Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Case for Technology Habits of Mind

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Technology Education ((CITE))

Abstract

This chapter suggests how habits of mind for technology might be conceived and developed to offer technology teachers an alternative lens through which to explore their pedagogy. Habits of mind are ways of thinking or behaving intelligently when meeting new learning challenges. They include dispositions linked to academic success such as perseverance and curiosity and capabilities important for employability and long-term well-being such as creativity and sociability. Disciplinary habits of mind emphasise distinctive ways of thinking and behaving which support learning. In STEM subjects, they can help to bring learning to life for children by demonstrating links between the subject and its application in the world outside school. Technology habits of mind will complement those already developed for science, engineering and mathematics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Now known as International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA)

References

  • Agency by Design. (n.d.) Thinking routines. Available at: http://agencybydesign.org.s219538.gridserver.com/edresources/thinkingroutines/

  • Almutairi, A., Everatt, J., Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2014). Exploring the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Australasian Journal of Technology and Education, 1, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asunda, P. A., & Quintana, J. (2018). Positioning the T and E in STEM: A STL analytical content review of engineering and technology education research. Journal of Technology Education, 30(1), 2–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Australian Curriculum: Technologies Foundation – Year 10. Available at: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/structure/

  • Barlex, D. (2008). Assessing capability in design and technology: The case for a minimally invasive approach. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2013). Student teachers’ perceptions of ‘enduring ideas’ in design & technology. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), PATT conference proceedings (pp. 2–9). Columbus, OH: International Technology Education & Engineering Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2017a). Re-building design & technology in the secondary school curriculum. Version 2. A working paper. D&TforD&T. Available: https://dandtfordandt.wordpress.com

  • Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2017b). Big ideas for design & technology. A working paper. D&TforD&T. Available: https://dandtfordandt.wordpress.com

  • 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.https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1286995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund-Young, A. (2016). What do we know about developing students’ non-cognitive skills? Baltimore: Institute for Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buntting, C., & Jones, A. (2015). The alignment of technology with other school subjects. In P. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education. Contemporary issues in technology education (pp. 187–200). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çalik, M., & Coll, R. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909–1930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, G., Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2012). Making it: Studio teaching and its impact on learners. Winchester, UK: Centre for Real-World Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2002). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crookes, D. (2014). Careers in tech: Top 10 Tech industry careers. The Independent, Tuesday 18 November. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/student/career-planning/careers-in-tech-top-10-tech-industry-careers-9865807.html

  • Cross, N. (2018). Developing design as a discipline. Journal of Engineering Design, 29(12), 691–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 15, 375–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design & Technology Association. (2019). What is design and technology and why choose to study it? Available at: https://www.data.org.uk/campaigns/what-is-design-and-technology/

  • Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. Proceedings of the DTRS8 Interpreting Design Thinking: Design Thinking Research Symposium (pp. 131–139). Sydney, Australia: DAB Documents. Available at: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/handle/10453/16590

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, A., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Canty, D., & Hartell, E. (2018). Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: Proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9456-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, C. (2016). Who is a technologist? Creating IT futures blog. November 14. Available at: https://www.creatingitfutures.org/resources/blog/creating-it-futures/2016/11/14/who-is-a-technologist

  • ErÅŸen, Z. B., EzentaÅŸ, R., & Altun, M. (2018). Evaluation of the teaching environment for improve[ing] the geometric habits of mind in tenth grade students. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(6), 47–64. Available at: www.oapub.org.edu

    Google Scholar 

  • Esjeholm, B.-T., & Bungum, B. (2018). Linking knowledge and activities: How can classroom activities in technology reflect professional technological knowledge and practices? In M. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 567–578). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deeper learning. London, UK: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editor’s comment: So what is a conceptual paper? Group and Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, D. (2016). What we talk about when we talk about technology. ESRC STEPS (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) Centre. September 08. Available at: https://steps-centre.org/blog/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-technology/

  • Hardy, A. (2015). What’s D&T for? Gathering and comparing the values of design and technology academics and trainee teachers. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(2), 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., & De Bruin, L. (2018). Creativity in education. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Education. Online https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.383. [Accessed 17 January 2019].

  • Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011). Conceptions of design thinking in the design and management discourses. In: N. F. M. Roozenberg, Chen, L. L., & Stappers, P. J. (Eds.) Diversity and unity: Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, 31 October – 4 November, Delft, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 19(4), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herschbach, D. R. (1995). Technology as knowledge: Implications for instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Educators Association (ITEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: ITEA. Available at: https://www.iteea.org/42511.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of engineering and National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keirl, S. (2017). Critiquing as design and technology curriculum journey: History, theory, politics and potential. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education. Contemporary issues in technology education (pp. 109–133). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, K., & Phelan, P. (2014). A review of technology education in Ireland: A changing technological environment promoting design activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24, 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2004). A turn to engineering: The continuing struggle of technology education for legitimization as a school subject. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. Paris, Italy: OECD Education. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B., Hanson, J., Bianchi, L., & Chippindall, J. (2017). Learning to be an engineer: Implications for the education system. London, UK: Royal Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B., Hanson, J., & Claxton, G. (2014). Thinking like an engineer: Implications for the education system. London, UK: Royal Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B., & Smith, C. (2018). The capable country: Cultivating capabilities in Australian education. Mitchell Institute policy report No. 03/2018. Mitchell Institute, Melbourne. Available at: www.mitchellinstitute.org.au

  • Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2017). Teaching creative thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically. Carmarthen: Crown House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M., & Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Is design and technology about making or knowing? In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Debates in design and technology education (pp. 64–73). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuura, R., Sword, S., Piecham, M. B., Stevens, G., & Cuoco, A. (2013). Mathematical habits of mind for teaching: Using language in algebra classrooms. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 120(3), 735–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond the design process: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, R., Gallant, B., & Fettes, E. (2018). Interdisciplinary STEM through engineering design-based reasoning. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(3), 60–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, C. (2018). Research informed analysis of 21stcentury competencies in a redeveloped primary curriculum. Belfast, UK: Queens University. Final report.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRobbie, C. J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I. (2001). Exploring designerly thinking of students as novice designers. Research in Science Education, 31, 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand National Curriculum for English medium teaching and learning in years 1–13. Available at:http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum

  • Mioduser, D. (2015). The pedagogical ecology of technology education: An agenda for future research and development. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The Future of Technology Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education (pp. 77–98). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Towards a transformative epistemology of technology education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 5(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motley, P. (2017). Critique and process: Signature pedagogies in the graphic design classroom. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 16(3), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Teaching, assessing and learning creative and critical thinking skills in education. http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/assessingprogressionincreativeandcriticalthinkingskillsineducation.htm

  • Project Zero. (2016).Visible thinking: Overview. Available at: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/visible-thinking

  • Resnick, L. (1999). Making America smarter. Education Week Century Series, 18(40), 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. In M. J. de Vries & A. Tamir (Eds.), Shaping concepts of technology (pp. 65–72). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K., & Kimbell, R. (2007). Evidence through the Looking Glass: developing performance and assessing capability. In The 13th International Conference on Thinking June 17–21, 2007 Norrköping, Sweden (pp. 173–191).

    Google Scholar 

  • The James Dyson Foundation. (n.d.). On the move: Design and technology scheme of work, Key Stage 3. Available at: https://www.jamesdysonfoundation.co.uk/resources/rethinking-design-and-technology-in-practice.html

  • Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resources Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2011). Dispositions as explicit learning goals for engineering and technology education. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. 89–102). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2017). Critique as disposition. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education, contemporary issues in technology education (pp. 135–152). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasar, O., Maliekal, J., Veronesi, P., & Little, L. (2017). The essence of scientific and engineering thinking and tools to promote it. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2017. Paper ID #18172. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319952625_The_Essence_of_Scientific_and_Engineering_Thinking_and_Tools_to_Promote_It. Accessed 17 July 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Real-World Learning, University of Winchester, Winchester, UK

    Janet Hanson & Bill Lucas

Authors
  1. Janet Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bill Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet Hanson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

    P. John Williams

  2. University of Exeter Associate, Brighton, UK

    David Barlex

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hanson, J., Lucas, B. (2020). The Case for Technology Habits of Mind. In: Williams, P.J., Barlex, D. (eds) Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41548-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41548-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41547-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41548-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation