Advertisement

Discerning technological systems related to everyday objects: mapping the variation in pupils’ experience

  • Maria Svensson
  • Åke Ingerman
Article

Abstract

Understanding technology today implies more than being able to use the technological objects present in our everyday lives. Our society is increasingly integrated with technological systems, of which technological objects, and their function, form a part. Technological literacy in that context implies understanding how knowledge is constituted in technology, and in particular how concrete (objects) and abstract levels (systems) are linked. This article has an educational focus concerning systems in technology education. Using a phenomenographic approach, the study explores pupils’ experiences of technological systems as embedded in four everyday objects. We identify five qualitatively different ways of understanding systems, ranging from a focus on using the particular objects, over-focussing on the function of objects, seeing objects as part of a process, and seeing objects as system components, to understanding objects as embedded in systems. As a conclusion, we suggest an educational strategy for teaching about systems in technology education.

Keywords

Technological systems Technological objects Artefacts Understanding technology Technological literacy Teknisk bildning Technology education Phenomenography 

References

  1. Bame, E. A., Dugger, W. E., Jr., de Vries, M. J., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology—PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40–48.Google Scholar
  2. Blomdahl, E. (2007). Technological literacy—what is that? In Paper presented at the PATT 18, International conference on Design and Technology Educational Research, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemorary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collier-Reed, B. (2007). Pupils’ experiences of technology—Exploring dimensions of technological literacy. Unpublished Ph D thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  5. Compton, V., & France, B. (2007). Redefining Technological literacy in New Zealand: From concepts to curriculum constructs. In Paper presented at the PATT 18, International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Dakers, J. (Ed.). (2006). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, R. S., Ginns, I. S., & An McRobbie, C. J. (2002). Elementary school students’ understanding of technology concepts’. Journal of Technology Education, 14(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
  8. 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. doi: 10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007363.44114.3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology, an introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. De Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 17–30). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Dovenborg, E., & Pramling, I. (1998). Att förstå barns tankar. Metodik för barnintervjuer. Eskilstuna: Liber AB.Google Scholar
  12. Dusek, V. (2007). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Garmire, E., Pearson, G., & National Academy of Engineering. Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy in the United States. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hagberg, J. E., & Hultén, M. (2005). Skolans undervisning och elevers lärande i teknik: svensk forskning i internationell kontext (Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie. Rapport nummer 6). Uppsala, Sverige: Ord & Form.Google Scholar
  15. Ingelstam, L. (1994). System: Teknik och människor i samspel. I Ginners, T & Mattsson, G. (Red.), Teknik i skolan (pp. 130–149). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 83–96. doi: 10.1023/A:1008813120391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kline, S. J. (1985). What is technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 5, 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Mahwah, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
  20. McCormick, R. (2006). Technology and knowledge: Contributions from learning theories. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 31–47). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Michael, M. (2006). How to understand Mundane technology: New ways of thinking about human–technology relations. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 49–63). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology, The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pearson, G., & Young, T. A. (2002). Technically speaking—Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. (1982). The child’s conception of the world. London: Paladin.Google Scholar
  25. Pitt, J. (2000). Thinking about technology—Foundations of the philosophy of technology. New York: Seven Bridges Press.Google Scholar
  26. Raat, J. H., & de Vries, M. J. (1986). The physics and technology project. Physics Education, 21, 333–336. doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/21/6/302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose, L. C., & Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology. A report of the survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the International Technology Education Association. Technology Teacher, 61(6), 1–8.Google Scholar
  28. Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., Jr., & Starkweather, K. N. (2004). The second instalment of the ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology. Technology Teacher, 64(1), 1.Google Scholar
  29. Säljö, R., Schoultz, J., & Wyndhamn, J. (1999). Artefakter som tankestöttor. I Carlgren, I. (Red.), Miljöer för lärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  30. Skolverket (1994/2000). Compulsory school: Syllabuses, Technology (Lpo 94, Kursplaner för grundskolan, 1994/2000). Available from http://www.skolverket.se/www3.skolverket.se/ki/eng/comp.pdf.
  31. Solomondiou, C., & Tassios, A. (2007). A phenomenographic study of Greek primary school students’ representations concerning technology in daily life. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17, 113–133. doi: 10.1007/s10798-006-0007-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Techlink. (2007). Curriculum support. Technological literacy. http://www.techlink.org.nz/.
  33. 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), 32–48.Google Scholar
  34. Zuga, K. F. (2004). Improving technology education research on cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 79–87. doi: 10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007360.33705.94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Social and Welfare StudiesLinköping UniversityNorrkopingSweden

Personalised recommendations