Published: 2012-06-18
ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
The purpose of this study is to explore the capability of evaluating technical solutions in terms of fitness for purpose in the primary technology classroom. In the study we conceptualize pupils’ ways of experiencing technical solutions in terms of what critical aspects are discerned. The analyzed data is drawn from a classroom study of technology education in a Swedish primary school. In this presentation we make an analysis of two technology lessons about technical solutions in grade 2 (pupils are 8-9 years old). We then analyze interactions between teacher-pupils; pupils and materials and tools. The results include pupils’ different qualitative understandings of the specific content in terms of critical features discerned as well as how interactions in the classroom contribute to the collective development of technological knowledge.
Technology education; Technical solution; Fitness for purpose; Teaching; Learning; Variation theory
Barlex; D. (2011). Dear minister; This is why design and technology is a very important subject in the school curriculum. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal; 16(3); 9-18.
Björkholm; E. (2011). Developing technological knowledge in primary school – a teacherresearcher collaboration study. In PATT 25: CRIPT 8 conference – Perspectives on Learning in Design & Technology Education. July 1-5 2011; London.
Brown; A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences; 2; 141- 178.
Cajas; F. (2001). The Science/Technology Interaction: Implications for Science Literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 38(7); 715-729.
Carlgren; I. (2010). `Learning study´ as a model for educational `clinical´[paedeutical] research. Paper presented at The World Association of Lesson Studies International Conference; Bandar Seri Begawan; Brunei Darussalam; December; 8-10.
Chatoney; M. (2008). Contemplation and use of technical aids in primary schools. In Ginestié; J. (Ed.); The cultural transmission of artefacts; skills and knowledge: Eleven studies in technology education in France (pp. 125-147). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Coles; R. & Norman; E. (2005). An exploration of the role values play in design decisionmaking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 15(5); 155-171.
Compton; V. & Compton; A. (2011). Teaching the nature of technology: Determining and supporting student learning of the philosophy of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design education. Retrieved 2011-10-03; from http://www04.sub.su.se:2054/ content/k0v57q33r8562g75/ fulltext.pdf
De Vries; M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer.
Fernandez; C.; Cannon; J. & Chokshi; S. (2003). A US-Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education; 19; 171-185.
Frederik; I.; Sonneveld; W. & De Vries; M. J. (2011). Teaching and learning the nature of technical artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 21(3); 277-290.
Jones; A.; Buntting; C. & de Vries; M. J. (2011). The developing field of technology education: a review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Retrieved 2011-10-03; from http://www04.sub.su.se:2151/content/ m0011512152471n1/ fulltext.pdf
Kroes; P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies; 23; 287-302.
Kullberg; A. (2010). What is taught and what is learned: Professional insights gained and shared by teachers of mathematics (Gothenburg studies in educational sciences 293). Doctoraldissertation; Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. Retrieved 2011-10-03; from http:// hdl. Handle.net/ 2077/22180
Larsson; S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative studies. International Journal of Research & Method in Education; 32(1); 25-38.
Lewis; C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; New Orleans; LA; April; 24-28.
Marton; F. (1981). Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science vol. 10; s. 177-200.
Marton; F. & Ling; L. M. (2007). Learning from “The Learning Study”. Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning [Journal of Research in Teacher Education]; 1; 31-44.
Marton; F. & Pang; M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences; 15(2); 193-220.
Marton; F.; Runesson; U. & Tsui; A. B. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. Tsui (Eds.); Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3-40). Mahwah; NJ: Erlbaum.
Ministry of Education; New Zealand. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Retrieved 2011- 10-03; from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/1108/11989/file/The-New- Zealand-Curriculum. Pdf
Nuthall; G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review; 74(3); 273-306.
National Agency for Education; Sweden. (2011). Kursplan i teknik för grundskolan. Retrieved 2011-10-03; from http://www.skolverket.se/ publikationer?id=2641
Oboho; E. O. & Bolton; N. (1991). Matching students’ technological thinking with thedemands of a technological curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 4(2); 54-61
Pang; M. F. & Ling; L. M. (2011). Learning study: helping teachers to use theory; develop professionally; and produce new knowledge to be shared. Instructional Science. Retrieved 2012-03-03; from http://www04.sub.su.se:2081/content/402635464724816u/fulltext.pdf
Citations in Crossref
