Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 169–187 | Cite as

Re/Thinking the Nature of Technology in Science Classrooms

  • Mijung Kim
  • Wolff-Michael Roth
Article

Abstract

With increasing technological changes and needs in society, technology and engineering education has received much attention in school science. Yet, technology traditionally has been subordinated to science or simply taken as the application of science. This position has resulted in a limited understanding of teaching technological and engineering education. This study questions the traditional view of technology in school science by examining children’s action and learning in the course of designing and building cantilever bridges in science classrooms. We adapt Heidegger’s articulation of the four causes known to philosophy in the Greco-Roman tradition—causa materialis (material), causa formalis (form), causa finalis (purpose), and causa efficiens (effect-producing)—to analyze elementary children’s technology design activities. The study suggests that children’s technology has certain dimensions of knowing-how, i.e., there is an instrumentality that goes beyond scientific knowledge. We suggest that the practice of technology and engineering education, which mainly focuses on children’s scientific knowledge, needs to be reexamined and reframed to develop holistic ways of teaching technology.

Keywords

Technology Engineering Philosophy Elementary school Science 

References

  1. Bennett, D., & Monahan, P. (2013). NYSCI design lag: No bored kids! In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 34–49). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, R., Bennett, L., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. States: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavanagh, S., & Trotter, A. (2008). Where is the ‘T’ in STEM? Education Week, 27, 17–19.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Canadian Academies (2015). Some Assembly Required: STEM Skills and Canada’s Economic Productivity. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future, Council of Canadian Academies.Google Scholar
  7. Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naïve, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 791–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dohn, N. (2013). Situational interest in engineering design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2057–2078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner, P. (1992). The application of science to technology. Research in Science Education, 22, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman, S. L. (1990). Philosophy, engineering, and western culture. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology (pp. 125–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gunstone, R. (1994). Technology education and science education: Engineering as a case study of relationships. Research in Science Education, 24, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H.-H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Harrison, M. (2011). Supporting the T and the E in STEM. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 17–25.Google Scholar
  16. Heidegger, M. (1977). Sein und Zeit [Being and time]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. (2000). Gesamtausgabe. I. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 19101976 Band 7: Vorträge und Aufsätze [Complete works part 1: Published writings 1910–1976 vol. 7: Talks and essays]. Frankfurt a/M: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  18. Ihde, D. (2010). Heidegger’s technologies: Postphenomenological perspectives. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, T. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2–11.Google Scholar
  22. Kolodner, J., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (1988). Mixing humans and non-humans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1992). Aramis ou l’amour des techniques [Aramis or the love of technology]. Paris: Éditions la De´couverte.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essay on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leont’ev, A. N. (1983). Izbrannye psixhologičeskie proizvedenija (tom 2) [Selected psychological works (Vol. 2)]. Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and Inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1978). Werke Band 3 [Works vol. 3]. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar
  30. McGinn, R. (1991). Science, technology, and society. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. McRobbie, C., Stein, S., & Ginns, I. (2001). Exploring designerly thinking of students as novice designers. Research in Science Education, 31, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Micham, C. (1978). Types of technology. Research in Philosophy & Technology, 1, 229–249.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for science education. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Ritchie, S., & Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: A case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rockland, R., Bloom, D., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53–64.Google Scholar
  40. Roth, W.-M. (1995). From “Wiggly structures” to “Unshaky towers”: Problem framing, solution finding, and negotiation of courses of actions during a civil engineering unit for elementary students. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, W.-M. (1996a). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth, W.-M. (1996b). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roth, W.-M. (2001a). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roth, W.-M. (2001b). Modeling design as situated and distributed process. Learning and Instruction, 11, 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of methods. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Waddington, D. (2005). A field guide to Heidegger: Understanding “the question concerning technology”. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(4), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Welch, M. (2007). Learning to design: The continuum of engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 84–94.Google Scholar
  52. Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elementary Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of EducationUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations