Advertisement

The Pedagogical Ecology of Technology Education: An Agenda for Future Research and Development

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

Abstract

In order to explore pedagogy for future technology education, this chapter weighs up the need to consider what we already know about effective pedagogical models for technology education with what might be required of technology education in the future, and how these goals might be addressed. The social, economic and cultural realities of this century are undergoing such radical changes, including technological transformations, that a thorough revision of teaching and pedagogical approaches is necessitated. The agenda for the future should include a great deal of research and development into addressing questions related to individual, group and social diversity. To pursue this agenda, a research and development pedagogical ecology framework is proposed that includes conceptual, contextual, pedagogical resources, and planning and implementation dimensions.

Keywords

Technology Education Lesson Plan Pedagogical Model Technological Literacy Pedagogical Resource 
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.

References

  1. Barlex, D. (1998). Design and technology: The nuffield perspective in England and wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. (2008). Nuffield Primary Design and Technology Project: A retrospective. In G. Lewis & H. Roberts (Eds.), Design and technology in the curriculum (pp. 37–53). Bangor: Bangor University.Google Scholar
  3. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole, M., & Derry, J. (2005). We have met technology and it is us. In R. Sterneberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology—The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 209–227). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  6. Compton, V., & France, B. (2007). Redefining technological literacy in New Zealand: From concepts to curricular constructs. In J. R. Dakers, W. J. Dow, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), PATT 2007. Teaching and learning technological literacy in the classroom (pp. 260–272). Glasgow: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  7. Dakers, J. (2006). Towards a philosophy for technology education. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 145–168). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeMiranda, M. (2004). The grounding of a discipline: Cognition and instruction in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritz, A. (1996). Reflective practice: Enhancing the outcomes of technology learning experiences. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 212–217.Google Scholar
  11. Gropius, W. (1919). Bauhaus manifesto and programme. Weimar: The Administration of the State Bauhaus at Weimar.Google Scholar
  12. Itten, J. (1975). Design and form: The basic course at the Bauhaus and later. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotzkian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Stables, K., Shepard, T., Martin, F., & Davies, D., et al. (2009). e-Scape portfolio assessment: A research & development project for the Department of Children, Families and Schools, phase 3 report. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.Google Scholar
  16. Kolodner, J., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Hollbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lubienski, S. (2003). Celebrating diversity and denying disparities: A critical assessment. Educational Researcher, 32(30), 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem-solving processes in Technology Education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the study of the cognitive nature and architecture of technological problem solving. Journal of Technology Education and Design, 8(2), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mioduser, D. (2009). Learning technological problem solving—A cognitive/epistemological perspective. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook for research and development in technology education (pp. 391–406). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2007). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students’ mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Dressler, M., & Mintz, R. (Eds.). (2007–2010). New Mabat curricular project (elementary school science and technology textbooks and teacher guides series, Hebrew and Arabic). Tel-Aviv: Ramot.Google Scholar
  24. Nye, D. (2006). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  25. O’Donnel, A. (2012). Constructivism. In R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Theories, constructs, and critical issues, Vol. 1, pp. 61–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  26. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985–1990. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  27. Pavlova, M., & Middleton, H. (2002). Values in technology education: A two country study. In H. Middleton, M. Pavlova, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Learning in technology education: Challenges for the 21st century (pp. 103–113). Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial international conference on technology education, Parkroyal Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
  28. Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prawat, R. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Preiss, D., & Sternberg, R. (2005). Technologies for working intelligence. In R. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology—The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 183–208). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? Educational Psychologist, 50(10), 859–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowell, P. (2004). Developing technological stance: Children’s learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual’s cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  36. Seely Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sherman, T., Sanders, M., & Kwon, H. (2010). Teaching in middle school technology education: A review of recent practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20 (4), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  39. Sjoberg, S. (2001). Science and technology in education – Current challenges and possible solutions. Paper presented in the meeting of European ministers of education and research, Upsala. Retrieved at http://www.iuma.ulpgc.es/~nunez/sjobergreportsciencetech.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2013.
  40. Stables, K., & Kimbell, R. (2006). Unorthodox methodologies: Approaches to understanding design and technology. In M. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 313–330). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  41. Voogt, J., & Plomp, T. (Guest Eds.). (2010). Innovative ICT-supported pedagogical practices: Results from the international study of information technology in education (special section: Pedagogical use of ICT worldwide, 6 articles). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 449–522.Google Scholar
  42. Walmsley, B. (2003). Partnership-centered learning: The case for pedagogical balance in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 14(2), 56–69.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, A., & Williams, J. (1997). Problem-based learning and appropriate methodology for technology education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations