Based on evidence thinking-hats approach, acquired and logic observing the problem over-served from from different research into product viewpoints) design factors) Define, the area to Critical Thinking Stage 2, Design Creative Thinking focus on (convergent thinking) development, Step 5, (divergent thinking) Inductive Reasoning Visualizations Abductive Reasoning Develop, potential Creative Thinking Stage 2, Design Critical Thinking solutions (divergent thinking) development, Step 6, (convergent thinking) Abductive Reasoning Design Options Abductive Reasoning Deliver, solutions Critical Thinking Stage 4, Evaluation Reflective Thinking that work (convergent thinking) Step 10, Product (heuristic thinking) Evaluation Abductive Reasoning This table provides a simple visualization of where specific design thinking modes can occur in design processes models. These modes of thinking are not always explicitly defined or developed in the models but are often assumed.

If the aim of design models is to make design processes visible, this “visibility” can be used to indicate where design thinking modes operate at different points in design processes. For instance, a period of divergent thinking might be followed by a period of convergent thinking, design thinking being advanced by oscillating between the two distinctive modes of thinking (out-in-out-in, as in the diagram of a double-diamond). While models of design processes are used here to demonstrate the points at which different types of design thinking occur, they are not considered infallible or even entirely replicable. All models have limitations—the most common of which in design process models is a perceived linearity. However, the use of models as a guide—or support tool for design thinking—can be tempered by a critique of the model itself. Encouraging educators and students to redesign a model—after they have critiqued its limitations 104

Thinking

to better understand their own design thinking approaches and build metacognitive awareness is the aim. Models of design processes can serve as a guide for consideration of various design thinking modes, indicating stages in design processes in which they are applied. Biophilic design models (based on biomimicry) are also emerging in design and technologies education research literature offering alternative integrated and organic approaches (McGlashan, 2018). Lewis encourages us to “recognize design as a creative rather than rationalistic enterprise” (2005, p. 44). Retna (2016) and Wells (2013) concluded that often the models attempt to systematize and overly simplify complex processes requiring the synthesis of “many forms of knowledge, understanding and experience” (Morrison & Twyford, 1994, p. 10), and creativity (McGlashan, 2018; Rutland & Barlex, 2008)—concurring that both the individual attributes of the educator and the conditions for learning are more influential to learners than models of design processes. Our challenge as educators remains daunting: How do we foster designerly ways of thinking and knowing (Cross, 2006)?

Vocabulary of Design Thinking Development of a design thinking vocabulary including modes of design thinking, creativity, design reasoning, and knowledge, enabling nuanced communication of design thinking in education. These modes of and terms for design thinking have evolved through research into the thinking-in-action routines of design.

Modes of Design Thinking The role of thinking in design can be expressed through a range of design thinking modes, for instance three well-known modes are: ● ● ●

Creative thinking (divergent thinking) Critical thinking (convergent thinking) Reflective thinking (heuristic thinking)

And two emerging modes: ● ●

Design fictions (imaginative thinking) Speculative thinking (provisional thinking)

Please refer to the design thinking vocabulary at the end of this chapter for definitions of and references for these terms. 105

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Modes of Creativity Lewis (2005, 2009) presents a set of creative and “generative cognitive processes” (2009, p. 262) based on design and creativity research literature, and briefly described how each of these might be applied as pedagogical strategies in design and technologies education: ● ● ● ● ●

Metaphorical thinking Analogical thinking Combinatorial creation Divergent thinking Productive thinking

Mode of Design Reasoning ●

Abductive reasoning

Kimbell (2009), looking at themes of research in design thinking, outlined modes of reasoning and thinking in design, including abductive (Cross, 2006); inductive, deductive, and abductive (Dunne & Martin, 2006); balancing divergent and convergent thinking (Lawson, 2006); and designing new possibilities rather than selecting between alternatives (Boland & Collopy, 2004). Abductive reasoning is perceived to result from looking at different facets of design, lateral thinking from an oscillation between divergent and convergent thinking—and the goal of the principles of user-centered design being new possibilities. These design thinking and reasoning modes are echoed in many design thinking strategies.

Modes of Design Knowledge ● ● ● ●

Internal knowledge External knowledge Design-as-practice Designs-in-practice

Design knowledge can be described as a combination of internal (tacit or intuitive knowledge, more likely to be implicit) and external (logical or analytical knowledge, more likely to be explicit). Design knowledge can also be differentiated between the 106

Thinking

knowledge of designed objects and of design processes. Kimbell (2009) concluded that rather than the term “design thinking,” it would be clearer to observe design-aspractice—what we do when we are designing as distinct from designs-in-practice (or an ongoing state of design iteration) the designed object or system and its evolution.

Modes of Design Communication ● ●

Visual communication Dialogic communication

Ideation modes are visual or dialogic. Visual modes can be 2D or 3D, including “visualistions, concept sketches and drawings, mock-ups and 3D modelling of whole or part of potential ideas” (VCAA, 2017, p. 10). Dialogic modes can be written or verbal, refer to a glossary of design skills and mindsets (Goldman et al., 2012).

Paradoxes in Design Thinking While we observe the relationship between design thinking modes and models of processes for designing, design thinking because of its inherent invisible, “value creation” (Kimbell, 2009) or value-driven subjectivity, nuanced complexity and “composite nature” of creativity (Lewis, 2005, p. 37) remains contrary. One paradox of design thinking, and its attendant “modes” of thinking, is that in practice they don’t operate discretely. A theoretical separation of types of thinking helps us to articulate and understand their role in design initially, then, to consider how they intersect. Designers use different modes of design thinking (creative, critical, and reflective for example) at different times during a design process and crucially, in different ways. There is no fixed template for designing and no set formula for design thinking modes, Martin says “design thinking requires integrative thinking” as cited by Retna, (2016). In 2019 the Design Council released a new version of the double-diamond model called Framework for Innovation adding approaches to support innovation in design thinking, a set of guiding design principles with a caveat about design not being a linear process. This new model attempts to visualize a more conceptually complex approach. This approach reflects principles present in recently revised curriculum in design education, including:

1. 2. 3. 4.

User-centered design: “be people centered” Visual thinking: “communicate visually” Co-creation: “collaborate and co-create” Agile: “iterate, iterate, iterate” 107

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Sequence for the New Double-Diamond Model: Framework for Innovation The revised model is philosophy underpinned by principles of user-centered design and encourages exploration of phenomenological dimensions in design thinking which nurture “qualitative forms of intelligence inherent in design” (Wells, 2013, p. 625). What do we mean by qualitative forms of intelligence? Spendlove (2008) points to links between emotion and perception whereby “we think therefore we learn,” and Wells concurs, observing that “design requires emotional intelligence to be developed” (2013). The phenomenological dimensions of design have been articulated by Wells (2013) in the technology education context. Wells considers these to be essential elements in technological literacy—advising that curriculum content can be written (or interpreted) in two different ways, either it can “commit students to restricted processes (citing Kraft: solving the problem ‘correctly’) and content driven opportunities or positively engage creative thinking (solving the problem ‘creativity’)” (2013). The phenomenological dimensions that Wells refers to are linked to the aforementioned revised model and include collaborative (not individual) co-created knowledge (citing Goleman and the development of “emotional intelligence”) (2013, p. 630); intrapersonal/interpersonal, participatory systems, and forms of value in relation to user-centered design (2013, p. 632) and the IDEO user-centered approach to design thinking cultural anthropology— especially in terms of how designers empathize and communicate with their end-users (via six principles), cited by Wells (2013, pp. 632–3); this approach has been broadly outlined as having five phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. The imperative of the model is to aid problem-solving in design. In design and technologies education Lewis suggests that creativity might be enhanced if educators switch their focus initially to “problem finding” (or defining) rather than aiming to commence with “problem-solving” (Lewis, 2005, p. 42). When we visualize how different modes of thinking in design work—we observe oscillation between modes: creative-critical-reflective-critical. Design thinking modes and creative cognition processes (Lewis, 2005) don’t operate discretely—nor systematically and therefore cannot be satisfactorily affixed to one “stage” of a design process. Learning to design is learning to think for yourself. Therefore, understanding how design thinking modes can be applied and adapted to individual ways of thinking and working is vital. Design thinking modes are fluid, adaptable, and non-linear. While a model might show where a particular type of design thinking can be effective (lateral thinking at the outset for example) it is equally important to consider how a range of design thinking modes can be applied at any or all stages of a designing process. Design thinking as a holistic process occurs throughout the entire process of designing. Design thinking is an active mode of thinking often manifested through visual modes of communication, including making. Gibson describes how both intuitive and analytic modes of thinking are utilized in response to the complexities of design processes:

108

Thinking

“‘complexity cannot be reduced to simple, coherent and universally valid discourses.’ Not stable or objective, complexity emerges and evolves systematically but unpredictably” (2010, p. 8). Gibson describes how although the designer might be using two distinct modes of cognition—contrary to the slow arc through one mode of cognition (divergent then back to convergent) demonstrated in the design process models, “they need to be occurring almost simultaneously, firing off each other so that you can experience a kind of intelligent shimmer arising in an optimal state of acknowledgement which the design theorist Donald Schon calls ‘the action-present’” (2010, p. 9). This alternative way of contemplating design thinking becomes very clear when we consider the common pedagogical models used for capturing and assessing design thinking. Essentially, creating a folio “post-design-activity” does not mirror the way design thinking occurs. Richard Kimbell developed a narrate-alongside-design model to counter this, through and e-portfolio where the design documentation becomes “neither a container nor a reported story but is rather a dialogue” (2012). Kimbell echoes Gibson’s concept of the value of a designer-maker’s capacity to narrate their making process. The e-portfolio used by Kimbell allowed this narration to be captured in “real-time” in a “live” dialogic mode through video, observing, that while the captured information is not neat or ordered in any specific way it is a far more realistic presentation of the leaps of cognition during a design process where thinking goes together with making. McGlashan, focusing on the often-overlooked creative ideation phase stated that during this phase: “ideas are instigated, incubated, generated and manipulated . . . this phase is a much practiced, learned cognitive skill, which occurs at the onset of a design task although it also occurs as needed throughout processing to elevate thinking onto another plane” (McGlashan, 2018, p. 379). This phase, perhaps the least supported (McGlashan, 2018), is one of discovery, insight and is also fueled by emotion (Spendlove, 2008), hence, the challenge of communicating design thinking is further exacerbated. Design thinking is difficult to articulate—because, like creative thinking it is bound by phenomenological (reliant upon intuition), subjective value judgments—and like creativity has “an affective dimension” (Lewis, 2005, p. 45). Meaning that it is imperative for an individual to devise their own versions of design thinking modes in relation to the specific social context in which they are designing, along with a design thinking vocabulary to enable expression of both their intuitive impressions and practice experiences. For an overview of research on design as a holistic process, see Kimbell’s Table 1.1 research on design and design thinking (Kimbell, 2009, p. 6). This table demonstrates how interlinked the processes of design thinking is to all other facets of design activity and their specific contexts or what Lewis has described as the “composite nature of creativity” and creative cognition (Lewis, 2005, p. 37). Like, that illusive question: Can creativity be taught? It is the question itself which needs deconstructing—for, on face-value, it seems the answer is no. The answer is that creativity cannot be taught verbatim (by one person to another using a decisive method)—but the heuristic conditions for supporting it can be fostered in educational 109

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

contexts (Lewis, 2005; McGlashan, 2018; Rutland & Barlex, 2008; Stables, 2014). Yet, even when fostered, creative intelligence is honed through practice and is observed as idiosyncratic, intuitive, and reliant upon metacognition. Design thinking is difficult to articulate because the learning occurs through the practice—and abductive reasoning relies upon what you know through practice. Berger describes this in relation to the experience of drawing: “to draw is not only to measure and put down, it is also to receive” (Berger, 2005, p. 77). This insight seems vital to developing an understanding of design thinking—as dialogic (“characterized by the interactive nature of dialogue, in which multiple voices, discourses, etc. coexist, responding to and engaging with each other”) and, transitive (to design as a transitive verb)—a give-and-take process, whereby we learn through doing—but that the design and the designer are always changeable and transient as in “passing from one state to another” (OED). Lewis observes how this giveand-take is demonstrated cognitively, affirming that “across domains creative people share common cognitive characteristics such as the ability to think metaphorically and flexibly, the ability to recognize good problems in their fields, and the willingness to take intellectual risks” (2005, p. 37).

Creative Design Thinking Conceptualizations and applications of creativity are illusive (Lewis, 2005) and personal, to design is to create in dialogue with creative ideation and iteration, then focusing on design-as-practice is useful for fostering thinking in design in an educational context where the aim is “teaching for creativity” (Rutland & Barlex, 2008, p. 141). Rutland and Barlex confirm that teachers impact creativity through a dynamic engagement with their students (2008, p. 140). They observed how creativity was fostered through a domainsocial process (p. 143) where “open” versus “closed” design activities were proposed (p. 146), allowing opportunities for low-risk experimentation (p. 149), thinking time (p. 150), and dialogue; essential, where designing was seen as a heuristic activity in which a series of “what-if?” questions are posed (p. 159). They “considered that pupils should be taught to communicate and develop their ideas through a range of strategies” (p. 158) and indicated that research participants suggested that considering alternative types of design documentation would support these findings. Is not design thinking— thinking through making? Reflecting upon design thinking oscillating between creative and critical thinking leads to a question about how this might inform assessment.

Creative Ideation We design in our own way based on knowledge, context, experience, values, emotions, and opportunities for dialogue. Clarifying cognitive development during creative 110

Thinking

ideation, McGlashan cites Robbins and Aydede (2009, p. 3) who “identified three different events that occur during a situated cognition learning experience: embodiment, embedding and extension” (2018, p. 381). What is the relationship between iteration and creative ideation? Design is developed through iteration, and ideation makes iteration visible during “thinking-routines” (McGlashan, 2018). Design thinking evolves iteratively through creative ideation. Design thinking in education contexts observes and assesses the evidence of iteration. However, attempts to foster creativity are often located only at the outset of a task, not revisited during different stages of a design process, nor reflected upon; and this contributes to a noted difficulty in assessment of creativity. For example, a mind map not only is useful for initial generation (to encourage divergent thinking) but can be revisited through reflection—(to encourage convergent thinking), and mind-maps or similar creativity strategies can be applied during other stages of a design process where iteration may have stalled. Based on research into making thinking visible in learning, Ritchhart et al. describe a “routine” for concept mapping as “Generate-Sort-Connect-Elaborate” (2011, p. 47). Contrary to most design process models, it is not the initial mind mapping that is the most important step, it is what happens next—and how that is facilitated. For instance, taking a mind map—and working back into it (often this is used as a generative task at the beginning of a project—but not extended, or teased out, tested, or further developed in any significant way). Or, similarly taking a design process diary—and building another (reflective) layer into it with post-it notes for instance. It is the revisiting and refining or evidence of iteration that demonstrate design thinking. Wells, citing Epstein (2008), considers that there are four core competencies of creative expression. “People need to preserve their new ideas (capturing), surround themselves with interesting people and things (surrounding), tackle tough problems (challenging) and expand their knowledge (broadening)” (2008, p. 26). “Csikszentmihalyi (1990) highlights the interaction of individual, domain and field” (Wells, 2013, p. 634). Rutland and Barlex used this to develop a three-feature model for creativity, including domainrelevant features, process-relevant features, and social/environmental features (2008, p. 143). Wells concluded that “design thinking and appreciation is something that should be carefully nurtured from an early age, not dissimilar to language development and be included in all areas of education and especially in technological literacy” (Wells, 2013, p. 634). In this way design thinking mirrors our understanding of how knowledge and language are developed and how these understandings culminate in technacy. Technacy, conceptualized by Seemann, is defined as “the ability to understand, communicate and exploit the characteristics of technology to discern how human technological practice is necessarily a holistic engagement with the world that involves people, tools and the consumed environment, driven by purpose and contextual considerations” (2009, pp. 117–18) and clarifies the scope of learning in technologies design education. Lewis concluded that “beyond the provision of domain knowledge, schools can enhance [creativity] if classroom environments support and facilitate risk taking, problem posing, individual learning and thinking styles, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation” 111

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

(2005, p. 42), echoing the findings of other researchers. Thus, supporting creative ideation across a latitude of design practices in education remains our challenge, aiming to reduce compartmentalization of design processes and consider flexible inclusive approaches that mirror our aspirations for students’ potential.

Reflective Design Thinking A second paradox is the inherently individual, invisible, internal “embodied” (Robbins & Aydede, 2009, p. 3) nature of thinking in design processes. If design is innately driven by thinking—a uniquely individual, oblique, “silent” (Lewis, 2005) process, inherently guided by the lived experience of an individual indeterminate in relation to time, and drawn from tacit and haptic knowledge. Design thinking modes, especially the oblique and subjective, are difficult to define and articulate. Reflective thinking has been used effectively in design education as a way of observing what has been learned and undertaking a process of making internal dialogue visible. Wells reminds us that “design is a creative, dynamic, interactive and reflective activity” (2013, p. 625). Awareness of the inherent paradoxes in design and design thinking supports a dialogic approach to understanding and fine-tuning an individualized application of design thinking modes. Design thinking is dialogic in nature—historically that thinking has been perceived to be internal—where the designer is in conversation with an “object” and themselves, however, more recently, the dialogic evolution of design thinking is seen to be collegial in response to a social context or need rather than a specific object, and that the designed object or system which solves the problem or addresses the need evolves through a design community. Therefore, we need to ask: What is our collective aim in education in relation to teaching design thinking modes? Is our aim to assist students to enhance their metacognitive awareness and to think more about their thinking processes by using an understanding of various design thinking modes that help them to make their thinking more visible? Moon considers that “reflection seems to lie somewhere around the process of learning and the representation of that learning” (2007, p. 4) and that “it is seen as a means of transcending more usual patterns of thought to enable the taking of a critical stance or an overview” (2007, p. 5). Perhaps most importantly for design thinking is that it seems to have alacrity when “applied in situation where material is ill-structured or uncertain in that it has no obvious solutions, a mental process that seems to be related to thinking and to learning” (2007, p. 6). As a way for a designer to help themselves construct knowledge through awareness—to become more metacognitively aware of their own experiential learning and the evolution of their ideas. There are many tools and models available for fostering reflective thinking alongside critical discussions of its value in learning. Yet, often reflective thinking practices aren’t explicitly taught or modeled to students by educators, only implied. Moon has developed tools to assist 112

Thinking

educators, including “a diagram to visualize the stages of development in reflection (2007, p. 35) and developed a series of pieces of writing to show stages in reflective writing” (2009). Reflective thinking and writing strategies can reveal a students’ own thinking to them during designing processes.

Design Thinking: Another Paradox For a design model or creative ideation (McGlashan, 2018) strategy to really make sense and become “embedded,” students need to redesign them to suit their own purposes and context, thus demonstrating cognitive “extension” (Robbins & Aydede, 2009, p. 3) a third paradox in design thinking. While students can learn about a variety of approaches from models, a more thoughtful awareness through attempts to understand their own thinking is necessary. Encouraging students to critique models that make their design thinking visible empowers them to teach themselves how to think, evolve their designing processes, and refocus their attention on the challenge of “problem finding, problem definition and redefinition” (Lewis, 2005, p. 37) as the essence of design thinking capability. Embodied knowledge (Robbins & Aydede, 2009, p. 3) in design contexts can also be understood as a form of procedural knowledge “as contrasted with declarative knowledge” and better presented by performance rather than verbal explanation. However, it can also be helpful to consider these thinking modes as not mutually exclusive—that in fact design cannot be systematized in that way. Gibson (2010) describes the thinking processes of creatives as one of a “high–speed–flickering” or constant interplay between analytical and intuitive modes of thought. So, what is deeply subjective in design processes is not only lived experience including tacit or haptic knowledge but the speed of “flicker” between different modes. Indicating a capacity for self-awareness and critique of their own perceptions of design thinking modes needs to be activated in students. Students in design often describe themselves as “visual-learners”—and this awareness helps them to understand how they learn. If developing a unique design approach is about visualizing design thinking—then it is deeply linked to how we learn, and the methods we use to model ideas and concepts. Students can adapt them and make them their own—encourage them to acquire, apply, and adapt design thinking modes to suit their own understanding of how they learn. This discussion can be supported by Riding & Rayner’s (1998, p. 9) visual model of learning preferences, including four dimensions: visual to verbal on one plane; and holistic to analytic on the other; and Gardner’s multiple intelligences (2006). Another facet of learning—related to students’ capacity in design thinking is opportunities to rehearse judgment, decision-making, and the abductive reasoning required in design. While design thinking modes can foster the development of ideas, decision-making remains a crucial step. Convergent, critical, and reflective thinking require value-based judgments in design. Whilst decision-making in design may be partially intuitive, the designer’s rationale still needs to be communicated 113

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

in a cogent way, and an inability to take small or large decisions can chronically impede design thinking. In two studies, “whilst most teachers felt that students should be given more decision-making opportunities, they did not offer any kind of formal instruction,” like other design thinking modes the expectation was implicit but possible strategies for how to develop these skills were not explicitly developed (Thorsteinsson & Olafsson, 2016). Students who can critique models of design processes should also have the courage to make their own design decisions, and consciously incorporate various modes of design thinking in unique models for designing suited to open-ended problems. The attribute of making judgments in design aligns to what McGlashan described as the aim of technology education, “attributes that include perceptive, critical, creative and informed decision making” (2018, p. 377).

Creativity Card Games Many designers (Acaroglu, 2019; IDEO, 2018) and educators use creativity card games, as a way of developing their ideas individually and in collaboration with peers. So, instead of “teaching” student’s theories of creativity, I ask them to design a creativity card game for designers or design students that will enable them to expand their ideas. During this learning task, students design the game, play it with their peers, and then, revise or redesign their game. A reflective report articulates their understanding of creative thinking and reflects upon their adaptation of creativity strategies and theories of creativity. In this task, students are encouraged to link their understanding of creativity and creative thinking to their understanding of design, asking them to consider how the two mirror, complement and enrich each other. Reminding them of what they already implicitly know about design processes through their subjective experiences—and ask them to reflect upon what Kimbell calls their “provisional knowledge” (R. Kimbell, 2011, p. 7). Also, of course, to consider how they think—asking themselves, what can assist them to shift beyond an initial idea and think more divergently. Then, what helps them to synthesize and focus their ideas and make design decisions. Richard Kimbell, however, reminds us that this is actually what we do in design thinking: “What we do is formulate a view of knowing that empowers learners to take action with provisional knowledge—and that encourages them to refine and deepen that knowledge in response to the demands of the task. So we have deliberately transposed the issue of ‘knowing’ stuff into the business of ‘finding-out-about’ stuff ” (2011, p. 7).

Speculative Design Thinking In speculative design thinking many complex intersections of design thinking can be observed, for example students might design products required by anthropocentric 114

Thinking

characters or users living in post-apocalyptic contexts. This design thinking mode has been used by some educators to support a critical approach to future-focused design in which we ask students to contemplate preferred futures considering issues, including sustainability and emerging technologies. With speculative design thinking, or “design futuring” (Fry, 2009), a greater degree of synthesis is required than with other modes. For instance, speculative design thinking requires students to work more consciously with provisional knowledge (R. Kimbell, 2011), because speculative design occurs in response to a (partly research-informed, partially hypothetical-design context) situated in a fictional (often future-focused dystopian or utopian world). Researchers who have examined design fictions (Hardy, 2018; McLain et al., 2017; Stables, 1992) and speculative thinking (von Mengersen, 2018) in design and technologies education have described how this mode can enable a critical discussion of emerging technologies. For instance, asking students to think—and imagine the possible outcomes of disruptive technologies in an “open” design process. Augur and Hanna (2016) developed a threestage framework for design fiction: (1) establishing the coordinates of reality, (2) creating a fictional story world, and (3) designing in the fictional world. Through the creation of character and narrative, students experience another kind of embodied knowledge because we are asking them to imagine—to visualize probable or possible futures and make critical value-based judgments.

Conclusion This chapter concludes by reiterating the initial question: As educators how can we foster design thinking? Overall, while there are many strategies for fostering design thinking, including the most elusive mode—creative thinking, along with many models for design processes—we observe that this is what they remain, someone else’s model unless the individual redesigns it for themselves. If the role of a model for designing is to make thinking visible, then the “model” cannot be static—instead it should be “live” and continue to evolve with its author, the individual student, as their design thinking moves through modes of creative cognition (Lewis, 2005), including embodiment, embedding, and extension (Robbins & Aydede, 2009, p. 3). This conclusion mirrors design education research findings that advocate helping students to develop ways to construct their own knowledge. It does beg the question of why we need to lock-in the models used in curricula, for example. But this makes sense too—because we also observe how helpful it is to start with a model, the problem arises if that model is seen as infallible and static. Dynamic responses are key to design evolution—and as educators we recognize design as fluid and inherently flexible. We consider that “good” design processes oscillate between modes of design thinking, including creative, critical, and reflective thinking. We acknowledge that creative impulses underpin momentum in design, and that creativity 115

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

and creative cognition are composite (Lewis, 2005). If we can find ways to model these modes of thinking, allowing students to interpret, apply, and adapt, and redefine them for their own purposes, our overarching aim of fostering skills for lifelong learning will be better served. Richard Kimbell reminds us that all design thinking is provisional (R. Kimbell, 2011)—inferring that as educators we need to foster students’ ability to be present in a speculative zone. To nurture independent design thinking and decision-making it is necessary for students to experience more design thinking modes so that they will be empowered to redesign models that they encounter and ask themselves how does design thinking work for me? As educators we need to be aware of what is being assumed in our current curricula—creative thinking, critical thinking, reflective thinking, and decisionmaking—to make it more explicit in our teaching. For, if we can find ways that assist students to make their own thinking visible, this provides them with the tools (including metacognitive awareness) for increasing their own creative cognizance and self-efficacy in design.

Tools for Enhancing Design Thinking Glossary: A Vocabulary for Design Thinking A glossary of terms is included here to assist with nuances of design thinking language. Enabling students to think independently relies upon their acquisition of language and terminology to articulate their design thinking. Design language contains some oblique terms that require unpacking and assimilation. As we encourage our students to make their thinking visible, an expanded design vocabulary enabling their use of more specific and descriptive words and terms as well as diagrams will support their ability to communicate their unique approaches to design thinking. Creative: “Inventive, imaginative; of, relating to, displaying, using, or involving imagination or original ideas as well as routine skill or intellect.” Epstein described four creative competencies of creative expression: capturing, surrounding, challenging, and broadening (cited by Wells, p. 634). (For a technology education-specific creativity framework, refer to Lewis, 2005). Combination thinking: “involves merging two ideas or concepts into a third such that the resulting synthesis is autonomous and of utility in its own right” using association (Lewis, 2009, p. 264). Metaphorical thinking: “allows one to make conceptual leaps across domains from a source to a target, such that a new situation can be characterized and understood by reference to a familiar one” (Lewis, 2009, p. 264). 116

Thinking

Analogical thinking: “special types of metaphors where a structural feature from a base domain is mapped onto a new domain” (Lewis, 2009, p. 264). Critical: “involving or exercising careful judgement or observation; nice, exact, accurate, precise, punctual; occupied with or skillful in criticism.” Thinking: “To form or hold in the mind (an idea, image, or intuition); to carry out (something) a mental operation.” Declarative knowledge: “Awareness and understanding of factual information about the world—knowing that in contrast to knowing how” (Oxford_Reference). Lateral (thinking): “of or relating to the side or sides; situated at or issuing from the side or sides (of a person or thing); towards the side, directed sideways.” Divergent: “following different routes, lines of action, or of thought; deviating from each other from a standard or normal course or type.” “Divergent thinking requires a mindset that more than one solution to a puzzle is possible” (Lewis, 2009, p. 263). Convergent: “including toward each other, or toward a common point of meeting; tending to meet in a point of focus.” Abductive reasoning: “abductive reasoning, or abduction, is making a probable conclusion from what you know; making probably conclusions from what you know; (an inference based on observation).” Inductive reasoning: “of relating to, or employing logical induction; (reliant upon logic and probability).” Deductive reasoning: “of relating to, or provably, by deriving conclusions by reasoning: of, relating to, or provable by deduction; an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises; (reliant upon deductive logic, to deduce from).” Reflective (thinking): “given to deep or careful thought; proceeds from or is the result of careful thinking, typically influenced by recollection of one’s past experiences; considered, measured.” Ideation: “the formation of ideas or mental images of things not present to the senses; the creation of new ideas.” (For strategies on creative ideation, refer to McGlashan, 2018.) Metacognition: “awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes, esp. regarded as having a role in directing those processes; a metacognitive perception, notion or intuition.” Heuristic: “of, relating to, or enabling discovery or problem-solving, esp. through relatively unstructured methods such as experimentation, evaluation, trial and error, etc.” 117

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Of psychology: “Designating or relation to decision making that is performed through intuition or common sense.” Of education: “Of or relation to an educational method or resource that enables students or children to learn by making discoveries for themselves, rather than being directed.” Speculative (thinking): “based upon, characterized by, speculation or theory in contrast to practical or positive knowledge.” Provisional: “of belonging to, or of the nature of a temporary provision or arrangement, provided or adopted for the time being supplying the place of something regular, permanent, or final.” Tacit (embodied knowledge): “not openly expressed or stated, but implied; understood, inferred.” Haptic (knowledge): “relating to the sense of touch, the perception of position and motion (proprioception), and other tactile and kinaesthetic sensations; having a greater dependence on sensations of touch and kinaesthetic experiences than on sight, esp. as a means of psychological orientation.” Qualitative: “of or relating to quality or qualities; measuring or measured by the quality of something” (in reference to “qualitative forms of intelligence inherent in design thinking” Wells, p. 634). Phenomenological (method, as outlined by Husserl): “description and analysis of phenomena as they are directly experienced; any method of clarifying phenomena by careful analytic description of the way they are subjectively experienced or apprehended.” (For insight into phenomenological perspectives on design thinking, refer to Wells, 2013). All definitions not individually cited are from Oxford English Dictionary.

Precepts for Design Thinking A list of precepts for fostering design thinking for educators to consider: ● ●

●

●

118

“a” design process, or design processes (plural) rather than “the” design process; consider models of design processes so that you can redesign them to suit your own purposes and context, acquire–apply–adapt; decision-making, including the development of unique evaluative criteria to measure against; quality judgments in design;

Thinking

● ●

● ● ● ●

learning modes; formative feedback needs something tangible to respond to it, abstract ideas require testing; conversational and social modes; communicating design thinking—dialogic methods rather than writing; reflection; making thinking visible, strategies for visualizing design thinking modes.

Designing Design Processes Design thinking modes are most effective when they can be articulated, visualized, adapted, and applied by students—essentially defining their own unique processes of designing aligned to what they perceive to be their own unique ways of thinking. This process is responsive to—contingent upon their experiential learning. ●

● ●

● ● ●

Develop a vocabulary for design thinking, an ability to articulate various design thinking modes. Observe how these design thinking modes can be used in design processes. Consider how they might be adapted, modified, or redesigned to meet specific contexts and individual needs. Analyze how they enable design thinking to become more visible. Sit with an open-ended approach, consider design provisional. Develop autonomy in design decision-making.

References Acaroglu, L. (2019). Design play cards. https://www​.leylaacaroglu​.com​/toolkits​/design​-play​ -cards. Auger, J., & Hanna, J. (2016). Three stages of design fiction (energy futures, part 2). https:// crapfutures​.tumblr​.com​/post​/150957611069​/three​-stages​-of​-design​-fiction​-exploring​-energy. Berger, J. (2005). And our faces, my heart, brief as photos. London: Bloomsbury. Boland, R., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. De Bono, E. (2017). Six thinking hats. UK: Penguin. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–23. Epstein, R. (2008). Let your creativity soar. Scientific American Mind, 19(3), 24–31.

119

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics, and new practice (English ed.). Oxford and New York: Berg. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences new horizons (Completely rev. and updated. ed.). New York: BasicBooks. Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gibson, R. (2010). The known world. Text, 8, 1–11. Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., . . . Kim, J. (2012). Assessing d. learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 13–33). Berlin: Springer. Hambeukers, D. (2019). The new double diamond design process is here. Design Leadership Notebook. https://medium​.com​/design​-leadership​-notebook​/the​-new​-double​-diamond​-design​ -process​-7c8f12d7945e. Hardy, A. (2018). Using design fiction to teach new and emerging technologies in England. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 78(4), 16–20. http://ezproxy​.acu​.edu​.au​/login​?url​=https:/​ /search​.ebscohost​.com​/login​.aspx​?direct​=true​&db​=a9h​&AN​=133398159​&site​=ehost​-live​ &scope​=site. IDEO. (2018). The human centered design toolkit. https://www​.ideo​.com​/post​/design​-kit. Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. Paper presented at the CRESC Conference, Manchester, UK. Kimbell, R. (2011). Wrong . . . but right enough. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(2), 6–7. Kimbell, R. (2012). The origins and underpinning principles of e-scape. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 123–34. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-011​-9197​-x. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. London: Routledge. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity - A framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 35–52. https://doi​.org​/10​ .21061​/jte​.v17i1​.a​.3. Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255–68. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-008​-9051​-y. Mawson, B. (2001). Beyond design: A new paradigm for technology education. In AARE 2001 Conference Paper [Paper code: MAW01574]. AARE: Australian Association for Research in Education. AARE 2001 Conference - Fremantle, Australia December 2–6. https://www​.aare​ .edu​.au​/data​/publications​/2001​/maw01574​.pdf. McGlashan, A. (2018). A pedagogic approach to enhance creative ideation in classroom practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 377–93. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-017​-9404​-5. McLain, M., McLain, M., Tsai, J., Martin, M., Bell, D., & Wooff, D. (2017). Traditional tales and imaginary contexts in primary design and technology: A case study. Design and Technology Education, 22(2), 26–40. Moon, J. A. (2007). Reflection in learning & professional development: Theory & practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Morrison, J., & Twyford, J. (1994). Design: Capability and awareness. Essex: Longman. Oxford_Reference. Declarative Knowledge (Publication no. 10.1093/oi/ authority.20110803095705926). (9780191726828). Retrieved 2021, from Oxford University Press https://www​.oxfordreference​.com​/view​/10​.1093​/oi​/authority​.20110803095705926. Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “design thinking”: A study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(Supp1.), 5–19. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02188791​.2015​ .1005049. 120

Thinking

Riding, R. J., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutland, M., & Barlex, D. (2008). Perspectives on pupil creativity in design and technology in the lower secondary curriculum in England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 139–65. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-007​-9024​-6. Seemann, K. W. (2009). Technacy education: Understanding cross-cultural technological practice. In J. Fien, R. Maclean, & M. Park (Eds.), Work, learning and sustainable development (pp. 117–31). Dordrecht: Springer. Spendlove, D. (2008). We feel therefore we learn: The location of emotion in the creative and learning experience (Part 1). Paper adapted from the Keynote presented on 5 July at the Design and Technology Association Education and International Research Conference 2007. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(3). Stables, K. (1992). The role of fantasy in contextualising and resourcing design and technological activity. IDATER 1992 conference. Loughborough: Loughborough University, UK. https://dspace​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/2134​/1610. Stables, K. (2014). Designerly well-being: Implications for pedagogy that develops design capability. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 19(1), 9–20. Thorsteinsson, G., & Olafsson, B. (2016). Piloting technological understanding and reasoning in Icelandic schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(4), 505–19. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-015​-9301​-8. UK-Design-Council. (2021). Double diamond design process. https://www​.designcouncil​.org​ .uk/. VCAA. (2017). VCE product design and technology 2018–2022. https://www​.vcaa​.vic​.edu​.au​/ Documents​/vce​/technology​/Pro​duct​Desi​gnTe​chnology​_SD​_2018​.pdf. von Mengersen, B. (2018). Speculative writing: Enabling design thinking. Paper presented at the 36th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference. Wells, A. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 23(3), 623–36. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-012​-9207​-7.

121

Chapter 10

Doing Skills, Knowledge, and Understanding in Conceptual, Theoretical, and Practical Contexts David Morrison-Love

Introduction Doing sits at the very heart of technology education. It is fundamental. To omit doing is to tell only half of the story of technology education and, in practice, would limit pupils to learning about technology, rather than learning to become technologists. Doing, however, is a very broad notion and could be understood in any number of ways. For example, the very agency that pupils and teachers bring to a technology classroom—or any classroom for that matter—comprises forms of doing. When pupils undertake desk research into different material properties to make design decisions, they are, arguably, cognitively engaged in the act of doing things. The risk here, it seems, is that the notion of doing might be so broad as to tell us nothing meaningful about learning in technology education. A fundamental aim of this chapter is therefore to understand “doing” in the context of this subject area, its conceptualization in curricula, and ultimately its role in shaping how pupils think, understand, and become more technologically capable in the technology classroom. The idea of “doing” in technology education is not new. In some countries, the formalization of technology into a modern curricular subject happened in response to shifts in agricultural needs; the imperative for people to become better at its many practical processes (or wider manual skills and processes seen as important, often for boys to develop). At the time, this served the obvious requirements for food production and supported wider societal and economic development. Since that time, there has always been some level of socio-technical influence on what pupils “do” in technology education. On the one hand, this has granted a pervasive and endearing authenticity to the subject. But on the other hand, it has, in time, led to tensions in how we position technology education—and how people value notions of doing. In countries like Scotland, where the lineage of technology

Doing

education has an agricultural dimension, the forms of doing most valued were those that reflected and cultivated important agricultural skills. In the United States, manual arts sought to both develop manual skills and more fully engage boys in schooling. Over time, this has changed. The subjects of contemporary technology education are not designed, or intended, to prepare pupils for specific jobs as they once were. They provide more holistic learning as academic rather than vocational qualifications, but nonetheless retain an important level of authenticity. It is not hard, for example, to recognize the authenticity in learners using the same 3D modeling software as would be found in industry, or the same machines, processes, and manufacturing technologies. This will remain immensely valuable. But what pupils are doing in technology education moves beyond vocational utility; something that is not always recognized or sufficiently understood. Impoverished and naïve assumptions might see doing as simply “making stuff,” which is also to de-value the rich and fundamental ways in which pupils make meaning and develop their own technological knowledge and capability. So, what forms of doing does this chapter regard as important for the thinking and practice of technology education? This chapter proposes one way of thinking about doing that aligns it with practical, experiential forms of learning in the subject and is based upon three key starting points. These serve as conceptual anchor points and will frame discussion and considerations made throughout the rest of this chapter. The first is that it is not possible in practice to separate thinking from doing, although the philosophical discourse offers rich insights and perspectives on the nature of the mind– body relationship. Powerful forms of doing in technology education bring together the hand, the head (and the heart). The second starting point is that to be valuable for technological knowledge and capability, doing must have some form of association with materials. This does not preclude the other essential and “non-material” forms of doing in technology education classrooms, but it does require that materials occupy particular roles in key aspects of pupil learning. They are part of the practical contexts in which pupils think and learn. The third and final starting point argues that effective forms of doing should allow pupils to learn to create and/or understand technology. As creators of technology, pupils engage in different forms of doing to move from concept to technical solution. To understand technology, pupils can use forms of doing to develop their conceptual knowledge and understanding through modeling, exploration, and reflection. Indeed, modeling as a form of doing can allow pupils to build toward equilibrium (Seery, 2017) by iterating between their own cognitive model and its material analogue. In a self-supporting way, as pupils gain experience through doing, they become yet more effective in both creating and understanding technology. This is, in the experiential sense, a rich form of learning-by-doing. For the purposes of this chapter, and from this point forward, “doing” will therefore be understood in terms of these three starting points: its inseparability from thinking and materials, as well as for its dual purposes of creation and understanding. What makes it distinct from other forms of doing is that by engaging with it, pupils are better placed to develop important forms of technological knowledge that cannot be acquired in other ways. 123

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

The remainder of this chapter comprises four sections. Collectively, these seek to develop an understanding of doing, and approaches to foster it, that have value for learning and teaching in technology education. This is done with particular attention to the three key starting points. To better understand the role of doing in developing technological capability and ways of thinking, the first section considers the relationship between doing and technological knowledge. In doing so, the three key starting points are also fleshed out to paint a fuller picture of what powerful forms of doing might look like for technology education. The second part explores how ideas of doing represented and understood in curriculum policy, one of the core message systems in education. The third part considers the role that craftsmanship plays in doing and the influence it has on the less cognitive aspects of learning including pride and ownership. The final section exemplifies doing at the classroom level from the perspective of pedagogy. It begins by thinking more broadly about pedagogy and doing, before presenting two different teaching and learning scenarios that were purposefully designed to foster learning through powerful forms of doing. Collectively, it is intended that these four parts provide a basis for critically reflecting upon how doing is understood and supported technology education. The chapter concludes by summarizing key ideas and invites readers to critically reflect on these as part of their own thinking and professional practice.

Doing, Technological Knowledge, and Purpose One reason why it is important to hold onto more developed ideas of doing technology education is that it affords greater agency in how teachers foster pupils’ technological knowledge. It is not actually possible to separate the doing in technical activity from the knowledge it gives rise to, but it would be folly to think this serendipitous. Two related areas of thinking allow this to be explored more fully. Each of these areas unpack a little more of the three key starting points. The first is that technological knowledge can be understood as something that simultaneously shapes and arises from technological activity. The second is that if pupils are to create technology, then they must have opportunities to create that which extends or enhances human capabilities in some way. The nature of technological knowledge has received significant attention in the technology education literature. This has been fueled by both the intrinsic fascination of the idea of technological knowledge, as well as its potential for shaping wider understandings of technology education. Among other things, it is understood to involve conceptual, procedural, declarative, and conditional dimensions (Buckley et al., 2019), each of which may take more explicit or implicit forms. The way in which these are defined varies within the literature and, in practice, they are often heavily interdependent and can be challenging to separate. Conceptual knowledge is typically thought of as knowledge of the nature of the relationships between different things, such as different parts of a technical system. In developing procedural knowledge, a pupil will know the steps involved in carrying out different processes to achieve particular outcomes, while 124

Doing

declarative knowledge is descriptive knowledge of things that remains fairly constant over time. Conditional knowledge occupies a form of executive or metacognitive role and involves knowing when is best to use other forms of knowledge. Notably, these forms of knowledge are not unique to technology education, but the purposes, contexts, and ways in which technology education pupils develop them often are. These ideas, and the wider thinking about technological knowledge, have their origin in the concepts of epistêmê (knowledge), technê (skill), and phronēsis (practical wisdom and judgment), first set out by early Greek philosophers, including Aristotle and Plato. On one level, these appear cogent facets of technical activity and, therefore, of “doing.” But at a deeper level, there are enduring complexities about the nature of technological knowledge in technology education. It bears an elusive quality that can make it hard to get at. This is because important dimensions of technological knowledge are often implicit. They are embedded in, and arise from, technological activity itself—from the very material forms of doing that this chapter explores. Ropohl (1997) provides some fascinating insights into embedded forms of technological knowledge and identifies, among other things, technical laws that hold true because they work in practice rather than necessarily resting upon scientific foundations. This being said, it is often the case that this knowledge, as critical as it is, cannot always be readily captured in writing, or comprehensively externalized during learning and teaching. Rather, it is developed and applied within the experiential and material learning of pupils. But how is it that “doing” in technology education differs from “doing” in other subjects, such as art? And what does it mean to be a creator of technology? When material forms of doing are thought of, the imagination conjures up a range of possibilities. Painters and sculptors engage in doing, for example, just as a mechanic or gardener might. What is interesting, however, is that some of these people are naturally thought of as being more “technological” than others. A painter employs the materials of canvas and acrylic, and uses hand tools such as the brush and palette knife to manipulate them, but is this form of doing different to that which would be fostered in a technology education classroom? On one level, no. An artist is not typically thought of as a technologist, but they nonetheless draw upon skill and judgment in the use of tools to manipulate materials. Such similarities are perhaps most stark for artists who sculpt in metal. In this case, the same processes, joining methods and materials are at play as would be found in a technology education classroom. It would hence be fair to say that such artists are engaging in very “technological” ways of doing which allow them to develop and apply practical forms of knowledge. On another level, however, it is different. This difference lies not with the identifiable features of doing per se, but rather, with the underlying purposes and volition that drive it. In art classrooms, these ways of doing support pupils to learn about and create art, and what is created serves artistic, aesthetic, or cultural functions. In technology education, valuable forms doing must include those that allow pupils to learn about and create technology—that which functions to extend or enhance human capability in some way. From this, two important points arise. First, that it is important to give consideration to the types of 125

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

tasks and briefs that pupils will work on in technology education. Asking pupils to design and make a vase might be very different from asking pupils to design and make something that improves a household process for people with reduced strength in their hands. Second, the different purposes underlying the activity of art and of technology mean that some types of knowledge and understanding become more prominent for how pupils think about and understand these respectively. Knowledge of the ergonomic interactions of hand grip and movement is likely to be far less important to vase design, whereas the interaction of aesthetic factors, influences, and interpretation is less important to supporting people with reduced strength in their hands. It is for these very reasons, that more reductive ideas of doing as simply making things are insufficient in helping to understanding something more of the nature of technology education.

“Doing” and the Technology Education Curriculum Despite being a comparatively young subject, virtually all curricula include something that can be identified as technology education. Further to this, it is unsurprising that ideas of doing can be found throughout these. As already noted, it reflects something of the fundamental nature of the subject and the central role of materials. At the very least, any curriculum must do two things: (1) identify what is deemed valuable for pupils to learn for a particular country or region, and (2) organize what is identified in some way. The particular ways in which a given curricula conceptualizes and positions “doing” arise from the cultural, historical, and socio-technical influences of that country or region. Some of the more prominent of these influences include product design approaches, manual craft and skills development, cognitive processes and application, and the role of engineering in the context of STEM subjects. These influences are not discrete. They not only give a sense of what is regarded as important to learning but also evolve and change over time as some influences work to displace others. In England, doing is most prominently articulated through design and make and is heavily influenced by product design. As with other curricula, it is linked closely to processes of creativity and creative thinking. Open-ended, design-based contexts for doing promote rich learning opportunities. However, these contexts can displace other “doing” processes such as discrete troubleshooting and structured fault finding that hold potential for understanding technology, but more often constitute part of vocational programs of learning. Some curricula, such as the new Curriculum for Wales, specifically identify intellectual processes such as modeling or prototyping, sometimes in the context of systems and engineering, and sometimes in the context of product development or technical outcomes. When tool use is made explicit in curricula, it is typically done so in relation to health and safety. Sometimes, curricula will organize descriptions of learning to reflect an expectation that pupils become more accurate,

126

Doing

accomplished, or independent in what they do, or can apply learning in other, less familiar contexts. Many countries have been influenced by a rich history of craft traditions such as Sloyd, an educational movement focused on craft skills that originated in Sweden. Hallström (2017) analyzes Educational Sloyd in detail noting its influence on technology education and the many shared technical and structural characteristics found with technology education classrooms more widely. It is centered upon apprenticeship models of learning and instruction encompassing “demonstration” which is regarded by McLain (2018) as a signature pedagogy in technology education. As a form of doing, Educational Sloyd promotes the practical skills, judgment, knowledge, and patience required by pupils as creators of artifacts and technology. Hallström recognizes that it brings together hands, head, and heart. Although its influence is still found in several curricula, including Finland and Scotland, these types of craft skills have sometimes been displaced over time by systems, electronics, and engineering (which could be considered forms of “high” technology). Recent curricular thinking around technology education in the United States, for example, makes arguments for adopting a more engineering-centric approach to technology education in the context of STEM and integrated STEM education. This situates some of these important forms of doing within engineering ways of thinking which could be seen by some as a structural move away from technology education as a curricular area. In practice, this curricular displacement might mean that doing for the purposes of understanding technology (e.g. modeling of systems, interactions, interdependences) becomes more prominent, where doing for the purposes of creation (e.g., the application of practical skills) was historically dominant. There is a sense then that doing can be situated differently in curricula. While it is highly likely that curricula rich in opportunities for practical learning will bring value to pupils generally, few—if any—capture the more developed ways that doing can be understood in technology education. Learning, by its very nature, is complex, mutable, and heavily contextualized. Language, in the context of curriculum, is necessarily limited in its ability to capture learning and the curriculum itself cannot be conflated with pupil learning. How, for example, can the more implicit forms of knowledge that pupils gain through doing in technology education be reliable captured—even though we know them to be valuable? It is in light of this that more developed ways of understanding doing become important for teachers as they think through curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy and bring the curriculum to life for pupils in technology classrooms.

Doing and the Human Dimension of Learning Up until this point in the chapter, consideration has been given to the nature of doing from a range of perspectives, including its characteristics, its relationship with knowledge, and its place in curricula. It is hoped that this has captured the importance of thinking about doing as much more than simply making things. Through material interaction, it plays 127

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

a fundamental role helping pupils develop particular kinds of technological knowledge and, as creators of technology, it fosters their technological capability. But this tells only part of the story. It is important to also understand doing from the perspective of the pupils themselves. Taking time to do so reveals some of the distinctly human qualities that doing can bring to pupil learning in technology education. It has been shown that doing in technology education can serve different purposes. Whether these relate to modeling, understanding, prototyping, or creation, the interaction with materials will demand particular skills and often involve the use of tools. What is argued here is that doing in technology education, regardless of its purpose, embodies craftmanship in the rich and nourishing sense described by Sennett (2008). In his exploration, Sennett argues convincingly that craftmanship is misunderstood, and extends beyond artisanal notions to a whole range of different activities and, in terms of this chapter, forms of doing. There is craftsmanship in science, just as there is in writing, musicianship, and jewelry making. Against this, he draws out a number of assertions. One is that craftsmanship is concerned with skill and the desire to do something well for its own sake. In other words, for its intrinsic worth. Developing such skill takes time but engenders a sense of pride and accomplishment, both of which can be powerful influences on pupil learning and motivation. Another assertion is that craftsmanship links hand and mind in ways that cannot otherwise be achieved. This very much reflects the idea that in powerful forms of doing, thinking and doing are inseparable and enable certain aspects of technological knowledge and capability to be developed. It is not possible to become competent at modeling something only by reading about it. Notably, it also reflects the unison of hands, head, and heart found in the ideas of Education Sloyd (Hallström, 2017). But Sennett also points out that sometimes, technological advancements can make the relationship between hand and mind a little more distant. He cites the introduction of CAD software and describes how the features and capabilities of the software lead to designer thinking differently about what they are designing. He notes that the ability to readily change things reduces the consequences of design decisions and means that things can ultimately be less well considered. Furthermore, he recognizes that the lack of materiality and shortcutting of the manual creation of plans means that the knowledge and understanding of the designer are different and not as engrained as it might otherwise be. It is noteworthy that in Scotland, the expansion of CAD modeling capabilities in secondary schools was accompanied by the removal of the assessment of manual drawing skills in national examinations. While the reasons for this are unclear, it led to a profound shift in what some schools saw as valuable learning and numerous departments have all but removed manual drawing lessons. Where schools have retained it, it is because teachers maintain that it allows pupils to understand drawings and technical relationships in ways that they do not with 3D CAD modeling alone. This highlights some of the less obvious effects that socio-technical influences can have on what it is that pupils do in technology education, and being aware of the consequences for learning is important when creating lessons in technology education. 128

Doing

In thinking about more developed ideas of doing, it is therefore necessary also to think about more developed ideas of craftsmanship. There is a tactile and human dimension that can foster a strong sense of pride in pupils and an opportunity for teachers to help them develop a sense of learning to do something for its intrinsic value rather than to meet a particular learning goal. Craftsmanship should not only be recognized when pupils create technology using hand tools in practical workshops but should be recognized and fostered in all material forms of doing.

Doing and Pedagogy Pedagogy is where teachers integrate complex areas of expertise, including subject matter, learning theory, beliefs, values, personal practical theories, contexts, and their own pupils. Done well, it is where this expertise gains classroom traction for pupil learning, and it is essential that it is both adaptive and evidence-informed. Influenced by the understanding of pedagogical content knowledge developed by Shulman (1986), this chapter adopts the view that, rather than being a generic set of strategies and techniques, pedagogy is shaped by the epistemological and ontological nature of that which is being taught. In other words, it is not possible to determine how something might be taught effectively, without first understanding the nature of the subject matter and the purpose of learning. This is particularly significant given the vast range of different types of subject matter that characterize contemporary technology education subjects. Pedagogy is thus complex and subject specific. There is no single “pedagogy for doing,” and simply getting pupils to make things will fail to properly develop their technological knowledge and capability. In reality, pedagogy around doing has to pay attention to a range of different factors. These can include how different skills are sequenced and organized, or how to make explicit from the outset those things that should become more implicit for pupils as their skills develop. It might involve thinking through the relationships between different types of knowledge in regard to the concepts, ideas, and processes in the curriculum— and whether the associated pedagogy is likely to promote desirable forms of learning and understanding. It may also have to support pupils in how to move their understanding between conceptual and practical contexts. In designing learning activities for pupils, are opportunities included for them to create and understand things that are distinctly technological, rather than artistic or cultural? When is it desirable to get pupils to model something in three dimensions to understand its technical relationships, rather than only exploring it conceptually? The most important point here is that it is not so much a case of identifying a “pedagogy for doing,” but rather identifying where and how doing should be made part of subject pedagogy. To further explore this at the level of classroom practice, two real-life examples of pedagogical approaches from secondary technology education are discussed. In different ways, they address and develop aspects of doing in technology education as something 129

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

that is inseparable from materials and thinking, and which allows pupils to create and/ or learn about technology. The first example, “Tangible Ideation,” considers how doing might be used differently in the process of concept generation. It questions the almost ubiquitous role of sketching as a means of driving idea generation. The second example, “Material Knowledge,” focuses on the implications for pupil learning of different types of materials knowledge. Technological knowledge is used in and arises out of technical activity which means that doing has a significant role to play. This example challenges some of the assumptions that can be made about the forms of knowledge pupils engage with through doing. It is hoped that both of these examples will provide some insight into how doing can be considered as part of pedagogical reasoning.

Pedagogy Example 1: “Tangible Ideation” In technology education, design occupies a fascinating place whereby it is both subject matter and pedagogy. This requires that teachers pay attention to its affordances and limitations as a teaching method as well as how pupils might best understand and use it. Central to this are questions about the nature of learning. How pupils are supported to make meaning, to develop technological knowledge and capability through doing must therefore be part of this thinking. A process common to all design activity is ideation, sometimes also referred to as concept generation. It is an intellectually challenging process to do well. More often than not, when people think about pupils generating design ideas, they think of sketching. Sketching provides a low-resource, rapid, responsive, and iterative means of developing and communicating design ideas and thinking and is used by designers the world over. It remains a central means of working through design ideas and supporting this type of design thinking. That being said, there may be more to think about from a pedagogical perspective. If doing is to be understood as something that is inseparable from thinking, involves materials, and supports the creation or understanding of technology, reliance upon only sketching as a means of ideation becomes limiting. In this context, sketching is a purposeful form of abstraction and representation. Yet, for learners, it can separate materiality and thinking and its efficacy and value rests heavily upon the spatial ability, sketching ability and confidence of individual pupils. If pupils feel that they are struggling to represent and externalize their ideas through sketching, they might modify or simplify their candidate ideas to succeed in representing them. Furthermore, if sketching is sequenced so that it always precedes modeling, it can make it harder for pupils to understand the interrelationships between different two-dimensional forms of abstraction and their corresponding three-dimensional material representations. In response to this, a pedagogy for “tangible ideation” is now described in which the iterative exploration of design ideas is driven by tangible materials over sketching. Rather than omitting sketching from the ideation process, this approach repositions it by foregrounding the manipulation of materials as the primary means of developing design 130

Doing

ideas. Just as would be the case if design ideas were sketched, pupils require a sufficient understanding of the design brief or problem before they begin. Rather than starting idea generation with paper and pencil, pupils are given a range of different soft modeling materials, tools, and means of joining parts together. The choice of materials and tools will be influenced by the nature of the brief and the pupils themselves but could be as simple as card and paper. Demonstrations may be required in the early stages to ensure pupils can safely and effectively manipulate tools and resources. As with sketching, the purpose of this process would be to generate different design ideas, but pupils doing this for the first time might associate modeling with expectations of a “finished” prototype rather than seeing it as an exploratory and creative process. Discussing this explicitly with pupils at the outset is important to empower risk-taking and would be one of several decisions taken about how the overall process would be framed. Pupils may, for example, generate more than one possible design idea or move through phases of modification and development of a single concept. Regardless of the process, there are several potential benefits that “tangible ideation” could bring to learning. It provides a space in which pupils can continually interact with their developing ideas in both tactile and cognitive ways, helping to break down potential divides that emerge between the conceptual and practical contexts. It retains materiality and reduces abstraction. The free rotation and reorientation of parts during the development process allow pupils to understand the spatial and configurative features of their solution differently from that which is afforded through sketching alone, or even 3D CAD modeling. As a form of three-dimensional modeling, it can also support mechanistic and technical reasoning, helping pupils to build from their activity the forms of technological knowledge important to technological capability. Notably, a study by Welch (1998) explores in detail pupils modeling processes during design and advocates opportunities for them to model ideas earlier in the process. Different stages in tangible ideation can be captured in a variety of ways, including photographs, sketches, annotations, and the physical models themselves. As an example of “doing” in the way that this chapter encourages, this pedagogical approach does three things. First, it connects thinking more directly with materials. Second, it helps pupils learn about creating technical solutions, and, third, it allows them to understand potential solutions in ways not possible from sketching alone. It is important to stress that this approach is not intended to replace sketching as a method for idea generation, but rather provide another pedagogical approach that could be used at key points to enrich pupil thinking. It is more time and resource dependent than sketching and, similarly, is not immune from the effects of cognitive fixation.

Pedagogy Example 2: Material Knowledge Technology education is a very broad subject that encompasses a great many concepts, ideas, skills, competencies, values, and dispositions. To complicate things further, pupils 131

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

can come to know about and understand these things in different ways—some of which are more valuable for developing technological capability than others. It may be the case, for example, that pupils learn about Light Emitting Diodes in both their science class and their technology class. However, in the science class, learning may focus more upon p-type and n-type materials, silicon junctions, photons, and wavelengths of light. In the technology class, learning might focus more upon operating parameters, integration with circuits, and so forth. Without careful attention to the types of knowledge pupils require, difficulties can arise in pupil learning, and this is particularly true for “doing.” One example of this can be found when pupils make design decisions using either partial or misaligned knowledge of materials. The following scenario provides a starting point for thinking this through. A class of twelve and thirteen-year-old pupils have undertaken online research into the properties of steel to support the later stages of a design project in which they are, for the first time, designing and manufacturing a technical solution that incorporates sheet steel. The teacher moved around the class engaging in formative dialogue as pupil worked to finalize their design ideas. On several occasions, this dialogue prompted pupils to reflect on the feasibility of certain aspects of their design given the material they are working with. This helped concepts to be further refined before pupils thought through the tools, processes, and sequencing that might be used to manufacture their solutions in the workshop. After having read the pupils plans for manufacture, the teacher found that they were struggling to match particular tools with the types of cuts and joints that their ideas required. The teacher therefore undertook some additional work with the class on different metalwork tools and processes relevant to their design ideas. Scenarios like this may be something that teachers of technology education have experienced and worked through with their own classes. Despite the fact that pupils have spent time learning about mild steel, they are designing shapes and perimeters that they simply would not be able to cut from this material and, furthermore, are struggling to know which tools and processes would allow different parts to be made. The issue is to do with the type of knowledge pupils have of materials. The knowledge of steel they developed from internet research did not arise from practical activity. Pupils had no direct, experiential knowledge of what this material was like, what it felt like, how it responded to different tools and processes, and what its practical affordances and limitations were. Much of this knowledge would be closely linked to pupils’ senses and may be quite implicit. In a sense, the type of knowledge they developed about steel was relevant, but not of the type they required to make meaningful design decisions. It was insufficient. One way of addressing this was to think through where and how forms of doing could be integrated into the pedagogical approach to allow pupils to build up a more aligned and usable knowledge of materials. Rather than experiencing materials through design then make, the class was set the challenge of building up a knowledge base about 132

Doing

materials that they could use to inform ideation before they began designing. Following the requisite inputs on proper tool use and health and safety, pupils worked in small groups and moved through a series of practical stations that were set up in the technology workshop. Each station was centered on a practical process with different materials, such as wood and metal, that pupils had to undertake and reflect on using a series of questions and prompts. One station asked them to cut parallel lines in sheet material, another asked them to fold along a line using different methods, and another asked them to create a curve in the perimeter. The purpose of these exercises was not to develop practical skills but to develop particular types of knowledge about materials. The questions and prompts asked pupils to rate how easily they could carry out the process, how many times they might be able to do it before they got tired, which approach or tool was more effective for different materials, and so forth. They were also asked to speculate about where they might use different approaches and to reflect openly on anything else they found significant during each challenge. The findings from the class were averaged and shared back with pupils to provide a class knowledge base about materials. As a pedagogical approach, this enabled pupils to develop a more aligned and usable type of materials knowledge. During both the ideation phase pupils could account more directly for the nature of the materials involved and, in planning for manufacture, pupils were able to reason far more independently about the most appropriate tool to use for particular features of their design with less reliance upon formative support from the classroom teacher. This example underscores the need to think carefully about how pupils can best develop and apply important forms of knowledge as part of doing in technology education.

Summary Technology education continues to offer pupils uniquely rich and varied learning experiences that encompass a diverse range of skills, knowledge, and understanding in conceptual, theoretical, and practical contexts. In this sense, it is perhaps unlike other subjects. Across all of this, doing plays a fundamental role in helping pupils to develop their technological knowledge and capability. While forms of doing can be identified in all technology education curricula, how it is positioned and represented can vary and is shaped by ongoing socio-technical and political influences of different countries and jurisdictions as they attempt to capture what is valuable for pupil learning. Here it is argued that all technology education curricula will require that teachers and student teachers identify and nurture the most valuable forms of doing to support pupils to develop their technological knowledge and allow them to move beyond only learning about technology. A central aim of this chapter was to think through how particular forms of doing can be understood for technology education so that this is not left to chance in practice. 133

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

By way of addressing this aim, three starting points were given which—it has been shown—bear quite complex interrelationships. The first point was that doing cannot really be separated from thinking. Indeed, in technology education, pupils must think carefully about how they engage in particular forms of doing, and the very act of doing itself gives rise to new knowledge, understanding, and ways of thinking. There is a reciprocal quality to this which must be carefully harnessed to ensure that it strengthens, and not weakens, the links between hand, head, and heart. The second starting point argued that powerful forms of doing in technology education are related in some way to materials. Just as doing is inseparable from thinking, technology is inseparable from materials. This is significant because, for pupils, it is material interaction in technical contexts that unlocks the door to other forms of technological knowledge, understanding, and reasoning that they cannot otherwise develop. It may not be in a form that can be reliably described in writing, but it can dramatically alter the design and construction decisions that pupils make as creators of technology. In this same area, the craftsmanship that is so readily associated with material forms of doing can provide pupils with a sense of connection, pride, and a recognition of the intrinsic worth of doing things well and to a high standard. The development of craftmanship in this sense applies to all forms of doing encouraged in this chapter. The third starting point stated that valuable forms of doing are those that allow pupils to understand, and/or learn about technology. Reflecting on this in practice requires student teachers and teachers to think about not only where and when pupils might engage in different forms of doing, but also how technology is understood in the context of their subjects. Where is it necessary for pupils to model or simulate something with material forms of doing in order to better understand and reason about it? Where should opportunities be given for pupils themselves to become creators of technology? Are those things that pupils create actually technological and when, if at all, might this be important in their learning? Much of what this chapter explores can be implicit in the practical, day-to-day learning and teaching in technology education classrooms. Perhaps, there are ideas or perspectives here that could become a more explicit part of how teachers think through pedagogy and consider how different pedagogical approaches influence the types of knowledge and understanding that pupils cultivate as part of their learning. While this is hopefully valuable for student teachers and teachers in terms of professional practice, it may also be necessary to develop pupils’ explicit awareness of valuable forms of doing if the benefits to learning are to be maximized.

References Buckley, J., Seery, N., Power, J., & Phelan, J. (2019).The importance of supporting technological knowledge in post-primary education: A cohort study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(1), 36–53. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02635143​.2018​.1463981.

134

Doing

Hallström, J. (2017). Exploring the relationship between technology education and educational Sloyd. In C. W. Finkl & C. Makowski (Eds.), Encyclopedia of coastal science (pp. 1–13). Cham: Springer International Publishing (Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series). https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-319​-38889​-2​_13​-1. McLain, M. (2018). Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 985–1000. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-017​-9425​-0. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 65–72. Seery, N. (2017). Modelling as a form of critique. In P. J. Williams and K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 255–73). Singapore: Springer Singapore (Contemporary Issues in Technology Education). https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-981​-10​-3106​-9​ _14. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Welch, M. (1998). Students’ use of three-dimensional modelling while designing and making a solution to a technological problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 241–60.

135

Chapter 11

Communicating The Importance of Communication in a Technological Literacy Era Yakhoub Ndiaye

Introduction The consequences of lack of communication in the classroom should not be overlooked. For instance, one only has to look at the history of aviation accidents due to miscommunication between pilots or between pilots and air controllers or passengers, and the cognitive workload due to checklist items or external factors to be convinced. The same is true in the school context if we naively consider the teacher as a pilot and the pupils and/or students as passengers whom the teacher must accompany in their development and in becoming enlightened and technologically literate citizens. This captures the essence of why it is important to discuss educational communication in a handbook on technology education (TE). However, discussing communicating in its wider sense is a big challenge. Communication is a complex process. It requires learning, practice, sometimes experience, and, above all, an understanding of the message to be communicated. It relies on different factors that are dependent on individuals, modalities, cultures, social contexts, contents, language subtlety, countries, and educational systems, among other factors. Therefore, it is a real pain in the neck for us to write this chapter for a large audience in TE communities. Bearing in mind that, we address and organize the discussion as follows: we (1) briefly try to define what communicating is, (2) explore three communication modes in the literacy research; (3) discuss about what communication skills may need to be addressed in a TE curriculum, (4) identify some basic cognitive principles to an effective communication, and some pedagogy for communicating. (5) We finally end the chapter by suggesting some recommendations, readings to assist technology (pre-service, in-service) teachers, curriculum developers, policy makers to consider as important elements for a good communication process in classrooms. More precisely, the issues are how teachers overcome communication issues to establish quickly an effective communication process for their students who need to learn by communicating effectively, efficiently, and enjoyably.

Communicating

Defining Communication Communication plays a major role in the process of human development and in society. It captures the essence of the relationships between teachers and students. The English term “communication” originates from the Latin word “communicare” (etymologically from “commūnis”) which means in giving, imparting or sharing, and in receiving, participating in. In modern everyday society, communication basically refers to an act of exchanging, conveying, or sharing a piece of information or a message (Richey, 2013, p. 7). It is often seen as a two-way street: there is a transmitter who sends and encodes a message and a recipient who receives it (Grisé, 2012a). The interactions between these two participants or components are an essential ingredient for the process of communication to take place, and their quality, as well as the understanding of the encoded-decoded message, are necessary conditions for effective teaching-learning processes to occur. The communication process involves different functions such as encoding and decoding the feedback loops of a message or piece of information. Another possible meaning follows a process in which information is shared through the exchange of verbal and non-verbal messages (Brooks & Heath, 1985). However, in recent educational and communication research, the definition requires leaping beyond all-too-frequent perspectives such as the process of conveying ideas, thoughts, and feelings between people (Grisé, 2012b). Rather, communicating is a complex activity and involves higher-order reasoning, understanding, and practicing processes. The reorientation toward the term indicates a new shift in TE. According to Clark (1996), people who engage in communication usually base their mutual understanding on four levels of coordination: conversation, intention, signal, and channel. A failure at any level may imply a failure of communication between them. With the emergence of information and communication technologies (ICTs), communicating can go through different channels to transmit a message, thus modifying some aspects of the teachinglearning process—but not necessarily in the way we think they will. Considering the context of the technological literacy era, researchers such as Kellner have argued that introducing new literacies to empower individuals would require the reconstruction of education to make it more responsive to the challenges of a democratic and multicultural society (Kellner, 2000).

The Importance of Communication in a Technological Literacy Era Modern societies involve new forms of literacies, emphasizing new forms of communication and ICTs. Understanding “technological literacy” (TL) for communicators, such as teachers, is crucial to effective pedagogy (Rush Hovde & Renguette, 2017). Given the 137

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

importance of literacy for the development of learners, the term was introduced and has gained much attention today. It is true that the earliest definitions of the term did not mesh well with educational needs (Dyrenfurth, 1991). The term was situated in its ideological context of competitive supremacy and conservative politics (Petrina, 2000). However, considering research developments and the emergence of current meanings, the concept is more than legitimate today. TL is multiliterate (Williams, 2009) and literacy is a component of TL (Todd, 1991). TL as a multidimensional term necessarily includes at least three dimensions: the ability to use technology (practical dimension); the ability to understand the issues raised by the use of technology (civic dimension); and the appreciation for the significance of technology (cultural dimension) (Dyrenfurth & Kozak, 1991). This highlights the importance that communication has in this modern society. The actual generation of learners (often called Generation Z1) is said to have familiarity with ITCs, but suffers from emphasizing this in the classroom. Thus, technology teaching should help pupils and students develop their awareness of thinking about technology and become capable of expressing their thoughts effectively and efficiently using artifacts as there is an inseparable link between literacy and technological capability (Dyrenfurth, 1991). Technological literacy also results in new and effective forms of communication between teachers and learners, and in how both participants communicate knowledge and ideas in the classroom, with or without the use of technological artifacts.

Three Modes of Communication within a Technological Literacy Era: Graphical, Oral, and Written Literacies Write to be understood, speak to be heard, read to grow. —Lawrence Clark Powell Contemporary research has been considering new forms of literacies. Among them, literacy, numeracy, oracy, and now graphicacy are argued to be the “four aces” in education as part of the development of a modern educated citizen. In fact, literacy, as a traditional approach to reading and writing, is no longer viewed as a single component, but rather as an association of literacies (Bailey & Van Harken, 2014). Understandings of literacies have significantly evolved to consider technology, societal changes, contexts, and values. As such, UNESCO (2021) now defines literacy as “a means of identification, understanding, interpretation, creation, and communication in an increasingly digital, text-mediated, information-rich, and fast-changing world.” Following this paradigm, communication plays a major role in the development of contemporary education. In the classroom, teachers and learners use different means to communicate, which can be identified as written, verbal, graphical/visual, and body language (or non-verbal). In 138

Communicating

this section, we focus on graphical, written, and verbal communication developed in the literacy research and their role in technology instructions.

Graphical Literacy, Graphicacy We often argue that “a picture is worth a thousand words” (Meider, 1990); this is true insofar as one completes the phrase with the following: “if you know how to read it” (Cairo, 2019). These quotes shed light on important aspects of an individual’s ability to understand, model, visualize, and communicate ideas. Although Balchin (1976) dated graphicacy to the beginning of highly civilized skills such as map-reading and spatial planning, communicating by drawing is inherent in human development and society. In fact, human beings think in terms of visual and mental images, which is the essence of the term “imagination.” The acquisition of the ability to communicate ideas by drawing has been named “graphicacy” (Balchin & Coleman, 1966). Used in the context of literacy research, graphicacy has received great attention from educational researchers. An earlier shift in the notion was the term “graphical literacy,” which is defined as an ability to read and draw graphs (Fry, 1981). However, contemporary research suggests that the concept goes beyond this; modern educational research uses the term “graphicacy” to focus on problem-solving in relation to representational graphical issues. Following this, and according to Åberg‐Bengtsson and Ottosson (2006), “being graphicate is equal in status to being literate and numerate.” In the context of TE, an important aspect in the development of skills related to “graphicacy” is the acquisition of design, modeling, and visuospatial skills. In this way, graphicacy is described as the educated counterpart of the visual-spatial aspect of human intelligence and communication (Balchin, 1976). Students have difficulty understanding visual representations of data. Thus, some researchers argue that it is crucial to measure human graphicacy performance in extracting information about graphs (Ciccione & Dehaene, 2021). Graphical communication, in fact, involves highorder reasoning skills. Consequently, spatial ability can be considered a key component of intelligence (Buckley, 2018). In the literature, the skills involved in communicating, visualizing, and reasoning about spatial information are commonly referred to as “spatial literacy” (Lane et al., 2019). Therefore, there is now evidence that reinforces the role and importance of spatial ability within TE and STEM disciplines as well. Because communication in technology emphasizes the use of graphs to conceptualize ideas, addressing design-based concept learning is argued to be inherent in supporting the development of learning (Henze & de Vries, 2021). Technical Communication in Technological Education Engineers use a specific language to communicate worldwide: technical drawing. Technical drawing is, in essence, the language of technicians and 139

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 11.1  Automatic Remote Control Pan Tilt System. A design reproduced with the permission of S2IDIDAC® 2020. We acknowledge S2IDIDAC for providing the images of their ZIFON system, https://s2ididac​.com​/systemes​-didactiques​/tourelle​-2​-axes/. of draughtsmen. It is essentially graphical and composed of codes, symbols, and sketches (see Figure 11.1). Following this technical sense, Sterne (2005) apprehended communication as a “techné,” which, according to him, highlights two of the most important aspects of contemporary communication: the use of technology about other forms of interaction and the simultaneously social and habitual forms of interaction that make up modern life (Ibid.).

Oracy The “oracy” construct, coined by Wilkinson (1968), refers to the development of listening and speaking skills, just as literacy refers to both reading and writing. Oracy is fundamental in human social interaction as we attempt to express thoughts by exchanging verbal messages, dialoguing, discoursing, and conversing through verbal language. It is probably the most used and basic form of human communication that exists (Kaldahl et al., 2019). Most international educational institutions, such as the World Economic Forum, now emphasize oracy as a global educational priority. Different terminologies have been used to describe students’ ability to think, listen, and communicate orally. Reflecting on a wide range of research contributions, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) in their report (2021, p. 9), for instance, adopted a broad definition of oracy: “the ability to speak eloquently, to articulate ideas and thoughts, to influence through 140

Communicating

talking, to collaborate with peers and to express views confidently and appropriately.” According to the APPG, the development of oracy is crucial, as it supports success in both learning and life beyond school. Oracy is a core component of verbal language, as language imparts the properties of semanticity, generativity, and displacement to the human communication system, allowing people to formulate an indefinite number of meaningful novel messages that are not tied to the immediate present (Krauss, 2002). It is more than just developing orality, but is an effective classroom conversational approach that develops learners’ speaking and listening skills and improves their learning through the effective use of spoken language. Oracy is to speech what literacy is to writing and numeracy is to mathematics (APPG, 2021). Why Does Oracy Also Matter in TE? Research has shown the importance of oracy education in modern society. Wilkinson (1968) suggested that oracy is not a subject in itself but rather a condition for learning in all subjects. Following this line, I argue that this condition should be fully supported in TE, which often involves the acquisition of complex and challenging technological contents. According to Simondon (2017), TE is defined through actions and activities that are determined by the context in which learners resolve technical issues. In such education, the construction of knowledge therefore suggests that learners think, understand, use technical language, and practice (Ginestié, 2017). The shift in the oracy paradigm emphasizes this but moves further. Technological oracy-based activities are not just the use of technology (i.e., artifacts) in language education, nor the only implication of language in such activities, but the focus on the emergence of oral competency in students and teachers in which the philosophy of technology is supported. The aim is for learners to construct technological knowledge (knowing) and know-how to express orally their thought effectively and efficiently. This is an essential part of the development of a technological literate, as noted by DeVore (1987): “a technological society is based upon knowledge and know-how.” Oracy seems to be undervalued and overlooked compared to other literacies (Kaldahl et al., 2019), but there is actually sufficient evidence that shows how important oracy is and its beneficial aspects for student learning (e.g., see the contributions of APPG at the end of the chapter).

Written Literacy Writing is the key to school success: it allows access to thought and culture. Writing means being able to describe, represent, symbolize, organizes, and finally construct one’s own thoughts (Baptiste, 2021). Literacy is often viewed as the development of reading and writing skills. As reading is assumed to be a linguistic, metalinguistic, and metacognitive activity that requires conscious control of the cognitive processes involved (Wiejak et al., 2017), writing is understood as a set of distinctive thinking 141

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

processes that writers organize during the act of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981). It is an integrated, still recognized, socially situated skill of great complexity (National Writing Project et al., 2010). Why Does Writing Matter in TE? According to the National Writing Project (NWP) (2006), teachers generally describe two kinds of challenges to improve the writing quality of their students: what skills students need to develop as good writers and how teachers can support effective writing instructions. Decades ago, writing was thought on paper, but in the technological era age, it is also thought on digital tools, especially screen, a richly elaborated, logically connected amalgam of ideas, words, themes, images, and multimedia designs (Ibid.). With the development of ICTs, teachers and learners can operate in writing using different types of channels: manual or digital writing. As we live in a world of constantly developing writing tools, the act of writing has taken another shift. It is true that actual learners use different ICTs, collaborative writing platforms, social networks, and so on, with learners said to be digital writers. It is argued that this form of writing also matters (NWP et al., 2010). ICTs seem to become a goal of education and a way to achieve educational objectives (Wegerif, 2015), however, ICTs often inhibit the core message of technology teaching, because, recalling the slogan again: “the media is not the message” (Worley, 2000, p. 62).

Communication Skills and Competencies within TE Curricula Effective communication is an essential competency,2 which some consider as an art— that is, the art of communicating, about which John Dewey stated: “art is the most effective mode of communications that exists.” Although the technical aspects of good communication can be known, the art of communication lies in the development of skills (Warnecke, 2014). Teachers require higher-skilled communication. However, in the TE curriculum it is rarely mentioned what kind of communication competency a teacher and a student should have. As such, multiple organizations, such as the ITEA, have tried to define standards for technological literacy (STL) to provide a view on what learners should know and be able to do to be technologically literate (ITEA, 2007). Their attempt to define a long-term policy remains encouraging. However, STL has been subject to criticism. Despite the valuable contribution to how the philosophy of technology would be conveyed, Nia and de Vries (2016) concluded that these standards should still evolve to take into account aspects such as the nature and properties of technology. Although STL standard 17 on ICT was mentioned as important for students to develop an understanding of “The Designed World,” it is not yet clear how the 142

Communicating

pedagogy of communication and ICT should be approached. Based on the “Oracy Skills Framework,” the University of Cambridge research provides a toolkit to assess how students, eleven to twelve years old, can use spoken language in different contexts and purposes. Concretely, the toolkit involves a set of curriculum-embedded, assessmentfor-learning tasks to be used by teachers. New research agendas suggest literacies as an acquisition and development of competencies be fully integrated into educational curricula. Among others, I view the development of student and teacher communication skills as a complex process in which multiple literacies are imbricated and interconnected, not separated. Therefore, a wellelaborated technology curriculum emphasizes this. We must then ensure that curricula and instructions give students opportunities for interpretation, criticism, and evaluation, as well as production (Northcut & Brumberger, 2010).

Development of Digital Literacy Skills: Visual, Digital Writing, and Verbal Skills Digital literacy is the ability to access, manage, understand, integrate, communicate, evaluate and create information safely and appropriately through digital technologies for employment, decent jobs, and entrepreneurship. It includes competences that are variously referred to as computer literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy, and media literacy. (UNESCO, 2018) The development of ICTs has been changing the way we communicate. Particularly, the pandemic does not always allow face-to-face education. Remote teaching has changed the forms of interaction between teachers and students. There is a change in the way teachers introduce the message. Texts are often no longer provided in paper format but electronically and downloaded through emails, from a drive or cloud-based system. Technological content is drastically reduced to avoid overwhelming students. Verbal exchanges are often carried out via web conferences from laptops to tablets, desktop computers, or smartphones. Where face-to-face teaching is possible, facemasks cover the face, so understanding facial language is not evident, which complicates and limits the impact of the teaching intervention. Although research has shown that some ICTs may have important positive effects on learning, there is no common rule on how to use them. In fact, novelty can be fascinating, and leaners use to focus on it rather than on their learning. Contemporary students may have abilities to play complex games or to navigate on different social media, however, they struggle to learn with these tools in the classroom. From this perspective, Clark (1983) has shown that there is no learning benefit in using a specific medium to deliver education, but rather how you teach (the method) is more important. Moreover, most teachers lack knowledge about how to reach students effectively using 143

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

different modalities. In the next paragraph, we review some cognitive principles behind the modality effects when introducing the information.

Graphicacy Skills The foundational skills of graphicacy are spatial perception and conceptualization (Wilmot, 1999). Spatial perception is about how a learner perceives space: recognizing and identifying objects in the environment, whereas spatial conceptualization is about how he/she categorizes, organizes, or makes sense of the perception of what and where objects are, as well as why are they so (Ibid.). It is argued that the communication process involves functions like encoding, decoding, and feedback loops for information. Therefore, learners should have the opportunity to practice the spatial skills associated with those functions. Different approaches have been defined to categorize visuals. Visualizations are a key component of representations and usually consist of two types: external representations (i.e., those perceived by the eyes) and internal representations imagined in the mind. External representations can be classified into four main modes: the material mode (a solid artifact used to create a 3D representation of a model); the visual mode (known as diagrams, i.e., iconic, schematic diagrams, and charts and graphs); the symbolic; and the gestural (Gilbert, 2015). For instance, Carter (2013) classified visuals in STEM education into six categories based on their properties for easy interpretation: onedimensional visuals, two-dimensional visuals, map visuals, shape visuals, connection visuals, and picture visuals. Within design and technology (DT), Danos and Norman’s research (2009) about the development of graphicacy is an important line in this sense. To audit curricular capacity to involve graphicacy skills, they suggest a taxonomy of seven categories of representations as a guide to build and identify tasks for DT learning and testing graphicacy skills and levels. Each of these categories represents a type of image that requires specific types of abilities (read, understood, and created): graphic art/pictorial, drawing/pictorial, diagrams/pictorial, sequential/lineal, symbolic/ quantitative, symbolic/spatial, and computer-aided design (CAD).

Verbal and Digital Writing Skills Both verbal and written communications involve the use of language, which is a fundamental social function and considered as a complex adaptive system (The Five Graces Group et al., 2009). Verbal skills are often divided into different parts, that is, listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Among these skills, speaking has a higher degree of importance and a decisive impact on oral communication with an audience. Therefore, the emphasis on oral competency in a curriculum and as part of the development of the language of learners should be explicitly emphasized in the curriculum, especially 144

Communicating

for a young and content-based discipline such as technology. Various key elements are concerned, and here we do not aim to give an exhaustive review. For instance, dialoguing is a key component in the development of oral competency. In that line, enhancing “dialogicity,” characterized by a flow of ideas where there is a co-construction of meaning across several rounds, is seen to be essential (Vaish, 2013). Khine (2012) also mentioned that a key aspect of argumentation is the role of criticism. As in other STEM subjects such as science, focusing on the development of students’ arguments in technology can enhance different processes among students such as the access to cognitive and metacognitive processes characterizing expert performance, the development of critical thinking and communicative competencies, literacy, the enculturation into cultural practices and the development of reasoning (Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008). Far from being an isolated component, oracy is interrelated with the development of metacognitive, listening, and speaking skills. Kaldahl et al. (2019) mentioned that oracy seems to be undervalued and overlooked compared to other literacies. In fact, depending on the discipline, oral skills are usually less considered than written work, which, according to them, is much more visible as an outcome of schooling. This is especially true for DT that has specific approaches to content. They pursued their analysis, noting that most international assessments (e.g., PISA) only test mathematics and reading, but not oral skills. However, we note that several countries are moving toward integrating oracy as a key component in the development of learners. In French education, for instance, and as part of the new 2020 high school reform, a “Grand Oral”3 exam, an examination of oral skills, is introduced as a final step to validate students’ oral competency in the TE curriculum at the end of the twelfth grade. This exam now assesses oral competency and replaces the previous written exam. However, this Grand Oral is subject to criticism (replacement of written tests, few evaluations of technological content, business school verbiage, etc.) from some technology teachers. Literacy may need teacher acceptance to be well implemented and the development of communication skills in a TE should be inclusive. Communication is a two-way street. In that respect, a suitable behavior of a good communicator is to listen to his/her interlocutor (listening skill). It is by listening that Katy Payne, an acoustic biologist, made unexpected discoveries about the elephant communication system. By listening, teachers can situate misconceptions and other learning issues and then provide better support. Digital writing skills are now part of the development of learners because they are involved in various learning activities using advanced ICT. Young people have been shown to engage in multipurpose and highly participatory relationships with digital media, whereas school, in contrast, is seriously unplugged (NWP, 2010). The term “digital writing” refers to the dramatic changes in the ecology of writing and communication and what it means to write, create, compose, and share (p. 4). Digital writing is often overlooked. Explicit digital writing approaches that reflect technology teaching are needed. Teachers are asking their colleagues to develop effective practices that consider the wide range of functional, critical, and rhetorical skills that digital writing requires. 145

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Cognitive Principles in Communicating and the Way to Use Them Most teachers often ignore the cognitive and physiological processes in encoding and decoding information when introducing material in technological literacy. For instance, understanding what students see and how their brain processes it should be the basics in graphicacy. In TE, instructional interventions emphasize the integration of technological knowledge, skills, and attitude at a high level of coordination. In such complex learning, teaching a technology content, whether it is by means of a visual, a text, or a verbal media, is pretty demanding. What cognitive research tells us about communication modalities and methods to reach learners effectively has been explored for decades by research focusing on, for instance, modality theory. Significant cognitive research has been referenced in the literature. Since communicating is inherent in human social development, technology teachers should first understand the cognitive principles related to the cognitive architecture of a learner. It is generally accepted that learners share the same structure of cognitive architecture and the associated cognitive processes; however, they may differ in their abilities to learn with different modalities, depending on their background and most importantly their prior knowledge. Design and technology are practical-oriented disciplines; some students consider that they learn better when practicing, that is with hands-on activities, whereas others defined themselves as visual or auditive learners. However, it has been shown that teaching a student in his preferred modality does not necessarily affect his educational achievement (Willingham, 2005). This idea follows the irrelevant so-called “learning styles” notion that posits that teaching should be matched to the preferred style of the student. To overcome this issue, a dual coding theory (Clark & Paivio, 1991), posited that providing information in two different formats, for example text and visual aids, is more effective than just presenting one to be transferred to memory. From this perspective, it is argued that integrating these registers has positive and additive effects on learner memory (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020). Moreover, the effects of communicated information—whether it is heard, seen, or read by a student—are affected by many aspects such as the instant it is introduced, its complexity, the method, the prior knowledge, and so on.

Supporting Classroom Communication in the Context of Multimedia Literacy A multimedia instructional message is a communication using words and pictures that is intended to promote learning. (Mayer, 2002, p. 7) Mayer has developed a cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) that explains how individuals learn better from words (printed or spoken text) and visuals (graphs, illustrations, 146

Communicating

photos, charts, animation, or video). The theory considers some core assumptions described as follows (Moreno & Mayer, 2000): humans have separate systems for representing verbal and non-verbal information; a learner working memory includes independent auditory and visual working memories, and each working memory store has a limited capacity; meaningful learning occurs when a learner selects, organizes the information in each store into a coherent representation, and makes connections between corresponding representations in each store. In the design of effective instructions involving multimedia messages, Mayer (2014) suggests twelve principles to reduce extraneous processing and to shape the design of multimedia instructions (see at the end of this chapter). We consider that these principles summarize quite well the communication of content in technology instructions.

Pedagogies of Communicating: Some Examples Any content can be too difficult for students depending on how it is introduced and communicated (Bruner, 1960). Hence, good communication is rarely a natural skill and requires understanding, learning, and above all practice. It has been shown that teachers’ use of different interactive communicative strategies is more likely to be effective (Westbrook et al., 2013). The review by Westbrook et al. (2013) highlights teacher attitudes that promote the development of interactive and communicative strategies (feedback, creating a safe space, and drawing on learners’ backgrounds) and facilitated the use of six teaching practices that actively involve learners: flexible use of whole-class, group and pair work, use of learning materials, questioning, drawing on sound content knowledge, use of language and code-switching, planning, and varying lesson sequences. However, how to adapt the different modes of communication remains a matter of concern, as a unique and uniform structure of communication methods does not exist, although neither a misconnection between effective teaching approaches and communication itself. Mindful communication takes into account content, background, culture, value, and so on. The development of a communication competency base for students then relies on an inclusive pedagogy. A teacher can be well aware of the different forms of classroom communication but fail to find the relevant and fluent way to communicate with students. A key insight here is how and when this information is presented, this is important. For instance, according to Sweller et al. (2019), the complexity of an information is related to its intrinsic load—that is, the quantity of new information in the content and the interactions between elements. For pre-service teachers, it can be quite challenging to identify the “best tips” for communicating in technological instructions. Nonetheless, research establishes some suggestions to improve classroom communications. For instance, Rosenshine (2012) suggested ten golden principles (see at the end of this chapter). Chi et al. (2017) highlighted that, for instance, students learn more from dialogue videos than from monologue videos. Thus, as we often say, two monologues do not make a dialogue. When introducing visuals, texts, and verbal content, teachers should take into account students’ knowledge. With 147

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

regard to visuals, for instance, researchers have attempted to classify visuals in different categories (i.e., Carter, 2013; Danos & Norman, 2009), as mentioned earlier. Based on the six categories for easy interpretation of visual images in STEM, Carter (2013) developed a pedagogy for teaching visuals that focused on feature similar visuals, by explicit use of visual categories. This pedagogy supported students in transferring their knowledge and comprehension from a familiar to an unfamiliar context, both within and between categories. In fact, when effectively connected and articulated, multiple visualizations are said to be invaluable in educational communication (Carter, 2013). Design is suggested as an appropriate pedagogy of technological multiliteracy, according to Williams (2009), who viewed design as a complex interaction of four factors: contextualized, critical, transformative, and purposeful. The iterative, abductive, and learner-centered design process in DT education is a useful and valuable approach, as it enables learners to think, design, modify, explain their design, and choose the relevant tool to materialize their production using different modes of communication (visual, oral, and text) and ICTs. The design process enhances students’ self-explanation, and self-explanation improves learning (Chi et al., 1994). To effectively prepare students, Brumberger et al. (2013) argued that a curriculum should articulate expectations for the interpretation and production of visual communication and that the necessary tools for visual communication should be an explicitly integral part of the curriculum. Another challenging aspect of teaching by communicating complex intuitive and counterintuitive technology concepts is whether the information related to the concept should be presented in pieces or through a whole-sense approach. For instance, as students learn visuals from different subjects and sources, it may be helpful to introduce certain complex content from a holistic approach to avoid losing sight of the element of interactivity between concepts. In fact, teachers should thus pay attention to the principle of element interactivity involved in the student learning process. Following this and to examine the causal effects of an object motion in a technology course, it has been shown (Ndiaye, 2020) that the teacher’s presentation of energy and force diagrams together was more beneficial for most students to learn the link between mechanical energy and force concepts than the presentation of each concept separately. Although the association of concepts was relevant, a limitation of this study was that the concept of energy is not only approached in mechanical technology but also learned in other fields/themes like physics, thermodynamics, thermic, calorimetry, or chemistry albeit differently. In these subjects, the meaning given to the nature of energy and force is not the same. Therefore, the construction of a relevant knowledge system seems difficult. However, it remains fundamental if STEM logic is to be supported. In this example that deals with common sense reasoning, visual (drawing both energy bar chart and free-body force diagram), verbal (externalizing thoughts), and written student productions as complementary, that is, as a whole package in which students tried to coordinate each element as well as their relationships. The place of discourse was absolute as students needed to justify and explain their representational solutions. From their explanations, we could understand their external representations and the challenges they experienced in expressing their thoughts and in generating their rocket design solutions. 148

Communicating

Finally, more systemic research-informed technology teaching is needed that considers the issues discussed in this chapter. Consequently, the design of a curriculum should highlight effective instruction based on technological literacy. In that respect, research on the effectiveness of human interactions and communication systems may be beneficial in supporting the development of new approaches and in gaining an overview of the issues to which this chapter contributes. For instance, understanding how computer vision and natural language processing could contribute to improve student learning is a specific possible field in the development of educational research concerning graphicacy, oracy, and written text that is gaining increasing attention and could be valuable in educational settings if relevantly applied. But there may be a long way to go before it can be possible, inclusive, and included. Because it is also about including as discussed in a next chapter. Recollection of the following vital issue is still relevant: communicating in technology curriculum matters.

Suggested Readings, Resources, and Evidences Recommendations for the Development and Implementation of Literacies Suggested readings, evidences, and resources for oracy ●

●

The University of Cambridge research has developed an oracy toolkit to help teachers promote and assess oracy skills in the classroom: see the following link https://www​.educ​.cam​.ac​.uk​/research​/programmes​/oracytoolkit/ This website is part of the Thinking Together Project of the University of Cambridge research. It provides resources that teachers and teacher educators can use to develop their own and their students’ awareness of how speech is used in the classroom: https://thinkingtogether​.educ​.cam​.ac​.uk​/resources/​

Checklist for Communication during Teaching Written Communication: Handouts A handout is a document in which the teacher takes notes for him/ herself. For instance, it may be a summary of important points to be learned; or a guide to students on work they should do, or references they should look up. Teachers may use handouts for students to refer to during a lesson, and students will use them in their self-study time.​

149

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 11.1  Checklist for Communication during Teaching (Prozesky, 2000, p. 45) About the presentation

About the content About the place where the teaching is happening About the use of teaching aids

Does the teacher speak clearly? Is the teacher’s non-verbal communication suitable? Does the teacher speak understandable? Is the speed of the presentation right? Is there two-way communication? Is there evidence of a good relationship between teacher and students? Does the teacher emphasize important knowledge? Is information presented in a logical sentence? Is the place conducive to good communication? Are the students comfortable? Are the teaching aids relevant? Are the teaching aids well prepared? Are the teaching aids easy to read and understand? Are the teaching aids skillfully used?

Table 11.2  Written Communication: Handouts (Prozesky, 2000, p. 45) About the content

About the writing

About the layout/presentation

Does it emphasize important knowledge? Does it present information in a logical sequence? Is it scientifically accurate and up to date? Are the sentences short? Are active verbs used as much as possible? Are the readers likely to understand the words? Is it easy to read? Is it well spaced and not too full? Is it striking and interesting?

Rosenshine’s Ten Golden Principles [Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 39, 12–19.] Based on a literature review, Rosenshine reviewed ten principles to improve the effectiveness of learning. I argue that these principles can be adapted in the context of educational communication: ● ●

● ● ●

150

Principle 1: Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning. Principle 2: Present or communicate new material in small steps with student practice after each step. Principle 3: Ask many questions and check the responses of all students. Principle 4: Provide models. Principle 5: Guide student practice.

Communicating

● ● ● ● ●

Principle 6: Check for student understanding. Principle 7: Obtain a high success rate. Principle 8: Provide scaffolds for difficult tasks. Principle 9: Require and monitor independent practice. Principle 10: Engage students in weekly and monthly reviews.

Designing Instructions Using Multimedia Communication (Mayer, 2014) [Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.] Mayer suggests twelve principles in multimedia learning that have direct implications in technology instructional approaches.​

Table 11.3  Principles in the Design of Multimedia Communication Modalities Twelve principles in multimedia communication (Mayer, 2014, p. 1) Coherence principle

Students learn better when extraneous words, pictures, and sounds are excluded rather than included. Signaling principle Students learn better when cues that highlight the organization of the essential material are added. Redundancy principle Students learn better from graphics and narration than from graphics, narration, and on-screen text. Spatial contiguity Students learn better when corresponding words and pictures are principle presented near rather than far from each other on the page or screen. Temporal contiguity Students learn better when corresponding words and pictures are principle presented simultaneously rather than successively. Segmenting principle Students learn better from a multimedia lesson presented in userpaced segments rather than as a continuous unit. Pre-training principle Students learn better from a multimedia lesson when they know the names and characteristics of the main concepts. Modality principle Students learn better from graphics and narrations than from animation and on-screen text. Multimedia principle Students learn better from words and pictures than from words alone. Personalization principle Students learn better from multimedia lessons when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Voice principle Students learn better when the narration in multimedia lessons is spoken in a friendly human voice rather than a machine voice. Image principle Students do not necessarily learn better from a multimedia lesson when the speaker’s image is added to the screen. Source: Hartford University, Faculty Centre for Learning Development, twelve principles of multimedia learning. https://www​.hartford​.edu​/faculty​-staff​/faculty​/fcld/​_files​/12​%20Principles​%20of​%20Multimedia​ %20Learning​.pdf.

151

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Dual coding: Building connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning, see Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–52.

Notes 1 Generation Z: The generation of people born between the late 1990s and early 2010s and following Generation Y, noted in particular as the first generation to grow up in the era of widespread use of digital technology (esp. the internet and social media). Cf. https://www​ .oed​.com​/view​/Entry​/86200773 2 Here, “competency” and “competence” are used interchangeably to mean the integration of knowledge, skill, and attitude to communicate in a pertinent level of coordination. Both terms, “competence” (the general term, with the plural being “competences”) and “competency” (component of competences, plural: competencies), are used in the (English) literacy research and assumed to be a multidimensional concept. 3 https://www​.education​.gouv​.fr​/bo​/20​/Special2​/MENE2002780N​.htm​?cid​_bo​=149115.

References Åberg-Bengtsson, L., & Ottosson, T. (2006). What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students’ results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 43–62. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​ /tea​.20087. APPG, A.-P. P. G. (2021). Final report and recommendations from the Oracy All-Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry. APPG. https://oracy​.inparliament​.uk​/speak​-for​-change​ -inquiry. Bailey, N. M., & Van Harken, E. M. (2014). Visual images as tools of teacher inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(3), 241–60. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0022487113519130. Balchin, W. G. (1976). Graphicacy. The American Cartographer, 3(1), 33–8. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1559​/152304076784080221. Balchin, W. G., & Coleman, A. M. (1966). Graphicacy should be the fourth ace in the pack. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 3(1), 23–8. Baptiste, L. (2021). Pour un enseignement de l’écrit [Towards teaching the written text]. Paris: ESF. Brooks, W., & Heath, R. (1985). Speech communication. Oxford: Madison. Brumberger, E., Lauer, C., & Northcut, K. M. (2013). Technological literacy in the visual communication classroom: Reconciling principles and practice for the ‘whole’ communicator. Programmatic Perspectives, 5(2), 171–96. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. London: Harvard University Press. Buckley, J. (2018). Investigating the role of spatial ability as a factor of human intelligence in technology education: Towards a causal theory of the relationship between spatial ability

152

Communicating

and STEM education [KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM)]. Stockholm, Sweden. http://urn​.kb​.se​/resolve​?urn​=urn​:Nbn​:Se​:Kth​:Diva​-228984. Cairo, A. (2019). How charts lie: Getting smarter about visual information. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Carter, L. (2013). A picture is worth a thousand words: A cross-curricular approach to learning about visuals in STEM. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 822–8. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–77. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/0364​ -0213(94)90016-7. Chi, M. T. H., Kang, S., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialoguethan monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10–50. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/10508406​.2016​.1204546. Ciccione, L., & Dehaene, S. (2021). Can humans perform mental regression on a graph? Accuracy and bias in the perception of scatterplots. Cognitive Psychology, 128, 101406. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.cogpsych​.2021​.101406. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/BF01320076. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–59. https://doi​.org​/10​.3102​/00346543053004445. Danos, X., & Norman, E. (2009). The development of a new taxonomy for graphicacy. In E. Norman & D. Spendlove (Eds.), D&T—A platform for success: The design and technology association education and international conference (pp. 69–84). The Design and Technology Association. DeVore, P. W. (1987). Cultural paradigms and technological literacy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 7(5–6), 711–19. Dyrenfurth, M. (1991). Technological literacy synthesized. In M. Dyrenfurth & M. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy, 40th yearbook of the council for technology teacher education (pp. 138–83). Glencoe. Dyrenfurth, M., & Kozak, M. (1991). Technological literacy, 40th yearbook of the council for technology teacher education. Glencoe. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Pe respective from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–87. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​/356600. Fry, E. (1981). Graphical literacy. Journal of Reading, 24(5), 383–9. http://www​.jstor​.org​/stable​ /40032373. Gilbert, J. K. (2015). Visualization and the learning of science. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 1101–6). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-94​-007​-2150​-0​_137. Ginestié, J. (2017). A critique of technology education for all in a social and cultural environment. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 193–212). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-981​-10​-3106​-9​_11. Grisé, P. (2012a). Communication and learning in the context of instructional design. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 649–50). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-1​-4419​-1428​-6​_153. Grisé, P. (2012b). Communication theory. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 651–3). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-1​-4419​-1428​-6​ _154.

153

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Henze, I., & de Vries, M. J. (2021). Design-based concept learning in science and technology education. Leiden: Brill | Sense. https://doi​.org​/10​.1163​/9789004450004. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2007). ITEA Standards for technological literacy: Contents for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, USA. Kaldahl, A.-G., Bachinger, A., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Oracy matters: Introduction to a special issue on oracy. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 19(Contribution to a special issue on assessing oracy), 1–9. https://doi​.org​/10​.17239​/L1ESLL​-2019​.19​.03​.06. Kellner, D. (2000). New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. Teaching Education, 11(3), 245–65. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/713698975. Khine, M. S. (2012). Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (M. S. Khine, Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Oxfordshire: Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​ /9780429061523. Krauss, R. M. (2002). The psychology of verbal communication. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 16161–5). London: Elsevier. Lane, D., Lynch, R., & McGarr, O. (2019). Problematizing spatial literacy within the school curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(4), 685–700. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-018​-9467​-y. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). Academic Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0079​-7421(02)80005-6. Meider, W. (1990). “A picture is worth a thousand words”: From advertising slogan to American proverb. Southern Folklore, 47, 207–25. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 12–20. National Writing Project, DeVoss, D. N., Eidman-Aadahl, E., & Hicks, T. (2010). Because digital writing matters. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass. National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2006). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our Schools. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass. Ndiaye, Y. (2020). Apprentissage de concepts scientifiques et technologiques : Proposition d’une aide à la construction de structures de connaissances complexes [Concept learning in science and technology: Helping students construct complex knowledge structures]. [AixMarseille University]. Marseille. https://www​.theses​.fr​/s169777. Nia, M. G., & de Vries, M. J. (2016). ‘Standards’ on the bench: Do standards for technological literacy render an adequate image of technology? JOTSE: Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(1), 5–18. Northcut, K. M., & Brumberger, E. R. (2010). Resisting the lure of technology-driven design: Pedagogical approaches to visual communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40(4), 459–71. https://doi​.org​/10​.2190​/TW​.40​.4​.f. Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206. https://doi​.org​/10​.1023​/A​:1008919120846. Prozesky, D. R. (2000). Communication and effective teaching. Community Eye Health, 13(35), 44–5. https://pubmed​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/17491962; https://www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pmc​/ articles​/PMC1705977/. Richey, R. C. (2013). Communication. In R. C. Richey (Ed.), Encyclopedia of terminology for educational communications and technology (pp. 81–2). New York: Springer. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 39, 12–19. 154

Communicating

Rush Hovde, M., & Renguette, C. C. (2017). Technological literacy: A framework for teaching technical communication software tools. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 395–411. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/10572252​.2017​.1385998. Simondon, G. (2017). On the mode of existence of technical objects [Du mode d’existence des objets techniques] (C. Malaspina & J. Rogove, Trans.). Paris: Univocal. Sterne, J. (2005). Communication as Techné. In G. J. Shepherd, J. S. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as . . . : perspectives on theory (pp. 91–8). California: Sage. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 1–32. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ s10648​-019​-09465​-5. The Five Graces Group, Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1111​/j​.1467​-9922​.2009​.00533​.x. Todd, R. (1991). The natures and challenges of technological literacy. In M. Dyrenfurth & M. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy, 40th yearbook of the council for technology teacher education (pp. 10–27). Glencoe. UNESCO. (2018). Global education monitoring report: Migration, displacement and education, building bridges, not walls. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2021). Literacy. UNESCO. Retrieved July 31, 2021 from https://en​.unesco​.org​/ themes​/literacy Vaish, V. (2013). Questioning and oracy in a reading program. Language and Education, 27(6), 526–41. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/09500782​.2012​.737334. Warnecke, E. (2014). The art of communication (Vol. 43). Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. https://doi​.org​/10​.3316​/informit​.128595951258704. Wegerif, R. (2015). Technology and teaching thinking: Why a dialogic approach is needed for the twenty-first century. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 451–64). Abingdon: Routledge. Westbrook, J., Durrani, N., Brown, R., Orr, D., Pryor, J., Boddy, J., & Salvi, F. (2013). Pedagogy, curriculum, teaching practices and teacher education in developing countries. Final Report. Education Rigorous Literature Review. Wiejak, K., Kaczan, R., Krasowicz-Kupis, G., & Rycielski, P. (2017). Working memory and reading ability in children — a psycholinguistic perspective. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 17(Contribution to a special issue Executive functions and children’s literacy development), 1–22. https://doi​.org​/10​.17239​/L1ESLL​-2017​.17​.04​.01. Wilkinson, A. (1968). Oracy in English teaching. Elementary English, 45(6), 743–7. http://www​ .jstor​.org​/stable​/41386406. Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–54. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/s10798​-007​-9046​-0. Willingham, D. T. (2005). Ask the cognitive scientist do visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory, and kinesthetic instruction? American educator, 29(2), 31. Wilmot, P. D. (1999). Graphicacy as a form of communication. South African Geographical Journal, 81(2), 91–5. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/03736245​.1999​.9713668. Worley, R. B. (2000). Internships in business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(1), 62–3.

155

Chapter 12

Including Thinking Toward an Inclusive Curriculum for Technology Education in German Primary Schools Franz Schröer and Claudia Tenberge

Introduction Technological artifacts, processes, developments, and problems, as well as dealing with their assessment and evaluation on the basis of values, are a fundamental part of the world we live in (de Vries et al., 2016). Technology is man made and in contrast to, for example, scientific laws not simply found in nature. It is created and developed and becomes more and more complex in accordance with an increasing complexity of humankind’s necessities and capabilities (Mitcham, 1994). Based, among other things, on market economic principles or ecological demands, new technologies are being developed and brought to market at a rapid rate. Technological activities affect all human beings—even small children—and are often imitative activities at first that can only be varied and developed with increasing practice. They develop toward the quite simple usage of technological artifacts and subsequently problem-solving skills aiming toward a change of the individuum’s living environment in a purposeful way. It is obvious that these basal capacities are not sufficient for the demands of living and participating in the aforementioned fastdeveloping technological environment (Möller, 1998, 2018). That is why technology education is already important at the primary school level. It aims toward enabling all children to feel self-efficient and safe using, creating, and evaluating technology, which is key to participating in a technological society (Wiesmüller, 2006; Mammes & Tuncsoy, 2018). To design teaching and learning arrangements in a way that all children with their different needs, preconceptions, and interests can learn to participate in technology is a quite fundamental issue if we take into account that the German educational system

Including

is considered to be rather segregative even at primary level (Blanck et al., 2013). Several recent studies mention a spatial turn in research on segregation in Germany’s residential environments and schools and emphasize social and ethnic parameters as strongly affecting educational achievements (Stirner et al., 2019; Parade & Heinzel, 2020). Also fourteen years after ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) (UN, 2006) the joint schooling and cooperative and collaborative learning of children with and without impairments is still a central issue. While, for example, in the UK the schooling of children with impairments in separated schools hardly ever occurs and parents have to disagree on the attendance in a school for all children (cf. Plate, 2010), the German federal educational systems more often segregate regular and special needs primary schools and leave it to the parents to choose which type of school they want their child to attend (Wocken, 2010). Furthermore, it is common practice in most of the German federal states to send students with special needs to exclusive schools after diagnostic procedures during their primary and secondary school years. According to Hollenbach-Biele and Klemm (2020) 26,000 primary/secondary school students were transferred from regular schools to special schools in the term of 2018/19 (p. 6). In the period indicated, only 43.1 percent of all students with diagnosed special educational needs attended a regular school (2020, p. 9). Yet still today, in contradiction to the UN-CRPD (UN, 2006) there is not one inclusive educational system at the primary level. The several sub-systems existing tend to exclude underprivileged children or children with impairments from regular schooling structures like, for example, the curriculum. As in German schools for special education, teaching and learning are often based on reduced content and delayed curricula (Schomaker, 2013, p. 49). Especially the design of teaching and learning in inclusive school settings (Pech, Schomaker, and Simon, 2019) and the professionalization of pre- and in-service teachers for inclusive schools (Mester, 2019) have not been sufficiently studied yet. As the much-cited index for inclusion calls for the reduction of both exclusion from and increased participation in curricula for all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011, p. 3) the fundamental questions discussed in this chapter ask how curricula for technology education can or already do meet the overriding requirement for inclusive teaching and learning in German primary schools. In addition, it will be discussed which requirements could be valid for inclusive curricula at primary level. The chapter has four further sections of which the first two will give a brief overview on the current status of technology education in German primary schools as well as established curricular guidelines and subordinate proposals on curriculum development. The third section substantiates the need and describes the requirements for inclusive curricula in primary education. The fourth section continues discussing the unsatisfying status on curriculum development for inclusive teaching and learning and will give an outlook on potential future developments.

157

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Technology Education within the Subject of “Sachunterricht” Technology education at primary level in all federal German educational systems is part of one school subject that integrates with technology education itself and several other scientific domains. This so-called subject “Sachunterricht” is often translated into interdisciplinary science and social studies in primary education. However, technology education is one fundamental perspective of “Sachunterricht.” The established translation does not explicitly contain technology education as such and is therefore not quite suitable for this chapter. Hence the term “Sachunterricht” is used and not translated into English subsequently. In very few federal German states (e.g., Saxony) the more practical part of technology education forms a separate subject “Werken” which is most appropriately translated into “crafting.” As “Sachunterricht” is the predominant location of technology education in German primary schools, this chapter focuses on this major part of technology education and “crafting” as a separate subject is not considered further anymore. The subject of “Sachunterricht” is predominantly conceptualized as a multiperspective approach to children’s living environment and the phenomena in it (Thomas, 2015). It aims toward providing children with a better factual understanding of the world they live in (Kahlert, 2016). As outlined by the perspectives framework, published by the German Association of Didactics for Interdisciplinary Science and Social Studies (Gesellschaft für Didaktik des Sachunterrichts; GDSU), a technological perspective therefore is one perspective (next to e.g., scientific, social scientific, historical, geographical, and political) from which children can learn about phenomena, theories, experiments, artifacts, processes, problems, and values that determine their living environment (GDSU, 2013). Beyond (1) children’s living environment(s) there are two further common fundamental categories that determine the conceptualization of “Sachunterricht.” The (2) children themselves with their individual preconceptions, interests, ideas, questions, and different needs form a second so-called didactical category (Fölling-Albers, 2015). Finally, the (3) (scientific) domains interdisciplinary science and social studies are related to, determine the conceptualization of teaching and learning, as in those domains factual knowledge, methods, and processes of inquiry as well as the nature of science and technology are being developed (cf. Lederman, 2006). These three roughly outlined didactical categories (living environment, child, scientific domain) determine the conception and analysis of interdisciplinary science and social studies as a school subject, as a matter of teacher training and as a scientific discipline (Fölling-Albers, 2015; Köhnlein, 2015; Nießeler, 2015). Although research on technology education in “Sachunterricht” emphasizes that children, especially of young age, are quite interested in interacting with technological artifacts (Tenberge, 2002; Möller, 2018), solving technological problems (Beinbrech, 2003), and discovering what something is made of, how it is crafted, used, or

158

Including

disposed (Möller, 1998; Mammes, 2001; Möller & Wyssen, 2018), technology education is considered to be underrepresented compared to other scientific domains in “Sachunterricht” (Wensierski & Sigeneger, 2015, p. 122). Despite an increasing political (Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), 2017) and academic (Mammes & Zolg, 2015; Mammes & Tuncsoy, 2018) consensus on technological literacy as a key to participation in a society that develops and deals with more and more complex and diverse technological artifacts, problems, and processes, there is still little research on the development of technology education in Germany (Möller & Wyssen, 2018). Moreover, De Vries (2018) points out that there was serious reason for concern regarding the future development of research and teacher training in the subject in Germany due to a decline of research centers and chairs for technology education in recent years (p. 82). The technology education task force within the GDSU and the German Scientific Society for Technology Education (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Bildung) therefore advocate for a strengthened consideration of technology education in the classroom, in teacher training as well as in curricular guidelines and proposals. In this regard, a new achievement is the recently published supplement and concretization on technology education to the GDSU’s perspectives framework (Möller et al., 2021).

Curriculum Development for Technology Education at Primary Level in Germany There are currently several different curricula addressing technology education in German primary schools. Similar to Scandinavian countries, where the term “curriculum” usually has a more restricted meaning than in English-speaking countries (Nes Mordal & Stromstad, 1998, p. 103), the term includes next to governmental guidelines also academic suggestions regarding content and methodology, such as the perspectives framework published by the abovementioned GDSU (2013). Furthermore, in Germany guideline proposals from, for example, the foundation system are referred to as curricula. The framework of reference for technology (Verband Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI), 2021), which was designed in accordance with the common European Framework of Reference for Languages, is one example for those. These final types of curricula are a quite common instrument of, for example, industrial stakeholders trying to make an impact on the promotion of young people for their purposes in the general education system. All German curricula on technology education have underlying understandings of skill and capabilities that are close to the literacy theorem due to an enormous impact of the 2002 PISA study as its results in Germany fell way short of the expectations. The subsequent reform process at all levels and subjects of the German educational system, often referred to as “neue Steuerung” (new system-control), led, among other things, to a new alignment of the educational landscape toward a more literacy and competencedriven orientation (Herrmann, 2012). Another common issue is the subdivision into 159

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

areas of competence according to Weinert’s much-cited definition of competencies as cognitive abilities and skills that an individuum possesses or can learn to solve specific problems, and the associated motivational, volitional, and social dispositions to use those abilities and skills in variable problem-solving situations (Weinert, 2002, p. 27f.). The areas of competence are in most of the present curricula further distinguished by ones of procedural (e.g., using technology, building, problem-solving, and evaluating) and ones of content-related (e.g., stability of constructions, conversion and use of energy, technological inventions) nature (GDSU, 2013, p. 64). Following the structure of the nationwide educational standards for mathematics and language, most curricula formulate the competencies to be achieved as minimum standards. Considerable differences among the curricula covered here lie in their emphasis on either procedural or content-related areas of competence. On the one hand, the common framework of reference for technology is one example of a curriculum that strongly emphasizes procedures derived from the nature of technological inquiry and uses subject areas barely as an example to describe which content is most suitable to foster certain procedural skills. On the other hand, binding governmental guidelines such as the one for the federal state of lower saxony (Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium, 2021) tend to use specific selections of content as their structuring feature. Their construction is—more than in other curricula—based on subject areas or technological subdomains such as engineering, architecture, and information technology, which determines their rather content-related nature. The perspectives framework (GDSU, 2013), as the major curriculum device out of a scientific association dealing with technology education, represents a more balanced approach between the emphasis of content and procedural-related sections. As it covers not only technology education but also the other perspectives of “Sachunterricht,” its model of competence consists of contextrelated cross-perspective subject areas (e.g., mobility, sustainable development, media) and ways of thinking and acting (e.g., comparing, questioning, evaluating, reasoning). In recent years curriculum development for “Sachunterricht” in Germany and therefore also for technology education at primary level has not been sufficiently studied (Blaseio, 2011). Therefore, the underrepresentation of technology education in German primary schools and especially a lack of development of inclusive curricula are major issues to approach. Hence, the evaluative discussion of currently valid curricula under the issue of inclusion is one first step toward a more inclusive approach to teaching and learning in German primary schools.

Inclusion: Requirements for the Future Development of Technology Education in Germany Although empirical research and theoretical frameworks on “Sachunterricht” have addressed the challenges associated with the developmental task inclusion compared to 160

Including

other primary school-related academic domains relatively early (Pech et al., 2019), there are still numerous open fields to study considering overlapping areas and differential lines between yet established values, (professional) attitudes, and practices and new inclusion-related requirements to the design of teaching and learning (Seitz, 2018). Grosche (2015) points out that a fundamental issue in research on inclusive teaching and learning is that the term “inclusion” is not defined and used consistently in German and international research. So-called narrow interpretations of inclusion refer predominantly to the joint schooling of children with and without impairments, and systemic changes of teaching and learning are largely omitted (2015). Broader approaches to the term “inclusion,” also referred in this chapter, presume “that the aim of inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion that is a consequence of attitudes and responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability”(Ainscow, 2007, p. 3). The focus of a so-called inclusive turn takes a closer look at the analysis and elimination of structural and organizational barriers to participation and learning experience by students (Ainscow, 2007; Booth & Ainscow, 2011, p. 102). Inclusion is therefore not reduced to a matter that only affects persons with disabilities. It refers to overcoming all kinds of barriers and obstacles hindering a participation in society and therefore participation in technology for all—also and especially, for example, for gifted students falling short of their learning potentials, often referred to as “underachievers.” Thus, the participation and involvement in technology education curricula for all students is one way to approach inclusive technology education. According to Prengel (2013, 2020) an inclusive design of instruction at primary level requires attitudes and practices that allow individualized learning in a cooperative and collaborative learning environment. Such learning in community can be supplemented by temporary grouping and individual support as long as the membership of the class is fostered in the process (Prengel, 2020, p. 3). This kind of teaching and learning implies, along with a binding and staged core curriculum, optional components giving room for the individual ideas and interests of students (Prengel, 2020, p. 5). Learning materials are therefore to be systematically structured to build on one another. To consider heterogeneous individual needs and cognitive abilities learning opportunities should be offered in a differentiated manner. According to Simon (2015) such differentiations can be provided by offering communicative, sensory, enactive, iconic, and symbolic modes of access to a topic. To allow all children to choose from several access modes, the lower considered ones should just as the more complex ones offer complete units and different levels of achievement (2015). Curricula that offer a wide variety of approaches to a topic and define various levels of achievement building on one another without summarizing them in regular or minimum standards are considered most suitable for inclusive teaching and learning (Prengel, 2020). Both the binding and optional components of inclusive curricula are to be combined and connected throughout the learning process by teaching instruments of diagnosis and scaffolding (e.g., van de Pol et al., 2010) as well as teaching strategies of differentiation and adaptation (Simon, 2015; Pech & Rauterberg, 2016). This ensures that learning 161

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

continues to take place on a common subject, so that cooperative and collaborative activities remain accessible (Feuser, 2018). It is at this point where the repeatedly addressed curriculum dilemma (Dederich, 2020, p. 533) associated with inclusion becomes evident. On the one hand, it raises the question of whether participation in the curriculum demands that all students participate in one and the same curriculum and if they do so, how can that one curriculum consider the different needs and starting points of all different students? On the other hand, several applicable individualized curricula could raise awareness of and be a better way to consider the wide variety of students’ needs and potentials. However, wouldn’t those various curricula not contradict the fundamental demand for participation in the same curriculum? These questions reveal one key issue to curriculum development under the inclusive turn very clearly (Dederich, 2020). So far, it is largely unresolved, how individualization and commonality are to be balanced in a curriculum for technology education at the primary level. As the following section will substantiate, also the established subdivision of school subjects can be challenged by the concept of inclusion. The curriculum proposal for inclusive teaching and learning out of the index for inclusion shows a fundamental difference to established curricula largely related to school subjects. According to the authors, those subjects are to be recombined in consideration of fundamental issues of living together well in the twenty-first century (Booth & Ainscow, 2016). The authors suggest the following thirteen subjects as a guiding curriculum structure that appears to cover a wide variety of different approaches to one’s living environment, on the one hand. They seem to lack, on the other hand, a clear differentiation and distinction of the domains the implemented subjects are related to: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The earth, the solar system, and the universe Communication/technology Clothing and body decoration Water Food Mobility and transport Health and relationships Life on earth non-violence Energy Community Ethics power and government Homes and building Work and activity (Booth & Ainscow, 2016, p. 31).

Therefore, currently established structures of curricula—often inspired by scientific domains—form some kind of a cross-layer to the aforementioned model, as technology education activities are easily imaginable in almost all of the subject domains

162

Including

mentioned. Taking a closer look at concretions for each perspective, all phrased as questions, it becomes obvious that procedural and content-related skills and knowledge are barely differentiated from each other in those concretions. From a technology education point of view, fundamental competencies from established curricula, such as the usage of technological artifacts, the solving of technological problems and inventing of technological solutions find themselves distributed across all the indicated knowledge components. According to the subdivision of technology-related curricula into rather procedural and content-related ones (see section “Curriculum Development for Technology Education at Primary Level in Germany”), the index for inclusion’s curriculum is therefore considered a more content-related one. As Booth and Ainscow (Booth & Ainscow, 2016) describe their curriculum as one for all stages of learning (p. 37), a spiral curricular structure with recurring content references is implied. The authors recommend a comparative examination of existing curricula and hope that this approach may lead to a curriculum that is much closer “to what people generally learn outside school and in education beyond school. It is the curriculum which more closely reflects the lives, experience and futures of children” (Booth & Ainscow, 2016, p. 39f.). Thus, the proposal implies a multi-perspective approach strongly emphasizing the living environment of children as a contributor to the content of teaching and learning.

Thinking Toward an Inclusive Technology Education Curriculum Research on technology education in Germany has not yet sufficiently studied the circumstances and requirements for a re-concepualization of the developmental task inclusion. Very few early empirical findings indicate that technological education is capable of supporting the personal development in general and particularly the selfefficacy in hands-on learning activities for children with diverse expressions of needs (Tenberge, 2002, p. 186f.). Beinbrech (2003) recommends an arrangement of teaching and learning based on self-determined learning with the teacher structuring the process by the selection of technological problems to enable participation for all learners (Beinbrech 2003, p. 214). First results of a current research project on the nature and consideration of students’ individual needs in technology education classes emphasize the broad variety of students’ needs and a resulting desideratum on how different needs can be considered through the design of teaching and learning arrangements (Schröer, 2020; Schröer & Tenberge, 2021). Theoretical approaches to an inclusive design of “Sachunterricht” mostly support the development of rather self-determined learning environments. This leads to the multi-perspective idea of “Sachunterricht” and to a more open approach to children’s engagements with their living environment in line with the index for inclusion.

163

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Methodical concretions to an inclusive concept of teaching and learning are, for example, the consideration of children’s questions on phenomena raised and presented in the lessons (Miller & Brinkmann, 2011; Brinkmann, 2019). Hence, dealing with technology-related questions becomes one of several approaches to choose from when dealing with the living environment. The question of topics, contents, and learning objectives, usually determined by curricula, must be reconsidered under inclusive circumstances. The development of an inclusive educational system at all levels and therefore inclusive primary schools and inclusive arrangements of “Sachunterricht” are thus strongly related with the analysis of and reflection on current developments of modified or even new conceptions for technology education in German primary schools. Hereby, one fundamental issue to deal with is the structure of curricula containing technologyrelated demands. An inclusive curriculum for technology education requires a redesign under a stronger emphasis on two of the three didactical categories raised at the outset of this chapter. (1) Especially the children with their needs, preconceptions, interests, and questions are to be thought of not only as recipients but also as participants of the curriculum. It must therefore be clarified at which levels opportunities for participation can be opened to the students. (2) The children’s living environment and the phenomena in it must be considered further under the principles of a democratically oriented educational landscape. To reach a sophisticated level of differentiation, the structure and phrasing of a curriculum is a fundamental issue to its redesign. As the specification of several levels of competence could not yet provide a sufficient mapping of the diversity of student’s skills and capabilities, it is likely to assume that inclusive curricula require a broader approach to the differentiation of competence. The phrasing of curricula in question holds potentials but requires further and more precise operationalization if one takes a closer look at the issue mentioned earlier. Technology education offers great potentials for the achievement of inclusive requirements due to its practical activities and its relation to real-life scenarios (Davies, 2018). Also, the various methods of communicating technology through language, calculations, drawings, codes, demonstrations, or models provide several entry levels and modes of dealing with and catching on technology. Finally, suggestions become obvious in many technology education cross-curricular activities. Eikmeyer and Tenberge’s (2012, 2017) reference to building four-wheeled vehicles from everyday materials is likely to foster technology-related problem-solving skills. However, it also contains options for promoting basic mathematic skills such as estimation and measurement or linguistic competencies in dealing with and reflecting on simple technical terms (e.g., wheel, axis, vehicle body, steering wheel). Moreover, it allows a bunch of follow-up topics related to several subject domains: ● ●

164

Development of human mobility initiated by the invention of the wheel; Discovering conditions for frictionless rolling in an experiment;

Including

●

●

Questioning common habits such as using a car for short distances/using a plane to go on holiday; Developing a solution for a (self-)driving-car by using a micro-computer (Scheibe et al., 2021).

Preliminary Conclusion As a preliminary conclusion within the process toward an inclusive educational system and inclusive curricula, it can be stated here that established curriculum guidelines and proposals in Germany have come so far that technology education is barely considered an isolated subject domain anymore. Multi-perspective approaches to children’s learning at the primary level can be considered self-evident. However, several curricula, especially governmental binding ones, barely mention cross-perspective connections within the given content. Also, repeatedly demanded spiral curricular structures with recurring content references are partially elaborated for technology education out of scientific research (Möller, 2017). Nevertheless, they have not yet made their way into governmental curricula as those have not established structures that make corresponding links between the school levels visible. It seems quite unlikely that the established subject structure in Germany will be reconsidered under inclusive demands any time soon. Thus, inclusion-related research and development for the school subject, for teacher training and for scientific desiderata, questions and methods are to be made within the scientific discipline of didactics of “Sachunterricht.” Nevertheless, interdisciplinary and international comparison, exchange and cooperation are fundamental, as foreign perspectives are capable of holding up a mirror for your own discipline.

References Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 3–7. Beinbrech, C. (2003). Problemlösen im Sachunterricht der Grundschule (Electronic ed.). Münster: Hochschulschrift (Dissertation). https://nbn​-resolving​.de​/urn​:nbn​:de​:hbz​:6​ -85659527270 (accessed October 1, 2021). Blanck, J. M., Edelstein, B., & Powell, J. J. (2013). Persistente schulische Segregation oder Wandel zur inklusiven Bildung? Die Bedeutung der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention für Reformprozesse in den deutschen Bundesländern. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie= Revue Suisse de Sociologie, 39(5), 267–92. Blaseio, B. (2011). Inklusives Sachlernen in den Grundschullehrplänen Deutschlands. In H. Giest, A. Kaiser, & C. Schomaker (Eds.), Sachunterricht - auf dem Weg zur Inklusion (pp. 89–96). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

165

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed., substantially revised and expanded). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). The Index for Inclusion: A guide to school development led by inclusive values (4th ed.). Cambridge: Index for Inclusion Network (IfIN). Brinkmann, V. (2019). Fragen stellen an die Welt: eine Untersuchung zur Kompetenzentwicklung in einem an den Schülerfragen orientierten Sachunterricht. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren (Basiswissen Grundschule, Band 41). Davies, L. T. (2018). Addressing special educational needs and disability in the curriculum. Design and technology (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge. De Vries, M. J. (2018). Technological education: An international history. In M. J. De Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 73–84). New York: Springer. Dederich, M. (2020). Inklusion. In G. Weiß & J. Zirfas (Eds.), Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungsphilosophie (pp. 527–36). Wiesbaden: Springer. Eikmeyer, B., & Tenberge, C. (2012). Mein Fahrzeug fährt am besten! Kinder erfinden technische Lösungen beim Bau von vierrädrigen Fahrzeugen. Grundschule Sachunterricht, 54, 18–23. Eikmeyer, B., & Tenberge, C. (2017). “Mein Fahrzeug fährt am besten!” - Kinder erfinden technische Lösungen beim Bau von vierrädrigen Fahrzeugen. In K. Möller (Ed.), Holz erleben - Technik verstehen: praktische Unterrichtsideen und Materialien für die Grundschule (pp. 98–111). Seelze: Klett, Kallmeyer. Feuser, G. (2018). Momente der Ideengeschichte der Integration bzw. Inklusion im Feld der (Schul-)Pädagogik. In T. Sturm & M. Wagner-Willi (Eds.), Handbuch schulische Inklusion (pp. 111–25). Opladen Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich (utb Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderpädagogik). Fölling-Albers, M. (2015). Kind als didaktische Kategorie. In J. Kahlert et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage (pp. 31–5). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik). GDSU (Ed.) (2013). Perspektivrahmen Sachunterricht. Vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Ausgabe. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Grosche, M. (2015). Was ist Inklusion? In P. Kuhl et al. (Eds.), Inklusion von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen (pp. 17–39). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Herrmann, U. (2012). “Bildung,” “Kompetenz” - oder was? Einige notwendige Begriffsklärungen. Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 88(3), 487–98. Hollenbach-Biele, N., & Klemm, K. (2020). Inklusive Bildung zwischen Licht und Schatten: Eine Bilanz nach 10 Jahren inklusiven Unterrichts, Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www​ .bertelsmann​-stiftung​.de​/fileadmin​/files​/BSt​/Publikationen​/GrauePublikationen​/20200625​ _Inklusive​-Bildung​-Zwischen​-Licht​-und​-Schatten​_ST​-IB​.pdf (accessed February 16, 2022). Kahlert, J. (2016). Der Sachunterricht und seine Didaktik. 4. aktualisierte Auflage. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik, Pädagogik). Köhnlein, W. (2015). Sache als didaktische Kategorie. In J. Kahlert et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage (pp. 36–40). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik). http://www​.utb​-studi​-e​-book​.de​/9783838586212. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2017) Ländergemeinsame inhaltliche Anforderungen für die Fachwissenschaften und Fachdidaktiken in der Lehrerbildung, Kultusministerkonferenz. https://www​.schulministerium​.nrw​/sites​/default​/files​/documents​/Fachprofile​.pdf (accessed October 1, 2021). Lederman, N. G. (2006). Sytnax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education: 166

Including

Environmental education (pp. 301–17). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. http://site​.ebrary​.com​/lib​/ alltitles​/docDetail​.action​?docID​=10645947 (accessed October 1, 2021). Mammes, I. (2001). Förderung des Interesses an Technik: eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss technischen Sachunterrichts auf die Verringerung von Geschlechterdifferenzen im technischen Interesse. Frankfurt am Main and New York: P. Lang (Europäische Hochschulschriften). Mammes, I., & Tuncsoy, M. (2018). Technische Bildung in der Grundschule. In I. Mammes (Ed.), Technisches Lernen im Sachunterricht: nationale und internationale Perspektiven. 2. unveränderte Auflage (pp. 8–21). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH (Dimensionen des Sachunterrichts, Band 6). Mammes, I., & Zolg, M. (2015). Technische Aspekte. In J. Kahlert et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl (pp. 143–9). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt (utb: Schulpädagogik). Mester, T. (2019). Inklusionsbezogenes fachdidaktisches Wissen für den Sachunterricht - Analytische und empirisch gestützte Modellentwicklung unter Berücksichtigung praxisrelevanter Anforderungen mit Fokussierung des naturwissenschaftlichen Lernens. Paderborn: Universität Paderborn. Miller, S., & Brinkmann, V. (2011). Von Schülerfragen ausgehen und mit heterogenen Lernvoraussetzungen umgehen in einem Sachunterricht für alle Kinder. In H. Giest, A. Kaiser, & Schomaker, C. (Eds.), Sachunterricht - auf dem Weg zur Inklusion (pp. 67–77). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt (Probleme und Perspektiven des Sachunterrichts, 21). Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Möller, K. (1998). Kinder und Technik. In H. Brügelmann (Ed.), Kinder lernen anders. Vor der Schule—in der Schule (pp. S.89–106). Lengwil: Libelle. Möller, K. (Ed.) (2017). Holz erleben - Technik verstehen: praktische Unterrichtsideen und Materialien für die Grundschule. Seelze: Klett, Kallmeyer. Möller, K. (2018). Frühe technische Bildung. In T. Stuber (Ed.), Technik und Design. Grundlagen: Technik und Design / Thomas Stuber u.a. 2. Auflage (pp. 224–33). Bern: hep. Möller, K., & Wyssen, H.-P. (2018). Technische Entwicklungen und Umsetzungen erschließen - und dabei Schülervorstellungen berücksichtigen. In M. Adamina et al. (Eds.), “Wie ich mir das denke und vorstelle . . .”: Vorstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern zu Lerngegenständen des Sachunterrichts und des Fachbereichs Natur, Mensch, Gesellschaft (pp. 157–74). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Möller, K., Tenberge, C., & Bohrmann, M. (Eds.) (2021). Die technische Perspektive konkret. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (Begleitbände zum Perspektivrahmen Sachunterricht, Band 5). Nes Mordal, K., & Stromstad, M. (1998). Norway: Adapted education for all? In T. Booth & M. Ainscow (Eds.), From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education (pp. 101–17). London: Routledge. Nießeler, A. (2015). Lebenswelt/Heimat als didaktische Kategorie. In J. Kahlert et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage (pp. 27–31). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik). http://www​.utb​-studi​-e​ -book​.de​/9783838586212. Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium (2021). Kerncurriculum für die Grundschule Schuljahrgänge 1–4 - Sachunterricht, Niedersächsisches Landesinstitut für schulische Qualitätsentwicklung. https://cuvo​.nibis​.de​/cuvo​.php​?p​=download​&upload​=312 (accessed February 4, 2022). Parade, R., & Heinzel, F. (2020). Sozialräumliche Segregation und Bildungsungleichheiten in der Grundschule—eine Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 13(2), 193–207. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s42278​-020​-00080​-w. 167

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Pech, D., & Rauterberg, M. (2016). Wozu Didaktik? Ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Sachunterrichtsdidaktik und Inklusion. In O. Musenberg & J. Riegert (Eds.), Didaktik und Differenz (pp. 134–47). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Pech, D., Schomaker, C., & Simon, T. (2019). Sachunterrichtsdidaktische Forschung zu Inklusion. In D. Pech, C. Schomaker, & T. Simon (Eds.), Inklusion im Sachunterricht Perspektiven der Forschung (pp. 9–18). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Plate, E. (2010). Wege zur Inklusion in England und Deutschland - eine Herausforderung für das Schulpersonal. Bidok Digitale Volltextbibliothek, http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/plate-wege. html (accessed December, 5, 2022) van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–96. Prengel, A. (2013). Inklusive Bildung in der Primarstufe. Eine wissenschaftliche Expertise des Grundschulverbandes, Grundschulverband e.V. Grundschulverband e.V. https://www​.pedocs​ .de​/frontdoor​.php​?source​_opus​=18827 (accessed February 9, 2022). Prengel, A. (2020). Inklusion in der Primarstufe. Merkmale, Hintergründe, Bausteine, Probleme. Grundschule aktuell: Zeitschrift des Grundschulverbandes, 125, 3–6. Scheibe, V. et al. (2021). Vom rollfähigen zum programmierbaren Fahrzeug. In K. Möller, C. Tenberge, & M. Bohrmann (Eds.), Die technische Perspektive konkret (pp. 235–249). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (Begleitbände zum Perspektivrahmen Sachunterricht, Band 5). Schomaker, C. (2013). Sachunterricht und der Anspruch der Inklusion. In E. Gläser & G. Schönknecht (Eds.), Sachunterricht in der Grundschule: entwickeln - gestalten - reflektieren (pp. 48–57). Frankfurt am Main: Grundschulverband (Beiträge zur Reform der Grundschule, 136). Schröer, F. (2020). Technisches Lernen inklusiv gestalten - Zur Beschaffenheit von Lernbedürfnissen im Kontext technikbezogenen Sachunterrichts. In M. Binder, C. Wiesmüller, & T. Finkbeiner (Eds.), Technikunterricht: handfest und geistreich - Der Beitrag technischer Bildung zur kulturellen Bildung (pp. 119–41). Offenbach am Main: BE.ER-Konzept. Schröer, F., & Tenberge, C. (2021). Technological and inclusive education: Considering students’ needs towards technological learning in primary schools. Techne serien - Forskning i slöjdpedagogik och slöjdvetenskap, 28(2), 322–31. Seitz, S. (2018). Forschung zu inklusivem Sachunterricht—Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven. In D. Pech, C. Schomaker, & T. Simon (Eds.), Sachunterrichtsdidaktik & Inklusion—Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung (pp. 96–111). Bad Heilbrunn: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Simon, T. (2015). Adaption—woran und wofür? Adaption als Kerngeschäft inklusionsorientierter Sachunterrichtsdidaktik. In K. Liebers et al. (Eds.), Lernprozessbegleitung und adaptives Lernen in der Grundschule : Forschungsbezogene Beiträge (pp. 229–34). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​ /978​-3​-658​-11346​-9​_30. Stirner, P. et al. (2019). Eine gemeinsame Grundschule für alle? Die Grundschule als Ort sozioökonomischer Ungleichheit und Segregation. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 12(2), 439–55. Tenberge, C. (2002). Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und Sachunterricht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Persönlichkeitsentwicklung in handlungsintensiven Lernformen im naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Sachunterricht der Grundschule. Münster: Hochschulschrift (Dissertation). Thomas, B. (2015). Vielperspektivischer Sachunterricht. In J. Kahlert et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts (pp. 249–56). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik).

168

Including

United Nations (UN) (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, United Nations. https://www​.un​.org​/disabilities​/documents​/convention​/convention​_accessible​_pdf​ .pdf (accessed September 8, 2021). Verband Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2021). Gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen Technik (GeRRT). VDI. https://www​.vdi​.de​/ueber​-uns​/presse​/publikationen​/details​/gemeinsamer​ -referenzrahmen​-technik​-gerrt (accessed October 6, 2021). de Vries, M. J. et al. (Eds.) (2016). Technology education today: International perspectives. Münster and New York: Waxmann. Weinert, F. E. (Ed.) (2002). Leistungsmessungen in Schulen. 2. unveränd. Aufl. Weinheim Basel: Beltz (Pädagogik). Wensierski, H.-J. von, & Sigeneger, J.-S. (2015) Technische Bildung: Ein pädagogisches Konzept für die schulische und außerschulische Kinder- und Jugendbildung. Opladen and Berlin and Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich (Studien zur technischen Bildung). Wiesmüller, C. (2006) Schule und Technik: die Technik im schultheoretischen Denken. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. Wocken, H. (2010). Elternwahlrecht!? - Über Dienstbarkeit, Endlichkeit und Widersinn des Elternwillens. Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete, 3, 186–95.

169

Chapter 13

Assessing How to Get Feedback Back on Track in Technology Education Eva Hartell

Introduction The term “feedback” stems from engineering and is defined as making inferences based on evidence and then acting on those inferences to close the gap between current and desired outcomes. However, in education, feedback is often diluted into merely the transfer of information—often taking the form of a star, a grade, or a comment on what has happened so far, instead of what to improve on next. Hence, it has lost its power to change people’s lives. This chapter argues that we need to go back to the origin of feedback and—instead of just relaying information regarding past positions—put information into action to move learners’ positions forward on their educational learning journeys. High-quality instruction with fundamentally embedded formative assessment strategies is needed before even considering feedback. Feedback as an integral part of formative assessment where evidence of learning is elicited, inferred from, and put into action to better meet learners’ needs can support learning. When formative assessment enters the conversation, it quickly becomes a buzzword among educators, policy makers, and educational vendors. This is unfortunate since there is substantial evidence that formative assessment can have a significant impact on student achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Speckesser et al., 2018). However, the substantial difficulties relating to formative assessment are often discarded in discussions, resulting in superficial understandings and implementation in classrooms. To establish a firm understanding of formative assessment, teachers need time and space to experiment, discuss and reflect on their work so they can implement processes for formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Harrison, 2009; Moreland et al., 2008; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). This has been found to be particularly challenging in technology education, where the educational environment is not supportive enough and where teachers are left to rely on their own experiences to bridge the gap between teaching and learning (Hartell, 2015).

Assessing

Wiliam and Leahy (2015) argue that teachers can move toward formative assessment practices by enacting the following five strategies in their classrooms: 1. Clarifying, sharing, and understanding learning intentions and success criteria. 2. Engineering effective discussions, tasks, and activities that elicit evidence of learning. 3. Providing feedback that moves learning forward. 4. Activating students as learning resources for one another. 5. Activating students as owners of their learning. Embedding these five strategies in instruction forms a basis for feedback that aligns with learning intentions and criteria for success, and to take back control and release the power of feedback, all five key strategies for formative assessment must be embedded in classroom practices. Traditionally, teachers have been the main providers of feedback. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding, particularly within the technology education context, and must be changed to improve the quality of instruction. Feedback should be part of an entangled system taking place in the interplay between active agents’ provision of input: teacher to student, student to teacher, student to student, and, finally, students to themselves through self-reflection via deliberate self-assessment. This could perhaps provide students with new ideas on how to improve their work when critiquing and providing feedback to someone else to improve their ideas. Thus, students can be providers of feedback. Like students, this interplay may support teachers to gain new ideas through deliberate self-reflection upon their practices to inform their next step to adapt to what happens next thus here teachers can be considered learners as well. Still, teachers must engineer this entanglement, where these co-actors will interplay with a purpose to orchestrate what happens in the classroom to better meet learners’ needs. As highlighted, this chapter will provide a theoretical overview and some illustrative examples of how to embed feedback in practice to maximize student achievement in technology education.

Feedback Literature illustrates that feedback can be very powerful in supporting learning. However, some caution is needed because feedback can have the opposite effect, and even harm students’ learning and self-efficacy. This might sound counterintuitive but building on Kluger and DeNisi’s (1996) review of feedback, Wiliam and Leany (2015) argue that a lot of feedback hinders learning. Regardless of all the advice provided from the literature on feedback, concluding that the only thing that matters is how the receiver 171

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 13.1  Reactions to Feedback (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015, p. 107) How feedback indicates performance The receiver of feedback will

Falls short of goal

Exceeds goal

Change behavior Change goal Abandon goal Reject feedback

Increase effort Reduce aspiration Decide the goal is too easy Feedback is ignored

Reduce effort Increase aspiration Decide the goal is too hard Feedback is ignored

responds to feedback. There are eight possible responses to feedback, six of which are bad (see Table 13.1). Hence, it is challenging to design feedback that moves learners forward in an effective way because what matters is how learners respond to, handle, and act on feedback. These reactions are difficult to foresee as they depend on several factors, and even if all these factors were to be covered; learners’ response to feedback is hard to detect as learners may store, retrieve, and make use of information received later. Their commitment to and their understanding of what to do next influence their capability to infer from information received to alter the gap. It is complicated; therefore Wiliam and Leahy (2015) suggest as a rule of thumb that feedback should create more work for the recipient than for the donor. Unfortunately, the opposite is more common. Hence feedback is not part of a system. For feedback to be part of a system, learners must be afforded the time and space to react to feedback. When students are not given time to work with feedback, the feedback is likely to be discarded and has no impact on learning (Black, 2008). However, this can be changed by including time in lesson plans for students to work with their feedback, which increases the likelihood of positive outcomes. Time to revise is important; however, students also need strategies to do so. These strategies need to be practiced and followed up on by teachers. Hence, teachers must engineer situations in which co-actors will interplay with the purpose to orchestrate what happens in the classroom. Educational feedback has traditionally been too descriptive of the past, instead of suggesting potential next steps to move learners forward. There are different ways to reach a destination, and the descriptors of what has passed are not as helpful as those of what step to take next. Even though most travelers follow the main road, they might not have the same starting points, and they may not travel at the same pace. Sometimes, obstacles occur, which demand alternative routes. In educational contexts, teachers must include alternative routes in their road maps because students do not learn everything they are taught, and good teaching starts from where learners are. These alternative routes are traditionally planned by teachers. However, along with the growth of learners’ ability, knowledge, and self-efficacy, they may take control of their learning journeys and provide themselves with alternative next steps for reducing the gap between where they currently are to where they are going. Being taught to handle and make use of feedback and learning how to take responsibility for their learning supports students’ achievement (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). 172

Assessing

The quality of feedback is critical and must be forward-looking, so the question “Where to next?” also summarizes both direction and attitude in a good way. Provided you know where you are going that is. This reminds us of what Winnie the Pooh allegedly said, “If you do not know where you are going, you cannot know if you are lost,” pinpointing the importance of aligning feedback with learning intentions and criteria for success. Fostering learners’ understanding of what quality looks like is particularly important and even more challenging to do in an open-ended inquiry context, like technology education, where learning intention and criteria for success are not always predefined. However, it is still necessary to know in what direction you are heading to suggest what step to take next to make sure learners move forward on their educational journeys. Hence, students need guidance and support from teachers to find the bearing forward, hence teachers must communicate the criteria for success. Feedback is not just the provision of information; feedback should be part of a system intending to change students’ performance, ways of thinking, and learning. Therefore, feedback must take its starting point from where learners are and point where to go next, which is why feedback should be provided throughout the learning process—while learning. Despite its name, feedback is future-facing, addressing where to go next, and is closely linked to learning intentions and criteria for success.

The Three-Pillar Principle of Feedback Traditionally the provision of feedback by teachers to students gets the most focus. The three-pillar principle of feedback may support the importance of context of feedback. Learners provide feedback to themselves and others, for example, teachers provide feedback to their teachers by asking those questions or responding to teachers’ questions. Students provide feedback to peers as well as to their teachers. Teachers elicit evidence of learning as a way of welcoming feedback from their students on how things are progressing. Teachers can ask questions and collect responses. However, it is equally important to encourage students to ask questions for which teachers not only elicit evidence of learning but may also be provisioned with feedback on their teaching. On top of this, learners—as in teachers and students—may provide feedback to themselves via self-assessment as well. The principles for this are applicable in all contexts. However, to make feedback effective, the third domain-specific dimension is needed where subject content and context are considered. This could be illustrated by a three-pillar stool where two of the pillars represent provision and receiving feedback, and context forms the third pillar, which makes the stool steady. Where all three pillars are in place, they cater for learning to happen. From a teachers’ perspective, this third pillar could symbolize the subject didactics where both content knowledge and pedagogical skills are needed to form the next step or even provide effective feedback. This third pillar is influenced by the quality of the milieu in which the teacher is situated, 173

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

for example, support from colleagues and school management, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and self-efficacy supporting the teacher to align with learning intentions and offering broad instructional repertoires for finding alternative routes for learners but also teaching materials, collegial support and the like that support the affordance to bridge teaching and learning. The two generic principles—receiving and providing—feedback constitute two supportive pillars for effective feedback where the third context makes it steady.

Climate Change in the Classroom Environment Wiliam (2011) stresses the importance of a permissive classroom climate that entails the notion of learning from one’s experiences (including mistakes) and from that welcoming feedback. This is easier said than done but the responsibility lies within the teacher not among the students. The structure of lesson activities influences how students approach their tasks and assignments, including revisions, which is why it is key to design activities that elicit evidence of learning related to what teachers need to know to challenge students’ thinking and to encourage them to share and listen to one another’s ideas in dialogue while giving them strategies to do so. Embedding lesson activities in which students work with their feedback is one strategy that may encourage students to engage with feedback; however, an important but sometimes forgotten part of the implementation process is to make sure that students understand why they are receiving feedback. Something as simple as telling students that they receive feedback because their teachers have high standards and believe their students can exceed those standards has been shown to work, making students more receptive to using feedback and submitting revisions. The provision of feedback can easily turn into a very heavy workload for teachers, which is yet another reason to be frugal with feedback and make sure to provide students with time and strategies to handle feedback. It is also important to communicate that learning from mistakes is crucial by encouraging students to revise, hence creating more work for students than teachers in a permissive environment. Wiliam (2015) pinpoints that feedback should be viewed as a diagnosis instead of a post-mortem, emphasizing the importance of providing feedback as part of a system undertaken during as opposed to after learning. He also highlights the importance of feedback being part of a system from which information is inferred and put into action while acknowledging the importance of context. It is not enough to state that it is cold, so we must turn on the thermostat to raise the temperature but not any temperature; it matters what temperature the people in the room prefer and what is practically feasible. In other words, when embedding feedback in an educational context; teachers must consider the context of there and then, as well as here and now, to reduce the gap between current and desired positions for their students in front of them. 174

Assessing

Guidelines on the Focus of Feedback There are some general guidelines on what to focus on when providing feedback. Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) review of feedback focuses primarily on information in transmission rather than on feedback from an engineering point of view. Still, their review has provided valuable insights, suggesting that feedback should focus on what students have control over (e.g., tasks, processes, and self-regulation), not over selflevel items (e.g., their personal characteristics, avoiding praise). These suggestions are consistent with the findings of Lindström (2006) and Wiliam (2011) that emphasize the importance of providing feedback as part of a system undertaken while learning. The findings are also concurrent with the recent review of teachers’ feedback by the Educational Endowment Foundation (2021). Their review offers six recommendations for teachers. First, it emphasizes laying the foundation for effective feedback by providing high-quality instructions in which formative assessment is embedded. Second, teachers should deliver appropriately timed feedback focusing on moving learning forward, highlighting the importance of considering the characteristics of the task set, the individual student, and the collective understanding of the class. Third, how feedback is received should be carefully monitored, with a particular focus on students’ motivation, self-confidence, and trust in the teacher; this is achieved by implementing strategies that encourage learners to welcome feedback and that provide students with opportunities to use feedback. These three recommendations must be in place for the following three recommendations to work. The Foundation’s fourth and fifth recommendations are to carefully consider how to use purposeful and time-efficient written and verbal feedback, respectively. It problematizes the difficulties and benefits of written and verbal feedback, concluding that the format may be less important because the quality may vary, regardless of the format, and they point out that teacher workload should be considered as well. In their sixth and final recommendation they suggest schools should design feedback policies that prioritize and exemplify the principles of effective feedback. They suggest their sixth recommendation could be something to consider for the local school but also this chapter suggests one step further to put it into the context of the local schools’ technology education department as well.

Frequency of Feedback The best default approach to feedback is the less-is-more approach suggested by Lindström (2006). Sometimes, it is often better to keep silent because when a student repeatedly and on routine gets the response, “Nice, can you tell me more about it?” they may soon conclude that what they are doing is not important and may get the impression that the teacher does not take their work seriously. The trust might be lost. Another reason to keep quiet is that too much feedback may, according to Wiliam (2011), 175

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

lead to feedback addiction among students, and students are at risk of becoming feedback junkies and tend not to learn as much. This addiction may lower their selfefficacy, leading them to not take their own initiative; hence, too much feedback is not supportive for students’ achievement or becoming self-regulated, independent learners. This less-is-more approach to feedback is described in technology education context by Hartell (2013), who researched two teachers’ classroom assessment practices in technology education. Both teachers discovered and applied this frugal approach to feedback during their thirty years of teaching. They hardly ever gave feedback or praise their students, instead they carefully monitored their progress by showing high expectations for students to solve their problems and fostering them to become self-regulated learners. It seems that they had discovered this successful approach by themselves without the support of other professionals. Fortunately, we can seize the opportunity to learn from them and from literature and encourage other teachers to do the same.

How to Deliver Feedback The focus of feedback matters, but what about how it is delivered? Does it matter if it is written or oral? If it is immediate or delayed? The evidence is somewhat conflicting, so the best answer is it depends. The best advice is that teachers should reflect on their context, subject, and students and make decisions that they, based on their professional opinions and contextual experience, think would be most beneficial. Hence, the teacher’s professional judgment is important here. Acknowledging teachers’ ability to adapt this advice to their local contexts puts forward the importance of them getting to know their students and the content they teach. What works when and for whom depends on the nature of the task and feedback, individual students, and finally what is practically feasible. Therefore, teachers must plan their feedback by selecting areas of focus, for example, product or process, general content, or factual content. Keeping Winnie the Pooh’s previously mentioned wisdom about having a plan reduces the likelihood of getting lost and adding his proverb that it is good to know, what to look for before you start looking for it in mind. His wise words will support teachers to remind themselves of the purpose of assessment and what they need to find out to be prepared to adapt to circumstances when deciding to what step next to better meet learners’ needs. It is better to have a plan. Hence, teachers must plan on what kind of data they need to be able to prepare the next steps to meet learners’ needs.

Level of Specificity As previously mentioned, it is not possible to say with certainty whether oral or written, immediate or delayed feedback works better. It all depends on the circumstances. 176

Assessing

The same goes for the level of specificity in feedback. Specified feedback states exactly what needs to be done, which might be needed sometimes and not others, for example, fixing simple errors in a sketch or technical drawings (such as forgetting to fill out measurement arrows), correcting recurring spelling errors, or using incorrect units when calculating density. Although these corrections may be needed as, despite its open-ended nature, there are non-negotiables in technology as well, a balance depending on local context, especially for individual students at a particular time, is a must. Too much focus on spelling mistakes may turn focus away from what they are supposed to be learning, and it may even hinder their self-esteem. Too much specific feedback from teacher to learner may also lower learners’ independence, with learners not taking their own initiatives to independently correct and improve their performance. Just like with too frequent feedback the students are at risk of becoming feedback junkies. However, there are measures to foster self-regulation in areas where such minor corrections are needed. For example, instead of handing back the student work (e.g., technical reports) with the number of correct responses and serving the correction of errors to students, teachers can turn the return of the reports into another learning activity. Teachers can avoid the traditional technique of pointing out how many incorrect answers a student has and instead turn the work into a detective work by telling them that there are errors in the calculation of, for example, density. Adding “Find them, fix them and show me when you are either stuck or done” (it is important to follow up). This is an example of how to turn feedback into another learning opportunity. A similar technique for feedback on correcting sketches and technical drawings according to a particular standard for measures is to let students compare their own sketches to an example and correct their mistakes themselves. This approach also applies to feedback and self-regulation, which can be learned by comparing one’s own work with someone else’s work of a different quality. From this, students may realize that they can perform better (set higher standards), but they also can receive suggestions on how they can improve by reflecting on their own work by looking at peers’ work and thereby receiving feedback on their own performance. There are several ways to provide specified feedback that engage and foster self-regulation. It is important to foster selfregulating techniques and encourage students’ questions instead of spoon-feeding them specific responses on demand. The beauty of technology education is that there are areas that are non-negotiable, such as how to calculate density, while other domains often have a more open nature, for example, open-ended design scenarios. Teachers should take advantage of discussing different solutions to problems by designing learning activities in this way, where students are afforded opportunities to ask questions and explore examples of previous exemplars. However, open-ended design requires careful follow-up, monitoring, and guidance (Sjöberg, 2019), which, as found by the Swedish School Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen, 2014), is uncommon. Instead, students are left to mind their own business unreflectively. 177

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Techniques That Enable Students to Handle Feedback It is important to guide students to handle and make use of feedback and learn how to be responsive to their own learning to support their achievement (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). It is easy to be seduced by positive research regarding the efficiency of feedback and metacognitive skills. However, a gentle reminder of the difficulties surrounding feedback is needed. Providing students with the affordance to handle feedback includes not only time to work with feedback and hand in revisions but also provision of opportunities to learn different strategies for handling feedback. These metacognitive skills must be taught in a context. Unfortunately, this is uncommon practice. However, Carless (2006) noted that students need to learn to handle assessment and feedback in the same way that they must learn subject knowledge, and how to interpret and use the information contained in feedback in relation to quality. Jönsson (2010) concluded that when students are trained in strategies that focus on learning in general, it does not benefit learning. The possible reasons for this are that students not only become more reluctant to engage with feedback, but they do not engage to the same extent in such activities; they simply do not put in the time and effort needed to complete the general activities. It is better to let them practice task-oriented strategies. Hence, these metacognitive skills must be taught within a context. It is better to let students self-assess their work or similar examples related to the task, instead of letting them respond to diffuse questions like “How do you learn best?” or write short responses about what they did last week in a logbook. General feedback is just too complicated to handle. Knowledge and learning are context dependent, so feedback should also be context driven. Hence, students need to be provided with strategies to handle the feedback and opportunities to practice in relation to context, for example, domain-specific content or procedures. Instead, students could be provisioned to write a short response focusing on the concept they have just encountered or provisioned with opportunities to give feedback on their peers’ work or mocked examples of work. These exercises may provide informative feedback to students themselves as well, since they may help them reflect upon their own work in relation to the work, they provided feedback to.

Illustrative Examples Working with formative assessments is an integral part of technology education (Black, 2008). However, affordance for these assessment practices needs to be enhanced to bridge teaching and learning in technology education classrooms (Hartell, 2015). Knowing is one thing, doing is another. With the purpose of seeding ideas on how teachers may embed formative assessment in their daily technology classroom practices, this section 178

Assessing

will provide some illustrative and authentic examples, which teachers in turn may apply within their contexts. These examples have the additional purpose of inspiring teachers to refine their behavior and assessment practices and to employ new ways of thinking through experimentation within their own contexts to become better at adapting and meeting students’ needs. Emphasizing the importance of giving students sufficient time and strategies to explore, consolidate their thoughts, and build on their work based on feedback given or received. This chapter and the examples given build on the fundamental idea of ensuring affordance for learners’ individual reflection, as well as peer work, allowing them to finish their tasks to their own satisfaction and providing them with opportunities to progress on their learning journey. Example 1: All-student Response System Eliciting evidence of learning by questioning is frequent in classroom practice. According to Wiliam (2011), there are two main reasons for teachers to ask questions: (1) To find out where students are to decide what step to take next (2) To increase cognitive thinking for students The importance of planning questions—including possible student responses is stressed. Equally important, teachers need to prepare alternative routes on where the next part of the lesson will go in response to students’ needs. Teachers must be able to infer and conclude from data from all students to be able to decide upon which next step. Hence, an all-student response system is needed. The following example is taken from a lesson on sound and acoustics. The teacher posed a multiple-choice question on an interactive whiteboard in the middle of the lesson to make sure students had followed him so far and grasped a particular concept, which was needed to understand the following step in the lesson. Students displayed their response using a flash card response to the hinge question posted on the screen. He received group-level feedback from students when they showed their individual response on flashcards. Students’ responses were immediate and fed into the teacher’s process of inference and into action by the teacher within a minute or two. Students received immediate, specific feedback on their individual understanding when correct responses were given on screen. Example 2: Three Seconds Respond Wiliam (2011) stresses the importance of a permissive classroom climate that entails the notion of learning from one’s experiences (including mistakes) and where dialogue and the use of students’ questions are frequent. Provision of time to consolidate their thoughts before responding to teachers’ questions is therefore crucial. Black (2008) emphasizes an appropriate wait time before and after students respond to questions. According to Black (2008) teachers can support learning dramatically by increasing the 179

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

amount of wait time from the average 0.9 seconds to 3.0 seconds before students are allowed to respond. Black suggests teachers spend the same amount of time after the student has responded before moving on to the next step of the lesson. Comments on Examples 1 and 2 There is an obvious demand for high-quality questions that unpack students’ (mis) conceptions and appropriate wait times. Teachers must gain insights on group level hence the need for an all-student response technique. More importantly teachers must respond to the feedback they receive from students’ responses and adapt what happens next to better meet learners’ needs to close the feedback loop. When a teacher notices that many students lack understanding, they may challenge their (mis)understandings by using different means of group feedback. For example, they may explain the correct answer to the whole group (like in Example 1). Or they could let them reread the text or watch a recording, or even provide similar examples, perhaps linked to real-life problems. Another approach is to reteach the concept with a particular focus on addressing the common misunderstanding using a practical activity. Repeating the same thing over and over is unlikely to help students understand; instead, there is a fair chance they will disengage, especially students who failed to grasp the concept the first time. We also know that it is not always enough to hear the correct response or how a particular exercise should be undertaken for students to change their misunderstandings. Therefore, it might be appropriate to challenge misconceptions by letting students do practical exercises, focusing on the same idea or phenomena. Hence, including alternative routes (theoretical and practical) in the lesson plans is needed. The key idea here is to plan how to respond to students’ needs and prepare for different next steps ahead of time. There are multiple ways to teach the same concept, and teachers need a broad repertoire of strategies and affordances to be able to apply them to bridge teaching and learning. Unfortunately, this is particularly challenging in technology education, where many teachers often lack the affordance to do so (Hartell, 2015). Example 3: Venn Diagram Venn diagrams are a useful strategy for various contexts and for both individual and group feedback. They help focus on the similarities and differences between concepts and elicit evidence of learning to infer from and decide what the next step will be. This exercise can be undertaken individually, in pairs or in groups, providing valuable insights into student understanding. The idea is to choose two (or more) related concepts, for example, thermosets and thermoplastics, or waterpower and wind power, as in the following example, and elaborate on differences and on commonalities (written in the overlap). Elaborating on commonalities and differences this exercise supports student learning of domain-specific concepts or phenomena. Equally important to elaborate on the domain-specific terminology is to elaborate on the language in general. This exercise can be particularly useful when working with students who have a different 180

Assessing

wind power

hydro power

Figure 13.1 Venn diagram of wind power and water power, inspired by the work of a teacher at Vikingaskolan in Haninge, Sweden. http://www​.atsstem​.eu. Using Venn diagrams to support students reflecting on their own learning regarding renewable energy sources fosters self-regulated and metacognitive learners, while at the same time supporting the domain-specific terminology as well as the Swedish language. language background. Students’ actual understanding might be overshadowed by their shortcomings in the language spoken.​ This example is from the Erasmus+ project Assessment of Transversal Skills in STEM1 focusing on Agenda 2030. In this case, students learned about a handful of different energy sources and their environmental impact—in a guided inquiry activity focusing on content knowledge from a sustainable development perspective. Students worked in groups, and the teacher carefully monitored their progress and provided feedback in different ways. Some groups received specific corrections on content, whereas some were given more constructive feedback by inviting them to find out more by themselves, which was done by providing them with additional learning resources (e.g., textbooks and the internet) instead. The teacher then checked the students’ understanding and fostered students as learning resources for one another by letting them metacognitively scrutinize their shared understanding of two energy resources (i.e., water and wind). This was done by finding similarities and differences between these two concepts by constructing a Venn diagram. Example 4: Colored Cups—Dual Group-level Feedback Group work, which is a common teaching practice in technology education, is perhaps one of the most challenging learning strategies. Still, it can be powerful and increase opportunities for learners to become learning resources for one another. Guidance and careful monitoring of what students do while working in groups is important but too often forgotten. Working in small groups on practical work encourages talk among students, which sometimes needs a bit of prompting to stay focused and seed dialogue. The use of colored cups has been found to be particularly useful to foster task-focused peer conversations that reveal students’ (mis)understandings while 181

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

providing high-quality group feedback to teachers. The following example is from where groups of third-level engineering students use the colored cup technique while collaboratively determining the functionality and design of unknown artifacts. This supports the teacher to elicit evidence of learning and pick up topics for whole-class discussion to challenge misconceptions. To do this, each group is provided with three cups: one red, one green, and one yellow. When work is going fine, students put the green cup on top of the stack. When they are a bit confused but can continue working, they display yellow, and if they are stuck, they show the red cup, signaling that they need urgent help. The groups are asked to agree on which color to display. Hence, they must discuss their progress and problems and conclude their choices together, seeding dialogue. It does not have to be the teacher who helps the group that is showing the red cup. Instead, students from a group displaying green can help their struggling peers. A clear benefit to having students with green cups help red groups is that it reduces the risk of groups staying under the radar from teacher attention. The risk of being picked as a supporter for a red group will help students stay focused on the task because they need to know what they are doing as a group to show green, emphasizing dialogue between them. When discussions kick off, they often end when a teacher approaches a group to see how they are doing. This feedback strategy also makes it easier to take a step back and eavesdrop on students’ discussions without ending their talk. This is not to say that teachers should not circulate in classrooms. Instead, teachers can pick up topics for feedback on whole-class discussions afterward while eliciting evidence of learning and perhaps elucidating misconceptions. Students can provide peer feedback within their working groups and group feedback to teachers on how their work progress. Thus, teachers get an overview of what is going on and how the work is going. This is an example of dual high-quality feedback at the classroom group level. Another bonus of this example is that students are safer if they do not have one arm in the air and, therefore, one arm off the practical task whenever they need to call for the teacher’s attention. Comment on Examples 3 and 4: Teachers Must Play an Active Role during Practical Group Work The suggested examples illustrate practices for an enhanced systematic approach to feedback for both theoretical and practical work. Supporting students to become learning resources for one another. Still, there are evident risks here that need to be addressed: students do not necessarily know what they are doing just because they think they do. Teachers need to carefully monitor their students’ progress and provide foundational grounds for making them learning resources for one another. Practical work is fundamental in technology education. However, it is well established that practical work or group work does not automatically foster understanding or allow students to draw correct, generalizable conclusions. The evidence suggests that these reconciliations and guidance are perhaps even more important during practical work 182

Assessing

than during non-practical learning activities. Hence, teachers must make reconciliations during practical work and actively guide learners during practical work as well. Thus, teachers must play an active role in orchestrating learning activities by offering guidance in a balancing act, fostering self-regulated learners by providing guidance instead of leaving students to figure out everything for themselves. Therefore, teachers must monitor group work to keep learning on track. The suggested colored cup technique is one way to monitor practical work toward learning. Example 3 describes an activity where a teacher moves around a group of students prompting students to engage in thinking as she does so, another example is where students are prompted to provide actual feedback rather than just engage in independent thinking. Teachers may find one of these techniques useful or perhaps a combination of the two, or something else. Regardless, teachers must actively orchestra the learning activities that support her students on their learning journey. Guidance to Support and Identify the Direction Forward Guidance is of particular importance and, at the same time, a delicate matter in technology education. Without guidance, students must exert an enormous amount of mental effort to make sense of the information in front of them, especially in open-ended design scenarios that lack guidance. Solving problems of procedure tends to overwhelm students’ memory and understanding of the relationship between units. In this case, all their effort is focused on figuring out what to do instead of focusing on what they are supposed to learn. This is especially true for novice learners, who lack proper schemas to integrate the new information with their prior knowledge (Kirschner et al., 2006). The nature of technology education makes it particularly challenging to communicate learning intentions and criteria for success toward which feedback should be directed. One strategy to communicate learning intentions and criteria for success is to let students explore various concrete solutions and worked examples (authentic or mocked) in dialogue. Teachers can do this by either directing students toward a particular focus—to show them what to look for—or direct students toward a more open exploratory approach depending on the context. This can be turned into a double-directed peer feedback activity where students examine each other’s work and provide feedback as well as gain feedback through self-reflection upon their own work when doing so. This strategy may help students see what quality work may look like and what needs to be done to improve their own or their peers’ performance and suggest ways to do so. Hence, students receive and provide feedback—in a double-directed feedback exercise on an individual level. Handling exemplars is sometimes tricky to facilitate in practice and digital tools might help. One such digital tool is digital comparative judgment software. Example 5: Comparative Judgment as a Tool for Peer- and Self-feedback Comparative judgment in education relies on iterative pairwise comparisons of student work. It can not only be undertaken by hand but also be facilitated by digital tools 183

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

providing promising results on how to facilitate increased affordances for teachers’ assessment practices for the sake of learning. The assessors are presented with pairs of examples and asked to choose one as better without specifying how much better in an iterative process (cf., Pollitt, 2012), has proven to be a valid, reliable, and efficient method of assessing open-ended tasks in a variety of subjects, offering significant formative opportunities by providing a mechanism for supporting feedback and supporting critical discourse on evidence of learning (Hartell & Buckley, 2021). Two studies (Bartholomew et al., 2018, 2019) undertaken by a research team at Purdue University—here in a middle school and college context—with a similar research design (Figure 13.2) show the potential for double-directed feedback, where providers of feedback receive feedback while providing feedback to peers. The students were engaged in open-ended design scenarios, including a peer feedback activity, about halfway through the module, hence while learning. They provided written comments to their peers on how their work could be improved and were given time to improve their work. The students were randomly divided into two groups. One control group provided traditional face-to-face peer feedback, and the experimental group engaged in anonymous peer feedback via digital comparative judgment (CJ). These comments were fed back, and the students continued and completed their assignments. Once the students had completed their work, a group of researchers assessed all portfolios and found that the experimental CJ peer feedback significantly outperformed the traditional face-to-face peer feedback. It seems that this iterative process of pairwise comparisons supported their learning better. A possible reason for this could be the added value received by being exposed to and having to make pairwise comparisons on peers’ work, in addition to traditional face-to-face feedback that merely gives and receives feedback in writing on a smaller sample. The cloud-based anonymized interface may also contribute to students being able to more critically examine the mistakes made by peers and from this self-reflect on the limitations of their own work more than while undertaking the same procedure sitting face-to-face. These two Purdue studies provide interesting results on the added value of combining pairwise comparisons and exposure of example and written feedback that goes beyond traditional feedback because this includes student exposure to a wide range of peer Group 1 Peer feedback y Traditional wa

Start Group 2 back Peer feed tive Compara judgment

Figure 13.2  Research design in Purdue studies 1 and 2. 184

Comparative judgment

Assessing

work, having to choose the better of the two and then being forced to provide a motive (feedback comments) for why they made their judgments. Despite the low-quality feedback provided in the written comments, the experimental group who undertook CJ outperformed the control group who undertook traditional face-to-face feedback activity, likely because of the iterative process of students choosing the better of the two and then being forced to justify their judgments. Furthermore, students were exposed to a wide range of other students’ work on which they can mirror their own work in a selfregulated double feedback process. Thus, even though CJ has limitations (particularly technical and cost implications), there is significant potential to support learning that should be investigated further (Hartell & Buckley, 2021).

