Advertisement

Technology Education: The Promise of Cultural-Historical Theory for Advancing the Field

  • Marilyn FleerEmail author
Chapter
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)

Abstract

Although technology education has a long history in practice (i.e. apprenticeship model, guilds), the theorisation of learning technology and design is relatively recent when compared with other disciplines, such as science education. Consequently, this chapter examines how scholars of technology education in contemporary times have theorised their work in their quest for better understanding how teachers teach and young people learn in technology education. To achieve this goal, this chapter conceptualises the outcomes of this focused theoretical review by examining the essence of what constitutes constructivism, social-constructivism, sociocultural theory and cultural-historical theory. In drawing upon primary sources, the questions posed for critique are: How does each inform design and technology education? What is unique to each? What is the same? What might be the gaps? A critique of the grey zone between social constructivism and cultural-historical theory will be made in the context of theories placed on a continuum, which moves from ‘in the head’ and ‘in the hand’, to a dialectical relation between cultural and societal contexts and the cultural development of the person through technology education. It is argued that through examining the alignment, contradictions and movement of thought practice, a theoretically informed discussion of learning the practice and knowledge of technology and design is possible. The chapter concludes by returning to the theoretical review to present a discussion on the place of theory for informing a dialectical understanding of how young people learn and teachers teach in technology and design education.

References

  1. Barlex, D. (2012). Curriculum development. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers. International Technology Education Studies. (pp. 196–230). Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. (2017). Disruptive technologies. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education. Contemporary issues in technology education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. De Vries, J. R. (2014). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view, In De Vries, J.R. (eds). Defining technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, US, (pp. 23–40).Google Scholar
  4. Djordjevic, B., Spirtovic, O., & Acimovic, D. (2016). Social constructivism and technology. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 7(11), 178–189.Google Scholar
  5. Eames, C. (2016). Exploring teacher pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development using CoRes (content representations). In D. S. P. Gedera & P. J. Williams (Eds.), Activity theory in education. Research and practice (pp. 169–182). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Education Council. (2018). Optimising STEM industry-school partnerships: Inspiring Australia’s next generation, final report, STEM Partnership Forum, Carlton South, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox-Turnbull, W. H. (2015). Conversations to support learning in technology education. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 99–120). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Firat, M. (2017). Growing misconception of technology: Investigation of elementary students’ recondition of and reasoning about technological artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 183–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9351-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleury, S., & Garrison, J. (2014). Toward a new philosophical anthropology of education: Fuller considerations of social constructivism. Interchange, 45, 19–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-014-9216-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge. In Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Gumbo, M. T. (2015). Indigenous technology in technology education curricula and teaching. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 57–76). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Harvey, D. M., & Caro, R. (2017). Building TPACK in preservice teachers through explicit course design. Technology Trends, 61, 106–114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/w11528-016-0120-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Head, G., & Dakers, J. (2005). Verillon’s trio and Wenger’s community: Learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedegaard, M. (2012). Analyzing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind Culture and Activity, 19(2), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Himmelreich, J. (2018). The everyday ethical challenges of self-driving cars Posted March 27, 2018 9.42pm AEDT, The Conversation, http://theconversation.com/the-everyday-ethical-challenges-of-self-driving-cars-92710. Accessed 12th July 2018.
  17. 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, 191–212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotezee, B. (2010). Seven posers in the constructivist classroom. London Review of Education, 8(2), 177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2010.487340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koycu, U., & de Vries, M. J. (2016). What preconceptions and attitudes about engineering are prevalent amongst upper secondary school pupils? An international study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 243–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9306-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leontiev, A. N., & Luria, A. R. (2005). The problem of the development of the intellect and learning in human psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(4), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.Google Scholar
  24. Lockley, J. (2016). Teachers designing classroom cultural through the lens of cultural-historical theory. In D. S. P. Gedera & P. J. Williams (Eds.), Activity theory in education. Research and practice (pp. 183–198). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mapotse, T. A. (2017). Development of a technology education cascading theory through community engagement site-based support. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9411-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Pavlova. (2015). Design and technology education for sustainable futures: In preparation for global citizenship. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures. Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 87–100). Rotterdam Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Petrina, S. (2000). The political ecology of design and technology education: An inquiry into methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 207–237.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008955016067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scharff, R. C., & Dusek, V. (Eds.). (2003). Philosophy of technology. The technological condition. An anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Seeman, K. (2015). Designing for cultural groups and humanization: Two ideas from design anthropology. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures. Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures (pp. 101–118). Rotterdam Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Slatter, W., & France, B. (2011a). Taking part in the dance: Technology teachers interacting with communities of practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 217–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9115-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slatter, W., & France, B. (2011b). The teacher-community of practice-student interaction in the New Zealand technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 149–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-000-9111-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Problems of general psychology. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), Trans by N. Minick. The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In J. Valsiner & R. vander Veer (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 347–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  37. Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 143–152.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams, J. P. (2016). Research in technology education: Looking back to move forward … again. International Journal Technological and Design Education, 26, 149–157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9316-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science and Technological Education, 30(3), 327–343.  https://doi.org/10.1080/-2635143.2012.740005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations