Abstract
This chapter investigates in what ways school technology may reflect professional technological practices. Using the historical development within the aeronautical industry as an example, characteristics of technological practice and knowledge are presented. In particular, it is referred how manufacturing, testing, and operating a technological device produce knowledge that affects the design process and the fundamental design concepts of the artefact. By means of a literature review and a multi-case study, it is found that D&T classrooms may have similarities with how design and engineering takes place in a professional community. The role of heuristics and repetitive testing is important for both cases. Examples from both professional engineering and classroom activity show that utilizing science and mathematics in a fruitful way in developing technology is challenging. However, there are some distinct differences as well. The students’ lack of expertise is an imperative for D&T teachers to provide students with basic understanding of the fundamental design concepts involved in the activity.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the socilal psycology of creativity. Colorado: West View Press.
Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
Björkholm, E., Andrée, M., & Carlgren, I. (2012). Exploring technical knowledge in the primary technology classroom. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 3, 2–16.
Boon, M. (2006). How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 27–47. doi:10.1080/02698590600640992.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32.
Bucciarelli, L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bungum, B., Esjeholm, B.-T., & Lysne, D. A. (2014). Science and mathematics as part of practical projects in technology and design: An analysis of challenges in realising the curriculum in Norwegian school. NorDiNa, 10(1), 3–15.
Carlson, W. B., & Gorman, M. E. (1992). A cognitive framework to understand technological creativity: Bell, Edison, and the telephone. In R. J. Weber & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chidgey, J. (1994). A critique of the design process. In F. Burns (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 89–93). London: Routledge.
Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 217–236. doi:10.1007/s10798-004-1904-4.
De Vries, M. (2016). Teaching about technology. Cham: Springer international publishing.
Esjeholm, B. T., & Bungum, B. (2013). Design knowledge and teacher-student interactions in an inventive construction task. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 675–689. doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9209-5.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.
Fox-Turnbull, W. (2006). The influence of teacher knowledge and authentic formative assessment on students learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 53–77.
Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001). Comparisons and contrasts between elementary/primary ‘school situated design’ and ‘workplace design’ in Canada and England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 111–136. doi:10.1023/a:1011245632705.
Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process – Does it exist? A critical review of published models for the design process in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 199–217.
Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design expert’s participation in elementary students’ collaborative design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 161–178. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9172-6.
Knorr-Cetina, K.-D. (2013). The manufacture of knowledge. Elsevier.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102. doi:10.1080/10402454.2005.10784518.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43–78.
Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255–268. doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y.
Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117–128. doi:10.1023/a:1024186814591.
McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44. doi:10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007359.81781.7c.
Medway, P. (1992). Constructions of technology: Refelctions on a new subject. In J. Beynon & H. Macay (Eds.), Technological literacy and the curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.
Middleton, H. (2005). Creative thinking, values and design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 61–71. doi:10.1007/s10798-004-6199-y.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 461–481.
Parkinson, E., & Hope, G. (2009). Conceptual learning in and through technology. In A. Jones & M. De Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Polanyi, M. (2002 [1958]). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1), 65–72.
Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–424. doi:10.1007/s10798-010-9129-1.
Schön, D. A. (1982). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388.
Staudenmaier, J. M. (1985). Technology’s storytellers. Reweaving the human fabric. Cambridge, MA/London: Society for the History of Technology/The M.I.T. Press.
Tiles, M., & Oberdiek, H. (1995). Living in a technological culture: Human tools and human values. London: Routledge.
Turnbull, W. (2002). The place of authenticity in technology in the New Zealand Curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(1), 23–40.
UDIR. (2010). Curriculum for science. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/Lareplaner/
Vèrillon, 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). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Esjeholm, BT., Bungum, B. (2018). Linking Knowledge and Activities: How can Classroom Activities in Technology Reflect Professional Technological Knowledge and Practices?. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44686-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44687-5
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education