Conclusion Feedback is an interplay between teacher and student, student and teacher, student and their peer students, and learners themselves, and it should be part of a system of entangled engagement that teachers must engineer to make sure that what happens in the classroom best meets learners’ needs. Thus increasing affordance to reduce the gap between current and desired positions. The concept of feedback has its origins in engineering, where feedback is only considered feedback when the information is “fed back” into a system and used to move a process forward toward desired outcomes. The classic example is that of the thermostat. Reading a thermostat and finding that it is cold alone is not feedback, at least from an engineer’s point of view, as the information is not fed back into a system or used to guide a subsequent action. If the information that it is cold is used to adjust the temperature in a room or to guide a decision on what clothes to wear, it would be considered feedback. This same way of thinking should also apply for feedback in technology education—even if guiding learning is a bit more complicated than heat regulation. Feedback has proven to be a powerful tool for supporting learning, especially if it is timely, process- and task-oriented and focused on students’ metacognitive abilities. There are guidelines on how to do this, as discussed throughout this chapter, but still there are no guarantees. Learning is just too complicated and regardless of intended purpose: what matters most is how feedback is received and addressed by recipients. Giving and receiving feedback may act as a learning activity, and both recipient(s) and donor(s) may learn from feedback given and received. Still, both require strategies that need to be trained. What matters most is how feedback is received and used by learners—hence both teachers and students. Teachers are advised to adopt an overall frugal approach to provide feedback to students. Some general advice is to be more frugal with individual feedback and more generous with group feedback. Often, teachers will need to reflect on student questions and work rather than give immediate responses to be able to provide useful support, hence the keep-silent strategy may be good to have in mind or at least 185

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

allow learners three seconds to think. Feedback should focus on the process, task, and metacognitive levels, not on a student as a person, and teachers should consider that students can respond individually or in groups to group-level feedback. Teachers should plan their feedback to align with upcoming learning intentions and alternative pathways for how students could meet them, fostering a warm and friendly classroom atmosphere in which students welcome learning from mistakes and feedback. Students will react to and sometimes act upon feedback; hence, they need to be given both time and strategies to do so. Therefore, teachers need to enable their students to handle the feedback they receive while learning. In summary, teachers should encourage learners to welcome feedback by providing high-quality instruction in which the five key strategies for formative assessment are embedded and in which feedback is planned in a loop in which learners are afforded the time and strategies to react. Teachers need to carefully monitor how learners receive feedback and adapt to local contexts (content, subject, students, feasibility, task/contentfocused, and self-regulating strategies). Feedback must take its starting point from where learners are, keep the direction forward, and provide information about where to go next in alignment with learning intentions and criteria for success. Hence, the next steps to take and how to get there should be provided while welcoming mistakes and giving permission for risk-taking learning activities. Students may have different starting points, and even if most of them follow the main road, some will come across different obstacles as they travel at different paces and experience things differently. Teachers must be there to guide them and carefully choose when, how, and where feedback should be embedded. This is not only for the sake of the learner but also for the teacher’s own workload. Teachers should not spend time and energy on feedback that will likely not be used or that is not likely to be useful and supportive for learners. Putting feedback back on track in technology education by guiding it toward the true meaning of feedback from an engineering point of view is better.

Note 1 http://www​.atsstem​.eu

References Bartholomew, S., Strimel, G., & Jackson, A. (2018). A comparison of traditional and adaptive comparative judgment assessment techniques for freshmen engineering design projects. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 20–33. Bartholomew, S., Strimel, G., & Yoshikawa, E. (2019). Using adaptive comparative judgment for student formative feedback and learning during a middle school design project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 363–85. 186

Assessing

Black, P. (2008). Formative assessment in the learning and teaching of design and technology education: Methods and techniques. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 19–26. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/0969595980050102. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–33. Harrison, C. (2009). Assessment for learning. A formative approach to classroom practice. In A. Jones & M. deVries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 449–59). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hartell, E. (2013). Looking for a glimpse in the eye: A descriptive study of teachers’ work with assessment in technology education. In I.-B. Skogh & M. J. De Vries (Eds.), Technology teachers as researchers: Philosophical and empirical technology education studies in the Swedish TUFF research school (pp. 255–83). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hartell, E. (2015). Assidere necesse est: Necessities and complexities regarding teachers’ assessment practices in technology education. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. http:// www​.divaportal​.org​/smash /get/diva2 :78841 3/INSID E01​.pd​f. Hartell, E., & Buckley J. (2021). Comparative judgment: An overview. In A. Marcus-Quinn, & T. Hourigan (Eds.), Handbook for online learning contexts: Digital, mobile and open (pp. 289–307). Dordrect: Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-030​-67349​-9​_20. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi​.org​/10​.3102​/003465430298487. Jönsson, A. (2010). Lärande bedömning. Malmö: Gleerups. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1207​/s15326985ep4102​_1. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–84. Lindström, L. (2006). Creativity: What is it? Can you assess It? can it be taught?. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25, 53–66. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1476​-8070​.2006​ .00468​.x. Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Barlex, D. (2008). Design and technology inside the black box. Assessment for learning in the design and technology classroom. GL Assessment. Pollitt, A. (2012). Comparative judgement for assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 157–70. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-011​-9189​-x. Skolinspektionen. (2014). Teknik—gör det osynliga synligt. Om kvaliteten i grundskolans teknikundervisning. Stockholm. http://www​.skolinspektionen​.se​/Documents​/publikationssok​/ gra​nskn​ings​rapporter​/kva​lite​tsgr​ansk​ningar​/2014​/teknik​/kvalgr​-teknik​-slutrapport​.pdf. Sjöberg, L. (2019). The Swedish primary teacher education programme: at the crossroads between two education programme traditions. Education Inquiry, 10(2), 116–33. Speckesser, S., Runge, J., Foliano, F., Bursnall, M., Hudson-Sharp, N., Rolfe, H., & Anders, J. (2018). Embedding formative assessment. Evaluation report and executive summary. Educational Endowment Foundation. https://d2tic4wvo1iusb​.cloudfront​.net​/documents​/ projects​/EFA​_evaluation​_report​.pdf. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Indiana, IN: Solution Tree. Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment. Practical techniques for K–12 classrooms. Learning Sciences International.

187

Chapter 14

Collaborating The Purpose and Potential of Collaboration with Stakeholders and Other Disciplines David Wooff, Ryan Beales, and Elizabeth Flynn

Introduction According to the Oxford English Dictionary, collaboration is the action of working with someone to produce something. We clearly do this in all forms of technology education,1 so why is there a need to debate this practice further? Collaboration can be wonderful, it can lead to innovation, success, and high levels of both achievement and attainment, yet it can also be arduous, forced, tolerated, and something which is entered into simply to tick a box, or meet an external requirement. This chapter will consider how effective collaboration can be encouraged across different constituent disciplines which combine to form technology education. It will also consider collaboration external to the subject itself, in both cognate areas (e.g., areas which combine to form STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)) and seemingly non-cognate curriculum areas (e.g., creative writing, art, and geography). However, it will start by considering who are the stakeholders and why does collaboration take place? These considerations lay important foundations to enable you, the reader, to ponder the many varied factors which come into play when considering collaborating.

Reasons to Collaborate In 1999, Hennessy and Murphy set out to undertake a study examining the impact of peer collaboration in design and technology, they proposed that “Peer collaboration is considered to be a valuable learning mechanism but has not generally been exploited by

Collaborating

teachers or explored by researchers in this context.” Linking this directly to the National Curriculum of England and Wales, they asserted that peer collaboration directly supported students in the development of designing skills. Following an extensive review of literature on this topic up, to that point, they concluded that “collaboration is an important aspect of problem solving which enhances learning.” Yet in the National Curriculum documentation defining design and technology in England (DfE, 1995, DfEE, 1999) at that time, there is no mention of collaboration or collaborating, so if it is that important why was it not embedded in the mandatory guidelines and principles which framed learning in technology education? A little over a decade after this, Laal and Ghodsi (2012) undertook a systematic review of published work looking at the impact and benefits of collaborative learning in four categories: ● ● ● ●

social, psychological, academic, and assessment benefits.

Their work concluded that collaborative learning has numerous benefits, typically resulting in “higher achievement and greater productivity, more caring, supportive, and committed relationships; and greater psychological health, social competence, and self-esteem” (Lall & Ghodsi, 2012, p. 489). So, it should really be case closed then for collaboration to feature as an integral part of a structured and coherent curriculum offering. Spring forward fifteen years from the study of Hennessy and Murphy (1999) to the revised National Curriculum for design and technology (DfE, 2013) and collaboration is still not mentioned in the National Curriculum documentation for design and technology. Indeed in 2022 this is still the “current” National Curriculum documentation, so the notion of “collaboration” has still to be embodied in the subject framework some twenty-three years after Hennessy and Murphy identified the usefulness and inherent value in peer collaboration within the subject, let alone collaboration with stakeholders or clients. This really does seem counterinitiative and almost in contradiction to the aims of the National Curriculum itself which states that lower secondary-aged students (eleven to fourteen years old) should be taught “the knowledge, understanding and skills needed to engage in an iterative process of designing and making. They should work in a range of domestic and local contexts, and industrial contexts” (DfE, 2013, p. 2). If learners are to engage in the process of designing and making that replicates the real-life application of design, technology, engineering, and so on then they must do this in collaboration. Else, the iterative processes referred to in the National Curriculum document are simply a journey to an endpoint by means of “trial and error.” Within England, “design and technology” is a curriculum construct, that is to say it is a subject that does not exist outside of education (Bell et al., 2017). Maybe it is this attempt 189

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

to encompass, and underpin, a wide range of roles beyond the world of education (e.g., engineer, designer, manufacturer, technologist) that leads to the exclusion of any explicit reference to working in collaboration in the documentation? Nevertheless, if a learner is to design a product to fulfill a need for someone, a client, then they must work with them in order to ensure the product(s) they produce meet the requirements of that person. Having introduced peer collaboration, and collaboration with a client/end-user, it is worth taking a moment to consider who else a learner could collaborate with. If they are able to access them, collaboration with an expert would clearly be advantageous. In this content we are considering an expert to be someone with in-depth knowledge, or a skill, that would be most useful in realizing a solution to the problem set. That person could be a metallurgist, a seamstress, a surveyor, a nutritionist, an inventor, or a food scientist. The list is endless, and ever changing depending on the problem being considered. Against the backdrop of technology education, it is also highly contextual, in the case of the pre-service, or aspirant, teacher an expert might be someone who has in-depth pedagogical knowledge, or someone who has a skill in a specific area of technology education. In the case of a learner/pupil, it might be someone who can use a tool or piece of machinery or equipment that they are not able to use themselves. In the case of learners, they may wish to collaborate with their teachers, as they see them as both expert and assessor, or judge, of what it is they are trying to achieve. This is fraught with issues, and we will look at some of these later. At this stage it is sufficient to raise a concern about how to define the boundaries between collaboration, support, guidance, and taking over. Indeed, is it possible to define them, and what are the issues and benefits from any of these both morally and ethically? This is possibly one of the hardest types of collaboration to define and understand within the context of the power dynamic that exists between learner and teacher. We have considered that there are essentially four main groups of people a learner studying technology education could collaborate with: ● ● ● ●

Collaboration with peers, Collaboration with users and/or clients, Collaborations with experts (e.g., engineers), Collaboration with teachers, lecturers, and instructors.

All of these have a shared commonality though, as collaboration allows someone to draw on the knowledge, skills, and expertise of someone else in realizing a solution to a problem, or task. Learners will produce better work, with more appropriate, meaningful, and successful outcomes if they collaborate with the person who has set them the brief for the task they are seeking to address. This is equally relevant if the learner is an undergraduate, or postgraduate student training to become a technology education teacher, or if the learner is a school-aged pupil. This is because collaboration allows for 190

Collaborating

the testing of ideas, working of solutions, and evolution of thinking, in light of feedback gained by working in collaboration with one another. There is also the collaboration between subjects which comprise technology education, and more widely with other subject disciplines, however, this still relies on two parties, two people, working together as subjects cannot collaborate by themselves. So, having introduced the advantages of collaboration, and defined a range of people with whom to collaborate, why then is it not embedded in all technology education programs irrespective of the level, or purpose of it?

Barriers to Collaboration Maybe the reason why collaboration is not fully embedded into the curriculum is due to barriers that prevent it from taking place? These barriers may be physical ones (e.g., facilities), imagined ones (e.g., the perception that collaboration between subject A and subject B simply cannot occur), historic ones (e.g., we have always done things in a certain way), regulatory ones (e.g., work must be completed by an individual), or even pedagogic ones (e.g., how is something graded that is completed in collaboration?). Assuming that technology education is being studied as part of a qualification, the latter of these examples, assessment, is arguably the biggest single barrier to why collaboration is not firmly embedded as a feature in the curriculum. Technology education has long struggled with the notion of assessment (Wooff et al., 2013). Previous assessment struggles in England have been around the weighting given to constituent subjects which fall under the umbrella of “design and technology.” To illustrate, if technology education comprises three distinct areas, assessed through three different projects, and a student gains 50 percent for Project 1, 60 percent for Project 2, and 70 percent for Project 3—what is their actual grade if only a single grade is reported for the overarching subject? Is it the average between all projects of 60 percent, or is it the highest attained—in this example 70 percent? Additional tensions have centered around assessing outcomes (the product) rather than the learning undertaken to derive the product (the journey taken by a pupil in the realization of the product), which can be further compounded when we consider comparative assessment where there is inequality in resource (e.g., machine manufactured versus traditional construction using hand tools, or computer-aided design versus technical drawing). Although some of these debates seem to have become less significant as time, and technology, have advanced, debates around collaboration still prevail. If we use this as a backdrop, and then consider collaboration which exists when learners join together to undertake some form of collaborative group work, we can immediately see a further issue. If the group is tackling a problem how should it be assessed? Should the assessor simply mark what is before them and provide all participants in the collaborative with the same grade, or should they try and differentiate based on the contribution of individuals to the whole? Clearly there are issues of equity and fairness 191

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

with this approach, and what if the work has been distributed in the group so that some contributed substantially at the start of the process rather than the end—or if those tasked with the design have done an amazing job, but the manufacture/realization has not been as successful? Experience from initial teacher education shows that the way this is often tackled by training pre-service teachers is by getting all group participants to write a reflective account of their input, and impact, and assess their reflective account rather than anything else. This may work for a group of pre-service teachers, but it is exceedingly unlikely to be used for school-aged learners who may only be developing their technical language capability, let alone an ability to be critically reflective. Maybe this is the reason why collaboration is not explicitly mentioned in curriculum documentation? Time is another factor that may exclude collaborative endeavors from taking place. While collaboration facilitates discourse, reflection, synthesis, and iteration of ideas, it requires time for these to be formulated, explored, and accommodated. In all forms of education, at all levels, for whatever purpose, time is a precious commodity that is always in short supply so this will most certainly be a factor in determining if an element of teaching, or assessment, should be done collaboratively. Linked to restrictions caused by time are restrictions that relate to cost, and access. If collaboration is to be meaningful, and equitable, then all learners should have the same opportunity. If an external expert requires a fee to engage, or collaborate, then this may indicate that only those who can afford to access such an expert can make use of such opportunities. Access may also be prohibitive due to geographical location, language barriers, or even time zones.

Collaboration Inside, and Across, Technology Education Many of the skills and techniques learned in one subject area of technology education are easily transferable to another, for example the ability to analyze a problem, draft a number of solutions and determine what seems the initial course of action to realize the best solution. These kinds of skills and tasks take place in all areas which fall under technology education; indeed, they take place under many which extend beyond the wider umbrella of technology education. However, the boundaries between collaboration and integration become blurred somewhat in this area. If we take the case of a product that is designed and made by marrying up the areas of electronics, and textiles (sometimes called e-textiles, or textronics), we can see that there are a number of ways a product could be developed. 1. Initially design and manufacture the textiles part of the product first, be it a garment, some form of packaging (e.g., a bag), or an accessory. Once this is 192

Collaborating

completed, design and manufacture an electronic circuit that is able to perform whatever function is necessary, then retrofit the electronics into the completed textiles component. 2. Design and build the electronic circuit, extending wires and leads to enable flexibility of fit into the textile’s component of the project. Once the circuit is designed and manufactured, design and make the textiles element of the project to securely house the circuit, wires, power supply, and so on. 3. Fully integrate the circuit and textiles design together, and develop a design where they work together, supportively and in collaboration, to ensure the best product. Examples may include using electrically conductive thread to construct the garment, so eliminating the need for additional wires. Using conductive Velcro® as a means of fastening part of the textile’s component, while ensuring an electrical connection exists, and possibly eliminating the need for an additional switch. Clearly, the best method here is the third one, where the two subject areas are brought together from the beginning of the project and the whole product is developed ensuring collaboration between one area (textiles) and the other (electronics) and this prevails from the outset. However, is this truly collaboration, or is it really integration, and is this how we deliver technology education? The reality is that while this might seem the best option, it is certainly not the most straightforward to deliver in terms of school-based education. In England, the majority of schooling takes place in two phases which stretch across the mandatory age children need to be in school. The first is in a primary school where Key Stage 1 (KS1) and Key Stage 2 (KS2) are delivered to four to eleven-year olds, the next is in a secondary school where Key Stage 3 (KS3) and Key Stage 4 (KS4) are delivered to eleven to sixteen-year olds. In KS1 and KS2 teachers tend to specialize in education at a particular key stage and deliver all subject content in that key stage. In KS3 and KS4, teachers are subject specialists and qualified, and deliver lessons in their subject specialism(s). In primary school, therefore, it is much easier and simpler for a teacher to design a lesson, or sequence of lessons, which work in collaboration with others. In secondary education, subjects are taught in what can effectively be considered disciplinary silos making collaboration hard to facilitate between what should be cognate disciplinary areas. This was compounded by early curricula design in technology education which separated out resistant materials, electronic products, systems and control, graphic products, and so on, at KS3 and KS4, although a more recent move to “product design” has helped bridge these gaps and bring collaboration closer to an everyday occurrence in school-aged education. In England the training of teachers tends to reinforce the separation of subject disciplines within technology education rather than support collaboration and integration. At the undergraduate level this manifests with modules being delivered in unique areas, and due to time constraints at the postgraduate level, there is insufficient room to cover all subject disciplines so only a couple tend to be studied in depth. There is much to debate about the role of technology education teacher training, in particular 193

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

how much time should be devoted to the development of subject knowledge rather than the principles of pedagogic delivery. However, time constraint is an underlying issue in all forms of teacher education. Most, maybe all, teacher training courses and programs include modules, and assessments, which provide aspirant teachers with the opportunity to showcase their skills and knowledge through the collaboration of subject disciplines, this is more prevalent now than it was in the last decade. Having the opportunity to combine disciplines, bringing them together in collaboration, can be quite high stakes if teachers in training do not have two strong areas of disciplinary knowledge—particularly if the outcome, or grade of qualification, rests on this approach, so it is easy to see why some trainee teachers avoid doing this unless mandated to do so. If we briefly consider the origins of design and technology in England, we can see that it was historically a subject borne out of a combination of separate, arguably unique subjects (Atkinson, 1990), which were merged under the banner of “design and technology” in the mid-1980s. Although separate, and considered separately, at least in the earlier key stages (KS1–KS3) they shared the same designing and making assessment criteria irrespective of individual subject disciplines. At KS3 this certainly reinforced the practice of delivering these subjects individually, with teachers of individual subjects becoming truly masterful in their ability to teach in one area. Despite the changes brought about by reviews, and updates, to the curriculum over successive decades, this separation continues to have an impact that impedes collaboration between subjects within design and technology/ technology education. Many of the facilities used to deliver technology education are aging and designed not as multi-material spaces, rather as unique spaces dedicated to working in a single material area, this make collaboration much harder for students to envisage when they are surrounded by tools, equipment, or machines that are clearly dedicated to a single material area. Where facilities are more cutting edge, more modern, they can often constrict the way products can be made, and projects completed. This is due to the limitations associated with physical space and the number of specialist pieces of equipment, tools and machines which can be safely accommodated in such a space. Having said all of that, this does not mean that collaboration between areas in technology education cannot be successful. It means that it must be very carefully planned to make sure that the collaboration achieves what it is intended to. This covers every aspect and every eventuality from considering what materials are available; how to account for different levels of engagement and understanding; determining how will success be recognized or assessed; and what will happen should the collaboration break down for any unanticipated reasons.

Cross-Curricular Collaboration In a previous chapter in this handbook, Greg Strimel considered what place technology education plays in STEM education. This is possibly the most obvious cross-curricular 194

Collaborating

collaboration which includes technology education. Other variants exist, which slightly expand the acronym including STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) and STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine), although the latter of these is more aligned to higher education settings rather than school sector curricula and operation. Technology education can easily contribute to the subjects in STEM/STEAM/STEMM through a wide range of activities, in either the technology or engineering strands. However, each of these subjects is also intrinsic to the success of technology education itself, for example, when we look at the place of science in technology education, it is clear that material properties and the way materials interact with each other are important factors in technology education. Equally, we can look at the environmental impact of products manufactured as part of technology education and consider how sustainable they are, this starts to illuminate the symbiotic relationship technology education has with other subjects. Mathematics is equally valuable, due to calculations and measurements, qualities, costings, weights, tolerances, product life cycle expectancy, safety factor calculations, and so on. Indeed, the list of areas that mathematics underpins technology education with is extensive and seemingly never-ending. Cross-curricular collaboration does not stop there, every school subject can be delivered through technology education for example: ●

●

●

● ●

Geography: What technological advances made global travel, or mapping of the world possible? History: What were the milestones in space flight and which of these led to innovations in everyday life? English: Looking at the origins of words that come from technology, or using different a language to describe how something functions, feels, acts, or behaves. Music studies: Investigating how instruments actually work. Physical education:  Looking at how sports equipment has advanced through technology, maybe linked to events like the Olympics, or the Tour de France.

Yet all of these can also underpin technology education, for example:

●

●

●

Geography:  How sustainable are materials used in making products, or what is the carbon footprint in acquiring certain materials from around the globe? History: Using proven techniques, tools, and processes from history to design and make something. English:  The communication of ideas, evaluations, and outcomes. 195

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

●

●

Music studies: Sounds, and noises, that mean something specific in relation to a product, or process. Physical education: Consideration of people’s movement in relation to products.

Discussion The subject of technology education offers almost unprecedented opportunities for collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and other subject disciplines. Barriers and limitations exist that present collaboration from playing a bigger part in the subject, however, is that something we should take as being the final word on the matter? It is clear there are advantages at every level, there are even advantages if schools, colleges, or academies group together and collaborate to pool their buying power for resources to support, and deliver, technology education. The most significant advantage has to be that which impacts individual learners, for without this it is arguable that collaboration is nothing more than a tick box exercise, which has no pedagogical advantage, or impact in advancing learner knowledge. Having introduced and discussed these collaborations, the authors conclude that technology education provides a universal platform for collaboration which cements its position in a fully formed curriculum offering. In reality, the real limitation regarding technology education being collaborative is that imposed by those who teach and deliver the subject at all levels they operate at, the future of collaboration in the subject lies in their hands.

Note 1 “Technology education” and “design and technology” can be viewed as interchangeable subject identifiers within the context of this chapter, the former being more widely used, the latter originating in the UK and arguably being used in a lesser range of countries.

References Atkinson, E. S. (1990). Design and technology in the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Education, 2(1), 5–16. Bell, D., Wooff, D., McLain, M., & Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Analysing Design and Technology as an educational construct: An investigation into its curriculum position and pedagogical identity. The Curriculum Journal, 28(4), 539–58 1–20. Doi: 10.1080/09585176.2017.1286995.

196

Collaborating

Department for Education (DfE). (1995). Design and technology in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO. Department for Education (DfE). (2013). Design and Technology Programmes of Study: Key Stage 3 National Curriculum in England. London: HMSO. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1999). The national curriculum: Handbook for primary teachers in England. London: HMSO. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–90. Wooff, D., Bell, D., & Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Assessment questions. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Debates in design and technology (pp. 180–92). Abingdon: Routledge.

197

Chapter 15

Facilitating The Role of Learning Environments in Technology Education Curricula Matt McLain and Sarah Finnigan-Moran

Introduction This chapter explores how specialist classrooms in technology education facilitate learning and are an essential aspect of the subject’s signature pedagogy. When considering signature pedagogies in professional learning, Shulman (2005) reflected on the relationship between disciplinary learning, specialist teachers, and learning environments. When describing design studios, he commented on the difference in the learning environments and activities compared to engineering workshops in the same faculty. Both these disciplines are included within various technology curricula around the world. The “classroom,” alongside the actions of the teacher, mediates how the learners participate in either collaborative or independent, experimental or creative work. When discussing the learning environment in this chapter, “classroom” will be used as a general term to describe a range of specialist technology education spaces within a school context. In some technology learning environments, there is an obvious focal point, such as a demonstration station, whiteboard, or screen, which infers a more teacher-led approach, whereas others are focused more on group or individual work. Furthermore, some learning environments are more flexible, being adapted by the teacher to suit the learning activity. For example, the work benches in a multimedia workshop designed for making in a range of materials may be adapted for working in either wood or metal vices, or drawing boards being used for design or graphic work to cover the nicks and dents caused by working with tools and materials. The very nature of specialist learning environments not only enables certain activities but also inhibits or limits others. For example, a typical school teaching kitchen is arranged in pods or bays for groups of two to four learners, with access to a Cooker, kitchen basin and utensils. However, these environments do not lend themselves to group discussion or written work, as stools are not desirable for practical and safety reasons, and worksurfaces tend to be over cupboards or drawers (i.e., no knee room).

Facilitating

Therefore, many technology “classrooms” are hybrid spaces, adapted for multiple activities and materials.

Key Issues There are a range of factors for the technology educator to consider when facilitating learning in technology classrooms. These include how classroom activities are managed, as well as how resources and equipment are accessed and used by learners. For example, the location of portable electrical equipment affects how learners move around the classroom, creating potential “bottlenecks” that restrict access to certain parts of the room, which affects both the efficiency and safety of the space. In this section of the chapter, we will explore aspects of managing the technology education environment, resources, risks, and classroom. Environment Management The classroom environments for technology education are varied and complex, including disciplinary areas as diverse as electronics, engineering, food, product design, robotics, textiles, and graphics. Each discipline has its own requirements for equipment, including tools (hand, machine, and digital) and furniture (tables, benches, stools), which affect how the spaces are laid out and used. In an ideal world, technology classrooms would be designed in consultation with technology educators. However, even where this is the case and spaces are well designed, changes in technology and curriculum can render equipment obsolete. There is often a reticence to decommission equipment on the grounds of expense or on the off chance that it might be useful. An example of this in the UK is the presence of heat treatment areas in many design and technology (D&T) workshops, with machines for forging, brazing, and casting, with the associated partitions, ventilation, and gas supplies. These facilities have largely become redundant in many departments unless they offer engineering courses with traditional metalwork skills. So typically, these facilities take up space for most of the year, inhibiting the full potential of the studio/work pace. Technology education plays an important role in developing students’ practical skills and creativity. This often involves the use of specialist equipment to realize design ideas or apply technological knowledge. The history of many technology curricula is inextricably linked with industrial arts and crafts, with students being prepared for future life and work. Therefore, some degree of risk is not only to be expected but encouraged in order for them to become more confident in assessing and managing risks for themselves. The core health and safety training standards from the D&T Association (D&TA), the subject association for teachers of design and technology in the UK, describe three levels of supervision (Table 15.1). The level of supervision required assumes the teacher’s intimate knowledge of both subject content and the classroom environment, in addition to the capability of students. The latter of which is 199

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 15.1  Levels of Supervision (D&TA, 2014, p. 6) Supervision General class

Close class

One to one

Description “suitable for low risk activities such as design or research work. General workshop supervision means that the teacher has an overall view of the whole class and is able to monitor the actions of all learners. The shape of the room (pillars, ‘L’ shaped rooms etc.) is an important factor and teachers should ensure that layout of the desks facilitates effective monitoring.” “should be employed where medium risk activities are being carried out. Close class supervision involves the teacher adopting a position in the room which will enable them to intervene quickly in any of the activities should it become necessary. For instance many food rooms are laid out in bays. The teacher supervising practical food lessons should be able to reach each bay without having to negotiate desks or other obstructions.” “reserved for high risk operations and requires the teacher to give total concentration on one learner. This means that they are unable to provide either close class supervision or general class supervision. Talking to and discussing individual learner’s work does not constitute a one to one situation as the teacher should use well practised teaching techniques such as scanning and listening to monitor the group.”

influenced by factors such as age-related expectations, prior experience, and individual students’ learning needs. Therefore, it is essential for the technology teacher to work within and adapt their classrooms, balancing a variety of often competing requirements. This is an important, often-overlooked aspect of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for technology teachers. Technicians also play a vital role in both maintaining teaching spaces and supporting learning, in collaboration with teachers. Unlike other adults in the classroom, such as teaching/learning assistants, technicians have technical knowledge and expertise, which can be invaluable for activities requiring one-to-one supervision. This enables the technology teacher to plan for a whole class and delegate responsibility to a technician, facilitating multiple activities in a lesson and enabling some students to access higherrisk equipment safely. Resource Management In the context of “close class” supervision, the location of resources (including equipment and materials) is a key concern for the technology teacher. Some items of equipment will be fixed/permanent (e.g., drilling machines, sinks, ovens), whereas others will be moveable/temporary (e.g., sewing machines, soldering irons, vacuum formers). However, there is an increasing interest in developing standards for trolleymounted machinery, that would previously have been required to be permanently installed, such as band saws and center lathes mounted on trolleys (e.g., DfES, 2004). The benefits include being able to create truly multimedia learning environments, which are adaptable to activities students are currently engaged with. This also helps to avoid 200

Facilitating

distraction or sending out mixed messages about the sorts of tasks students are going to be involved with in a particular lesson. For example, undertaking user-centered design activities in a workshop fitted for heavy-duty wood or metal work may bias learners and limit their creativity to the materials and process on display. Challenges also need to be overcome when using moveable machinery, such as the temporary location within the classroom, storage when not in use, lockability of wheels to prevent movement during use, local exhaust and ventilation (LEV) of dust and access to an appropriate isolatable power supplies (linked to an emergency “stop” button). A key consideration for the location of permanent and temporary workstations is that of “bottlenecks,” that is, areas where there is a high demand for and low access to items. The location of permanent workstation is outside of the control of most technology teachers but they should consider how students access equipment, such as: ● ● ●

●

Minimizing queuing using sign-up sheets or allocating individual/group access; Planning for groups to be working on different tasks or sequences; Increasing the number of a given item of equipment available to students (note: this is easier to achieve with hand than with machine tools); Designing learning activities that reduce the need to routinely access machine tools.

Bottlenecks are also common for temporary workstations, with the same restrictions and possible solutions listed earlier. However, the technology teacher has more control over where the workstation is located and how students access equipment. An obvious solution is to have sufficient items for all students to use simultaneously, but this will have significant implications for the cost and storage of resource—not to mention the subconscious messages that this sends to student on what is deemed to be important. The reality for most technology teachers is that they will balance limited budgets and space, and manage learning environments through careful planning. Therefore, the location of temporary workstations should plan for close class supervision, with easy access for the teacher (or another adult in the classroom, such as a technician or teaching assistant) in case of emergency. A key skill for the technology teacher working in a practical environment is visually and aurally scanning the room at regular intervals for changes and possible hazards, keeping all risky activities in full view—that is, avoid locating yourself in positions where your back is turned to activities or your ability to monitor and respond are limited. In addition to the issues relating to equipment, similar issues arise for the access to and distribution of learning resources, be they the materials or components that students are using in design and making activities or construction kits for mechanical, electronic, or pneumatic modeling. There are three different approaches that may be adopted, each having benefits and limitations: bins, boxes, or kits (Table 15.2). Depending on the learning intentions for a project, the technology teacher must decide on whether to adopt a more restrictive approach where resources are provided 201

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 15.2  Storage of Materials and Components Approach

Description

Benefits

Limitations

Storage bins Typically, component bins (for Efficient use of space, Difficult to monitor small items such as screws, with commonly used usage and may electronic components, components readily lead to waste if zippers, etc.) are wall-mounted available. Promotes poorly managed and drawer units and can also be student autonomy supervised. Similar mounted on trolleys. Stock and selection of “bottleneck” issues materials would normally be correct components. as discussed earlier. kept in storeroom. Project Carefully planned projects will Efficient use of Limits autonomy, boxes typically use a definable list materials and creativity, and choice of materials and components, components. Easy of materials and which can be packaged into to plan and monitor, components. Needs boxes for a class, by the when linked to a unit to take waste and teacher or technician. of work. damage into account. Similar “bottleneck” issues as discussed earlier. Student kits Individual project or task Reduces movement Limits autonomy, kits of parts (materials and to access resources. creativity, and choice components), which can either Efficient use of of materials and be bought in or assembled materials and components. Does in-house. Typically supplied/ components. Easy not take waste and deployed to students at their to plan and monitor, damage into account. tables, but the teacher or when linked to a unit technician. of work.

for students where they are sitting (i.e., student kits) or a more expansive one with them selecting and retrieving them for themselves (e.g., storage bins). Consideration of an expansive-restrictive continuum of pedagogical approaches (McLain, 2021) will balance the inherent limitations of any technology classroom with the learning intentions for a specific class. Risk Education versus Risk Management The chapter on “Safety, Risk, and Learning” by Eila Lindfors (Part III) outlines the issues around risk management and education in more depth. However, any discussion on facilitating technology education should consider the implications for how students learn to manage risk effectively (risk education) and how the technology teacher manages a safe learning environment (risk management), ensuring that their classrooms are well designed and maintained, lessons are well planned and delivered. Effective classroom management ensures that the tensions between risk education (i.e., developing awareness and giving students the opportunity to manage risk for themselves) and risk management (i.e., undertaking risk assessments as part of curriculum and lesson planning), involving 202

Facilitating

the use of pre-emptive strategies, such as controlling risks to minimize potential harm and making students aware of hazards and safe working practices, alongside reactive behavior management strategies. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recommends five steps to risk assessment to be undertaken by a “competent” person: identify hazards, assess risks, control risks, record findings, and review controls. Local and national authorities provide contextualized guidance on what this means for the technology classroom (in this case design and technology), including a British Standard code of practice (BSI, 2021). This fulfills the risk management aspect of the teacher of technology’s role, but making students aware of hazards, risks, and controls enables them to develop autonomy, capability, and competence (risk education). National organizations supporting technology educators (e.g., the Design and Technology Association in England and the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association in the United States) will typically offer guidance on risk management, including safe working practices and risk assessment. It is also common for employing schools to ensure that suitable health and safety training is in place for teachers (D&TA, 2021). Classroom Management A well-managed technology lesson, and classroom, should (1) engage learners in meaningful activities, (2) effectively manage the learning environment and resources, and (3) put control measures in place to manage potential risk. Therefore, a well-planned (and delivered) lesson should require minimal behavior management. That is not to say that reactive behavior management techniques are never required in technology education lessons, but rather the goal should be to “design out” the need for routine use of these strategies. A key to doing this is planning engaging, active, and appliedlearning activities. Wubbels (2011) discusses international perspectives on classroom management, suggesting six approaches. Table 15.3 outlines examples and a critique of each approach in a technology education context. Typically, classroom management in the technology education classroom focuses on safe and efficient working practices and behaviors, encouraging students to work in a cooperative and mature manner.

Physical Learning Environments Disciplinary learning in technology curricula has been historically mediated by the bodies of knowledge related to the materials used in the traditional crafts; from which they evolved in the late twentieth century. However, these origins both inform and inhibit curriculum development. Existing facilities in schools are adapted and used to deliver new content and activities. New facilities quickly become obsolete as technology and society change. So, a critical question for technology educators is: How does my “classroom” enable and disable the delivery of a modern and authentic technology education? 203

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 15.3  Six Approaches to Classroom Management Approach

Technology Education Examples

Critique

Behavioral

Positive reinforcement with rewards of following TE classroom safety rules, and negative reinforcement by either removing a student from the space or ceasing the activity. Explaining the rationale for TE classroom rules and routines, and engaging students as a community of learners working together in a responsible manner. Considering the TE classroom as an active environment, planning for efficient movement when students are unseated, including the location of equipment/workstations to minimize bottlenecks, etc. This might look like the ecological approach, but focus more on engaging students in agreeing, setting, and maintaining rules and routines in the TE classroom, through classroom discussion and student voice. TE projects and tasks are carefully designed and planned to motivate and enthuse students, and indirectly reduce potential misbehavior, considering their capability and interests. The TE teacher adopts a level of control with the class, between dominant and cooperative behavior, depending on the situation, such as using high level of control where the risk is high/ immediate.

While it is important to stop a risky activity quickly to avoid physical harm, removing the learning opportunity from the student(s) negatively impacts their learning. This approach is relational and depends on a degree of reciprocal trust and respect between the teacher and the students, which takes time to develop. This is a common approach in workshop environments, where a high degree of teacher control is necessary to ensure safety, but relies on students’ compliance and willing participation. Like internal control, this approach relies on mutual respect and strong relationships between the students and teacher. It can be time consuming both to develop the culture and enact in the classroom. Where the focus is heavily on students being kept active, rather than engaged in meaningful learning, this approach can lack depth and hinder progression. This approach relies on the teacher to be able to quickly assess the situation (read the room) and switch between one persona and another (like an actor) and tends to come with experience.

Internal control

Ecological

Discourse centered

Curricular

Interpersonal

In the following sections, we will explore the range of spaces that are common to various technology education curricula. You will notice a degree of overlap between the descriptions and many of the labels adopted may signal the values of the teachers and departments. For example, the term “studio” may be adopted to indicate that the intention of the space is orient toward a more open and design-led curriculum, as opposed to a more practical and technical one where workshop may be the term of choice. Names can matter, and a change of terminology can signal a change of practice for students, teachers, and senior leaders. Don Norman (2013) talks about the affordances and signifiers of products, concepts that also relate to the design of technology classrooms. The affordances of technology 204

Facilitating

classrooms are the actions that they make possible. So, for example, the equipment and machinery in a metalwork classroom enable the shaping of objects in metal, and so on. The same equipment and machinery (as well as the arrangement of furniture) are also signifiers, indicating to users (students) how the room is to be used. For students new to the space, the discoverability of the classroom’s function will be limited, but for the more experienced learners who recognize and are able to use the facilities the signifiers will shape their expectations for the activities to be undertaken. Poorly designed classrooms, including those that are being used for functions beyond the space’s original intentions, are undiscoverable and confusing for learners. For example, where a teacher is wanting students to ideate and prototype solutions with the most appropriate materials and components, being in a classroom design for specific materials/technologies (e.g., electronics, control, engineering, food, metal, pneumatics, robotics, textiles, wood) can send unintended messages that may limit creativity and innovation. Therefore, the teacher of technology should be aware of the benefits and limitations of their classrooms when planning for learning.

Workshops The word “workshop” is associated with spaces where things are made or repaired. Other cultures use the term “atelier,” which is derived from the Middle French astelier (meaning woodpile) and is associated with artists’ or designers’ studios/workrooms. The term “workshop” implies action and doing and has more recently been adopted for more cerebral and collaborative sessions in education and business. However, in the context of this chapter, we are concerned with the practical spaces used in technology education where students typically engage with making, manufacturing, fabrication and assembly of products and/or systems. These spaces are often defined by the material technologies being used (e.g., woodwork or metalwork), but in many schools a multimedia approach has been adopted—particularly where the curriculum is orient toward craft and design, as opposed to vocational and technical (e.g., engineering and manufacture). Workshops tend to be arranged and constrained by the equipment and machinery, which does not necessarily make them the most pedagogically ideal environments. There are always compromises between the technical and pedagogical requirements for technology workshops, as the optimal arraignment of equipment may not be the most conducive for effective classroom management.

Studios Whereas the label workshop infers a common aim and intent to the activities within their walls, the label studio is associated with more autonomous and self-directed activity. For example, in university art and design buildings, students often have an individual 205

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

studio space assigned for project work. Studios are more common where the curriculum is more design oriented and where project-based learning is a signature pedagogy. They tend to be more open plan in layout. In schools, these spaces typically have large tables for collaboration and design work. In some cases, such as in classrooms where the focus is on textiles the tables may be higher to facilitate standing rather than sitting. Or in the case of graphics or computer-aided design (CAD), the classroom may be closer in layout to an Information Technology (IT) / Information and Communications Technology (ICT) suite. However, in this case the arrangement of computer terminals also signals how the space is intended to be used. For example, a more didactic space may have the stations in rows facing the instructor, around the perimeter with collaborative/non-computer mediated activities in the center, or in clusters where team/group work is encouraged.

Laboratories The label “laboratory” has connotations of scientific experimentation and is typically used for activities involving systems and control, including electronics, mechanisms, and pneumatics. Like with IT suites, the orientation may be in rows facing the instructor or in clusters, with access to workbenches with electrical power supplies for electronics or compressed air for pneumatics. However, the use of ceiling-mounted, retractable power supplies can facilitate table-based work (e.g., the use of power supplies or soldering irons) in more general or multimedia spaces.

Kitchens Kitchen or food preparation areas are possibly the most specific of technology education learning environments, in part due to hygiene restrictions. In the school environment, pedagogical kitchen is typically arranged in pods or bays, where students share facilities, such as a cooking hobs, ovens, and utensils. The most common arrangement has a teaching station at the front of the classroom, with a demonstration station facing the class. Others, however, locate the demonstration in the center, which can also be raised to enable the instructor to monitor the room. There are benefits and limitations to both arrangements, but the latter does not afford a view of the whole room at a glance, which has implications for classroom management.

Work-based Learning Environments While technology education’s impact and relevance are beyond narrowly vocational aims—that is, it is more than training children and young people (CYP) for jobs— in 206

Facilitating

many jurisdictions it plays an undeniable role in the preparation of CYP for the world of work, particularly in technologically advanced (and advancing) societies. We live in a world where work is not only a necessity for individuals to survive and thrive, and it plays a vital role for our personal and societal good, but as global societies we face challenges (such as climate change and inequalities) that affect the future of humankind. These so-called wicked problems (insurmountable or unsolvable problems) are not just theoretical but threaten the sustainability of the human race and the planet as we know it. Technology education plays an important role in preparing future workers and leaders to act with integrity. Therefore, work-related and workbased learning environments will be a factor in most technology curricula as children progress through primary, secondary, and tertiary education into the workplace. Typical ways in which this happens in technology curricula are through progressive engagement with work environments with activities, including industrial simulation, visits, and placements. “Industrial” refers to a wide range of sectors from engineering and manufacturing to creativity and design.

Simulation Where technology curricula have a focus on technical knowledge for industrial contexts, such as manufacturing and engineering, the typical technology classroom is not equipped for learning through project-based methods (e.g., designing and making). Common examples of this are energy generation/capture, communication, robotics, and production lines. There are three ways that specific work-based learning environments can be simulated in the school setting. The first is by using one of the many learning systems available on the market, which provide integrated learning systems that can be tailored to specific technological concepts and industrial contexts. These systems are often computer-based, linking with hardware, and focus on developing technological knowledge and task-based, rather than project-based, learning. This is the most expensive option for industrial simulation. The second approach is to use simulation software. Common examples focus on schematic design for electronic circuits or pneumatic systems and can be more cost effective and flexible, only requiring computer access. A third option is to use videos of industrial process, which are available online for free, but require time to find and have to be quality assured. However, they offer the flexibility for students to access them both during and outside of lessons. The fourth option is more modeling than simulation, with classroom-based activities being used to simulate principles, rather than a specific process. This can be done by setting up a production line to assemble a product, such as a Lego model, with students working in groups, each member undertaking a different assembly stage. This can then be compared with the time for one person to assemble a complete project, to illustrate the advantages of production lines.

207

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Visits Learning outside of the classroom in technology can enable students to contextualize their learning and get a better understanding of possible career opportunities. Clearly there is insufficient time in the curriculum to plan visits that represent all the possible opportunities: from design through to manufacture. However, a well-designed educational visit to a local university, factory, or design studio can open students’ minds to possibilities and bring them face to face with real designers, engineers, and technologists. Different ways to incorporate an educational visit into a technology curriculum including planning a visit to: ●

●

●

●

A factory that used processes that are relevant to prototypes that students have been designing and making as part of a lower school project; A business undertaking procedures related to a topic that is about to be studied, such as the sustainable use of materials and the impact on the environment; A venue or location to be used as a context for a design project, such as a kindergarten or retirement home, to develop students’ empathy and understanding of challenges; A museum with exhibits of technologies from past eras to promote discussion and exploration of the impact of technology on society, and vice versa.

Effective educational visits will plan for learning activities: ●

●

●

Prior to the visit to set the context and get students thinking about the learning intentions; During the visit to focus students on the key learning intentions and how it links to their wider learning in school; After the visit to consolidate student’s learning and use the experience to enhance their classroom learning.

Placements While technology education is more than a vocational subject, preparation for future careers is a significant element of its history, as well as current expression in many international curricula. Therefore, work placements are a significant element of many post-sixteen qualifications.

Virtual Learning Environments Educational technology has made it possible for much of the learning that is traditionally taught face to face to be facilitated online. However, the hands-on and practical 208

Facilitating

nature of technology education (particularly versions informed by the designing and making paradigm) makes it difficult to conceive of a purely online curriculum model, particularly where activity and project-based learning is a core paradigm. However, online technologies do afford opportunities that may not be readily available in the typical technology classroom. Such as, accessing online content (videos, animations, simulations, etc.) or live communication (virtual industrial visits, consultations with experts, project management, etc.). Advances in digital technologies have also led to advancements in computer-aided design and manufacture (CADCAM), computer-integrated manufacture (CIM), rapid prototyping (RP), and finite element analysis (FEA), with the recent emergence of cloudbased software, such as Autodesk’s TinkerCAD and PTC’s Onshape, which promises to make CAD ubiquitous, increasingly collaborative, and free from the restraints of operating systems. These technologies provide opportunities for face-to-face, online, and blended models of teaching—blended learning is a combination of face-to-face and online teaching.

Online and Blended Learning While technology educators in remote and rural areas, such as parts of Canada and Australia, are used to elements of distance learning (going back to pre-internet times), the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 and 2021 has brought a new challenge to us all. Fortunately, advances in online technologies afford schooling and education a wider repertoire of approaches to distance learning. However, during the lockdown, limited or no access to specialist technology education facilities, equipment, and resources has rendered much of the technology curriculum unfeasible, particularly those working within practical or designing and making paradigms. Furthermore, data from the Office of National Statistics in the UK indicates that the teaching of arts-based subjects (including design and technology) was disproportionally affected by remote teaching than other STEM or humanities subjects; and unlike these subjects teaching did not improve significantly over time (O’Malley, 2021). The very nature of a technology curriculum as experiential over knowledge-based presented technology teachers with a seemingly insurmountable challenge. So, the question is: Can technology be taught effectively online? In answer to that polarizing question, it depends on whether the curriculum model is predicated on knowing about technologies (technological knowledge) or knowing how to use technologies (technological capability). The reality is that most curricula will incorporate elements of both, and it is argued that domain-specific knowledge is a prerequisite for meaningful skill development (Ericsson & Pool, 2016), particularly with children in early years and primary education (Hirsh, 2018). Technology curricula that are focused on activity and artifacts are typically built around project-based learning,

209

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

which focus on designing, making, and evaluating technological objects (e.g., products, systems and environments). Whereas those focused on technological knowledge may focus more on learning about facts, principles, and processes. Mitcham’s modes of the manifestation of technology (1994) offers a fourth way of thinking about technology, volition, which is concerned with philosophy focusing on “mind, motivation and intentionality” (McLain, Irving-Bell, Wooff, & Morrison-Love, 2019, p. 474). This aspect of technology education is gaining an increased level of focus in the form of critiquing (Williams & Stables, 2017). Broadly speaking, Mitcham’s model describes the relationships between the four modes locates technological knowledge and volition within the human being, with activities and objects outside. There is potential for the “human” elements to be taught without the level of resources or facilities required for engaging with technology activities and producing technological objects. Therefore, these aspects of a technology curriculum lend themselves to being taught remotely or online, as they do not require the same level of resourcing or supervision and could be completed in the home or a nonspecialist space. However, to begin thinking about making and using of technologies or the creating of artifacts confronts the technology teacher with the challenge of socioeconomic status (SES) and digital poverty, which risk widening the attainment gap between high and low SES students. This can be overcome by providing resource packs or kits for students to use at home, but will inevitably exclude the use of specialist equipment or potentially hazardous materials—both of which are a key feature of many curricula and play an important role in risk education. Therefore, while the inclusion of a blended approach to teaching technology could enhance the learning experience, it will inevitably reduce the amount of time spent in specialist facilities, using specialist tools and equipment. This may not be a bad thing, particularly as technology, society, and the workplace change and evolve, but it will require a paradigm shift in the way that we conceive technology education. Furthermore, a solely online technology education radically alters the very nature of the subject and is arguably incompatible with how the subject is taught, in its many different iterations, around the world. Active Blended Learning Active blended learning (ABL) is an approach that has been developed by the university of Northampton (UK) during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020/21, and focuses on context rather than on content for online synchronous learning—synchronous being where the students and/or teacher work on a task/activity during the same time period. Content is seen as being primarily delivered asynchronously using a variety of media, including text, audio-visual, and audio-only-based resources—that is, accessible by students at any time before or after a “synchronous” session, independently from the teacher—or in a symmetric face-to-face setting. Therefore, when using an ABL approach in technology education, the teacher should consider what content can safely and meaningfully be delivered online without the need for supervision and specialist resources. Emerging evidence from this very recent (at the time of writing) period in history underlines the 210

Facilitating

importance of the unplanned student/student and student/teacher interactions afforded by face-to-face teaching for both students’ understanding and well-being, as well as increasing attainment gaps in reading and mathematics between high and low SES students. This suggests that very careful consideration should be given to how much online learning is in the best interest of students from less advantaged homes but, where it does, it should focus on context and relationship building for synchronous learning.

Technology-Enhanced Learning Those outside of the field are often confused between technology education and educational technology. The two are very different, one being a subject or discipline, the other a cross-curricular suite of pedagogical approaches and products that include hardware, for example, interactive whiteboards, visualizers, and so on—and software, for example, virtual learning environments (VLE), quick response (QR) codes, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and so on. Clearly, technology education uses technologies, such as machines and equipment (hardware) and CAD programs (software), but these are primary elements of the curriculum content, rather than vehicles to support learning, or technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Examples of TEL in technology education include using:

●

●

●

Visualizers or live video feeds to support the demonstration of fine motor skills or detailed work; QR codes or VR to link to online information, guidance for tools and equipment (e.g., procedures and/or safety), virtual visits (e.g., museums, galleries, industry), accessible in the classroom using digital devices; Recorded audio-visual materials to prepare students for a new topic, support direct instruction, or consolidate learning.

Summary This chapter has explored how the learning environment facilitates learning in technology education, emphasizing how the specialist nature of these spaces is integral to its signature pedagogies. The facilities required for teaching spaces are directly related to the role and nature of the technology curriculum in a school. And where the curriculum changes, technology classrooms need to be updated, modernized, and adapted to be fit for purpose. The key issues for the technology teacher planning for teaching in specialist facilities involved managing the environment, resources, students, and risks. Classroom management, in this case, is more complex and comprehensive than the use of behavior management techniques in response to/to control misbehavior.

211

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Effective classroom management in technology education is proactive, using strategies such as curriculum design, classroom layout and arrangement of the equipment, and access to learning resources, including materials and components for project-based learning. Effective technology teachers must have a strong subject knowledge, as well as experience and competence in using the techniques, tools, equipment, and facilities that the students will experience in lessons. They need to understand what students are capable of and how best to supervise them during practical work. This includes liaising with other adults in the classroom, such as technicians, and planning for how they will support students, both inside and outside of lesson time. There are a wide range of different types of technology classroom, optimized for working with different materials (e.g., food, metal, plastic, textiles, wood) and technologies (e.g., electronics, mechanisms, pneumatics, robotics). These are physical spaces, which are normally located in the school building(s). However, due to the nature of technology education and its relationship with vocational and technical education in some countries, learning environments can also be offsite, such as industrial settings (e.g., factories, laboratories, workshops) or technical education establishments. School students can access these spaces through educational visits, planned and managed by the teacher, or for older students, through placements where they can experience work-based learning. Engaging with these highly specialized facilities outside of the school can support students understanding of how the technology curriculum applies in the real world. However, virtual visits and simulations can provide a more cost-effective and safer alternative, especially with the development of virtual and AR technologies. Specialist learning environments are essential facilities for effective and authentic learning in technology education.

Questions for Reflection 1. What makes technology education “classrooms” different from traditional learning environments? 2. What factors influence how teachers of technology plan for teaching in specialist learning environments? 3. What is the relationship between classroom management and behavior management in technology education? 4. What is the role of virtual learning in practical and creative subjects like technology education?

References BSI. (2021). BS 4163:2021 health and safety for design and technology in educational and similar establishments (Code of Practice). London: British Standards Institution.

212

Facilitating

D&TA. (2014). Core level training standards (secondary). In Health and safety training in design and technology. Banbury: Design and Technology Association. D&TA. (2021). Health and safety [webpage]. https://www​.data​.org​.uk​/for​-education​/health​-and​ -safety/ (accessed January 14, 2022). DfES. (2004). Building Bulletin 81 Design and technology accommodation in secondary schools: A design guide. Norwich: The Stationery Office. http://science​.cleapss​.org​.uk​/ Resource​/Building​-Bulletin​-81​-Design​-Technology​.pdf (accessed January 14, 2022). Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. London: Vintage. Hirsh, E. D. (2018). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. McLain, M. (2021). Key pedagogies in design and technology. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019). How technology makes us human: Cultural and historical roots for design and technology education. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 464–83. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/09585176​.2019​.1649163. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: A path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things, revised and expanded edition (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. O’Malley, J. (2021). Why arts subjects were hit so hard in the pandemic. TES Magazine. https:// www​.tes​.com​/magazine​/analysis​/general​/why​-arts​-subjects​-were​-hit​-so​-hard​-pandemic (accessed January 14, 2022). Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 8. http://dx​ .doi​.org​/10​.1162​/0011526054622015. Williams, P. J., & Stables, K. (2017). Critique in design and technology education. Singapore: Springer. Wubbels, T. (2011). An international perspective on classroom management: What should prospective teachers learn? Teaching Education, 22(2), 113–31. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /10476210​.2011​.567838.

213

214

PART III

Pedagogy for Technology Education



216

Chapter 16

Introduction to Pedagogy for Technology Education Matt McLain

The origins of technology education in most modern curricula are in the manual subjects, which taught technical and practical skills to children preparing for working life. These focused on disciplines related to the work context and were largely genderbased—that is, woodwork and metal work for boys, who were expected to gain jobs in relevant industries, and needlework and cooking for girls, who were expected to become wives and mothers in the home. Much has changed (and continues to change) in developed and developing nations, and alongside equality of access to technology education for both girls and boys, by using new technologies, materials, and processes the industry has changed. In addition to this, many national curricula have introduced a more design-oriented approach to the traditional craft experience. Many iterations of modern technology education curricula embrace the role of design and creativity, for example design and technology (D&T) in England which has an aim to prepare children to “participate successfully in an increasingly technological world” (DfE, 2013, p. 234). This means that the “signature pedagogies” for technology education include wellestablished, legacy teaching methods, as well as more recent innovations. MorrisonLove (2017) describes “transformation” as the fundamental pedagogical intent of technology education, where mathematics has the proof and science the experiment. Considering the role of knowledge in D&T, McLain et al. (2019a, 2019b) developed on this drive to transform resources and ideas into solutions to problems, concluding the knowledge base in the subject to be primarily knowledge for action. Framed under this notion of transformation, signature pedagogies for technology could be considered to be mediated by three fundamental activities (Irving-Bell et al., 2019): ideating, realizing, and critiquing; underpinned by two processes: knowing and communicating. In England, Barlex has proposed a fourfold model for D&T: designing without making; making without designing; designing and making; and exploring technology and society (cf. Barlex, 2003, 2005; Barlex & Trebell, 2008). Although the first two have been renamed as mainly designing and mainly making, recognizing that designing and making are not mutually exclusive activities. Not all technology education curricula are founded on designing and making, however, all share in the application of technological knowledge and realization of concepts—be they design ideas or technological principles.

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Two fundamental pedagogical approaches in technology education are taskbased and project-based learning. The former, task-based, approach is rooted in the millennia-old craft learning through apprenticeship, categorized as technê (translated as craft or art) by Aristotle (Scharff & Dusek, 2003). Task-based learning focuses on the acquisition of technological knowledge (declarative and procedural), such as the shaping of materials or the combination of components (e.g., electronic, mechanical, pneumatic). Teaching methods associated with task-based learning include teacher modeling, explaining, and questioning. The other side of the pedagogical coin is project-based learning, which focuses on students applying knowledge with a greater degree of autonomy, whether that be in the form of an investigation leading to a report or an iterative design process solving a contextualized problem. It would be unhelpful to consider task and project-based learning to be separate approaches, but rather the two interrelated approaches. Task-based learning tends to be more teacher lead and restrictive, whereas project-based learning tends to be more learner-led and expansive. However, the level of learner autonomy in each can be adapted by the teacher, depending on the capability of the learners, and some tasks can share features that might be considered like a project and some focused practical tasks being structured as a project.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Shulman (1986) described the interaction between teacher knowledge of subject content, pedagogical approaches, and curriculum matters as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). PCK integrates knowledge from three domains: recognizing the complexity of teacher knowledge, taking into account potential misconceptions, and the most effective methods for teaching specific content knowledge. For example, the relatively

School Knowledge

Subject Knowledge

Pedagogic Knowledge

Personal Subject Construct

Figure 16.1  Banks et al.’s (2004) subject construct model. 218

Introduction to Pedagogy for Technology Education

restrictive teaching method of demonstration is ideally suited to teaching practical skills, whereas more expansive teacher modeling approaches are better suited to the facilitation of creativity (McLain, 2018, 2021). Banks et al. (2004) adapted PCK to the context of technology education, changing curricular knowledge to school knowledge, acknowledging the importance of the teacher’s ability to adapt to the local context of school curriculum, culture, policy, and so on (Figure 16.1). One participant in their study observed that the model encapsulated “the attitude of the teacher . . . their enthusiasm towards their subject . . . their ability to . . . pass on this . . . and their interest in and concern for students” (2004, p. 153).

Signature Pedagogies A second useful concept from Shulman (2005) is signature pedagogies, which are described as “characteristic forms of teaching and learning” (p. 52) evidenced in use across a discipline. Signature pedagogies are not necessarily the most effective approaches, but those practices that are widely used and believed to be effective. Shulman described three layers to a signature pedagogy structure: the surface structure, which are the pedagogical activities that the teacher plans and enacts in the classroom to facilitate disciplinary learning; the deep structure, which are the assumptions about the best way to teach a body of knowledge; and the implicit structure, which are the beliefs about the attitudes, values, and dispositions that are associated with disciplinary learning and its signature pedagogies. Whereas PCK focuses on how teachers combine complex knowledge in the classroom, signature pedagogies is a useful lens for teachers to explore what lies below the surface and informs their curriculum design, assumptions, and intentions. For example, considering design fiction as a surface structure, where students are thinking about future scenarios and contexts, is an ideal teaching method to further the aims of a mainly designing project (deep structure), where they are exploring design solutions without the constraints of making; this decision, in turn, is underpinned by the implicit structure of ideating or designing, where students are learning to be creative and innovative in technology education. For example, McLain (2022) proposes that the implicit structure of design and technology education includes ideating, realizing, and critiquing. The deep structure being project-based learning, which can take the form of design and making activities, as well as mainly making, mainly designing, and exploring technology and society. Beginning with the aspect of the subject’s implicit structure that the teacher wants to focus on, the appropriate teaching methodology (deep structure) and methods (surface structure) can be mapped and evaluated. Looking to the future of designing in technology education, Stables (2020) presents a speculative framework for signature pedagogies. 219

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Expansive-Restrictive Continuum With its focus on both practical and creative concerns, technology education can seem somewhat complex and conflicted, with teachers needing to mediate between relative restrictive methods of transferring knowledge of specific tools and technique alongside the demand for more expansive approaches that facilitate creativity and innovation. Therefore, the third concept of an expansive-restrictive curriculum (Fuller & Unwin, 2003; McLain, 2018, 2021) is a useful lens for teachers when selecting and optimizing teaching methodologies and methods.

Overview of Chapters Part III includes seven chapters by leading authors bringing perspectives from technology education on the continents of Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania. The pedagogic concepts covered frame learning in technology education as projectbased, task-based, play-based, design, digital, interdisciplinary, and safety and risk. In Chapter 17, Osnat Dagan outlines project-based learning (PBL) in technology education, as a fundamental pedagogical approach. Positioning PBL as a tried and tested method, informed by constructivist and constructionist learning theories, the chapter explores the nature and rationale for embedding PBL in the technology curriculum, as well as discussing methods for the management and assessment of projects. Using two case studies of contemporary practice in Israeli schools, Osnat demonstrates how PBL can be a meaningful and focusing activity in technology education. In Chapter 18, Andrew Doyle addresses technology education from the another pedagogical perspective, focusing on task-based learning (TBL). Andrew outlines the core concepts of TBL, underlining the importance of well-designed and planned tasks that promote progression. Drawing on his PhD thesis, he explores three ways that a technology education teacher might think about the goals of the subject in the context of the tasks that they set. Together, Osnat’s and Andrew’s chapters build the foundation for this section exploring pedagogy in technology education. Chapter 20, by Pauline Roberts and Marianne Knaus, explores play-based learning and the playful use of technology with young children through to adolescents. Playbased learning has its roots in early childhood education, tapping into children’s innate curiosity and imagination to engage with design thinking and technology processes. Features of effective play include meaningful, autonomous, adventurous, and risky activities, which prepare children for problem-solving and learning throughout life. Pauline and Marianne make links between play-based, design, and interdisciplinary learning in technology education. Remke Klapwijk and Kay Stables address design learning in Chapter 19, describing design as being a fundamental characteristic of being human. Drawing on examples 220

Introduction to Pedagogy for Technology Education

of collaborative design projects with children, Remke and Kay demonstrate how to incorporate iterative design thinking and doing into authentic and meaningful learning activities. Design learning requires pedagogical approaches that facilitate children’s engagement with creative action, reflection, and critique. In an increasingly virtual world, Debi Winn approaches digital learning in Chapter 21, ranging from teaching about and with technology to technology-enhanced learning. Drawing on examples from her doctoral thesis, Debi explores the complexities and features of digital learning in designing and making activities (including computeraided design). Taking the challenge of creativity verses technical complexity, the chapter encourages playfulness and risk-taking approaches, alongside more traditional tutorialbased approaches. In Chapter 22, Michael A. de Miranda explores interdisciplinary learning in the context of STEM. Introducing the term “iSTEM associational fluency,” Michael discusses how teachers balance and integrate pedagogical approaches with complex classroom activities and environments. The iSTEM approach emphasizes students working in interdisciplinary teams with design uniting and integrating the S, T, E, and M. Chapter 23 address the issues around safety, risk, and learning in technology education, which are often overlooked in academic literature. Eila Lindfors draws on data on accidents in Finnish schools to underline the importance of technology teachers’ subject knowledge and expertise working with children in potentially hazardous learning environments. The safety culture being a key factor in safe learning environments where children are able to experience learning and working in risky environments, developing competence and confidence. Together the seven chapters in Part III provide the teacher of technology with a highlevel pedagogical toolkit for curriculum development and teaching. Where possible, we have aimed to avoid writing about technology education from a granular, disciplinespecific perspective (i.e., electronics, food, graphics, materials, textiles, etc.), focusing on broad themes and approaches. This section will help the reader to reflect on and evaluate their current practice and plan for new and innovative approaches.

References Banks, F., Barlex, D., Jarvinen, E., O’Sullivan, G., Owen-Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2004). DEPTH – Developing Professional Thinking for Technology Teachers: An international study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 141–57. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1023​/B​:ITDE​.0000026475​.55323​.01. Barlex, D. (2003). Considering the impact of design and technology on society – the experience of the Young Foresight project. Paper presented at the Place of Design & Technology in the Curriculum PATT Conference, Glasgow. Barlex, D. (2005). The centrality of designing – an emerging realisation from three curriculum projects. Paper presented at the Technology Education and Research: Twenty Years in Retrospect PATT Conference, Netherlands.

221

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Barlex, D., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 119–38. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-007​-9025​ -5. DfE. (2013). National curriculum in England: Framework for key stages 1 to 4. London: Department for Education. https://www​.gov​.uk​/government​/publications​/national​-curriculum​ -in​-england​-framework​-for​-key​-stages​-1​-to​-4. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), 407–26. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/1363908032000093012. Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & McLain, M. (2019). Re-designing design and technology education: A living literature review of stakeholder perspectives. Paper presented at the PATT 37 Conference, Developing a knowledge economy through technology and engineering education, University of Malta, Msida Campus. McLain, M. (2018). Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 985–1000. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-017​-9425​-0. McLain, M. (2021). Developing perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 3–26. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-019​-09545​-1. McLain, M. (2022). What’s so special about design and technology anyway? Exploring contemporary and future teaching using a signature pedagogies discursive framework. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Debates in Design and Technology Education (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019a). How technology makes us human: Cultural and historical roots for design and technology education. Curriculum Journal. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/09585176​.2019​.1649163. McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019b). Humanising the design and technology curriculum: Why technology education makes us human. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 8–19. https://ojs​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/DATE​/ article​/view​/2610. Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Towards a transformative epistemology of technology education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), 23–37. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/1467​-9752​.12226. Scharff, R. C., & Dusek, V. (2003). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition (an anthology). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. http://www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/1175860. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 8. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1162​/0011526054622015. Stables, K. (2020). Signature pedagogies for designing: A speculative framework for supporting learning and teaching in design and technology education. In P. J. Williams & D. Barlex (Eds.), Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools: Research informed perspectives for classroom teachers (pp. 99–120). Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland.

222

Chapter 17

Project-Based Learning Authentic and Effective Learning in Technology Education Osnat Dagan

Introduction Project-based learning (PBL) is an educational approach that includes active learning, which facilitates the students’ achievements. Over the years, it has been found that motivation, the effectiveness of learning, and the ability to construct new knowledge and skills increase when they are associated with an authentic problem. All of this takes place in PBL. Signs of PBL first emerged in architecture academies during the sixteenth century. However, the roots of PBL are commonly attributed to the early 1900s when, in 1918, Kilpatrick spoke about “the projects method” as a form of progressive education, stressing the social interactions that occur during PBL. Progressive education was founded on Dewey’s educational theory that links learning with real life, the learners’ prior experiences, and their social needs. Initially, that approach was constructivist and constructionist. At the time, PBL was implemented in various disciplines, including medicine, engineering, technology, education, economics, and business. Nowadays, it has branched out to additional disciplines and across disciplines. The focus of this chapter is on PBL in technology education and STEM. Constructivists (e.g., Piaget) argue that knowledge is not transmitted from teachers to students, but rather is actively constructed in the learners’ minds. Children create ideas. Constructionism, which is based on that learning theory, maintains that children construct their knowledge, make new ideas while engaging in construction, and make an external artifact. Both theories take issue with learning that is confined to listening to lectures delivered by teachers and memorizing the “right” answers. When using PBL, the learning occurs due to the students’ need to acquire specific knowledge (sometimes referred to as “just-in-time” knowledge) that will help them solve problems throughout the project. For example, a problem that relates to trash collection on the beaches: in the process of finding and choosing an appropriate solution to the problem,

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

the students also acquire knowledge about the properties of different materials. As noted earlier, PBL has a positive effect on students’ academic achievements when compared with traditional instruction methods. The evidence shows that when using the PBL approach, which includes exploring, creating, and constructing, students utilize high-order cognitive skills that are identified in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. However, when learning the traditional way, students at most utilize the two or three lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy—remembering and understanding and, only on rare occasions, applying. PBL in technology education is a pedagogical approach where the primary aim is to foster active learners who develop and work autonomously, either individually or in teams, while collecting the information needed for solving the project’s problems. Projects can range from individual design and making to team-based problem-solving activities. Authenticity is an important feature of effective PBL; and open-ended, ill-defined activities provide the best learning opportunities (Dagan et al., 2019). PBL seeks to enhance thinking and making skills as well as capabilities such as problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, and teamwork, all of which are also considered twenty-first-century skills. Learners work on a unique project that may be complex and that involve applying theory to practice using an analytical approach within and beyond a discipline, while taking timeline constraints into consideration. From a sociocultural perspective, PBL highlights how students engage in activities and co-construct their understanding through an iterative process, whether peer-to-peer, student-to-teacher, student-to-expert (industry-academy).

What Is Project-based Learning? PBL has become a widely used pedagogical method in many disciplines, including technology education. It is a process that involves creativity and the application of knowledge to solve a problem, which takes place over a period of time and extends beyond the limits of a regular forty-five- to sixty-minute lesson. It enables students to be active in learning-by-doing, create and innovate, and work independently or in teams, while designing solutions to real-life, ill-defined problems. The problem (often in the form of a question) and the product/artifact—the solution to the problem—are essential components of PBL. The project should be tailored to the curriculum and the intended learning outcomes. It offers students an opportunity to master the concepts and subject matter of the course, while engaging in hands-on, individual, and group activities. The team members then present their work to their classmates, and all this within the allotted timeframe. The PBL approach has several distinct features: method, authenticity, the problem, the process and the product, the teachers’ role, independence and collaboration, and timeline. 224

Project-Based Learning

Method Thorough learning-by-doing, students learn curriculum content when it is needed (justin-time) for making progress in their problem-solving process. It enables them to make the cognitive connections between old and new knowledge, and construct it in their minds in an effective manner. There are different approaches to teaching, learning, and using PBL, such as: ●

●

Design thinking, which is a process that includes developing unlimited ideas, taking risks, integrating empathy into the problem, creativity that involves forming ideas and solutions, and analyzing ideas and adapting the solution to the problem. There are various models of design thinking. What they have in common is that they empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test (evaluate). The process is iterative, and all the aforementioned components are not linear. The Double Diamond model, which was developed by the UK Design Council, where the emphasis starts with understanding the people’s need, communicating visually and inclusively, collaborating and co-creating, while iterating throughout the process. The process is illustrated by two diamonds arranged horizontally, end to end: in the first diamond, discover and define skills are applied to a challenge associated with a specific problem (answering the “what” question). In the second diamond, the outcomes are developed and delivered (answering the “how” question).

A variety of other methods are also used in project management, among them: ●

●

Critical Path Analysis, which was developed in the late 1950s and is primarily used in industry. According to this method, every task that is critical to the completion of the project must first be mapped. The mapping includes the estimated amount of time required to finish each task, as well as the estimated degree to which each task is dependent on the others. This method can also be used to plan a realistic project schedule and deadline, typically presented in a gantt chart. Scrum, which was developed in the 1990s, is an iterative and agile method for managing software programming projects. It is used to break a project down into tasks that must be completed within two weeks to a month. While managing the project, the Scrum team assesses the progress that has been made, both on a daily basis and at the end of the project. The assessment is carried out by stakeholders and by self-reflection.

The Problems The chosen project is based on a real-life situation (described in a design brief) that is relevant to the students, is part of their world, and is something they can identify with 225

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

and develop empathy for. The authentic problems increase the students’ motivation and engagement and enhance their learning capabilities. The students define the problem as part of the whole project. The problems addressed by the project are the core element of PBL. They should be open-ended, complex, “wicked,” or ill-defined, with the aim being not only to answer a question but also to trigger a design process. The process ends with a product, system, or service that meets the needs and the requirements. Open-ended problems facilitate a creative and innovative process and product. The problems can be on a continuum, ranging from well-structured, through somewhat ill-structured and open-ended, to illdefined, which include decision-making, troubleshooting, designing, and addressing dilemmas. The following categories of problems have been found to be especially suited to PBL: ● ● ● ● ●

for managing knowledge; for learning through activity; for acquiring practical abilities (capability); for critical thinking; and more.

In technology education, PBL is applied to ill-structured and open-ended problems in single-disciplinary courses or in interdisciplinary courses, such as STEM.

The Process and the Product The intention is to design learning experiences that are focused on solving a problem and developing a final product. The PBL process starts with identifying the problem and proceeds from there to obtaining and assessing information, making decisions, answering the questions, and making revisions, followed by critique, evaluation, and reflection. The process ends with a product that meets the defined problem and needs (Stables, 2020). A process of this kind incorporates numerous cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills (from Bloom’s taxonomy).

Independence and Collaboration In PBL, the teachers are no longer the focal point of the learning process and the main source of knowledge. Their roles are to guide, assist, and mediate the students’ learning processes, in addition to managing the learning environments and the process and setting the timeline. They must rely on the students and transfer the responsibility for the project to them. Teachers must also prepare learners for PBL, by scaffolding 226

Project-Based Learning

early experiences. In some places, the design process is learned and experienced as an individual project. Whereas in other places it is a collaborative undertaking. When solving problems, students need, on the one hand, to work collaboratively in teams and, on the other hand, to be independent and construct their own knowledge and skills (McLain, 2021). Each student should bring his/her unique knowledge and skills to the project and by doing so contribute to the work done by the team as a whole. However, by participating in this team effort, they also enhance their own knowledge and skills.

Timeline Projects should have a predefined timeline—a beginning date and an end date. The teachers define the timeframe, and the students are expected to plan, design, and manage their work within the set time limits. Methods used in project management, such as Critical Path Analysis and Scrum that were described earlier, can help teams stay on schedule. PBL aims to: (1) construct the students’ knowledgebase; (2) develop problem-solving skills; (3) build collaborative and teamwork skills; (4) nurture the intrinsic motivation to learn; and (5) foster cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills, such as self-directed learning, critical thinking, creativity, and reflective thinking. What makes PBL unique is that the construction of the solution, namely the end product, is a cognitive as well as physical outcome achieved by implementing new knowledge, comprehension, and skills and by integrating theory with practice as part of a defined problem. The independent and collaborative learning, the documentation and the reflection processes, coupled with the responsibility for planning and managing the project, foster the students’ self-regulated learning and advance their conceptual knowledge construction. PBL incorporates several twenty-first-century skills, such as problem-solving, the 4Cs (critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication), assessing and analyzing information, and more.

Designing Designing is the core of the PBL method used in technology education. Designing can take place in technology education with or without PBL, with students engaged in designing collaboratively or individually. In the 1990s, the linear design process was the pedagogical method used to teach design in K–12. Pupils typically found themselves solving problems step-by-step: they defined the problem, the needs, the requirements, and the constraints, they searched for information that could assist them, they suggested (for example) three ideas for the solution and chose the most suitable one, made a prototype and evaluated it. Researchers who assessed this learning method voiced the following criticisms: (1) expert problem solvers (e.g., engineers, architects, product 227

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

designers) do not utilize this method; (2) the step-by-step approach does not take into account the pupils’ alternative mental models; (3) there is no single way to solve a problem. We must distinguish between different processes, problems, and situations; and (4) because each step was taught separately without viewing the whole process, pupils undertook one step at a time—they failed to grasp the full picture and were unable to construct their problem-solving mental models (De Vries, 1997). In the last few decades, design researchers have come to agree that there is no single “design process” and that there is no single linear or cyclic path that problem solvers should follow (Stables, 2020; Mioduser & Dagan, 2007). Designing is about “interactions between the mind and hand” (Kimbell et al., 1991) and progressing from a hazy idea to a prototype of the product, while applying design thinking and making tools all along the way. The functional approach emphasizes the teaching and study of design functions (rather than stages): identification and definition of the issues, exploration and investigation, decision-making, planning, making, and evaluation. At every stage of the process, the problem solver can use more than one design function (e.g., investigation and evaluation), depending on the specific context and requirements of the particular stage. For example, the function that entails investigation of alternative knowledge resources will have different form and a set of different goals, when applied to defining the design objective, than those which are applied to reviewing alternative solutions. Accordingly, functional-contextual traits are the foundation of every activity implemented during the solution generation process (Mioduser & Dagan, 2007, p. 136; Dagan, 2005, unpublished doctoral dissertation). When this approach is applied, the problem-solving process is more flexible and cyclical. The instructional plan is founded on teaching the different design functions in a way that enables students to implement them optimally, in accordance with the problem, the situation, and their own learning and work style (Mioduser & Dagan, 2007). Klapwijk (2018), followed by Klapwijk and Stables, add another layer to the functional approach. That layer is comprised of the formative assessment tools needed for design thinking. They cite the following seven design thinking tools (seven hexagons):

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

thinking in all directions; making productive mistakes; deciding on one’s direction; sharing ideas; bringing ideas to life; developing empathy; and making use of the process.

Those skills are acknowledged twenty-first-century skills. Learners can use these design thinking tools when applying the functional approach to their own path. The thinking tools serve as formative assessment infrastructure (see Chapter 19).

228

Project-Based Learning

Why Project-Based Learning? To answer the question “Why PBL?” first requires us to summarize the contributions made by PBL to learners. PBL enables learners to: ●

●

●

Integrate knowledge from various sources and skill sets (e.g., creativity, modeling, ideation, critical thinking, and reflection), while developing a solution to an illdefined problem; Be proactive and assume responsibility for various aspects of the process: planning, making revisions, taking risks, investigating, evaluating, and formulating the ideas and the product, in addition to reflecting on possible improvements. PBL encourages students to be autonomous and take charge of their learning process; Be prepared for the job market.

PBL and Problem-Based Learning In technology education, both PBL and problem-based learning focus on real-world problems, emphasizing active learning and learning-by-doing, and make use of the design methods to solve those problems. Both experiences are signature pedagogies: pedagogies of speculation, pedagogies of imaging and modeling, pedagogies of materiality, pedagogies of need-to-know, pedagogies of critiquing, and pedagogies of collaboration (Stable, 2020). Furthermore, PBL and problem-based learning are both geared toward achieving a common goal through independent learning, teamwork, and collaboration that nourish one another. Throughout the process, learners track problems that need to be solved until arriving at a solution—the “product” or artifact. The differences between project-based learning and problem-based learning are derived primarily from the scope of the problem that needs to be solved. The scope of the PBL problems or dilemmas is much wider. Some also contend that the main difference between PBL and problem-based learning is their goal. Whereas in problembased learning students are focused on the process, in PBL their focus is on the end product, namely the solution (without, however, neglecting the iterative process). In such a case, it is crucial to be mindful of iterative design, consider alternative solutions, evaluate and improve the ideas, and avoid fixation on one design solution from the outset of the process. In PBL, experiential and collaborative learning is essential. In line with this method of learning, every member of the group has a clear role and is expected to contribute to the group effort and to the final product. Students experience hands-on and active learning, intertwined with reflection processes. Doppelt and Barak (2021) noted that (1) project tasks are closer to professional reality and for that reason take longer than problem-based learning; (2) project work is more conducive to the application of knowledge, as opposed to problem-based learning which is geared toward 229

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

the acquisition of knowledge; (3) PBL is guided by the subjects in the curriculum while problem-learning is not; and (4) the timeline and resources in project management are more important in PBL.

PBL and Task-Based Learning (TBL) TBL is described in detail in Chapter 18 in this handbook, and the similarities and differences between it and PBL are discussed later. The literature on TBL was initially applied to the teaching and learning of a second language. It was later adopted by other disciplines. Because the goal is clear, students know when the task is completed. In PBL, the learning activity is built around problem-solving and the use of design. Its learning outcomes include a solution to the problem, understanding the project and how to manage it, design skills, and design mental models. In TBL, however, the learning is built around a discrete task and the learning outcomes are understanding the task and its concepts. In both PBL and TBL, the teachers’ role is to mentor and support the students, who work in teams. In TBL, the teams are usually small, whereas in PBL there can be more members on the team. There are three stages in TBL: (1) the pre-task; (2) the task that includes planning and presentation; and (3) review accuracy (for more details, refer Chapter 18). Despite some similarities between PBL and TBL, there are many more differences. The main and most significant one is that PBL focuses on the whole process, while TBL focuses on a particular skill or content knowledge. The purpose of TBL is the specific task at hand (a piece of knowledge or a skill), whereas the purpose of PBL is the entire project. In PBL, the output is creating the solution, the product—the artifact, and the process as a whole. In TBL, the outcome can be a report, a presentation, a recorded dialogue of a specific skill, or part of an artifact or content knowledge. In PBL, the whole process could incorporate one or more TBL activities.

PBL Teamwork A team is a collection of people who share common objectives and goals that require completion. A team generates positive synergy thanks to a coordinated effort. On a team, there is both individual and collective accountability and members share leadership roles among themselves. Teamwork effectiveness is measured using the team’s assessment of the collective product. When working in a team, conflict situations may arise due to different motivations and opinions or due to poor communication between its members. Steps should be taken to prevent this from happening. 230

Project-Based Learning

The ability to work in teams is very important, and especially in PBL where combining different areas of knowledge is crucial. Each member of the team may have expertise in a particular field and play a well-defined role, but they should also have a grasp of the tools available in the other fields and understand their potential contribution to addressing the problem. Multidisciplinary teams are instrumental in achieving innovative ideas and solutions (Dagan et al., 2019). Although it is quite rare, if the team lacks specific expertise, they should seek to obtain what they need from other teams, teachers in the school, or experts from academia and industry. By working in a team, students develop strategies for collaborative learning, which requires reflection, dialogue, interaction, management, leadership, and constructive communication. Assessing each team member is not an easy task because the person conducting the assessment must determine the contribution made by each member to the project and to himself or herself. On the one hand, the students learn independently and from one another. On the other hand, the project is a collaborative effort of the team. In many cases, this assessment is founded on the students’ self-reporting which is based on the following criteria:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Did the student work collaboratively with the other members; Did the student contribute ideas to the team; Did the student respect the others’ opinions; Did the student share ideas and knowledge; Did the course help the student develop his or her ability to work in a team, and so on.

Some maintain that PBL can help students develop their teamwork skills as they are practiced throughout the process.

The Teachers’ Role and Professional Development Because teachers play a vital role in PBL, minimal guidance and instruction on their part can potentially have an adverse effect on learning. Consequently, teachers must carefully plan projects that develop students’ knowledge and skills and scaffold learning appropriate to their capabilities. Students participating in a classroom-based design and make project also need access to an educator who has expertise in the materials and processes being used. That educator should also be able to teach design and project management skills while ideating, realizing, and critiquing design solutions (McLain, 2021). Furthermore, according to this learning approach, teachers are coaches and mediators (Dagan et al., 2019). While relinquishing their responsibility for the students’ learning process, they can engage with the students and participate in their learning experiences. This means that it is a really different experience for teachers compared to 231

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

more teacher-led approaches. Besides guiding and facilitating, the teachers manage the learning environment and the process and set the timeline. The teachers themselves must, therefore, receive first-rate professional development and training, both pre-service and in-service. Teachers need to practice new skills that will enable them to give students responsibility for their learning, including managing the timeline, deciding what needs to be learned, how the tasks should be divided among the team members, and determining what knowledge must be acquired from different disciplines to complete their project. The teachers must be present to oversee the work and extend support and guidance to the students so they can achieve their goals. Whereas traditional teaching methods had teachers working on their own in the classroom, nowadays, in the new learning settings, they also need to work in teams and engage in co-teaching with colleagues that have different and specific areas of expertise. In many technology PBL programs (see the implementation description later), the first stage is in-service preparation where the teachers experience and learn all the required new skills and competencies. In pre-service academic programs, there are courses that prepare future teachers for using the PBL approach. One example is a Master of Education degree program in integrative STEM that was developed at Beit Berl College, in Israel. This twoyear program trains educators on how to design and implement STEM curricula in Israeli schools and other educational settings using PBL. The main objectives of the program are to broaden and enrich the teachers’ understanding of the different STEMbased fields, introduce them to new integrative fields implemented in industry and academia, and provide them with the foundations necessary for applying integrative STEM education using cutting-edge teaching and learning techniques. The core of the program is based on problem-solving thinking and making in a PBL setting. Student teachers are taught how to design and offer solutions to problems that incorporate approaches similar to those commonly found in industry and academia. That means working in multidisciplinary teams that implement the PBL approach throughout the design process. The team members contribute their respective expertise gained from the bachelor’s degree programs they completed and jointly develop innovative, creative, and implementable solutions. In the first year of the program, the student teachers experience the PBL approach, including its teamwork elements. In the second year, they develop PBL activities for their pupils and implement them at a school (Dagan et al., 2019). It was found that following extensive professional development, teachers implemented the same elements of their own training experiences when they were given charge of a classroom (Doppelt & Barak, 2021). In view of the fact that PBL assessment and teamwork assessment are complex undertakings, professional development (pre-service and in-service) must be attentive and equip student teachers and teachers with useful tools for both formative and summative assessment.

232

Project-Based Learning

PBL Assessment PBL assessment is challenging because many different aims and activities can and/ or need to be assessed. This compels us to utilize a variety of assessment methods for each activity. When engaged in PBL assessment, we seek to assess the design process and the product, problem-solving skills and capabilities, creativity, the students’ ability to work independently and in teams, knowledge of the subject matter, and the ability to collect and present relevant information. Assessing all these variables is a complex undertaking. It is easier to assess the students’ grasp of the subject matter using tests and exams (summative assessment). However, assessing the other activities (e.g., creativity, teamwork) is much more complicated and necessitates the use of a variety of assessment tools, either separately or in combination. Assessing most of these elements is best achieved by collecting data throughout the PBL process, namely the “footprints” or the “trace-left behind” (Stables, 2018). An exam at the end of the project cannot reflect all the variables. To assess all the elements/aims of PBL mentioned earlier, we should use both summative and formative assessments. Formative assessment includes reading student portfolios in the different stages of the process and providing them with scaffolded feedback about various aspects of it; summative assessment pertains to the whole process, the quality of the product, and how it meets the requirements and constraints. The critique of the process and the product by teachers and fellow project team members can be carried out as a summative or formative assessment. In view of the fact that designing is the core of PBL, its assessment should address the designing aspects of the project (as described in Chapter 19). The most common approach is formative assessment. The main aim of formative assessment is to advance the students by providing them with continuous feedback and helping them manage their learning. Formative assessment enables the teacher to focus on the day-to-day learning, track the students’ progress, assist them, and scaffold their learning all along the way. The research has shown that students who applied formative assessment learn more and use higher-order thinking skills than those who do not utilize this type of assessment. The ability of students to plan what to learn, coupled with their ongoing self-monitoring of the process, interact with their teachers’ feedback along the process enables them to gain more knowledge and develop better projects. The product/artifact (the solution to the problem) that is developed during the process is evaluated using both summative and formative assessment. The summative assessment of the final product relies on a number of criteria, such as:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Did it solve the problem? Is it suited to the target population? Is it innovative? Does it meet the requirements? Is it aesthetic?

233

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

However, formative assessment is used to evaluate the product throughout the process. It starts with the initial hazy idea and includes developing the idea, acquiring the knowledge, thinking in different directions, making productive mistakes with the support of the teachers, and so on (Klapwijk, 2018). The assessment of the process is much more complicated because it reviews various dimensions of the development and the progress that was made. It needs to address how evidence should be collected to ensure that it reflects the quality of every single step of the process. Over the years, many tools have been developed for assessing the design process, with the portfolio being the most common one. There has been some concern and criticism regarding portfolios, in particular that they are not indicative of the processes (mostly because they were prepared after the process and not during it). To overcome those obstacles, Stables (2017) from Goldsmiths College developed the “unpickled” portfolio, followed by the e-portfolio (e-scape). The portfolio is a repository for learning evidence, with the learners serving as curators of their own learning. The documentation facilitates a reflective process as well as a formative and summative assessment. Both summative and formative assessments were developed. A holistic assessment was developed using e-scape as a summative assessment tool followed by an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that was developed for formative assessment purposes. The AI tool was used to scaffold students’ learning and to support their progress throughout the process. The AI character—“the duck”—which used machine learning, was developed during the study, building the database of responses to questions. It examined and analyzed e-portfolio text all along the way and made use of “the duck” to ask the students constructive questions that were specially tailored to them. This process helped the students to improve the quality of their documentation through formative assessment. An e-portfolio could be the preferred way to assess PBL processes. A structured and collaborative e-portfolio that enables students to develop their ideas, add sketches and images, and even audio and video. Whether they are working independently or in teams, this could be of help to students throughout the process, and be a better indicator of the learning journey as it took place, as well as a reliable and validated assessment tool.

STEM and PBL PBL in technology education is often found in interdisciplinary projects (see also Chapter 22), because the problem is primarily of a social nature. The solving processes (designing) are of a technological nature and its engineering processes, skills, and required knowledge come from scientific fields of study—that is, mathematics or sciences—therefore, every project contains aspects of the specific disciplines. With regard to interdisciplinary STEM (or iSTEM), the focus is on designing, as the process which integrates those disciplines. 234

Project-Based Learning

In many curricula, STEM literacy now has one main track in technology education, built on PBL. Learning based on the PBL method provides authentic content and context-related experiences that are critical to learners. PBL serves as a scaffolding system that supports the construction of meaningful and effective learning in the STEM (Capraro et al., 2013). Engineering design is a central pillar of STEM PBL. Learners apply their knowledge in science, technology, and math to solve real-life, open-ended problems (Capraro & Slough, 2013). This learning approach compels learners to use critical, analytical, and synthetic thinking, in addition to evaluating and reflecting on their problem-solving process (Capraro & Slough, 2013). PBL in STEM could bring learners closer to these disciplines, spark their interest, and motivate them to tackle them.

Implementations Many technology education curricula place emphasis on designing that involves the use of the PBL approach to devise creative and innovative solutions to technological problems. They all point to the fact that learning-by-doing and problem-solving are the core of technology education and PBL in technology education. In most technology tracks in the Israeli high school system, students use the PBL approach to develop their twelfth-grade graduation projects in disciplines such as electronics, mechatronics, and so on. Two PBL programs in technology education in Israeli high schools are presented in the following paragraph. Both are offered in technology tracks and utilize PBL as a pedagogical method. They integrate several disciplines and their aim is to design innovative solutions to human problems and needs. Example 1: ISTEAM (innovation, science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) was developed by ORT Israel in collaboration with OpenValley. It has already been implemented at some secondary schools and high schools in the ORT Israel Network. OpenValley specializes in facilitating and cultivating organizations and start-up companies at their co-working spaces, where they foster entrepreneurship, inspiration, and learning. During the 2020–1 school year, seventh to twelfth graders from twentytwo schools took part in the program. ISTEAM is a multidisciplinary program. The learning process is based on PBL and stresses innovation and entrepreneurship, while learners experience twenty-first-century skills. The goal of the program is to make the innovation ecosystem and start-up world part of the ORT Israel Network of schools. The focus is on the acquisition of skills such as teamwork, critical thinking, and entrepreneurship tools. ISTEAM is characterized by the following components: ● ●

An interdisciplinary approach and theme; Comprehensive PBL combined with a rich ICT pedagogical approach; 235

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

● ●

●

Innovative and inventive thinking methods; Inspiration, entrepreneurship, and career development relevant to the real-world and high-tech industry; Critical thinking and an examination of moral dilemmas found in the sciences and technology, based on culture, heritage, and values.

The program has several preconditions: ● ● ● ●

●

●

The schools’ willingness to take part in it; A teacher is appointed to spearhead the program at each school (lead teachers); Professional development is offered to the ISTEAM teachers; Teachers and students must attend learning sessions in OpenValley’s co-working spaces where they participate in an entrepreneurs’ community; Entrepreneurs go to each school once a week where they facilitate the learning process; A group of outstanding student entrepreneurs from all the schools is formed.

The participants meet with MIT students. Professional development for the lead teachers consists of sixty training hours a year that are delivered to them together as a group. Another thirty training hours a year are delivered to all the teachers who work in the program at their respective schools. The multidisciplinary projects are developed around analogies between curriculum subjects. The students’ work plan consists of ten stages: introduction, preliminary thinking, defining a problem/need, raising ideas and receiving feedback, studying, gathering information, interim evaluation, writing a wiki entry, preparing the final product, and presenting the project (Dagan, 2020). The program’s building blocks include (1) multidisciplinary learning—PBL, innovation and entrepreneurship, creativity, iterative learning, and skills; (2) professional development, lead teachers, support, and an entrepreneur teacher community; (3) a school mentor, hands-on experience in the co-working space, a meeting with MIT students; (4) makers, young start-ups, peer advisors; (5) industry, business, academia, a parents’ community; and (6) a school administrators’ community. At the end of every school year, the students present their products. The seventh to ninth graders design escape rooms or boxes, whereas the tenth to twelfth graders design various products, which are also displayed at the end of the year—namely, solutions to problems in different disciplines. Example 2: GEM-TECH is a program that was developed by the superintendent of the product design arts track at the Ministry of Education (Dr. Einat Kryzman) and some leading instructors who teach this track (Ido Ben-Tov). Prof. Ezri Tarazi from the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, served as program consultant 236

Project-Based Learning

The primary objective of the GEM-TECH program is to enable technology track students to experience the design of a product that enhances human well-being. The work is carried out in a multidisciplinary team and utilizes PBL pedagogy. The premise is that using knowledge from a variety of disciplines will improve product quality and allow students to gain multidisciplinary teamwork skills, while at the same time working on their twelfth-grade graduation projects in their technology specialization. Every student on the team contributes know-how from his or her areas of knowledge and their contribution is assessed by individuals who have expertise in those areas of knowledge. The aims of the program are: 1. To enhance PBL teaching and learning, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary learning in technology education; 2. To cultivate the students’ ability to design a product for human well-being as members of a development team ranging from the ideation stage to the production of a working prototype; 3. To assist technology education teachers in developing innovative designing and modeling learning methods in a digital environment; 4. Political—to enhance a dialogue between the Ministry of Education and the schools and teachers on the ground. At the time of writing, seven schools were participating in the first phase of GEM-TECH. Each school developed its own learning environment that includes a makerspace. The program integrates students from two to three technology tracks that are chosen at each school, among them: software engineering, product design, arts, electronic engineering, engineering sciences, and mechatronics. What the tracks all have in common is that the students design and plan products for human well-being. The structure of the four-year program is as follows: ●

●

●

●

The first year is a preparatory year of professional development that improves the teachers’ competencies in the following fields: PBL (project and time management), design thinking, and teamwork. The second year includes working with tenth grade students, with the focus being on constructing the knowledgebase, introducing the students to the other participating tracks, and building the ties between the students from the different tracks. The third year includes working with the same students who are now in eleventh grade, choosing the most suitable students, enabling them to get to know each other and communicate, and working on multidisciplinary projects. Toward the end of the year, the teams are formed and they begin developing their twelfthgrade graduation projects. The four-year program is characterized by continued work on the graduation projects based on multidisciplinary PBL. Some examples of projects include designing an umbrella that is wind resistant and operating a wheelchair using eye and head movements. 237

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

To help the teachers feel more confident during the process, in the preparatory year they attend training at their own schools and joint training that are held for all the teachers who work in the program at the seven participating schools. They study design thinking (sixty hours), teamwork processes (thirty hours), and the principles of PBL. They are also trained on how to use the learning environment equipment. In years two, three, and four, there are weekly sessions for the teachers at every school where they study, hold discussions, address daily problems, and connect. The teachers also receive support thanks to being part of a collaborative community (in-person sessions comprised of teachers who teach the same subjects), a collaborative network (dedicated website), a forum (online discussion), and a continuing education platform (for developing trainings), all of which meet the teachers’ needs. In both examples of the programs described earlier, PBL worked well when the following elements were in place: (1) the disciplines were integrated; (2) the project development was ongoing and lasted a number of years (six years in the first program and three years in the second one); and (3) well-designed professional teacher training was in line with the spirit of the programs.

Summary The following issues are discussed in this chapter: the aims of using PBL; the approaches to problem defining and solving that include designing as their core method; contextual learning and supporting students when faced with ambiguity; working on a project whose outcome is unknown; assessment methods (the product, the process, the individual, and the context) (Klapwijk, 2018); and examples of how PBL is used in technology education. The chapter also explored both the teachers’ and the learners’ roles in PBL, including scaffolding/fading of learning, authentic tasks, and teacher training. PBL activities facilitate constructivist and constructionist approaches, by integrating learning from different disciplines and giving it meaning, while addressing real-life, illdefined problems. Design is the core of the PBL approach in technology education. It provides a rich setting for collaborative learning where students participate in creating collective knowledge by sharing experiences and ideas, similar to what expert engineers do. The students are required to learn how to solve ill-defined, authentic, and real-world problems as part of their projects. Two elements of PBL are essential: one is pre-service and in-service training which prepares the teachers for shedding their traditional roles and becoming moderators, mediators, and supporters of the students’ learning process. The other one is the assessment (formative and summative) of this multifaceted educational approach— PBL.

238

Project-Based Learning

References Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why Now? In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning. An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–6). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM project-based learning. An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Dagan, O. (2005). Technological problem solving by students learning either the structured/ algorithmic or the functional approach to the design process [unpublished PhD thesis]. Tel Aviv University, Israel. Dagan, O. (2020). STEM or S T E M in the Israeli secondary schools. In F. Banks & D. Barlex (Eds), Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge. Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​/9780429317736. Dagan, O., Ragonis, N., Goldman, D., & Wagner, T. (2019). Integrative STEM education—a new M.Ed. Program: Development, Objectives, and Challenges. Paper presented at the PATT 37 Developing a knowledge economy through technology and engineering education, University of Malta, Msida, Malta. De Vries, M. J. (1997). Science, technology and society: A methodological perspective. In M. J. de Vries & A.Tamir (Eds), Shaping concepts of technology. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/978​-94​-011​-5598​-4​_3. Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2021). Design-based learning in electronics and mechatronics: Exploring the application in schools. In I. Henze & M. J. de Vries (Eds), Design-based concept learning in science and technology education (pp. 101–34). Leiden: Brill Sense. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: Schools Examinations and Assessments Council (SEAC). Klapwijk, R. M. (2018). Formative assessment of creativity. In M. J. de Vries, (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 765–84). Cham, CH: Springer International Publishing. McLain, M. (2021). Key pedagogies in design and technology. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school: a companion to school experience (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​/9781315767956. Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2007). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students’ mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 135–48. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/s10798​-006​-0004​-z. Stables, K. (2018). Use of portfolios for assessment in design and technology education. In M. J. de Vries, (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 749–64). Cham, CH: Springer International Publishing. Stables, K. (2020). Signature pedagogies for designing: A speculative framework for supporting learning and teaching in design and technology education. In P. J. Williams & D. Barlex (Eds.), Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools (pp. 99–120). Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland.

239

Chapter 18

Task-Based Learning An Opportunity for Focused Learning in Technology Education Andrew Doyle

Introduction This chapter begins by outlining what is meant by task-based learning (TBL). The focus will be centered on the need to first define the content of the task. This is particularly important in technology education because of the ideas of intentionality and establishing a shared goal in the TBL literature (Stelma, 2014). This is a challenge for the technology educator due to the ways in which content is conceived within the subject. The philosophy of technology invariably describes technological knowledge as action oriented, and resultantly, opposed to having a bespoke body of declarative knowledge that traditionally defined school subjects. Technology education is necessarily more eclectic in its selection of what content is considered relevant. Ultimately, this leaves the technology educator with more decisions surrounding the nature of tasks to be used, the technological context of tasks, and how the tasks are framed for learners. Thus, although the focus of this chapter is pedagogical, it is first necessary to question the purpose behind tasks in technology education. This exploration of the organization of teaching and learning within technology education leads to the question: Why are you adopting Task-based Learning? There are several examples relevant to technology education that we can use to explore this. Take for example the material-oriented vocational predecessors to technology education, such as the “jointing” component of woodwork subjects. The organization of teaching and learning was to “practice” a specific skill several times before this may be applied to a larger “project.” The organization of teaching and learning in this context is relatively straightforward. There is a clear and commonly understood order through which progression can be measured. A lap joint comes before a half lap joint, which in turn comes before a dovetail half lap (Figure 18.1). Importantly, from an organization of teaching and learning perspective, the understandings of progression facilitated by the relationship between different craft

Task-Based Learning

Figure 18.1  Progression of jointing techniques in woodwork. processes leave the teacher with an overview of their scheme of work. As noted, this is commonly understood between educators and learners, and resultantly, tasks may be devised to facilitate learning associated with a specific content area. The same principle applies whether the focus is on the technologies of electronics, food, mechanisms, metals, textiles, and so on. Modern technology education, in its various manifestations, ranging from those focusing on applying technology principles through designing and making to those which focus on learning about technologies and those where critiquing the impact of technology predominates, requires significant input on the part of the technology educator (see Part I: Conceptualizing Technology Education). This chapter will draw on the body of research into TBL and consider its application to technology education. There is limited literature in the discipline of TBL, but the approach has parallels to how the vocational predecessors to technology education were taught. An example of this type of pedagogy has been called Focussed Practical Tasks in previous versions of the National Curriculum in England. In this chapter I will draw on the ideas from second language acquisition (SLA) to inform a discussion on the use of TBL in technology education. The purpose here is not to provide a framework for teaching technology but to provoke thought on the reader’s conceptions of the purpose of teaching, and the organization of teaching and learning. These are both central components of TBL. Examples of the origins and rationale for TBL, as used in SLA, are used to describe the underlying principles. Additionally, some findings from the SLA literature are put forward and a pedagogical framework for progression in technology education is considered. In conclusion, the chapter outlines some of the potential advantages of adopting a TBL framework in technology education.

Learning in Technology Education It is important to begin a discussion about TBL in technology education by considering the nature of what is to be learned, because of the procedural approach inherent to TBL. Stemming from research into learning languages, specifically SLA, TBL does not constitute a strict description of teaching and learning, but rather an interpretation of teaching and learning that has been observed to be of particular value. TBL thus, 241

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

does not encompass an explicit pedagogical approach but the framework that links tasks within the “procedural syllabus” (Prabhu, 1987). With SLA research, this has resulted in the development and articulation of the cognitive processes of implicit, incidental, and explicit learning. In the context of SLA, although expansive, the content to be learned has been articulated and is commonly understood. If we return to the example of the woodwork or wood technology curricula, this is also well articulated and commonly understood. Sometimes the differentiation between technical and technological (technology) education is made to emphasize how the intention of our subject has evolved. Once the pedagogical model was compared to that of the medieval guild, whereby the learner practiced and over time perfected the techniques associated with, for example, crafting a box dovetail joint. This was based on previous learning of how to use a mallet and chisel in less demanding tasks, such as a cross-halving joint. With the changing emphasis from technical to technology education, the technical context (i.e., woodwork) has not necessarily changed. However, what is to be learned has. With this, some important questions have emerged for consideration: ●

●

Is the end goal for engaging with wood, as a material, to develop a knowledge and understanding of wood as a material? And if not, what is the purpose for this context? Perhaps more importantly, if this context for technology changes, for example many technology education curricula internationally now contain a graphic communication element, what is the resultant effect on learning?

This is not unique to any one context for technology education as the origins of the subjects vary significantly between international contexts (Banks & Williams, 2013). Stemming on occasion from vocational, industrial arts, or craft-oriented origins, technology education currently resides in a place of flux in curricula. In some contexts, this has resulted in a systems-oriented perspective on what technology is being included on curricula, and further, some national curricula have taken to including the nature of technology as a core component on curricula (Jones et al., 2013). The nature of tasks set by the technology educator can indicate how they perceive the subject—that is, are the tasks procedural in nature, focused on practical skills (e.g., correct use of tools and materials), or conceptual, focused on so-called soft skills (e.g., developing creativity, collaboration)?

What Does This Mean for the Technology Educator? Ultimately, the shifting emphasis from vocational education, and the inclusion of broader perspectives on the nature of technology, has resulted in the technology educator having greater autonomy in designing learning contexts. Although the traditional contexts of 242

Task-Based Learning

vocational (predominately material-oriented) education remain, the focus of learning has shifted to engaging with technology in its wider sense. Spendlove (2012) notes that this shift in emphasis to a broader perspective on technology is a unique strength of the subject area. Technology is recognized as being at a significant advantage, as ownership lies with the educator who can draw upon their own and their learners’ interests, and recent technological developments to engage learners with relevant concepts when required. Spendlove further notes that the difficulty inherent to a curriculum is that the progression of learning in technology is not mapped out. Technology education, unlike vocation education, does not have a permanent and fixed body of knowledge. Although the loosely defined curriculum boundaries (McGarr & Lynch, 2017) afford the technology educator the opportunity to be proactive and take ownership of their curriculum, the shared focus between (1) technological content (associated with the context for technology), (2) technological processes (independent of context and often represented as design-oriented technology education), and (3) the nature of technology, the sheer variety of technology-oriented tasks encompassed required significant forethought on where learning in technology is going.

Task-Based Learning As noted in the introduction, the term “TBL” has its origins in second language acquisition. Although adopted for a number of different reasons, the underlying emphasis was endorsing a communicative approach to language teaching (Skehan, 2003). The rationale put forward was that it was not sufficient to focus only on language structure, and that this needed to be accompanied by a concern to develop the capacity to express meaning (Widdowson, 1978). More recently, TBL has found its way into other areas of learning, notably medical education (Harden et al., 2000; Ozan et al., 2005), and computer-aid learning (Lee & Shin, 2012; Whittington & Campbell, 1998). The emphasis in these environments has shifted from SLA, but the emphasis on language acquisition remains. In these instances, the “learning is built round the tasks and learning results as the learner tries to understand not only the tasks themselves but also the concepts and mechanisms underlying the tasks” (Harden et al., 2000). As a result of this, it is not uncommon to read about TBL being used in conjunction with pedagogical approaches from Direct Instruction (Becker & Carnine, 1980) through to Discovery Learning (Bakker, 2018). Based on the conception of what is to be learned, the nature and structure of the task will differ, and the nature and structure of the pedagogical approach may also differ. A challenge for technology education here is the relatively small amount of empirical research in technology education. There are plenty of examples from science, math, and English/creative writing that can be used to explore TBL in context. Further, there are multiple different models of TBL used today (e.g., Nunan, 1989; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996). However, the commonality between 243

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 18.2  Stages of task-based learning. different models has been reviewed to arrive at a common framework. There are three common stages to the different models of task-based learning: (1) pre-task, (2) task, and (3) post-task/review (Figure 18.2). In the pre-task phase, the teacher articulates what will be expected from the learner in the task phase. Depending on the task, and learners’ familiarity with the task context, different levels of “priming” may be necessitated at this stage. In more advanced TBL scenarios, learners are often responsible for framing the direction of the task. For example, Swain (1998) proposes that the task scenario be designed to encourage learners to “notice the gap.” In these instances, an exploratory approach to task design is endorsed, where little explicit instruction is provided to learners. Depending on the type of activity designed, learners then perform the task. There are significant differences in the support offered by teachers at this stage, again largely based on learner familiarity with the context and the nature of priming. In any case, the teacher is not the driver of the activity (with descriptions ranging from observer to counselor to critical friend), and the pedagogy is thus often described as student-centered. The post-task phase is again largely dependent on the nature of learner output framed in the pre-task phase. For example, within SLA the focus often resides on learners creating a tangible outcome, such as a piece of text, audio recording, and so on. Here learners review one another’s work and offer constructive feedback. Where the task is more far-reaching, iterations of reflective review can be built in.

Core Concepts Despite TBL transcending pedagogical approaches, there are several key concepts, common to individual tasks. These concepts are developed from a variety of TBL contexts.

Pre-task Defining the task purpose is commonly referenced as the first stage in any TBL activity. Establishing the outcome (or types of outcomes) is important at this point. This is not to govern exactly what is to be completed by students during the task, 244

Task-Based Learning

but to guide expectations. In some contexts, the term “intentionality” or “shared intentionality” is used to describe this process. The intent here is that the outcome of learning is not necessarily known by the teacher beforehand. The variability of tasks within technology education has some direct parallels to TBL here, for example in Kimbell’s (1994) discussion of the progression of tasks within technology, a framework of constraints model is put forward. Take for instance, the jointing example discussed earlier. This represents a scenario where the intentionality of the task is known, and most likely discussed in detail with the learner upon introduction. Learner autonomy within this task is limited, as the focus is procedural in the development of psychomotor skills to craft a single joint. However, once we consider this task in the broader scheme of work, we realize that the jointing task serves as a stepping stone to developing the capability to operate in a technological way. At a later stage, the learner will be prompted with a design brief, and there will be no discussion of the craft element of cutting a dovetail or cross-halving joint. The shared intentionality here will lie in discussion about what joint would be more appropriate for the learner’s design. The progression of tasks within technology education will be further discussed later in the chapter. Another core concept within the pre-task phase is the discussion with learners surrounding prior knowledge. Not to be confused with priming—whereby specific information about the task context may be related to learners—the discussion surrounding prior learning is centered on the principles or practices of the domain. In SLA, an example would be to use a common form or type of task, and to focus students on language (use or meaning). In this instance, technical information regarding how to complete the task is known, with the focus remaining on student communication. Willis and Willis (2007) provided a taxonomy of task types that can be used. With the interplay between focusing on meaning and focusing on form, they state that a focus on form occurs when the teacher isolates a specific structure and explains it outside of the context of the communicative activity. Within technology education, an example here could be the design brief. It is likely that students in the subject encounter design briefs on a somewhat regular basis. Within a TBL approach focusing on the context and not the form (design brief) of task would afford students the possibility to research the specific context of the design brief, such as client requirements. Finally, within the pre-task phase, the literature outlines the importance of setting clear time boundaries for task completion.

Task (and Forms of Tasks) In beginning the task, learners should have a clear understanding on the focus of the task and the interplay between the task format and technical context. If the focus is on the task format, then the technical context should not be new, and likewise if the focus is on a new technical context, the task format should be familiar to the learners. Again, 245

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

attention should be drawn to pedagogy here. As noted, a specific pedagogical approach is not endorsed within the TBL literature; however, it should be noted that there is an emphasis placed on meaning making in the literature, and students often complete tasks in pairs or small groups. At this stage it is also important to discuss the different forms of tasks that are used: 1. Knowledge constructing tasks, or 2. Knowledge activating tasks. Willis and Willis (2007) used the terms “listing” and “sorting” to clarify the distinction between knowledge constructing and knowledge activating tasks. The advantage of adopting listing tasks is that they can serve as a useful introduction to a topic and provide an opportunity for the teacher to set the scene and introduce relevant vocabulary. These knowledge constructing tasks can be viewed as facilitating tasks as they help “lighten the processing load when learners are tackling more complex tasks, as by then, many of the topic words and phrases used for listing will already be familiar” (p.72). Knowledge activating tasks is a broad category that includes a variety of cognitive processes, including sequencing, ranking, and classifying. The purpose of these tasks is to promote salience with the new technical content introduced within the previous tasks, so that students are comfortable communicating in this context. Finally, within this phase, the evolution of tasks and relationships between tasks should be considered. Here the literature is quite clear in the framework for progression. As learner familiarity (and in turn competence) develops, there is a gradual emphasis placed on the importance of planning, reporting, and presenting.

Post-task Upon completion of the task, and students have something to present, the posttask or review stage begins. Models of TBL highlight the importance of teacher involvement during the task phase in preparation for the review. For example: Was there any part of the task that most students found difficult? Should this be addressed first? and so on. Following a general overview of task performance, a feedback session is used to discuss the success of the task and consider suggestions for future improvements. Likewise, learners may wish to discuss any challenges within the task, such as the use of new terminology or vocabulary, or a new form of task. In addition to teacher assessment, an increased emphasis has been placed on the role of learner self-assessment. Ellis (2003) noted that self-assessment fosters students’ autonomy

246

Task-Based Learning

and “can serve as a means of developing a reflective attitude in the learner and can stimulate goal setting” (p. 302).

Progression in Task-Based Learning: Planning for Teaching Technology As discussed earlier, it should be apparent that TBL does not endorse specific pedagogical methods, but is rather a framework that guides teaching and learning. In technology education, negotiation and justification of content and degree of learner autonomy are afforded to the technology educator (see Part I: Conceptualizing Technology Education). As noted in the introduction, the technology education syllabus, specification, or curriculum will have a significant influence on content. Irrespective of the manifestation of technology under consideration (i.e., conceptual, technical, or systems), the technology educator has the ultimate responsibility for organizing appropriate teaching and learning. A notable example in the literature of how progression in technology education is conceptualized is Kimbell’s (1994) framework of constraints model. The multiple potential purposes for engaging with any technology education task, leave significant room for variation in the nature of learning that occurs. Although this may be viewed as a significant advantage of the subject area, the variance facilitated by loosely defined curricular boundaries means that the role of the individual technology educator is amplified. Their conception about which aspects of technology education are more important or relevant in a specific task will come to the fore in their teaching, and in turn, become to focus of student learning. Conceptions of the purpose of teaching, sometimes referred to as a “personal construct” (Banks et al., 2004, p. 144) of a subject, reflect a teacher’s view of what constitutes good teaching and a personal belief of the purpose of a subject. My doctoral research (Doyle, 2020) focused on this relationship between an educator’s tasks used in technology education, and the conception of the purpose of teaching. Through interviews with technology educators in multiple international contexts, I analyzed the organization of teaching and learning and their relationship to the broader goals for teaching technology. Ultimately, this analysis resulted in the presentation of three different conceptions for the purpose of teaching technology (Figure 18.3). Importantly, teachers were found to hold multiple conceptions, and changes between conceptions both within tasks and across tasks were observed, as detailed by the gray dashed arrows. The left-hand side of the model outlines the organizations of teaching and learning identified during the study. It is important to note the treatment of “application case” here. Not to be confused with national context, application case is used to describe

247

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 18.3  The purposes of teaching technology (Doyle, 2020). differences in technical contexts. For example, where a teacher may navigate between wood technology and electronics. Teachers’ treatment of application case along with their goals for activities delineated the three conceptions.

Conception #1: Sequential Application of Technical Knowledge and Skills Here the focus lies with the development of explicit knowledge and skills associated with a singular application case for technology. This approach was associated with an instrumentalist view of technology, where students are to be familiar with “using the technology available” and “learning all about the technology you use.” The organization is sequential in that the relationships between learning activities from year to year is governed by the development and refining of explicit knowledge and skills. This approach was also reflected at a micro level of specific activities, whereby students “practiced” a skill a number of times before “applying in a final project.” A TBL approach within this organization of teaching and learning mirrors the jointing example discussed earlier. The scheme of work is founded on the declarative knowledge associated with knowing what technology is, and the procedural knowledge associated with using various technologies. This can be centered on woodworking tools inherited from vocational education, but the approach may be replicated with emerging technologies, such as rapid manufacturing techniques or virtual technologies. The framing of these tasks, irrespective of the application case, is largely controlled by the technology educator. The outcomes are predetermined as the focus of learning remains on the development of known variables. For example, learners will understand how the paper processing industry has evolved, learners will program a traffic light system, learners will accurately cut a dovetail joint, and so on. 248

Task-Based Learning

This is not a criticism of these activities; they are foundational to the progression of learners within any technology education. The moot point is whether the activity can be characterized as technological in nature (Kimbell, 2017). Furthermore, from a pedagogical perspective, the nature of tasks endorsed within this approach is more closed. In one sense this means that sharing the intentionality of tasks becomes easier as the content is naturally prescribed. However, it also calls into question whether a TBL approach is necessitated. In recent times there has been an advocacy for the use of direct instruction as a pedagogical approach. Where there is explicit declarative or procedural knowledge relevant for learner progression, perhaps TBL is not the most appropriate pedagogical approach.

Conception #2: “Doing” in a Variety of Application Cases Whereas teaching and learning were specialized to a specific application case previously, here the objective was to engage students with “doing” technology in multiple different application cases. The rationale behind the selection of application cases varied from teachers’ personal interests, to student driven, and to “topical technologies”—such as prominent news stories, for example, driverless cars or other topics from popular culture. Progression within this approach to organizing teaching and learning is more difficult to articulate. This appears to be partly influenced by the unforeseen difficulties associated with engaging with technological activity in a novel application case. For example, where a teacher had presented three tasks with vastly different application cases, they were asked to describe the commonality between the three tasks. In essence, what made these three tasks technological? The approach to organizing teaching and learning within this conception emphasized the importance of developing an ability to familiarize oneself with a novel application case, and the ability to transverse multiple application cases. In the electronics and wood examples from earlier, the teachers emphasized problem-navigation and problemsolving, in tasks, independently from a specific context. This often resulted in learners navigating novel contextual problems with no knowledge of the application case. In emphasizing one’s ability to adapt to and navigate novel application cases, the role of a singular context for technology was not emphasized, but rather the skills to make decisions and take actions within a new application case. In applying the principles from TBL, the intentionality of the task(s) here was in developing one’s ability to navigate multiple complex or novel situations. With this, a significant goal for learning activities lay in one’s ability to develop the heuristics to navigate new application cases. The stark contrast between the previous scaffolding approach toward skills development and the somewhat eclectic approach to which application case-specific knowledge and skills are developed is illustrated by one of the teachers in the study: if they can take away some practical skills, the fact that they enjoyed it and it opened their eyes in the nine weeks that we’ve had them that they can do something that they didn’t think they could do. 249

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Furthermore, in using Willis and Willis’ (2007) differentiation between knowledge constructing and knowledge activating tasks, the role that knowledge associated with the specific application case plays becomes clearer. The content knowledge and practical skills appear secondary to students’ ability to act in a technological way. Familiarizing one with the novel application case was held as the most important criterion for success in such tasks. This reflects Willis and Willis’ (2007) focus on form approach. The technical content associated with the specific application case, although important for success in the task, came second to an understanding of how to engage in technological tasks. Importantly, student failure was embraced by interviewees across all conceptions but here, failure was identified as inevitable, even encouraged. The mandate for this appears to lie in encouraging students to take risks, with a broader understanding of the “technological processes” through engagement being held up as the panacea for engagement with technology education.

Conception #3: Analysis of Existing Technologies The third approach to organizing teaching and learning did not prioritize engagement with a physical “doing” in technology education, instead the focus is placed on a form of “reflective critique.” Activities were structured in such a way that students identify and apply a series of “analytical lenses” to various technologies. Technologies in this instance are taken, in a broad sense, to constitute artifacts, systems, solutions to problems, and innovations without problems. The “analytical lenses” metaphor was used by a number of interviewees, literally representing the need to adopt different “perspectives” or “points of view” on the various technologies under consideration, with examples such as historical, ethical, social, and environmental perspectives evident within the various application cases. The variance of technologies studied mandated that learners switch between lenses and discuss which is appropriate or useful in a particular context. Here, how technological solutions and innovations have been developed, and how technological systems operated were all identified as appropriate application cases for study. For example, the “paper processing industry,” “school ventilation system,” or the “traffic light system outside the school” were used by a single interviewee. When questioned on the commonality of student experience from year to year or indeed between teachers in the same school, interviewees cited the importance for learners to develop an understanding “that technology is something much more than building” as the goal of teaching. The continuity of application cases from year to year appeared to be largely driven by teachers’ interests, and outside of this, somewhat sporadic. Here perhaps the most significant parallels may be drawn with TBL. With the apparent eclectic selection of application cases, and a largely theoretical approach to tasks, more emphasis is placed on knowledge construction. The purpose of these tasks was to promote salience with technical content associated with the application case. More importantly,

250

Task-Based Learning

this results in a series of tasks designed to ensure that learners are competent at not only operating in a technical application case but communicating across contexts. With this focus the continuity between tasks is not the specialization of expertise in a domain or application case, the continuity lies in technological ways of thinking. This is held as the ultimate goal for the subject area. Representations of content as declarative knowledge are “dictated by the context or projects that you are working in.” For example, in response to a question on the specific “content” of technology education, this interviewee suggested that although the subject matter of technology education is difficult to define: there are certain techniques and skills that people who are technologists need to have . . . the sorts of skills and knowledge that the students need to have as well. And so, there is an underlying content, if you like, because you can’t arrive at those outcomes [thinking] without that. An important point of note is that the conflation of technology education with science education was identified by interviewees specifically within this conception. The scientific nature of application cases for study appeared to influence this. This resulted in students “mix[ing] up the technology subject with the natural science subjects such as physics and so on,” mirrored by a sentiment that “lots of other areas [departments] in the school don’t really understand what happens” in the technology subjects. Although difficulty in explicating the subject matter knowledge of technology appeared to be challenging for interviewees, it was also viewed as a strength of the subject area: What the context is, and exactly where you might be drawing that knowledge from is not prescribed. That’s an advantage. Too many people see it as a disadvantage because it’s not prescribed. But it gives me as a teaching professional in the classroom the freedom to draw from whatever knowledge base I need to, to support the learning of the students. These excerpts highlight the foundational principle associated with this conception. Irrespective of the application case in which the interviewee was teaching, there is a commonality in what it is that they want students to learn. Thus, whether the organization of learning forefronts engagement with, observing, or indeed reflecting on historical technological innovations or advancements, the purpose behind engagement with technology is in developing a broad understanding of “what technology is and how it affects their [students] lives” and the ability to “think in a technological way.”

Summary Through engaging in a reflective and reflexive approach, all teachers of technology should have a clear, justifiable personal construct of what they believe constitutes 251

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

“effective” teaching. This view has to be rationalized and contextualized in relation to the environment in which they will be delivering Technology Education. (Spendlove, 2012, p. 41) It is important to preface a discussion about framing tasks within TBL with a consideration of the purposes for teaching technology, because of the various overlapping goals in the subject. Other parts of this book have outlined the philosophical basis of technology education, and how goals for teaching the subject have developed. Here, all we need to consider is that there are multifaceted goals, and that the technology educator must plan for teaching in this space. I don’t like using the term “content” when thinking about technology education. There is something inherently uncomfortable about describing our subject(s) by attempting to articulate “what should be learned.” The TBL approach provides an alternative to this problem, in sharing the intentionality of tasks with learners, a discussion of the different possible approaches to technological activity is brought forward. This discussion can manifest in multiple different ways, as the three approaches toward organizing teaching and learning outlined in the previous section evidence. Within the first conception, the use of scaffolding and subsequently the coordinated dismantling of scaffolding (fading) as learner progress evidences a specific context of skills acquisition. The next approaches are more interesting for this discussion and they problematize a central tenet of technology education, the association between context for learning and the content of learning. In my doctoral research, questions arose surrounding the relationship between content and context, whether it is possible to teach the general principles of technology education independent of a specific context, and if this is possible, how transferable these skills between different contexts are. This is important when discussing TBL because of the differentiation between language and form discussed earlier. If for a moment we take the content of traditional tasks as the language of technology, this means that the ability to cut a cross-halving joint, or indeed to read a resistor, is fundamental to developing technological capability. However, we can also consider the form activities in technology as the subject matter. With this, the focus remains on the types of activities, the ways of working, irrespective of the application case or technical context. In framing the traditional design brief as the content of technology education, an activity-oriented approach is endorsed. The skills of researching, modeling, and critiquing the development of design solutions become the content of technology education. This shift in emphasis may also be viewed through the different stages of TBL. The pre-task stage will focus on task orientation, explaining to learners that although the application case may have changed, the nature of activity remains the same. The task itself allows learners to apply all of the knowledge, skills, and values associated with technological capability. Where relevant, learners may identify the need for additional research, a new iteration of the model or an analysis of material sources, and so on. Again the point is that the different tools available to learners are the focus here. As the 252

Task-Based Learning

decisions around how to progress through the activity are centered, this allows the posttask stage to review these decisions. Ultimately, encouraging learners to reflect on the process and not the product of the learning. The philosophy behind TBL is to encourage more authentic learning opportunities for students by removing some of the boundaries associated with “getting it correct.” The parallels between TBL as described throughout this chapter and the philosophy of technology are immediately apparent. The TBL approach affords the technology educator a framework for moving the focus of learning away from the teacher and places it with the technology learner. Through the authenticity of real-world context, it facilitates an approach that moves beyond teaching abstract knowledge and situates it in a real-world application. Perhaps most importantly, it provides the technology learner with a way of understanding language and processes as a tool, instead of as a specific goal.

References Bakker, A. (2018). Discovery learning: Zombie, phoenix, or elephant? Instructional Science, 46(1), 169–83. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11251​-018​-9450​-8. Banks, F., & Williams, P. J. (2013). International perspectives on Technology Education. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Debates in design and technology education (pp. 31–48). Routledge. Banks, F., Barlex, D., Jarvinen, E. M., O’Sullivan, G., Owen-Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2004). DEPTH - Developing professional thinking for technology teachers: An international study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 141–57. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1023​/B​:ITDE​.0000026475​.55323​.01. Becker, W. C., & Carnine, D. W. (1980). Direct instruction. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (pp. 429–73). Springer US. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-1​-4613​-9805​-9​_11. Doyle, A. (2020). Consolidating concepts of technology education: From rhetoric towards a potential reality [PhD dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology]. http://urn​.kb​.se​/ resolve​?urn​=urn​:nbn​:se​:kth​:diva​-272837. Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Harden, R., Crosby, J., Davis, M. H., Howie, P. W., & Struthers, A. D. (2000). Task-based learning: The answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years. Medical Education, 34(5), 391–7. https://doi​.org​/10​.1046​/j​.1365​-2923​.2000​.00698​.x. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & De Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-011​-9174​-4. Kimbell, R. (1994). Tasks in technology: An analysis of their purposes and effects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(3), 241–56. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ BF01212805. Kimbell, R. (2017). Decisions by design. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 22(2), 5–7. https://ojs​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/DATE​/article​/view​/2263. Lee, D. Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2012). An empirical evaluation of multi-media based learning of a procedural task. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1072–81. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .chb​.2012​.01​.014.

253

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2017). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 51–62. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-015​-9333​-0. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press. Ozan, S., Karademir, S., Gursel, Y., Taskiran, H. C., & Musal, B. (2005). First graduates’ perceptions on a problem-based and task-based learning curriculum. Education for Health, 18(2), 256–71. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13576280500148007. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. Cambridge Core. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/S026144480200188X. Spendlove, D. (2012). Teaching technology. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 35–54). Sense Publishers. Stelma, J. (2014). Developing intentionality and L2 classroom task-engagement. Classroom Discourse, 5(2), 119–37. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/19463014​.2013​.835270. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge University Press. Whittington, D., & Campbell, L. (1998). Task-based learning environments in a virtual university. Proceedings of the Seventh International World Wide Web Conference, 30(1), 707–9. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0169​-7552(98)00037-3. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Open University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task based teaching. Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman Pearson Education.

254

Chapter 19

Design Learning Pedagogic Strategies That Enable Learners to Develop Their Design Capability Remke M. Klapwijk and Kay Stables

Introduction What Is Design and Why Is Design Learning Important? A fundamental characteristic of being human is an innate desire to make things to be how we want them to be, to change things, improve things, and make our world one that meets our needs, wants, and desires. Our potential to imagine how things could be and our ability to create our imaginings is a capacity that has shaped the world for centuries. Just as humans are born with the ability to use language—what Chomsky referred to as language acquisition device—so Baynes argued that humans are also born with a design acquisition device, a “wired in pre-disposition to explore and change their environment” (Baynes, 2010, p. 7). This pre-disposition becomes visible in small children at the point in which their play becomes purposeful, such as when a bedsheet becomes a camp, a stick becomes a wand. Nurturing this pre-disposition in early years education allows children to develop their imagination and learn how they can impact their environment, their world. Early years education systems across the world support and nurture these intentional making, playing, and designing activities that create the foundations of design and technological capability in small children. Building on this development as children grow and education becomes more formal is important, but this importance is not always recognized. Shifting to more formal education is often marked by an emphasis toward what are seen as essential basics—literacy and numeracy. But this can be at the expense of learning within a broader curriculum. In the UK (and maybe elsewhere) we have a phrase that refers to these basics as “the three R’s”—reading, writing, and arithmetic. In addition to only one of these actually starting with an “R,” Bruce Archer pointed to the fact that these “three R’s” only encapsulate two areas of education—literacy and numeracy, areas that can be seen as the foundations of humanities and sciences. He went

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

further by highlighting the ways in which civilization has also been formed by a third area—that of material culture. This third area, which incorporates creating, designing, and making, he described as a critical third dimension of being human. Material culture is, and has been, much valued by societies globally, but in the context of formal school education, and particularly in the case of design and technology, it is often undervalued. While recognizing the interlinking of design and technology, in Archer’s terms design being the “envisaging what” while technology is the “knowing-how,” in this chapter we focus on design and design learning, making the case for how important design capability is for humans and therefore why this should not be undervalued in formal education. Craft and making skills have formed a part of formal curricula in many countries for decades and, in some instances, centuries. But the value of these skills has frequently been undermined by stereotyping them as the skills of “doing” and of “do-ers” as opposed to more intellectual skills of “thinking” and “thinkers.” This age-old prejudice lingers in education systems today, but in recent decades a growth in recognition of the significance of design has caused some shifting of ground. The recent embracing of the concept of “design thinking” and its application beyond the disciplinary area of design (and design and technology) is an illustration of this recognition—even contributing to mainstreaming the value of designing. In a school context, understanding the importance of design learning within the disciplinary areas of design and technology or technology education supports learning in ways that go beyond learning-specific decontextualized practical skills. Increased focus on practical learning and embodied cognition, the mind and body working together in developing knowledge, skills and understandings, recognizes the complexity of human actions that link the “doing” of the body with the “thinking” of the mind. Recent research also suggests that “doing” may even precede (nearly instantaneously) “thinking.” The brain is designed to put “doing” before “seeing” or “thinking.” We have evolved to be fundamentally active, not contemplative creatures. The idea that human cognition proceeds in linear sequence from Perceiving through Interpreting to Thinking, Deciding and then Acting is out of date. Before we open our eyes in the morning, our sensory systems are primed by what we want to do and what we are able to do, and the interaction between Wanting, Doing, Perceiving and Thinking is near-instantaneous (within hundredths of a second) and continual. (Claxton et al., 2010, p. 4) Designing is purposeful, addresses challenges, meets needs, takes opportunities, and changes worlds. Taking together understandings of practical learning and embodied cognition with the purposeful nature of designing underscores the importance of developing design capability. This capability neither exists nor is developed in a vacuum. It is nurtured most effectively when engaging in rich and challenging contexts that have resonance with the concerns and aspirations of those being educated. For young learners 256

Design Learning

to develop competence and confidence to engage in design activities, design projects need to have genuine relevance for them. When a learner sees a challenge as important and motivating there is also the “added value” that the doing of the hand and the thinking of the mind are joined by the engagement of the heart. Such tasks build not only practical skills but also cognitive skills, empathy, design skills, and agency as learners become conscious of the positive contributions their designing has made.

A Design Project on Time The project Time organized by Delft Municipality illustrates how engaging learners in a real and motivating challenge can build both capability and agency. For years there was no clock on the ground floor in the Delft train station, stores, and city hall that are all part of the same building, see Figure 19.1. The Alderman of Delft therefore asked eleven-year-old pupils to create a design that would indicate the time for the visitors of the city hall and cater to the needs of all involved stakeholders. However, an ordinary clock was not allowed. The pupils of eight schools explored the needs and wishes of different stakeholder groups using the city hall. The students held interviews with visitors, desk clerks, and door keepers to explore the needs and wishes of different stakeholder groups, summarizing these in personas. Discoveries were made, for example desk clerks and visitors did not wish to know the exact time because this would aggravate waiting and lead to stress, while many of them were proud of the history and culture of Delft. To find an answer to the many needs, wishes, and limitations set by the architect and client, pupils cooperated in design teams, generating, selecting, elaborating, and testing ideas (see Figures 19.2 and 19.3).

Figure 19.1  There is no clock in the new Delft city hall and train station (©Meccano). 257

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 19.2  A moving cat in a tree signals the time. The cat goes up in five minutes and down the tree in five minutes.

Figure 19.3  Prototyping the time—indicators. All ideas and prototypes were presented to a jury presided over by the Alderman of Delft and an exhibition held for the general public, see Figure 19.4. Pupils developed design skills such as empathy and creative thinking and learned to switch between thinking, making, and reflection. Agency to contribute in a positive way to your own neighborhood was developed as each design was brought into the public sphere. The idea to illuminate buildings to show the time, Figure 19.5, was selected by the jury, further developed by a design studio in cooperation with the young designers and revealed during a grand opening. 258

Design Learning

Figure 19.4  Agency is developed—ideas are explained.

Figure 19.5  Prototype and implemented final design of the time indicator. Parallels can be seen with other demands for learning that develop a broad range of skills, such as those sometimes referred to as twenty-first-century skills. As an example, curriculum development work at Delft University in the Netherlands has located design skills that can be developed from a young age as contributing to twenty-first-century skills, as illustrated in Table 19.1. Learning to design by envisaging and creating futures—products, systems, and environments—is relevant for all children. It is for this reason that we are claiming its importance in this chapter. Design learning is multidimensional and multi-modal and involves learning knowledge, skills, and understandings that engage the head, the hand, and the heart. Linking these requires a holistic approach, and we now turn to the importance of understanding processes of designing that underpin this approach and can be developed through design and technology education. 259

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 19.1  Links between Twenty-First Century skills and Design Skills (Klapwijk et al., 2019) Twenty-firstcentury skill Creativity Problem-solving

Communication Collaboration

Social and cultural skills

Self-regulation

Critical thinking Information skills

Design skill

Explanation

Think in all directions

Pupils generate many diverse and original ideas. They combine, associate, and imagine. They seek inspiration in unusual places and look at problems from different perspectives. And most important, they postpone their judgment. Bring ideas to Pupils express and elaborate their thoughts and life ideas in appropriate, meaningful ways and use tools such as stories, drawings, models, and prototypes. Make productive Pupils try out—at the earliest possible stage— mistakes their beliefs, ideas, and solutions. They iterate and use mistakes to learn from. Share ideas Pupils share their ideas and collaborate within their team. They involve users and other stakeholders in their design process and they look for collaboration with people outside the process to improve, spread, and implement their ideas. They design together. Develop Pupils empathize with and understand other empathy users. They experience the problem themselves, investigate the users and context, and actively seek input and feedback. They focus on the user’s wishes. Make use of the Pupils switch between different ways of thinking within the design process. While steering the process process, they reflect and use feedback and discover most suitable methods for themselves and the project. Decide on your Pupils organize their ideas and develop an direction overview of their project. They form an opinion about the essence of the problem and the desired quality of the solutions. They make value judgments and decide on their design direction.

What Are the Fundamental Features and Processes of Designing? How Can They Be Applied in a Holistic and Authentic Way in Learning Situations? An interest in how people design, as opposed to what they design, began to emerge in the 1950s and 1960s alongside a growth in systems thinking and a massive expansion 260

Design Learning

in technological developments. Designers began to focus on the concept of design process—seeking to improve the quality of design by identifying and describing components of design methods. Many different approaches were identified, but there was a commonality suggesting that first a problem needed identifying, then a solution needed to be created, and finally the solution needed to be evaluated. The focus on process rather than product sparked interest in areas of design and technology education. As an example, in the UK a simplified model of what became labeled “the design process” emerged. A particularly influential version of this came through a national research project—the Schools Council Design and Craft Education project—and a linear model became the guide for teachers and then the format for the assessment of design projects. The model was made up of six stages: “situation,” “brief,” “investigation,” “solution,” “realization,” and “testing.” The shift in emphasis from product to process was a major influence on teachers beginning to recognize the value of developing design capability in young people and can be seen as forming the foundations of modern-day design and technology education. However, the subtleties in the process became overlooked and a simplistic linear structure took hold, in some countries (e.g., the UK) becoming more of a pedagogic management process, tied securely in place by its link to summative assessment regimes. High-stakes assessments saw mark schemes linked to steps in the process, for example resulting in marks for evaluation only relating to a final evaluation, giving little or no credit to ongoing evaluative decisions while marks for idea generation linked only to initial ideas. Assessment requirements negated the iterative reflective and active nature of designing, resulting in a formulaic rather than authentic approach dominating the pedagogy. By the 1980s both designers and design educators had begun to recognize an artificiality to a step-by-step simplistic process and to investigate the realities of how designing actually happens. In education there was recognition that the “stages” weren’t isolated and more cyclical models were produced, recognizing that evaluation linked back to the initial design challenge and then further developed by a recognition that evaluation was critical at every step. Understanding was further influenced by concepts of reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action, emerging through the writings of Donald Schön clarifying the nature of human processes when designing. During this era a major national research project on design and technological capability began at Goldsmiths, University of London. The research, the Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology (APU) Project, aimed to assess the design and technological capability of the nation’s fifteen-year-olds by assessing ten thousand learners undertaking two short design projects. The detail of this can be found elsewhere (Kimbell & Stables, 2007), but the research team quickly identified that to do this research, the young people who found themselves being assessed needed to be given an authentic design challenge and that the design and technological “tests” needed to enable students to iterate between action and reflection as their ideas developed. Through initial trials the team created a new model for designing that was neither linear nor cyclical. It was iterative—and is illustrated in Figure 19.6. 261

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 19.6  The APU Design and Technology iterative model of designing. To cut a very long story short, not only did the research validate the team’s iterative model as reflecting how designing actually takes place, but it also allowed the team to differentiate the quality of the designing that took place. Of importance was the finding that the more balanced and frequent the iteration between action and reflection, the higher the quality of designing was. The model was more than a construct of reality, it reflected the actual reality of the processes of designing. It also echoed other research on design processes, for example the work of Archer, Baynes, and Roberts on the creative capacity of humans to imagine new ideas cognitively, inside our heads, and model these ideas physically to develop them. Further insight came from design research that was identifying the complex nature of designing, the extent to which design challenges are 262

Design Learning

ill-defined and contain “wicked” tasks—those that are full of uncertainty and have multiple solutions rather than single “right answers.” The zeitgeist of understandings of the nature of designing, of the complexity and uncertainty that surrounds activities of designing, heightened recognition of challenges that this presents in supporting design learning in busy classrooms, studios, and workshops. There are various models, approaches, and terminology utilized today in design and technology education across different parts of the world. But there are also constants in the importance of developing and nurturing design capability; the need for designing to be undertaken in motivating, authentic contexts; supporting learners to see needs or opportunities to address; and the need to pedagogically support iterative processes of action, reflection, and critique. Earlier we highlighted how, in some countries, summative assessment had negatively impacted on early understandings of stages of designing that effectively ossified processes. With the greater understanding of both designing and assessment that has come in recent decades, there is now more clarity about how both summative and formative assessment can be used effectively to support learning and teaching in design and technology. In the next section we focus on the “how” of learning and teaching design, the pedagogies for managing learning and developing design capability and the symbiotic relationship between these pedagogies and sustainable formative and summative assessment approaches.

What Can Be Said about the Pedagogy and Didactics of Design? Design education is a relative newcomer to schools and universities. Although nineteenthcentury education systems involved making, this was crafts-based. Approaches were different, for example in Scandinavia the Sloyd system encouraged a holistic approach whereas in the UK the focus was on technical skills, teaching girls “plain needlework” so that they could clothe their families and teaching boys “plain metalwork” to fit them for roles as artisans. No formal design education could be followed, but at the turn of the nineteenth century, various design schools started, for example Bauhaus in 1919 and the influential Ulm School of Design (HfG [Hochschule für Gestaltung]) in 1953, both located in Germany. Here the pedagogic concept of the design studio was born. In design studios, students, and, for periods of time, tutors form a community of working and learning together. They work on authentic design projects, usually different ones. There is much unscheduled time when students are free to work in their own way, alternated by scheduled events, like talks with the tutor or sessions in which students present their work followed by conversations about their work and new moves to make in the design process. “Should I do more research?” “Could the problem be reframed?” “Is there a need to generate and explore new ideas?” “What needs to be solved in the 263

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

current design?” The design studio concept has been described by Orr and Shreeve as a “signature pedagogy” of design in higher education and is used in design curricula across the world. It is a major learning tool as students learn to apply iterative processes of action, reflection, and critique while engaging with peers and supporting each other. In primary and secondary education, pedagogies can resemble the studio model. Learning is most effective when students learn to design by engaging in authentic design processes, exploring the problems and wishes of certain stakeholders and resolving these through a designed artifact, system, service, or environment, as is illustrated in the earlier example of Project Time. Generally, a design challenge allows for multiple solutions. Contexts need to be attractive, motivational, and related to the age-group to spark the interests of the students. For pupils in the first grades of primary school, contexts related to their lived experience enable pupils to engage meaningfully with a challenge. Links can be made across learning areas, such as designing and modeling safe ways to cross a busy road or develop housing to accommodate guinea pigs that will visit for a week. Contexts can be fictional if children are immersed in a highly engaging situation. This could involve children creating their own stories through a drama activity, as was illustrated by a teacher of seven-year-olds, linking history, drama, and design and technology in which children set sail for a new world, were chased by pirates, shipwrecked, and washed up on an island inhabited by wild beasts. Designing and making shelters that would protect them became a very real design challenge for these young children (Kimbell & Stables, 2007). It could start with reading a traditional story, as two teachers of five-year-olds did by providing a context for designing from the story of the Billy Goats Gruff who needed help to cross a river (McLain et al., 2017). Upper primary school students are ready to design for topics that captivate their interest at another level. They may engage in designing biomedical solutions, educational games, recycling for climate change or a playground for elderly people. Designing escape boxes containing puzzles that have to be solved or ways to experience art for blind people are exciting for teenagers. However, it is good to notice that many design challenges are relevant for all ages, for example designing seating or toys could be done by preschoolers but also by university students, the challenges set to nurture design expertise at different levels. Design studios and the use of authentic design projects are considered key strategies in learning to design. While the concept of a studio is often linked to art education, research has shown how studio teaching and learning in design and technology can make pupils “more resourceful, resilient, reflective and collaborative in their approach to learning” (Claxton et al., 2012). Authentic design projects are engaging and motivational. However, there is more to this. Designing is a situated activity, related to a specific context. In science, one has to take the laws of nature into account, and these laws are usually context-independent. Semantic or rule-based knowledge is applied. Designing is about understanding a unique situation. What are the needs and wishes of the stakeholders and which solutions are an adequate response? Design is thus specific and subjective, and empathic understanding is needed. In contrast, science is often based on abstract and 264

Design Learning

objective understanding. Remember the project about time in the city hall (Figure 23.1). The type of time indicator that is needed in the context of the Delft city hall is quite different from the needs around a train station buzzing with travelers. Therefore, a real context or a rich description of a context is needed to provide a holistic learning situation for design. Novice designers need to learn to research into a context and use this to frame design problems and develop criteria that the designing needs to meet. Another reason for using authentic design projects is that designers have to learn to integrate. Solutions must be generated, elaborated, and tested. In this process it is of great importance to create solutions that fulfill a great many needs. Needs may even be conflicting. For example, a suitcase needs to be strong and at the same time we don’t want it to be heavy. Needs of different stakeholders vary and may conflict. In the city hall project, some civil servants may long for a quiet place as it helps them to concentrate on their work, while visitors may want an appealing time indicator that alleviates the waiting time. In their book Design Expertise, Lawson and Dorst suggest that generating ideas that are an integrative answer is the most difficult to learn. Fourth-year academic students designing a new system to collect litter in a train were better than the second years in analyzing the design situation and describing all the different needs. However, the second years who were unaware of the many complications were able to generate solutions more fluently and happily created imaginative solutions. These final-year students had developed expertise in analyzing the situation and understood the complexities better; however, this got in the way of becoming creative. As such they were still on their way to becoming experts in the creative, integrative activity that is at the heart of designing. Design is about thinking, acting, and reflecting on the results so far. Design is thus embodied cognition and it is not possible to think of design education without modeling, prototyping, and making. Materials and knowledge of technologies inspire the generation of solutions. Students need materials to model, build, test, and move ideas forward. Where more experienced designers are able to mentally simulate many of their ideas before making, novice designers are less able to manipulate and evaluate ideas mentally. Lawson and Dorst argue that being involved in a great many design projects is probably related to the importance of episodic knowledge in design; analytic and rule-based knowledge is not sufficient. Episodic knowledge is collected through personal experiences. For example, Visser studied how a designer developed a pack-tobike solution. Besides general rules such as “in pack-to-bike attachments, the centre of gravity must be kept as low as possible,” the designer recalled personal biking experiences to inform the design, for example “That looks a kind of classy, having a backpack in the centre; in fact when I biked around Hawaii as a kid, that’s how I mounted my backpack. . . . If there is any weight up here, this thing does a bit of wobbling and I remember that is an issue” (Visser, 1995, p. 173). The designer also tapped into experiences of other users by contacting a bicycle firm to ask for user experiences with similar carrier devices. Students in design disciplines are therefore stimulated to study the canon of objects in their field and to collect experiences in logbooks, through observing and drawing objects and noting down personal experiences. However, little is known about how students can 265

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

learn to use these so-called precedents. Teachers are often afraid that students will copy examples instead of using this to inspire their designs. By shifting the context, clients, or requirements, learners have to move beyond existing designs and the solutions they have become fixated on.

Balancing Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness Design projects are key to learners becoming effective, skilled designers; however, there are impediments that may hamper learning. When pupils are not engaged, they can be passive or frustrate the learning of others. Effective environments need to be engineered for design learning to take place, otherwise it is difficult for pupils to engage, to iterate, and to learn from the experience (Looijenga, 2021; Klapwijk & Van den Burgh, 2020). Autonomy is highly valued in the literature on design and technology education, and it is often argued that this should be provided by allowing pupils to select their own design quests and approaches at an early age. There is truth in this when we think of designing as think, make, and reflect. Through reflection the next design move can be made, and there are no rules for this. However, various studies have shown that this approach in the early years of schooling is too overwhelming (Looijenga, 2021). Even for expert designers, very open design questions are not easy to work on. Often experienced designers solve this “blank canvas problem” by developing limitations or by an initial concept or idea, sometimes referred to as a primary generator, that can be tested out, developed, or rejected, but that allows the whole challenge to be better understood. For novice designers this is not easy and for pupils managing the early stages of an open project, learning will need scaffolding. The Goldsmiths team hit this problem in our early research. We identified learning and teaching challenges with both open and closed design projects. At the open end, there are so many issues that it is difficult to know where to start. At the closed end the project can be so tightly defined that authenticity is lost. We created a model that supported teachers and learner to work from either end—as ultimately designing involves being able to do both. Design projects exist on a continuum. At the tightly defined end of the continuum there is a need to scaffold activities that will help the learner see the broader picture of their project—the stakeholders who need to be considered, the impact their project could have on, for example the environment. Too broad a starting point can leave pupils floundering, too tight and they can find themselves in a straitjacket, allowing no room for creativity or addressing user needs. At the more open end where a broad context is the starting point providing a rich collection of prompts and activities that “fast forward” learners into a context can be invaluable and support pupils in identifying their own focused design challenge where they can be innovative and develop their autonomy. As an example of working from the open end, teachers working with fourteen-year-olds set a design challenge in a broad context of “design for the future” with a focus on empathy. 266

Design Learning

This focus was chosen as empathy was their current topic in social studies class. Students worked in teams of four and were provided with moodboards depicting future scenarios and technologies, along with a briefing sheet. They were asked to design and make a prototype. Each team initially narrowed their project to a particular reference where design could support empathy, then on a specific idea within this. Intermittently they presented ideas to other groups and received peer feedback. Teams pitched their final prototype to the whole class. The most popular prototype was made by a group who focused on empathy for soldiers who worked with bomb disposal dogs. They designed and prototyped armor for the dogs to save the grief of soldiers whose dogs might otherwise have been killed in action. In contrast, a teacher working from a more focused starting point working with fifteen-year-olds took an overarching context of “charity and giving” and a specific brief of designing a flat-pack charity collection box that could be sent through the post. Students were given specific requirements such as the collection box having a security system, expanding as money was put in, and including an element of surprise that “rewarded” the person donating. Each student chose their own charity as a guiding reference and worked on their own project but within a group of three critical friends, allowing intervals of self and peer reflection, critique, and feedback. The teacher consistently brought their attention back to the overall context of charity and giving. Students pitched their ideas to a visitor to the class. One prototype was for the charity Water Aid. The collection box featured a pair of hands in a giving posture and a collapsible collection tube that signified flowing water. Figure 19.7 shows the CONTEXT

Charity and Giving

Raising funds

T-shirts for volunteers that identified their role

Volunteering

Staging events

Flat-pack charity Batch producing collection boxes saleable items for a gift stall for schools

Empathy

REFERENCE

Challenges of being a teenager

Value of animals in peoples’ lives

Respecting all faith groups

SPECIFIC

Underwear that isn’t about being thin & sexy

Armor for bomb disposal dogs

Modest sports clothing for teenagers of different faiths

Figure 19.7  Scaffolding design projects starting from specific briefs to open contexts. 267

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

structure of each project, illustrating how students worked between open and closed starting points in the two examples given here. Most recently in English schools this approach has become very important as the current National Curriculum and linked external assessment at ages sixteen and eighteen require learners to design within authentic design contexts wherein the learners create their own design briefs. Autonomy of learners needs to be balanced with competence and relatedness. Looijenga (2021) conducted a number of case studies in primary design education and points out, on the basis of the self-determination theory developed by psychologists Deci and Ryan, that disengagement arises when a learner’s needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are not fulfilled. When design activities meet these three conditions, it is expected that it will foster high-quality forms of motivation and engagement in design as well as enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity. Looijenga developed various solutions that warrant autonomy and freedom to approach a design task in one’s own way, but that are better geared to pupils in the early years of schooling levels of design competence. The first solution is using well-defined tasks and success criteria to guide pupils through the design process. When pupils learn to design, some are well able to deal with vague goals. However, to engage all pupils, Looijenga advises using clear goals and success criteria for each design activity. For example, design a carrier that is able to transport as many marbles as possible. Through counting marbles, pupils can assess their success. The second solution is the use of joint presentations to share personal knowledge and insights leading to understanding other perspectives and a growing sense of belonging. In a joint presentation each pupil shows and explains his or her design. In a joint presentation neither the pupils nor the teacher provides feedback. As pupils learn from each other’s ideas and perspectives, they engage in playful, iterative design trajectories. The relatedness condition from the self-determination theory is met and through joint presentations each pupil’s perspective gets attention. Another problem that is often encountered in design education is that the novice designers do not iterate enough. The process of thinking, making, and reflecting can stop too early and pupils accept their design idea uncritically. Design fixation occurs at any age. Joint presentations are a solution, and the exchange supports learning. However, it is also thought that feedback from peers, a jury, client, or tutor is helpful in building design expertise. Providing the right kind of feedback is important here. Schut showed that design feedback may lead to emotional imbalance and adverse reactions from the receivers of feedback. Helping pupils to give and receive feedback that is positive and constructive, while also having an edge of critique, helps develop peer feedback. By providing examples and using scaffolds, pupils are more able to give feedback that was considered as helpful by their peers (Schut et al., 2019). They became more feedback literate and developed expertise in selecting the feedback they thought was most useful and developed more mental images of the design in use and this stimulated further iterations. 268

Design Learning

During prototyping, novice designers frequently have no clear purposes in mind. Teachers can guide this process by asking each design team to explicate one or two goals or things they want to find out through making. A whole task approach when learning to design is effective. However, it is not the only way to learn to design. Groundwork, a term coined by Looijenga, describes an approach in which specific design skills that can aid success in a planned authentic design project are developed before the project is embarked on. Demonstrations and exercises to develop skills to think creatively, to observe, to communicate and ask questions, or to work with specific materials or tools provide insight into how this can be successful in supporting designing within a project. For example, a teacher may decide to practice observation of the made world and ask pupils to look around until they have discovered something they have not seen before, a short five-minute task with a clear success criterion that can be monitored by the pupils. After a few short observation exercises, pupils become sensitive to their environment and use the skill spontaneously. Observing and evaluating the made world is an important skill as design is situated and context dependent. In design processes, reflection is essential to make the next move and also crucial in learning design skills such as creative thinking and collaboration. This is the topic of the next section.

Assessment That Moves Design Learning Forward In education, one needs reflection on learning. Ideally, teachers embed formative assessment in the design activities to enhance learning. Delft University’s Make Design Learning Visible project developed a formative assessment framework drawing on five key strategies that have been classified by formative assessment experts to develop the model shown in Figure 19.8 (Klapwijk et al., 2019). In design projects, many learning intentions are possible due to the “whole task approach” ranging from scientific and technological principles, to design skills creativity and practical skills. Applying focused assessment, where one activity in a design project is chosen as the focus for assessment, such as exploring the problem, interviewing users, generating ideas, or communicating ideas, is practical and manageable. Choosing one specific angle for assessment and identifying specific ways to collect evidence of this during the selected design activity gives a clear focus for both learners and teachers. The idea to share learning goals and success criteria before a design activity (Assessment Strategy 1) means students will know which design skill they are learning and can apply the success criteria to monitor themselves (Figure 19.8). An example of this is when, before a brainstorm, a teacher asked eleven- and twelve-year-olds how they could think divergently, and the class then collectively made small drawings on the smartboard to visualize the skill of divergent thinking, see Figure 19.9 (Klapwijk & Van den Burg, 2020). 269

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 19.8 Five key strategies for formative assessment from the Make Design Learning Visible approach. Halfway during the brainstorm session, students were asked to assess their brainstorm results and divergent thinking skills in a collective reflection. The students developed their own expressions such as to don’t stick to your ideas, mix your ideas with other ideas and think of opposites to talk about divergent thinking looked like and were able to diagnose their own strengths and weaknesses. This helped them to improve some elements of their divergent thinking during a second brainstorm. Using, analyzing, and ranking exemplars— work of other students on a different design challenge—on specific criteria also helps students to understand success criteria at the start of a design activity (Figure 19.9). To collect evidence and elicit real-time evidence of using a design process (Assessment Strategy 2), e-portfolios affording multi-modal responses (text, drawing, photo, audio) can help collect valuable evidence of learning. This rich evidence can be used to diagnose a design skill (Assessment Strategy 2), provide feedback to move learning forward (Assessment Strategy 3), support peer learning (Assessment Strategy 4), and help learners reflect on their own design skills (Assessment Strategy 5). Peer feedback is a well-developed approach in design education. The feedback could focus not only on specific design skills but also on design outcomes. We have already discussed ways of helping learners provide constructive feedback as projects progress. A further idea is to use Adaptive Comparative Judgment. Pioneered as a strategy for peer assessment in higher education by Seery et al. (2012), students compare a sequence of pairs of design outcomes of their peers, deciding which of each pair is best overall 270

Design Learning

Figure 19.9  Collective drawings on how to think divergently. and identifying the reasons why they think it is best. Using this peer feedback procedure, students develop a nose for quality and are better able to judge their own design outcomes. This approach has also been used in school settings with an equally positive impact. Other studies have focused on eliciting evidence through thought-provoking questions that help students to intermittently evaluate their design ideas throughout a project (Benson & Lawson, 2017; Stables et al., 2016). Formative assessment supports the learning journey and in the context of design learning has parallels with the importance and value of reflection-in-action. There are many different tools available, a number of them are brought together in Make Design Learning Visible (Klapwijk et al., 2019) and the TAPS project from the Bath Spa University examples (https://taps​.pstt​.org​.uk/). Advice is to focus assessment on specific skills during design activities, allowing time and space to share and clarify learning goals, collect evidence, provide feedback, and then room to practice a skill again. Contributions can be made by self, peer, and teacher formative assessment. Reflection-in-action forms a basis for formative assessment that develops both designing and learning capabilities.

Summary Learning to design and to be creative by envisaging the future is relevant for all and should be nurtured in our educational systems starting at an early age. We are born with a wired in pre-disposition to explore and change our environment. Through design 271

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

learning, we can become active citizens who can empathize with and understand others and generate and build original and relevant solutions for society. Integrative activities are at the heart of design, and this calls for learning through authentic, studio-like design projects. In design learning, reflection-in-action and interaction of mind and hand are central. Episodic knowledge is combined with analytic knowledge and learners apply design skills such as empathy and creative thinking. For progress, engaging in design is not sufficient. To ensure progression, pedagogic strategies are needed, including strategies that fulfill the needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and those that stimulate reflection on both design and learning processes.

Questions ●

●

●

●

●

●

How is designing and design thinking valued in your context? How could it become more highly valued? Think about when you were young and your everyday activities. How were you involved in designerly thinking? How might this be similar to learners today and how could they be supported to understand and use their everyday design thinking and capability? Why is reflection on design processes and intermediate outcomes crucial in learning to design? What strategies do you already use to encourage the iteration of action and reflection. How could you improve these? What strategies involving self and peer assessment do you already include? How can this chapter help you extend and develop these? Envision a design project that you might do with learners. How would you make the learning visible and collect evidence? (NB the Make Design Learning Visible resource could also be useful.) Look at the design skills. Why are these crucial for any designer? Which design skill would you like to develop more? Think of some routes and activities to support its development.

References Baynes, K. (2010). Models of change: The impact of ‘designerly thinking’ on people’s lives and the environment, Seminar 4 Modelling and Society (Vol. Occasional Paper No 6). Loughborough University. Benson, C., & Lawson, S. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching design and technology creatively. Abingdon: Routledge. Claxton, G., Lucas, B., & Webster, R. (2010). Bodies of knowledge: How the learning sciences could transform practical and vocational education. Edge Foundation. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​ .13140​/2​.1​.2900​.3049. 272

Design Learning

Claxton, G., Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2012). Making it: Studio teaching and its impact on teachers and learners. Winchester: Centre for Real-World Learning. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Dordrecht: Springer. Klapwijk, R. M., & Van den Burg, N. (2020). Involving students in sharing and clarifying learning intentions related to 21st century skills in primary design and technology education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(3), 8–34. Klapwijk, R. M., Holla, E., & Stables, K. (2019). Make design learning visible: Formative assessment tools for design thinking. Delft: Delft University of Technology. McLain, M., Tsai, J., McLain, M., Martin, M., Bell, D., & Wooff, D. (2017). Traditional tales and imaginary contexts in primary design and technology: A case study. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 22(2), 26–40. Roël-Looijenga, A. (2021). Enhancing engagement for all pupils in design and technology education: Structured autonomy activates creativity [PhD Thesis]. TU Delft. https://doi​.org​ /10​.4233​/uuid​:8248a6de​-1e98​-4fcc​-9acd​-4bffd54232a4. Schut, A., Klapwijk, R. M., Gielen, M., & de Vries, M. (2019). Children’s responses to divergent and convergent design feedback. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 67–89. Seery, N., Canty, D., & Phelan, P. (2012). The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 205–26. Stables, K., Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., & Derrick, K. (2016). Lighting the blue touch paper: Design talk that provokes learners to think more deeply and broadly about their project work. PATT 32: Technology Education for 21st Century skills, Utrecht, Netherlands.

273

Chapter 20

Play-Based Learning Play Pedagogies for Technology Education Pauline Roberts and Marianne Knaus

Introduction Technology education is not often seen as a critical element in the early years and yet it can be argued that young children are expertly placed to be engaged with design technology projects and are already using digital technologies. Young children are curious and learn from their everyday surroundings using problem-solving to develop new skills through exploration. Each time a young child encounters something new, they need to think about how this item works, how they can use it, and what they can use it for—these are all elements of technology. To assist in translating these explorations into learning, this chapter will explore the use of play-based pedagogies as an appropriate way to develop technology knowledge and skills. Playful use of technology is not only for young children but also for those who are growing older—even into the adolescent years. Play-based learning or play pedagogies are presented in this chapter as a way of capitalizing on the connection young children already have with technology to develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions through age-appropriate methods. There are opportunities for children to play with technology through the many types and phases of play they engage with as they grow, learn, and develop (Fleer, 2019). Adults (including teachers) can have a role in play to assist in guiding technology learning in appropriate ways and extending new skills and knowledge associated with the play. There are also opportunities for play-based approaches to be applied to older children and adolescents through primary and secondary school settings (Albion et al., 2018). Makerspaces and STEAM Labs allow children to explore, problem-solve, and inquire through approaches that capitalize on the engagement elements associated with play including volition, enjoyment, and open-ended opportunities. Technologies enrich and impact the lives of people and societies globally. Technology includes more than just digital devices, media, and information computer technologies (ICT). Technology involves the skills and processes used in the design and production of tools, machines, goods, and services (Fleer, 2019). Technology is everywhere in

Play-Based Learning

children’s lives. The clothes they wear, the furniture they use, the utensils they eat with, and the toys they play with are all examples of engagement with technology. Children learn the skills to manipulate these items and, in their use, they often apply the items to other purposes. In a range of play situations children manipulate items for a multitude of purposes to suit their play. This makes children natural explorers and users of technology as well as problem-solvers and authentic developers of new technologies or new ways of using existing tools. Young children are also increasingly utilizing digital technology, including smartphones, tablets, computers, robotic toys, and even wearable devices to monitor infants and toddlers. With the wide range of technology being developed and adapted to facilitate engagement of younger children, their use needs to be carefully considered (Edwards & Bird, 2015). The debate around the ethics related to digital technology use further highlights the need to consider the ways young children engage with these devices beyond calls for time limits and no screen time for under twos. There is a need to think more about how digital technology is being used and to develop knowledge and skills as well as an understanding for children to use this technology in appropriate ways. Despite the natural connection and the possibilities of play for developing technologybased knowledge and skills, there are some challenges and barriers that are present. These include the lack of understanding of technology and play-based pedagogies as well as safety concerns around the use of real tools and materials by children in play. There are also specific debates around the use of digital technologies that may neglect to explore the ways to safely use the technology to teach children these skills from an early age. These mismatches lead to a widening divide between children who have access to technology from those who do not and therefore will impact on children’s experience and ultimately their learning with technology. Given the importance of technology skills for the rapidly developing world, it is critical that teachers not only understand the role of technology in children’s lives but are able to facilitate play-based opportunities for children to learn about technology and its processes. This chapter will explore these opportunities for both design and digital technology, but first it examines what is meant by play pedagogies.

Play Pedagogies Several terms are used to describe play and play-based learning, including play pedagogies, play-based learning, and playful learning. The use of these pedagogies is also often a contested space in the early years due to differing definitions and misunderstandings of what constitutes learning through play. For this chapter, play is examined in terms of a general definition, the characteristics of play, as well as the categories and types of play and the direct connection to learning and development that has been identified. 275

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

In early childhood, play is considered an important pedagogical practice and a context for teaching and learning. It is also recognized as an essential requirement for children’s well-being as play in itself is rewarding and intrinsically motivating. Play has been defined by many theorists and scholars and includes several different perspectives, as described by Robinson et al. (2018, p. 7) in the following passage: That children are curious and learn through investigating with their bodies, objects, symbols and environment; and that play is children’s natural way of learning and acquiring information and is not restricted to real-life situations. However, play is influenced by the social and cultural environment in which it occurs. Children’s play imitates the culture and tools used in a community. Therefore, how children play has changed over the last decade and we now see young children in role play, pretending to use a mobile phone or using a computer rather than older technology systems. The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) for Australia defines play as “a context for learning through which children organise and make sense of their social worlds, as they engage actively with people, objects and representations” (DEEWR, 2019, p. 6). In an increasingly technological world, incorporating design and digital technology helps children gain new knowledge and understanding and contribute to other areas of learning and development. It has been suggested that play, learning, and development are inextricably linked. The implementation of play-based learning provides a means for children to express their imagination, thinking, emotions, and social behaviors. These skills are important for technology education. While there is no universal definition of play, the essential elements of play have been identified as being: ●

●

●

●

●

276

Meaningful: Play makes sense to the players that may not be evident to others. It has meaning and reflects what they know and builds on existing knowledge and understandings. Technology items can be created that have a purpose. Symbolic: Play involves make-believe and children often use an object or language to represent something else. Children’s imaginative thinking is a good starting point for technology projects. Self-directed: The players direct the play, and it has structure such as the sequence of events, a range of characters, objects, and different locations. Children often impose their own rules; however, if the play has rules imposed by the adult, children do not regard it as play. Children need choices to turn their ideas into creative design and technology ideas. Active: In play children are active using their bodies in the physical environment. Play involves mental, verbal, or physical engagement with others. They can engage in the hands-on use of a range of technological tools and equipment. Pleasurable: Children engage in play because it is enjoyable and a pleasurable experience. This does not mean that play is frivolous as children do have a sense

Play-Based Learning

●

●

●

of purpose. Creating and designing in technology contributes to confidence, enthusiasm, perseverance, and self-satisfaction. Voluntary or self-chosen: Play is based on intrinsic motivation and play has its own reward. Play is freely chosen, and investigation leads to higher levels of thinking and doing such as designing and making. Process oriented: Play is about exploration and usually not about a predetermined outcome or product. Technology too is about the process not the product. Children are learning trial and error and problem-solving, both important elements in design and digital technologies. Adventurous and risky: Play is often a way children can engage in risk-taking behaviors without fear or failure. When adults manage the risk, it allows children to enjoy the challenges of design and technology, especially in “makerspaces.”

When these elements of play are focused on providing learning opportunities, the positive aspects of play can be integrated with children’s natural patterns of learning and development. Play is also complex in the categories of play which children progress along as they grow and develop and can engage in more conversation and longer periods of concentration as well as develop social skills to interact with others. For more information on the categories of play, we recommend Parten’s social categories of play (cited in Robinson et al., 2018) that detail the categories and broad developmental order of play development. Adults can take on different roles within the alternate categories of play and positively impact on the learning opportunities. However, to capitalize on the play experiences, knowledge about play and early childhood pedagogy is necessary. Combining this knowledge with awareness of the context assists teachers and adults to interact in ways that extend learning, motivation, and interest. Adults can also challenge stereotypes that limit gender, developmental, or cultural achievements and encourage STEM opportunities for all children. Frequent exchanges between teachers/adults and children include questioning, suggesting, modeling, co-constructing, and describing to provide intentionality and value to the play. Teaching pedagogies to support the play is referred to as intentional teaching, where play experiences are set up with specific learning outcomes in mind. The play is still led by the child but supported by the adult or teacher. The term “play” has often been generalized and misunderstood, especially in terms of the adults’ role within the play across a varied curriculum. Some align free play with the notion that anything goes and while there is a time for free spontaneous play, there is also a time for more purposeful play. It is best to have a balance of play types, including free play, guided play, and teacher-directed play. These play types depend on the context of the setting and generally, teachers view them as points along a continuum to demonstrate the range of teacher interaction within play activities. On the continuum free play is at one end and teacher-led, direct instruction at the opposite end, with levels of guided play taking up the center of the continuum. Free play is important where children can imagine and direct their ideas without adult interference. Teacher-led play 277

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

on the other hand is necessary for the instruction of some concepts, but not all the time. Guided play comprises an educational setting rich in play opportunities and includes focused learning with the teacher guiding the experiences. During the day, teachers move along the continuum of the play spectrum from one end to the other with hopefully more time spent in guided play. In guided play the teacher’s role is to guide and facilitate learning and to intentionally teach skills and concepts through “deliberate, purposeful and thoughtful” actions and decision-making (DEEWR, 2019, p. 15). Planning for variety and challenge using the design and digital technologies curricula enables children to create design solutions across a range of technological contexts. One final area to consider when examining play for learning are the multitude of types of play that children may engage with. There are as many as sixteen different types of play and children quickly switch between these during their experiences. Some of the types of play that are most relevant to the focus on play-based learning approaches are: 1. Construction play, which involves the manipulation of objects and materials (such as Lego©) to build or create. 2. Exploration play, wherein children learn about the properties of materials and objects through physical and sensory manipulation (such as box construction, clay, or dough). 3. Symbolic play, wherein a child uses an object to represent something as a prop as part of fantasy or imagination. In design and digital technologies, they can make things move through pulleys or incorporate robotic toys. 4. Digital/technology play, where children engage in activities using interactive computer technology or smart devices to create new digital content. There are a range of tools, materials, and resources that can be used for play, especially open-ended materials rather than single-use toys. Choosing recyclable materials where possible also assists in the consideration of economic, social, and environmental factors toward a sustainable future. The importance of play-based learning is widely documented, especially in relation to early years’ settings prior to the commencement of formal schooling. Children’s playful activity looks different and changes as children develop and enter formal schooling. Their play becomes more complex where additional organization and structured processes begin to appear. Other children are drawn into the play and these complex interactions develop social, language, and cognitive skills. Play, however, is not just for young children. For older children, play episodes give them an opportunity to negotiate, understand and follow rules, and develop an awareness of consequence as well as selfknowledge, empathy, and sympathy for others. Play is a vital element in early childhood and valuable for people of all ages. Play can stimulate the imagination, inspire creativity, relieve stress, and improve brain function. When specifically focused on teaching in technology, many of these elements are present in the work completed by scientists and engineers in their inquiries and 278

Play-Based Learning

explorations. To examine this further, the next section of the chapter will examine the context for technology teaching with play pedagogies with specific discussion on specific technology types to follow.

Teaching Technology through Play Pedagogies Technology education is not new although the understanding of it has changed and become more complex as society has advanced. The international focus on STEM has increased, with developed countries identifying this as an area of future need as innovation is required to keep pace with the changing world. In Australia, the Chief Scientist has said that science and innovation are key for boosting productivity, creating more and better jobs, enhancing competitiveness and growing an economy. This focus has also led to more specific programs being developed to target these subject areas, including with young children, through engaging, hands-on pedagogies. In recent reviews of curricula undertaken by numerous countries and increased academic research in this area, programs such as Haus der kleinen Forscher in Germany—known as Little Scientists in Australia and elsewhere; Creative Little Scientists throughout Europe; and Common Core Standards in the United States has seen additional focus being placed on technology knowledge and skills in the early years of formal education. The connection to STEM is important for play-based pedagogies, as children who are learning through play are not doing so in silos of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Rather they are integrating their learning and engaging across subject areas to solve problems. These connections continue to be important throughout primary school and beyond as innovation requires thinking across subject domains. STEM approaches advocate for hands-on exploration of everyday materials that lend themselves to play-based implementation and while integration is important, the remainder of this section will focus more specifically on play-based learning for technology. Technology is based on problem-solving and this is what children do daily as they play and develop understanding. When applied to education and specifically the early years, the EYLF in Australia requires that children are “confident and involved learners” (Outcome 4) as they “develop a range of skills and processes such as problemsolving, inquiry, experimentation, hypothesizing, researching and investigating” (DET, 2018, p. 38) through their learning experiences. More recently, the Northern Territory government, with the assistance of the University of Melbourne, has developed a set of preschool games to support the implementation of the curriculum through suggested learning games, including one for technology, designed to support the development of technology process skills through a range of structured play experiences. Some examples of these include treasure hunts for technology items, having communication tools in the dramatic play area or coding movement through an obstacle course. 279

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Similar play-based programs for technology education include the work of numerous researchers across the globe—some dating back decades, such as the work of educators in Reggio Emilia. In this Italian province, children have been engaged in projects for many years. Through projects, the children use tools and resources to problem-solve, design, and create solutions. These projects require teamwork, hands-on manipulation, drawing up of plans, and enacting designed solutions—all of which are technology skills. Design assignments can be developed to allow for multiple iterations where children have a choice and can collaborate to present solutions to everyday problems (Looijenga et al., 2015). While these projects can be instigated by the teacher, children can alternatively be the instigators by identifying problems to solve or questions to answer as the groundwork for learning (Looijenga et al., 2017). In Australia, researchers such as Kath Murdoch and Marilyn Fleer have explored environments designed to engage children in inquiries that utilize technology processes in play to find things out and answer questions. In her most recent work as the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellow, Fleer has been exploring Conceptual Play Worlds in which imaginary scenarios, often developed from a children’s book, are created for young children where they can explore, solve problems, and learn STEM concepts while immersed in this play-based scenario. An essential element of all these projects and approaches is the role of the teacher/ educator. As mentioned in the previous section that outlined the types/levels of play, the role of the educator is important for play that develops knowledge, skills, and dispositions in technology. The educator needs to provide the environment and resources for play with technology to occur, but also the blocks of uninterrupted time for children to explore, experiment, and interact with these resources to try out and evaluate designed solutions. Depending on the age and experience of the children involved, the educators’ role adjusts as the children become able to participate in more complex play scenarios and manipulate a wider range of technological tools. There needs to be intent behind the provision of these resources and the time to allow learning to occur through the play scenarios. It is not a random set of toys or children running everything but a balance of suitable resources, scaffolding, and support for play-based learning. Now that we have a better understanding of play pedagogy and the connection to technology in a general sense, let’s look more closely at the two strands of technology— design technology and digital technology.

Design Technology Technological innovation is essential in society and we use design thinking and technologies to generate and produce designed solutions for authentic needs and opportunities. Although design technology and digital technology are interrelated, there is a difference. Design technology involves emphasis on design thinking, whereas 280

Play-Based Learning

digital technology is more focused on computational thinking. This section will focus on design technology and the generation of ideas and decisions made throughout design processes. When considering the implementation of a technology program, there needs to be consideration given to ensure it is meaningful and a fundamental part of children’s lives. Early childhood settings have a wide scope for authentic opportunities and implementation. When people think of technology it is often associated with the latest gadget and robotics. However, technology is about the tools, techniques, and machines created by humans. Our environment is constructed, and technology has been happening throughout the ages. The wheel, for example, is a device created in the fourth century bc in the Mesopotamian civilization and still is an important invention used in our time. If we examine our environment, we will discover many objects that can be classed as technology. A ballpoint pen, a radio, a book, or a woolen dress can all be considered as technology. It is the process involved in the creating and invention of technology that is relevant in education. First, there needs to be an awareness of a range of materials and exploration of different tools and methods of construction. Children can experience these firsthand in their play with natural and manufactured objects. Making models, building with blocks, creating with recycled materials, using sand, water, and clay are all experiences children engage with in early learning settings. Designing, making, creating, and inventing requires invention and problem-solving. Second, for children to engage in design and technology activities, a certain level of creativity is required to conceptualize what they hear from others and think about what they have not yet experienced. Children need to think outside the box to imagine new ideas and solutions. Creativity involves “being different, thinking divergently, making new connections, challenging barriers to existing knowledge, and being comfortable with developing ideas/solutions not yet approved within society” (Fleer & Jane, 2011, p. 92). Technology is process oriented and children need opportunity, time to practice, and the space to try new things. Looijenga et al. (2015) suggest that design concepts emerge from the iterations and learning taking place through analysis, synthesis, and reflection. Deep learning can take place with collaboration and interaction to find solutions using critical thinking and metacognition skills. Children in playful contexts can experience design and technology, laying the “groundwork” for later learning. Looijenga et al. (2017, p. 42) refer to the groundwork being developed through effective communication between the teacher and children and outline five principles to emphasize the process:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Context: simple or familiar with a focus on one aspect. Integration of acting and thinking: enabling the construction of personal meaning. Communication: effective by means of shared language and shared skills. Presentation of the instruction: handling the process more than the content. Presentation of the problem: clear and simple. 281

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

During the process of designing and creating, a range of pedagogical practices can be used by the teacher, such as using demonstration, questioning, targeted instruction, and working in groups. It is also recommended by Looijenga et al. (2017) to allow free choice of materials and activities to encourage inquisitiveness and playful behavior. Makerspaces have become a popular way to promote design thinking and to foster creativity. Children in these spaces have access to specialist tools, resources, and equipment to design and produce artifacts. Makerspaces involve a learner-centered inquiry where they can solve problems, build things, make models, and test them out. The use of digital and nondigital tools is encouraged to develop critical and creative thinking. Some teachers refer to these spaces as tinkering tables, where children have the agency to be creative. A range of resources can be used from simple to more complex items, such as: ●

● ●

● ●

● ●

●

●

Miscellaneous: popsicle sticks, straws, cardboard, boxes, paper towel cylinders, paper plates and cups, corks, lids and caps, wood scraps, pipe cleaners, pompoms, feathers, buttons, and newspapers. Textiles: fabric scraps, felt, mesh, ribbon, yarn, and string. Assembly items: A variety of tapes such as masking, duct, and cellophane, staplers, glue sticks, beads, string, clothespins, rubber bands, paperclips, and binder clips. Modeling: clay, play dough, and tools, such as rolling pins, plastic knives. Mixing tools: plastic bowls, spoons, pitchers, and ingredients for science exploration such as corn starch and vinegar. Art materials: paints, markers, pencils, pens, crayons. Tools: child safety goggles, low-temperature glue guns, measuring tapes, rulers, scissors, funnels, child size hammers, pliers, screwdrivers, hand drill. Electronic and mechanical technology: batteries, flashlights, beginner circuitry kits, programmable components for robotics, levers, pulleys, linkages, ramps. Deconstruction: old keyboards, old phones, and so on.

Makerspaces allow children to move between digital and non-digital domains engaging in open-ended play with tools and materials related to their context. Collaboration with others helps to share expertise and knowledge. Engagement in makerspaces can lead to extended ongoing investigations or projects that can be repeated or returned to over a period of time. Teachers can integrate specific curriculum goals within the project, providing a holistic approach to learning. Using existing knowledge, play, and intentional teaching can support deeper thinking and more abstract concepts. A project can take weeks or months and cultivate learning in creative and interesting ways. To further develop process and production skills a design process could be led by the teacher using a design brief to guide the progression. The following phases are recommended: ● ●

282

Investigating and defining Designing

Play-Based Learning

● ● ●

Producing and implementing Evaluating Collaborating and managing

Collaborating and managing are listed last but are not really a separate phase but can happen in each of the other phases. The following example of a play-based technology project for young children is based on the book Robots Pet by Nigel Grey. In this book, a tinkerer has created a robot, but the robot gets lonely and so the creator tries to find him a pet. There are some disasters as he tries a few different types of pets—a fish, a dog, and so on—until he creates a solution. Following the reading of the text, the children can be challenged to design and create a pet in a collaborative environment using a design process to investigate; define, generate, and design, produce, and implement; and then evaluate. In a play-based learning environment, the teacher has set up a pet shop dramatic play area. There are traditional pets to buy here, but the best part of this pet shop is the section where you can design and build your own. The owner of the shop is very involved in the process, and he only allows pets to be built from a specific design and that materials are selected with particular purposes in mind. 1. To begin to build their pet, the children must first identify what type of pet they want and define what it needs to do as this sets the evaluation criteria. If the children are working together, they need to collaborate on this. 2. Once they have identified this, the children need to generate design ideas, including the types of materials they will use in creating their pet. The evaluation criteria will help determine these materials also, but the pet shop owner can declare that only recycled materials can be used or that there are other restrictions in place. 3. Once the design and materials are in place, the children can then produce their pet and implement the production processes identified earlier. Again, through this process, the pet shop owner can be suggesting alternatives or scaffold the process to ensure alignment to the design. Children need to manage the development process here. 4. After the pet is finished, the children and pet shop owner evaluate the pet against the design and the criteria decided upon earlier in the process. 5. If a digital component was also required, the children could take photographs throughout the building process and create a SlowMotion of the build; or they could set their pets up with different backdrops to record images and create a digital story involving their pet as the main character. 6. Once complete, the pets can be taken home or shared among the class. While play-based design and technology are appropriate for young children, there are some concerns that need to be considered. These include the lack of focus on technology in the early years as some teachers do not understand the process, and it is seen as 283

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

something more appropriate for older children. There are also safety concerns for all children in relation to using real tools and equipment for authentic experiences, which some parents and teachers may shy away from. Experience has found that if children are shown the correct way to use these tools and given the explanation of why safety is important, they can implement this type of equipment effectively in their play. There may also be some educators who do not understand the use of technology or think of it only in terms of digital technology rather than seeing the broader concept and its connection to the daily lives of children.

Digital Technology When examining play-based learning with digital technologies, one important distinction needs to be made up front. Digital technology is more than Information Communication Technologies (ICT) and the two are not the same. ICT relates to technology that allows for communication and sharing of information: that is, it has a consumer focus. These processes can be passive and rely on using technology for a sometimes-narrow process. By contrast, digital technology is much more than this, and focuses on the creation of things. Digital technology allows for creation of ideas and solutions, and they can encourage innovation in processes and thinking. While some tools for ICT share capabilities with tools for digital technology—traditionally digital technology allows options for more. As this chapter explores play-based approaches for digital technology, it does so with the lens of tools, apps, and programs that engage children with creating and designing solutions that go beyond those available in ICT platforms. Digital technology used in play-based learning approaches can include, but is not limited to, smartphones and tablets, robotic toys, electronic games, and forms of artificial intelligence (AI). Young children can use apps in play to create stories, share information, solve problems, and code solutions. In play situations, children can use real or pretend technology to communicate, and they can photograph their play and create digital stories or movies that document their learning experiences. Images taken by children with digital devices allow a different perspective to be gained on the exploration of local environments and the animations of these can be powerful to adults. In terms of robotics and coding, very young children can be engaged with these processes in play with BeeBots that can have homes created for them or be coded to complete tasks and follow paths within designed environments. As children grow and learn, digital tools such as Cubeto, Spiro, or Lego Robotics may be more appropriate, and the play scenarios can become more complex. Humanoid robots that require more complex coding can also be used to interact and problem-solve with a range of children with a plethora of opportunities, including those focused on social rules, interactions, and behaviors. The options for these types of tools, along with current advances in AI, will continue to encourage development in these areas, but with this comes increased 284

Play-Based Learning

concern around the use of digital technology with children and the role of these tools in play. Digital technology is ubiquitous in the lives of many young children, and the works of a growing number of scholars have identified that if children do not have access to real artifacts in play, for example smartphones, they will role play and create their own devices from materials that are available—a wooden block with stickers can become a smartphone. This phenomenon creates challenges for educators as they themselves may not be confident or proficient in the use of digital technology, there may be parents or colleagues within the setting that disagree with technology being used in educative programs or have reservations about the impact of technology use on overall development and the digital footprint that children may be creating from a younger age. These are all valid concerns and the reasons behind why organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in the United States and Early Childhood Australia (ECA) have developed statements around digital technology use, including guidelines for digital play. The NAEYC (2012) Statement advocates for the intentional and appropriate use of technology and interactive media based on information and resources related to the use of digital technology, especially with infants and toddlers, with attention given to digital citizenship and equitable access. The developers of the statement highlight the importance of children being digitally literate but that this needs to be carefully considered and based on ongoing research. The ECA statement on young children and digital technology written by Edwards et al. (2018) highlights that play and pedagogy are important elements in the digital environment. They define digital play as involving “children in many combinations of activities using a range of digital and non-digital resources either by themselves or with others” (p.18). Often this play is learned by observing others and can involve exploration with educators. When using touchscreens in digital play and learning, the ECA statement advocates for the “considered use of apps” (p.19) to ensure quality of design and educational outcomes to support learning. The authors highlight that the use of digital play can provide “opportunities for exploration and experimentation” (p.19) but decisions on use need to be made based on “the best interests of young children” (p. 20). The key recommendations of this statement for digital play are to: 1. Provide opportunities for children to explore and experiment with the functions of a diverse range of digital technologies alongside adult modeling and instruction in digital technology use. 2. Promote play involving children in digital technology use with digital and nondigital tools and materials to build knowledge about the use of technologies for communication, collaboration, and information sharing. 3. Seek young children’s perspectives regarding the role and use of digital technologies in their own lives, play, and learning. 285

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

4. Model active decision-making regarding digital technology use with, by, and for young children that provides a balance of digital and non-digital experiences and activities in early childhood education and care settings (p. 21). These points provide strong guidelines to consider when implementing digital playbased learning for young children, especially in the context of balance and not widening the gap between children who have access to technology in play and those who do not.

Summary This chapter has explored the use of play and play-based learning as a natural avenue for children’s learning in both design and digital technologies. When children play, they problem-solve, are engaged in active, hands-on exploration, and utilize a range of tools and resources with a focus on the process rather than the product. These same processes and skills are aligned with technology learning and development. The role of the educator is critical in technology learning in terms of understanding technology—both digital and design, and the pedagogical processes possible when teaching this. Within play-based learning, the educator takes on the role of facilitator of learning through the provision of appropriate tools, adequate time, and scaffolding of play scenarios. The characteristics and opportunities of play make it an appropriate pedagogy for use, not only with young children but with learners through primary and into secondary schooling. Play is a natural avenue across contexts where problem-solving and complexity can develop along with the skills of independence in technology processes that integrate the learning of knowledge, skills and dispositions through enjoyable hands-on experiences. The focus on the process, not just the product, allows for the development of skills that will improve learning outcomes in technology and other content areas throughout life.

Reflective Questions 1. What do you recall playing as a child? What materials did you use? Can you now identify possible learning opportunities within these play experiences that you might like to implement in your setting? 2. As the teacher you have a critical role in the provision and support of playbased learning. What roles will you take/what strategies will you implement to encourage the exploration of technology within your learning environment? 286

Play-Based Learning

3. Are there any tools or materials that you have not used because of fear of the risks? How might you now reassess the use of these to provide authentic experiences for the children/students in your learning setting? 4. The use of digital technology in classrooms is simultaneously ubiquitous and contentious. How will you approach the utilization of digital tools for play-based learning within the learning environment?

References Albion, P., Campbell, C., & Jobling, W. (2018). Technology education for the primary years. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia. DEEWR (2019). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www​.dese​.gov​.au​/national​-quality​-framework​ -early​-childhood​-education​-and​-care​/resources​/belonging​-being​-becoming​-early​-years​ -learning​-framework​-australia. Edwards, S., & Bird, J. (2015). Observing and assessing young children’s digital play in the early years: Using the digital play framework. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(2), 158–73. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/1476718x15579746. Edwards, S., Straker, L., & Oakey, H. (2018). Early childhood Australia: Statement on young children and digital technologies. http://www​.ear​lych​ildh​ooda​ustralia​.org​.au​/wp​-content​/ uploads​/2018​/10​/Digital​-policy​-statement​.pdf. Fleer, M. (2019). Conceptual PlayWorlds as a pedagogical intervention: Supporting the learning and development of the preschool child in play-based setting. Obutchénie: Revista De Didática E Psicologia Pedagógica, 3(3), 1–22. https://doi​.org​/10​.14393​/OBv3n3​.a2019​ -51704. Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (2011). Design and technology for children (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia. Looijenga, A., Klapwijk, R., & de Vries, M. J. (2015). The effect of iteration on the design performance of primary school children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 1–23. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-014​-9271​-2. Looijenga, A., Klapwijk, R. M., & de Vries, M. J. (2017). Groundwork: Preparing an effective basis for communication and shared learning in design and technology education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 21(3), 41–50. https://ojs​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/ DATE​/article​/view​/2157. NAEYC (2012). Position statement: Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. https://www​.naeyc​.org​/sites​/default​/files​/ globally​-shared​/downloads​/PDFs​/resources​/position​-statements​/ps​_technology​.pdf. Robinson, C., Treasure, T., O’Connor, D., Neylon, G., Harrison, C., & Wynne, S. (2018). Learning through play: Creating a play-based approach within early childhood contexts. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand.

287

Chapter 21

Digital Learning The Role of Digital Technologies in Technology Education Deborah Winn

Introduction Technology is deeply embedded in our daily lives. Most of us have miniature computers in our pockets that we use for both work and leisure, in a multitude of places helped by the prevalent public access to Wi-Fi. Even very young children often have access to tablets and smart home devices. Digital technology is part of home, work, leisure, and industry, and as such it is an essential part of education. The application of digital technologies in education also provides many opportunities for learning. Design and make, graphic design and layout, programming and control programs are largely specific to technology education curricula. However, there are many other digital learning applications used throughout education, such as word processing, visualizers, and video. From a technology teacher’s perspective, these newer technologies are often also taught alongside traditional design and make techniques. Therefore, the range of knowledge and skills needed can seem vast for both students and teachers. The rate of change and need to keep up to date can feel daunting and some can be hesitant to engage with new technologies in their teaching or learning. The global pandemic of 2020, however, jettisoned even the most reluctant teachers, students, and parents into the world of online, blended, and flipped learning, through necessity. Businesses and education establishments rapidly developed new ways of working. It is likely that during this time, technologies and strategies that some wouldn’t have been considered previously will become commonplace going forward. More than ever, it is vital to prepare learners and teachers for the future and the workplace. Deciding which of these technologies we should teach, which to employ in our teaching, and how best to use them is not a simple task, as each has its benefits and pitfalls. This chapter seeks to explore the range of digital learning opportunities and strategies for their application in technology education. This is largely considered from a learning perspective, but as skill and confidence levels also vary greatly for the teacher, digital technologies for teaching will also be considered.

Digital Learning

Why Teach Digital Technologies and What Do Students Need to Know? Digital learning is simply learning that is facilitated using electronic technologies. It can encompass a very wide range of software and hardware to complete tasks, particularly in technology education, as can be seen in Table 21.1. Teaching traditional skills remains vitally important, in terms of designing and making, but the reality is that many contemporary technological products are created, stored, shared, and produced digitally. Furthermore, control systems and coding are used both in the manufacture of many modern products and being embedded in the objects themselves. Using these technologies in industry achieves a greater level of accuracy and speed, allowing ideas to be shared and edited globally, with ease. Teaching digital technologies prepares students for this future workplace and to be informed consumers able to make reasoned choices. The Future of Education and Skills 2030 project (OECD, 2019) aims to provide information on what students need to know for the future, internationally, and how education can achieve this. It reiterates the statement previously made by Fisch and Macloed (2007) that “We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented yet, in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.” We do know that the future for the students will include a considerable amount of digital technology, however, and the OECD report continues, “Given the expansion of digitalisation and big data into all areas of life already, all children need to be digital and data literate.” Some of the technologies are reasonably easy to interact with, but some require more tuition, such as 3D CAD software (Figure 21.1). It is likely that students will encounter more than one of the digital technologies throughout their adult life regardless of the path they take. They will need to be aware of, and confident around, the current and emerging technologies. For example, 3D printers were exclusively designed for industry but now have increased in popularity for the home market. Therefore, increasing exposure to these technologies outside of the workplace. That isn’t to say they should be proficient in each and every technology, but they should have an understanding of what is possible. The nature of technology means that it changes rapidly, and specific skills taught in the earlier school years will be outdated by the time they enter the workplace. Therefore, careful consideration needs to be given to what students actually need to know, how to foster resilience, and how to teach them and with them—for example, teaching general and technical principles more than proficiency with specific software. Given the variety of digital technologies available, what-to-teach and what-touse-when can be problematic. Some teachers may feel the pressure to use all of the technologies, while others are fearful and avoid them as much as possible. If the technology is intuitive or relatively easy to use, it could be beneficial to allow students to explore it without a specific outcome or without using a restrictive step-by-step tutorial approach. After all, even young children are able to pick up quite complex games and

289

Table 21.1  Digital Technologies in Technology Education

  graphical representation advertising film/animation software and web design 2D/3D designing photorealistic rendering converting between 2D and 3D annotating rapid prototyping sending ideas and feedback sending drawings for CAM Mechanical / fluid flow simulating estimating potential weight/cost changing drawings researching autonomous learning data tracking and analysis evidencing progress planning robotics

image search 2D manipulation engine animation coding design ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

■

■

■ ■ ■ ■

graphical 3D software design ■ ■

manu­ facture

■

data simulation software ■

■ ■

word processing/ presentation

sound video editing email conferencing software

■

■

■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

■ ■

■

■

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■ ■

■

■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■

■

■

■ ■

■

■

Digital Learning

Figure 21.1  Digital technologies are embedded in many aspects of life and industry. learn them with few issues through a self-directed, play-based approach. This approach mirrors everyday life, but may involve some risk-taking on the part of the teacher, where a precise lesson plan and outcome aren’t always possible. In this lesson, the role of the teacher would change to being a facilitator, rather than an instructor. Technology that relies on precise parameters, such as 3D computer-aided design (CAD) or electronic control, to produce a successful outcome is likely to require a very different approach. If the outcome fails, it may affect the confidence of the student. If the teacher also lacks confidence, then experiencing difficulties is likely to further erode their confidence and reduce the likelihood of them engaging with the technologies in their lessons. As mentioned before, the technologies are also likely to have evolved before the students enter adulthood. Chester (2007) recognizes the importance of strategic knowledge, which is concerned with ways to complete a task, as well as command knowledge—that is, knowing the commands to use for the task. With the aims stated earlier in mind, it becomes less important that students learn precisely how to achieve a particular outcome (command knowledge) and more important that students understand what the technologies are capable of and what they are used for. As well as developing confidence when they need to interact with them both in the present and in the future (strategic knowledge). Considering this, should we be teaching these more complex technologies in schools? The answer to this is “yes.” Beyond preparing the student for a future workplace and providing an understanding of the made world, you are giving students the skills and confidence to be resilient when faced with new technologies, regardless of their complexity. Using digital technologies also facilitates a connection with a wider range of learning styles and the opportunity to teach students to use technology responsibly. For example, students who struggle with writing can type, those who struggle with drawing can use CAD, higher-ability students can research and adapt work more independently. Digital technologies can support students with learning difficulties, for example those with visual impairments can zoom in or have a clearer view when the teacher uses a visualizer and projector/screen. Videos allow students to work at their own pace by revisiting areas they are struggling with. Providing experiences in using these technologies can also offer opportunities to discuss ethics and safety when accessing content using digital devices and platforms. 291

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

In summary there are essentially three main aims of teaching digital technologies in schools: 1. Provide an awareness of how things are designed and made in industry. 2. Show what is possible to provide an awareness of contemporary and emerging technologies. 3. Develop confidence, interest, and resilience in students to interact with the technologies. How to achieve these aims requires some consideration.

Vocabulary Teaching about and with digital technologies often involves the use of subject-specific words that students do not experience elsewhere on a day-to-day basis and can be the first stumbling block for students. Words such as “workplane,” “vector,” and “raster” are likely to be unfamiliar. Technical vocabulary can be low-frequency words in everyday use, but are high frequency within a specific disciplinary area (Webb & Nation, 2017). Some students might be unfazed by this, but others who are already anxious about using the technology may have their fears confirmed that they cannot do it. When I began researching students’ attitudes to the vocabulary used during CAD lessons, I gave a class of students a printed screenshot of a 3D CAD program and asked them to highlight words they were unfamiliar with—48 percent highlighted twenty to thirty words and 52 percent highlighted the whole page, even though there were words that they will have come across before, such as “front” and “sketch” on the page. This view is shared by Brown and Cocking (2000), who state that if a student already has the idea that they are not good at a task and then is faced with language they can’t access, they fail to be engaged and their preconception is reinforced. The temptation may be to simplify the language to make it more accessible. This is not advisable because the technologies may change but the vocabulary probably will not, and it prepares them for interactions with digital technology in their future education and employment. Students need to be comfortable around the vocabulary to make interaction with the technology more likely and easier going forward. Hirsh (2016) believes a broad domain-specific vocabulary will allow students to access the nuances of the tasks, and they will in turn be able to communicate and demonstrate higher-level responses than those with a more limited understanding of the vocabulary. Realistically students won’t need to know the exact meaning of most of the words but need to be comfortable with them and not see the vocabulary as a barrier. Acknowledging that there are unfamiliar words and explaining that they don’t need to know all of them is one step closer to alleviating their fears. 292

Digital Learning

Task—Think back to a lesson involving technology and list words that would be counted as low frequency in everyday life but high frequency when using the technology. How many of these do students need to understand and how many do they just need to be aware of. It is likely that the ones they need to understand in the younger years will be low.

Attitudes Student and teacher attitudes to technology vary greatly and both the positive and the negative attitudes are likely to have an impact on their learning and understanding of digital technologies. Whether they believe they can or cannot complete the task, they are right, because those who believe they can achieve it will work through the task (Dweck, 2006). Those who believe they cannot may lack the resilience to persevere. Musta’amal et al. (2009) write that the perceptions that users have of CAD systems can significantly influence their performance. It is important to promote positive attitudes, or at least reduce the negative ones. Demystifying the language is one way of easing negative emotions. Breaking the tasks down into smaller bite-size chunks that are fun is another. Some students are afraid of failure, and by removing the stigma of failure you can change the attitudes of students further. They believe they can’t do it but by seeing failure as part of the learning process and redefining it as learning, it is no longer something to be concerned about.

Embracing Failure in the Learning Process As teachers, we instinctively want students to “get it right” and may believe we also need to get it right and know all the answers. We have plans and outcomes for the lesson and those who achieve those outcomes have succeeded. The student also uses the success criteria we set to gauge whether they “are any good at it.” It is unrealistic to expect that none of the students in a class are going to go wrong and that all of them are going to achieve the outcome first time. It is important to change this mindset for both students and teachers, particularly when teaching complex technologies. Far more can be learned from getting it wrong and working through solving the problem than can be learned from following a set of instructions rote fashion and achieving the outcome but having little idea as to how you achieved it. This also applies to the teacher, considering the volume of skills and knowledge needed as a technology educator; it is also likely that errors and questions will arise that cannot be answered straightaway. If the teacher’s reaction is to work their way through it without fuss with the student, this is a powerful lesson in problem-solving. 293

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

It is not that the aim should be to try and make mistakes, but they should be redefined as good and productive mistakes. Tim Brown, the CEO of the design and consulting firm IDEO, states, “Don’t think of it as failure, think of it as designing experiments through which you are going to learn.” A useful axiom to use in class, coined by the founder of IDEO, David Kelley, is “fail faster, succeed quicker.” This mirrors the beliefs of Gershon (2016), who states that it should be explained to the class from the outset that mistakes are likely and are a learning opportunity. They suggest that one method to explore may be for the student to keep a “mistakes log.” In this the student notes both the mistake and how they solved it. This creates a connection between the mistakes and learning rather than as a failure. A written document also allows for the assessment of progress by the teacher even if there is no end product. This approach can require you to train the students. They can become fixed on using the computer for the task and are then reluctant to put pen to paper. Others are unsure what they should write. Providing examples and prompts such as built-in pauses in the tasks to log progress, errors and solutions can help with this. Some teachers may also need to be trained in this approach, because they may feel they are not achieving if less impressive outcomes are presented. It is a true change of mindset that is difficult to make but valuable. For some of the complex technologies, common errors, and what to do about them can be introduced quite early, possibly before even turning the computer on. For example, in 3D CAD, gaps, crossing lines, and double lines will all cause the model to fail when extruding a 2D sketch. If these have been shown, through demonstration, before starting the lesson and the student has a method of checking for these (e.g., a help sheet explaining how to look for the error and correct common errors), then they can solve their own errors. Combined with the mistakes log the student should not see this as a failure, but (correctly) as a success. Failure to split features into different layers is another common error that occurs in lessons with both 3D CAD and in some graphics software. Students often try to create all elements on one layer or sketch, which can cause the model to fail or creates problems later on. Using props such as different colored modeling dough or drawing different features in different colors before using the software can create a point of reference for the student and also an aid the teacher can use as a prompt through the lesson. These props and tasks highlight key principles and procedures relevant to similar software of the same type. Using a variety of methods, such as these, to embrace a variety of different learning styles, will engage more students than those already at ease with using technology.

Task Setting While failures should be valued in the learning process, it is important that the tasks are largely achievable and appropriately differentiated. Nemorin (2017) reports on the frustrations of a class of thirteen- to fourteen-year-olds, who undertook a 3D design 294

Digital Learning

and make project and felt that they struggled with the task, in particular when the final outcome failed. The task was for the students to design and make a working model of a car that they would race at the end of the project. The students could choose to make the car using traditional techniques or 3D printing. Interestingly, almost all students (both male and female) chose to 3D print the car. This demonstrated that most of the students had a willingness to “have a go” with complex design applications, and perhaps an interest in the digital technologies. However, the task of creating a working car involves correct scaling for different components to fit together and the ability to transfer their creative ideas into the digital application. This is not easy to achieve, and the majority of students did not produce working outcome and were not able to participate in the final race. Nemorin reports on the disappointment felt by the students and suggests that it had put them off using digital applications in future, when there is also a choice to use traditional tools. Some of the frustrations included difficulty in scaling, difficulty in getting components to fit, not being able to create the idea they had drawn, difficulty in the constraints of 3D printing, and the length of time it would take to print the design. This was an interesting and engaging task that demonstrates the possibilities of the design and make applications, but potentially an ambitious one in the timescale, resulting in the possibility that some students were “turned off ” from using complex digital technologies. Biskjaer et al. (2020) recognize a “sweet spot” in task constraints and while the article reflects on levels of constraint in gathering inspiration it holds true for task setting in this situation as well. On the one hand you want students to understand what is and is not possible with the digital technologies, but you don’t want so many barriers in the way as to make the task unachievable or unengaging to most. To develop confidence and interest in the technologies, a more achievable task might be more appropriate, with fewer elements. Or provide a range of differentiated materials. A few methods to differentiate complex tasks are listed as follows; ●

●

●

Build in celebration points throughout the task, including some learning from failures, so that there is a sense of achievement—even if the final outcome doesn’t work. It was correctly stated in the report that the students had all achieved a considerable amount in a difficult task, but that sense of achievement was not felt at the end. Provide “how to” (and sometimes “how not to”) guides in a variety of formats such as written guides with screenshots or video clips that students can access when and at a pace that suits them. Perhaps one of the aspects that will remain from flipped, blended, and remote learning approaches developed during the Covid-19 pandemic of the early 2020s is the increased use of online platforms for students to access work at home that would allow the students to access the work in a way that suits them. Provide some of the components for the students to build on—for example, CAD parts, code libraries, and so on. More able and confident students might start from scratch, but others could have more, or fewer, of the components available 295

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

●

to them to build on, depending on their capability and confidence. In the previous example, wheels were made available for the students to use, but a chassis at the correct scale to build on might have been beneficial for some. Appointing “student experts” who have shown competency in an area and are willing to demonstrate to small groups or individuals who are struggling with a particular task. You may find that they show and tell in a completely different way than the teacher, that peers experiencing difficulties might understand better.

A final note on task setting is the very real constraint of how long it takes to manufacture using some computer-aided manufacture technologies, such as 3D printing. If the product takes one to two hours to make and you have more than twenty students in the class, this involves a considerable investment of time. Consideration is needed on whether this is to be undertaken by the teacher or a technician, and whether there is the required time available for manufacture within the duration of the project. Can the products be made smaller to fit multiple products on a printing bed at the same time, for example? Would digital simulations or teamwork be more appropriate to the task? These examples relate to the report discussed earlier, but similar “bottlenecks” also occur with other digital technologies, such as computer-based learning systems for robotics, communication, and testing. Consideration of what the students are doing while waiting for their products to be manufactured or to access facilities/equipment also needs to be made, allowing time for learning and for failures.

Group Work Paired and group work also has some value when teaching complex digital technologies. Lipponen et al. (2003) reported that computer-supported collaborative learning may facilitate deep learning and may provide motivational benefits. Other studies have shown that students developed positive interdependence, shared resources, and verbalized thoughts for learning to achieve a joint solution to a problem (Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Terwel, 2003). The benefits of paired learning are listed as follows: ● ●

● ●

296

Students are able to learn from each other. Students are able to verbalize their thoughts that they may not be able to communicate otherwise. They may not have the understanding to use correct terminology but are able to say, “I want to make something that is this shape, with a hole here” and the other student can assist in realizing this idea. Students are able to discuss and develop ideas together in collaboration. The students can have different roles—for example, one student can be in charge of instructions while the other is in charge of the controls. They complete the task together, but be in charge of different aspects.

Digital Learning

●

●

Two students often means two screens. If instructions are via video clip, then it is much easier to have the video on one computer and the program on the other. Students who are less confident will be able to progress when paired with a more confident peer, rather than get stuck—and be given praise more readily, thereby increasing the confidence and the idea that they can do it in future.

There are of course disadvantages to paired learning: ●

● ●

One student may end up doing all, or most, of the work. This is not always a disadvantage if the other is still participating—an aim when teaching digital technologies is that students are aware of what a program does. If they are watching the student complete the task, this is to some extent achieved. Students may chat, argue, or otherwise distract each other. It is difficult to give individual praise and feedback, as you may not know which of the students achieved which elements in the task.

Creativity in Digital Learning There has been considerable debate about what creativity is, how to foster it, and how to assess it. Most agree, however, that it is an important part of education. Marsh (2010, p. 4) writes that creativity is an essential tool to allow students to prepare for the future and states: fostering creativity is fundamentally important because creativity brings with it the ability to question, make connections, innovate, problem-solve, communicate, collaborate and to reflect critically. The OECD report on the creative thinking framework (2019) states: A fundamental role of education is to equip students with the competences they need—and will need—in order to succeed in society. Creative thinking is a necessary competence for today’s young people to develop (Lucas & Spencer, 2017). It can help them adapt to a constantly and rapidly changing world, and one that demands flexible workers equipped with “21st century” skills that go beyond core literacy and numeracy. The report continues to say that Schools can influence several dimensions of students’ internal resources . . . for engaging in creative thinking, including: cognitive skills; domain readiness (domainspecific knowledge and experience); openness to new ideas and experiences; willingness to work with others and build upon others’ ideas (collaboration); willingness to persist towards one’s goals in the face of difficulty and beliefs about one’s own ability to be creative (goal orientation and beliefs); and task motivation. 297

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

As both creativity and the ability to interact with digital tools is considered important in education for now, and for the future, it is appropriate to discuss them together in this chapter. Isaksen et al. (2001) recognize a nine-dimension model for establishing a working environment to encourage creativity, which includes challenge, freedom, trust, playfulness, idea support, and risk-taking (see the Chapters 19 and 20, “Design Learning” and “Play-Based Learning”). It is worth keeping these in mind when developing tasks for students. When using some of the more intuitive or simpler digital technologies, it is possible that students are be able to demonstrate their creativity more easily than using older or more technically demanding applications. If the student struggles to draw by hand, for example, they may find that they are able to produce neater drawings on the computer, which opens up additional possibilities for them. Equally for those with limited practical ability, computer-aided manufacture (CAM) allows students to realize ideas they might not have been able to before. Laser cutting is particularly useful for creating high-quality outcomes, quickly and accurately, that many students would struggle to achieve by hand. Lucas (2020) writes: New hardware/software is undoubtedly allowing young people to engage with the world, often playfully and experimentally, in ways which they could not have done even ten years ago. Certainly digital creativity is astonishingly fast and, in all likelihood, is more than the sum of digital + creativity. Interestingly, much of this interaction with digital creativity happens at home through a wide range of games such as Minecraft and other software that allows the child to create. Any parent of a child who plays these types of games can attest to the hours the child is willing to spend creating elaborate spaces and worlds, often self-teaching through YouTube videos to achieve an outcome. I will confess that in order to engage students who don’t want to draw during a remote learning period of the Covid-19 pandemic, I encouraged the use of Minecraft to complete a design task, with good results—as there were no alternative options accessible the students working from home. Parallels can be drawn between these games and what is being used in the education setting, and an acknowledgment of the creative capability and how they teach themselves can only be beneficial. Using the more complex digital technologies presents bigger problems, however, because if the students don’t know how to use the program, they cannot use it independently and many of the factors outlined are difficult to achieve. To support the student, the teacher often gives very prescriptive instructions. A common task when teaching 3D CAD once was that all students made some dice, or in coding, students created a calculator or simple “Hello world” phrase, for example. These tasks aren’t particularly creative, but most will be able to achieve the outcome by following the instructions in rote fashion. Many will also not know how they achieved the outcome or why the instruction they followed did what it did. For the students to be able to be

298

Digital Learning

creative, they need the task to be more open and to be able to focus on the strategic knowledge rather than simply on the procedural. In this we can learn from how the students self-teach and provide resources that the students can use as they need them in order to complete the element they want to achieve, thereby giving autonomy to the student in their learning and creative options. Discovery Learning One method that facilitates creativity is to adopt a learner-led, discovery approach rather than relying on teacher-led tutorials. In this the student leads the pace and takes some responsibility for identifying their own needs. The teacher becomes more of a facilitator, responding to these needs and prompting where needed in terms of direction and pace. This method requires the teacher to anticipate what is going to be needed and potential misconceptions and to have resources at hand that can be used by the students. This can be nerve-wracking and requires greater pedagogical skill and confidence to implement than more direct instruction approaches, but it can have considerable benefits in the right setting and task. A case study for this was demonstrated in a set of lessons when using 3D CAD (Winn, 2020; Winn & Banks, 2012). Learning used gamification in that elements of game play such as levels, point scoring, and competition were included in the tasks that also used paired learning and video clips to increase the students’ independence in “the game.” In this example the students had to create a number of items to free a wizard (Figure 21.2). The initial task instructed the students to use the extrude feature to create a key. The first time they completed the task, one student played, paused, and when necessary rewound and replayed the clip at their own pace for both students to create a basic shaped key. They also had a “book of magic” that explained how to identify and rectify common mistakes in each task. Students were encouraged to use this when they were stuck. The students gained points for this task, including extra points for identifying and solving problems, thereby rewarding good mistakes and promoting resilience. The students were then told that this had unlocked the first lock, but now they needed to create a key for the second lock. This key would be a unique shape of their own choosing

Figure 21.2  Example slides from game. 299

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Figure 21.3  A sample of student outcomes from the final task of the game. to solve the problem. They used the same instructions but had to vary the elements to create their own design. They also gained points during this task. This allowed not only them to be more creative but also the students gained a better understanding of why they were doing what they were doing, developing strategic knowledge. The lessons continued following this pattern for several of the main features of the program. The final task asked the students to apply what they had learned so far to rebuild the castle to their own design (Figure 21.3). Most students were able to produce some quite creative and individual results.

Using Technology to Teach For many teachers (of all subjects), using technology to teach during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and beyond became a necessity, where lessons needed to be taught remotely. Blended and flipped learning became more commonplace. Blended learning is broadly defined as a combination of online and in-person learning, and flipped learning involves students watching, reading or listening to instructional materials in preparation for a formal lesson with a teacher. There are benefits to both of these strategies in that place-based learning can be used to determine the student’s understanding and progression rather than spending time on instruction. While these methods on their own should not substitute all face-to-face learning, there are aspects of these methods that may be useful going forward and warrant further research to evaluate their effectiveness for technology education. In full remote learning, while lessons took place at a particular time they were often recorded or the slide shows made available so that students could repeat the lesson or go over anything they didn’t grasp. The student could recap the lesson at a time that suited them, and resources were sometimes given in a variety of forms that would suit their personal learning preference. Teachers also became experts in setting assignments and giving feedback online. It is likely that some of these practices are here to stay (see Chapter 15, “Facilitating” in Part II). 300

Digital Learning

The number of digital technologies available to aid teaching and learning is considerable. Some are more established and easier to obtain, such as projectors, digital cameras, video cameras, visualizers, virtual reality, and webcams. These are useful for recording work, associated progress, and tutorial resources, as are platforms aimed at whole school monitoring of progress, including sharing important information such as special educational needs and expected progress. Others, such as interactive whiteboards and CAD/CAM equipment can be expensive and therefore are not always available in every technology classroom. Electronic media is also becoming more commonplace in education—for example, blogs, podcasts, collaborative software, and e-portfolios are often used to good effect to share ideas and allows for students to access at them their own pace. It is important that digital technologies are not used for the sake of it but to recognize that at the right time they have value. As with students, not all teachers embrace digital technologies in the same way or at the same pace and as with students some of the strategies outlined in this chapter would benefit colleagues who are finding using the technologies stressful. Often when training staff on new computer systems, the follow-my-leader style of teaching mentioned before is used. Left click here, right click here, move to this screen, and so on. Where colleagues are not at the same ability and confidence level, some will experience anxiety and there may be whispered pleas for help—where the more able may also get distracted helping the others. Simple steps such as providing prompts for less confident colleagues—such as a list of common vocabulary, some “how to” video clips, or help sheets that could be accessed alone or to work through with students when needed—could alleviate potential concerns. In turn the teacher should become more willing to interact with the technology and will present a more open and relaxed attitude in using technologies.

Reflective Task Reflecting on lessons you have experienced recently, where would using digital technology have been helpful? And/or have you used a digital technology in a recent lesson, where perhaps a non-digital alternative would have been better.

Summary Digital technologies are embedded in our daily lives, and are particularly relevant to and in technology education. They encompass a very wide variety of applications and outcomes and simply cannot all be taught in-depth in most technology curricula. Reasoned consideration for what needs to be achieved at various stages in the technology curriculum should be the basis for what and why you teach it, with sensible and 301

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

progressive sequencing built into lesson planning (e.g., visual programming applications in the younger years and moving on to the more complex language-based programming applications later) and consideration given to what other subject areas are teaching (e.g., media studies may teach animation so you may choose to focus on drawing packages, teaching 2D drawing). Although the global pandemic of the early 2020s increased the use of technologies in education, attitudes still vary greatly among students and teachers. However, there are several ways to alleviate the stresses and promote resilience, therefore providing the how to teaching digital technologies. Reframing “mistakes” as learning while reconsidering what a successful outcome is relieves some of the concerns. Using digital technologies to teach can also benefit the learners by providing different ways to access information at different speeds to suit them. Breaking down tasks with varied start points for different students with recognition being given to that some elements can be provided that the learner builds on rather than starting from scratch is also an essential part of the planning process.

References Biskjaer, M. M., Christensen, B. T., Friis-Olivarius, M., Abildgaard, S. J. J., Lundqvist, C., & Halskov, K. (2020). How task constraints affect inspiration search strategies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 101–25. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​ -019​-09496​-7. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Chester, I. (2007). Teaching for CAD expertise. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(1), 23–35. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-006​-9015​-z. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Fisch, K., & Mcleod, S. (2007). Shift happens [video]. http://www​.teachertube​.com​/view​_video​ .php​?viewkey​=bbf​824c​98a1​278ffadc2​-66k (accessed November 11, 2007). Gershon, M. (2016). How to develop growth mindsets in the classroom. South Carolina: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform. Hirsh, E. D. (2016). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. London: Harvard Education Press. Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Ekvall, G., & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171–84. https://doi​.org​/10​.1207​/ S15326934CRJ1302​_5. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Student motivation in co-operative groups: Social interdependence theory. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136–76). Abingdon: Routledge. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallilmo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487–509. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0959​-4752(02)00042-7.

302

Digital Learning

Lucas, B. (2020). Digital creative skills: What are they? What does progression look like? How are they developed? What promising practices are there? London: Nesta. Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2017). Teaching creative thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing. Marsh, J. (2010). Childhood, culture and creativity: A literature review. Newcastle upon Tyne: Creativity, Culture and Education. Musta’amal, A. H., Norman, E. W. L., & Hodgson, T. (2009). Gathering empirical evidence concerning links between computer aided design (CAD) and creativity. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(2), 53–66. https://ojs​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/DATE​ /article​/view​/249. Nemorin, S. (2017). The frustrations of digital fabrication: an auto/ethnographic exploration of ‘3D making’ in school. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 27(4), 517–35. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-016​-9366​-z. OECD (2019). PISA 2021 creative thinking framework (Third Draft). https://www​.oecd​.org​/pisa​/ publications​/PISA​-2021​-creative​-thinking​-framework​.pdf (accessed April 10, 2021). Terwel, J. (2003) Cooperative learning in secondary education: a curriculum perspective. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 54–68). Abingdon: Routledge. Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winn, D. (2020). Pedagogies for enabling the use of digital technologies. In P. Williams & D. Barlex (Eds.), Pedagogy for technology education in secondary schools (pp. 121–34). Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland. Winn, D., & Banks, F. (2012). CAD and Creativity: A new pedagogy. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), PATT26 conference: Technology education in the 21st century, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, June 26–30 (pp. 488–96). https://ep​.liu​.se​/ecp​ /073​/ecp12073​.pdf.

303

Chapter 22

Interdisciplinary Learning New Perspectives on Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning: Shifting Pedagogies of the Profession and the Muddy Puddle of STEM Teacher Associational Fluency Michael A. de Miranda

Introduction Many STEM concepts, especially those learned in the critical formative years of grade 6–12 education (age ten to seventeen years), are abstract in nature, often taught in “silos” or unrelated course offerings that are frequently disconnected from other STEM or humanities/social science course content. Interdisciplinary learning is a multifaceted concept where (when interjected into an already loosely coupled relationship between teaching and learning in STEM subjects) the problem of meaningful cross-disciplinary instruction, learning, and cognition is compounded. The teaching of decontextualized concepts and content, apart from authentic applications, further makes learning difficult for younger students. In addition, few quality opportunities to learn exist within K–12 education for students to apply STEM learning in contextually situated, authentic learning-in-doing inquiry and interdisciplinary-design-driven environments. Combining these factors with student misconceptions of what engineering and technology education practice is results in less than optimal instructional models, leading to student attrition and low perceived value for learning STEM subjects (Adelman, 1998; Berliner, 1990). This chapter will explain, in a deliberately speculative way, why teacher content knowledge, activity, and situations/contexts are integral to cognition and learning in STEM. In addition, it will explore how different ideas or teachers’ decisions about what is an appropriate learning activity produce very different results. This stance suggests that we defeat our own goals of teaching usable, robust knowledge, by ignoring the situated nature of interdisciplinary pedagogy and cognition in engineering and

Interdisciplinary Learning

technology education. And, conversely, approaches such as cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1989) that embed learning in activity and make deliberate use of the social and physical context are more in line with the understanding of learning and cognition that is emerging from research in engineering and technology education. The high abstractness, low perceived value, utility, and disconnection from applications, triggers a decrease in confidence and aversion to learning basic interdisciplinary STEM (iSTEM) concepts among young learners. This trend is continuing in the foreseeable future and it can be attributed to several factors: ●

●

●

The traditional teaching of social science and humanities, math, physics, and engineering and technology education concepts are isolated. Each discipline operates within its own “silo.” Students do not see the relationship of what is taught to what they are interested in learning (Katehi et al., 2009); Early engineering and technology education students fail to identify with and become part of the engineering and technology community through practice, inclusion, and engagement (Atman et al., 2008); Only small populations of students find themselves attracted to study engineering and technology and have never experienced doing research or engaged in design problems (Felder & Brent, 2005).

Addressing these significant factors in the learning of iSTEM has proven tenuous— especially in coming to know, experience, and integrate engineering and technology practices with other disciplines. However, becoming an active contributor to the STEM learning continuum is an imperative that engineering and technology teacher education must address. Our challenge is to lead a shift in the paradigmatic approach to learning and instruction, within a well-entrenched educational system that will embrace interdisciplinary teaching and learning across school subjects.

Shifting Forces Impacting Engineering and Technology Education The recent release of content frameworks like the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STL) in the United States marks a significant shift in the core concepts and approaches guiding STEM education content in the coming years (NGSS, 2013; ITEEA, 2020). Most notable, in NGSS standards, is the inclusion of engineering and technology concepts in a framework that emphasizes three major dimensions for K–12 education, grounded in practices and inquiry: (1) scientific and engineering practices; (2) crosscutting concepts that unify the study of STEM contents through their common application across fields; 305

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

and (3) core ideas in across disciplinary areas. The repositioning of engineering and technology content within science education brings to light new opportunities and challenges, when conceptualizing the design and delivery of instruction in iSTEM subjects. Moreover, realizing the full potential of the NGSS, and the newly revised STL, will require new conceptions of learning and instruction to be adopted; to include the richness of unifying practice, inquiry, and design across interdisciplinary STEM concepts and contexts. Integrating the three dimensions that cover traditional STEM fields of study, interlaced with social, societal, and humanities, will challenge our traditional notions of learning and instruction in technology education. Integrating the three dimensions could prove elusive. However, approaches informed by research on teaching and learning from cognitive sciences, combined with rigorous methodological approaches to measuring student learning within the three dimensions could yield promising results. Bruer (1993), in the seminal Schools for Thought, argued that “the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAPE; often referred to as the Nation’s report card) results indicate that current curricula, teaching methods and instructional materials successfully impart facts and rote skills to most students but fail to impart high-order reasoning and learning skills” (p. 5). This statement continues to resonate today as it did in the 1990s. Other researchers have explored transforming the classroom from “work sites where students perform assigned tasks under management of teachers into communities of learning and interpretation, where students are given significant opportunity to take charge of their own learning . . . attempting to engineer an innovative educational environment” (Brown, 1992, p. 141).

STEM Content Knowledge The conceptualization of a new perspective on iSTEM learning must reach beyond traditional notions of teacher pedagogical content knowledge. We must be willing to embrace well-researched areas of teaching and learning from the cognitive sciences, alongside content frameworks across the STEM and social science disciplines. There is ample compatibility between models of classroom learning and teaching informed by research from the cognitive sciences and the new frameworks vision to actively engage students in scientific and engineering and practices and apply crosscutting concepts to deepen their understanding of the core ideas in these fields. In addition, this new perspective sets a goal of students gaining sufficient knowledge of the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas of technology, society, science, and engineering to engage in public discussions about these subjects and communicate their understanding of practices in these fields (NGSS, 2013; ITEEA, 2020). One approach to this transformation process can be addressed through the positioning of technology (and engineering) education as an integral component of STEM education. 306

Interdisciplinary Learning

For many years technology education alone struggled to establish itself as an equal partner in general education and was often unable to gain recognition for its value in the curriculum. Often technology educators made claims about the effectiveness of their hands-on “making” programs, based on anecdotal evidence gathered from their classroom experiences, reflecting how their instructional methods empower students to learn. Today’s engineering and technology education originated without any meaningful input from cognitive science research. However, it appears that engineering and technology education practices advocated in the new K–12 science education framework (in the United States) and the call for interdisciplinary learning are remarkably consonant with findings from cognitive science that defines good instruction, such as team and small group problem-solving activities, “jigsaw” methods (distributed/shared expertise) of instruction like those applied in a manufacturing activity, design problems, and projectbased learning. De Miranda (2004) asserted that the foundations of cognitively based models of instruction hold four elements of learning in common across the various instructional strategies: ● ●

●

●

Students learn to engage actively with the learning process and content. Through the instructional design, students learn to reflect and use existing structures of knowledge to guide and further their learning. Students learn to interact in classrooms or communities of learning, where knowledge and information are shared openly in an environment that values participation and interaction between students, teachers, and sources of knowledge outside the classroom. The engineering component of learning and instruction emphasizes the process and design of solutions instead of the solutions themselves.

Holding these foundational concepts central to interdisciplinary learning allows students to explore mathematics, science, and social science subjects in more personalized contexts, while helping them to develop the critical thinking and reflection skills that can be applied to all aspects of their work and academic lives. The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) has continually promoted the notion that engineering design, by its very nature, is a pedagogical strategy that promotes learning across disciplines (Roozenberg & Cross, 1991). One good definition of the engineering design process is that it is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which scientific and mathematical knowledge are applied to convert, or transform, resources optimally to meet human needs and wants. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation (Schubert et al., 2009). Most important element is when instruction is organized to promote cross-disciplinary interaction, critical debate, design solution finding, and problem focus, without 307

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

classroom or school boundaries. The ethos of the learning environment is fundamentally changed from knowledge transmission sites to sites of discourse, knowledge sharing, and coming to know and learn how knowledge is applied and shared (Brown, 1992).

iSTEM Associational Fluency— Teachers and Instruction The iSTEM approach includes instructional approaches and complex classroom interventions that interweave content and learning experiences among and between any of the STEM subjects and the humanities, including the social and societal nature of engineering and technology education. Learning-in-doing, through integrated design problems, enables the learner to apply the “thinking tools” from various STEM knowledge structures (e.g., humanities, arts, mathematics, or physics principles) on demand, when needed. This is iSTEM “associational fluency,” where teacher and students thinking crosses content borders begin to mirror expert engineering and technology practice. Prior research with students indicates that they often view science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as separate fields, and thus perceive relatively low levels of integration across STEM disciplines (Hernandez et al., 2014), a topic we will examine more closely later in this chapter. Furthermore, this research has shown that engaging students in long-term projects that integrate across STEM disciplines, emphasizing situated cognitive contexts, is impactful on those that have relatively low perceptions of the integrated nature of STEM (de Miranda, 2017).

Theoretical Considerations for Teacher Education Instead of focusing on what to teach students, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) focuses on the strategies employed in teaching, those strategies that bring about the best learning experience for every learner. PCK involves knowing how to take advantage of different teaching approaches that make a learning experience most suitable for the learners; integrating the teacher’s knowledge, specific content, and curriculum with relevant pedagogical approaches. This includes being flexible and adjusting instruction to account for various learning styles, abilities, and interests. Knowing how to best teach a concept so that the learners receive the best learning experience speaks to the essence of PCK. The different teaching approaches employed will vary from teacher to teacher, and from differing contexts, but invariably will revolve around similar principles for each approach. The notion of PCK was first introduced to the field of education by the Knowledge Growth in Teaching (KGT) project (Shulman, 1986). The focus of the project was 308

Interdisciplinary Learning

to study a broader perspectives on the understanding of teaching and learning. The KGT project studied how novice teachers gained new understandings of their content, and how these new understandings interacted with their teaching. The researchers of the KGT project described PCK as the knowledge of three knowledge bases coming together to inform teacher practice: subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context. Subject-matter content knowledge is described as knowledge that is unique to teachers and separates, for example a teacher of technology from an engineer or technologist. Along the same lines, Cochran et al. (1993) differentiated between a teacher and a content specialist in the following manner: Teachers differ from biologists, historians, writers, or educational researchers, not necessarily in the quality or quantity of their subject-matter knowledge, but in how that knowledge is organized and used. For example, experienced science teachers’ knowledge of science is structured from a teaching perspective and is used as a basis for helping students to understand specific concepts. A scientist’s knowledge, on the other hand, is structured from a research perspective and is used as a basis for the construction of new knowledge in the field. (p. 5) Geddis (1993) described PCK as a set of attributes that helped someone transfer the knowledge of content to others. According to Shulman it includes the “most useful forms of representation of these ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (1987, p. 9). In addition, Shulman suggests that PCK is made up of the attributes a teacher possesses that help her/him guide students toward an understanding of specific content in a manner that is meaningful. Shulman argued that PCK included “an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, presented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (p.8). In light of what engineering and technology teachers should know and be able to do, Shulman argued that pedagogical content knowledge was the best knowledge base for teaching, and suggests: The key to distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy, in the capacity of a teacher to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by the students. (p. 15) In technology education, we have an opportunity to seize on the powerful “intersection” described by Shulman. Our intersectional teaching moments occur when STEM knowledge needed to engage in the analytical aspects of design (including knowledge of design processes, social, environmental, contextual, and human factors) combines with the pedagogical practices of making in the technology classroom to form a unique teaching opportunity. The PCK model for engineering and technology education first published by de Miranda (2017) hinges on the ability of teachers to transform knowledge into adaptive instruction to engage students. The model helps to capture the 309

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

complex relationship between content knowledge, knowledge of teaching, context, and their interaction in an engineering and technology education instructional setting. The PCK model helps to illustrate how contexts, content, and practices of the teacher intersect, with knowledge required to introduce engineering concepts in classroom instruction. This knowledge combined with a teacher’s general knowledge of pedagogy helps to contribute to a specialized (or signature) pedagogy in technology education. In addition, this specialized knowledge is often highly contextualized in the form of authentic application of knowledge to design problems that are bound by context and constraints. This is where the powerful nature of teaching and learning comes to life in the technology classroom. Students are often engaged in design-related problems that are not focused on a single, “correct” answer. Learners can be engaged collaboratively, in design teams, where multiple perspectives and the individual student strengths can be utilized. In some cases, the design problem or challenge is well suited for the jigsaw learning approach, where each student in the group contributes a specialized form of knowledge and expertise to the whole group. In this model of learning, no single person holds all the knowledge needed for a proposed solution, but collectively they provide a cohesive solution. However, progress in thinking about integrated iSTEM teaching—that includes subjects from the social sciences, humanities, and arts, alongside STEM concepts— greatly complicates teaching, teachers’ knowledge, and pedagogy. A matter that we will need to think deeply about and perhaps adopt different approaches to teaching and learning in an interdisciplinary learning environment.

Interdisciplinary Teaching in STEM Education: A New Complexity in an Already Challenged Field Interdisciplinary teaching can have a number of advantages for teachers and students: ●

●

●

●

It allows students to develop an awareness of the interconnectedness that exists among and between disciplines, through authentic application of knowledge. It focuses on higher-level thinking and decision-making, which encourages students to become aware of and make choices about actions and thought processes they will be engaged in while learning. It gives students greater control of their learning and encourages them to assess and set goals for what needs to be accomplished to complete objectives. It motivates students with the knowledge that what they are learning has immediate utility and value applied to their lives and that of others.

Interdisciplinary instruction requires us to understand our preconceptions of “what is” and provides a framework by which we can navigate disciplinary knowledge. It also fits 310

Interdisciplinary Learning

with recent advances in learning science about how to foster learning when students bring powerful pre-existing ideas with them to the learning process. Bransford et al. (2000), drawing on scientific research findings from the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, social psychology, and human development, assert that interdisciplinary forms of instruction help students overcome a tendency to maintain prior misconceptions and misunderstandings. This is accomplished by recognizing the source of the preexisting understandings they arrive with and by introducing students to subject matter from a variety of perspectives that challenge their existing notions. Bransford argues that interdisciplinary instruction accomplishes this goal in two ways. First, by helping students identify insights from a range of disciplines that contribute to an understanding of the issue under consideration. Second, by helping students develop the ability to integrate concepts and ideas from these disciplines into a broader conceptual framework of analysis. Engaging students in iSTEM can help them to develop knowledge, insights, problem-solving skills, self-confidence, self-efficacy, and a passion for learning. These are common goals that educators bring to interdisciplinary instruction and exploration in design and problem-solving activities that promote realization of these objectives.

Figure 22.1 iSTEM pedagogy contexts and content in engineering and technology education instruction. 311

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

While the benefit to student learning in an interdisciplinary environment can be quite convincing, the challenge arises when pre-service or early career teachers are asked to deliver iSTEM instruction. Figure 22.1 attempts to capture the expanding dimensions of iSTEM PCK placed on the “pedagogical load” of the teacher. It illustrates the increased complexity of an iSTEM teaching environment.

Achieving iSTEM Associational Fluency—Teachers and Instruction The integrated iSTEM approach to STEM education requires instructional approaches and complex classroom interventions that interweave content and learning experiences among and between any of the STEM (or other) school subjects, content, and contexts. iSTEM “associational fluency” is a cognitive growth process in which a teacher can look at any given problem or project in a subject area, and easily make content and context connections with other STEM subject areas. This skillful complex cognitive process creates opportunities for the students to not just work on one dimension of a project, in isolation from other subjects, but as an integrated project that combines one or more STEM disciplines. In students, this can also be characterized as STEM “associational fluency,” where students thinking crosses content borders and begins to mirror expert engineering thinking and practice. For example, when students learn about digital circuit design using logic gates, they are often challenged to design a traffic light for an intersection/junction. Students know from contextual experiences of daily life that a green light indicates permission to pass through the intersection and red indicates stop, do not pass. However, when designing their digital traffic light system, students learn to use a Boolean algebra truth table. The logic gate truth table shows each possible input combination to the gate (or circuit), with the resultant output depending upon the combination of the input(s). Working on their traffic light design problem, students quickly begin to associate the control of a traffic light with mathematics. They soon begin to understand why it becomes mathematically impossible for all lights to turn green at the same time. Another example of iSTEM associational fluency is when students are asked why they fasten their seat belt upon entering a vehicle preparing to drive away. Many students respond that it is because it is a law (social policy) to have fastened seat belts worn by all passengers in a vehicle when in motion. Another student with a developing level of fluency might mention that a moving vehicle represents one body in motion, and each passenger in the vehicle represents a separate body in motion. Having learned in their iSTEM lesson related to Newton’s second law often stated as F = ma, which means the force (F) acting on an object is equal to the mass (m) of an object times its acceleration (a). A vehicle stopping abruptly when crashing into a wall will not stop the passengers, as they are still accelerating and would soon be thrust against the inside of the vehicle 312

Interdisciplinary Learning

unless they are tethered (or seat belted) to the vehicle and deaccelerate in unison with the car. Prior research with students indicates that they often view STEM subjects as separate fields and thus perceive relatively low levels of integration across STEM disciplines. However, research among high school students indicates that engaging in classroom-based projects that vertically and horizontally integrate applications of math, science, and engineering with other subjects improves students’ appreciation of the integrated nature of these disciplines (Hernandez et al., 2014). But how can engineering and technology teachers design and deliver vertically and horizontally integrated instruction within the complex framework of interdisciplinary teaching and learning within the contexts and content in engineering and technology instruction, depicted in Figure 25.1? The problem of domain-specific knowledge, context, and teacher competence to teach in a meaningful integrated environment is not new to our field. Lewis and Zuga (2005) took up the question of domain knowledge and teacher competence required for technology teachers to teach engineering design. For example, Lewis and Zuga state that design in technology education often shows itself in the form of a space to be spanned by a bridge, a tall tower to be built, or a structure that will bear load. Students compete to see which individual or group has built the tallest tower, has constructed the longest bridge, or has gotten its structure to bear the most weight. Often the teaching episode ends when a winner is identified, without students gaining understanding of the reasons behind the success or failure of their attempts. This kind of rote approach to design, Lewis and Zuga emphasize, misrepresents and grossly simplifies the task of the engineer, and perhaps more critically, it inhibits student creative performance, a critical aspect of which is possession of requisite content knowledge (p.64). Lewis and Zuga also take up the notion of teacher competence, questioning the amount of domain-specific knowledge necessary to effectively teach with a domain and further argue that technology teachers should also possess some competence in mathematics and science. These discussions raised serious questions regarding the redesigning of technology education teacher preparation programs to prepare preservice teachers to infuse STEM concepts and design into the technology education classroom, and adequately represent engineering content in a valid and reliable manner. Could we be headed toward a similar outcome in discussing interdisciplinary learning and instruction in technology education?

Teachers Teaching Together: An Experiment in Distributed iSTEM PCK PCK research has important messages for the teaching and learning in technology education and the infusion of STEM concepts into the curriculum. However, is the 313

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

focus too much on advancement, rather than application of generic educational theories? Commenting on criteria used for evaluation of teaching, Shulman (1986) asked, “Where did the subject matter go? What happened to the content?” Of course, we should attempt to advance educational theory in the same way that any other discipline does “pure research.” But surely advances in theory of a discipline have only one purpose: to reflect back on, and improve, the practice of that discipline. Is the time ripe to think through what we now know about student learning, in conjunction with analysis of what it means to understand particular concepts in technology education within an interdisciplinary context? Can we generate useful interdisciplinary pedagogical practices, specifically tailored for each disciplinary learning concept and then assess student learning (i.e., the effectiveness of these practices) through research? This would correspond with the notion of “applied research” in the engineering and technology teacher preparation field. A clue to the future may be represented in the following thoughts from Fensham and Kass (1988). There are two primary and interacting sources of events in instruction in engineering and technology education that can lead to inconsistency or discrepancy for its learners. The first is the science or the nature of the technology itself. The second is the teaching of the technology under study and its varied forms of application, context, and pure knowledge of the content. The interaction between these two sources is obvious, but it is often ignored in the education of engineering and technology teachers. Perhaps a productive path for us to travel is to examine more critically the concept of PCK and what it means (or could mean) to the preparation of future engineering and technology teachers. Could the preparation to co-teach with colleagues from different disciplines (a type of distributed PCK) prove fruitful in redesigning how interdisciplinary STEM content could be taught?

An Example from the Field To examine this notion further, an interdisciplinary Teachers Teaching Together intervention was conducted in four high schools (grades 9–12); comprised of classes that worked together to address a design problem that mirrored a biomedical sensor design research project, which sought to unlock the understanding of how early developing embryonic brain cells communicate. To make the classroom design challenge mirror the real-life research project, four teacher teams from School 1 (Anatomy & physiology; engineering and technology; geometry); School 2 (engineering and technology; geometry; general physics); School 3 (biology; statistics; engineering and technology); and School 4 (calculus; general and Advanced Placement physics; engineering and technology). Teacher teams consisting of math, science, and engineering and technology teachers gathered during the summer prior to the intervention to co-plan and blueprint (map)

314

Interdisciplinary Learning

Figure 22.2  Teachers co-planning interdisciplinary content. the subject-matter content (Figure 22.2). The blueprinting process made explicit the specific learning concepts, defined and operationalized the content, identifying: ● ● ●

the level of knowledge learning desired; common student misconceptions related to the concept(s) being learned; test items associated with measuring the content.

Teachers then created and shared the assessments used to measure student learning. Subject-matter experts (using a content validation protocol) reviewed each assessment item for alignment and confidence of content being assessed; relevance and appropriateness of items to content being assessed; accuracy of identified correct answer; and distractors within the items that could align with known student misconceptions (Hernandez et al., 2014). This interdisciplinary teaching experiment examined the impact of a complex iSTEM classroom intervention that addresses several “game changing” factors that could influence iSTEM learning: 1. Mathematics, science, and engineering and technology teachers worked collaboratively to blueprint their individual curriculum and built content matrices that identified intersections that would reinforce the application in authentic practice. 2. Students worked in interdisciplinary design teams made up of students from each of the three content classrooms. 315

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

3. The intervention was designed to enable long-term engagement of sixteen to twenty-four weeks in duration to design experimental test beds and formally present a solution.

The Design Problem Intervention The intervention used in this study translated the activities from the active interdisciplinary biomedical engineering research program. The research consisted of activities in silicon nano scale sensor design. To mirror the practice of this interdisciplinary research, students participating in this study were challenged to design and test sensing-related problems of their choice. For example, teams made up of math, anatomy/physiology, and engineering and technology students designed bicycle helmets fitted with sensors to test impact absorption and collect data related to helmet materials and design to reduce the force transferred to the head. Students were required to conduct research, design experiments, and engineer test beds that enabled them to execute their experiments and collect data. Prior to the intervention implementation, teachers administered pre-tests. Then the intervention was implemented in each classroom. After the completion, teachers administered post-tests. Finally, and concurrent with post-tests, the student design teams developed and presented final posters at a schoolwide iSTEM symposium, mirroring a research conference poster presentation. Each team presented two posters, a scientific and engineering and technology poster and an interdisciplinary poster that analyzed social or environmental data and considerations explored within their research and design solutions. The student posters were then evaluated using a rubric that focused on the curriculum content blueprint of student learned outcomes created by the interdisciplinary team of teachers during the initial planning phase of the intervention.

So, What Do We Think Happened? Students engaged in long-term team-based engineering design problems that emphasize interdisciplinary inquiry, design, testing, and making activities in a natural platform for the integration of iSTEM content into classrooms. In the example intervention, we reported on an engineering design-based intervention that bridged the gap between the new integrated science standards (including engineering design) and well-researched models of teaching and learning from the cognitive sciences. One of the primary goals of this project was to transform student understanding of the co-dependent interdisciplinary nature of STEM content knowledge. However, the measurement of such knowledge to date has been elusive and remains one of the key challenges to our field—that is, how to measure interdisciplinary student learning. Nonetheless, this incremental progress has taught us some important lessons. 316

Interdisciplinary Learning

A key finding from this work indicated a positive change in student perceptions of the co-dependent interdisciplinary nature of STEM content knowledge. We addressed this issue by comparing student perceptions in a pre-test with their perceptions in a post-test. Our analysis indicated that, overall, students did not exhibit significant change in their perceptions; however, probing our data further indicated a surprising pattern of results. More specifically, our data indicate that the intervention was most effective with students who started with low perceptions of the interrelated nature of STEM knowledge. It appears consistent across two studies conducted by the author that long-term participation in an authentic engineering design problem cultivated connections for those students who initially saw the fewest connections and benefits of iSTEM content knowledge. Although far from conclusive, this finding is promising in that interventions such as this may help to spur student understanding of the utility of, interest in, and engagement in iSTEM knowledge, particularly for those students who are the least engaged. Future studies of similar interventions should closely examine the initial STEM connections at different points on the continuum.

iSTEM PCK and the Hall of Mirrors—Solved Reflecting on the many calls for greater interdisciplinary teaching and learning across STEM subjects (and other disciplines within the arts, humanities, and social sciences), it has become imperative to take seriously what is being asked of a classroom teacher in post elementary teaching, considering the multiple classroom content and contexts presented in Figure 25.1. Within a classroom environment, each of the components of iSTEM pedagogy, contexts, and content in technology education instruction becomes quite complex. If we look even deeper at the individual learner or teacher level, the interactions between content, pedagogy, and contexts become exponentially greater. As engineering and technology teachers, if we attempt to attend to each interaction, we will enter a “hall of mirrors” that would extend into infinity. Quite conceivably we must ask ourselves, are we asking too much from an individual teacher? Or are we looking at this teaching and learning challenge all wrong? Perhaps what is required is a paradigm shift in thinking about interdisciplinary learning as the domain of a single teacher, but rather requiring new models of collaborative instruction among multidisciplinary teachers, and a renewed look at how the curriculum is taught. The Teachers Teaching Together (or T-3) model of iSTEM, presented earlier, holds promise in several areas: 1. The pedagogical and content load of iSTEM instruction is distributed among teachers from different disciplines. 2. Learners immersed in interdisciplinary activities experience-related problems, with each discipline adopting different approaches to analysis and evaluation in their insights and problem-solving. 317

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

3. Obtaining a clear understanding of problems, rooted in multiple disciplines, requires the capacity to integrate ideas, and this skill is advanced through interdisciplinary learning. 4. iSTEM learning takes place when meaningful and lasting classroom experiences occur over time across school subjects. 5. Students recognize that there are a variety of perspectives that can be brought to bear in an effort to understand most issues and solve problems. 6. Thus, they find interdisciplinary forms of exploration more compelling, which promotes engagement and learning. Bringing teachers together to plan and design meaningful interdisciplinary instruction and learning need not be overly stressful or time consuming. Second, the synthesis of insights from across disciplines, the most demanding element of interdisciplinary teaching, is an activity that can be shared and learned, modest effort. Finally, instructors can determine the proportion of their courses that are interdisciplinary, so they include an appropriate level of interdisciplinarity, based on their experience with this form of teaching and the nature of the course they are leading.

Implications for Teacher Education Effective design and implementation of interdisciplinary classroom interventions, regardless of the level or type of class, will entail engineering and technology teachers adopting practices to facilitate robust teaching and learning. These practices can include: 1. Pre-instructional planning: prior planning, including identification of the concepts and desired-learning outcomes that are shared with teachers, and establishing the topics to be examined in an interdisciplinary manner. 2. Prepare your students to learn differently: explain to students the nature of interdisciplinary compared to disciplinary learning. Impress upon them the importance of integrating insights and approaches from multiple disciplines to form a framework of analysis that will lead to a rich understanding of complex questions. Reduce student fears by noting they will be given assignments that help them reach this objective by practicing approaching topics as interdisciplinary investigators. 3. Take it to the classroom: model how to explore questions from an interdisciplinary perspective. The shared content blueprints will allow individual teachers to connect content learning across the participating interdisciplinary classrooms. 4. Model interdisciplinary thinking: students practice interdisciplinary thinking by modeling what they observe in professional settings. Invite experts from the field to share with students how design teams work in business and industry. Students 318

Interdisciplinary Learning

observing teachers within their own school, working together across disciplinary lines, reinforces the importance of content connections. Students can be assigned the task of rethinking an issue discussed in a discipline-based manner in class by bringing another discipline to bear and then by attempting to synthesize and integrate their analysis. Students can be asked to prepare interdisciplinary design questions, considerations, constraints, and factors to be considered from other perspectives. 5. Collaborative learning: collaborative forms of learning can be used to promote the development of interdisciplinary skills, such as breaking into groups in class to explore ways to approach design problems, in an interdisciplinary fashion. 6. Provide qualitative feedback: student design notebooks or journals should be used and evaluated regularly, through an interdisciplinary lens. The aim should be to provide the students with feedback on their reflections and develop their ability to understand and connect multiple disciplinary perspectives, content, and frameworks (multidisciplinary thinking) and to produce an integrated analysis (interdisciplinary thinking). The goal is for students to improve their capacity to think in an interdisciplinary manner over the course of the project. 7. Formative assessment: students should be allowed time to engage in self-evaluation periodically by rating their ability to consider and evaluate multiple disciplines that are well suited to the problem or design of interests. This information will allow them to gauge their progress, identify challenging areas, to seek help, and set goals for improvement. Engaging students and helping them to develop knowledge, insights, problem-solving skills, self-confidence, self-efficacy, and a passion for learning are common goals that educators bring to the classroom, and interdisciplinary instruction and exploration promote realization of these objectives. Interdisciplinary design-based instruction helps students develop their cognitive abilities, brain-based making skills, and team-oriented processes that are needed to carry out design tasks and problem-based learning challenges.

Summary This chapter has attempted to open a new conversation and thinking about teachers acquiring a new form of interdisciplinary pedagogical content knowledge (IPCK) framed as iSTEM Associational Fluency. A model presented in Figure 25.1 gave cause to question whether a single teacher could effectively be able to bear the pedagogical load of interdisciplinary instruction. An account of the T-3 intervention was explored and uncovered how collectively, with thoughtful planning and an interdisciplinary design challenge, meaningful iSTEM instruction could be achieved in a distributed learning environment across school subjects. 319

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Engineering and technology teachers are well aware that there is more than one way to solve a problem. This is why interdisciplinary teaching and learning approaches are so well suited for the engineering and technology classroom. In a number of countries, interdisciplinary learning is becoming a key component in helping students develop critical thinking skills to see the multitude of solutions to complex problems. When students dive deeply into a subject, engaging with different perspectives and using multiple disciplines to study it, they begin to develop a sense of value and utility of solving interdisciplinary problems. It also gives students a broader understanding of the content knowledge because it requires them to study conflicting insights from different disciplines. And when students examine different perspectives regarding the same or similar problems, they also get a grasp of the reasoning behind each perspective. The technology education classroom is an ideal setting to lead interdisciplinary learning efforts in our schools. The needed leadership to adopt, experiment, and try these transformational approaches can come from engineering and technology teachers, only if we dare to become “difference makers.”

References Adelman, C. (1998). Women and men of the engineering path: A model for analyses of undergraduate career [report]. Washington, DC: National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning. ISBN 0-16-049551-2. Atman, C. J., Sheppard, S., Fleming, L., Miller, R., Smith, K., Stevens, R., Streveler, R., LoucksJaret, C., & Lund, D. (2008). Moving from pipeline thinking to understanding pathways: Findings from the academic pathways study of engineering undergraduates. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). New York: Teachers College Press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–78. Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of teacher Education, 44(4), 263–72. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–94). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. de Miranda, M. A. (2004). The grounding of a discipline: Cognition and instruction in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 61–77.

320

Interdisciplinary Learning

de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Pedagogical content knowledge for technology education. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (Springer International Handbooks of Education). Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-319​ -38889​-2​_47​-1. de Miranda, M. A. (2017, July). Impact of long-term design problems in a team based context on student iSTEM associational fluency. Proceedings of the Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology, 34, 14–25. Philadelphia, PA. Available at https://www​.iteea​.org​/File​.aspx​?id​ =115739​&v​=21dfd7a. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72. Fensham, P. J., & Kass, H. (1988). Inconsistent or discrepant events in science instruction. Studies in Science Education, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/03057268808559946. Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject‐matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 673–83. Hernandez, P., Bodin, R., Elliott, J., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Chen, T., & de Miranda, M. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 1–14. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-013​-9241​-0. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www​.iteea​.org​/STEL​.aspx. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education. Committee on K–12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies. Lewis, T., & Zuga, K. F. (2005). A conceptual framework of ideas and issues in technology education. National Science Foundation. http://ctete​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2016​/03​/ LewisZuga​.Con​cept​ualF​ramework1​.pdf (accessed January 17, 2022). NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross, N. G. (1991). Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12(4), 215–20. Schubert, T., Jacobitz, F., & Kim, E. (2009), The engineering design process: An assessment of student perceptions and learning at the freshman level. Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

321

Chapter 23

Risky Learning How to Master a Risk and Safety in Technology Education Learning and Working Environments Eila Lindfors

Introduction Risk and Safety in Technology Education In contemporary educational literature, risk is often associated with creativity and risktaking, rather than the risks associated with health and safety. Teaching and learning in technology education (TE) is carried out in materially and technologically rich learning environments, including various workshops, spaces, and laboratories. TE learning tasks (projects and processes) presuppose use of tools and machines (e.g., a forge), various materials and/or chemicals (e.g., mild steel) in experiential, hands-on learning processes. However, very little is known about safety culture, incidents, and near-misses that happen at schools and procedures for tackling hazards in TE. To fill the gap, this chapter explores the benefits and limitations of risks associated with the learning environments in which TE is enacted. There are a wide range of types of TE learning and working environments (TELWE), including (but not limited to) workshops (wood, metal, multimedia, digital fabrication, etc.), studios (design, graphics, textiles, documentation, etc.), and laboratories (electronics, systems, computer, etc.). The spaces typically include basic workplaces for students working with hand, power, and machine tools; and there are various material technology-bound workstations in workshops, studios, and laboratories. In many cases, these spaces simulate aspects of real working environments, but there are also tensions between providing authentic environments, pedagogically suitable spaces, and minimizing unnecessary risk (Jaatinen & Lindfors, 2019). However, to enable authentic learning tasks instead of mere simulations and paper-and-glue prototypes, there is a need for real spaces with up-to-date equipment and machinery.

Risky Learning

Basic workshops should have a workplace for each student, configured for the main materials/technologies used and, if needed, separate workshops that allow for controlling noise, dust, temperature, and flammability or humidity. Some TE workshops and makerspaces combine these into one space if the noise level stays under 80 decibels and the ventilation allows for regulating the amount of harmful dust in the atmosphere. There are some workshops designed for specific kinds of work, such as sanding and gluing; painting and finishing; forging, laser cutting, and engraving; 3D printing and weaving. Usually, safety is considered to be an absence of hazards and risks, accidents and injuries. Safety is not seen a concern unless well-being is threatened. We can consider safety as a subjective experience or an objective measurement, such as audited level (Lindfors & Somerkoski, 2018). According to occupational and safety regulation, TE learning environments and spaces are seen as being equivalent to workplaces and working environments, in many countries. As students use hand, power, and machine tools when manipulating materials and fabricating creative solutions to technological problems, they learn by working hands-on. This is a distinct feature and equivalent to working spaces where occupational safety is a special concern defined by occupational safety regulation. For example, a guard is required on a bench/pillar drill to exclude fingers and clothing from the rotating chuck and the cutting edge of the bit, and students wear safety goggles/spectacles to prevent eye injuries. Also, there should be a safety area, marked on the floor that shows the unsafe working area for other students while the machine is in use. Other students are not allowed to enter this working area when a student is using the machine. In this way, the safety area allows for working without any disturbance by other students (Figure 23.1).

Figure 23.1  A pillar drill working station with guards and safety area. 323

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Despite hazards and risks in TELWEs there is also an educational benefit to students and young people being exposed to risk, and learning to think and act safely in potentially hazardous situations and environments under the guidance of a competent educator (Lindfors & Somerkoski, 2018). Since everyday life is full of hazards and presupposes risk monitoring all the time—for example, how it is safe to cut slices from a bread, which knife to use, how to handle the knife, from what direction to cut—it is not reasonable to build a TE workshop without any hazards. Even if we would try, students often find ways to use the equipment in non-standard or creative ways, that some hazards may not have been thought of beforehand! If there are no hazards to identify and monitor, the students will not learn how to assess risks and act safely. In this sense, manageable hazards and risks belong to TE and are part of safety training.

Technology Teacher as a Promoter of TE Safety Culture The technology educator is duty-bound to identify, assess, and control risk to learners (e.g., BSI, 2021) and on this basis to develop a safety culture in TELWEs (Leino & Lindfors, 2021). According to the incident data collected from the Finnish comprehensive system (Lindfors, 2020), technology teachers reported safety incidents that were moderate injuries and needed first aid at the school or medical aid at healthcare centers. Minor injuries like small wounds and bruises were not reported, since teachers took care of these with the students. Most typically the moderate injuries were “slips and slaps” in using hand tools, for example, a student was sawing metal with a hacksaw and wounded his hand. The school management is usually accountable for issues involving the setup and maintenance of machinery. In Finland, there was a case where a technology teacher and the school management and municipality were convicted when the student who was using a bandsaw cut a finger as a result of being disturbed by other students. It was evidenced in the court that the teacher briefed the student properly and the bandsaw was safe with the right guards. However, the teacher did not ensure that the other students do not disrupt the working student. The other examples include laser cutters or 3D-printing machines. Without a proper ventilation that removes harmful vapors or particulates from cutting/vaporizing and additive manufacturing processes, these machines may be unsafe to use and are harmful to health. Evidently, these are examples of how TE learning environments are also working environments, not just for teachers but also for students. For this reason, TE is a safety-critical subject (Lindfors & Somerkoski, 2018), and there is a serious concern about the occupational safety of students and teachers to identify and monitor hazards and assess risks, to prevent safety incidents, such as near-misses, accidents, and injuries (Lindfors, 2018, 2020). On this basis, the concept of the technology education learning and working environment (TELWE) is used in the following. 324

Risky Learning

In a case of a severe injury to a student in a TELWE, there will be an investigation by the relevant authorities, and the responsibilities and a level of safety culture will be examined. In this situation, the teacher, or the department, will be required to document prevention and preparedness measures (if not already in place), demonstrating that there is an appropriate safety culture in TELWEs and risk management is up to date. However, safety culture and risk perception are not maintained for possible injuries and their investigation. Instead, safety culture of TELWEs is maintained to prevent and manage as many hazards and risks as possible. If a hazard/risk results in an injury or accident, the teacher is expected to manage this as efficiently as possible, as well as to learn and develop the safety culture to prevent similar incidents in the future. In general, principals and teachers have organized learning environments as best as they can. However, to have a good safety culture in technology learning spaces, a technology teacher needs to understand the basic structure of the safety culture: prevention and preparedness, incident management, recovery, and safety management (Teperi et al., 2018), and most importantly the students must have an active role in maintaining and developing the safety culture, as part of their technology learning, through hands-on working. Based on earlier research (Ek et al., 2014; Espelage ym., 2014; Geller, 2011), it is well known that proactive efforts and procedures that aim at promoting safety in an organization develop a safety culture in practice. However, to update the safety culture in TE, there is a need not only for all teachers but also for the students to be committed in promoting safety; systemically and competently following procedures to consider and promote safety, as part of their daily work and learning. Monitoring hazards to understand the risks is not just a duty of a teacher, but part of the knowledge and skills necessary for a student that designs and works, makes and fabricates their projects to accomplish solutions to design and technology problems. Since, there is usually one group of students in TELWEs at a time, there must be common safety rules and instructions to be agreed and followed as part of safety education. For example, as noted earlier, a student does not enter to a safety area of a machine workstation if another student is working there. A key role for the technology teacher is the managing of the safety culture.

How to Maintain Safety Culture in TELWEs Teachers and Students Create a Safety Culture Together In TELWEs, teachers and students work together. The school safety culture definition recognizes a diversity of actors. A school is an organization that includes staff, students, and service companies. Members vary from very young learners, who are trying to figure out the world, to mature education experts, who should know and 325

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

notice safety and security issues of schools (Lindfors, 2020). It must be noted that a teacher is an expert and a professional, and students are novices. Students are studying how to use different kinds of tools and machines, how to follow safety regulations and instructions as well as to assess risks. Teachers have a responsibility to design learning environments and assignments—for example, using hand tools or working at machines or workstations—such that risks are manageable and tolerable, with no clear option for injuries or accidents. This means that in TELWEs, there must be strict safety instructions and protocols. It means that, as well as the teacher being responsible for students’ work and well-being, the students themselves must also be committed to following safety guidance while working hands-on. Also, their designs and solutions to learning assignments must be such that they do not contain any intolerable risks. A tolerable risk is a risk that can be minimized with safety procedures like with safety equipment and when actualizing it will not cause a severe injury. An intolerable risk is a risk that when actualizing it may cause a severe injury like a puncture, incision, or laceration to a hand, or damage to an eye, etcetera. The safety culture in TE is the culture of committing to understand safety, as a part of one’s everyday practice and a will to work and act safely to avoid hazards. It is also a culture of enhancing preventive actions in collaboration and cooperation with teachers and students, by identifying and monitoring the hazards and risks associated with classroom activities (Arezes & Miguel, 2003; Geller, 2011; Lindfors & Somerkoski, 2018; Reason, 2000). Safety culture presupposes that safety is discussed as a natural and integrated part of practices. From a physical viewpoint, a learning space and equipment can be safe. However, without proactive hazard identification, monitoring, and risk assessment, and without following safety instructions, it can be an unsafe and hazardous environment (Lindfors & Somerkoski, 2016). In the incident analysis carried out in Finland in 2017–18 in three Finnish comprehensive town schools (total number of 290 staff and 2,460 students), it was recognized that students invent various ways to use tools, equipment, and spaces creatively (Lindfors, 2020) and this might cause hazards that teachers do not expect. Teachers (as experts) usually consider hazards on the basis of typical and traditional use of tools and machines, but students (as novices) may use the tools and machines in an unexpected or atypical way. Teachers must take account that hazards in TE may be posed by using facilities and spaces against norms and instructions (see Somerkoski, 2017). For example, students might carve toward him/herself with a knife, or use a pillar drill without having long hair tied back and/or without safety spectacles or guards. The instructions should endeavor to speculate on possible unsafe or atypical uses of tools and machines, ensuring that instruction highlights the potential consequences of misuse of equipment. On this basis, teachers also must prepare to act in a situation where an accident or an injury happens. The safety culture in TE consists of collaborative actions of teachers and students, as well as the implementation of procedures that develop and promote a safe and secure learning and working environment. If there is no shared understanding of safety, as a 326

Risky Learning

value, or commitment to follow safety instructions (including monitoring hazards to prevent risks), there is no safety culture at all. If someone asks a technology teacher about the safety in his/her TELWE, and a teacher answers that the “safety is very good since, no incidents have happened,” it usually suggests that the teacher has no objective knowledge on what is happening. However, if the teacher can describe what typical near-misses and incidents are, how the incidents are prevented proactively, and what specific preventive measures are used, he/she demonstrates that there is a safety culture. For a teacher, it is important to recognize the safety culture to be able to understand its dimensions.

Dimensions of the Safety Culture The safety culture in a TELWE can be considered from physical, social, psychological, and pedagogical dimensions. The physical dimension is the spaces, laboratories, workshops—facilities with tools, materials, machines, and equipment—as well as the condition and maintenance of them. Machines and tools in a good condition are safer to use than the ones not working properly, for example, a knife or a bandsaw with a sharp cutting edge are safer, compared with an unsharpened/blunt cutting edge. Other examples include a digital fabrication suite where proper ventilation is important for keeping the air clean or a wet working space where suitable floor covering material is crucial in order to avoid slipping on water or other liquid spills. The social dimension is behavior of teacher and students in a TELWE. It is about socially acknowledged values, attitudes, and behaviors, and actions based on these. It is about social atmosphere and interactions between students and teachers—for example, how the students, as a group, could consider following safety instructions. The psychological dimension is about students’ and teachers’ personalities, motivation, knowledge, and skills, as well as experiences that are the basis for individual actions. For example, from earlier studies we know that 5–13 percent of boys and about 3 percent of girls display risky behaviors. They take unnecessary risks, and teachers should identify these students in advance to foster communication with them. According to many studies, good interaction between teachers and students is a precondition for good safety culture (Espelage ym., 2014; Köiv, 2014). The pedagogical dimension of safety culture is about the organization of teaching and the content and organization of learning opportunities, participation, relationships, rules, justice, responsibilities, peer support, and (in TE especially) the physical learning environment (Lindfors, 2021). The question is how to instruct occupational safety issues to students and maintain and develop safety culture in TELWEs. To consider this there is first a need to model safety culture and then discuss about which methods to use in maintaining and developing it.

327

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Modeling of the Safety Culture in a TELWE A model for safety culture management (Figure 23.2) is reworked after the EduSafe model that was developed as part of a larger Finnish school research-based safety project (EduSafe, 2018), to provide a tool for educational organizations to monitor, assess, manage, and develop their safety culture (Teperi et al., 2018). The model considers safety culture in four integrative units: preparedness and prevention, safety incident management, resilience and recovery, and safety culture management. In every TELWE there should be a safety (and security) plan, where safety measures and procedures are used to maintain and develop a safety culture. For example, in Finland, documentation of safety culture of TELWE must be included in the school safety plan that is mandatory for every school. There are only a few studies on modeling safety culture of TELWEs. In the Finnish TE subject teacher education unit there was a pilot study, based on safety documents, using EduSafe model as a theoretical frame (Leino & Lindfors, 2021). From the data, 63 percent of safety mentions considered preparedness and prevention. Altogether 28 percent of the mentions were related to safety management and 9 percent on the incident

Figure 23.2  The model for safety culture management in TE education. 328

Risky Learning

management. Recovery and resilience were not considered at all in the data. It must be noted that this was the result of document analysis, and did not include empirical data on experienced and lived safety culture in TELWEs. Based on the results it is important to consider safety culture of TELWEs to maintain and develop them systemically. In a school context, TE and TELWE is a very unique combination for the development of the safety culture. Preparedness and Prevention Preparedness and prevention mean proactive actions. The shared understanding of a current safety culture in a TELWE—for example, quality of and adherence to safety instructions, and safety training and drills—as well as procedures for identifying hazards and near-miss cases and assessing the risks are important features of prevention and preparedness. Proactivity means that in TE both teachers and students can identify and monitor hazards, and assess the risks in advance and avoid them while working. Since there are usually several teachers, and many heterogeneous groups studying after each other in TELWEs, the safety culture of these must include inspection and maintenance of facilities, by a suitable trained technician. In addition, teachers should have an up-todate overview of spaces, laboratories, and workshops and their equipment. An example of prevention measures are safety checklists that both teachers and students can use in identifying hazards and confirm that the spaces are in order. The main guidelines for a safe workstation (e.g., a bench drill, sewing machine, a vinyl, or a laser cutter) could be the following: 1. Name of a working station is visible in the national language(s). 2. Instructions and videos for safe use of a machine and tools are available and easily followed by students. 3. Necessary machine and cutting-edge guards are installed correctly and are easy to use. 4. Personal protective equipment is clean and easily available for students, for example, protective clothes, ear defenders, and goggles. 5. A mandatory emergency electric stop button is installed in case of rolling and cutting edges in the machine. 6. A safety area is marked on the floor (check the dimensions in the national regulations). 7. There is a recycling and a waste bin available. 8. A workstation is clean and there are not any extra or surplus materials or tools close to a working area. 9. Out-of-order signs are available and can be installed in case of a damaged or nonfunctioning machine or tool. 10. Policies on when and how problems or disorders will be addressed and who will execute needed operations and check that everything is completed as agreed, with the date and signature recorded. 329

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Proactive safety in the physical dimension should be checked every day to ensure that the workstations, machines, and tools are in order and working. For technology teachers and/or technicians, there is a responsibility to maintain documentation with maintenance, repair, and development list for equipment and facilities. The teacher and/or technician must also evaluate and plan the order to update TELWEs (inc. workshops, laboratories, etc.), as well as the equipment in these spaces. This documentation is a tool to discuss with a principal/manager, informing arguments for resources and renovations, to ensure learning environments are pedagogically safe and meaningful. For a student, or a pair of students, the use of a check list is a practical hands-on learning experience, as well as an example of how the important occupational safety issues are to be monitored; as part of preparedness and prevention from a physical working environment viewpoint. Furthermore, for parents it is a sign that occupational safety is considered and operated meaningfully in TELWEs. Beside the safe physical facilities, a key issue is how to organize teaching and learning in TELWEs, as social and psychological phenomena, to enhance proactive safety culture. It is evident that safety incidents happen while working and learning hands-on. These are near-misses and accidents or injuries. In TE these happen most often with hand and power tools and are typically “slips and slaps” causing small wounds or bruises. With near-misses it is typical to say that, fortunately, nothing happened. According to Heinrich’s ratio (1931), before one major injury there will be usually 29 accidents with minor injuries and 300 accidents with no injuries at all as so-called near-miss incidents (Figure 23.3). The ratio is not based on studies in education and in TE workshops, but it is a good illustration that there is a serious need to identify, monitor, and analyze nearmiss incidents. Evidently a near-miss incident does not necessarily mean that a major accident has been averted. Rather, it can be a matter of having appropriate defenses or procedures in

Figure 23.3  Heinrich’s triangle from 1931—the ratio between near-misses and injuries. 330

Risky Learning

Figure 23.4  The cheese model of accident causation. Reworked after Reason (1998, 296). place that prevent an accident from happening. According to the Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Causation (Reason, 1998) there are various defenses as a human is working (Figure 23.4). The defenses are like cheese slices, with random holes. Some holes are active failures. For example, a student does not follow safety instructions. The active failures are not static and rather they are changing depending on the situation, students, and teacher. Some holes are latent failures that are not identified as hazards and risks at all. Usually, the slices are not arranged vertically and parallel to each other with gaps in-between, so that there would be a straight line through the holes—as then there would be no defenses that could prevent an accident. As an accident happens, the active failures, the latent failures, or a mix of the two will cause the accident. All the same, a single defense can prevent the accident from happening. In Swiss Cheese Model illustration, one cheese slice can act as a defense and prevent an accident and an injury. For this reason, an important procedure of a proactive safety culture is recording safety incidents and learning from them. Recognizing, monitoring, reporting, and analyzing near-misses and accidents (including injuries) produce information that can be used to prevent future incidents. Observing and recognizing, reporting, and collecting incident data (e.g., a slip with a knife or receiving an electric shock) as a phenomenon of the social dimension of safety culture is important for teachers as they prepare and plan lessons. The teachers can diminish the actions and processes that might pose a hazard and a risk of injury. It is also important for students, while working hands-on in TELWEs and in their future every 331

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

day and work life. They must learn to identify safety incidents as part of occupational safety, specifically hazards and near-misses and learn to understand the reasons for these by analyzing them. As an everyday action in TELWEs, incident monitoring and reporting can be carried out with a digital application, as paired work or homework by students, followed by a discussion with the whole TE group. In conclusion, there are three ways of highlighting pedagogical dimension of safety culture in TE. First, a teacher must design, plan, and organize learning assignments that do not include any intolerable hazards and risks. Second, a teacher must carry out practical TE safety training in the correct use of technologies, machines, tools, equipment, and materials. And third, a teacher (together with school management) must organize special safety drills, such as safety walks. The main aim is to advance students’ safety competence. It is a combination of values and attitudes, to consider safety important and not accept unnecessary risks. Furthermore, to demonstrate knowledge of proactive and reactive safety measures and procedures, combined with skills, and a will to act safely in an authentic situation. A competent teacher (as a professional) and a student (as a novice) can monitor hazards and assess risks to prevent near-misses, accidents, and injuries, and in case of an incident, react according to their safety competence level in a way that it advances recovery and prevents further incidents. Schools can organize, for example, fire safety drills with rescue services to advance fire safety competence of students and teachers in order prevent fires in TE. This competence is needed, for example, with laser cutters if the machine malfunctions or if it is incorrectly programmed in relation to the use of potentially flammable materials. The safety walk method (Lindfors et al., 2021) can be used in TE, at the beginning of a term when there is a need to rehearse safety instructions and safe use of facilities, equipment, and technologies. A safety walk—led by a teacher, tutor, or older student— is a focused walk round a department, which includes stops in places where safety issues are considered in practice, in an authentic learning and working environment. A safety walk can be used to familiarize students with a building, premises of the learning and working environment, and help to foster the safety culture of TE. The idea is that, while walking in TELWEs a group of approximately ten students stop and monitor safety, and discuss and exercise hands-on to develop their safety competence. Management of Safety Incidents Management of safety incidents, accidents, and injuries that already happened, despite prevention measures and procedures, requires careful monitoring and systemic analysis of what the incidents are and how they happened. This is of special importance for the prevention of future incidents of a similar nature. There is also a need to learn lessons by analyzing the root causes and developing prevention and preparedness measures. Safety incidents might be unintentional accidents, due to carelessness, or they can be due to intentional misuse of tools and machines or misbehavior in a TELWE. An example of an unintentional accident could be when a student falls after tripping on an electric cable on 332

Risky Learning

the floor. The student might hurt her/himself and some equipment might fall and break. The question to be answered according to the use of the electric cable could be: Is there really a need for an extra cable to be used, and if so, was it placed safely and how might it be placed more safely? In a school, there should be a procedure for both teachers and students to report safety incidents. This could be a digital application or post-box type of collection for reports. It should also be agreed which staff members are responsible for the root cause analysis. In some cases, students may also join the analysis, where the data is not sensitive. Instead of practice-oriented consideration of separate incidents, the incidents should be collected in groups by content analysis and construct a clear overview of incidents that happen. This will promote a better understanding of the complex and dynamic nature and context of the incidents in TE. The results of the analysis can be regarded as a prerequisite for supporting teachers’ work activities, and tackling risks and improving safety. Also, they are useful enhancements to safety training for students. A challenge is whether incidents are reported. A willingness to report incidents indicates a level and maturity of safety culture in a TELWE. Only those incidents are visible that are identified, monitored, and reported. It is likely that most of the nearmiss cases will not be reported at all (see Lindfors & Teperi, 2018). However, for lesson and learning assignment planning, it is important for a teacher to understand which dimension of safety the incidents represent and the implications for teaching and learning. This would help the teacher to focus his/her teaching on organizing and developing of physical facilities, on supporting social interactions, individual student’s learning, or on pedagogical dimensions of safety—for example a specific type of safety training. Resilience and Recovery Resilience to recover from a safety incident, to return to normal, is a final phase of safety management model (Figure 26.2). Resilience is an individual’s or team’s capacity to accept and adapt to situations, and move forward after difficult events, unexpected situations, and adversities. Resilience does not mean that in schools some teachers and students will not suffer fear or experience anxiety after an accident or injury—and some do. It means coping in difficult circumstances and returning to normal everyday practice after an incident. In TE, fictional examples could include (1) a student that threatens a peer with scissors, (2) a student that hurts him/herself unexpectedly in using a machine, or (3) an incident due to misbehavior and failing to follow safety instructions. If a student is injured, it is a different kind of incident from the teacher’s and the students’ viewpoint. Immediately after the incident the teacher must take care of the injured student and call for medical help, if needed. At the same, the rest of the student group might be afraid because of what has happened, and parents might call and want information. From the teacher’s viewpoint, the incident might cause uncertainty, as well as physical, emotional, cognitive, and functional stress reactions: for example, how to handle the situation and 333

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

first aid, how to continue with other students and debrief them, and how to recover by him/herself. In the first example (1), there may be concern among the students and a teacher might feel anxious about future lessons, resulting in her/him possibly locking the scissors in a cupboard away from the students. In the second example (2), the incident might raise fear about the use of machines and the teacher might feel stressed in the future TE lessons, trying to concentrate on developing safety culture by highlighting safety instructions once again. In the third example (3), there is a need for a serious discussion and interaction with the teacher and the student. If the student is recognized as manifesting risky behavior, he/she will need additional counseling, monitoring, and interaction during future lessons. In recovery, active methods should be used to return the situation to a normal status. One important method to achieve this is a debriefing. In the examples before, this could be a discussion between the teacher and the students immediately following the incident, and its management. In the discussion, facts about the incident and emotions related to the situation are shared, discussed, and reflected on to handle the issue in a way that it does not inhibit learning in the future. On the teacher’s side, this could be a short discussion between colleagues just after the incident or a deeper discussion with another professional. Safety Management An ultimate precondition and a motivation for implementing the safety culture in practice is safety management: sharing of responsibilities, evaluation of the current level of the safety culture and risk management, and the practical implementation of the safety culture. To enable safety culture, maintenance, and development as part of everyday practice, there must be named persons who are responsible to ensure that it happens. This does not mean that these named persons would execute safety procedures by themselves. As responsible persons, principals and teachers must ensure that the members of a school organization (including TE teachers and students in a TELWE) share an understanding of the importance of safety and have communal procedures and practices in preparedness for and prevention of incidents, as well as in incident management in their everyday actions. A key concern is how the safety plans for preparedness and prevention are executed in practice by the community. For example, is there a functioning system to collect safety incident reports and a shared responsibility on how the reports are analyzed, including how conclusions will be implemented in practice? For example, can both teachers and students access incident reports? Does the person who reports understand what the implications of his/her report are? Was it a useful and important exercise? The other important dimension of safety management is self-evaluation of the level of safety culture; its implementation according to physical, social, psychological, and pedagogical dimensions, as well as prevention and preparedness, incident management and resilience and recovery. Are they up to date or is there a need for upgrading? Are the procedures fit for purpose or are they difficult to implement? This can be easily 334

Risky Learning

achieved in collaboration with students through the use of checklists, for example, a checklist for a machine workstation, chemical storage, or a TE workshop layout. In this way the students learn how to carry out self-evaluation procedures that are part of risk management. This is one way to develop the safety competence of TE students. One of the biggest challenges in organizations is that their members may be unaware of safety procedures and not share common understanding of safety, because of weak safety competence. The third dimension in safety management is responding to safety deficiencies and lessons learned from incident analyses, including how these are considered and implemented in practice. To raise safety awareness and be able to acknowledge incidents and near-miss cases before these indicate more severe accidents (Figure 26.3) there is a need to implement preventive measures, for example, by replacing a slippery floor covering with a safer one, before a severe slip happens. It is important to enact proactive safety management. The safety management of the TE must be established on engaged and motivated teachers. In TELWEs, a teacher is also a safety manager, even if the ultimate responsible person is the principal on a school-wide level. The TE teacher must have safety competence to manage prevention and evaluate preparedness, to organize the management of safety incidents, deal with recovery, and enhance resilience. This should not be separate from teaching and learning but self-evident and practical part of TE projects and the learning processes—risk and safety are key elements of TE subject content. Also, students and parents should be committed to safety management, to share safety values, attitudes, and dispositions.

Summary Safety culture of TELWEs is understood as collaborative actions by staff and students, as well as implementation of procedures that develop and promote safe and secure learning and working environment. Both teachers and students in an organization must understand the importance of their roles in actively promoting safety, according to their level of responsibility and control. TE teachers must develop their safety competence in order to handle incidents and develop the safety culture in their TELWEs; and also to be able to carry out curriculum-based safety education, which promotes safety competence of students and integrates them as safety actors. Even if it is important to manage and develop the safety culture in TELWEs as a general aim, an educational objective is also to develop students’ safety competence for the future, and this makes schools exceptional compared to other organizations (Lindfors & Teperi, 2018). In education and in schools we must develop and manage the current safety culture and prevent incidents. At the same, we must enhance students’ safety competence for the future for individual and work life.

335

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

To define the level of a safety culture in a TELWE, there is a need to systematically identify, monitor, report, and analyze safety incidents, as this is a core prerequisite of safety management and the precondition to maintain and develop safety culture. As outlined in this chapter, the preparedness and prevention procedures should have the most attention of teachers and students, since these are preconditions for a good-level safety culture. If a teacher concentrates on resilience and recovery, would it tell us that prevention and preparedness are at a low level or unsuccessful? This is not necessarily the case, as resilience is needed in all branches of life, and despite prevention of serious safety incidents, it should also be included in safety training. Although safety culture cannot be forced (Arezes & Miguel, 2003), a good safety culture is achieved through persevering work and the commitment of principals, teachers, and students. The importance and role of safety culture in TE are essential for all levels of an educational organization, from principals to students. Earlier studies have revealed that there are seldom systematic procedures in regular use to manage safety in educational organizations, for example, collecting incident data only if injuries are reported to insurance companies (Lindfors et al., 2020; Lindfors & Teperi, 2018; Teperi et al., 2018; Lindfors, 2018). To maintain and develop a safety culture, there is a need to understand the current situation from a theoretical basis. The model for safety culture management (Figure 26.2) presents a theoretical and empirical research-based structure that helps to consider, investigate, and evaluate the safety culture in TELWEs. Maintaining and developing the safety culture is a challenge not just for schools but also for teacher education and vocational TE. Highlighting occupational safety by promoting a high-level safety culture in TE teacher education is also of special importance since pre-service teachers will experience it during their studies. At the same time, they will have an example for their future work: how to maintain and develop a safety culture of TE in practice. Even though there are some recent studies on safety of TELWEs in teacher education, based on safety documents (Leino & Lindfors, 2021), and on self-preparedness in the Finnish teacher education departments of various universities based on audit data (Lindfors et al., 2020), there are very few empirical studies on safety culture in primary and secondary TELWEs. The safety culture of the TELWEs should be a focus for development in the current and future technology education. Particular attention should be paid to, and empirical data collected in, the formal TE in primary, secondary, and higher education—as well as in informal makerspaces—to be able to create more research-based procedures, advance safety culture, and safety training in TE. In the future, both pre-service and in-service teachers should be actively involved in promoting and maintaining safety culture in their TELWEs. In a practical teaching and learning situation, teachers and students should consider safety and prevention measures together as part of learning assignments and practical work to avoid near-misses and injuries. A major part of safety in TE is preventing incidents in advance and managing risks to a controllable level.

336

Risky Learning

References Arezes, P. M., & Miguel, S. (2003). The role of safety culture in safety performance measurement. Measuring Business Excellence. 7(4), 20–8. https://doi​.org​/10​.1108​ /13683040310509287. BSI. (2021). BS 4163:2014 Health and safety for design and technology in educational and similar establishments (Code of Practice). London: British Standards Institution. EduSafe (2018). Promotion safety at education research and development project. University of Turku: Department of Teacher Education. https://sites​.utu​.fi​/optuke​/en​/projects/. Ek, Å., Runefors, M., & Borell, J. (2014). Relationships between safety culture aspects—A work process to enable interpretation. Marine Policy, 44, 179–86. Espelage, D., Polanin, J., & Low, S. (2014). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 287–305. Geller, E. S. (2011). Psychological science and safety: Large-scale success at preventing occupational injuries and fatalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 109–14. Heinrich, H. W. (1931). Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach. New York. McGraw-Hill. Jaatinen J., & Lindfors E. (2019). Makerspace for innovation learning: How Finnish comprehensive schools create space for makers. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 42–66. https://ojs​.lboro​.ac​.uk​/DATE​/article​/view​/262. Köiv, K. (2014). Comparison and connections between school climate, school safety and adolescents’ antisocial behavior across three types of schools. Social Education / Social Innovation for Social Industry Development, 39(3), 203–13. Leino, M., & Lindfors, E. (2021). Safety culture in craft, design and technology workshops— An analysis of safety documents in teacher education. Technology in Our Hands. Creative Pedagogy and Ambitious Teacher Education. Techne Series A, 28(2), 332–9. https://journals​ .oslomet​.no​/index​.php​/techneA​/article​/view​/4358​/3842. Lindfors, E. (2018). What happens in lessons? Risks and incidents at schools. In H. Li, R. Suomi, Y. Amelina, Á. Pálsdóttir, & R. Till (Eds.), Well-being In The Information Society. Fighting Inequalities: Proceedings of the 7th International WIS Conference. University of Turku, Finland, August 27–29. Cham, CH: Springer Nature. . Lindfors, E. (2020). Incident data in enhancing school safety: An example from Finland. International Journal of Telemedicine and Clinical Practices, 3(3), 209–22. https://dx​.doi​.org​ /10​.1504​/IJTMCP​.2020​.104895. Lindfors, E., & Somerkoski, B. (2016). Turvallisuusosaaminen luokanopettajakoulutuksen opetussuunnitelmassa. In H.-M. Pakula, E. Kouki, H. Silfverberg, & E. Yli-Panula (Eds.), Uudistuva ja uusiutuva. Suomen ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja. Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia (pp. 328–43). Suomi: Suomen ainedidaktinen tutkimusseura. Lindfors, E., & Somerkoski, B. (2018). Turvallisuuden edistäminen oppimisympäristössä. In M. Hiltunen & P. Granö (Eds.), Suhteessa maailmaan. Ympäristöt oppimisen avaajina (pp. 291–305). Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press. https://urn​.fi​/URN​:ISBN​:978​-952​-310​-934​ -6. Lindfors, E., & Teperi AM. (2018). Incidents in schools—incident analysis in developing safety management. In S. Nazir, A. M.Teperi, & A. Polak-Sopińska (Eds.), Advances in human factors in training, education, and learning sciences (pp. 462–71). AHFE 2018. Vol. 785. Cham, CZ: Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-319​-93882​-0​_44.

337

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Lindfors, E., Somerkoski, B., Waitinen, M., Jyrhämä, R., Sormunen, K., & Seppälä, T. (2020). Opettajankoulutuksen omatoimisen varautumisen tilannekuva ja kehittämissuuntia. In A. Puustinen (Ed.), Pelastus- ja turvallisuustutkimuksen vuosikirja 2020 (pp. 55–88). Pelastusopiston julkaisu, D-sarja N/2020. Pelastusopisto, Kuopio. https://www​.pelastusopisto​ .fi​/wp​-content​/uploads​/Pelastus​-ja​-tur​vall​isuu​stut​kimuksen​-vuosikirja​-2020​_final​.pdf. Lindfors, E., Hilander, A., Lahtivirta, J., & Somerkoski, B. (2021). Turva(llisuus)kävely opetusmenetelmänä: mitä, miksi ja miten?—A safety walk as a teaching method: What, why and how? In E. Luukka, A. Palomäki, L. Pihkala-Posti, & J. Hanska (Eds.), Opetuksen ja oppimisen ytimessä. Suomen ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja: Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia, vol. 19 (pp. 169–93). http://hdl​.handle​.net​/10138​/333969. Reason, J. (1998). Achieving a safe culture: theory and practice. Work & Stress, 12(3), 293–30. Reason, J. (2000). Safety paradox and safety culture. Injury Control & Safety Promotion, 7(1), 3–14. Somerkoski, B. (2017). Green cross: Application for analyzing school injuries. Finnish Journal of EHealth and EWelfare, 9(4), 322–9. https://doi​.org​/10​.23996​/fjhw​.65178. Teperi, A.-M., Lindfors, E., Kurki, A.-L., Somerkoski, B., Ratilainen, H., Tiikkaja, M., Uusitalo, H., Lantto, E., & Pajala, R. (2018). Turvallisuuden edistäminen opetusalalla, Edusafeprojektin loppuraportti. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

338

PART IV

Technology, Education, and Society



340

Chapter 24

Introduction to Technology, Education, and Society Dawne Irving-Bell

Welcome to the fourth and final part of this international technology education handbook, where I have been privileged to work alongside some of the very best authors, and global experts in their field, who have collaborated with me to craft the concluding section of this inspirational text. We live in an increasingly technologically complex society. Influenced and impacted by technological developments occurring all around us. As our world changes at an unprecedented rate our approach to technology education needs to change accordingly. Yet it is perplexing that irrespective of the country, as a subject discipline technology consistently struggles to justify its place within the school curriculum (Bell, 2016). In the final section of this handbook, exploring notions and concepts of technology not yet discussed, we move beyond the classroom and examine contemporary and philosophical views of technology within the context of technology, education, and society. Focusing on historical, contemporary, and forecasting the impact of potential future technologies, Part IV of this book examines how technology impacts and influences our culture and society. How our engagement with and, some may say, reliance on technology influences human behavior and shapes civilization. As you will no doubt observe for yourself, the significant importance of education is a re-occurring theme within this part of the book. As we examine the value of technology education beyond the classroom, we are encouraged to deliberate and consider how best we should teach our children about technology and values, securing their understanding of the vital role technology plays in helping us to live in the present and prepare for the future. While predominantly academic in nature, I believe that you will find the chapters in Part IV easy to read. In crafting it, each chapter has been carefully selected to provide a unique perspective, designed to challenge our thinking and to view technology, education, and its role within society, from multiple perspectives. The aim being to offer insightful and thought-provoking chapters that fuel international debate which I hope will encourage you, the reader, to reflect on the role and impact technology education has, to influence and act as a catalyst for change.

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Reflecting on the role and impact of technology education in society, each chapter in Part IV explores an aspect of the importance of technology, as a subject, and seeks to encourage you to reflect on the importance of technology within your own context. To question the potential benefits and wider impact a good technological education brings to those who study, both now and in the future. Part IV opens with a wonderful chapter (25) penned by Professor Jonas Hallström, of Linköping University, Sweden. Principally informed by his own research, this chapter also draws on a wide range of literature from education, the history of education, technology education, philosophy, sociology, and the history of technology. In order to justify the value of technology education in schools and in teacher education for a future democratic management of technology in society (Feenberg, 2017) Professor Hallström examines the philosophical and political value of comprehensive technology education in twenty-first-century society. Focusing on both historical and present-day examples at the intersection of technology, education, and society (Hallström et al., 2014), Professor Hallström reflects on the role and impact of technology, presenting a powerful and persuasive argument justifying the need for technology education. In this insightful and thought-provoking chapter, he goes on to argue that philosophical questions and political decisions concerning technology, now and in the future, relate to both the designed and natural worlds, and that the justification of technology education is as much political as it is philosophical. In conclusion, and setting the scene for the chapters that follow, Professor Hallström asserts that if anything is certain, it is that in the future everyone will need to acquire and be equipped with a range of technological knowledge and skills in order to meet global challenges, and as such technological education is essential. Next in Part IV, I am delighted to introduce an excellent chapter (26) written collaboratively by three exceptional colleagues from the Technological University of the Shannon, Ireland: Dr. Rónán Dunbar, Dr. Niall Seery, and PhD candidate Mr. Joseph Phelan. Here, we are guided in an exploration of technology education and society from the perspective of industry and technological education. Industry and technology education are inextricably linked (Doyle et al., 2019) and there can be no question that the evolution of industrial activity requires education to keep pace with technological and social change. This is very much the focus of this thought-provoking and insightful chapter, that goes on to discuss the essential role that technology education plays in a broad and balanced curriculum, preparing young people for the current (and future) technological age (Dunbar et al., 2019). Presented through translational and transactional agendas, considering the technological education and industry nexus, this fascinating chapter highlights how a developed and contemporary industrial needs agenda is pivotal in navigating successful curriculum reform. Analyzing both policy and practice, the authors examine the impact of the academic and vocational divide and industry’s call for curriculum reform, to better prepare young people for employment. Examining how technology education contributes to industry and vice versa, Dunbar, Seery, and Phelan invite you to consider how does or how should twenty-first-century learning differ 342

Introduction to Technology, Education, and Society

from earlier modes of education? From the engendered technical and craft education of the mid-twentieth century evident in many Western cultures, this chapter builds on the premise that young people need new technological skills. Through their researchinformed work they discuss the essential role that technology education has and how the effective dissemination of modern versions of the subject is crucial to help prepare young people to navigate current and as yet unseen technological worlds of life and work. Our next chapter is an utterly captivating piece of work (27) written by Professor Mishack Gumbo, from the University of South Africa, who examines the sociocultural role of technology education by reflecting on indigenous and non-indigenous technology. Technology is often cited as the cause of many sociological problems, and in this chapter Professor Gumbo alerts us to these challenges that are, he explains, concentrated within indigenous communities. In this literature review-based chapter, Professor Gumbo contends that the main reason for this is the marginalization of indigenous technologies, which hold references to colonialism. Moving between the literature and his own research, Professor Gumbo presents a powerfully persuasive argument, that technology education falls short of relevance to address sociocultural issues because it is largely driven by an obsession to design tangible solutions for economic ends. Examining technology from both indigenous and non-indigenous perspectives, Professor Gumbo explains that because it is practiced in context characterized by certain cultural dynamics and values, technology education is not culturally neutral. Resolute that technological education should contribute toward the transformation and decolonization agenda, Professor Gumbo argues that, from a values perspective, the teaching and learning of technology should empower students to ask pertinent questions for the goodness of society. Moving to explore solutions in response to the multiplicity of sociocultural problems, Professor Gumbo invites policy makers and curriculum planners to consider a dual pedagogical approach. One that will expand the scope of technology education to enable students, indigenous and non-indigenous learners, to learn from both cultural worlds. In our next chapter (28) we welcome Dr. Thomas Kennedy, adjunct professor from Memorial University, Canada, who, from his unique position as both a university lecturer and a secondary schoolteacher, provides us with fascinating insights into the implications and impact of technological activity occurring outside of the classroom. In this chapter Dr. Kennedy explores technological activity that has been traditionally delineate by the boundaries of technology education classrooms. Focused predominantly on the maker movement, Dr. Kennedy explores the divide between formal curricular and non-formal non-curricular technology education that has embedded itself within many cultures across the globe. Technology education formally transmits workplace skills, fulfilling a function of education that Bruner (1996) described as furthering the economic aims of society. Making, within such a formal curricular environment, tends to be less intrinsically purposeful and generally focused on an explicit design problem, where learners “do not merely assemble problem solutions from components but must search for appropriate assemblies” (Simon, 1996, p. 124). According to Dr. Kennedy educational settings 343

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

offering activities grounded in the innovative use of tools, materials, and process is the “kinship” between technology and education. That is to say, formal education within a classroom setting is not without some degrees of separation to the informal education that occurs in extracurricular activities, such as makerspaces, clubs, or competitions. According to Dr. Kennedy the growing popularity of educational makerspaces may suggest that education has ushered in a new epistemological perspective, albeit with roots that can already be found in existing curricula. Educational makerspaces have grown in the gap created by this fragmentation, a quasi-strategic response to a societal demand for exposure to technical activity and the development of technological knowledge. The penultimate chapter (29) is penned by Dr. Mike Martin. In this fascinating research-informed piece Dr. Martin, a senior lecturer from Liverpool John Moores University, England, critiques Technology in Society from a values perspective. While this might seem outside of the remit of technology education, it is important to make the link between what pupils can physically design and make and the other forms of technology that lie beyond the classroom and affect the lives of us all every day. The key here is the need for us all to develop an understanding of the relationships that exist between people, technology, and the environment. Using creative and thoughtprovoking transnational examples to illuminate his argument, Dr. Martin explores the ways in which we look at technology; how we appreciate or value it (Layton, 1992; Martin, 2007), and in doing so encourages us to consider the complex relationships that exist between humans and technology, beyond education in the classroom. In this work, Dr. Martin argues that valuing technology in context is essential for young people in order for them to understand how something is used on a daily basis and the effects that it has. To do this developing the skills of “valuing” is, he claims, an essential part of technology education. As such, presenting visions where technology is valued, this chapter explores the ways in which we look at technology and society. How we appreciate, or value it, and go on to form an opinion of its worth. Considering how these valuing skills, and knowledge of the relationships between people and technology, can be developed is essential for everyone involved in developing contemporary technology education curricula, fit for the future. In summary, Dr. Martin argues that if we are to have a sustainable future, we all need to look critically at the technologies that affect our lives and decide for ourselves how to make the future work. Finally, drawing Part IV to a close, in this literature-informed chapter (30) I, Dr. Dawne Irving-Bell, BPP University, England, take the opportunity to explore perspectives on technology’s role in shaping our community, culture, and civilization. Studying the complex and dynamic interactions between technology and society from the perspective of political, moral, cultural, social, and ethical values. Positioning technology as the driving force behind social development and cultural change, I argue the imperative of technology education. Situated within contemporary and philosophical views of technology, within the final chapter of Part IV, I examine two contrasting perspectives on technology and its role in shaping society, namely, technological determinism and the social construction of 344

Introduction to Technology, Education, and Society

technology. Having introduced these juxtaposed notions, the chapter is peppered with case studies that ‘either’ support or refute each theoretical viewpoint. In adopting this approach my aim is to provoke thought, instigate debate, and bring to the fore the rationale for technology education as pivotal in driving thoughtfully designed technological innovations that hold the potential to impact positively on society and humanity.

References Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: a phenomenographic study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 61–79. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-015​-9300​-9. Bruner, J. (1996). What we have learned about early learning. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 4(1), 5–16. Doyle, A., Gumaelius, L., Pears, A., & Seery, N. (2019). Theorizing the role of engineering education for society: Technological activity in context? ASEE annual conference and exposition 2019, June 15-19, Tampa, Florida. https://peer​.asee​.org​/theorizing​-the​-role​-of​ -engineering​-education​-for​-society​-technological​-activity​-in​-context (accessed May 28, 2022). Dunbar, R., Buckley, J., & Seery, N. (2019). Curriculum development in technology teacher education: integrating epistemology, pedagogy, and capability. Paper presented at the PATT 37 Developing a knowledge economy through technology and engineering education, University of Malta, Msida, Malta. Feenberg, A. (2017). Technosystem: The social life of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hallström, J., Hultén, M., & Lövheim, D. (2014). The study of technology as a field of knowledge in general education: historical insights and methodological considerations from a Swedish case study, 1842–2010. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 121–39. Layton, D. (1992). Values in design and technology. In C. Budgett-Meakin (Ed.), Make the Future Work (pp. 36–53). Harlow: Longman Group. Martin, M. (2007). Role of product evaluation in developing technological literacy. In Dakers et al. (Eds.), PATT 18 Conference Proceedings. University of Glasgow. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

345

Chapter 25

The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education Fostering Technological Multiliteracies Jonas Hallström

Introduction Design, production, and use of technology are intermingled with society and culture, over time and between generations, as shown succinctly and humorously by the novelist Kingsley Amis in his Ending Up (1974, p. 38): [Bernard] had glimpsed the Fishwick’s car while the door was open and felt wrath stirring. All cars displeased him, and not just for superficial reasons like the noise they made or their tendency to be painted bright colours. They were like horses as seen by a foot soldier: damned nuisances, much too much fuss made about them, needing constant attention, ridiculous that grown men should be reduced to depending on them. This particular car was outstandingly objectionable. It was larger and newer than the one he had [. . .]; far more galling, it belonged to someone of twenty-five or thirty or whatever it was. The youngster seemed to think he had a perfect right to buy it and stuff it with petrol and oil and drive it about all over the place just as he felt inclined. And did he have to have all that hair growing from his head and face, outwards from his face, a good deal of it forwards from his face? It was extraordinary, and also typical, that he apparently had quite a reasonable job in something he chose to call electrics, or perhaps electronics. The evolution of technology is not predetermined, but although its trajectory is not linear it has nonetheless characteristics that project into the future (Ihde, 2006) which make every new generation heir of knowledge, designs, products, and systems of the preceding one; often, it also takes a new generation to take to heart new, fundamental inventions, or domains, such as electronics (Arthur, 2009; Nye, 2006). The traditional way for one generation of humans to convey knowledge of technology to the next, on a grander scale, is through some form of technology and engineering education. The place of such education in society is seldom questioned these days, quite the contrary. It is generally

The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education

understood that scientists and engineers are needed in an industrial, technologically complex society, and the engineering profession also has a high status (e.g., Larsen et al., 2020)—it is, echoing Amis’s understatement, “quite a reasonable job.” Comprehensive, pre-university technology education, however, often has to struggle for its place in the school curriculum, despite the fact that it constitutes the foundation for all tertiary education. The aim of this chapter is to argue for and discuss the philosophical and political value of comprehensive technology education in early twenty-first-century society. Technology education here includes different global variations such as design and technology education, (pre-university) engineering education, and comprehensive craft/sloyd/vocational education (Jones et al., 2013). The chapter includes a discussion of historical and present-day philosophical and political examples at the intersection between technology, education, and society. I will draw on a selection of literature in education, history of education, design, technology, and engineering education, as well as the philosophy, sociology, and history of technology, in order to justify the value of technology education in schools and in teacher education for a future democratic management of technology in society (Feenberg, 2017a).

The (Non-)determinacy of Technology and the Philosophical Value of Technology Education Technology and technological endeavor are as old as humanity itself, even to the point of an actual co-evolution of humans and their tools at the dawn of homo sapiens (Chakrabarty, 2019; Dakers, 2019). In the present time, on the other hand, there exist a technological imperative and a notion that technology cannot really be controlled, especially in conjunction with cutting-edge innovation in areas such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence (AI). New, highly automated technology like the driverless car is valued, for instance, from an ethical perspective regarding possible accidents. There is also a discussion of changes in the labor market due to the driverless car as one foresees a loss of jobs such as taxi and truck drivers (Carr, 2014). Artificial intelligence systems with “enhanced technological intentionality” (Wellner & Rothman, 2020, p. 203) have also in, for example, translation software proven to be biased in terms of gender and race. The direction of influence here is from technology to society, not the other way round, because these examples have to do with the “impact” of technology. The present-day response to technology-related “side effects” such as accidents, unemployment, and bias is often more technology and more automation, thereby reinforcing deterministic views of the relationship between technology and humans/society (Feenberg, 2017b; Hallström, 2022), regardless of whether one has a positive or negative view of technology.

347

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

There is an inherent philosophical ambiguity here that is not so easily resolved. On the one hand, technology is completely fundamental to all human life. Technology is interwoven with humans, from the birth of civilization and each human being, as a tool or way of thinking to solve problems or fulfill various wishes (McLain et al., 2019; Nye, 2006). On the other hand, the technological tools and systems that humans have created and appropriated have become so complex and permeate society to such a degree that there is a fear of the sheer mass of the technological influence on society, or even that technology itself should be out of human control (e.g., Ellul, 1964; Winner, 1977). Because there is a measure of both the human and the technological in all designs, products, or systems, it is not always easy to distinguish between the two. For example, the key to the success of the internet was the convergence of an increasing number of media and communications features into the same system: email and chat groups; web pages, blogs/vlogs, online forums; social media; media streaming and video calls; e-commerce, online tutoring, and so on (Briggs & Burke, 2009). With each new innovative feature, the momentum (Hughes, 2012) of the internet grew and it became increasingly a global system of systems. Each new additional feature thus added to an increased functional complexity of the internet, not the least the myriad of different control sub-systems and feedback mechanisms required to keep the system stable. There was simultaneously also an accretion of technical components, codes, algorithms, and so on, where new ones were built upon old ones, making the system less and less perspicuous (Arbesman, 2017). Worse still, such complex, non-linear systems with a great deal of components, sub-systems and algorithms that have accreted over time, may even be beyond our collective understanding: A nonlinear system’s behavior is modulated by feedback and the magnification of inputs (or even the opposite: a big value giving you a tiny effect), making it much more difficult to relate the inputs to the outputs. We are no longer extrapolating a straight line; the variables interact in swooping and complicated curves, over which our brains stumble. These shortcomings cause us to have difficulty grasping complex systems, even those we have built ourselves. (Arbesman, 2017, p. 79) Generally, there is a continuum of views of what really controls and determines societal and technological development, from pragmatist philosophers who place agency firmly in the hands of humans to critical philosophers of technology like Jacques Ellul who see the “technical milieu” as a “self-determinative” agent (Ellul, 1962). In between we find several “middle of the road” variants, supported by most analytical and critical philosophers of technology as well as historians and sociologists; they share the notion that societal and technological development occur in tandem in a cultural and societal context, thereby making the societal and technological outcomes in each case impossible to decide beforehand. The development of technology during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries toward increasing complexity, destruction in military campaigns, and an ever-expanding 348

The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education

reach into civil society has prompted many negative views. The French philosopher Jacques Ellul’s writings on the technological society are illuminating in that they can be construed as explicitly technologically determinist and negative toward technological development (e.g., Ellul 1962, 1964): This new technical milieu has the following characteristics: a. It is artificial; b. It is autonomous with respect to values, ideas, and the state; c. It is self-determining in a closed circle. Like nature, it is a closed organization which permits it to be selfdeterminative independently of all human intervention; d. It grows according to a process which is causal but not directed to ends; e. It is formed by an accumulation of means which have established primacy over ends; f. All its parts are mutually implicated to such a degree that it is impossible to separate them or to settle any technical problem in isolation. (Ellul 1962, pp. 394–5) There is, however, also a more optimistic take on technology development and at least two different versions of it. First of all, there are those who claim that technology, being a human creation, is subordinate to human will, and this view is prominent in, for example, some interpretations of the pragmatic philosophical tradition (e.g., Pitt, 2014). Provided that humans do good, technology will also do good, the argument goes. Secondly, technology gurus such as Kevin Kelly acknowledge that technology may be out of human control but that this is still a good thing and provides humanity with a great deal of opportunity. Technology is productive and benevolent and thus a great enabler that will solve whatever societal problems will arise, maybe even improve humanity itself (e.g., Barlex, 2019; Bostrom, 2003; Kelly, 2010). When looking more closely at who generally promotes positive and negative views of technology, it is interesting that those who are negative are often not technologists or engineers themselves but social scientists, writers, journalists, or (critical) philosophers. The reverse could also be said to be true; those positive to technology are often found among professions with a more direct relationship to technology—engineers, technologists, economists, social media moguls, and more analytically oriented philosophers (Bowler, 2017; Dakers et al., 2019). If there is a risk of humans losing control over their own designed world—cognitively and/or physically, for good or for bad—humans need to be aware of this and they also need to choose to either intervene or not. Such a choice requires knowledge. One way of preparing a future generation for different technological scenarios is thus to educate them about technology, through some kind of education. The fundamental philosophical value of technology education, therefore, is to provide education in technology, for citizens to be able to engage with technological design and construction and to be able to work in technology-related professions. The central philosophical questions are: ● ● ●

What is technology? What is technological knowledge? How does technology work? 349

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Technology education should also provide education about technology, that is, the place of technology in society and how humans have approached, designed, and managed technology throughout history, and how they could do that in the future, in relation to culture and the environment. The central philosophical questions in this regard are: ● ● ● ● ● ●

What is the relationship between technology, society, and the environment? To what extent is technology determining, or determined (or both)? In what sense could technological development be predicted and/or controlled? What is the moral status of technology? What is the relationship between technology and sex/gender? How does the labor market affect, or is affected by, technological development? (cf. de Vries, 2016; Hallström, 2019; Kroes & Verbeek, 2014; Nye, 2006; Oldenziel, 1999).

Technological Literacy and the Democratic Value of Technology Education If technology is interwoven with our society and culture, then it follows that technology is an implement involved in political discourses and practices and that technology can embody political values. Indeed, some of the previous foundational philosophical dilemmas and questions—especially those about technology—often concern political issues or become relevant in political contexts. Winner (1986) argues that Today we can examine the interconnected systems of manufacturing, communications, transportation, and the like that have arisen during the past two centuries and appreciate how they form de facto a constitution of sorts, the constitution of a sociotechnical order. This way of arranging people and things, of course, did not develop as the result of the application of any particular plan or political theory. It grew gradually and in separate increments, invention by invention, industry by industry, engineering project by engineering project, system by system. From a contemporary vantage point, nevertheless, one can notice some of its characteristics and begin to see how they embody answers to age-old political questions—questions about membership, power, authority, order, freedom, and justice. (Winner, 1986, p. 47) In democratic societies where citizens are expected to participate in political decisions, the value of technology education in this regard is therefore twofold. Not only will political decisions increasingly be about technology, the consequences of technology and how to control technology, in one form or another—for example, questions about the industrial pollution of rivers, or societal contributions to a changed global climate— but they will also be carried out with technology, from the mustering of political support 350

The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education

via social media platforms or TV, to electronic voting (Ankiewicz, 2019; Feenberg, 2017a). The philosophical questions concerning technology from the previous section can therefore also constitute the foundation for thinking about the political values embedded in decisions about technology, and for acting democratically in relation to technology. To be able to engage politically in questions concerning technology, citizens thus need technological knowledge and competence from an early age. In an educational setting, this has variously been termed technological capability, technological competence, technological perspective, or technological literacy (cf. Doyle et al., 2019; Seery et al., 2019). Williams (2017) promotes the latter and claims that technological literacy is “generally constituted of an ability/use dimension, a knowledge and understanding dimension and an awareness or appreciation of the relationships between technology, society and the environment” (p. 139). According to the American Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, technological literacy is “the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology” (ITEA, 2007). In this context it might even be appropriate to talk about technological multiliteracies since literacy is not unidimensional but consists of multiple both cognitive and physical competencies and skills, and because it can be related to both individuals and their social contexts: Technological literacy as the goal of technology education has appeal because it is multidimensional—it can be related to national economic performance of a literate workforce, it relates to an individual’s level of literacy with the implicit assumption that this will be personally more satisfying, and it can be used to relate to social responsibility in the context of a technological society. (Williams, 2009, p. 242) This last argument resonates well with the political value of technology education and also points to the importance of including critiquing as a particularly crucial aspect of such technological (multi)literacies (Kahn & Kellner, 2006; Williams, 2017). Critiquing could even be said to be a central political skill. For example, the democratic potential of the internet and social media is today contested since the algorithms behind, for instance, Twitter and Facebook have proven actually to sustain un-democratic and even anti-democratic messages (Carr, 2014; Vaidhyanathan, 2018). The previously mentioned issue of bias in AI software (whether in the algorithms or the datasets, it is contested) would also, according to some scholars (e.g., Wellner & Rothman, 2020), require a specific AI literacy which involves, among other things, students’ critiquing capabilities. Long and Magerko (2020) define AI literacy as “a set of competencies that enables individuals to critically evaluate AI technologies; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace” (p. 2). In an inclusive effort that would today include AI literacy, Kahn and Kellner (2006) argue for a multiliteracies approach to technology education: “Hence, we see contemporary technoliteracies as involved with the need to comprehend and make use of proliferating high-technologies, and the political economy that drives them, towards 351

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

furthering radical democratic understandings and transformations of our lives, as well as a democratic reconstruction of education” (p. 258). They thus assert that the purpose of such technoliteracies is both the understanding of technology itself and its embeddedness in a particular political context, something which would be absolutely essential for furthering democratic values in relation to future technologies. All individual technoliteracies —design literacy, AI literacy, digital literacy, craft literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, and so on—could thus be said to be included in a broad technological literacy, or, with Williams (2009), technological multiliteracies, for the political value of technology education.

Ending Up This chapter has pointed to the significance of technology education, not only in university but perhaps more importantly in school where the young generation resides, because technological knowledge is a democratic prerequisite for citizenship. In this sense, the justification of technology education in the school curriculum as well as teacher education curriculum is as much political as it is philosophical. Technology is what makes us human because cognitive and physical tools such as language, hammers, and computers are what builds civilization. In turn, technology underlies many complex, central epistemological, political, and philosophical issues in present-day society. Take for instance the driverless car that we started out with. Not only is it in itself and in relation to a whole range of other technological systems difficult to understand and make sense of epistemologically, but it also raises a whole plethora of philosophical-ethical questions regarding what constitutes a technology, a human, and a driver and whose problem an accident really is (the automotive company’s or the car owner’s insurance firm?). Furthermore, it leads to a great deal of related political technology-related issues: Whose responsibility it is to build safe roads and an updated digital infrastructure, and so on (see Hansson et al., 2021, for a more thorough discussion). Thus, concerning technology, it is difficult to separate many of the central epistemological, political, and philosophical concerns, which makes high-quality technology and engineering education aimed at technological multiliteracies a central democratic priority (Williams, 2009). Finally, the technological multiliteracies that will really be needed in the future relate both to the digital domain and the whole range of “old” technologies and systems that make up the designed, human-made world—electronics as well as cars, to speak with Amis (cf. Edgerton, 2011). As we have seen, there is a tendency to connect a fear of technological advances to specifically digital systems such as AI, but both fears and hopes in relation to technology have existed throughout history and are independent of technological domain (Hård & Jamison, 2013). A central feature of the digital domain and digital systems is also that they require material components and are therefore dependent on electric grids, production systems, financial systems, human labor, and 352

The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education

more. Conversely, digital systems—as all technological systems—require enormous amounts of energy and natural resources and have a huge environmental impact. Philosophical questions and political decisions concerning technology, now and in the future, thus relate to the whole designed and natural worlds, and if anything is certain it is that a future technologically multiliterate person will need a range of technological knowledge and skills to meet global challenges, in the broadest sense (cf. Hornborg, 2021; Nordlöf et al., 2022). Such challenges will concern, for instance, the global environment and climate change for which there are no simple solutions. Meeting future global environmental challenges may thus require more than “technological fixes” and might entail redirecting society in sustainable, alternative political directions and even toward new political utopias—for example, toward de-scaling, cooperative eco-towns, and other small-scale political and technological solutions (e.g., Gyberg et al., 2020).

References Amis, K. (1974). Ending up. New York and Baltimore: Penguin. Ankiewicz, P. J. (2019). Andrew feenberg: Implications of critical theory for technology education. In J. R. Dakers, J. Hallström, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Reflections on technology for educational practitioners: Philosophers of technology inspiring technology education (pp. 115–30). Boston, MA: Brill Sense. Arbesman, S. (2017). Overcomplicated: Technology at the limits of comprehension. New York: Portfolio. Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press. Barlex, D. (2019). Kevin Kelly: Technology education for the technium. In J. R. Dakers, J. Hallström, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Reflections on technology for educational practitioners: Philosophers of technology inspiring technology education (pp. 147–62). Boston, MA: Brill Sense. Bostrom, N. (2003). Transhumanist values. In F. Adams (Ed.), Ethical issues for the 21st century (pp. 3–14). Charlottesville, VA: Philosophy Documentation Center. Bowler, P. J. (2017). A history of the future: Prophets of progress from H. G. Wells to Isaac Asimov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Briggs, A., & Burke, P. (2009). A social history of the media: From Gutenberg to the Internet (3rd ed.). Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press. Carr, N. (2014). The glass cage: How our computers are changing us. New York: WW Norton & Company. Chakrabarty, M. (2019). How stone tools shaped us: Post-phenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 243–64. Dakers, J. R. (2019). Bernard stiegler: On the origin of the relationship between technology and humans. In J. R. Dakers, J. Hallström, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Reflections on technology for educational practitioners: Philosophers of technology inspiring technology education (pp. 87–99). Boston, MA: Brill Sense. Dakers, J. R., Hallström, J., & de Vries, M. J. (2019). Introduction. In J. R. Dakers, J. Hallström, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Reflections on technology for educational practitioners:

353

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Philosophers of technology inspiring technology education (pp. 1–11). Boston, MA: Brill Sense. de Vries, M. J. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer. Doyle, A., Seery, N., & Gumaelius, L. (2019). Operationalising pedagogical content knowledge research in technology education: Considerations for methodological approaches to exploring enacted practice. British Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 755–69. Edgerton, D. (2011). Shock of the old: Technology and global history since 1900. London: Profile Books. Ellul, J. (1962). The technological order. Technology and Culture, 3(4), 394–421. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books. Feenberg, A. (2017a). Technosystem: The social life of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Feenberg, A. (2017b). The internet and the end of Dystopia. Revue de communication sociale et publique, 20, http://journals​.openedition​.org​/communiquer​/2267. Gyberg P., Anshelm J., & Hallström J. (2020). Making the unsustainable sustainable: How Swedish secondary school teachers deal with sustainable development in their teaching. Sustainability, 12(19), 8271. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/su12198271. Hallström, J. (2019). Clive Staples Lewis: Social, environmental and biomedical implications of technology. In J. R. Dakers, J. Hallström, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Reflections on technology for educational practitioners: Philosophers of technology inspiring technology education (pp. 193–205). Boston, MA: Brill Sense. Hallström, J. (2022). Embodying the past, designing the future: Technological determinism reconsidered in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 17–31. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-020​-09600​-2. Hansson, S. O., Belin, M.-Å., & Lundgren, B. (2021). Self-driving vehicles—an ethical overview. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 1383–408. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s13347​-021​ -00464​-5. Hård, M., & Jamison, A. (2013). Hubris and hybrids: A cultural history of technology and science. London: Routledge. Hornborg, A. (2021). Machines as manifestations of global systems: Steps toward a sociometabolic ontology of technology. Anthropological Theory, 21(2), 206–27. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1177​/1463499620959247. Hughes, T. P. (2012). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed., pp. 45–76). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. Ihde, D. (2006). The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 121–31). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212. Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2006). Reconstructing technoliteracy: A multiple literacies approach. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 253–74). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Penguin. 354

The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education

Kroes, P., & Veerbek, P.-P. (Eds.). (2014). The moral status of technical artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer. Larsen, K., Geschwind, L., & Broström, A. (2020). Organisational identities, boundaries, and change processes of technical universities. In L. Geschwind, A. Broström, & K. Larsen (Eds.), Technical universities: Past, present and future (pp. 1–14). Cham: Springer. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–16), April 25–30, Honolulu, HI, https://doi​.org​/10​.1145​/3313831​.3376727. McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019). How technology makes us human: Cultural historical roots for design and technology education. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 464–83. Nordlöf, C., Norström, P., Höst, G., & Hallström, J. (2022). Towards a three-part heuristic framework for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1583–604. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-021​-09664​-8. Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Oldenziel, R. (1999). Making technology masculine: Men, women and modern machines in America, 1870–1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Pitt, J. C. (2014). “Guns don’t kill, people kill”; values in and/or around technologies. In P. Kroes & P.-P. Veerbek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 89–101). Dordrecht: Springer. Seery, N., Kimbell, R., Buckley, J., & Phelan, J. (2019). Considering the relationship between research and practice in technology education: A perspective on future research endeavours. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 163–74. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Anti-social media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wellner, G., & Rothman, T. (2020). Feminist AI: Can we expect our AI systems to become feminist? Philosophy & Technology, 33(2), 191–205. Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multiliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–54. Williams, P. J. (2017). Critique as a disposition. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 135–52). Singapore: Springer. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

355

Chapter 26

Industrial Perspectives Translational and Transactional Agendas Rónán Dunbar, Niall Seery, and Joseph Phelan

Introduction The relationship between second-level education (twelve to eighteen-year-old students) and our future society is paramount when we consider the role that education plays toward the development of citizens who are ready to act effectively within that society. This systematic development of young people adopts the view of education as having the potential to further and enrich societal and human progress through the development of the youth in a holistically relevant way. Gleeson’s (2009) assertion of curriculum as a contextually dependent process highlights the dependency observed between secondlevel curriculum development and the context within which it is enacted, for example societal, political, and economic contexts. Snedden (1921) put forward the pragmatic argument that the structure of any educational curriculum must be justified by its benefit to society. A synthesis of the views of Gleeson (2009) and Snedden (1921), coupled with the importance of recognizing the longevity of a curriculum’s relevance, reveals a duty and responsibility of any curriculum to be reflective of, and beneficial to, its current and future contexts. The direct approach to developing and reforming second-level curricula was practicable and achievable in the past due to a generally slow-changing societal context and therefore the slow-changing demands of society on education (Baynes, 2013). Recent times have seen an exponential increase in the rate at which societal change has happened, including industrial innovation and knowledge creation which has been coined by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) as Industry 4.0—the fourth industrial revolution. This has manifested in significant changes in how we as a society live and learn and, in an industrial context, work. Such change has made it increasingly difficult to predict the nature of the demands of future realities. Therefore, the development of curricula that have relevance challenges us to explicate a more contemporary model for sustainable education development. Careful consideration must be given to the way curricula and

Industrial Perspectives

their subcomponent subject structures are evaluated and therefore developed. This is critically important when considering how technology education provision must align with future industrial needs. The practicable contribution of each subject as the embodiment of a fragmented aspect of valued knowledge within that curriculum and therefore the broader society must be evaluated (Snedden, 1921). This is particularly significant in terms of how technology education frames its relationship with industry. The relationship between economic drivers and a dependence on human capital is not contested. The idea of developing a productive workforce is critically dependent on predictable professional and vocational capacities, coupled with ingenuity and creative human capacity. This chapter outlines a perspective that identifies the translational agendas from industry to education, specifically identifying how industry provides context for second-level technology education and informs the transactional agendas of teaching and learning interactions to best represent authentic industrial practice. Industrial activity is defined in this chapter as the broad range of activities which take place predominantly in the manufacturing sector. These industrial activities include manufacturing, production, assembling, maintaining, researching, developing, storing, and transporting products, goods, or services. Through an industrial lens, there is an evident congruence that exists between these industrial activities and the evolution of associated subjects, whereby the need for technologically literate and capable people is mediated through specific contexts and situations. This is even more apparent when we consider the evolution of industry to include current Industry 4.0 type activities. Smart manufacturing, sustainable development, environmental considerations, ethical sourcing of materials and resources, appropriate treatment of human capital, and local and global market requirements are such examples of current industrial agendas of particular relevance and importance. These emerging areas of focus have a much higher human-centric focus, where the traditional industrial agenda of productivity and optimized output is brought into question. It is therefore reasonable to say that the relationship between industry and second-level technology education has been required to change to reflect such industrial evolution. The once clear focus of vocational education that occupied almost exclusively the practical subjects has long since dissipated and an increased acknowledgment for the contribution they make to general educational goals has emerged. The reframing of the nature of knowledge within technology education activity holds much potential for supporting the holistic development of young people in what is a fast-changing digital society, while acknowledging the separate agendas of education and industry and the importance of maintaining this delineation. General education remains a social instrument to ensure people can achieve their potential through access to “betterment.” The increasing need for activists thinking in terms of social, environmental, and sustainable justice is emerging as a significant need in industrial competitiveness, where the centricity of active citizenship begins to converge with an emerging view of value-added productivity. A congruence begins to emerge between education and industry agendas that are concerned with the development of technologically capable 357

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

people, while also ensuring that a causal relationship exists to guide contemporary and relevant curricula that capture evolving technological competencies. This chapter aims specifically to highlight how a developed and contemporary industrial needs-driven agenda is important for informing not only further and higher education but also how it interacts in a more complex and salient manner with the provision of second-level technology education.

Contemporary and Relevant Technology Education Context As a general rule, subject areas are dependent on uniquely identified or combined knowledge bases upon which learning and pedagogy can be appropriated. Within technology education there is a clear connection between the knowledge and skills to be learned by the student and the relevance of these to industry-based activities. Previous industrial revolutions made explicit the vocational pathway from educational attainment to identifiable industrial careers. The nature and breadth of industrial 4.0 activity make this a much more complex interaction. Developing individuals who can enact ethically considered change in the made world through the design and application of innovative technological solutions has clear loyalties to both general education objectives and also the current and future needs of industry. As such, the apparent link between the practical subjects and industry has evolved from a vocational and economic policy-driven nexus to one that is more critical than ever of the contemporaneous and sustainable provision of the subjects. Global curriculum reforms often reference calls from industry for young people to be better prepared for employment, whether that be through relevant technical skills and adaptive dispositions. Perspectives on the development of the contemporary industrial needs agenda are important for informing the interactions with second-level education in the most useful way. The most recent nature of this interaction has yet to be fully theorized with reference to current Industry 4.0 developments and practices. This void requires us to consider the translational relationship between modern industrial endeavors and education, which is materialized within the formation of educational policy and curricula. It also forces us to consider the effects of such a nexus on the transactional pedagogical activity that happens in the technological classroom between teacher and pupil. The causal effect is that evolving industrial technological needs and contemporary practices have a backwash effect on the manner in which teachers deliver the content of technological subject syllabi to suitably prepare our students for their future studies and future career opportunities. Technology education must ensure that it is developing appropriate technological skill sets to align with further opportunities of learning and higher qualifications, but it must also remain true to the 358

Industrial Perspectives

centricity of fostering attributes for active and responsible citizenship within its goals. Industrial value-added priorities such as productivity and efficiency may inform but must not define the boundaries of technology education provision. Such priorities should be valued, not for their traditional or vocational application, but rather how they can give context and meaning to the general educational prevailing philosophy of what it means to be technologically capable. The parallel educational and industrial agendas of developing capabilities and capacity are not only to effectuate change but also adapt to change when it occurs. It is within this recognition of the common overlap and distinct differences between educational and industrial ideals that there is real value to be found in the translation of industrial principles and needs for the optimization of the provision of technology education. The following section will explore the interdependence between industry and technology education to further unpack these elements of value.

Evolving Needs Internationally the shortage of qualified engineers and associated technical crafts has become apparent over the past decade. In addition to the increased demand for technology and engineering graduates, the nature of the competencies has also been redefined. Authentic exposure to technological activity can provide a basis upon which students can make informed decisions regarding their interest in that career path. This not only highlights the proxy relationship between technology education and industry in terms of supply but it also bolsters the position of practical education relative to other subjects in the curriculum and dispels any misconceptions about its relevance and function. As such this chapter will explore how technology education contributes to industry and vice versa (Doyle et al., 2019). With a focus on the twenty-first-century learner, it questions what kind of learning will best suit the needs of industry now and in the years to come. This also begs the question on the relevance of our current articulation of twenty-first-century learning and what are the factors that will influence its evolution in the future. It has been suggested that young people need the following skills to survive in this century: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Critical thinking and problem-solving; Collaboration and leadership; Agility and adaptability; Initiative and entrepreneurialism; Effective oral and written communication; Accessing and analyzing information; Curiosity and imagination. (Wagner, 2010, in Scott, 2015, p. 3)

359

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Currently, in many Western curricula, there is a focus on knowledge over so-called skills (Gibb, 2017; Young, 2008), which has arguably weakened the status of subjects like technology (McLain et al., 2019). A common element, and growing focus, in technology education around the world is design and design thinking (Buckley et al., 2020). Technology education, as a subject grounded in practical activity and applied learning, can deliver on each of the seven skills listed earlier through design-based projects, where students engage with problems and produce solutions.

Interdependence It is no longer useful to look at technology education as subservient to industrial needs, but rather as a subject area that plays a critical role in developing necessary transferable personal competences such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and metacognitive abilities that are key skills in many walks of life, including industrial career prospects. The interdependence between the two lies within the fact that industry is no longer a productivity-driven customer of educational human capital. Societal demands placed on industry to conform to environmental, ethical, and sustainable standards have transformed industry to be a very valuable and societally valid context around which to base technology education provision. It is still critically important that the subject area is developed to reach beyond the purposes of providing industry with the workforce that they require, but it is also useful to consider how industry has now become the subject area’s greatest driving force in terms of moving the subject area toward gaining the recognition it deserves as a key contributing element of a broad general education. This delineation of the historical vocational purpose and the contemporary competency and capability-based agenda of technology education somewhat comes full circle when we consider how industry are now placing a much greater emphasis on how they require engineering graduates who hold these transferable competences and skills to be the innovative, industrious, conscientious, and resilient contributors to their workforce. This relationship with industry can form a cyclical interdependence. On the surface level it could be perceived that the provision of technology subjects is driven by industrial needs and industry is somewhat dependent upon these subjects to provide capable individuals to meet those needs. Although, when considered in the context of technology education’s position in the broader curriculum and its fundamental aim to foster active citizenship through the design and implementation of change, it is essential that up-to-date industrial knowledge and technologies are incorporated into the learning experience where possible. Therefore, the significance of adopting stateof-the-art standards and ways of working is not to service the needs of industry but to accommodate the future needs of students who will strive to bring about change efficiently and consciously.

360

Industrial Perspectives

Methodology for Technology Education Provision Translations The position of industrial activities and the role that they play in the context of higher education is well defined, particularly in relation to the production of knowledge through research-oriented collaborations between industrial partners and academic researchers. These research activities are often used to subsequently inform and give contemporary context to the teaching activities and associated learning in related undergraduate technological degree programs through what is described as the teaching–research nexus (Griffiths, 2004). This section, however, aims to highlight a largely underdeveloped perspective of how synergies between industrial activities and technology education specifically at second level can offer meaning and context to the associated pedagogical activities while also giving opportunity to prepare the technological learner to make informed judgments; for example, about their future career choices or indeed their consumption of goods and services as products of industrial activities. Also presented is a conceived relationship between industrial activities, predominantly viewed as responses to societal needs and responsible actions for future realities as a core relationship within second-level technology education that mirrors the established relationship between industry and research within higher education. This relationship is presented not only for its value to define the utility of technological capabilities and literacies but also for the opportunities that such treatment of industrial actions gives to the subject area for developing judgment and transversal skills. Elaborating on the idea of skilled industrial workforce requirements as an end-ofspectrum element when defining the goals of second-level technology education (see Figure 26.1). It is argued that the industrial workforce requirements are the driver of what can be described as discipline-specific technology education goals, whereas the general educational outcomes of technology education speak less to the disciplinespecific goals but rather the transversal or softer skills developed as an integral part of the goals of technology education. It is therefore suggested that a balanced approach is required, where policy makers, curricular designers, and teachers recognize the valuable contribution that industrial activities bring to defining the goals of the technology subjects. To begin our description of the purpose and utilities of forming synergies between technology education and industrial activities, it is useful to clearly define what we are describing as industrial activities. Within the context of informing technology education, we are broadly framing industrial activities as those that take place within the manufacturing sector as responses to societal needs. It is envisaged that the interaction between industry and the second-level subjects would be one that would greatly benefit the provision of technology education.

361

ent em dg u s/J es

Industrial Ac on for Societal Needs

Tech. Ed. Student Learning

Tran sve rsa l&

I

ve ati ov nn

Pre pa re dn

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Responsible Ac ons & Future Reali es

e

/M

tio

nt

xt

n

Co

Go

als

Tech. Ed. Provision

ea

nin

g

Tech. Ed. Teacher Pedagogies

G en

e

E ral

du

ca

Figure 26.1  Contextual translations: The industry—education nexus. Figure 26.1 presents the authors’ conceptual perspective on an industry/technology education nexus that outlines the foundational and core role between “student learning” and “teacher pedagogies” that is essential to technology education provision. It also defines a core connectedness between “responsible actions and future realities” and “industrial actions for societal needs.” As such, industrial actions are not relevant to technology education provision unless they are integrated into the core of the subjects by highlighting industry as a societal construct that in today’s global climate is driven by responsible and sustainable agendas. The bidirectional peripheral interactions between student learning, industrial actions, pedagogies, and future realities are what define the ontological position of technology education. The following sections unpack these elements of the contextual translations encapsulated by the industry/technology education nexus. Context and meaning: The interaction between industrial action for societal needs and technology education pedagogies manifests to afford context and meaning to the learning which takes place in the classroom. Pedagogies which are cognizant, and where possible, inclusive of the current state-of-the-art technologies ensure that learning is both relevant to the contemporary needs of the student and of potential utility to the needs of society. The design of contextually meaningful learning can be achieved through direct reference to the means of industry to solve critical issues faced by society. Students can be exposed to the significance of ethical considerations from a global scale to effects that can be experienced on a local level. This interaction potentiates the enactment of pedagogy for the development of future active citizens who can contribute 362

Industrial Perspectives

meaningfully to the design and manufacture of technological solutions and critically, to the identification of the needs of society. Preparedness and Judgment: The interaction between industrial action for societal needs and technology education student learning manifests in practice to develop the preparedness and judgment of the learner. This development of preparedness is essential to couple with the development of judgment as it is explicitly linked to the core tenet of technology education, to develop individuals who can enact ethically considered change in the made world through the design and application of technological solutions. Considering the implications of actions carried out using technologies and processes aligned with contemporary industrial practices can prepare students for the responsibility of making informed and considered judgments which critically respond to the needs of society. Student learning through these authentic mediums also allows for realistic experiences of potential career paths and the knowledge and skills associated with them. This provides an opportunity for students to make informed judgment on whether the field of activity espoused in technology education is of interest and stimulating to them on a personal level. Transversal and Innovative Competencies: Transversal and innovative competencies are fostered as a result of the interaction between “responsible actions and future realities” and “technology education student learning” (Figure 26.1). These competencies act as an essential mediators for the application of knowledge and skills acquired because of the multifaceted nature of technology education learning transactions. By considering what could be through a series of design-mediated learning transactions the student is confronted with the challenge of defining responsible actions and their own responsibility to realize a “better” future reality. This learning environment entices students to adopt innovative and industrious dispositions toward authentic issues, from the identification and definition of those issues to the active pursuit of their resolution. The incorporation of developing transversal and innovative competencies allow for the learning outcomes of any particular design challenge or technical activity to supplement future learning and problem-solving. The nature of the designed learning experiences requires a divergent and creative approach to solving meaningful problems, resulting in a student who develops confidence in their capacity to be innovative through the application of their multifaceted and multi-modal knowledge base. General Education Goals: It is incumbent on the teacher to cultivate future enactment of technology education such that there is coherence with the general educational goals of the broader curriculum of study. The general educational goals are concerned with the holistic development of the individual so that they are an active member of society. For technology education to realize its potential contribution to this holistic development of the individual it must activate its pre-disposition to consider the future and its own capacity to affect the future for better or worse. It is in this space that students are encouraged to consider what needs to be solved or what could or should be better for the future. Therefore, general educational goals as they manifest in technology education require the development of adaptability to ways of working, ways of thinking, and ways of 363

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

working and thinking with others. This can be effectively achieved through pedagogical practices which promote the use of modeling, critical thinking, collaborative learning, and empathetic design tasks. Such an approach highlights the relevance of technology education to the general education of the student, regardless of their level of intent to pursue technological activity as a career. Critically, a learner’s experience of school subjects can provide a conception of reality that may or may not align with reality but certainly impact on their conception of the relevance to a particular discipline. Often second-level subjects are seen as a “pipeline” to related careers that can define the direction of travel for students at a very early stage, this concept has long kept people out of the field of engineering (Sorby et al., 2021).

Transactional The project-based focus of technology education activity remains a strength of learning transactions that take place in practical education. Over the past decade in particular, the context of technological activities has come to the fore, often led by a design agenda. The multifaceted nature of design activity, both from the perspective of capability and pedagogy, is critical to defining useful transactions that give meaning to the application of technical and technological “knowing” and “doing.” The role of design as a key mediator of the development of technological capability cannot be overlooked. In fact, in the 1970s Bruce Archer made an argument for the inclusion of design as an area of significance equal to the sciences and humanities in curricula (Archer, 1979). Design as an action and a field has the potential to effectively prepare students for their unpredictable and inevitably ever-changing futures. This adherence to adaptability and recognition of needs accompanied by ethical consideration for actions offers a flexible development of knowledge and skills that can be applied in a multitude of uncertain contexts. Framed by the centrality of designing—tasks, projects, and briefs go beyond the execution of skills to challenge norms, propose resolutions to problems, and innovate around possible new realities. Uniquely, this relationship between making and applied thinking frames an iterative dialectic between the made world and the conceptions and ideas of the student. Theorized through Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (1984), students engage in the cycle of abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, concrete experimentation, and reflective observation. The iterative dialectic of hand and mind (Kelly et al., 1987), mediated through “designing” in the context of “seeing the world as it could be,” encapsulates a complex and sophisticated relationship between speculations and critique. These transactions are governed by the concept of being able to make robust decisions about meeting current and future societal needs. The evolving knowledge, know-how, and technical advances emerging from industry provide the basis for a contemporary and relevant context for technology education and although supported by a speculative and critical model of enquiry, there is a need to 364

Industrial Perspectives

unpack the parameters of the transactional model. Technology education is challenged with the question of what we should do as opposed to what we can do. The capacity to develop technological products, services, and solutions is no longer solely a technological challenge, it involves careful consideration of future implications for society, climate, resources, and security. Critique in terms of environment, sustainability, and human endeavors help redefine the general education goals of technology education in the context of future industrial needs. The paradigm shift from the origins of vocational education to neo-vocational or even general education brings with it a significant ontological challenge, one that technology education as a community still considers. Within the context of the translational agenda from industrial activity and the transactional model of experiential learning, the parameters of technological activity are useful to articulate, not as a solution to the challenge, but as a starting point for further discussions. Figure 26.2 represents the convergence of agendas around students’ capability as mediated through technology education (vertical axis) and the relationship between general education and the current and future industrial needs (horizontal axis), exploring the parameters of meaningful technology education transactions. The ontology of technology education is to see the world as it can be and not as it is—considering not what we can do but what we should do. Societal challenges have become acute and apparent over the past decade with technology becoming a ubiquitous facet of modern life. The speed of innovation and development, coupled with its passive consumption, presents real challenges for societal well-being, security, and sustainability. A Transactional Model for Technology Education Active Citizenship

Crical & Emancipatory Technological Educaon

Industrial Labour Force Needs

Goals of Technological Educaon

Future Skills focused Technological Educaon

Technological Educaon Student

General Education Outcomes

Technological Educaon for Responsible and Sustainable Acons

Workforce Focused Technological Educaon

Technical Competence

Figure 26.2  Transactional model for technology education. 365

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Challenges as they have emerged require action from various perspectives to optimize future ways of living, learning, and working. Health, food security, climate actions, security, and inclusive, innovative, and reflective societies require a coherent framework for collaboration so as to clearly set out the agendas at play and understanding how to innovatively act on these agendas. The multifaceted and often interdisciplinary nature of technology education requires teachers to frame, prioritize, and emphasize the explicit context and meaning of specific learning outcomes so as to ensure activity is authentic and relevant. Figure 26.2 is not intended to compartmentalize goals of technology education but instead represent the ontologies that exist and should be integrated into learning activities. Activities designed to develop technical skills are often foundational to design and innovation activities and although the application case is grounded in critical and emancipatory objectives, these may not manifest explicitly until they align with associated levels of maturation. This is a pedagogical decision. The emphasis on future and advanced skills and the future of work are important contexts for technology education and must ensure an accurate representation of reality for students interested in careers within associated industries. Misrepresentation of industrial activity may be a significant disservice and possibly the causal variable for much of the lack of diversity, particularly female participation in engineering practice.

Summary Perspectives From a fundamental perspective, there is significant change in the relationship between technology education and industry during the various industrial ages. On the other hand, the relationships are essentially the same, with a change only in the nature and purpose of the technological activity. Technologically capable people will always have a critical function to play in society; the nature of capability has moved from the execution of artifacts to the critical judgment of when, how, and where we design, develop, and deploy new technological products and services. Critically, the evolution of industrial activity and societal needs requires education to keep pace with change. The contextual change and rationale defining technological capability requires the nature of knowledge to be defined in the context of activity, while the activity itself must support the development of the individual. Developing technical and technological skills to act positively on the world becomes a central focus for teacher professional development, ensuring responsible, sustainable technological actions. The need to upskill and reskill teachers with new technologies, advanced skills, and the space to develop associated pedagogical practices must be seen as an integral part of practice. Therefore, the perspectives, processes, and technical preparedness that govern the relationship between technology education and industry must be mediated by experiential interactions with industry: ideally, involving both teachers and students. 366

Industrial Perspectives

References Archer, B. (1979). The three Rs. Design Studies, 1(1), 17–20, https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/0142​ -694X(79)90023-1. Baynes, K. (2013). Design: Models of Change. Loughborough: Loughborough Design Press. Buckley, J., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Canty, D., Doyle, A., & Pears, A. (2020). Framing the constructive alignment of design within technology subjects in general education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Online May 27. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1007​/s10798​-020​-09585​-y. Doyle, A., Gumaelius, L., Pears, A., & Seery, N. (2019). Theorizing the role of engineering education for society: Technological activity in context? ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition 2019, June 15–19, Tampa, Florida. https://peer​.asee​.org​/theorizing​-the​-role​-of​ -engineering​-education​-for​-society​-technological​-activity​-in​-context (accessed May 28, 2020). Gibb, N. (2017). The importance of knowledge-based education [speech]. https://www​.gov​.uk​/ government​/speeches​/nick​-gibb​-the​-importance​-of​-knowledge​-based​-education. Gleeson, J. (2009) Curriculum in context: Partnership, power and praxis in Ireland. Bern and Oxford: Peter Lang. Griffiths, R. (2004) Knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709–26, https://doi​.org​/10​ .1080​/0307507042000287212. Kelly, A. V., Kimbell, R. A., Patterson, V. J., Saxton, S., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technological activity: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019). How technology makes us human: Cultural and historical roots for design and technology education. Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 464–83. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/09585176​.2019​.1649163. Scott, C. L. (2015). The Futures of learning 2: what kind of learning for the 21st century? UNESCO Education, Research and Foresight: Working Papers, November 14. https:// unesdoc​.unesco​.org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000242996​.locale​=en (accessed May 27, 2020). Snedden, D. (1921). Sociological Determination of Objectives in Education. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott. Sorby, S., Fortenberry, N. L., & Bertoline, G. (2021). Stuck in 1955, engineering education needs a revolution. Issues in Science and Technology. https://issues​.org​/engineering​ -education​-change​-sorby​-fortenberry​-bertoline/. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.

367

Chapter 27

Cultural Perspectives Technology and Culture: The Sociocultural Role of Technology Education Mishack T. Gumbo

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to examine the sociocultural role of technology education by reflecting on indigenous and non-indigenous technology. The contemporary social world is bedeviled by problems of environmental degradation, misuse of science and technology, inequalities, gender bias, adverse effects of globalization and privatization (Jayasree, 2015). This author adds to this list of problems, the individual’s confusion, depression, loneliness, stress, corruption, adulteration to the society and overexploitation of the environment. These problems are closely related to science and technology in terms of the historical human progress especially in industrialized societies worldwide. The scientific and technological human progress adds to technological approach in the modern education system. However, modern technology also attributes to these problems. As a result, the technology, society, and environment balance is shaky and threatens human life ultimately. Raising the global markets undoubtedly encourages science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) which are the key subjects for the post-industrial era and practices, but the sociocultural problems are the subject of social sciences (Jayasree, 2015). Given the notion that STEM is labeled as a gateway subject, it tends to be emphasized at the expense of social sciences, hence, it does not come as a surprise that technology education emphasizes hard-core solutions rather than the sociocultural ones. The foregoing problems highlighted undermine the fact that life arose from the five basic elements which are air, water, fire, earth, and sky. The casual treatment of these elements is accompanied by a disregard for education by elders, the important custodians of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous people have exhibited a respect for their existence within a tripartite relationship, that is, human beings, nature, and spirituality (Chibvongodze, 2016) which has not only helped to treat nature with respect but have also maintained their sustainable development and ways of knowing. The non-

Cultural Perspectives

indigenes’ disposition toward indigenes’ close and harmonious living with nature has tempered with this tripartite order while at the same time the non-indigenes have denied themselves the opportunity to understand reality from the indigenes’ worldviews. In the light of this issue, the sociocultural role of technology education becomes a topical issue and implicates what technology is taught to the learners and how. I submit that teaching technology in a manner that promotes social justice, values, and education for a holistic development is a desirable position that can benefit both indigenous and non-indigenous learners (refer to conceptualization section for definitions). According to Jayasree (2015, p. 52), this position encourages pro-social behaviors in learners. According to Jayasree (2015), harmonizing the teaching of technology with the sociocultural environment can nurture ethical development and inculcate values, attitudes, and skills that are needed for a harmonious living with others and nature. Thus, recognizing the sociocultural milieus that learners come from can bring transformation in the subject, technology education. Technology education teachers will transform their pedagogies to suit both indigenous and non-indigenous learners, policy makers, and curriculum planners will see a need to integrate indigenous perspectives in the technology education curriculum, the learning tasks planned for the learners will connect well with the societies out there and seek technological solutions which connect with societal values in response to the multiplicity of problems cited earlier. This chapter treats the issue of the sociological role of technology education by describing the pertinent key concepts around which the chapter revolves, reflecting on the sociocultural variables impacting on technology education, discussing values as a pertinent variable in technology education, connecting values to Ubuntu (described in the next section) due to its tenets which are implicated in the sociocultural approach, exploring relevant theories, and lastly, suggesting the sociological approach in the teaching of technology.

Conceptualization Technology Defining technology is critical for purposes of this chapter due to the aspect of indigeneity in the context of the sociocultural role of technology education. I particularly value Prime’s (1993) critical view of the definition. According to Prime (1993), definitions of technology have traditionally emphasized the process aspects through resources, the common purpose of which is to solve human problems rather than technology’s sociocultural purpose. Prime (1993) argues that the purpose of technology is intrinsic to the process as opposed to what is needed, that is, the purpose that is extrinsic to the solution of the problem (Prime, 1993). An extrinsic purpose in this case implies that technology should be taught in relation to the society. 369

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

I concur with Prime (1993), who proposes that the extrinsic purpose should be stated thus, “the enhancement of the quality of human life and relationships on the personal, community, national and international level” (p. 33). Prime’s (1993) definition of technology attracts that of Ogunbure (2011), which considers indigenous view. Ogunbure (2011, pp. 89–96) claims that technology is premised on three categories, which include material, social, and communication technologies. Material technology may include things such as bows and arrows, ploughs, and looms. Examples of social technology are methodologies, techniques, organizational and management skills, negotiating and counseling techniques, and social institutions such as patriarchy and women’s league, songs, jokes, ideas, and skills. Communication technology includes language, signs and symbols, drumming, and so on. These categories are further divided into material, social, and intellectual goods, or services. According to Ogunbure (2011), material goods/services include soap, food items (e.g., maize, houses, ornaments); social goods include values, plays, health, and belief systems; intellectual goods include ideas, abstract concepts, names, terminologies, and cognitive knowledge and idioms. Indigenously, then, technology is conceptualized differently from the dominant industrial conception which anchors on the artifactual aspect of technology. The term “firm” emphasizes the product orientation and transfer of technology, especially to developing contexts. The industry-based definition of technology has therefore the tendency to impose itself on developing contexts, disregarding the locally available technologies especially indigenous ones. An attempt should be made to consider both indigenous and nonindigenous views of technology.

Sociocultural Approaches to Education Sociocultural approaches take place in a cultural context and are mediated by language and other symbolic systems (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Sociocultural approaches imply culture, which shapes the way people see the world (Jayasree, 2015, p. 53) and manipulate or treat it. Bearing this in mind, culture embraces a society’s unique ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, exhibiting humans’ interpretation of the environment. The fact that people perceive the world differently is a noteworthy assertion. Within a sociocultural context, then, people are gregarious beings who interact on a daily basis. It is therefore incumbent on teachers not to discriminate learners according to their culture but to use culture as an enabling tool in teaching wherein learners can be accommodated and encouraged to participate in learning activities. This is crucial in a technology education class where learners can contribute creative design ideas that can provide solutions to the problems listed in the introduction of this chapter. The tendency, however, is to sideline indigenous technological solutions as they are deemed to be primitive and of low-quality solutions.

370

Cultural Perspectives

Indigeneity The concept “indigeneity” has reference to indigenous people. Indigenous people are people who or whose ancestors have lived in an area before the settlement or formation of the modern state borders (Sarivaara et al., 2013). They (indigenous people) still maintain a continuous historical connection to the pre-colonization societies and have kept either wholly or partly their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions (Sarivaara et al., 2013). A distinct characteristic of indigenous people purported by this definition is that they have or have had an experience with colonization such as restriction of their movement, confiscation of their land, subjection to slavery, or even taking them into slavery elsewhere and as such they are in diaspora especially descendants of African origin. By implication, non-indigenous people are historically the colonizers of indigenous people, who have denied themselves the opportunity of knowing and learning indigenous people’s philosophy. Hence, inclusive classrooms present opportunities not only to indigenous learners to learn about their own knowledge systems but for non-indigenous learners to benefit from those knowledge systems as well. In contexts such as America, indigenous people have a minority representation whereas in other contexts such as Africa they have a majority representation. As a result, colonization has had inroads into the technology education curriculum and pedagogy in recent decades, discrediting indigenous learners by not relating the subject to their culture. The same is observed in England and Wales. Thus, Eggleston (in Gumbo, 2020) criticizes the English and Welsh technology education curricula and recommends that it be taught to both Black and white children until the dismantling of the social pressures that decide technological achievement by race are understood and defaced. This criticism is based on white teachers’ treatment of Black learners, accusing them of a messy job, lack of motivation, language handicap, lack of appropriate cultural backgrounds, and so on. The Design and Technology Working Group’s final report is transformative in the sense that it acknowledges cultural diversity as a feature of British people, thus, it requires perceptive and sensitive teachers who can demonstrate that no one culture has the monopoly of achievement in technology education (Eggleston in Gumbo, 2020).

Ubuntu: An African Philosophical Principle of Values Ubuntu is a concept which is deeply rooted in African indigenous people’s philosophy of life. The term Ubu- (be-ing) ntu (human) is an African philosophy which guides how a person should live within his/her society. It derives from umuntu [singular] or bantu [plural] (isiZulu) which means a human being. A person is guided by the values which are encapsulated in Ubuntu, which include humaneness, values, respect, oneness, community, and so on. Bantu (people) cover almost a third of sub-Saharan Africa. 371

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

However, the term “Ubuntu” as used in this chapter has reference to the social conduct of Muntu. In terms of Ubuntu, a person is viewed in a sociocultural context. Such is but a person through others since he or she is a social being. His or her individualism finds meaning within a community. Avoseh (2008) claims that values enjoin the individual to put him- or herself always in the skin of others in order to feel the way he or she does. According to Avoseh (2008), the individual’s reality balance is shaken when his or her activities negate the existence of others. Ubuntu creates a web of human relationships which are anchored on the spirit of interdependence and mutual trust. Ubuntu entails a person’s identity and fulfillment within the community. Avoseh (2008) further claims that objectivity is lost the moment individual conduct is conceived as something separate from the social conduct. In this sense, Ubuntu is premised on the human values of unity, respect, care, sharing, and so on. It guides people’s interaction, practices, including the education of the young. In the light of Ubuntu, Avoseh (2008) criticizes the fact that modern societies enumerate values as obsolete which leaves them behind in the global human progress. According to Avoseh (2008), this makes values in most Western and urban societies run against the logic of economic globalization that mostly validates individual conduct in terms of economic returns, unlike in rural setups where values reign (Avoseh, 2008). This context-based values have been superseded by values of technology coupled with the propensity of the strong to vanquish the weak. While technology has, through the ages, provided solutions for the comfort of human existence on earth, it has equally been abused and misappropriated to the point of creating sociocultural problems of which the main one is inequality. Alongside this abuse and misappropriation of technology has been the marginalization of indigenous technologies with the resultant disregard for the contribution that indigenous technologies could make toward human development. In Africa, values are synonymous with education (Avoseh, 2008). That is why educating the African child without honoring values will make the child a misfit in his or her society. As stated earlier in this chapter, values lie at the core of the society and thus influence the society’s education system. Thus, the impact of technology on society and vice versa cannot be undermined.

The Sociocultural Variables at Play in Technology Education The previous descriptions of concepts arouse critical views about product design from a sociocultural perspective. Product innovation should be assimilated within the context of its own culture (Moalosi et al., 2007). Moalosi et al. (2007) conducted a study that targeted technology education students in Botswana about the impact of sociocultural variables in product design. Visual data were collected through sketches, photographs, 372

Cultural Perspectives

and design models and textual data through retrospective interviews and design reports. Their findings revealed three main variables which impact on innovative design, which are material factors, community, and entertainment. Acknowledging the fact that Botswana was never colonized, these authors claim that the country was governed the same as the colonized neighboring states and as a result, its social and cultural fabric were negatively impacted by colonialism. They employed the postcolonial theory in their study. Postcolonial theory confronts Western culture’s ways of appropriating technology, practices, language, images, and so on of indigenous people who attempt to express their own identity and reclaim their past. Its goal is to develop a radical critique of colonialism. According to Moalosi et al. (2007), then, design is only meaningful if its activities and outcomes accommodate the multicultural and diverse nature of the society. Premised on Moalosi et al.’s (2007) postcolonial ideology, Botswana “needs to decolonise its education, values, language, religion, technology and social organisation” (p. 3). These authors argue that a product appeals to an individual relative to his or her cultural framework, worldview, and experience of daily life. Hence, technology is an expression of culture (Prime, 1993). In line with Ogunbure’s (2011) definition of technology presented earlier, Moalosi et al.’s analysis of the sociocultural variables which impact on technology education relate to tangible (e.g., owning cattle, mortar and pestle, wooden spoon, baskets) and non-tangible variables (e.g., peace and harmony, beauty, storytelling, love, assistance, unity, consultation, community). According to Moalosi et al. (2007), intangible variables are valued because they teach principles of life and morality. They also guide patterns of problem-solving in terms of consultation, community spirit, and assistance, for example, designers make products by looking at their surrounding environment; for example, they may use earth colors in the making of a necklace, animal shapes in the making of a locket, and zebra strips in decorations (Moalosi et al., 2007). In the light of design as described earlier, African values concomitant to Ubuntu such as honesty, respect, obedience, and generosity are central education aspirations inculcated by parents, grandparents, and elder siblings during the socialization process with the goal of integrating the community (Katola, 2014). This is captured in the whole purpose of education in African contexts as related by Katola (2014), which is adopted to the environment, aimed at conserving the cultural heritage of the family, clan, and ethnic group, adapted the children to their physical environment and taught them how to use it, explained to the children that their future and that of community depended on the continuation and understanding of their ethnic institution of laws, language and values they had inherited from the past. (p. 33) As a result, cultural clashes may surface when a new product does not recognize its projection of different meanings to different people based on its shape, color, or name. However, cautiously choosing the product by accommodating cultural representation may promote a sense of unity in global cultures. It stands to reason, therefore, that 373

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

technology education that is divorced from the values system of the society that it serves may not be meaningful to learners. Elders’ educational role is highly valued in indigenous communities. However, orientation toward technology education is that of excluding them as they are not viewed as people who can contribute technological knowledge. Moalosi et al.’s (2007) study as explained earlier attests to innovative design ideas that can expand the understanding of technology education in both indigenous and non-indigenous learners. Critically, it can make the learning of technology education relevant to indigenous learners. The discussion in this section creates a need to give a perspective of the values issue as it pertains to technology education.

Values in Technology Education Values entail the criteria used to select and motivate human actions and thus to evaluate people and events; its notion is that of goodness (Katola, 2014). According to Avoseh (2008), values bestride every human activity and are integral to human existence, because human beings value animals. Avoseh (2008) continues to say that values in informal education are foundations for lifelong learning as a basis for participatory democracy, equity, and social justice. While it is indisputable that every society has values, indigenous communities have a history of holding tightly to their value systems (Moalosi et al., 2007), hence Ubuntu philosophy is a central characteristic that defines many African indigenous cultures in the sub-Saharan region. Ubuntu is discussed in the next section because of its close connection with values. In African indigenous societies such as the Gu and Yoruba of Nigeria, values guide and determine individuals who aspire to become revered ancestors so much that it is referred to as Iwa and Wadagbe (character) and violating it is èèwò, osu (forbidden behavior) (Avoseh, 2008). Values are abode in parents, grandparents, and elders whose education role is critical, especially to the young as alluded to by Moalosi et al. (2007). Furthermore, it was explained in that section that values guide problem-solving. Problem-solving is not only a general educational enterprise but is mainly technological. Technology education is a subject that aims at solving or meeting human problems and/ or addressing needs and wants. Central to product evaluation in technology education is design aspects. Design aspects in technology education include function, aesthetics, ergonomics values, manufacturing methods, and materials. These aspects are critical in light of this chapter. Hence, they are briefly reflected upon subsequently: ●

374

Function: This has to do with the usability of a technological solution by the target group or end-user. The designer should therefore design with the end-user in mind rather than his or her own needs. The designer should therefore approach design from different cultural and contextual dimensions. An approach of this

Cultural Perspectives

●

●

●

●

●

kind will make sure that external technological solutions are not parachuted into the contexts where they can be less usable or not usable at all. Aesthetics: The aesthetics of a technological solution are based on objective and subjective judgment. Objective judgment relates to aspects such as size, color, pattern, and texture. Subject judgment involves taste, style, and appeal. A critical question for the designer in this case is consideration for varied perceptions of the concepts of size, color, pattern, or texture by different cultures. For example, designing close to nature as described by Moalosi et al. (2007) would adopt the zebra colors and stripe pattern in a particular product. The Ndebele culture in South Africa uses multi colors and triangular as well as rectangular patterns or shapes in their house decorations. Ergonomics: The usability and appeal of a particular design is influenced by the senses (taste, smell, vision, hearing, touch) and other aspects, such as intellectual skills. People’s perceptions stem from their senses and this may differ from one person to another based on their educational background, cultural background, beliefs, norms, and so on. From a sociological context point of view, technology education should accommodate varied perceptions expressed by learners regarding this aspect accompanied by the intellectual skills that they may display. Learners will then be allowed freedom to design informed by their perceptions which are shaped by their contexts. Values: In light of the sociological issues highlighted in the introduction, values include the economic, social inclusivity, environmental, health, and safety aspects. Technology education has a critical role to play in addressing these aspects from a design perspective, especially in relation to showing justice toward developing and poor societies. It should be transformative and engender social justice. Manufacturing methods: Technological solutions should be sensitive to the issues of waste management, pollution, energy consumption, suitable tools, and equipment. Modern technology dominates treatment of these issues and contributes waste management problems such as the spillage of toxic materials into rivers, pollution, and so on. A dual or team approach to design activities in response to these issues could make learners learn from alternative solutions which are sustainable such as indigenous communities’ approaches to environmental management. Materials: Materials which are employed in making solutions should take into account sustainability of resources, quality, suitability, and durability. In the modern building industry, for example there is no regard for sustaining the natural fauna and flora. Companies are driven by capital lust for money as they bulldoze nature in the sites which are earmarked for building. The quick consumption of materials does not give time to nature to resuscitate, thus the tripartite relationship cited earlier is threatened, and human life in turn.

Technological products are evaluated and/or accepted based on how they are viewed in the light of these design aspects. From a transformation point of view, it is critical 375

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

that technology is taught from an equality point of view to avoid making it a tool for perpetuating the oppression of indigenous societies—indigenous societies’ needs have been trampled for centuries and there has been no regard for their technological practices. This has left them poor, to say the least. The content and pedagogical knowledge taught especially in the so-called gateway subject such as technology education have not embraced indigenous epistemologies. In light of the foregoing critical views, it can be noticed that values are the bedrock of problem-solving. It is categorized into cognitive values, which are about beliefs and affective values, which are about feelings and attitudes (Prime, 1993); values develop body and soul (Avoseh, 2008). The notion that technology is not culture-free also makes it not to be value-free as values are deeply seated in culture; people create things that they value, are beautiful, or useful in the light of the design aspects explained earlier. As it has been repeatedly stated this far, culture and values are two bedfellows; they are inseparable. Thus, culture manifests in the artifacts and systems that people make (Prime, 1993). Having said this, teachers’ values creep in through the activities that they design for their learners as values can influence learning in different contexts and at different levels (Avoseh, 2008). This impacts on the learners’ values and understanding of technology (Pavlova & Howard, 2002). From this line of thinking, it is clear that technology which is skewed toward promoting the culture of one society and not others’ cultures will create inequality as it will solve problems of that society while it creates problems for other societies. There is therefore a new colonialism that Prime (1993) expressed in terms of dominance of modern technology in developing countries where interest heavily relies on financial gains with a resultant sociocultural disharmony and negative labor market effects. Therefore, Prime (1993) raises the question of appropriate technology which is directly linked to the issues of ownership of technology and the ultimate selfdetermination “when indigenous technologies are designed by local people to meet local needs” (p. 31). Prime (1993, p. 31) validly argues that technology education which equips learners with capability but does not enable them to discern and deal with the underlying values issues is not only short-sighted but dangerous. The findings of Pavlova and Howard about technology education teachers’ understanding of values in Australia is that of tying them down to the process activities rather than sociocultural relevance. For technology education teachers in Russia, while values were understood within the sociocultural context, they were detached from technology education and only seen in terms of moral values. Is it because values are not easy to measure as outcomes in technology education, which then puts the end goal of technology education on capability rather than on technological literacy? Prime (1993) writes thus: Technology is itself rapidly changing the environment in which future technological decisions will have to be made and it is only an informed and technologically literate citizen, who would be able to make decisions about technology and assess its broad social impact on family structure, inter and cross-cultural relations, national

376

Cultural Perspectives

and international functioning, its economic impact on business, commerce and government, as well as its environmental impact on agriculture, food production, and waste disposal in both the short and long term. (p. 32) However, “the central aspect of education has always been a passing on of norms and values” (Katola, 2014, p. 32). This makes Ubuntu issues central in technology education. The deliberations thus far have theoretical implications for sociocultural relevance.

Theoretical Implications for Sociocultural Relevance Technology education and its teaching should first and foremost be framed within relevant theories which can facilitate its sociocultural role. In light of this chapter, sociocultural theory is the immediate theory. It supports emancipative teaching (Mutekwe, 2018). Emancipative teaching is easily achievable if teachers first acknowledge the knowing that learners bring into the academic activities. Such acknowledgment will steadily but surely reduce dependency of learners on teachers to solve problems. Designing solutions to the problems in technology education, then, should not be a dictating activity in which the teacher denies learners freedom to contribute their creative ideas during the activities. This theory attracts another related theory, which is culturalrelevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2000). A voice of African Americans, LadsonBillings (2000), argues that educational literature is silent on teaching African American learners. The purpose of the design of cultural-relevant pedagogy was therefore to merge all learners, irrespective of their ethnic or cultural origins, into one ideal pedagogic framework (Ladson-Billings, 2000). This framework can go a long way to support equity and equality, thus uncompromising standards. However, Ladson-Billings (2000) argues that the intentions of this framework were biased in the American multicultural classes. Ladson-Billings explains these intentions thus: Of course, this Americanization process considered only those immigrant and cultural groups from Europe. Indigenous peoples and people of African descent were not thought educable and therefore not a part of the mainstream educational discourse. (2000, p. 207) I opine that this framework is ideal and can make learning for both indigenous and nonindigenous learners comfortable, provided its application is not compromised. Sociocultural theory and cultural-relevant pedagogy speak for a postcolonial indigenous theory (Chilisa, 2012). This theory is related to the postcolonial theory. Chilisa (2012) writes that postcolonial theory by itself is a form of critical theory which originated from a Western tradition. Chilisa (2012) argues, however, that the values such as family, spirituality, humility, and sovereignty of indigenous people are missing in the postcolonial theory. Hence, Chilisa (2012) proposes a postcolonial indigenous theory to 377

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

fill this gap. According to Chilisa (2012), there is a need for the inclusion of survivance in theory. Survivance (active sense of presence and continuance of native stories) goes beyond survival, endurance, and resistance to colonial domination because it suggests that the colonized and the colonizers have the opportunity to learn from each other. Therefore, the foregoing theories can help integrate all learners’ sociocultural attributes in the social construction of knowledge. Furthermore, adopting these theories can encourage teachers to let learners become partners with them by engaging in reciprocal teaching, thus allowing learners to learn from each other and the teacher to learn along with learners as well—there is room for teachers to learn from their learners rather than perceive themselves as the only knowledge dispensers or disseminators. Mutekwe (2018) involves the term “equity pedagogies” to buttress this claim in which learners’ everyday experiences can be shared. The theories described earlier have a potential to promote methods which can accommodate both indigenous and non-indigenous learners. Class discussions, group discussions, seminars, debates, role plays, and drama which can be integrated with indigenous methods such as observation, imitation, use of narrative or storytelling, collaboration, cooperation to promote learner inclusivity and equity (Mutekwe, 2018). These theories have implications for the sociocultural role of technology education ultimately.

A Sociocultural Approach for the Teaching of Technology The foregoing discussions and related theories have implications on the teaching of technology to ensure its sociocultural relevance. Values, from sociocultural and indigenous points of view, are central to the teaching of the subject so that indigenous learners cherish values as the guiding cultural tool for design. The teaching of technology should treat values and culture not as ideal concepts only but as empowering tools (Jayasree, 2015). This way, learners will be taught meaningfully and be able to address the multiplicity of the sociocultural problems cited in the introduction of this chapter. With its range of targeted skills such as teamwork, cooperation, collaboration, co-construction, technology education can unite learners in their learning and design projects rather than divide them by lifting up modern conceptions of technology at the expense of indigenous ones. In real life, engineers, architectures, blacksmiths, and so on work more in teams rather than as individuals. This practice should be inculcated in learners in their learning activities. This can be done by adopting the principles of Ubuntu. It all starts with technology education teachers being interested in the technologies of other cultures so that they can in turn encourage learners to do the same. Learners will be provided with the opportunity to be aware of value systems which differ from those 378

Cultural Perspectives

of their own culture as well as be interested to learn them. One of the learning activities which are authentic and interesting is design activities that are based on scenarios and case studies. In most instances teachers design these scenarios and choose case studies for learners. They therefore need to adopt a multicultural approach to this aspect by interchanging scenarios and case studies between indigenous ones and non-indigenous ones. Learners should be oriented in such a way that they learn technology primarily in relation to their society, and topics should be selected which encourage their interest, critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making for a democratic and selfsustaining system. The teaching of technology should be made lively and more authentic so that learners can design solutions for the problems as stated in the introduction. Indeed, technology education is an interesting subject which, if taught well, can inculcate humane and rational ethos toward moral and ethical responsibility. This would need a close collaboration with communities as learners will benefit especially from the teachings of the elders in indigenous communities which prioritize humanness in terms of the values that they teach. Since technology education teachers teach content, policymakers are implicated—curriculum and content should be transformed first by ensuring coverage of indigenous technologies. The pressing reality about the future which will boom with science and technology in view of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is likely to attract the leapfrogging (fast-tracking) effect of technology over indigenous technology. This will be unfortunate given that the society is still battling to cope with the current technological problems. Technology that increases productivity by being capital driven may work for the developed contexts, but labor-intensive and indigenous technology are needed in developing contexts where unemployment is still a reality. In South Africa, labor unions have already sounded their concern about the 4IR’s defacing manual work and laying off many workers, which will likely heighten poverty levels. Economic growth and profitability alone which the nation states are obsessed with cannot and will not improve the quality of human life. Hence, the need to sharpen learners’ critical thinking. It behooves technology education teachers not only to teach technology but to nurture a critical paradigm in learners so that they do not only get excited by the appealing effect of technology. Instead, they should be critical about the problems that their designs might create. There needs to be a deconstruction and reconstruction of the concept of technology so that it includes indigenous views in order that indigenous technology is not discredited in the language of development. Hence, as part of learning, learners should keep expressing their understanding of technology. In the context of the tripartite relationship mentioned earlier in this chapter, learners should be made aware of the environment about the importance of elements and the need for their protection as an immediate social concern. But creating awareness in learners should not be the end goal, rather they should be taught about the importance of nature under the technology, society, and environment theme. As part of their learning 379

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

activities, they should debate and confront issues of overexploitation of environment, depletion of ozone layer, global warming, pollution, deforestation, new technological choices, living styles, and so on, which are the cause of environmental degradation in the last century. As stated earlier, technology education should address the cognitive component of values by exposing learners to all relevant knowledge for cognitive justice and engage their feelings by situating technology in a human or social context that is meaningful and real (Prime, 1993; Mutekwe, 2018). Every topic of technology education should be explained for its social relevance. In view of the theories described earlier, which promote democratic learning, the practice of having people of one culture evaluate the technological solutions to problems of other cultures should be discouraged as it carries the subtle implication that some cultures, the more developed ones, hold all the answers. What is important is that learners develop a sense of respect for technologies that are forged out of experiences and cultures that are different from their own, and a sense of appreciation for what is their own. As far as possible, learners should be helped to consider other perspectives besides their own so that they can see problems and solutions through the eyes of those who own the problems (Prime, 1993). This practice will promote participatory design wherein learners will enjoy the freedom of active participation and exchange of ideas in their design activities.

Conclusion This chapter has deliberated on the sociocultural role of technology education in order to make the subject not only a cognitive enterprise but relevant to addressing the sociocultural problems such as those highlighted in the chapter. Values lie at the core of education. The discussions in the chapter have demonstrated the importance of values in technology education. The cited study from Botswana relevantly shows this importance. Values also link to culture and for indigenous people, to Ubuntu. Relevant theories that engender the teaching of technology from a sociocultural perspective have been discussed as well. The crux of the chapter lies in the implications of the issues discussed in the teaching of technology. This is done in the section, “A Sociocultural Approach for the Teaching of Technology.” In light of this chapter, technology education teachers should as a matter of fact consider that they teach learners from diverse contexts. This requires them to respect the cultures and knowledge of learners. They (technology education teachers) should therefore invest in pedagogies which will benefit some learners and switch off others. They should teach technology as a transformation of curriculum and pedagogy rather than as a cultural divisive tool. Drawing from Ubuntu, technology education teachers should facilitate harmonious learning of technology between indigenous and non-indigenous learners. Since teachers teach the curriculum which has been designed for them by educational authorities within the context of 380

Cultural Perspectives

policies, policy makers should transform the curriculum and its content so that it includes indigenous technologies. That way teachers will be supported in their attempts to transform the subject.

References Avoseh, M. B. M. (2008). Values and informal education: From indigenous Africa to 21st century Vermillion. Kansas City: Adult Education Research Conference. Chibvongodze, D. T. (2016). Ubuntu is not only about the human! An analysis of the role of African philosophy and ethics in environmental management. Journal of Human Ecology, 53(2), 157–66. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gumbo, M. T. (2020). What does decolonizing Technology Education mean? In M. T. Gumbo (Ed.), Decolonization of technology education: African indigenous perspectives (pp. 7–24). New York: Peter Lang. Jayasree, D. (2015). Science and technology education in harmony with socio-cultural environment. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 2(4), 52–5. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Socio-cultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191–206. Katola, M. T. (2014). Incorporation of traditional African cultural values in the formal education system for development, peace building and good governance. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 2(3), 31–9. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African American students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 206–14. Moalosi, R., Popovic, V., & Hickling-Hudson, A. (2007). Product design based on Botswana’s postcolonial socio-cultural perspective. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 35–43. Mutekwe, E. (2018). Using Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to pedagogy: Insights from some teachers in South Africa. Journal of Education, 71, 58–72. Ogunbure, A. A. (2011). The possibilities of technological development in Africa: An evaluation of the role of culture. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(3), 86–100. Pavlova, M., & Howard, M. (2002). Values in technology education: A two-country study. The 2nd Biennial Conference on Technology Education. Gold Coast, Australia. Prime, G. M. (1993). Values in technology: An approach to learning. Design and Technology Teaching, 26(1), 30–6. Sarivaara, E., Maatta, K., & Uusiautti, S. (2013). Who is indigenous? Definitions of indigeneity. European Scientific Journal, 1, 369–78.

381

Chapter 28

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives Developing a Technological Identity within Curricular and Non-Curricular Programs Thomas Kennedy

Introduction Spaces grounded in the use of tools, materials, and processes have become widespread in education. They emerge as non-curricular environments offering a variety of technological project work. As these educational makerspaces continue to secure their foothold in schools on an international scale, early exposure to technical activity and technological knowledge can be influential in shaping how learners envision their capacity to pursue technical career paths. Early exposure can influence feelings of comfort and belonging as learners build their identity through technological activity. Bruner (1996) described the function of education as furthering the economic aims of society. As the needs of society become increasingly technological, early experiences that may impact professional trajectories warrant a closer examination. Makerspaces have stepped into educational settings and become a major player in the development of technological identity, a concerning reality as non-curricular environments tend to be more organic than their curricular counterparts. Technological programs must re-evaluate how their project work is designed to empower learners and support aspirations for technological futures. The growing popularity of educational makerspaces may suggest that education has ushered in a new epistemological perspective, but its roots can already be found in the existing curriculum. Technology education, an established curricular domain for the past several decades, has traditionally been the primary source of school-based exposure to technical activity. It sits apart from “academic” offerings as a result of the institutional tendency to separate disciplinary knowledge and disciplinary application (Gieryn, 1983; Simon, 1996). The divide is plainly visible at the university level as institutions continue to establish separate science faculties from engineering faculties.

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

Educational makerspaces have grown within the gap created by this fragmentation, a quasi-response to aforementioned societal demand for exposure to technical activity and the development of technological knowledge. The ability for such programs to work outside of institutional limitations, such as timetables, graduation requirements, and funding, has only increased its reach and audience. A coding club, for example, can attract a multi-age audience when offered outside of the school schedule and can even offer an alternative for those learners who are unable to enroll in technology education courses. Its reach and potential impact grow exponentially as it offers the earliest exposure to technological work. As opportunities for these formative experiences begin to outnumber opportunities offered through technology education, they become the primary influence to shape the technical identity of learners. The development of technological identity rests upon a sense of comfort and belonging. Learners become empowered as they build their technological knowledge and successfully navigate unfamiliar spaces. Holland et al.’s (1998) work on identity in cultural worlds described such intentional technological spaces as figured realms, constructed realities where participants are expected to adopt potentially unfamiliar norms and practices. An adolescent navigates several such realms daily as they modify their identity to attend school and become a student, play a sport, and become an athlete, or spend time with peers and become a friend. The space that hosts technological activity becomes another realm to navigate but can be problematic when its practices seem technical and unfamiliar. Feelings of discomfort and estrangement can manifest as learners negotiate their perceived place within such a technological realm. This can be difficult, especially in educational makerspaces, as learners choose to participate and may decide almost immediately to never return based on their initial discomfort. Learners enrolled in a curricular offering, on the other hand, tend to work past initial discomfort as simply dropping a course may not be an option. Either way, intentional structures are critical in supporting these experiences to promote a sense of belonging over feelings of estrangement. Constructs embedded within the framework of technical project work are instrumental in facilitating the transition into unfamiliar spaces and the adoption of a technological identity. Vygotsky (1979) spoke of the importance of such constructs as pivotal objects that help switch between identities just as a child would use a toy to trigger their imagination. These pivotal constructs—or simply pivots—can be either a physical object or a routine but intentional in their purpose. The concept is easily explained using a hobby horse, a simple child’s toy that combines a stick and a horse’s head. A child begins by using the hobby horse to cue their imagination and pretend to ride. Eventually, the same child is able to pick up a stick at random and engage in the same act, eventually reaching a point where no physical object is required as they ride a completely imaginary horse. A similar perspective can ease the transition as learners enter the technological realm. As unapprenticed learners engage with authentic tools, materials, and processes, they become the Vygotskian child, acting, and adopting behaviors until it becomes just another identity in their repertoire. The pragmatic 383

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

potential of pivotal objects can be observed just by offering a carpentry pencil to a learner that has just entered a fabrication setting. The pencil is an actual tool used by a real-world carpenter and offers some early sense of becoming as leaners engage as a carpenter. The pivotal value of the pencil lessens over time but only after serving its original purpose. The same can also be said regarding technological processes. Routines begin as explicit procedures but become an implicit act that learners can call upon while engaged with tools and materials in technological activity. Theoretically, intentional structures are essential components to support the development of identity and feelings of comfort and belonging in technological spaces. But, in practice, which constructs are applicable across curricular and non-curricular technological spaces to properly structure learner experiences? The pedagogical approach to curricular and non-curricular offerings of technological activity can be quite different from one educational context to the next. This can be problematic as the potential for variance can have such a profound impact on shaping an early technological identity. Programs can pull learners toward technological belonging, while others may push them away. The inescapable popularity of technological project work in educational settings will have a direct impact on society as learners plan their professional trajectories based on the nature of their early experiences. The potential for variance across technological program experiences warrants an exploration of key constructs that support the development of a balanced identity. This chapter conceptualizes the technological identity as a combined sense of comfort and belonging built upon the development and documentation of technological knowledge while engaged with tools, materials, and processes. This work is intended to contribute to the existing field of study on technological activity with particular emphasis on the potential role of educational makerspaces.

Identity Development The development of a strong sense of comfort and belonging within technical activity can influence the pursuit of professional technological trajectories in society. The identity is shaped as learners engage with tools, materials, and processes, where the earliest potential for exposure is within educational makerspaces. However, whether learners engage in technology activity as a part of technology education or an educational makerspace is irrelevant as the expectations in both spaces can seem foreign and unfamiliar when compared to their previous educational experiences. School-based identities have traditionally taken shape in knowledge-based classrooms, perpetuating a sense of estrangement when faced with technological tasks. Learners will encounter a similar discomfort as they navigate careers, enter new workplaces, and engage with unacquainted colleagues. Early experiences plant the seed that can germinate an identity where learners are empowered to navigate the unfamiliarity and initial discomfort in 384

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

technological work. Intentional structures create the conditions for germination. The following section will offer an overview of technological identity, the theoretical underpinnings of a balanced social identity, and the development of identity in praxis. Technological identity is not an innate construct. While some may gravitate toward technical project work with ease, others may be reluctant or feel intimidated as they are faced with unfamiliar tasks grounded in disciplinary application. For some, technical competency can develop quickly, like an athlete trying their hand at a new sport. These learners exhibit an early sense of belonging in the field and require less explicit support in the development of their technological identity. For others, an early aptitude may not exist. These learners can experience estrangement in technological activity almost immediately if left unsupported. Their negative experience shapes a technological identity built on estrangement, where they perceive themselves as a part of the periphery in such a technical space. Fortunately, learners are not alone in educational spaces where their immediate peer group can form the first construct to support their technological identity. Generally, learners enter the technological realm—an intentional space dedicated to technical practices and values—as a newcomer, an individual unapprenticed to the competencies required to fully engage within the new environment. In curricular offerings, newcomers are grouped as a class as they begin their coursework together. Though there may be some with prior experience in similar technological course offerings, the class shares a similar competency level and move forward along a similar path. The class builds a shared sense of purpose and belonging as they work through similar tasks. In educational makerspaces, however, the demographic can be a mixture of ages, grade levels, or previous technological experience. Participants may have been involved with the makerspace in previous years and form a subgroup that is already apprenticed in the technological competencies of the environment. Newcomers may not experience the same near-immediate comfort within this group as the presence of the experienced subgroup may only perpetuate marginalization. The following case contextualizes the technological identity that can develop in educational settings and the fallacy that learners navigate between similar spaces with ease.

Student A (SA) has decided to enroll in robotic systems technology and join an underwater robotics club—Kraken Robotics—after school. They have no prior experience in robotics and are a true newcomer upon entering each program. SA is a little uneasy at first in robotic systems but, knowing that all students in the class are starting at the same level, they are able to manage their uneasiness and begin to learn the unfamiliar practices. As the offering moves along, SA feels a connection to their class, a rapport built upon a shared history of working through technological tasks. SA assumes this sense of comfort and belonging in technological activity would translate to the robotics club but, as they entered the Kraken Robotics group, they found themself back to being a newcomer.

385

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Their sense of uneasiness returned as the group focused on underwater robotics and their previous course work focused on land-based robots. The peer group is also different as none of their classmates have joined. SA noted some returning students who participated in Kraken Robotics in previous seasons that seem to form a subgroup within the club. SA now finds themself uneasy about the new practices and begins to rethink their place in the group now that their comfort level has changed. SA was considering a career in robotics prior to this experience and now is unsure of her professional pathway. The technological identity must empower learners to navigate between groups engaged in similar activity. Wenger’s (2000) work on social identity within communities of practice pours the foundation for a strong technological identity in education settings. His work explored the nature of developing a social identity that is built locally but can negotiate membership and engagement in parallel communities. Wenger’s work noted three critical components of a balanced social identity: connectedness, expansiveness, and effectiveness. First, connectedness refers to an identity within the immediate community of practice that is strengthened through shared histories and experiences. This is visible when SA felt comfort and belonging amid their robotic systems technology class as the group shared similar lived experiences. This pillar of social identity is supported almost automatically in most technological programs by the presence of a peer group. Connectedness offers a solid initial identity but can be limiting if learners hold too tightly to their immediate group and context, unable to detach themselves and function based on their own technological competencies. Second, expansiveness refers to an identity that is built within the immediate community but also accepted in those parallel communities that value the same competencies. If SA had developed an expansive identity, they would have viewed their competencies to merit a place within the Kraken program community that valued similar competencies. This deficiency could have been addressed by pointing out that the competencies in land-based robotics are akin to those in underwater robotics. An expansive identity would facilitate membership across communities that share a similar field. Third, effectiveness refers to the ability to carry out tasks within a shared space between parallel communities. Effectiveness is best observed while learners engage at events such as regional competitions or work sites. Ultimately, the technological identity is a construct that must be grounded in local experience but universal enough to carry meaning within similar communities of practice. Curricular offerings tend to rest primarily upon the connectedness pillar, where experiences have traditionally remained at the classroom level without the opportunity to interact with a parallel community, even within the same school. This trend would account for SA’s feelings of connectedness with their robotic systems technology class and their inability to transfer their technological identity to a similar community of practice, such as the Kraken Robotics group. SA’s inability to envision themself as

386

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

belonging to the underwater robotics group despite relevant experience in the field of robotics could fester and become a perceived deficiency in the field of robotics. A sense of estrangement that would negatively impact any aspirations of a professional trajectory within the associated domain. The explicit development of a balanced technological identity offers an early exposure to negotiating membership across parallel groups, even those that appear most unfamiliar. Large-scale educative maker programs exist that can support the development of a connected, expansive, and effective technological identity. These programs adopt a terminal activity that brings technological communities together in a shared space. The Marine Advanced Technology Education underwater remotely operated vehicle (MATE-ROV) program and FIRST LEGO League (FLL) challenge are examples of international programs with school-based offerings where teams prepare for a regional product demonstration. Learners design an original prototype to address a mission scope published annually by the organizing body. Learners work collaboratively on their prototype to outperform their competitors from parallel programs at other schools. At the competition, teams compete for the maximum point values in various predetermined tasks as they interact with other teams, competition organizers, and judges. It becomes a convergence of communities grounded in technological competencies and robotics, programs to support the effectiveness and expansiveness of participant identity. Participants are able to situate themselves within the larger community of practice and perform as they would within real-world industry. The following case builds upon the earlier example and the potential experience offered through non-curricular offerings of technological activity such as a robotics club. Despite some initial uneasiness, Student A (SA) decided to stick with Kraken Robotics, a school-based offering of the international MATE-ROV program. Through Kraken, SA developed technological competencies in underwater robotics that they quickly realized were similar to those developed in robotic systems technology. Thankfully they powered through the initial discomfort to find this out. SA became connected to their Kraken team while preparing a prototype for the regional competition. At the competition, other school MATEROV programs demonstrated their robot’s ability to meet predetermined tasks released to competitors several months prior. SA noticed that their competency in robotics was similar to students on other teams, from other schools. As a result, SA realized that their robot, their team, had a place at the competition and could perform just as well as any other group. The competition has given SA a renewed sense of belonging in robotics as they can now envision themself as a valued member of any of the other teams at the competition. A balanced identity developed within technological programs prepares learners to envision themselves within both the immediate and greater community. To explicitly support its connectedness, expansiveness, and effectiveness is to remove identity-based hurdles that limit professional aspirations within the technological field. In practice, 387

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

programs tend to focus primarily on the connected aspect of their technological activity without any interaction with neighboring programs would build a sense of transferable belonging. Curricular offerings, in particular, are most limited in their ability to easily foster the effective and expansive pillars of technological identity as they are bound by institutional arrangements. This may reinforce the notion that the greatest potential for a balanced identity exists within the boundaries of educational makerspaces. Noncurricular offerings of technological activity host a greater potential to incorporate the necessary arrangements to support all aspects of identity development. Ultimately, inexperience with neighboring programs leaves learners unsure of their acceptance beyond their immediate environment which fosters doubt in their capacity to join the technological workforce. The balanced identity can only be empowering when supported through the adoption of practices and competencies valued by technological communities. These combined competencies that strengthen any aspect of identity development can be referred to as technological knowledge.

Technological Knowledge Competency-based knowledge is the cornerstone of technological identity, a critical construct to support any notion of belonging within the immediate community of practice and beyond. Technological knowledge is the know-how to purposefully engage with tools, materials, and processes. As newcomers enter the unfamiliar realm of technical activity, many do so with limited knowledge of practical skills. Whether it be a computer numerical control (CNC) router, a sewing machine, or a tube of epoxy, significant gaps can exist between a theoretical understanding and practical know-how. It is within this reality that technological programs must explicitly build on specific knowledge bases so learners can make purposeful decisions when engaging in their project work. The following section will offer an overview of these technological knowledge bases and how they are likely embedded in curricular and non-curricular offerings of technological activity. Technological knowledge is the ability to make decisions. It is knowing which tool, material, or process to use purposefully; it is knowing that birch wood does not route well for woodworking or that the vertical face—or z-axis—of a 3D printed object offers the most detail when slicing a project. De Vries (2005) wrote of this notion as the importance of functional, physical, and process knowledge bases to support a decision-making ability within technological activity. According to his work, functional knowledge is knowing the purpose of a technological artifact and the ability to choose one appropriately for a purposeful outcome. The technological artifact can either exist or will be created as a part of project work. Next, physical knowledge is an understanding of the physical potential of either the source material or the technological artifact. Finally, process knowledge is knowing the outcome of combining specific tools and 388

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

procedures which will result in a desired final change/creation of some final artifact. As learners become able to choose appropriately and clearly articulate why a given tool, material, or process is used in their project work they develop a competency to make informed decisions in the future. A learner who knows the 3D printing properties of polylactic acid (PLA) versus acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) filaments, for example, would know that ABS is suitable for high-strength applications while PLA is more brittle. Their colleague, who never developed this physical knowledge of the two filaments, is left to either guess which filament would suit their needs or rely on an external source of knowledge such as their peer or teacher. It is the reliance on this thirdparty input that limits the learner’s autonomy in technological activity but, it can often be the result of program design. Technological programs that are overly prepared will reduce the opportunity for learners to make decisions regarding the available resources, thus limiting their technological knowledge development. Curricular and non-curricular programs alike often reduce their emphasis on certain knowledge bases without understanding the impact it has on the overall technological knowledge. Pragmatically, the method and practice of teaching a subject, theoretical concept, or practical lesson can vary between teachers, classrooms, political context, and curricular directives. The potential for variance in pedagogical structures and routines across technological environments can foster an unbalanced technological knowledge that limits the ability to leverage available resources for purposeful project work. Such a knowledge gap can form a significant barrier as it leads to perpetual unfamiliarity and an overreliance on the knowledge of others. Learners are left using materials or adopting processes because they are directed to do so rather than making that decision for themselves. It spirals into an inability to articulate why they have chosen a certain line of code, type of adhesive, or router bit. In preparing for technological activity, many programs will pre-process materials, pre-select tools, and pre-designate processes in an attempt to ensure a smooth workflow without realizing the negative impact it may have on the development of the technological knowledge bases. Key practices that exist across many technological programs can already emphasize, to some degree, the development of functional, physical, and process knowledge. An overview of these common strategies can be instrumental in an existing pedagogical approach that is shaping learner technological knowledge: (1) the establishment of routines, (2) the articulation of tasks, (3) the demonstration of targeted skills, and (4) the provision of sample workflows.

The Establishment of Routines Routines are essential to initiate newcomers to the practices and norms that may be unfamiliar when entering a technological environment. These routines can range from housekeeping rules, such as returning tools to their proper places, to accessing digital resources and software that do not sit in plain sight as physical tools do. Routines 389

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

can reinforce functional tool knowledge through repetition. Storing a power drill, for example, requires a learner to remove any bit left in the tool chuck system, render the tool safe by engaging the trigger lock, and place the tool battery on the appropriate charger. This seemingly simple routine reinforces a knowledge of tool parts, the ability to manipulate a chuck system, and tool safety. The functional knowledge within this example is transferable as the learner has developed a competency that is applicable to other chuck-based system such as the drill press, router, or lathe. While some routines such as the process of storing a drill may seem logical, to the unapprenticed it can be an overwhelming expectation of a knowledge base that has not been developed. Programs that overlook routines can unknowingly perpetuate unfamiliarity. Newcomers remain uncertain of their belonging when practices that seem familiar to others remain foreign to them.

The Clear Articulation of Tasks The articulation of technological expectations creates a pathway to be followed and can potentially reduce the complexity of project work. Knowing the expectations of the activity is critical when making informed decisions in relation to the available resources. A design scenario, for example, can be an effective approach used in curricular offerings of technological activity that can outline limitations such as the availability of tools and materials, timeline, dimension guidelines, and other relevant criteria. The articulation should be documented so learners can reference the criteria independently and reduce any sense of uncertainty. Programs that rest upon verbal reminders only risk creating a disconnect as learners may not hear, may mishear, or may misinterpret the directions associated with the technological task. Educational makerspaces may be less structured in the articulation of the limitations of project work as some view this as an affront to the notion of personally meaningful work. However, the consequence of such a relaxed perspective can be counterproductive as un-scoped project work can be more daunting than a structured design challenge. Uncertainty can cloud a learner’s ability to use their technological knowledge to select the necessary tools, materials, and processes for a purposeful final artifact.

The Demonstration of Targeted Skills The demonstration of technical competencies is essential in a technological environment. Demonstrations can clarify the intricate nature of many processes associated with technological activity, while also providing an opportunity to pass along any best practice. Formal technical learning is a critical component in both curricular and noncurricular programs, a means to introduce newcomers to unfamiliar competencies such as tool-specific process knowledge. Jones et al. (2020) conducted a qualitative study

390

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

involving teachers and maker-centered activity, a study that noted formal instruction was essential in their engagement with unfamiliar technologies. In educational settings, a teacher generally acts as the skill holder with either technological training or some rooted interest in the domain. They are responsible for demonstrating the skills of the learner in either a face-to-face capacity or through an asynchronous medium such as recorded tutorials. Competencies can range from proper soldering techniques to examples of conditional structures within a text-based programming language. There may be potential for some participant collaboration to strengthen target skills but the responsibility rests ultimately on the teacher. An educational makerspace may vary slightly from its curricular counterpart as it can include learners that may already be apprenticed to the technological competencies of the environment. As a result, the demonstration of targeted skills can be a shared responsibility between the teacher and those experienced members of the community.

The Provision of Sample Workflows Sample projects or workflows can often guide participants toward a more meaningful final artifact. Without examples of final products, participants can remain unsure of the direction of their work leading to feelings of frustration and discomfort. Sample workflows and artifacts can reveal the potential intricacies for participant consideration which can often prompt an “I never thought of that”-type response. Coding a graphical user interface (GUI), for example, can be a very open-ended project where learners may not have an accurate picture of what the final layout should look like. There are core requirements which can be listed as criteria of the project but there is a degree of aesthetic flare that cannot be taught. In providing examples of student-written GUIs, learners can better understand the potential for their own work. While some may be critical of such an approach, simply choose workflows that share a common foundation but serve different purposes such as robot control GUI exemplar for learners working on a weather system interface. Consider this aspect of the pedagogical routine to reflect the real-world tendency for designers to reference established projects from shed designs to text-based programming algorithms. Final output can often be strengthened by referencing successful project work from the field. Technological knowledge bases are strengthened as learners are given the opportunity to engage with the resources available to them. It is their understanding of function that supports their decision to use one tool over another, their knowledge of physical properties that informs their choice of material, and their understanding of processes that empowers them to combine certain tools and materials to produce an intentional outcome. However, technological knowledge is an explicit construct that must be emphasized to foster learner autonomy when engaged in technical programs. Its development reduces

391

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

a learner’s dependence on others to make critical technological decisions, keeping the learner in the margins of the activity. The development of technological knowledge supports an overall sense of belonging as practices that were once unfamiliar become manageable. The project work may increase in complexity and become more challenging but not without intentional support to augment the technological knowledge base.

Activity Design Through project work, leaners build their technological knowledge and move closer to a sense of belonging in their respective programs. Activity is the medium within which learners shape and build upon their technological knowledge, often through trial and error, as they begin to understand the interconnectedness of tools, materials, and processes. But, in practice, even similar project work can look very different from one program to the next. Two robotics teams within the same school, for example, can offer very different experiences. One team may assemble a kit, while the other may build from scratch. One team may write a program to control their robot, while the other may opt for a tethered analogue control system. The potential for such a high degree of variance highlights the risk of unbalanced experiences within technological programs. Materials may or may not be pre-selected or pre-processed, tools may or may not be pre-selected for the given task, and each step to completion may or may not be predetermined. The variance aligns with a similar reality within the non-technological classroom where experiences can be quite different from one teacher or classroom to the next. The overall impact can lead to a graduation of learners with a deficiency in technology knowledge and a weak identity, traits which may impact their perceived potential in technical pathways. The logistics of individual programs differ so greatly that no single solution would remedy any existing shortfalls, but an understanding of technological activity may offer a new perspective to inform existing practices. This section offers an overview of the spectrum of technological activity in educational settings followed by a perspective on the interconnectedness of identity, activity complexity, and technological knowledge in curricular and non-curricular spaces. The spectrum of technological activity offered in educational spaces is vast. Bevan (2017) described how such activity has become popular within educational settings to promote interest and capacity in STEM-based activity. Her literature review noted three categories to classify activity she referred to as educative making: assembly, creative construction, and tinkering. First, assembly includes technological activity that can focus on the assembly of pre-designed kits with step-by-step instructions. Second, creative construction refers to an activity that remains predetermined but without step-by-step instructions. Finally, the activity that emphasizes innovative, open-ended activity can be called tinkering. These categories demonstrate a range that can exist in technological activity complexity, a spectrum where project work can be situated 392

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

based on the development of technological knowledge. If curricular and non-curricular offerings remain at the assembly end of the spectrum, they risk stunting the development of technological knowledge. This is a growing concern as technological programs can be reduced to the facilitated assembly of pre-designed kits that are readily available to programs. Technological activity must ensure an adequate level of complexity with embedded support structures to build up the technological knowledge and identity of learners. Activity that aligns closer to tinkering on the educative-making spectrum will stimulate the development of technological knowledge and build a strong identity. Tinkering can offer exposure to improvisation, innovation, and increased complexity. However, a shift toward tinkering requires a pedagogical approach that supports such an increase in complexity with intentional structures that can maintain feelings of comfort, belonging, and enjoyment. This chapter has established that learner experiences within technological activity have a direct impact on how learners perceive themselves as a part of the program community. To offer a visual conceptualization, experiences can be imagined as a platform that sits on the technological program fulcrum that supports identity. Identity sits as a teetering ball, reinforcing the notion of identity as a dynamic construct that shifts with lived experiences. Identity may sit true and be balanced, but, in reality, it is in a perpetual state of movement as experiences are ever-changing. Changes that weigh down learner experiences must be balanced to ensure that identity remains on the platform. An increase in complexity involves the integration of new tools, materials, and processes that can push a learner’s existing technological knowledge to the limit. Consequently, the balance shifts. Changes can push learners beyond their comfort zone as they work to regain their sense of belonging within the technical community. For example, learners are introduced to the basic design tools used to create a small 3D printable artifact like a keychain. Activities, which are often guided, build an initial knowledge base and foster an early sense of comfort in 3D printing. But, as the task shifts toward designing an original artifact using the previously used tools, added complexity weighs down the experiences of the learners as an affront to their perceived sense of comfort and belonging. A change to activity complexity can be challenging but it must also remain within an individual’s zone of proximal development where success is within reach. The balancing must not be considered a negative state but a reality of participating within technological communities of practice. In the event that a learner cannot recover on their own from the increase in complexity, a balance is struck with the introduction of relevant technological knowledge. The introduction of targeted skill development within technical activity is a construct designed to render tinkering manageable. Programs that do not offer the necessary support to counterbalance complexity will have limited success in fostering a sustained sense of comfort and belonging as the identity shifts to an unrecoverable state. 393

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Enjoyment, rests on the premise that a solution is just within reach, but when the path is too unfamiliar, it may have an adverse effect on learner motivation. In noncurricular programs, technological activity that is perceived to be unmanageable will only push learners away. If the same activity is too easy, it can have a similar impact. While some may be able to adapt and persevere, support structures must be readily available to offer learners the opportunity to upskill their technological competencies. Learners who build and expand their technological knowledge rebalance their identity and have a renewed sense of comfort and belonging. The teetering can always begin anew as the balancing continues. There is even a risk of over-developing technical skills without planning for more advanced activities, which can offset program experiences from the other direction. Learners, for example, who have completed all the introductory activities in a coding club will not continue their participation when no higher-order activities are offered to stimulate their interest. Skill development and complexity exist as interconnected constructs within activity that can directly impact a learner’s motivation to continue along their technological pathway. Curricular offerings of technological activity can rely on institutional constructs such as compulsory attendance and academic standing to extrinsically motivate learners. Popular, domain-specific pedagogies are often passed along to teachers as a part of their pre-service preparation, representative of best practice from a veteran professional and grounded in pragmatic experiences. This trend accounts for a series of similar projects to be found across a jurisdiction, a mentality where everybody in Course XYZ will make a cutting board. Project work under these conditions does not focus on the interplay of complexity and skill development but rather on establishing activities that all class participants can navigate with relative ease. Curricular offerings become shackled to these course projects that hover closer to assembly than tinkering. It is also perpetuated as curriculum developers and policy makers may dictate authorized resources and technologies where 3D printing, for example, becomes a combination of pre-designed project XYZ on authorized 3D printer brand ABC with pre-configured settings. This reality in curricular offerings exists as classrooms wrestle with large class sizes, limited access to technologies or materials, gaps in technological knowledge, and limited time. Designing activities to challenge learners can become secondary to ensuring the class is working and moving forward in the curriculum. Technology education can be in thrall to institutional arrangements that limit its ability to offer organic activities that fully support the development of technological knowledge and identity in learners. As project work shifts toward a non-curricular context, there can be more freedom to structure activities where learners can explore tangent pathways. However, this freedom can also place pressure on programs as they are expected to offer personally meaningful projects, a perspective popularized by public makerspaces that have overemphasized fun over the completion of work. Support structures within these public settings can be more extensive than educational makerspaces as they may leverage the technological knowledge of their experienced membership. As such, they are not comparable models. Cohen et al. (2017) noted that autonomy within the educational context could mean that 394

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

individuals choose their trajectories within the pathways selected by the instructor. This arrangement would satisfy a call for individually meaningful project work but remain within the potentially limited resources of a school-based program. In the end, low floors and high ceilings within technological activity must begin with a design to support complexity with further technological knowledge. Curricular and non-curricular programs that offer assembly-type activity will see limited growth in technological knowledge among its learners. They will experience discomfort in the future when faced with technological complexity as their experiences are only grounded in the assembly of a pre-designed solution. As project work shifts toward tinkering, learners have the opportunity to build their technological knowledge and develop solutions. Increased complexity is balanced by targeted competency development as identities are built and rebuilt. Technological knowledge that is developed within these programs can often lack the documentation that would be consistent with a disciplinary knowledge-based classroom. Without some documentation to clearly articulate technological competencies, learners can be left unaware of the extent of their ability and unable to describe their knowledge base. This inability can limit their aspirations for a future in technological fields.

Documenting Technological Knowledge The documentation of technological knowledge can influence a learner’s sense of belonging and directly impact their desire to continue along a technical trajectory. On the one hand, curricular offerings of technology education have traditionally relied upon outcome-based rubrics, or similar, to outline essential criteria and provide some degree of feedback to learners. This type of assessment tool can be developed in partnership with students and promote a sense of agency. But, in the end, course credit or a final percentage is the documentation of knowledge valued at the institutional level. Non-curricular offerings hosted in educational makerspaces, on the other hand, tend to place little emphasis on formal evaluation in the absence of an institutionally required final report or grade. This has perpetuated a relaxed perspective on the formal documentation of technological knowledge as non-curricular programs have shifted toward an overemphasis on personal enjoyment. Resnick (2017) wrote of this trend when he described the common misinterpretation of “play” to be a reference to fun rather than “experimenting, taking risks, and testing the boundaries” (p. 128) or tinkering. Ultimately, the formal documentation of technological knowledge remains inconsistent across programs. In practice, the documentation of technological knowledge can be problematic. Blikstein et al. (2017) highlighted the difficulty in objectively assessing engagement within a technical activity, especially in fabrication settings. Their work explored assessment instruments of technological literacies in educational makerspaces. A 395

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

framework was even drafted as a part of their research to document competencies in relation to exploration and fabrication technologies (EFT). The Exploration and Fabrication Technologies Instrument that was developed as a part of their work emphasized an articulation of perceived familiarity along with a performance-based evaluation of component recognition and implementation. A similar instrument could be used as a document to validate technological knowledge as learners move between communities of practice or toward a future in a technical field. Bowker and Star (2000) described the notion of such a construct as a boundary object, where Boundary objects are those objects that both inhabit several communities of practice and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. Boundary objects are thus both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. (p.297) In industry, these boundary objects already exist as governing bodies have relied on credentials and logbooks for a long time. The Interprovincial Standards Red Seal tradesperson certification program in Canada, for example, affixes a nationally recognizable standard to provincially credentialed tradespeople since the 1950s. The Red Seal Program facilitates the acceptance of tradespeople as they move across provincial jurisdictions by verifying their trade-specific knowledge. The certification is a boundary object that begins within an accredited class or program at the college level (connectedness), supports a tradesperson’s credential recognition in parallel communities in each province (expansiveness), and facilitates the transition of the tradesperson into a shared workspace as they engage with their new colleagues (effectiveness). A similar object could work to document technological knowledge and support a balanced identity within associated communities of practice but only with the proper endorsement. The inconsistency in the documentation of technological knowledge in curricular and non-curricular programs can be addressed by the implementation of a technological knowledge inventory boundary object or similar. The inventory could clearly articulate the perceived and performance-based competencies of a learner, similar to the EFT instrument mentioned earlier. It would act as a passport for learners aspiring to technological careers, an apt description as it can be reviewed and accepted as a standardized document and even stamped by relevant work terms. The documentation of technological knowledge through formal inventory emphasizes the articulation of competencies, an aspect of competency development that can often be overlooked. Pragmatic experience has shown that individuals who engage in technical activity may develop the hands-on competency required for project completion but remain uncertain when asked to describe their skillset. A leaner may be unable to articulate aspects of their functional, physical, or process knowledge as it relates to a given task but have demonstrated an existing practical knowledge base. This creates a disconnect as learners gain the practical knowledge base to springboard into technological careers but may perceive their competency to be limited. Aspects of technological knowledge 396

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

must be discussed so learners can fully understand the extent of their competencies. For example, when asked what type of filament was used in their 3D printing project, a student should be able to respond and even explain why a given type was chosen. Their ability to discuss commonly used filament options should be reinforced during the 3D printing activity and documented in their technological knowledge inventory (i.e., “I can articulate an understanding of the various filament types”). The inventory then becomes the object that testifies to their technological competencies in established categories. Theoretically, it could highlight sections to document the articulation of competencies, a section that addresses the demonstration of competencies, and a section for endorsement. While a boundary object to log technological knowledge can address the inconsistency of competency documentation, it is not without pitfalls of its own. Curricular offerings of technology education have a greater chance of drafting and adopting a technological knowledge inventory as policy makers and curriculum developers can endorse the validity of the document. It would only be through such formal endorsement that the inventory would be accepted across community boundaries. For example, if a Department or Ministry of Education within a jurisdictional boundary was to draft and adopt a similar inventory, it would validate the boundary object and offer a degree of standardization to the document. The governing body can also specify who is able to endorse skills. Non-curricular offerings of technological activity would benefit from a technological knowledge inventory as a means to document some of the great work at the center of educational makerspaces. Technological activity in non-curricular environments can support the development of a wide range of technical competencies that may not be offered as a part of prescribed curriculum. However, the validity of makerspace-based competencies versus technology education-based competencies may be contested as the programs share some aspects but are largely different from one another. Ultimately, a need exists to document technological knowledge in order to support a sense of belonging within the technical field. Such a document can not only strengthen a learner’s understanding of their own competencies but also can be reviewed by other technical communities. The technological knowledge inventory can fill in the gaps that may exist as a learner tries to articulate their competencies but cannot find the right jargon at the right moment.

Summary Education feeds the economic aims of society by offering learners early experiences in various fields throughout their formative years. These experiences can leave lasting impressions by nurturing a sense of comfort and belonging or discomfort and estrangement. As society continues along a technological trajectory, this chapter has offered a perspective on the influence of curricular and non-curricular program 397

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

experiences on shaping the social identity that can support aspirations in technological fields. School-based programs must ensure that their embedded programs explicitly foster the development of a positive identity that is built upon technological knowledge. The technological identity is a social construct that can be discussed according to three critical qualities: connectedness, effectiveness, and expansiveness. Its initial development is built upon the shared histories and experiences within the immediate local program where the learner grows in connection with their immediate peers. While this is an important aspect of the social identity, it is also the most commonly developed as peer groups are a part of most programs. However, the connected technological identity does not automatically ensure the development of the effective and expansive pillars to support the navigation of learners between other communities of practice. In order to ensure learners are capable of transitioning between parallel groups grounded in technological activity, they must view their competency as currency to be accepted by other groups with similar values. To understand this concept, learners must be given the opportunity to interact and engage with parallel programs. It is only through interprogram experiences that learners are able to see acceptance among other peer groups which would also suggest their potential acceptance within a technological workplace. These experiences are limited in the majority of technological program offerings but this absence risks negatively impacting the perceived transferability of learner identity beyond the immediate context. This notion can limit aspirations of technological futures as learners view their perceived identity to be limited. Technological knowledge is the cornerstone upon which identity is built. Learners must have the domain-specific competencies to construct any semblance of a technological identity. It is strengthened through the explicit development of key knowledge bases that are relevant to the technological domain. Programs, both curricular and non-curricular, must emphasize the functional, physical, and process knowledge bases where learners can make informed decisions regarding the potential of tools and materials in their purposeful work. Comfort in technological activity is contingent on the ability to make informed choices and leverage the potential of available resources. It has been noted in this chapter that the over preparation of technological activities has become counterproductive in the development of a balanced technological knowledge. Educators risk oversimplifying the technological process in an effort to streamline the activity for a group where tools can be pre-selected, materials can be pre-processed, and processes can be predefined. Under these conditions, the learner can simply assemble a solution without developing a solid technological knowledge base. Technological activity should be designed to move away from the assembly of kits and emphasize improvisational, innovative, open-ended activity. Programs that increase the complexity of technological activity strengthen the ability of learners to adapt and strike a new balance. The technological identity is a dynamic structure that exists in a constant state of negotiation. Increased complexity forces the identity to adjust as the learner re-establishes their sense of comfort and belonging within the new parameters. But, as the identity teeters, support structures must be available to ensure the learner’s 398

Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives

sense of comfort does not reach an unrecoverable state. Complexity that overwhelms the learner only pushes them away. The interplay of activity complexity and support structures to develop technological resolve has the most potential in non-curricular offerings of technical activity as technology education classrooms can be limited by institutional arrangements. The documentation of technological knowledge can be an instrument to strengthen the perceived competency of learners and act as a tool to ease their transition into other communities of practice. Learners can experience difficulty in fully articulating their technological competencies despite solid apprenticeship in educational offerings of technical activity. Curricular summative evaluations will disclose a letter grade or an overall average but do little to list the competencies gained throughout the technological coursework. Non-curricular feedback or evaluation, if any, is often informal and offers no real documentation. This creates gaps in a learner’s ability to understand the degree of their own competencies and develop the necessary jargon to engage in a technical conversation. This chapter suggested the use of a technological knowledge inventory to parallel similar logbooks used in industry to validate competencies developed within educational offerings of technical activity. While such an inventory would require the endorsement of educational policy makers, it would be an object that supports the technological pathways of learners. Ultimately, offerings of technological activity in educational contexts are at least providing early experiences in technical activity that introduce learners to disciplinary application. Learners are given the opportunity to negotiate their sense of belonging within technological activity that was once limited to the technology education classroom and reserved for an older demographic. As educational makerspaces and similar noncurricular programs continue to emerge, their popularity reflects a societal demand for early exposure to technological activity. With such a reach and potential influence on the early development of identity, programs must refocus their efforts toward empowering learners in their professional aspirations, technological or otherwise.

References Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/03057267​.2016​.1275380. Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of technological literacies in makerspaces and FabLabs. Journal of Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 106(1), 149–75. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/jee​.20156. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bruner, J. (1996). What we have learned about early learning. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 4(1), 5–16.

399

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Cohen, J., Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Calandra, B. (2017). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(3), 217–29. de Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: Philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 149–54. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-005​-8276​-2. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–95. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​/2095325. Holland, D. C., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, W. M., Cohen, J. D., Schad, M., Caratachea, M., & Smith, S. (2020). Maker-centered teacher professional development: Examining K-12 teachers’ learning experiences in a commercial makerspace. TechTrends, 64, 37–49. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11528​-019​-00425​-y. Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1979). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–46. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/135050840072002.

400

Chapter 29

Extracurricular Perspectives Valuing Technology beyond the Classroom Mike Martin

Introduction This chapter explores the ways in which we look at technology and how we appreciate or value it and form an opinion of its worth. It also highlights the significance of context when looking at technology in order to understand its use by people within a specific sociocultural environment. To a large extent, most technologies that affect us daily are beyond the classroom. They are designed, manufactured, sold, and used in places other than school. For young people to be able to develop a comprehensive understanding of technology, it is essential that they are given opportunities to explore products that are used both inside and outside of school environments. Many of the technologies that affect our way of living are complex and part of large systems that could never be brought into the classroom in a form that makes sense. Providing opportunities to value these can therefore be a challenge. Valuing our technological world is one of the first things that we do. For many children, they are soon looked upon, and looked after, by all manner of technologies as they learn to breathe, eat, and enter the world. Our first exposure to technology and technological products come quite early on with young children exploring their world and making sense of the natural and human-made objects that they find around them through their tactile experience with the materials they are made of. Playing in sand and creating shapes with plastic bricks provides such firsthand experience—very much in context. During this type of activity, children “critique” their world and make simple decisions about such things, from which toy to play with, to the hardness of the floor when they fall over! Before an in-depth discussion of why we should value technology as part of general education it is important to consider technology in context. Much of the technology that we encounter outside of the classroom is tied into complex systems of manufacturing, transport, recycling, and disposal. To help pupils understand the technology that they develop during their time in education, we usually

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

simplify these systems and discuss technology often in purely material forms. Such a reductionist view of technology is not always helpful when trying to understand how the technologies we use on a daily basis affect other people and the environment. What is the first thing that comes to mind and what do you think about the word “technology”? It’s more than likely that your answer would relate to a specific product such as a phone or car. Seeing technology as individual artifacts/objects (things), or machines, is a common first reaction to the question. This is no surprise as we tend to look at the world and see individual objects that are helpful to us in purposeful ways. While this is helpful in making sense of artifacts/objects, this approach renders their separation from their surroundings and the systems they rely upon. This is not always helpful in enabling a learner to develop their understanding of technology in sociocultural environments. Indeed, it could be argued that this separation and compartmentalization is at the root of some of the problems we have in living on our planet with complex ecosystems and ways of living that interfere with them. Foregrounding the visible product that we see in front of us can lead to ignorance about the consequences of its existence, and use, such as the use of materials or effects on the environment when being disposed of. All technology changes over time with the gradual degradation of materials, such as rust on a car, to the wear and tear from regular use by the user. Even if it takes hundreds of years, all things eventually fall apart and end up being recycled or wasted. Taking this view on board, it is possible to look at technology as a collection of materials in a particular form at a moment in time. Such “dematerializing” or “deconstruction” can be useful in considering the life cycle of products and alternative ways of manufacturing that might be more efficient or make things last longer. Take, for example, a foil-wrapped chocolate egg. On first impression, this looks simple enough but when you begin to explore the materials involved in bringing it about, it has a significant global footprint. One of the ways of looking at technological activity in a different way is to consider the work of Arnold Pacey, who explored the practical implications of bringing technology about—something he called “technology practice.” Pacey (1986) suggested that to consider technology practice in a purely technical sense is limited. In his model he also included organizational and cultural aspects of technology to create a better and more general view of technology. Although this was written more than thirty-five years ago it is an appropriate model to use when considering the question of what constitutes technology. The example of the foil-wrapped chocolate egg, mentioned earlier, illustrates well the organizational aspect of technology practice that Pacey talked about. There is also, however, a cultural aspect to technology practice. A good current example of this is to consider the changing nature of personal and public transport, which, in the UK, can be seen by the increasing use of electric scooters in urban areas. Once associated purely with childhood play, the scooter has become a very visible part of our culture. The acceptance of this form of transport is cultural, and the rules and regulations surrounding them vary from country to country. 402

Extracurricular Perspectives

In addition to considering the cultural and organizational aspects of technology, we can consider it in terms of systems. This is to consider technology from cradle to grave and understand the different stages in bringing products about, how it is used, and how it is disposed of. The mass production of cars, for example, relies on “just-in-time” delivery of parts for assembly. One, even brief, break in the chain can be expensive. Developing pupil’s understanding of this can be a challenge as it requires them to conceive of things beyond their own personal experience. As we will see in the next section, a focus on contexts can help with this.

The Significance of Contexts One of the most important considerations when looking at technology beyond the classroom is that of context. The design of technological products and systems is strongly affected by context, and to take things “out of context” opens up the possibility of misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the place of a technological product in the world. Take the design of a cup for example. In their simplest form all cups are used to contain drinks. The change in design usually comes about as a result of considering the user and, in particular, the context in which the cup is being used. Cups for hot drinks, cold drinks, drinks on the move, or maybe working in the office are all different. Within education, we need to encourage learners to look beyond the artifact or machine they have in front of them and to consider it in context. One of the reasons that this may not be a natural way of looking at technology could be the very nature of school-based education itself with its division into subjects and an emphasis on factual knowledge. John Dewey wrote about this separation more than 100 years ago in his essay “The Child and the Curriculum” (Dewey, 1902). Since that time our use of technology has come to the fore and it is perhaps now, more than ever, that we need to look at the context in which we are living and working to see the implications of developing new forms of technology and to consider our relation to them.

Relations with Technology As well as looking at technology in context we also need to consider how we relate to it as human beings. Are we collectively responsible for the development and shaping of technology or does “progress” continue whatever we choose to do? To answer this let us look at our relationship with technology in three different ways. In the following sections we look at each of these perspectives on relations one at a time, determinism, social construction, and mediation. 403

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

A deterministic view of technology is one in which we accept that technology has its own path of development, unaffected by individual and collective human action. In what Ellul called the technological society (Ellul, 1964), we are powerless to intervene and make change. All we can deal with are the consequences of technology as it is produced and while it is in use. Not surprisingly, those who have adopted this position have often been pessimistic about the future, taking the view that technology is out of control, and we are not able to stop it or change it for the better (Winner, 1986). Optimists, however, cite examples of how technology has solved problems and may consider that there is no problem that cannot be solved with the application of technology. An alternative to determinism is the view that technological change is affected by a process of social construction (Mackenzie & Wajcman, 1999). With this view, the needs of society determine which technologies are taken up and which are neglected. If this theory is true, over time technologies in society will represent the collective views and values about what is important in the world. One example of this could be the ways in which electric cars have become increasingly prevalent in response to growing concerns over climate change. The societal push through consumer groups and concerned individuals has brought the issue to the foreground. A third way of looking at our relationship with technology is the idea that technology mediates our relationship with the world and with each other. This comes from the philosophy of technology and, specifically, post phenomenology. The author PeterPaul Verbeek writing about “What things do” (Verbeek, 2005) is one of a number of philosophers who explains how technology affects our daily lives—often without us realizing it. In communicating with one another, for example, the phone itself influences what we say and how we express ourselves. It changes or “mediates” the relationships we have with the person we are communicating with. The recent experience of teaching during the global pandemic has brought this kind of thinking into the fore and, as we delve further into the possibilities of artificial intelligence (AI) and “cyborg relations,” will be of increasing significance in helping us understand our world. Underpinning each of these three perspectives on technology and our relationship with technological artifacts and systems are distinct views of human agency. For determinists, humans have no significant agency in determining the ways in which technology develops. We are essentially powerless and carried along in the wake of “progress.” For social constructivists, we are active agents of change and able to affect our future through collective action and decision-making. This idealized view does, of course, depend upon an effective democracy and ignores the power of marketization and capitalism. For those interested in mediation theory, our actions are always linked to technology, and it is not really possible for us to act autonomously. For those involved in technology education the perspective that is adopted is significant. A teacher adopting a deterministic view of technology might focus on technological artifacts and the consequences of them being used. For a teacher who adopts a social constructivist perspective, they might well provide opportunities for learners to consider human need and social contexts in order to develop appropriate technologies. 404

Extracurricular Perspectives

Whatever view we adopt, there is no doubt that the relations that we have with technology have changed over time as we, as human beings, have increasingly less to do with the production systems that bring technological products about. These systems are highly efficient, but it is difficult for users to appreciate how the products we use have come into existence. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that our existing relation to technology may not be useful for our current situation. How then do we change it and develop a greater understanding of how technological artifacts are made as part of our general education?

Why Value Technology? So far in this chapter we have considered the nature of technology and our relations with it; we will now focus on the argument for valuing technology as part of children’s general education. Technology is inextricably linked with our humanity. To be human is to live and work with technology. It is valuable to us and without it we would struggle to exist on the planet. Adopting the post-phenomenological perspective mentioned earlier, it is clear that technology mediates our relationships with each other and our relationship with the world. It is therefore important that we take a critical view of technology to ensure that it is appropriate for our way of life and can ensure a sustainable future for all. This makes it imperative that learning about technology in context becomes an essential part of the general education of young people. As David Layton says: Values and value judgements are “the engine” of design and technology. Judgments about what is possible and worthwhile initiate activity; judgments about how intentions are to be realised shape the activity; and judgments about the efficacy and effects of the product influence the next steps to take. Value judgements, reflecting people’s beliefs, concerns, and preferences, are ubiquitous in design and technology activity. (Layton, 1992, p. 36) Making decisions is an important part of every stage of design and technological activity. Teachers and learners constantly make value judgments when engaged in practical activity. While the valuing processes may not be explicit, they happen nevertheless in an often rapid and unconscious way. Providing opportunities for learners to make their values and value judgments explicit can help to develop their critical thinking and enable them to justify the decisions that they make. Valuing technology is therefore an essential part of technology education. Any projection of our future as a human race is a future with technology. The decisions we make about what technology to use are truly significant in determining how we live our lives. As a result, it is imperative that we value technology and are able to consider the benefits and consequences in using existing products and systems as well as those that might be developed. Nearly thirty years ago Victor Papanek wrote a book titled 405

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

The Green Imperative (Papanek, 1995) and joined other authors in emphasizing the importance of considering the impact of technology on the environment and the critical significance that our material use has for ecosystems around the world. Looking back at the work of Pacey in relation to technology practice we can see that there are many different aspects to consider, and this is the same when it comes to sustainable futures and technology. The issues of social justice, for example, need to be considered when developing new technologies and ensuring that people across the world have access to them. The international charity Practical Action used the term “technology justice” and identified three interlinked aspects of the concept: The concept of Technology Justice envisages a world where everyone has access to existing technologies that are essential to life; and the focus of efforts to innovate and develop new technologies is firmly centred on solving the great challenges the world faces today: ending poverty and providing a sustainable future for everyone on our planet. (Meikle & Sugden, 2015, p. 2) The author Edwin Datschefski develops the notion of sustainable futures even further and suggests that there are five principles of sustainability: namely, cyclic, solar, safe, efficient, and social (Datschefski, 2001). We make choices about technology all the time. The choices that we do make can have a significant impact on our environment and the lives of other people and the planet. This is a compelling reason for technology education to be a key part of the general education of young people in the future.

How to Value Technology? How we look at technology, or value it, is of great significance. In attempting to understand how we value technology and how we might become better at doing so, it is useful to consider valuing as a skill in the same way as we do with making and designing. Valuing is a skill that we can learn, get better at, and become masterful in application. In the same way as writing can develop from the purely descriptive to the analytical and critical, so can the way that we look at technology. For teachers in school such progression is important to appreciate for themselves and put into practice when involving young people in valuing activities. In the next section we consider descriptiveanalytical and critical ways of valuing technology. Take for example the introduction of new recycling bins in a local town center. Let’s say that they are manufactured from green plastic and clearly labeled to accept different kinds of materials that can be recycled. Consider these questions: ● ● ●

406

What’s your first impression? What do you like? What do you dislike?

Extracurricular Perspectives

Well, you might like the fact that they are there in the first place to provide an opportunity to reduce waste. Perhaps they look attractive and are clearly labeled to make them easy to use. In addition to this first personal impression, we can add descriptive information about their size, shape, and location. To progress learner’s understanding of technology in general, we need to move beyond this first level of description and engage in an analysis of different aspects of the technological artifact or system we are exploring. All technology is made of, or reliant on, materials and energy. A simple analysis of a product can therefore be used to identify the materials that have been used in its production and the processes that were involved. Taking our example of the recycling bins we can analyze them in terms of materials use and consider the plastic forming processes that were involved, where it was made, how it was transported, and what might happen to them once they have ended their useful life. Trying to gage such things can be difficult with products that we have not been involved with, but some speculation can, at least, make learners aware of the different elements that can be analyzed. Looking from different perspectives can develop skills of critiquing. So, for our example we might consider the experience of users, those involved in emptying the bins and the further elements of infrastructure that are required for this system to be effective. At a deeper level we might question the need for the recycling bins in the first place and address the wider question of waste along with the development of products that do not need to be recycled. In this case it is likely that one of the most common things put into the bins are plastic drinking bottles. By considering the materials we use to contain drinks (changing to say glass) and developing the habit of disposing our drinking containers, we may remove the need for the recycling bins in the first place. Importantly here we can see that the solution to a perceived technological problem may not in fact be technological. A starting point of considering human needs and wants can be a better approach to technology education as it avoids the assumption that we need to make something in order to make our lives better.

What Technology Should We Value? It might seem a curious question but for educational purposes, some examples of technology may be more useful to explore than others. So how do we choose? Writing in 2007, with contextual issues in mind, I developed a matrix (Martin, 2007, p. 164) which suggested one way of identifying technological artifacts worthy of evaluation. Central to the matrix was the idea of progression through a variety of elements. For example, it is suggested that evaluating a product that has been designed by another designer or a team of designers within an organization is harder than evaluating a product designed by yourself. A complex product, which is part of a system in a commercial context, will be harder to evaluate than one that a learner designs for home use. The greater 407

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

the complexity of issues, the harder they are to resolve and the more sophisticated will learner’s technological literacy become. Take for example a simple hand puppet made from non-woven material such as acrylic felt. The pupil could be the designer and user and the puppet made for use at home. From a values perspective the hand puppet can be judged from a very personal point of view and decisions are likely to have been made during manufacturing by the pupil as both user and designer. Teachers wishing to raise expectations on pupils’ skills of valuing and designing could modify such an activity by simply asking that the user is someone else such as another pupil. Now consider the example of a child’s car seat. This would be made commercially and be targeted at parents as users. The seat itself would need to fit different cars and could also be something to carry the child in when not in the car. This calls for a more complex consideration of context and an understanding of the wider demands of living with young children. In terms of complexity the seat has both structural and mechanical elements with key considerations of weight and strength. For those at the higher levels of education, undertaking an analysis would be challenging but present real learning opportunities in exploring contexts, materials, and manufacturing processes.

Conclusion To look at technological products objectively, it is often necessary to view them out of context—out of the messy human situatedness that complicates how we see things. Yet it is this situatedness that we really need to see when looking at technology as it affects a myriad of different things when developed, manufactured, and used in context. To simplify the process of analyzing technology we tend to strip away the cyclical elements of cradle-to-grave thinking and isolate the materials and processes involved. Valuing technology in context is essential for pupils in order for them to understand how something is used on a daily basis and the effects that it has. Yet to step inside a user’s frame of mind is in itself a difficult thing to do and it relies on our interpretive, or subjective, view of the world. This chapter has argued that giving pupils a start on developing their skills of valuing is an essential part of technology education. If we are to have a sustainable future, then we all need to look critically at the technology that affects our lives and decide for ourselves how to make the future work.

References Datschefski, E. (2001). The total beauty of sustainable products. Hove: Rotovision. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press. https://www​ .gutenberg​.org​/ebooks​/29259.

408

Extracurricular Perspectives

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage books. Random House. Layton, D. (1992). Values in design and technology. In C. Budgett-Meakin (Ed.), Make the Future Work (pp. 36–53). Harlow: Longman Group. Mackenzie & Wajcman (1999). The social shaping of technology. Buckingham: Open University Press. Martin, M. (2007). Role of product evaluation in developing technological literacy. In Dakers et al (Eds.), PATT 18 conference proceedings. University of Glasgow. Meikle, A., & Sugden, J. (2015). Introducing technology justice: A new paradigm for the sustainable development goals. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing. Pacey, A. (1986). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Papanek, V, (1995). The green imperative. London: Thames and Hudson. Verbeek, P, (2005). What things do. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

409

Chapter 30

Social and Technological Perspectives Technology’s Influence on Society Dawne Irving-Bell

Introduction Situated within contemporary and philosophical views of technology, in this chapter, I explore ideas and concepts of technology not yet discussed. Navigating seminal literature, I examine the perspectives on technology’s role in shaping our civilization and consider the notion of technology as the driving force behind social development and cultural change. Studying the complex and dynamic interactions between technology and society from the perspective of political, moral, cultural, social, and ethical values. Positing technology as a “form of life” (Winner, 1986), I examine two contrasting perspectives on technology and technology’s role in shaping society: technological determinism and the social construction of technology. As the authors of previous chapters within this section have illustrated, technology holds significant potential, as a catalyst for societal change. Building on, encompassing, and consolidating many arguments put forth within this book, through a values lens, I explore the intersection between these two contrasting philosophical perspectives and in doing so argue the imperative of technology education. With fast-paced developments occurring in our technological, cultural, economic, and social environments, we need to focus on providing learners with future-proof competencies, knowledge, and practical skills, but also, fundamentally, we must ensure that our students understand the implications of the technological innovations they design, create, and introduce. Having introduced and defined the juxtaposed notions of technological determinism and the social construction of technology, the chapter is peppered with focused examples that either support or reject each theoretical view. In adopting this approach my aim is to stimulate thought, provoke debate, and consolidate understanding. Bringing these perspectives on technology’s position within education to the fore, I argue why it is vital to ensure that technological progress drives improvements within society that impact positively on humanity.

Social and Technological Perspectives

Overview of the Chapter The chapter begins with a brief exploration of a past, historical perspective on technology. Then defining the central themes under consideration (technological determinism and the social construction of technology) drawing on a series of focused examples, I explore and assess, within the context of education and society, the concepts put forth. Viewed through moral, cultural, and political lenses, I then move to examine potential future perspectives on technology, offering a deeper dive into the notions of determinism and social construction within the context of community and society. In closing, the chapter ends with a brief summary, and in doing so argues the imperative of a comprehensive technological education.

Historical Perspectives As a student of industrial and economic history I recall being fascinated to learn about the “Luddites” and the machine-breaking disturbances that began in Nottinghamshire, England, in 1811. Spreading quickly across the country, known as the “luddite riots,” what was happening was wool and cotton industry workers were protesting the introduction of new automated power looms, a technological innovation they believed would make their lives worse, not better. Wanting to eradicate the machinery that was creating mass unemployment, the Luddites also wished to avoid being drawn into a new market system, that simultaneously reduced their wages while generating large profits for their employers, the factory owners. Reported as having a violent opposition to the introduction of new technology, these days the term “luddite” is synonymous with someone who is skeptical of, or maybe opposed to technological change. In planning the writing of this chapter, while technological advancements in recent years have evolved almost beyond measure, I was struck by how little, from a philosophical perspective, things have actually changed. Put quite simply, technology is not new. Nor is the debate around its impact on our communities, society, and human behavior. In this chapter I examine two contrasting perspectives on the philosophy of technology: technological determinism and the social construction of technology. Within the literature, the origins of the determinism versus social construction debate can be tracked back to Karl Marx’s and his seminal work The Poverty of Philosophy (Marx, 1847). His infamous observation “the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist” has become embedded within our culture, and this literature has, and perhaps continues, to shape how we think about technology. In response to the rapid pace at which new technologies have been introduced within society over the past century, American economist and historian 411

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Robert Heilbroner (1919–2005) is credited with reviving the determinism debate, sparking renewed discourse around to what extent can and does technology determine our society’s political, economic, social, and moral culture. In the next section beginning with technological determinism, I introduce, define, and explore these juxtapositioned notions of technology.

Technological Determinism Technological determinism, or technological constructivism as it is sometimes referred, is a reductionist theory. A concept believed to have originated by American sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen, who is attributed with coining the phrase. As a notion, technological determinism purports that social change is determined by technology. That is to say, it is the belief that that social progress is driven by technological innovation and that, in turn, technological developments determine social change. Put another way technology is responsible for shaping communities, cultural values, and our social structures. This concept positions technology as an external force and assumes that once introduced into society, technology dictates (controls) human behavior. The result being that human choice (agency) to counter the impact of technology’s influence is diminished. Within the term, you may hear reference to determinism as being either “hard” or “soft.” As a notion “hard” technological determinism assumes that humans have little if any control over technology and its impact on society. It assumes that human actions and behaviors are defined by and/or are wholly controlled by technology. This position asserts technology as being completely autonomous, and in some way holding its own agency to act independently of all social constraints. A position that assumes that once introduced technology follows an overwhelmingly inevitable course. It is unstoppable. With ricochet effects permeating multiple aspects of our lives, the emphasis is that it is technology, not human action or behavior, that determines, defines, and drives social and cultural change. From this perspective, technology is seen as shaping our communities, culture, and society, and we, as humans, have no choice but to live with the consequences. The position of “hard” determinism asserts humans have limited agency to influence or stem the impact of technology. Once “Pandora’s Box” is opened, once unleashed, we are unable to halt the march of technological progress. This perspective (hard determinism) is one very much of limited human agency. Purporting that technology commands us to act or behave in a way that is beyond our control. As a notion technological determinism presents a powerful argument and has been one of the most significant points of technological discourse within the social sciences in recent decades. So, to bring the debate to life, and in doing so offer potential starting 412

Social and Technological Perspectives

points for educational discourse, through a handful of examples, let us explore how technology has or could influence how we (as humans) behave. There are numerous examples where technology has influenced change within civilization and society. From housing and sanitation, to transport and communication, technology has influenced multiple aspects of our lives, including how we behave and how and where we live, but let us take one simple example that everyone will be familiar with: photography. When first introduced, as with most emergent technologies, access (to the new technology), in this instance a camera, would have been extremely limited. Consequently, having your photograph taken was expensive and beyond the everyday reach of most of the population. Hence, with perhaps only one or two images captured each year, photography for the masses was in the main, limited to a “special” occasion. You will no doubt be familiar with the type of images that were captured, static, motionless people, dressed (usually) in formal attire, possibly reflective of the event or occasion the camera was being used to capture. The emergent images were displayed prominently or stored carefully to preserve the memory of an important moment in time, as keep sakes (jewelry) in frames or in family albums. Using the example of the camera, we can, quite literally, “see” how technological advancements have altered human behavior as the technology associated with photography has developed. Keeping those images of old photographs in your mind fast forward to the current day. In contrast, today almost everyone has access to instant image capturing through their electronic devices, such as tablets and/or mobile phones. Thanks to developments in digital photography, without the need to process film, people can capture as many images as they like for little or no cost. With access to “instant” images that can be easily shared, photography is accessible to the mass population. Alongside the developments which enable taking thousands of images every day, human behavior has changed. Postures and stances are less formal, people wear whatever they like, and images are captured effortlessly and disregarded easily. This is just one very simple example where technology has directly influenced change in human behavior. There are of course many more, and there can be no argument that once unleashed into society, the influence of technological innovation can be very difficult to change. However, there are very few examples where undesirable technology has become so deeply entrenched that human intervention (action) could not address and in doing so redress any unintended or unwanted consequences. So why does technological determinism remain such a widely disseminated and, some may say, dominant view? Well, we only have to look within literary narratives, and particularly the science fiction genre of film to realize why the notion of determinism remains ever popular. Here we can find numerous examples where cast as the villain, technological innovation is responsible for technological dystopia and ultimately the origin of humanity’s demise. For example, in media such as Netflix’s Black Mirror (2011), The Matrix (1999), Demolition Man (1993), Total Recall (1990), or Blade Runner (1982), the common theme binding each together is the deterministic representation of 413

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

technology and its effect (impact) on humanity in the future. To illustrate this concept more fully, perhaps the most valuable example to draw upon is the Terminator film series (1984) starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. To explain briefly for those unfamiliar, the film opens with the depiction of a possible dystopian future, where humankind, oppressed by artificially intelligent machines, who have initiated a post-apocalyptic war, are trying to overturn their technological enemy (the machines) to win back their freedom. Terminator is an example of “hard determinism,” a notion addressed by Hallström (2022). In his work he discusses the potential dangers associated with the belief (by humans) that we have little or no control over the technologies we create. He concludes that regardless of the actual existence of any deterministic technology (in the past, present, or future), because what we think about technology affects how we act (or react) in relation to it, it is ultimately humans who design, and as such retain control over the technologies we create.

Arguments against Technological Determinism Despite determinist assumptions and models of deterministic technology that are frequently perpetuated within popular film, and often saturate the media, technological determinism has largely been discredited within academia. Most historians and modern academic scholars (e.g., Hallström, 2022) concerned with the philosophy of technology who have examined the subject’s evolutionary development, reject the notion, and no longer consider technological determinism to be an accurate view of the way humankind interrelates with technology. Generally, the view held is that that technology is not autonomous but is the outcome of a creative and social process, and as such is subject to our (human) democratic control. Reflected within a number of science and technology research studies, the social construction of technology offers a juxtaposed position to technological determinism and emphasizes a more nuanced view. As a concept, a significant issue with the notion of technological determinism is that it assumes a loss of humanity and denies human intervention to act responsibly in developing technology, or indeed to take responsibility for actions that influence society. From the social construction of technology perspective, this philosophical position places emphasis on the relationship between people and technology. Asserting that the relationship is so complex that it cannot be simplified to such as degree whereby technology can be deemed as being responsible for human behavior. This position (the social construction of technology) rejects the causal interpretations aligned with technological determinism; and taken from this perspective, technology and society are intrinsically interwoven. A concept I explore in greater depth within the next section of this chapter.

414

Social and Technological Perspectives

The Social Construction of Technology Sitting very much within the paradigm of a social constructivist school of thought, in direct contrast to technological determinism, is the notion of the social construction of technology. From a social constructivist perspective, we as humans have agency. That is to say we have the power to influence technological development and the autonomy (control) as individuals to choose to use or not use (engage with) technology. As a theory, therefore, the social construction of technology and its advocates argue that technology does not determine human action or behavior. human actions and behaviors shape technological advancements. Viewed from this perspective, the social construction of technology is very much a social process. Humans create and develop new technologies for specific purposes, and as social actors, we retain the agency to shape technology and as such are able to address and attend to any unintended consequences. Advocates for the social construction of technology argue that technology does not determine human behavior, but that through managed and monitored technological advances, people shape society. Although this debate was revived, and it is clear that technology is inextricably interwoven within almost every facet of modern society, according to Langdon Winner technology has not really been studied in any great depth from this human perspective. In his seminal paper “Do Artefacts Have Politics?” Winner (1980) illuminates the latent power technology holds in shaping our communities, culture, and society. Citing the design of bridges on the road to Jones Beach, Long Island, in the United States he illustrates the influence technological design can have. In this example, Winner (1980) invites us to consider the impact of technology on society through the lens of bridge design. Opened in 1929, Jones Beach was a triumph of engineering that transformed swamp land in glorious silver sands. This publicly funded project by New York City urban planner Robert Moses (famed for the 1964 New York World’s Fair) was a huge success. However, the bridges built over roads necessary to access this public beach were built either deliberately or unwittingly with extremely “low clearance.” With buses too tall to travel underneath Long Island’s parkway tunnels, public transport and hence public access to the beach for the masses were prevented (denied). Only those with access to private vehicles (which in 1929 meant those of privilege) were able to access the beach. This Winner claims is an example of externally inscribed politics. Demonstrating how a simple design decision can intentionally or incidentally be used to influence and shape human behavior within society, this example also serves a second purpose. While the technological result of Moses’s design was a physical barrier, it was a human decision to build the bridges in this way, and as such this example illuminates a flaw in the line of reasoning that underpins the argument behind technological determinism.

415

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Technology, Morality, and Value Building upon the Jones Beach example, entwined within the notions of technological determinism and the social construction of technology, this chapter’s debate would not be complete without consideration of the moral imperative and how, beyond influencing human behavior, technological artifacts may themselves embody “values.” In this section, drawing predominantly upon the work of Verbeek (2014), Klenk (2021), and van den Hoven (2005), I explore, briefly, the notion of moral values that some claim are embodied within technological artifacts, to illustrate how both the advancement and adoption of technology can, intentionally or incidentally, undermine or promote specific values. To explore this concept in detail let us draw upon the example of a knife. Originating from a piece of shaped flint, the knife is perhaps the oldest piece of technology to be crafted by the human hand. Evolving over time to improve its function, for example ergonomic innovations led to the incorporation of a handle, and then further developments refined the design, e.g., the use of new, stronger materials. Irrespective of the aesthetic, ergonomic, or functional developments, the moral use of a knife could be determined as being either good or bad, depending upon the purpose, the “how or why” of its use. So, for example a knife can be used to prepare food, it could be used to defend oneself or it could be used as a weapon. It is from this perspective that Klenk (2021) debates the moral implications of technology. His view is that technology embodies moral values by virtue of their functional properties, hence artifacts embody values, and from that he concludes that technology is indeed value-laden. Conversely Pitt (2014) denies technology’s capability to embody an ethical, political, or moral value and advocates technology as holding a value-neutral position. In support of his position Pitt presents the argument that “guns do not kill, people kill people,” and he is not alone in purporting this technological value-neutral stance: We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value. (Sarnoff, cited in McLuhan, 1994) Technology in itself is neither good nor evil; however, notions that posit technology as such can be useful catalysts for discourse within technology education. Through stimulating debate, we can generate and initiate meaningful discourse and in doing so create genuine opportunities to develop deeper understandings of the impact the technologies we create may hold. For example, consider the James Bond series of popular films. Well known for a plethora of futuristic gadgets, at the heart of each story is a new technological innovation with the potential to radically alter the world as we know it. Here, however, unlike the 416

Social and Technological Perspectives

film genre that adopts a technological determinism perspective (such as the Terminator film series), where technology takes “control,” this series adopts a social constructionist view, where the use (or misuse) of technology is always driven by the human hand of a villain.

Designing Technological Futures So far, this chapter has explored two philosophical positions (technological determinism and the social construction of technology), and in this section, I move to explore the concepts under discussion from a future-facing perspective within the context of their potential application within technology education. Exploring examples where emergent technology is currently shaping our future and the world we live in, this section highlights examples that could be used to inform our approaches to technology education and fuel debate. Before moving to share a handful of examples, I’d like to introduce you to the notion of “design fiction,” a term coined by Bruce Sterling (2005), that challenges thinking around the use of the established term “science fiction.” Perhaps the most well-known examples of design fiction were created by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), who conceived ideas and designed numerous technological innovations centuries before the “science” existed to make them a reality. Including the diving suit, the parachute, and the helicopter, alongside “Spimes” and “The Internet of Things” (IoT) in recent work, Irving-Bell et al. (2022) explore the practical application of design fiction in greater detail and advocate its adoption as a catalyst for inspiring design within technology education. In my first example, I signpost the work of Lasse Birk Oleson (2012), who has a remarkable vision of how we could use futuristic technology to radically re-shape society in the not-so-distant future. Sharing connections between “Seasteading,” electronic currency (bitcoin), and 3D printing, he explains how potentially each component could be used, independently or in conjunction with each other to realize incredible things. In his work Oleson argues that while politically approaches to governance have hardly progressed in centuries, technologies that are advancing so rapidly are creating opportunities to re-imagine multiple aspects of our society, where we can use technology to facilitate changes that will meet society’s needs far better. For example, illuminating the serious environmental problems we face globally (and the knock-on social and political consequences), Oleson explores the potential of new technologies to address global issues of decentralized currency. Alongside the notional use of 3D printers to “print” food, he also introduces the concept of seasteading. Pioneering visions such as seasteading may seem far-fetched, and for those who have seen the Kevin Costner film Water World (1995) the concept may hold echoes of dystopian futures. However, led by advocates of the Blue Revolution, rethinking 417

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

society from the ground up, while a seemingly radical solution, seasteading may hold the potential to address multiple global problems. A network of floating nations, this vision presents a potential near future that seeks to help to restore the natural balances of our environment, while addressing many other issues in society. Presenting “thoughtprovoking visualisations of the future” Quirk and Friedman (2017) of the Seasteading Institute believe that ocean cities hold the solution to many of our environmental, technological, and civic problems. Having attracted the support of Silicon Valley’s Peter Thiel, this extraordinary vision may be drawing close to reality, with French Polynesia, who is facing significant environmental threats, being one of the first to sign up to build some of the world’s first seasteads. Another example of near-future technologies that are shaping how we live (that you could draw upon to instigate debate) is the Terra Carta Design Lab initiative who in partnership with the Royal College of Arts (RCA) are optimizing the effective use of technology through strong design. Here, demonstrating design creativity alongside technological know-how, the initiative invites some of the world’s most talented design students to develop credible and sustainable solutions to address the climate crisis. Designing high-impact, low-cost solutions to solve some of our most urgent environmental issues, innovations include the Zero Emissions Livestock Project or “ZELP” project. Estimates suggest that the planet’s 1.5 billion cattle, each exhaling 400 liters of methane per day, are one of the single biggest causes of global warming. In this example designers have created an ingenious wearable device for cattle to neutralize methane emissions and help in the decarbonization of the agricultural sector. Another example is “Amphitex.” Made from a combination of recycled and plant-based feedstock, Amphitex is the world’s first 100 percent recyclable and chemical-free carbon-negative outdoor-performance textile. Or the Tyre Collective, who have designed a device to capture tire wear, accelerating the shift toward zero-emission mobility. As these examples illustrate, in addition to learning to master the practical “how” of technology, we must make space to ensure those we teach are able to consider the potential implications of the technologies they develop. In the next section I further the debate through discourse focused on the impact and implications of technological developments from an anthropometrical, human-centric perspective.

Human-Centered Design Thus far we have discussed two juxtaposed concepts, explored technology as embodying values, and deliberated on the potential of future technology to shape society. In this section I explore the anthropological (human) impact of technology. Drawing from the field of medicine as an example, there is little argument against the notion that technological interventions have not only saved countless lives but have been highly successful in extending life. However, while technological advances have undoubtedly 418

Social and Technological Perspectives

helped to improve the lives of many elderly citizens, the resulting booming increase in the senior population brings a new set of social challenges. As discussed earlier (citing the work of Langdon Winner), within the technological debate the “human factor” is often largely ignored. For example, when developing technology, to improve the quality of life for our senior citizens, a deterministic approach is adopted. Which within this context positions the aging individual as a malfunctioning machine whose deficiencies must be diagnosed or as a set of limitations to be overcome by means of technological devices. In their book Ageing and Technology Perspectives from the Social Sciences Domínguez-Rué and Nierling (2016) encourage us to develop our understanding of the issues relating to an increasing senior population and their engagement with technology. Instigating discourse and wider debate around the development of technology within the context of the “human” addressing this issue, they challenge us to consider a change of perspective, positioning the person, and not technology, first. Within a postmodern society, where aging people rely on the support of assistive technologies, focusing on developments from the human perspective may also help us to become more sensitive to the ambivalences involved in the interaction between people and technology. This consideration is paramount.

Implications for Education Exploring the philosophy of “technology as a form of life” introducing the term “technological somnambulism,” Winner (1986) explains how without careful consideration of the impact of our actions and interactions we are in danger of “sleepwalking” in our mediations with technology. Conceived by those with little or no concern, or knowledge as to how we truly interact with technology, drawing our attention to the consequences of poorly conceived innovations, Winner (1986) presents three factors that he claims contribute to our unconscious sleepwalk. The first primary cause is, he claims, the way we view technology as a tool. Something that we can easily pick up and put down. From this perspective our view is one of technology as an object, an artifact, separate and disassociated from ourselves. This, Winner claims, causes us (humans) to limit our exploration of the longterm implications associated with extended engagement and/or use of technology. A second factor in Winner’s argument for technological somnambulism relates to the separation between those who design and make technology and those who use it. The consequence of this division is caused by the passive use or misuse of an ill-thought-out technology. Finally, the third and, according to Winner, the most important factor is the way in which we allow, with little forethought, technological innovations to reconstruct the common and seemingly everyday things around us. We allow technology to create “new worlds” which, according to Winner, occurs because we tend to focus on the basic, 419

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

functional aspects of our interactions with technology (Winner, 1986, pp. 105–7). An example of this, you may use to instigate debate around the influence of technology on human behavior could be our engagement with social, or as I often refer to it anti-social media. The impact comes slowly, like twilight, and as day turns to night, we slip into darkness before we really notice what is happening around us. In his work Winner argues that there is still time for us to “wake up” and to take control of the (technological) direction in which we are traveling (Winner, 1986, p. 104), and in doing so avoid the passive and counterproductive uses of technology. To be cognizant of and consider carefully how we can transform it to design the civilizations and communities we want. There are challenges and opportunities with every new technology and to help us to fully understand the impact new technologies hold, we must study not only what things do, but through education learn to reflect with empathy on what it is to be human and to design technological solutions, cognisant of ethically sound moral visions and values. To embed ethical frameworks that are supportive in illuminating pathways that will help enable us to understand how we can ensure shaping of technological developments in a responsible way. Through comprehensive education we have the potential to challenge everyone to view everyday issues from alternative perspectives and to engage in debate that has the potential not only to influence but to change how we think about technology within the context of society and culture. To understand that what matters is not the technology itself but the society within which it will be embedded. Hand in hand with technological advancements, it is important to encourage children to consider the evolution of technology. Not to teach technology as a history lesson but deliver curriculum in such a way that our students are aware of, and develop the skills, knowledge, and understanding to be able to “unpick” complex technological systems and understand the influence they have to impact human behavior and influence wider society.

Final Thoughts The world continues to change at an unprecedented rate, and in response our approach to technology education needs to reflect changes and adapt accordingly. Worldwide, within the school curriculum technology struggles to hold its position (Bell, 2016). For example, in England the status of technology moved from one that was compulsory to an elective option, and in countries such as South Africa and the Netherlands the subject has been integrated into the science curriculum. Within this turbulent climate, alongside the increasing demand for knowledge creation, complex problem-solving, and decision-making, it is our responsibility to shape technology education to ensure our children learn how the discipline can be used to shape civilization, in order to create safe communities and a stable society that works for everyone. 420

Social and Technological Perspectives

As I have articulated within this chapter, alongside the acquisition of traditional knowledge and practical skills, good technology education must provide children with multiple opportunities to engage in activities that encourage them to develop an understanding of the philosophical implications of technology, and the impact on society of the things they design and create. Through the notions of technological determinism and the social construction of technology I have argued the imperative for technology education. To thrive in an increasingly technological world it is imperative that through education we ensure that not only those who secure careers in technological design and development but those using technology every day know that technology is socially bound. Advancements influence human action and behavior and therefore I argue that it is imperative that we ensure our educational systems are sufficiently robust to facilitate creativity and imagination, but in a way that allows collaboration and exploration and encourages and supports young minds to join the metaphorical technological dots. Encouraging children to look critically at the technological world around them as a mechanism to prompt original creative design. Nurturing them to develop ingenuity to create extraordinary responses to design products and systems that have the potential to impact positively on our future. Drawing perhaps on concepts such as Ubuntu to help educate our future technologists to be cognizant of values, community, and society. In closing, irrespective of whether society and cultural developments are driven by technological innovation, or carefully managed by human intervention, technological advancements shape the world we live in. What I advocate within this chapter are the potential advantages of using the notions presented (technological determinism and the social construction of technology) as starting points to instigate educational debate. Raising awareness of the impact of technological design decisions is paramount, and with technology at the heart of the curriculum, supporting children to develop their understanding will help avoid technological somnambulism. Ultimately, we, as humans, choose what to design and make, to create and build, and within education in addition to the delivery of lessons to develop practical skills, we need to make children aware of the complex interrelations between technology and society, and the potential consequences technology can have on society. We need to give them the practical skills to realize their visions by making future designers and technologists aware of the potential consequences their innovations may have on society, and to be aware of the responsibility their actions may have culturally, ethically, or morally.

References Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: A phenomenographic study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 61–79.

421

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Domínguez-Rué, E., & Nierling, L. (Eds.). (2016). Ageing and technology: Perspectives from the social sciences. Transcript Verlag. http://www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/j​.ctv1xxrwd. Hallström, J. (2022). Embodying the past, designing the future: technological determinism reconsidered in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 17–31. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10798​-020​-09600​-2. Irving-Bell, D., McLain, M., & Wooff, D. (2022). “Shaping Things”: Design fiction as a catalyst for design in design and technology education. The Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 7, 1–17. Klenk, M. (2021). How do technological artefacts embody moral values? Philosophy & Technology, 34,  525–44. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s13347​-020​-00401​-y. Marx, K. (1847). The Poverty of Philosophy, Progress Publishers, 1955; First Published: in Paris and Brussels, 1847. McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media. The extensions of man (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oleson, L.B. (2012). How technology moves society - not politics: Lasse Birk Olesen at TEDxCopenhagen 2012 – YouTube (accessed March 2022). Pitt, J. C. (2014). “Guns don’t kill, people kill”; values in and/or around technologies. In P. Kroes & P.-P. Veerbek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 89–101). Dordrecht: Springer. Quirk, J., & Friedman, P. (2017). Seasteading: How floating nations will restore the environment, enrich the poor, cure the sick, and liberate humanity from politicians. New York City: Free Press. Sterling, B. (2005). Shaping things. Cambridge, MA: Mediawork / MIT Press. van den Hoven, J. (2005). Design for values and values for design. Information Age, 4, 4–7. Verbeek, P.-P. (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In P. Kroes & P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (Vol. 17, pp. 75–88). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–36. Winner, L. (1986). Technologies as forms of life. In The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in the age of high technology (pp. 3–18). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

422

Afterword Ed M. Reeve

This unique and timely publication entitled Handbook of Technology Education provides an in-depth look at technology education in a global context and often discusses it in its role in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. The book is divided into four parts and related chapters. Experts (primarily from academia) in technology education from around the world provide thoughtful discussions on the role of technology education in various contexts. The handbook has contributions from thirty-six authors from fourteen countries. In Part I of the book, the authors present various discussions related to conceptualizing technology education. Included in this part is a discussion on the history of technology education and an interesting discussion on the journey that design and technology (D&T) has taken in England. Also, in this part of the book, the authors provide a glimpse of technology education in China and a look at decentralized technology education curriculum development in Canada. This part of the book concludes with an interesting and in-depth discussion on technology education’s place in STEM and looks closely at the relationship and role of technology in STEM education, using the United States as a case study. In Part II of the book, the authors present various discussions related to technology education in the curriculum. This part of the book begins by recognizing that technology education occupies significantly different positions in the curriculum depending on where you live in the world. However, the author recognizes that there are common dimensions related to developing a technology education curriculum and this part of the book discusses each of these dimensions. Interesting discussions and perspectives are provided on the following dimensions: thinking, doing, communicating, including, assessing, collaborating, and facilitating. In Part III of the book, the authors present various discussions related to pedagogy for technology education. Pedagogy looks at the method and practice of teaching. Teaching technology requires skilled instructors who understand the role of technology education and who can develop lessons, experiences, and assessments to meet the needs of a diverse student population. This part of the book and its associated chapters do an exceptionally respectable job discussing pedagogy for technology education. In this part of the book, perspectives about technology education on the continents of Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania are presented. The pedagogic concepts covered frame learning in technology education as project-based, task-based, play-based, design, digital, interdisciplinary, and safety and risk. For each concept presented, the authors do

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

an excellent job discussing the concept in detail and discussing its role in technology education.  In the final part of the book, Part IV, the authors present various discussions related to technology, education, and society. The authors move beyond the classroom and examine contemporary and philosophical views of technology within the context of technology, education, and society. It is interesting how the authors present discussions and unique perspectives that examine how technology impacts culture and society, and how technology influences human behavior and shapes civilization. In this part of the book, the authors have done an excellent job of challenging the reader to think about the role of technology and education within society.  In conclusion, the editors have met the goal of providing the reader with an excellent snapshot of technology education in a global setting. The Handbook of Technology Education presents unique perspectives and discussions related to conceptualizing technology education, looking at technology education in the curriculum, examining pedagogy for technology education, and discussing technology, education, and society. The authors should be commended for bringing all these topics together in this unique publication. Technology education is often discussed in a narrow context, and often it is from a US perspective. But this book is different; it brings international perspectives to technology education. It is a valuable resource for all those involved in technology education as it provides innovative approaches and perspectives to consider. I highly recommend this book to anyone involved in shaping technology education policy and programs, and this includes pre-service and in-service technology education teachers, school administrators, and supervisors of technology programs and curricula.

424

Contributors

Stephanie Atkinson PhD, is a Professor of Design and Technology Education at the University of Sunderland, UK. She has undergraduate qualifications as a product and furniture designer from Northumbria University and a PhD from Newcastle-upon-Tyne University. She has held senior positions in schools and universities since the mid-1960s. She has been internationally recognized with many publications, service on international journal’s editorial boards, international examination of PhDs, and external design technology advisor for IBO. The Design and Technology Association awarded her with “Outstanding Contribution to Design and Technology Education” and she was honored with an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for Services to Higher Education. Ryan Beales is a qualified teacher, an expert design and technology practitioner and head of Creative Faculty at Wellfield Academy in the North West of England, UK. Following graduation with a first-class honor’s degree in design and technology from Edge Hill University, UK, he quickly established a reputation for excellence and innovation, having worked in leadership and management positions in a number of schools and academies. He has interdisciplinary expertise and an interest in developing strategies to maximize learner achievement and attainment. He is also a guest lecturer at Edge Hill, talking to aspirant teachers about pedagogical innovations in teaching and learning. Jeffery Buckley PhD, is a Lecturer in Research Pedagogy at the Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, Ireland. He is a member of both the Technology Education Research Group (TERG) and the Learning in Engineering Education and Progress (LEEaP) research group. Jeff is currently the associate editor of the International Journal of Technology and Design Education, and his main research interests lie in research methods and teaching, learning, and assessment in technology and engineering education. Osnat Dagan PhD, is a technology educator from School of Education at Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Her PhD focused on problem-solving in design and technology. Osnat currently works as a lecturer at Beit Berl College, Israel. Her academic interests are STEM; design and technology; PBL, the use of innovation pedagogy with ICT technology; developing thinking skills and problem-solving skills of learners using constructionist methods. Her latest publication is: Dagan, O. (2022). Student Teachers’ mental models of everyday adaptive control systems. In: J. Hallström & P. J. Williams (Eds.), Teaching and learning about technological systems. Contemporary issues in technology education.

Contributors

Andrew Doyle PhD, is a Lecturer in Technology Education at the University of Waikato, where he teaches undergraduate and masters level teacher education programmes. Before New Zealand, Andrew worked in or studied technology education in the Irish, Swedish, and English national contexts. His research is focused on better understanding the nature of technology for education, including teachers’ representations of the purpose(s) of teaching technology.. Rónán Dunbar PhD, is a Lecturer at Technological University of the Shannon (TUS): Midlands Midwest, Ireland, where he is the co-ordinator of the Masters by Research in Engineering Education. He is an active member of the Technology Education Research Group (TERG) through his research and supervision of postgraduate students which is predominantly focused on the enhancement of the provision of second-level technology education. Rónán’s undergraduate lecturing and postgraduate research supervision are based in the areas of computer-aided engineering, process technology, and technology teacher education. Rónán’s research interests include engineering education, technology teacher education, instructional design for innovative teaching and learning, problem-solving and conceptual thinking skills, and industry/contextualbased learning. Sarah Finnigan-Moran is an experienced Design and Technology educator and a registered health and Safety consultant with the Design and Technology Association, UK. Sarah has been a D&T practitioner and educational leader for over a decade, with expertise in pedagogy, assessment and data. Having previously completed an educational masters degree, Sarah is currently studying for a doctorate in education at Liverpool John Moores University. Her wealth of knowledge and experience in teaching and learning have been gained leading at both a national level, working the North West of England, and international level, in the United Arab Emirates. Elizabeth Flynn is an accomplished teacher and manager. In addition to being an expert practitioner in multiple design and technology disciplinary areas, she is also the achievement leader at the Sutton Academy in the North West of England. In this role, she has strategic responsibility for supporting learners within a year group to develop their academic capability, alongside providing students with pastoral support to ensure they achieve the very outcomes possible. Elizabeth has been a design and technology practitioner, manager, and leader for a number of years, having graduated with a firstclass honor’s degree in secondary design and technology education with qualified teacher status. David Gill EdD, is an Associate Professor of Technology Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. He is a former technology education teacher and is the recipient of multiple provincial and national awards for teaching, professional development, and research. His current research focuses on technology education in

426

Contributors

the Newfoundland and Labrador context, makerspaces, design, and the K–12 learning environment, and expertise and the development of technical skills and pedagogical content knowledge. Jianjun Gu PhD, is a Professor of Education and the Director of the International Technology and Engineering Education Association, China, now working in Nanjing Normal University, China. As the founder of K–12 technology and engineering education in China, he made great contribution to cultivating students’ technological literacy and innovative practice. He regularly holds and attends international and national conferences and has authored and contributed to over 500 publications. Mishack T. Gumbo PhD, is a NRF C1 Rated Researcher and Professor of indigenous technology knowledge systems and education in the Department of Science and Technology Education at the University of South Africa, South Africa. He holds UED, Ort-Internat. Cert. in TE, Cert. in DE and Online Learning, BA, BEd Hons, MEd in TE, MEd in ODeL, MPhil in Applied Theology, PhD specializing in indigenous technology. He has supervised eighteen doctoral and eight master’s students to completion, published extensively and presented papers in national and international conferences. He leads research projects and mentors developing academics especially in research and postgraduate supervision. Jonas Hallström PhD, is a Professor of Technology Education at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Sweden. He presents regularly at international conferences and consults on technology education. His research primarily concerns the historical emergence of technology as knowledge content in the school, the epistemology and subject philosophy of technology, various subject content (e.g., technological systems) as well as the attitudes to and knowledge of technology and technology education of students, student teachers, and teachers. His research also relates to technology teaching in relation to, for example, design, gender (girls and technology), authentic learning, models and modeling, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) education. Eva Hartell PhD, is currently Head of research in Haninge municipality and researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Eva is involved in several national and international practitioner-based research and development projects, working closely with teachers and schools with the purpose of bridging teaching and learning in STEM education. Chris Humphries CBE, is President and Chair of the Board at WorldSkills International, UK. Chris has a long and distinguished record in the world of vocational training and skills. He was chair of the UK government’s Skills Task Force for three years from 1998, also chairing several charitable NGOs with a particular focus on tertiary and higher 427

Contributors

education. Chris joined the WorldSkills movement as the chair of WorldSkills UK, and led the successful bid for WorldSkills London 2011. Elected to the Board of WorldSkills International in 2019, he was appointed Acting President and Chair of the Board upon the tragic death of Jos de Goey in March 2020; and his appointment as President and Chair of the Board was formally ratified in October 2020. Dawne Irving-Bell PhD is a Professor of Learning and Teaching at BPP University, a National Teaching Fellow (NTF) and a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. She holds a Collaborative Award for Teaching Excellence and received a National Award in recognition of her outstanding contribution to teacher education. With a passion for visual-thinking and technology education, she established “The National Teaching Repository” an open education resource with proven reach and impact across the global higher education community. Dawne is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social-Media for Learning, and through her work within the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) is committed to raising the profile of the scholarship of teaching and learning. Thomas Kennedy EdD, is an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, and K–12 technology education teacher at Eric G Lambert School in Churchill Falls, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. His professional experiences are grounded in the delivery of technological activity in both curricular and non-curricular environments with a particular focus on 3D printing, physical computing, text-based programming in Python, and prototype fabrication. His primary research interests are in technological identity development, constructionist learning environments, and educative makerspaces. Remke M. Klapwijk PhD, is an educational innovator and researcher focusing on design and technology education at the Science Education and Communication Group of the Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. Her research interests include creativity, user-centered design and formative assessment, spatial thinking and (preservice) teacher professionalization. She collaborates with teachers to design and evaluate educational approaches for design and technology project work through designbased research approaches. Currently, she is leading partner in an International Marie Curie research project “Spatially Enhanced Learning Linked to STEM” which aims to enhance the spatial ability of learners and to help close the gender gap. Marianne Knaus PhD, is an Honorary Associate Professor at Edith Cowan University, Perth Western Australia. Her career has spanned over 43 years starting as an Early Childhood teacher working in a variety of early learning settings with children birth to eight years of age. Marianne in later years worked in Higher Education as the Associate Dean of early childhood in the School of Education and developed the mathematics programs for undergraduate and post graduate studies. Her research interests include mathematics, 428

Contributors

play pedagogy, teacher and student engagement, playgroups, and family/community relationships in early childhood. Eila Lindfors PhD, is a Professor in Craft, Design and Technology Education at the Department of Teacher Education in Rauma, University of Turku, Finland. Her research interests include innovation, the process of “making” in the pedagogical context, as well as health and safety, user-centered design, and user experience. Innovation in the pedagogical context is one guiding theme in educating master-level teachers in craft design and technology subject in Finland. Mike Martin EdD, is a Senior Lecturer in Teacher Education at Liverpool John Moores University, UK. He has been involved with design and technology education for over thirty years as a teacher, CPD provider, and teacher educator. Mike has written several book chapters and regularly presented at national and international conferences on a range of issues, many with a particular focus on values and sustainability. Following his doctoral research on pre-service teachers’ subject knowledge, Mike’s current research interests are focused on the philosophy of technology and the role of making activities as part of technology education for all. Matt McLain PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Education and Professional Learning at Liverpool John Moores University, UK, where he has also led secondary initial teacher education programs. Previously he taught design and technology for twelve years in secondary schools in the North West of England. Matt’s professional and research interests are design and technology (D&T) education, curriculum and pedagogy (his PhD focused on demonstration as a signature pedagogy in D&T), the philosophy of technology education, and Q methodology. He is a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA), a fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (FRSA) and is actively involved with the Design and Technology Association in the UK. Belinda von Mengersen PhD, is an Associate Professor and Discipline Lead in Design Innovation and Technologies at the National School of Arts and Humanities, Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia, teaching into and coordinating the undergraduate initial teacher education and graduate diploma courses. Her teaching focuses on design with a specialization in traditional, current, and emerging textile technologies. She has authored chapters in four volumes of Springer’s Contemporary Issues in Technology series and co-edited one of these publications. She regularly reviews articles for the International Journal of Technology and Design Education, presents at International Design and Technologies conferences, including PATT and DAATArc, and undertakes curriculum consultation roles. In her research, Belinda focuses on reflective, creative, and speculative writing in design practice, practice-led research in design, intersections between signature pedagogies in design, visual arts and technologies, and the dynamic, interdisciplinary nature of design related fields. 429

Contributors

Michael A. de Miranda PhD, is a Professor, Reta Haynes Endowed Deans Chair, and Dean of the School of Education and Human Development at Texas A&M University, USA. His expertise in Technology Education focuses in the areas related to cognition, instruction, test and measurement. His cross-disciplinary instructional and research expertise developed while serving as a jointly appointed faculty in Engineering and Education. His current research centers on the conceptualization of engineering design problems constructed by teachers and the design of scales (iSTEM and iDesign assessment scales) to measure students “connecting the STEM dots” when engaged in long term interdisciplinary design problems. His work strives to understand how teachers STEM Associational Fluency influences their instruction and student learning. David Morrison-Love PhD, is a Lecturer in Technology Education at the University of Glasgow, UK, and and joint Director of the University of Glasgow Educational Assessment Network. He was originally a teacher of technology education before moving into initial teacher education, where he delivers teaching and was the program leader for technology education. David led the development of Scotland’s first five-year integrated master’s degree in design and technology education and an approach known as “Adaptive Subject Pedagogy” that supports student teachers to develop expertise and reasoning in the creation of evidence-informed subject pedagogy for technology education. His wider research interests focus upon learning progression, educational assessment, and large-scale educational change. David is also the principal investigator of the Camau i’r Dyfodol Project (Steps to the Future) that brings together the Welsh government, teachers, researchers, and education partners to jointly develop practice and understanding about progression for the new Welsh curriculum. Yakhoub Ndiaye PhD, is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Assessment in Design Education at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore. His current research focuses on the development of assessment measures, helping to better assess students’ design learning. He is also interested in addressing issues of conceptual understanding and knowledge construction in STEM education, as well as the instructional methods that attempt to support the teaching-learning process within complex learning. Yakhoub was a secondary technology teacher in France, where he graduated his PhD in educational sciences at the University of Aix-Marseille. Joseph Phelan is a PhD candidate in the Technological University of the Shannon (TUS), Ireland. He is a qualified second-level technology teacher, has lectured on initial technology teacher education programs at undergraduate and master’s level, and is actively involved in tutoring student teachers undertaking school placement. Joseph’s research is primarily concerned with investigating how students learn through designerly activity so that principled and dynamic approaches can be established for implementation in practice. As a member of the Technology Education Research 430

Contributors

Group, he has published in and presented at international technology education research conferences as well as contributed to the organization and hosting of research seminars and PATT36. Edward M. Reeve PhD, is a Professor Emeritus and a former teacher educator in Technology and Engineering Education from the Department of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education at Utah State University, USA. His current assignment is as a senior specialist with the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization, STEM Education Centre in Bangkok. In his career, Dr. Reeve has worked to advance knowledge in the fields of technology and engineering education and career and technical education. His professional interests, research, and numerous publications and presentations have been in areas related to educational standards, curriculum development in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, competency-based education, and improving teaching and learning. He has experience as a secondary education teacher, a university administrator, and recent past president of the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) and the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE). Pauline Roberts PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Western Australia. She has taught across the education sector in early childhood, primary, and tertiary settings in a range of curriculum and content areas, including early years science, technology, and STEM. Pauline has researched, developed, and taught units for pre-service teachers focused on science and technology and is on the Board of an accredited Little Scientist House school. Pauline’s doctoral research centered on the use of an e-Portfolio to scaffold reflection in pre-service teachers, which remains an ongoing area of interest and research. Franz Schröer is a research assistant and PhD candidate at the center for Sachunterrichtsdidaktik with sonderpädagogischer Förderung (special needs education) at Universität Paderborn, Germany. Before beginning his doctoral studies, Franz studied up to masters level for teaching at primary schools (with the subjects, mathematics, basic German language, and literature and natural- and social sciences) at Westfälische WilhelmsUniversität Münster. His current research is concerned with science and technology-related teaching and learning as well as inclusion and the nature and consideration of pupils’ needs in interdisciplinary science and social and technology studies at primary level. Niall Seery PhD, is currently Chair of technological education at Technological University of the Shannon (TUS), Ireland, having served as director of the Technological University Project that delivered the Technological University of the Shannon in October 2021 and vice president of Academic Affairs and Registrar before taking the role. He is a qualified engineering and graphics teacher with a PhD in engineering education. Niall spent fifteen years as an academic in teacher education with a specialist interest in 431

Contributors

pedagogical practice. He has served as director of studies at both undergraduate and master’s levels. In 2010, Niall founded and continues to direct the Technology Education Research Group (www​.TERG​.ie), where he remains active in research development and mentorship. Kay Stables is an Emeritus Professor of Design Education at Goldsmiths, University of London, UK, and was a founder member of the Technology Education Research Unit. She has directed and contributed to research projects in primary and secondary education in the UK and overseas. Her recent research has focused on design, creativity, and sustainable development, designerly well-being and digital tools in assessment including creating dialogic frameworks for supporting the development of design capability in digital environments through the use of on-screen avatars. She is a trustee of the Design and Technology Association and editor of Design and Technology Education: An International Journal. Greg J. Strimel PhD, is an Associate Professor of Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, USA. In this role he educates pre-service teachers on the processes of developing engineering/technology curriculum and maintaining learning facilities/laboratories. Additionally, he coordinates the Design & Innovation program, where he supports students in their pursuits of innovation through cross-disciplinary collaborations. Strimel’s scholarly efforts are focused on enhancing student design capabilities and helping to ensure that every student has the opportunity to develop engineering practices and habits. More specifically, his research is focused on enhancing the appropriately scaffolded teaching of P–12 engineering by studying engineering design-based instructional interventions and design cognition. Claudia Tenberge completed teacher training for primary school at the University of Münster, Germany and received her doctorate in 2002. For her dissertation she was awarded the dissertation prize for the Promotion of Young Academics by the GDSU. She worked as a teacher and headmaster, researcher and lecturer at the University of Münster before accepting the call to the University of Paderborn in 2017 for a professorship. Her current work and research focuses on empirical research of inclusive teaching-learning processes in INT and professional research on science, technological and computer science teaching. Jim Tuff has worked in the field of education in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, for more than thirty-five years and has experience as a classroom teacher, a university instructor, a curriculum developer, and a senior administrator with the provincial ministry of education. He holds degrees in information technology, music, and music education, and a diploma in technology education. Currently pursuing doctoral studies with a focus on educational leadership, he continues to read and write on many topics associated with the delivery of education at the K–12 school level. 432

Contributors

P. John Williams PhD, is a Professor of Education and Director of Graduate Research in the School of Education at Curtin University, Australia. His current research interests include STEM, mentoring beginning teachers, PCK, and electronic assessment of performance. He regularly presents at international and national conferences, consults on technology education in a number of countries, and is a long-standing member of eight professional associations. He is the series editor of the Springer Contemporary Issues in Technology Education and is on the editorial board of six professional journals. He has authored or contributed to over 250 publications and is elected to the International Technology and Engineering Education Association’s Academy of Fellows for prominence in the profession. Deborah Winn PhD, is a practicing teacher and has taught design and technology in secondary schools in England for twenty-two years. In all, eighteen years of these have been at Neale-Wade Academy, which is part of the Active Learning Trust. Having developed a particular interest in digital technologies, she completed a PhD thesis through the Open University to investigate ways in which younger students could be aided to be creative in the use of complex technologies through practical application in the classroom. Digital technologies and primary to secondary transition continue to be areas of interest and development in her teaching and research. David Wooff is an Associate Professor of Educational Practice, and Director of Apprenticeship Quality and Regulation for BPP University and the wider BPP Education Group. For nearly a decade, David successfully led the largest secondary undergraduate design and technology teacher education programme in England at Edge Hill University. He is a fellow of the Charted College of Teaching (FCCT); Society of Education and Training (FCET), Royal Society for Arts (FRSA), and a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA). Widely published, his work has a global following and readership. His current interests lie in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and the position, and value, technology education has. Meidan Xu PhD, is a Lecturer in Technology Education and worked in Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, China. Her current research interests include technology teachers’ attitudes toward technology, philosophy of technology, and technological and engineering literacy. She published more than ten articles in international and national journals and committed to Chinese K–12 technology and engineering education.

433

Index

3D computer-aided design (CAD) software  289, 291–6 3D printers/printing  289, 291, 295–6, 389, 397, 417 abductive reasoning  106, 110, 113, 117 Åberg-Bengtsson, L.  139 ABL; see active blended learning (ABL) ACJ; see adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ) acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) filaments  389 active blended learning (ABL)  210–11 adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ)  24–5 African indigenous societies  374 Ageing and Technology Perspectives from the Social Sciences (Domínguez-Rué and Nierling)  419 Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act of 1899  17 AI; see artificial intelligence (AI) AI literacy  351–2 A Level D&T examinations  36–7 All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)  140–1 all-student response system  179–80 American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE)  307 Amis, K.  346 Amphitex  418 analogical thinking  116 anthropological (human) impact of technology  418–19 APEF; see Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation (APEF) APPG; see All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) application  248–50, 314 apprenticeship models of learning  127 Archer, B.  255–6 Aristotle  16, 125, 218 articulation of technological task  390 artificial intelligence (AI)  347, 351–2, 404 assessment in technology education  24–5, 99, 170–86

climate change in classroom environment  174 feedback  99, 170–86 definition  170 delivery  176 frequency of  175–6 guidelines on focus of  175 handle, techniques enable students to  178 level of specificity  176–7 reactions to  172 three-pillar principle of  173–4 illustrative examples  178–85 level of specificity  176–7 Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology (APU) Project  261–3 associational fluency  308, 312–13 atelier; see workshops Atkinson, S.  11 Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation (APEF)  63 attitudes  293 Auger, J.  115 augmented reality (AR)  211 Australia  103 ECA  285 EYLF for  276, 279 Little Scientists in  279 researchers in  280 authenticity  123 Automatic Remote Control Pan Tilt System  140 autonomy  61, 67, 73, 218, 242, 245–7, 266–8 Avoseh, M. B. M.  372, 374 awareness  112–13 axiological  3 Aydede, M.  111 “Background Paper and Brief for the Review of Junior Cycle Technology Subjects” (NCCA)  19 Balchin, W. G.  139

Index

bantu  371–2 Barak, M.  229–30 Barlex, D.  34, 110–11 Baynes, K.  21, 255, 262 Beales, R.  99 BeeBots  284 behaviorist theory  22 Beinbrech, C.  163 Berger, J.  110 Bevan, B.  392 Biskjaer, M. M.  295 blended learning  209–11, 300 Blikstein, P.  395–6 Blooms Taxonomy  23 Boson, Higgs  xii Botswana  372–3 bottlenecks  201 boundary object/work  396–7 Bowker, G. C.  396 Brown, A. L.  292 Brown, T.  294 Bruer, J. T.  306 Brumberger, E.  148 Bruner, J.  343, 382 Buckley, J.  24 CAD software  128 CAMET; see Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training (CAMET) Canada  60–2, 74 n.1 CAMET  62–3 CEGEP  66 CMEC  60, 62–3 decentralized technology education curriculum development within  61–6 geographical boundaries  62 K-12 education in  61, 65 NL  60–1, 67–71 provinces  62 technology education in  11–12, 19, 60–73 curriculum  63–5 intermediate level  63–4 within Newfoundland and Labrador  67– 71 provincial/territorial technology curriculum terminology  65 review of  66 secondary level  64 survey on  66

Carless, D.  178 Carter, L.  144, 148 cathode ray tube  xii CDT; see craft, design and technology (CDT) CEGEP (Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel) program  66 Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE)  35–6 checklist for communication during teaching  149–52 designing instructions using multimedia communication  151–2 Rosenshine’s ten golden principles  150–1 written communication, handouts  149–50 Chester, I.  291 Chi, M. T. H.  147 Chilisa, B.  377–8 Chinese high school general technology education  11, 21, 42–59 curriculum structures/content  42, 44–7 discipline core literacy  42–4 general technology in  42 information technology in  42 levels of achievement  47–51 technological cases used in  51–8 Dujiang Irrigation System (case one)  51–2 potted plant automatic watering device (case three)  57–8 warning triangles for motor vehicles, series of experiments for testing (case two)  52–7 technology and design one  44–6 technology and design two  46–7 Chomsky  255 Clark, H. H.  137 Clark, R. E.  143 classroom environments for technology education  174, 198–205 classroom management  100, 203–4 “close class” supervision  200 Cochran, K. F.  309 Cocking, R. R.  292 coding  284 coding club  383 cognitive principles in communication  146–9 multimedia literacy, supporting classroom communication in  146–7 pedagogies of communicating  147–9

435

Index

cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML)  146–7 cognitivist theories  23 Cohen, J.  395 collaboration in technology education  99, 188–96 across  192–4 advantages  196 barriers to  191–2 benefits of  189–91 cross-curricular  194–6 impact of  189–91 inside  192–4 peer  188–90 reasons to  188–91 collaborative teaching  228–34 Collective, Tyre  418 colored cups, dual group-level feedback  181–3 combination thinking  116 command knowledge  291 communication graphics  17 communication in technology education  98–9, 136–52 checklist for communication during teaching  149–52 cognitive principles in  146–9 multimedia literacy, supporting classroom communication in  146–7 pedagogies of communicating  147–9 definition  137 development and implementation of literacies, recommendations for  149 digital literacy skills, development of  143–4 digital writing skill  144–5 graphicacy skills  144 importance  137–8 modes  138–42 graphical literacy/graphicacy  139–40, 144 oracy  140–1 written literacy  141–2 skills/competencies  142–3 verbal skill  144–5 community of practice  90, 386–8 comparative judgment  183–5 comparative study  183–5 competence  142, 152 n.2 competency  142, 152 n.2 competency-based knowledge  388

436

computer-aided manufacture (CAM)  298 Conceptual Framework for Integrated STEM Learning  90 conceptual knowledge  124 conditional knowledge  125 confidence  257, 277, 288, 291–2, 295–7 connectedness  386 constructionism  223 construction play  278 constructivist theories  23 content knowledge  173–4 context  358–9, 362–3 convergent thinking  117 Costner, K.  417–18 Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training (CAMET)  62–3 Council of Education Ministers, Canada (CMEC)  60, 62–3 craft, design and technology (CDT)  11, 31 craft education  15–18, 22 craftmanship  128–9 creative design  43 creative (divergent) thinking  97, 103, 110 creative expression  111, 116–17 creative ideation  110–12, 117 creative intelligence  110 Creative Little Scientists, Europe  279 creativity, modes of  106 creativity card games  114 creativity in digital learning  297–300 critical  117 critical (convergent) thinking  97, 103 critical path analysis  225 critiquing  351 cross-curricular collaboration  194–6 CSE; see Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) Csikszentmihalyi, M.  111 CTML; see cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) curricular and non-curricular environments  382–99 activity design  392–5 articulation of technological task  390 routines  389–90 sample projects/workflows  391–2 technical competencies, demonstration of  390–1 technological identity  382–8 technological knowledge  388–9, 395–7

Index

curriculum for technology education  3, 97–100, 163–5, 356 approaches  3–4, 10–11 assessing  99 assessment  3–4 collaborating  99, 188–96 communicating  98–9, 136–52 content  3–4 decentralized, development of (see decentralized curriculum) dimensions  97–100 doing  98, 122–34 evaluation  3–4 facilitating  99–100, 198–212 including  99 instruction  3–4 non-zero-sum  5 primary level in Germany  159–60 structure  3 thinking  97–8, 101–19 cyborg relations  404 Dagan, O.  220 Dakers, J.  78 Danos, X.  144 Datschefski, E.  406 da Vinci, L.  417 Dearing, R.  33 de Bono, E.  97, 103 six thinking-hats  103 thinking course  103 decentralized curriculum  60–73 within Canadian context  61–6 challenges  71–2 opportunities  71–2 within province of Newfoundland and Labrador  67–71 decision-making  113–14 declarative knowledge  117, 125 deductive reasoning  117 Delft city hall and train station  257–8 de Miranda, M. A.  221, 307, 309 demonstrating  325, 391, 415, 418 demonstration  390–1 DeNisi, A.  171 design and technology (D&T) education in England  21, 28–40, 194, 196 n.1 CDT  31–2 curriculum  28–30

in development of technology education globally  29–30 governmental influences  32–5 government influences  35–7 industry/government and education, collaboration between  30–2 National Curriculum  11, 28–9, 31–5, 40 nn.1, 5, 189 national examinations in  35–7 overview  28–9 teachers  33, 193–4 TVEI  31–2 design-as-practice  107 design-based pedagogies  25 design capability  2, 33, 35, 256, 261, 263 design communication, modes of  107 Design Expertise (Lawson and Dorst)  265 design fiction  417 design knowledge, modes of  106–7 design language  116 design learning  255–72 assessment  269–71 balancing autonomy  266–9 competence  266–9 didactics of  263–9 fundamental features  260–3 importance  255–7 pedagogy  263–9 processes  260–3 project on time  257–60 relatedness  266–9 twenty-first century skills and  82, 224, 227, 235, 259–260, 359 Design or Decline (Design and Technology Association)  28 design reasoning, mode of  106 designs-in-practice  107 design studios  198, 263–5 design thinking  101, 225 communication modes  107 creative ideation  110–12 creativity card games  114 creativity modes  106, 110 designing processes  102–5, 119 as dialogic  110 double-diamond model  102–5 knowledge modes  106–7 models of  101–3 modes  102–5

437

Index

paradoxes in  107, 113–14 precepts for  118–19 reasoning mode  106 reflective  112–13 speculative  114–15 as transitive  110 vocabulary  105, 116–18 design thinking, modes of  105 DeVore, P. W.  141 de Vries, M. J.  14, 142, 159, 388 Dewey, John  23, 142, 223, 403 dialogic communication  107 digital fabrication suite  327 digital literacy skills  143–4 digital poverty  210 digital processing equipment  45 digital technologies learning  288–302 aims  292 attitudes  293 creativity in  297–300 embracing failure in  293–4 group work  296–7 importance  289–92 overview  289 reflective task  301 task setting  294–6 technology to teach  300–1 vocabulary  292–7 digital/technology play  278 digital tools  284 digital writing skills  144–5 discipline core literacy  42–4 creative design  43 engineering thinking  43 materialization capacity  43–4 pattern expression  43 technological awareness  43 discoveries  xiii discovery learning  299 divergent thinking  117 doing in technology education  98, 122–34 curriculum and  126–7 forms of  123 and human dimension of learning  127–9 material forms of  125 overview  122–4 and pedagogy  129–33 and purpose  124–6 technological knowledge and  124–6

438

Domínguez-Rué, E.  419 Doppelt, Y.  229–30 double-diamond model  102–5, 108–10, 225 Doyle, A.  220 driverless car  347 dual group-level feedback  181–3 Dujiang Irrigation System (case study)  51–2 Dunbar, R.  342 Early Childhood Australia (ECA)  285 Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), Australia  276, 279 Educational Endowment Foundation  175 educational technology  14 effectiveness  386 EFT; see exploration and fabrication technologies (EFT) Eikmeyer, B.  164 Ellis, R.  246 Ellul, J.  348–9, 404 Elshof, L.  66 embodied knowledge  113, 118 emotions, perception and  108 Ending Up (Amis)  346 Engineering by Design program  91 Engineering Council  33 Engineering Design-Based Lesson Plan Model  90 engineering education  12, 81–2, 86–92 Engineering for US All program  92 Engineering Is Elementary program  91 engineering learning  87 engineering literacy  80 engineering thinking  43 England design and technology in (see design and technology (D&T) education in England) teacher training  193–4 English Baccalaureate (EBacc)  37 episodic knowledge  265, 272 epistêmê  16, 125 epistemology  3 e-portfolio (e-scape)  21, 24, 109, 234, 270 Epstein, R.  111, 116 equipment, digital processing  45 equity pedagogies  378 e-scape project  21, 24, 109, 234 expansiveness  386

Index

expansive-restrictive continuum  220 experiential learning  23, 83, 112, 119, 364–5 Expert Panel  35, 40 n.5 exploration and fabrication technologies (EFT)  396 exploration play  278 external knowledge  106 facilitation of high-quality technology education  99–100, 198–212 classroom environments  174, 198–203 key issues  174, 198–203 classroom management  203–4 management  199–200 resource management  200–2 risk education vs. risk management  202–3 levels of supervision  200 physical learning environments  203–5 kitchens  206 laboratories  206 studios  205–6 workshops  205 storage of materials and components  202 virtual learning environments  208–11 online and blended learning  209–11 technology-enhanced learning  211 work-based learning environments  206–8 placements  208 simulation  207 visits  208 feedback in technology education  99, 170–86 definition  170 delivery  176 embedding  174 frequency of  175–6 guidelines  175 handling  178 illustrative examples  178–85 all-student response system  179–80 colored cups, dual group-level feedback  181–3 comparative judgment  183–5 three seconds respond  179–80 Venn diagrams  180–1 less-is-more approach to  175–6 level of specificity in  176–7 quality of  173

reactions to  172 three-pillar principle of  173–4 Fensham, P. J.  314 Finnigan-Moran, S.  99–100 FIRST LEGO League (FLL) challenge  387 Fisch, K.  289 Fitzpatrick, K.  280 Fleer, M.  280 Flynn, E.  99 formative assessment  170–1, 175, 178–9, 186, 228, 233–5 Foundation for the Atlantic Canada Technology Education Curriculum  63 Framework for Innovation  107 France  20 free play  277–8 Friedman, P.  418 Fuller, B.  xiii Future of Education and Skills 2030 project  289 future skills  417–18 Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences  97 GCE; see General Certificate of Education GCE Advanced Level (A Level)  35 GCE Ordinary Level (O Level)  35 GCOs; see general curriculum outcomes (GCOs) GCSE; see General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) GDSU; see Gesellschaft für Didaktik des Sachunterrichts (GDSU) Geddis, A. N.  309 GEM-TECH program  236–8 General Certificate of Education (GCE)  35 General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)  36–7 general curriculum outcomes (GCOs)  63 general education  363–4 general national vocational qualification (GNVQ)  36 general technology  42 Generation Y  152 n.1 Generation Z  138, 152 n.1 German Scientific Society for Technology Education  159 German technology education  156–65 curriculum  163–5 primary level, curriculum development for  159–60

439

Index

requirements for future development  160–3 subject “Sachunterricht”  158–9 Gershon, M.  294 Gesellschaft für Didaktik des Sachunterrichts (GDSU)  158–9 Ghodsi, S. M.  189 Gibson, R.  109, 113 Gill, D.  19 Gleeson, J.  356 GNVQ; see general national vocational qualification (GNVQ) graphical communication  139 graphical literacy/graphicacy  139–40, 144 graphical user interface (GUI)  391 graphics  17 Green Imperative, The (Papanek)  405–6 Grey, N.  283 Grosche, M.  161 group work  296–7 Gu, J.  21 GUI; see graphical user interface (GUI) guided play  277–8 Gumbo, M.  343 Hallström, J.  xiii–xiv, 127, 342 handicraft education  15–18, 28 handouts  149–50 hand-skill  20 Hanna, J.  115 haptic knowledge  118 hard technologies  33 Hartell, E.  24, 99, 176 Hattie, J.  175 Haus der kleinen Forscher, Germany  279 health and safety  64, 71, 126, 133, 199, 203, 322 Heilbroner, R.  412 Heinrich’s triangle  330 Hennessy, S.  188–9 Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI)  33, 40 n.4 heuristic  117 of education  118 of psychology  118 Hill, A. M.  66 Hirsh, E. D.  292 Holland, D. C.  383 Hollenbach-Biele, N.  157 human behavior  413 human-centered design  418–19

440

humanoid robots  284 Humphries, C.  xii ICTs; see information and communication technologies (ICTs) ideation  110–12, 117, 130–1 identity  382–8 IDEO  294 inclusion in technology education  99, 156–65 curriculum  163–5 subject “Sachunterricht”  158–9 technology education at primary level in Germany curriculum development for  159–60 requirements for future development  160–3 indigenous/indigeneity  368–71 inductive reasoning  117 industrial activities  357 industrial education  15–18 Industrial Revolution (Industry 1.0)  xiii industrial technology education  15–18, 356–66 context  358–9 interdependence  360 methodology for  361–6 transactional  364–6 translations  361–4 needs  359–60 perspective  356–8, 366 Industry 4.0 xiii, 356–8 industry education nexus  362 information and communication technologies (ICTs)  137 information technology  42 initial teacher training (ITT) courses  31 Institute of Mechanical Engineers  38 instruction  314 intentionality  245 Interaction of Mind and Hand process model  16 interdisciplinary learning  304–20 shifting forces  305–6 in STEM education  305–6, 310–12 associational fluency  308, 312–13 content knowledge  306–8 instruction  308, 312–13 interdisciplinary teaching in  310–12 iSTEM PCK  313–19 teachers and  308, 312–13

Index

teacher education implications for  318–19 theoretical considerations for  308–10 teachers teaching together  313–16 challenges  316–17 design problem intervention  316 example from field  316–17 teacher education, implications for  318–19 interdisciplinary STEM (iSTEM)  234, 305–6 associational fluency  308, 312–13 PCK  313–19 internal knowledge  106 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA)  12, 79–80, 142 International Technology Education Association  77 Internet of Things  xiii Interprovincial Standards Red Seal tradesperson certification program, Canada  396 Ireland  15, 17, 19, 21, 60 Irving-Bell, D.  344, 417 Isaksen, S. G.  298 iSTEM; see interdisciplinary STEM (iSTEM) ITEEA; see International Technology and Engineering Educators Associate (ITEEA) iteration  111 iterative processes  189–90

Kimbell, L.  101, 106–7 Kimbell, R.  24, 101, 106–7, 109, 114–16, 245, 247 kitchens  206 Klapwijk, R. M.  220–1, 228 Klemm, K.  157 Klenk, M.  416 Kluger, A. N.  171 Knaus, M.  220 knowledge  16 activating tasks  246 conceptual  124 conditional  125 constructing tasks  246 declarative  117, 125 design  106–7 embodied  113, 118 external  106 haptic  118 internal  106 material  131–3 procedural  124 provisional  114, 118 technological  124–6 Knowledge Growth in Teaching (KGT) project  308–9 knowledge-rich ideologies  4–5 Kolb, D. A.  23, 364 KSCOs; see key-stage curriculum outcomes (KSCOs)

James Bond series  416–17 Jayasree, D.  369 “jigsaw” methods  307 Jones, W. M.  391 Jones Beach  415 Jönsson, A.  178 judgment  113–14

Laal, M.  189 laboratories  206 Ladson-Billings, G.  377 language  127 language acquisition device  255 lateral thinking  117 Lawson, B.  265 Layton, D.  405 Leahy, S.  171–2 LEAs; see Local Education Authorities (LEAs) Lego model  207 less-is-more approach to feedback  175–6 lesson activities  174 level of specificity in feedback  176–7 levels of achievement  47–51 levels of supervision  200 Lewis, T.  102, 105–6, 108–11, 313 Lindfors, E.  202, 221

Kahn, R.  351–2 Kaldahl, A.-G.  145 Kass, H.  314 Katola, M. T.  373 Kelley, D.  294 Kellner, D.  137, 351–2 Kelly, K.  349 Kennedy, T.  343–4 key-stage curriculum outcomes (KSCOs)  63 Khine, M. S.  145

441

Index

Lindström, L.  175 literacy  138; see also written literacy literary culture, values of  30–1 Little Scientists, Australia  279 Local Education Authorities (LEAs)  31 Looijenga, A.  268–9, 281–2 Lucas, B.  298 luddite riots  411 Luddites  411 McGlashan, A.  101–2, 109–11, 114 McLain, M.  99–100, 127, 217, 219 Mcleod, S.  289 Make Design Learning Visible (Klapwijk et al.)  271 Makerspaces  274, 282, 382 mapping  111 Marine Advanced Technology Education underwater remotely operated vehicle (MATE-ROV) program  387 Martin, M.  344 Marx, K.  411 materialization capacity  43 material knowledge  131–3 Matter of Everything, The (Sheehy)  xii Mayer, R. E.  147, 151–2 Memorial University  70 metacognition  117 metaphorical thinking  116 mind maps  111 Minecraft games  298 Mitcham, C.  21, 210 Moalosi, R.  372–5 Moon, J. A.  112–13 morality  416–17 Morrison-Love, D.  98, 217 multimedia communication, designing instructions using  151–2 multimedia literacy  146–7 Murdoch, K.  280 Murphy, P.  188–9 Musta’amal, A. H.  293 Mutekwe, E.  378 NAPE; see National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)  306

442

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)  285 National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)  19 National Curriculum (NC)  11, 28–9, 31–5, 40 nn.1, 5 for England/Wales  32–5 iterations, changes in different  32–3 purpose of  32 slimmed-down D&T curriculum  33–5 national examinations, D&T  35–7 National Research Council  80 national vocational qualifications (NVQs)  36 National Writing Project (NWP)  142 nature of tasks  242 NCCA; see National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) NC D&T  33 Ndiaye, Y.  98–9 Nemorin, S.  294–5 Netherlands  20 Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)  60–1, 73 area  67 decentralized technology education curriculum development within  67– 71, 73 Diploma Program in Industrial Arts Education  69–70 economy  67 industrial arts education programming in schools  69 Memorial University  70 natural resource  67 population  67 public education system  67 resource sectors  67 skilled trades programming at secondary school level  70–1 TCP programs  71 New York State  20–1 New Zealand  60 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)  305 NGSS; see Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Nia, M. G.  142 Nierling, L.  419 (non-)determinacy of technology  347–50 Norman, D.  204–5

Index

Norman, E.  144 NVQs; see national vocational qualifications (NVQs) Ogunbure, A. A.  370, 373 Oleson, Lasse Birk  417 one-to-one supervision  200 online and blended learning  209–11, 300 ontology  3 oracy  140–1 Ottosson, T.  139 outcomes-based curriculum  23 P-12 Engineering Learning  86–90 Pacey, A.  402 pack-to-bike solution  265 paired learning  296–7 Papanek, V.  405–6 participation  157, 159, 161–4, 317 pattern expression  43 Payne, K.  145 PBL; see project-based learning (PBL) PCK; see pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)  3–4, 173–4, 218–19, 308–10 pedagogical paradigms  10, 21–4 pedagogy for technology education  3, 217–20 for communicating  147–9 design learning  255–72 digital learning  288–302 for doing in technology education  129–33 material knowledge (example 2)  131–3 tangible ideation (example 1)  130–1 expansive-restrictive continuum  220 interdisciplinary learning  304–20 paradigms  10, 21–4 PCK  218–19 play-based learning  274–86 project-based learning  223–38 risk and safety  322–36 signature  219 in STEM education  77, 90–2 task-based learning  218, 240–53 of technological multiliteracy  148 peer collaboration  188–90 perception, emotions and  108 personal construct  247 Phelan, J. 342 phenomenological  118

philosophical value of technology education  347–50 philosophy of technology  14–15, 21–2 phronēsis (practical wisdom and judgment)  125 physical knowledge  388–9 Piaget’s cognitive constructivism  23 PIRPOSAL Model  90 Pitt, J. C.  416 placements  208 Plato  16, 125 play-based learning  274–86 children and  275, 283–4 design technology in  280–4 digital technology in  284–6 elements of  276–7 environment  283 implementation of  276 importance of  278 overview  274–5 pedagogies  275–80 STEM and  279 teaching technology through  279–80 types  278 Polonen, P.  xiii polylactic acid (PLA)  389 potted plant automatic watering device (case study)  57–8 Poverty of Philosophy, The (Marx)  411 precepts for fostering design thinking  118–19 Prengel, A.  161 Prime, G. M.  369–70, 376 problem-based learning  229–30 problem-solving in design  108 procedural knowledge  124 product design process model  103 progressive education  223 project-based learning (PBL)  3, 223–38 aims  227 assessment  233–4 contributions to learners  229 implementations  235–8 independence and collaboration  226–8 designing  227–8 timeline  227 method  225 overview  223–4 and problem-based learning  229–30 problems  225–6 process  226

443

Index

product  226 and professional development  231–2 STEM and  234–5 and task-based learning  230 teachers’ role  231–2 teamwork  230–1 Project Lead the Way Engineering program  91 provisional knowledge  114, 118 QCF; see Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF) Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF)  36 qualitative  118 qualitative forms of intelligence  108 quick response (QR) codes  211 Quirk, J.  418 Reeve, E. M.  423 reflective (heuristic) thinking  97, 112–13, 117 Regulated Qualification Framework (RQF)  36 resilience/recovery  333–4 Resnick, M.  395 resources  67, 200–2 Retna, K. S.  105, 107 risk  322–4 risk assessment  202–3, 322–4 risk education  202–3 Ritchhart, R.  111 Robbins, P.  111 Roberts, P.  220 Roberts, P.  21 Robinson, C.  276 robotics  284 Robots Pet (Grey)  283 Röntgen, W.  xii Ropohl, G.  125 Rosenshine, B.  147, 150–1 Rosenshine’s ten golden principles  150–1 routines  111, 389–90 Royal Academy of Engineering  38 Royal Society of Arts (RSA)  39 RQF; see Regulated Qualification Framework (RQF) RSA; see Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Rutland, M.  110–11 Sachunterricht  158–60 safety culture in TELWEs  323–36 dimensions of  327

444

management of safety incidents  332–3 modeling of  328–35 preparedness and prevention  329–32 safety incidents, resilience/recovery from  333–4 safety management  334–5 teachers and students work together for  325–7 technology teacher as promoter of  324–5 safety incidents, resilience/recovery from  333–4 safety management  334–5 safety walk method  332 scaffolding  79, 83, 86, 161, 226–7, 235, 238, 249, 252 Scheurman  22 Schon, D.  109 school-based identities  384 school safety culture  325–6 Schools Council Design and Craft Education project  261 Schröer, F.  99 Schwab, K.  356 Schwarzenegger, A.  414 science  xii Scotland  122–3, 128 scrum  225 secondary-level technical schools  19–20 second language acquisition (SLA)  241–4 second-level curricula  356–7 second-level technology education  356–63 Seemann, K. W.  111 Seery, N.  17, 270–1, 342 self-assessment  171; see also assessment in technology education self-determination theory  268 self-efficacy  173–4 self-reflection  171; see also feedback in technology education Sennett, R.  128 SES; see socio-economic status (SES) Sheehy, Suzie  xii “shop” classes  9, 84, 93 n.2 Shulman, L. S.  129, 198, 218–19, 309, 314 signature pedagogies  217, 219 Simon, T.  161 simulation  207 SIs; see statutory instruments (SIs) six thinking-hats  103

Index

SLA; see second language acquisition (SLA) Sloyd system  127, 263 Snedden, D.  356 Snow, C. P.  30 social construction of technology  415 social identity  386 connectedness  386 effectiveness  386 expansiveness  386 society, technology’s role in shaping  342–5 cultural perspectives  368–81 curricular and non-curricular environments  382–99 extracurricular perspectives  401–8 industrial perspectives  15–18, 356–66 philosophical values  347–50 political value  347–50 social and technological perspectives  410–21 sociocultural role of technology education  368–81 approaches  370 definitions  368–70 indigeneity and  371 relevance, theoretical implications for  377–8 sociocultural variables at play  372–4 teaching, approach for  378–80 Ubuntu  371–2 values  374–7 socio-economic status (SES)  210 Socrates  16 South Africa  23 South East London Technical College  19 speculative design thinking  114–15, 118 Spendlove, D.  108, 243 Spielman, A.  37 spiral curriculum  165 Stables, K.  26, 219–21, 234 Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STL)  87–91, 305 standards for technological literacy (STL)  142 Star, S. L.  396 statutory instruments (SIs)  40 n.3 STEAM Labs  274 STEM education  12, 18, 76–93, 127, 304–5, 368 acronym  82–3 associational fluency  308, 312–13

classified visuals in  144 content knowledge  306–8 instruction  308, 312–13 interdisciplinary teaching in  310–12 movement  77, 82–5 ongoing opportunities  92–3 as pedagogical approach to learning  77 project-based learning and  234–5 school subjects  77 teachers and  308, 312–13 and technology  82–5 technology education in United States  78–9 classroom  86–92 curricula  90–2 emergence  79–81 engineering classroom  86–92 engineering education, emergence of  81–2 history of  78–9 pedagogical models  90–2 post-secondary alignment of  81–2 as school subject  78 standards/frameworks  86–90 technology’s place within  77 Sterling, Bruce  417 STL; see Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STL) strategic knowledge  291 Strimel, G. J.  18, 80, 194 subject-matter content knowledge  309 subject’s epistemology  93 n.1 supervision, levels of  200 sustainability  115, 207, 365, 375 Sweller, J.  147 Swiss Cheese Model of accident causation  331 symbolic play  278 TAPS project  271 Tarazi, E. 236 task-based learning (TBL)  218, 230, 240–53 overview  240–1, 243–4 planning for teaching technology  247–51 analysis of existing technologies  250–1 “doing” in variety of application cases  249–50 technical knowledge and skills, sequential application of  248–9 progression in  247–51 and project-based learning  230

445

Index

stages of  244 post-task  246–7 pre-task  244–5 task (and forms of tasks)  245–6 in technology education  240–53 technology educator and  242–3 TBL; see task-based learning (TBL) TCP; see Technology Career Pathway (TCP) teacher-led play  277–8 teachers  369 attitudes  293 education, theoretical considerations for  308–10 feedback from  171, 173–4 illustrative examples  178–85 recommendations for  175 guided play, role in  277–8 role in PBL  231–2 STEM education, interdisciplinary teaching in  310–12 teaching together  313–16 training of  193–4 teaching technology, purposes of  247–8 technacy  40 n.2, 111 technê  16, 125 Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative (TVEI)  31–2 technical competencies, demonstration of  390–1 technical drawing  139–40 technical education  17–18 craft proficiency in  22 development of  19 vs. general comprehensive education  19 at secondary level  18 technological awareness  43 technological determinism/constructivism arguments against  414 hard  412–14 technological futures, designing  417–18 technological identity  382–8 technological knowledge  1–3, 124–6, 388–9 documentation of  395–7 and experience  3 routines, establishment of  389–90 sample projects/workflows  391–2 technical competencies, demonstration of  390–1 technological task, articulation of  390

446

technological languages  45 technological literacy (TL)  21, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87, 90, 137–8, 159, 350–2 technological multiliteracies  351–2 technological society  404 technologies  xii–xiv, 156, 274–5, 288, 401–3 anthropological (human) impact of  418–19 curriculum  3–5 definitions  xii, 78, 369–70 historical perspectives  411–12 humanity and  xiii implications for education  419–20 morality and  416–17 (non-)determinacy of  347–50 philosophy of  14–15, 21–2 project-based learning approaches to  3 relations with  403–5 significance of contexts  403 social construction of  415 technological determinism/ constructivism  412–14 valuing  405–8, 416–17 Technology Career Pathway (TCP)  71 technology classrooms  78, 86–92 technology education  3–4, 14–15, 196 n.1 ACJ in  24–5 assessment in  24–5 in Canada  11–12, 19, 60–73 in China  11, 21, 42–59 conceptualization of  9–13 and craft history  15–18 curricular and non-curricular environments  382–99 in curriculum, approaches/development  3–4, 10–11, 60–73, 97–100 democratic value of  350–2 developmental path  9–10, 18–21 digital technologies in  288–302 disciplinary areas of  99 diversity  11–13 engineering education and  12 in England  28–40 evolving goals of  18–21 extracurricular perspectives in  401–8 handicraft history of  15–18 history of  15–18, 25–6 implications for  419–20 industrial  15–18, 356–66 in Ireland  17–19

Index

for New York State  20–1 oracy in  141 origins of  15–16 pedagogical paradigms in  10, 21–4 philosophical value of  347–50 primary level in Germany, curriculum development for  159–60 risk and safety in  322–36 within secondary-level curricula  15 social and technological perspectives  410– 21 social construction of  415 in society, role/impact  342–5, 347–53, 356–66, 368–81 sociocultural role of  368–81 in South Africa  23 in STEM/STEAM/STEMM education  12, 18, 76–93, 195 task-based learning in  218, 230, 240–53 technical communication in  139–40 in United States  12, 21, 76–93 as vocational education  15–18 writing in  142 Technology Education Research Unit (TERU), UK  16, 24 Technology Educators  26, 324–5; see also teachers technology-enhanced learning (TEL)  100, 211 Technology Justice  406 TEL; see technology-enhanced learning (TEL) TE learning and working environments (TELWE)  322–36 risks in  324 safety culture in  324–36 dimensions of  327 management of safety incidents  332–3 modeling of  328–35 preparedness and prevention  329–32 safety incidents, resilience/recovery from  333–4 safety management  334–5 teachers and students work together for  325–7 technology teacher as promoter of  324– 5 types  322 teleological  3 TELWE; see TE learning and working environments (TELWE)

Tenberge, C. 99, 164 Terminator film series  414 Thiel, P.  418 thinking  117 thinking in technology education  97–8, 101–19 design thinking communication modes  107 creative ideation  110–12 creativity card games  114 creativity modes  106, 110 designing processes  119 knowledge modes  106–7 models of  101–3 modes  105 paradoxes in  107, 113–14 precepts for  118–19 reasoning mode  106 reflective  112–13 speculative  114–15 vocabulary  105, 116–18 double-diamond model  103–5, 108–10 overview  101 three R’s  255–6 three seconds respond  179–80 Time project  257 Timperley, H.  175 tools  284 topical technologies  249 transactional model for technology education  364–6 transformation  217 translations by industry/technology education  361–4 context  362–3 general education goals  363–4 judgment  363 meaning  362–3 preparedness  363 transversal and innovative competencies  363 Tuff, J.  19 TVEI; see Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative (TVEI) TVEI certification  36 Ubuntu  371–2, 374 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD)  157 United Kingdom  60

447

Index

United States  12, 21, 60, 76–93 Common Core Standards in  279 manual arts in  123 NAEYC  285 STEM education in technology education  78–9 classroom  86–92 curricula  90–2 emergence  79–81 engineering classroom  86–92 engineering education, emergence of  81–2 history of  78–9 pedagogical models  90–2 standards/frameworks  86–90 technology education in  78–9 University of Melbourne  279 “unpickled” portfolio  234 V&A; see Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) values, technologies/technology education  374–7, 405–8, 416–17 van den Hoven, J.  416 Van de Velde, D.  83–4 Veblen, T.  412 Venn diagrams  180–1 verbal skill  144–5 Verbeek, P.-P.  404, 416 Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A)  39 virtual learning environments (VLEs)  100 virtual reality (VR)  211 visits  208 visual communication  107 visualizations  144 visual-learners  113 visual mode  144 VLEs; see virtual learning environments (VLEs) vocabulary of design thinking  105, 116–18 creativity, modes of  106 design communication, modes of  107 design knowledge, modes of  106–7

448

design reasoning, mode of  106 design thinking, modes of  105 Vocational Education Act of 1930  17 vocationalism  26 vocational-technical education  15–18, 20, 26 von Mengerson, B.  97–8 Vygotsky, L.  23, 383 Vygotsky’s social constructivism  23 warning triangles for motor vehicles, series of experiments for testing (case study)  52–7 Warren, H.  19 Water World  417–18 Welch, M.  131 Wells, J. G.  83–4, 102, 105, 108, 111 Wenger, E.  386 Werken  158 Westbrook, J.  147 Wiliam, D.  171–2, 174–6, 179 Wilkinson, A.  140–1 Williams, P. J. 21, 26, 85, 148, 351 Willis, D.  245–6, 250 Willis, J.  245–6, 250 Winn, D.  221 Winner, L.  350, 415, 419–20 wood technology  241–2 Wooff, D.  99 working environments  206–7 workshops  205, 322–3 written literacy  141–2 Wubbels, T.  203 Wubbels’s six approaches to classroom management  100 Xenophon  16 X-rays  xii Xu, M.  21 Zero Emissions Livestock Project  418 Zuga, K. F.  313