Abstract
In this chapter, three interrelated concepts drawn from cultural-historical theory are interrogated to develop a futures orientation to technology education. They are: tools and signs as cultural practice, everyday concepts and technological concepts in technology education, and imagination and creativity in design and technology education. Bringing these together in technology education offers a way for students and teachers to together consider the way the cultural and historical (and future) ecology of societies is realised through the knowledge base and values-oriented activity of design and technology, and to understand that technological activity is embedded in a deep knowledge of self and community. As such, technology education has both an ethical and moral responsibility to support imaginings that sustain people and communities in harmony and for the well being of the broader ecological and social environment.
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.
In Chap. 2, Keirl introduces the concept of “both-at-once” to conceptualise the Hegelian binary (thesis, antithesis, synthesis), where a binary is considered as “both-at-once” and a “dualism” as an “either-or” phenomenon of two distinct things of mind-matter (noted in Descartes).
- 2.
Within the ‘Vygotsky project’ has been the work of Leontiev, who further developed the foundational concepts of cultural-historical theory. Leontiev (2005) argued that regardless of the object of the person, the need that arises can be met by collective action, or the application of a tool by others to satisfy a need. At the centre of collective action is the creation of new relationships among people. The central proposition of activity theory is that
The activity of participants in a joint collective is stimulated by the product of this labor, which initially meets the needs of each of them. . . . Their need is satisfied not by their “intermediate” results, but by a share in the product of their joint activity received in every one of them due to the strength of the relationships that emerge in the process of labor that bind them together—that is, social relationships. (pp. 5–6; emphasis added)
Here, motives and a hierarchy of needs become central elements of Activity Theory, where a collective view of practice is foregrounded. Related to Activity Theory is Engestrom’s model, which has been influential in technology education research (e.g., Hakkarainen 2009; Leonard and Derry 2011). Cultural-Historical (CH) and Activity Theory (AT) have also been conceptualised under the name cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). CHAT tends to bring together Vygotsky’s system of concepts with Leontiev’s conception of activity in order to foreground practice more strongly. While there are differences in how each of these theories have evolved, their roots are firmly located in the original theory of L. S. Vygotsky.
What is common to all theories (AT, CHAT, sociocultural, cultural-historical), is the use of dialectical logic for realising “both at once” practice and person in action and thinking. It is a non-reductionist materialist (non-dualistic) conceptualisation of human nature and development that embodies “material social practices of people” (Stetesnko and Arievitch 2010, p. 231). With this reading, the concept of a Vygotsky project is useful for thinking about the collection of theories (both original and developed) that underpin thought and practice in technology education.
- 3.
In this chapter, I draw on the concept of everyday and scientific, but rather than stay with the term ‘scientific’ I substitute the term ‘technological’ so that the specific abstract concept being considered is located within the field of technology with a futures orientation.
References
Bjorklund, L. (2008). The repertory grid technique. Making tacit knowledge explicit: Assessing creative work and problems solving skills. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Researching technology education. Methods and techniques (pp. 46–69). Dordrecht: Sense.
Compton, V., Compton, A., & Patterson, M. (2012). Student understanding of the relationship between fit for purpose and good design: Does it matter for technological literacy? In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design and engineering education (Vol. 1). Proceedings of the 7th Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference (pp. 68–78). Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University.
Dakers, J. R. (Ed.). (2006). Defining technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
De Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology. An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer.
De Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 17–30). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
De Vries, M. J., & Tamir, A. (Eds.). (1997). Shaping concepts of technology: From philosophical perspectives to mental images. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
González, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2005a). Funds of distributed knowledge. In N. González, L. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge. Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 257–271). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005b). Funds of knowledge. Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213–231.
Hammond, L. A. (2003). Building houses, building lives. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(1), 26–41.
Harper, D. (1987). Working knowledge. Skill and community in a small shop. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Hedegaard, M. (2002). Learning and child development: A cultural–historical study. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
Ilyenkov, E. V. (2003). The ideal in human activity. A selection of essays by Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov. Pacifica: Marxist Internet Archives.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.
Leonard, M. J., & Derry, S. J. (2011). What’s the science behind it? The interaction of engineering and science goals, knowledge, and practice in a design-based science activity (Working paper No. 2011–5). Retrieved from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
Leontiev, A. N. (2005). Lecture 13. Language and consciousness. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(5), 5–13. (Lecture was given on 20th December 1973, Moscow University)
Loy, J., & Canning, S. (2012). Changing the emphasis of the learning through making in technology education. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design and engineering education (Vol. 2). Proceedings of the 7th Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference (pp. 19–24). Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University.
McCormick, R. (2006). Technology and knowledge: Contributions from learning theories. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 31–47). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, C., & González, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. González, L. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge. Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71–87). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pavlova, M. (2012). Generic green skills: Can they be addressed through technology? In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design and engineering education (Vol. 2). Proceedings of the 7th Biennial international technology education research conference (pp. 49–57). Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University.
Rogoff, B. (2011). Developing destinies. A Mayan midwife and town. Oxford: Oxford University.
Rogoff, B. (2013). Intent community participation. Retrieved from www.intentcommunityparticipation.net
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2010). Cultural-historical activity theory. Foundational worldview, major principles, and the relevance of sociocultural context. In S. R. Kirschner & J. Martin (Eds.), The sociocultural turning psychology. The contextual emergence of mind and self (pp. 231–252). New York: Cambridge University.
Stetsenko, A., & Vianna, E. (2009). Bridging developmental theory and educational practice. Lessons from the Vygotskian project. In O. A. Barbarin & B. H. Wasik (Eds.), Handbook of child development and early education. Research to practice (pp. 38–54). New York: Guilford.
Stevenson, J. (2008). Capturing knowledge and activity. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Researching technology education. Methods and techniques (pp. 155–171). Dordrecht: Sense.
Verillon, P. (2009). Tools and concepts in technological development. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 175–197). Dordrecht: Sense.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1997). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R. Van Der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 57–72). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In L. S. Vygotsky & R. W. Rieber (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4 (M. H Hall, Trans.). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). Problems of general psychology. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected work of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1 (J. E. Knox & C. B. Stevens, Trans.). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. & Luria, A. (1930/1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van Der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford: Blackwell.
Williams, P. J. (2012). Technology teachers PCK: The need for a conceptual revision. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design and engineering education (Vol. 2). Proceedings of the 7th Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference (pp. 165–179). Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fleer, M. (2015). Theorising Technology Education from a Cultural-Historical Perspective: Foundations and Future Imaginings. In: Williams, P., Jones, A., Buntting, C. (eds) The Future of Technology Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-170-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-170-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-169-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-170-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)