Advertisement

Science and Technology Education for the Future

  • Liesbeth K. J. Baartman
  • Koeno Gravemeijer
Part of the International Technology Education Studies book series (ITES, volume 9)

Abstract

Our current society is deeply influenced and shaped by artefacts, ideas and values of science and technology, for example in health care, energy, transportation and communication. Also, issues such as pollution and nuclear energy become objects of public debate. In their jobs, professionals are confronted with an increased use of information and communication technologies and the need for flexibility and life-long learning. ‘Non-sciencejobs’, such as nursing, increasingly require an understanding of science and technology.

Keywords

Critical Thinking Content Knowledge Pedagogical Content Knowledge Technology Education Operational Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baartman, L. K. J., & De Bruijn, E. (submitted). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence.Google Scholar
  3. Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., Kent, P., & Noss, R. (2006). Improving work processes by making the invisible visible. Journal of Education and Work, 19, 343-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, A., Wijers, M., Akkerman, S., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The influence of technology on what vocational students need to learn about statistics: The case of laboratory analysists. Paper presented at the ICOTS 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Bakker, A., Kent, P., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2009). Alternative representations of statistical measures in computer tools to promote communication between employees in automotive manufacturing. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 3, 1–31.Google Scholar
  6. Barnett, M. (1995). Literacy, technology and technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 730–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft White Paper 1. Developing 21st century skills. University of Melbourne: Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. See:http://www.atc21s.org
  9. Burklund, C., Garvin, K., Lawrence, N., & Yoder, J. (1989). A guide to developing higher order thinking across the curriculum. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Costa, A. L. (n.d.). Components of a well developed thinking skills program. Downloaded August 11, 2010 from:http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/thinking/costa2.htm
  11. Costa, A. L. (2000). Describing the habits of mind. In A. L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind (Vol. 1, pp. 21-41). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCDGoogle Scholar
  12. Dede, C. (2009). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.) 21st Century Skills, pp. 51–76. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  13. De Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: Philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603-637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferguson, E. S. (1977). The Mind's Eye: Nonverbal Thought in Technology. Science, 197, 827–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forman, S. L., & Steen, L.A. (1994). Mathematics for work. Bulletin of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI), 37, 1–6. Downloaded January, 4, 2010, from:http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/work.html
  17. Forman, S.L., & Steen, L.A. (2000). Making authentic mathematics work for all students. In A. Bessot& J. Ridgway (Eds.), Education for Mathematics in the Workplace. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Goos, M., & Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising of polarization of work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gopinathan, S. (1999). Preparing for the next rung: Economic restructuring and educational reform in Singapore. Journal of Education and Work, 12, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gravemeijer, K. (2009). Leren voor later [Learning for the future]. Inaugural address, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Gravemeijer, K. (2010). Mathematics Education and the Information Society. Paper presented at the EIMI Conference, October 2010.Google Scholar
  22. Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaput, J., & Schorr, R. (2007). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: The case of SimCalc, Algebra, and Calculus. In G. Blume & K. Heid (Eds.) Research on technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses and perspectives (pp. 211–253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. In H. Kulick (Ed.) Knowledge and Society. Studies in the sociology of the culture past and present, pp. 1–40. Stamford, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  27. Lesgold, A. (2009). Better schools for the 21st century. What is needed and what will it take to get improvement. University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  28. Levy, F., & Murnane, J. (2005). How computerized work and globalization shape human skill demands. First International Conference on Globalization and Learning. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  29. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. The report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved 16 December 2009 from:http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/18/24/b2000.pdf
  30. Murphy, C. (2003). Literature review in primary science and ICT. Futurelab Series, report 5. Retrieved October 14, 2009 from:http://www.futurelab.org.uk
  31. Noss, R., Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., & Kent, P. (2007). Situating graphs as workplace knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 173–184.Google Scholar
  33. Pozzi, S., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Tools in practice, mathematics in use. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Resnick, L.B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16 (9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  35. Rodrigues, S., Tytler, R., Darby, L., Hubber, P., Symington, D., & Edwards, J. (2007). The usefulness of a science degree: The ‘lost voices’ of science trained professionals. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1411–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roth, W. M. (2005). Mathematical inscriptions and the reflexive elaboration of understanding: An ethnography of graphing and numeracy in a fish hatchery. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 75–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Savelsbergh, E. (2007). Dynamisch modelleren. Aanzet tot een curriculum [Dynamic modelling. The start of a curriculum]. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 8, 207–213.Google Scholar
  39. Slangen, L., Van Keulen, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). What pupils can learn from working with robotic direct manipulation environments. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. DOI 10.1007/s10798-010-9130-8.Google Scholar
  40. Van der Kooij, H. (2002). Wiskundig vaardig. De bijdrage van wiskunde aan (technische) beroepscompetenties [The contribution of mathematicsto (technical) professional competence]. Exacte vakken en competenties in het beroepsonderwijs. ’s Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands: Cinop.Google Scholar
  41. Van Eijck, M., & Claxton, N.X. (2008). Rethinking the notion of technology in education: Technoepistemology as a feature inherent to human praxis. ScienceEducation, 93, 218–232.Google Scholar
  42. Van Keulen. H., & Walma van der Molen, J. (Eds.). Onderzoek naar wetenschap en techniek in het Nederlandse basisonderwijs [Research into science and technology in Dutch primary education]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Platform Bèta Techniek.Google Scholar
  43. Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, H. (2010). 21st Century Skils. Discussion paper. Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  44. Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liesbeth K. J. Baartman
    • 1
  • Koeno Gravemeijer
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Eindhoven School of EducationThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations