A phenomenographic study of Greek primary school students’ representations concerning technology in daily life

  • Christina Solomonidou
  • Athanassios Tassios
Research Article


The present research investigated and studied students’ representations about daily life technologies, in a prospect of studying technology in Greek primary education. In the research participated 60 Greek primary school students aged 9 to 12 years old. Research data were collected through semi-structured, personal, clinical-type interviews. Each interview investigated student’s conceptions and views about the following thematic areas: the concept of technology, daily life technologies, technological change, and the impact of technology use in everyday life. Data analysis revealed that the majority of students equated technology with modern tools and appliances, especially with computers, TV, mobile phones, satellites and other micro- and macro-technologies, whereas experience based technologies (de Vries, Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. J. Technol. Edu. 8 (1996), 7) have been hardly recognized by them as technology. Also students’ representations can be categorized either as technology-oriented representations, which focus on a collection of technical means without reference to humans, or as human-oriented representations, focused on technical means with substantial reference to human needs and activities. Depending on these types of representations, students seem to conceive differently the nature of the problems, which they recognize that the wide use of technology causes mainly to the environment and the responsibility of the user for these problems. Moreover, it seems that the concept of technological change is a quite difficult one for the students. In order to help students form adequate representations about daily life technology and technological change an appropriate teaching approach was designed on the basis of these students’ representations.


Daily life technologies Primary education Social factors in representing technology Students’ representations Teaching technology Technological literacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bame, E. A., Dugger, W. E. Jr., & de Vries, M. J. (1993). Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology: PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40–48.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, G.-L., Bruillard, E., & Dansac, C. (1999). ‘Educational Multimedia Task Force Project MM 1045, Représentation: Représentations, modèles et modélisations; implications sur les strategies éducatives et sur les processus d’apprentissage; synthèse bibliographique, Deliverable 01, Janvier 1999, Heraklion (Grèce): European Commission’s Educational Multimedia Task Force.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, L. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Education Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buccarrelli, L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cajas, F. (2000). Research in technology education: what are we researching? A response to Theodore Lewis’. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), Spring 2000, Available at:
  6. Clancey, W. (1997). Situated cognition: on human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education, (5th ed.) London, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  8. Correand, I. (2001). Twelve years of technology education in France, England and Netherlands: How pupils perceive the subject? PATT 11 Conference Proceedings, 8–13 March 2001, Netherlands, http://www.iteawww/org/publications
  9. De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  10. De Vries, M. J. (2003a). The nature of technological knowledge: Extending empirically informed studies into what engineers know. Techné, 6(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
  11. De Vries, M. J. (2003b). Editorial. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vries, M. J., & Tamir, A. (1997). Shaping concepts of technology: What concepts and how to shape them. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R. (1982). Children’s learning in science. Educational Analysis, 4(2), 69–79.Google Scholar
  15. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of student’s conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education 10, 37–60.Google Scholar
  16. Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481–490.Google Scholar
  17. Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In: Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Eds.) Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Greek Ministry of Education, website: Google Scholar
  19. Herschbach, D. R. (1995). ‘Technology as knowledge: Implications for instruction’, Journal of Technology Education, 7(1). Available at:
  20. Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life contexts: An alternative for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ihde, D. (1997). The structure of technology knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ITEA—International Technology Education Association (1996). Technology for all Americans Project: A rationale and structure for the study of technology,
  23. ITEA—International Technology Education Association (2000). Content for the study of technology. Standards for technological literacy,
  24. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1993). Analysis of student technological capability, working papers of the learning in technology education project. University of Waikato, Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, A. T., Mather, V., & Carr, M. D. (1995). Issues in the practice of technology education, final report of the learning in technology education project. University of Waikato, Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, S. (1992). A framework for technology education curricula which emphasizes intellectual processes. Journal of Technology Education, 3(2),
  28. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology mediated learning: Constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2), 35–48.Google Scholar
  29. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In: Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasly, S. D. (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Layton, D. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovation in science and technology education (pp. 1–2), vol 4. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education – some areas of need. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), Available at:
  33. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography – Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography – A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.Google Scholar
  35. Mather, V. J., & Jones, A. (1995). Focusing on technology education: The effect of concepts on practice, S.E.T., 2, Item 9.Google Scholar
  36. Mawson, B. (n.d.). Factors affecting children’s learning in technology, Retrieved November 6, 2005, from:
  37. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem-solving processes in technology education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. (1929/67). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Raat, J. H., Coenen-van den Bergh, R., Klerk Wolters, F., & de Vries, M. J. (Eds.) (1987). Report PATT Conference 1987, Volume 1, Proceedings, University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  41. Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1994). Helping children understand technology: A handbook for teachers. Key Centre for Schools Science and Mathematics & Science, Curtin University, Perth & Technology Awareness Program, Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  42. Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children’s choice of drawing to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1996). Understanding technology: The development of a concept. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 977–992.Google Scholar
  44. Solomonidou, C., & Tasios, A. (2005). How do primary school pupils conceive technology and its use in everyday life? In P. Kommers, & G. Richards (eds.) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada, 6-7/2005, AACE, pp. 1916–1923.Google Scholar
  45. Tasios, A., & Solomonidou, C. (2002). Students’ (aged 9–12 years old) representations about everyday life technologies and the place of ICT in those representations. In A. Dimitracopoulou (Ed.) The Information and Communication Technologies in Education. Proceedings of the 3 rd Pan-Hellenic Conference with International Participation (Rhodes: TPE, University of Aegean, 9/2002). Athens: Kastaniotis editions inter@ctive, Vol. 1, pp. 379–390, (in Greek).Google Scholar
  46. Tasios, A., & Solomonidou, C. (2004). Technology in everyday life according to primary school students’ conceptions. Educational Review, 38, 146–167 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  47. Twyford, J., & Järvinen, E.-M. (2000). The formation of children’s technological concepts: A study of what it means to do technology from a child’s perspective’, Journal of Technology Education, 12(1). Retrieved November 6, 2005 from
  48. Van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudes towards technology by using the PATT (Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology) questionnaire. International Journal for Technology and Design Education, 9(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: aspects of constructivism. In: Fosnot, C. (Ed.) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3–7). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wadsworth, B. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. Addison Wesley, Longman.Google Scholar
  52. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
  53. Zuga, K. (1997). An analysis of technology education in the United States based upon an historical overview and review of contemporary curriculum research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zuga, K. (2004). Improving technology education research on cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Educational Technologies and Software Design, Pedagogical Department of Primary EducationUniversity of ThessalyArgonafton – PhilellinonGreece

Personalised recommendations