Conversations to Support Learning in Technology Education

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


This chapter argues for the crucial place of conversation in technology education, using sociocultural theory to propose that talk plays a significant role in cognitive development through group interactions and collaborative learning. Three major and interrelated themes in technology education conversations are introduced: deployment, conduit and knowledge. Notions of ‘inquiry’ and ‘21st Century’ learning place the student at the centre of the process, and when implemented together with informed understandings of the importance and nature of conversation, facilitate deep learning. The significance of the funds of knowledge that students bring to the classroom from home and community is also highlighted.


Technology Education Inquiry Learning Authentic Learning Sociocultural Theory Learning Intention 
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.


  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. (2006). Pedagogy to promote reflection and understanding in school technology courses. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy—Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 179–196). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box—Raising standards through classroom assessment (1st ed.). London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  4. Blythe, T. (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D., & Thompson, T. (2000). Cooperative learning in New Zealand schools. Palmerston North: Dunmore.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, S. (2005). Formative assessment in action: Weaving the elements together. Oxon: Hodder Murray.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, S. (2008). Active learning through formative assessment. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
  8. Claxton, G. (2007). Expanding young people’s capacity to learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Compton, V. (2011). Technology in the primary sector in New Zealand: Reviewing the past twenty years. In C. Benson & J. Lund (Eds.), International handbook of primary technology education (Vol. 7, pp. 29–38). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniels, H. (1996). An introduction to Vygotsky. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, R., Mahar, C., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1990). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Reston: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  14. Fleer, M. (1995). Staff-child interactions—A Vygotskian perspective. Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (1999). Technology for children: Developing your own approach. Erskineville: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Fleer, M., & Quiňones, G. (2009). Assessment of children’s technological funds of knowledge as embedded community practices. In A. Jones & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 477–491). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  17. Fox-Turnbull, W. (2012). Learning in technology. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 55–92). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Themes of conversation in technology education. Paper presented at the International Technology and Engineering Educators’ Association Conference, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington: NZCER.Google Scholar
  20. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, C. (2009). Assessment for learning. In A. Jones & M. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 449–459). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kreber, C., Klampfleitner, M., McCune, V., Bayne, S., & Knottenbelt, M. (2007). What do you mean by “authentic”? A comparative review of the literature on conceptions of authenticity in teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, 58(1), 22–43.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, K., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1996). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  26. Lopez, J. K. (2010). Funds of knowledge. Learn NC. Retrieved from
  27. Mercer, N. (2006). Words & minds: How we use language to think together. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 55–71). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking—A sociocultural approach. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  31. Moreland, J., & Cowie, B. (2007). Teaching approaches. In M. de Vries, R. Custer, J. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), Analyzing best practices in technology education (pp. 213–219). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  32. Murdoch, K. (2004). Classroom connections—Strategies for integrated learning. South Yarra: Eleanor Curtain.Google Scholar
  33. Murdoch, K., & Hornsby, D. (2003). Planning curriculum connections. Whole school planning for integrated curriculum. South Yarra: Eleanor Curtain.Google Scholar
  34. Murphy, P., & Hall, K. (2008). Learning and practice: Agency and identities. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Educational leadership: Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.Google Scholar
  36. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). A framework for 21st century skills. Accessed 1 Feb 2014 from
  37. Petraglia, J. (1998). The [mis]application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. The real world on a short leash. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 46(3), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality conversations: Research and development in higher education (Vol. 25, pp. 562–567). Jamison: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  39. Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on social shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, K. (1998). Models of cognitive development. Hove: Psychology Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Riggs, E. G., & Gholar, C. R. (2009). Strategies that promote students engagement (2nd ed.). California: Corwin.Google Scholar
  42. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1999). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  43. Scott, P. (2008). Talking a way to understanding in science classrooms. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 17–36). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Siraj-Blatchford, J. (1997). Learning technology, science and social justice: An integrated approach for 3–13 year olds. Nottingham: Education Now.Google Scholar
  45. Slavkin, M. L. (2004). Authentic learning: How learning about the brain can shape the development of students. Maryland: Scarecrow Education.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, A. B. (1998). Understanding children’s development (4th ed.). Wellington: Bridget Williams Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011a). Perspectives of authenticity: Implementation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Snape, P., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011b). Twenty-first century learning and technology education nexus. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 34, 149–161.Google Scholar
  49. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1996). The role of the context of learning and instructional design. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  51. Wertsch, J. (Ed.). (1981). General genetic law of cultural development. Armonk: Sharp.Google Scholar
  52. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action: The task of sociocultural analysis. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  53. Wertsch, J., Del Rio, P., & Alverez, A. (Eds.). (1995). Sociocultural studies of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  54. Wertsch, J., Minick, N., & Arns, F. (Eds.). (1999). The creation of context in joint problem-solving. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations