Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Social Ecosystem of Distributed Learning Through the Braid of Technology Education and Communication

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Technology Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

  • 276 Accesses

Abstract

We live with technology and we participate in innovation, as engineer, scientist, policy maker, business developer, pupil, university student, and citizen. Technology which enables and guides us at many stages in life, to formulate and achieve our goals, supports our social life, defines new horizons, and looks after our health and learning processes. People get acknowledged with technology individually, by their social network, formal education, media, and professional life. To better understanding of this socio-technical system, in which we all learn at various levels, in various contexts, and various moments of life, we elaborate in this chapter on the braid of technology education (TE) with technology communication (TC) and how they are interlinked through many micro connections in time. Furthermore, we state that if TE and TC are considered as elements in a social system of technology development, when they both are interconnected, then this TETC braid will sustain the societal challenge of responsible research and innovation. From a responsible or even ethical point of view, the contemporary societal context of responsible research and innovation (RRI) demands processes like social learning to which the TETC braid is fundamental, theoretically and practically. Therefore it is inevitable that scholars and professionals should develop a much more holistic view on TE and TC for the benefit of individual, society, and innovation alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K. H. (1994). Sociology and the new systems theory: Toward a theoretical synthesis. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayram-Jacobs, D., & Henze-Rietveld, I. (2016). The influence of innovative, RRI support materials on teachers’ practical knowledge. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), 14–17 April, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience, 59(11), 977–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media. Alternative routes in scientific communication. Milan: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bud, R. (2016). Science, brands and the museum. Journal of Science Communication, 15(6), C03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, M. (2012). When mind, heart, and hands meet: Communication design and designers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 489–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deboer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(37), 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECSITE (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.ecsite.eu/activities-and-services/ecsite-events/annual-conferences/ecsite-annual-conference-2015

  • Flipse, S. M., & Bayram-Jacobs, D. (2016). RRI bridges science education and communication. The innovator’s perspective. In M. C. A. van der Sanden & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Science and technology education and communication. Seeking synergy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, J. (2002). Complexity and innovation in organizations. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of societal transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2013). Communication and engagement with science and technology. Issues and dilemmas. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen, J., & Gremmen, B. (2012). Influencing governance of a public-private partnership in plant genomics: The societal interface group as a new instrument for public involvement. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 718–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E. A. (2015). Evaluating impact and quality of experience in the 21st century: Using technology to narrow the gap between science communication research and practice. Journal of Science Communication, 14(3), C05.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korevaar, G. (2004). Sustainable chemical processes and products. New design methodology and design tools. Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: Creating space for change in complex systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2011.536344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein, B. V. (2003). Models of public communication of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37, 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, M., & Vos, J. (2016). Crossing a threshold. In M. C. A. van der Sanden & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Science and technology education and communication. Seeking synergy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32, 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okada, A., & Bayram-Jacobs, D. (2016, January). Opportunities and challenges for equipping the next generation for responsible citizenship through the ENGAGE HUB. Paper presented at International Conference on Responsible Research in Education and Management and its Impact, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • PCST (2016). Retrieved from: http://pcst-2016.org/

  • Pennington, D. D. (2008). Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 8, 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, D. D. (2011). Bridging the disciplinary divide: Co-creating research ideas in e-science teams. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 20, 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pol, B., & Swankhuijsen, C. (2015). Please don’t nudge we’re Dutch. Magazine-C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeser, S. (Ed.). (2010). Emotions and risky technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roosegaarde, D. (2017, February). Retrieved from: https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/info/

  • Rozendaal, M. C. (2017, February). Retrieved from: http://www.io.tudelft.nl/over-de-faculteit/persoonlijke-profielen/universitair-docenten/rozendaal-mc/

  • Schiele, B. (2008). Science museums and science centres. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoeborn, D. (2011). Organization as communication: A Luhmannian perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 663–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherborne T. (2014). ENGAGE: Equipping the next generation for active engagement in science. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111469_en.html

  • Shwartz, Y., & Evagorou, M. (2015). Group Discussion Tool [Engage Project Documents]. Retrieved from Engage Project Shared Repository, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YmBMyIecH4g8j1pXof9_4T9fWdA09hIsK0T3oxc0Ojo/edit#heading=h.d8qtd9gjm98g

  • Stenfert, H. (2016). Co-creation in housing design: An exploration of the concept of co-creation, the co-creative design process and the practice of the co-creative architect. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StudioLab (2017, February). Retrieved from: http://studiolabproject.eu/

  • Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Cleassens, T. Cascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tromp, N. (2013). Social design: How products and services can help us act in ways that benefit society. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & De Vries, M. J. (2016). Innovation in science and technology education and communication through design thinking. In M. C. A. van der Sanden & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Science and technology education and communication. Seeking synergy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Flipse, S. M. (2015). A cybernetic dream: How a crisis in social sciences leads us to a communication for innovation-laboratory. Journal of Science Communication, 14(01), Y01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Flipse, S. M. (2016). Science communication for uncertain science and innovation. Journal of Science Communication, 15(06), C05.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Meijman, F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Meijman, F. J. (2012). A step-by-step approach for science communication practitioners: A design perspective. Journal of Science Communication, 11(02), A03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2011). Effectively embedding science communication in academia: A second paradigm shift? In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling like it is. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeij, R. (2016). Reciprocity in wind farm development. An applied and theoretical approach. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verouden, N. W., Van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Aarts, N. (2016). Silence in interdisciplinary research collaboration: Not everything said is relevant, not everything relevant is said. Science as Culture, 25(4), 264–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Communication, Science Education and Communication, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

    Maarten C. A. van der Sanden & Durdane Bayram-Jacobs

  2. NEMO Kennislink, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Giovanni P. M. Stijnen

Authors
  1. Maarten C. A. van der Sanden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Durdane Bayram-Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni P. M. Stijnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten C. A. van der Sanden .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology , Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marc J. de Vries

Section Editor information

  1. Goldsmiths University of London, London, UK

    Steve Keirl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

van der Sanden, M.C.A., Bayram-Jacobs, D., Stijnen, G.P.M. (2017). A Social Ecosystem of Distributed Learning Through the Braid of Technology Education and Communication. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_59-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_59-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation