Abstract
The focus of this chapter is to present a research-based framework aimed at integrating Science and Technology from the content knowledge perspective. The proposed framework identifies a common Science and Technology core, namely the scientific investigation and modelling of natural phenomena and the harnessing of their basic physics in technological objects. The Educational Reconstruction Model is adopted as a research-based route to elementarize Science and Technology contents in order to construct and adapt such common core for teaching. In the paper, first some unresolved issues of the Science and Technology interplay in current trends of Science Education curriculum reforms (Science-Technology-Society-Environment and Socio-Scientific Issues) are discussed. Then, the relevant aspects of Nature of Science and Nature of Technology that inform the framework are presented. Examples from Properties of Materials area, condensing aspects from both Science and Technology, are hence described to illustrate the enactment of the proposed framework. Finally, some implications are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Science is developed by scientists within the real world and its main objective is the study of natural phenomena which happen in the real world. However, science knowledge is developed using the abstract language of mathematics and hence in its theories, models and processes are de-contextualized. The aims of such de-contextualization are to acquire the necessary level of reliability (Ziman 1978). We will return on the issue of reliability in Sect. 2 of this paper.
- 2.
Here “interest” is intended as an intrinsic motivational variable with three specific aspects: it is content specific; it is the result of an interaction between an individual and the surrounding environment; it has both cognitive and affective aspects (Lavonen et al. 2005; Hidi et al. 2004). For the sake of brevity we will not address the interest issue in this paper.
- 3.
A wider meaning to the students’ participation to society as active citizens as far as Science and Technology are concerned is the dimension of professional careers. Recently Europe has witnessed students’ waning interest in science and technology related careers (European Commission 2007; Nuffield Foundation 2008). There are many factors influencing the choice of a professional career as for instance (Lavonen et al. 2008): perceived values and images of Science and Technology; stereotypical views of scientific and technological occupations; perception of the difficulties about physics and mathematics; socio-cultural environment; quality of science and technology curricula; gender gap. For an overview of Italian students’ choices of scientific studies at academic level see Pellegrini (2011). Although it is in some way related to the arguments of this paper, for the sake of brevity, this theme is not addressed here.
- 4.
The STSE movement aims at: promoting students’ awareness of cultural aspects of Science and Technology; discussing the role of economics in scientific and technological decision; development of students’ own ideas and values about scientific and technological progress; promoting active and conscious agency in society and politics (Pedretti and Nazir 2011).
- 5.
The SSI movement promotes students’ involvement in learning science through controversial contexts that concern society (Sadler 2004). The dilemmas usually are embedded within a complex web which requires content knowledge related reasoning and arguments, explicit reflection on relevant epistemology aspects, personal connections at micro- (familiar), meso- (state citizenship) and macro- (human perspective) level with the issues. Consequently, to deal with SSI, environmental, economical, political, moral and ethical considerations are needed in order to provide students with opportunities to prepare them to act as active contributors to the life of the society which they live in (Zeidler et al. 2005).
- 6.
Lavonen et al. (2005) argue that the role of technology in STS approaches declined with time since it is problematic from the viewpoint of gender issues. The main argument is that girls do not perceive technology as interesting as boys, being more interested in society problems as sustainable development and environment respect. While valuing this perspective, for the sake of brevity, the theme of technology in STS instruction from the viewpoint of gender issues is not discussed here.
- 7.
In some European countries and in Australia, in early nineties, the term technology education was replacing the term “industrial arts” (De Vries 1994). Many questions surrounded this trend in curricula change: was this new subject industrial arts renamed? Did it reflect new instructional content or methods? Will a new student population be served? (Herschbach 1992, p. 4). Generally, there was a fairly common consensus about the need for the introduction of a sort of technology education, whose main aims were essentially (Gilbert 1992, p. 568) to: prepare students for work in the technology industry; provide general literacy in order to prepare technology fluent citizens; learn about how technology is organized and its consequences for society. The first aim was borrowed from the former ‘industrial arts’, whereas the other two were new and inspired by the just born debate about the nature of technology (AAAS 1989).
- 8.
An example of this view can be found in the secondary school curriculum in Italy where, at compulsory secondary level (14–18 years), scientific and technological/vocational school streams are separated both in terms of contents and public perception.
- 9.
Tentativeness implies the existence of controversies amongst scientists that may arise, e.g., from discrepancy between theoretical predictions and experimental observations and can be resolved with plausible modifications to the theoretical assumptions or with the development of completely new frameworks for interpreting them.
- 10.
Recently, SSI advocates had also called for the relevance of ethical and moral considerations in the scientists’ work (Sadler et al. 2004).
- 11.
For instance, from the Cambridge Dictionary:
science is the knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities; technology is the study and knowledge of the practical, especially industrial, use of scientific discoveries.
- 12.
On-line http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap3.htm accessed September, 19th 2011.
- 13.
This view is not in contrast with historical progression of Technology: some phenomena can be evident (e.g. the fire when rubbing small wood pieces), others can be much hidden and need more effort to be harnessed in a specific technological device (e.g. quantum effects). As pointed out by Arthur (2009):
Science is indispensable to discover the most hidden phenomena, to create technologies that exploit them; moreover, it furnishes the conceptual instruments to observe these phenomena, the necessary knowledge to elaborate them, the theories to explain them and predict their behaviour, and often the methods to harness and exploit them.
- 14.
Another reason for which Technology cannot be simply viewed as applied science is the fact that most of the technological objects are very “far” from the original phenomenon on which each of their components has been built on. While taking advantages of the progresses of Science in describing further phenomena useful to capture the original phenomenon, these advanced technological objects have mainly built on existing ones exploiting the recombination mechanism at the basis of the evolution of Technology.
- 15.
In this view, to design means basically choosing solutions that must take into account available technological components as well as economics constraints. As scholars have suggested this makes creative problem solving an essential feature of design (e.g. Williams et al. 2008). As the design process, creative problem solving features: formulation of a problem, identification of goals and evidences related to the problem, evaluation of different possibilities, choice of the solution, testing and evaluation. Skills required for students to engage successfully in this process are: criticism, system analysis, divergent and lateral thinking.
- 16.
Obviously, we do not assert that these efforts fail to adhere to their own view of framing the integration of Science and Technology but only that they reflect a view of integration that resembles a rather simplicistic way of putting together Science and Technology contents.
- 17.
For instance, a key idea to start the teaching of electric circuits may be the concept of potential difference. Similarly, a key idea for the teaching of mechanical waves may be to address the fact that a small portion of a string perturbed by a transversal train-pulse, oscillates vertically around its equilibrium position.
- 18.
Materials Science addresses different but connected content areas. One is aimed at developing new materials for technological uses. This kind of research requires a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry, in particular about the macroscopic properties (known and desired) of materials (mainly solids) and the microscopic models explaining the known properties at the basis of studies toward the desired ones. The development of new organic materials is also being pursed in genetic engineering, bioengineering and biotechnology. In this case basic knowledge of biology and chemistry is needed, specifically concerning the macroscopic properties of biological systems and the microscopic models appropriate for the desired properties. In all these disciplines there is a link to technological applications and a common basic knowledge: the scientific description of macroscopic properties of materials and the microscopic models used to explain them. There are differences at the macroscopic and the microscopic level: for inorganic materials the properties are mainly physical and chemical; the models use atoms and subatomic particles as components. For organic materials biology comes in and the models use biological macromolecules or genes as components.
- 19.
For instance, in Italian secondary schools, Physics teachers in Lyceums usually focus more on conceptual knowledge, while Electronics teachers in technical/vocational schools generally place more importance on laboratory practice.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–702.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994a). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 169–186). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994b). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead. (2003, August 19–23). Review of research on humanistic perspectives in science curricula. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) 2003 Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881–910). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press/Allen Lane.
Banks, F., & McCormick, R. (2006). A case study of the inter-relationship between science and technology: England 1984–2004. In A. M. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 285–311). Rotterdam: Sense.
Barak, M., & Pearlman-Avnion, S. (1999). Who will teach an integrated program for science and technology in Israeli junior high schools? A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 239–253.
Barlex, D. (2002, March 15). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & M. de Vries (Eds.), Technology education in the curriculum: Relationships with other subjects (pp. 3–12). Papers: Pupils’ attitudes towards technology, PATT-12 conference. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2011, from http://www.iteawww.org/PATT12/PATT12.pdf
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.
Bencze, J. L. (2001). ‘Technoscience’ education: Empowering citizens against the tyranny of school science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273–298.
Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.
Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730–745.
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2003). A systematic review of the effects of context-based and Science-Technology-Society (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science: Review summary. York: University of York.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.
Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2–4.
Beven, R., & Raudebaugh, R. (2004). A model for unified science and technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(1), 10–15. Retrieved on-line September, 19, 2011 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v30/v30n1/pdf/beven.pdf
Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.
Bunge, M. (1973). Method, model, and matter. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.
Carlsen, W. S. (1998). Engineering design in the Classroom: Is it good science education or is it revolting? Research in Science Education, 28(1), 51–63.
Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naïve, novice and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791–820.
Cross, A. (2003). Teacher influence on pupil autonomy in primary school design and technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1), 123–135.
Danusso, L., Testa, I., & Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers knowledge about dientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 871–905.
De Vries, M. J. (1994). Technology education in Western Europe. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. V). Paris: UNESCO.
De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the ‘technology is applied science’ paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567–591.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
DiGironimo, N. (2010). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Duit, R. (2007). Science education research internationally: Conceptions, research methods, domains of research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 3–15.
Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. E. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis.
Eijkelhof, H., & Lijnse, P. (1988). The role of research and development to improve STS education: Experiences from the PLON project. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 464–474.
European Commission. (2007). Science education now. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved September 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf
Fensham, P. J. (1988). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 346–456.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.
Galilei, G. (1623). Il Saggiatore. Rome: Accademia dei Lincei.
Gardner, P. L. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24, 1–28.
Gardner, P. L. (1999). The presentation of science–technology relationships in Canadian physics textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 329–347.
Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1191–1200.
Geraedts, C., Boersma, K. T., & Eijkelhof, H. M. C. (2006). Towards coherent science and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(3), 307–325.
Gilbert, J. K. (1992). The interface between science education and technology education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 563–578.
Gil-Pérez, D., Vilches, A., Fernández, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdés, P., & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology as ‘Applied Science’: A serious misconception that reinforces distorted and impoverished views of science. Science & Education, 14, 309–320.
Herschbach, D. R. (1992). Curriculum change in technology education. Differing theoretical perspectives. Journal of Technology Education, 3(2), 4–5.
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational construct that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–115). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426–450.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2011). Trends in international mathematics and science study. On-line, http://www.iea.nl/timss_2011.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Author. On-line. http://www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/Publications/TAA_Publications.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston: Author.
James, J., Eijkelhof, H., Gaskell, J., Olson, J., Raizen, S., & Sáez, M. (1997). Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(4), 471–483.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Komorek, M. (1995, April). A model of educational reconstruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco.
Klafki, W. (1969). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung [Educational analysis as the kernel of planning instruction]. In H. Roth & A. Blumental (Eds.), Auswahl, Didaktische analyse (10th ed.). Hannover: Schroedel.
Klafki, W. (1995). On the problem of teaching and learning contents from the standpoint of critical-constructive Didaktik. In S. Hopman & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum (pp. 187–200). Kiel: Leibniz-Institute for Science Education (IPN).
Laherto, A. (2013). Informing the development of science exhibitions through educational research. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3(2), 121–143.
Lavonen, J., Byman, R., Juuti, K., Meisalo, V., & Uitto, A. (2005). Pupil interest in physics: A survey in Finland. Nordina, 1(2), 72–85.
Lavonen, J., Gedrovics, J., Byman, R., Meisalo, V., Juuti, K., & Uitto, A. (2008). Students’ motivational orientations and career choice in science and technology: A survey in Finland and Latvia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(2), 86–103.
Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 367–378.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, O., Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Berkheimer, G., & Blakeslee, T. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249–270.
Levinson, R., Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Science & technology concepts in a design and technology project: A pilot study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(2), 235–255.
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.
Lewis, T., Barlex, D., & Chapman, C. (2007). Investigating interaction between science and design & technology (D&T) in the secondary school – A case study approach. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 37–58.
Lijnse, P. L. (1998). Curriculum development in physics education. In Andrée Tiberghien, E. Leonard Jossem, & Jorge Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education. An I.C.P.E. Book © International Commission on Physics Education 1997, 1998. On line http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ICPE/TOC.html. Accessed 21 Oct 2010.
McRobbie, C. J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Elementary school students approaches to design activities. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Meheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–535.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: Variation and change in state standards for reading and mathematics, 2005–2009. On-line, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011458.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Associations. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
Nuffield Foundation. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. On-line, http://www.pollen-europa.net/pollen_dev/Images_Editor/Nuffield%20report.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2010.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). On-line, http://www.pisa.oecd.org/. Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.
Pellegrini, G. (2011). Giovani e studi scientifici universitari. I risultati dell’indagine IRIS [Teens and academic scientific studies. Results of the IRIS survey]. In M. Bucchi & G. Pellegrini (Eds.), Science & society 2011 yearbook. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429–449.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.
Raizen, S. A. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 59–70.
Rennie, L. J., Treagust, D. F., & Kinnear, A. (1992). An evaluation of curriculum materials for teaching technology as a design process. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(2), 203–217.
Richmond, P. E. (1973). New trends in integrated science teaching (Vol. 2). Paris: Unesco.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roth, W. M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.
Russell, T., Longden, K., & McGuigan, L. (1991). Materials: Primary space processes and concepts exploration (SPACE) research project. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13, 39–48.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.
Sassi, E., Monroy, G., & Testa, I. (2005). Teacher training about real-time approaches: Research-based guidelines and materials. Science Education, 89(1), 28–37.
Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2010). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. Paper presented at the annual conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand, C. M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223.
Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. W. (2007). Real time physics: Active learning labs transforming the introductory laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 28, S83–S94.
Stein, S. J., Ginns, I. S., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). Grappling with teaching design and technology: A beginning teacher’s experiences. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 141–157.
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.
van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.
Vicentini, M. (2006) Un Quadro Epistemologico per il ruolo degli Esperimenti nella Fisica e nella didattica della Fisica [An epistemological framework for the experiments in physics and physics education]. Unpublished document.
Williams, P. J., Iglesias, J., & Barak, M. (2008). Problem based learning: Application to technology education in three countries. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(4), 319–335.
Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2004). Creating change? A review of the impact of design and technology in schools in England. Journal of Technology Education, 15(2), 46–65.
Yager, R. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3–15). New York: Sunny.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.
Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-40670-6.
Ziman, J. M. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Outline of an Example Which Uses Properties of Materials as Suitable Field to Integrate Science and Technology
Appendix: Outline of an Example Which Uses Properties of Materials as Suitable Field to Integrate Science and Technology
1.1 Electrical Properties of Materials
Their educational relevance comes from the very many applications of electrical circuits in everyday life. They include electrical conductivity, dielectric strength and temperature coefficient of resistivity. A possible starting point is the study of the safety and comfort of cars (Science and Technology connected part) with the specific aim of reducing effects of mechanical vibrations (emphasized technological aim). The scientific component at its very core refers to the concept of potential difference at the ends of materials and how it depends on the system which the materials are part of. The technological component consists in the electronic device present in every modern car that controls and monitors the external vibrations.
Some key ideas suitable to reconstruct the potential difference concept are the density of charge or the energy and work per unit charge. The core phenomenon at the basis of the electronic device is piezoelectricity, an effect that allows the conversion of a mechanical stress into an electric voltage.
Once we have reached the common core content, it is possible to carry out investigations to measure potential differences across conductors or piezoelectric crystals, using electric cigarette lighters or portable sparkers. Finally, the teaching may address how to interpret and predict variations of potential difference at the ends of conductor materials as well as the design of a feedback device to control cars’ vibrations focusing on the behaviour of materials exhibiting the piezoelectric effect.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Testa, I., Lombardi, S., Monroy, G., Sassi, E. (2016). Integrating Science and Technology in School Practice Through the Educational Reconstruction of Contents. In: Psillos, D., Kariotoglou, P. (eds) Iterative Design of Teaching-Learning Sequences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7808-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7808-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7807-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7808-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)