Examining how technology is presented and understood in technology education: a pilot study in a preschool class

Annie-Maj Johansson1
1School of Education, Humanities and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden

Tóm tắt

The aim of the research is to examine how technology is communicated in technology education in relation to humans, society and nature in preschool class. According to the Swedish curriculum for preschool class, pupils should be given the opportunity to explore, ask questions and discuss technology and how the choices of people affect sustainable development. Teachers make different choices about, for example, content and what they do and do not say. These choices have an impact on how pupils perceive technology as part of the world and are called companion meanings. In terms of data, sound recordings and field notes from four technology lessons in a preschool class were used. The data was analysed, with focus on what types of companion meanings emerge in conversations between teachers and pupils. The analysis of companion meanings was based on two themes: Subject Language and Subject Focus. The results of this study demonstrate that pupils learn companion meanings of various types: for example, technology is something positive and unproblematic. Other types of companion meanings gave the pupils opportunities to reflect on how the technical choices of humans affect nature. Different kinds of companion meanings offer different ways for pupils to relate to the surrounding environment.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Almquist, J., Kronlid, D., Quennerstedt, M., Öhman, J., Öhman, M., & Östman, L. (2008). Pragmatiska studier av meningsskapande. [Pragmatic studies of companion meanings]. Education & Democracy, 17(3), 11–24. Axell, C. (2015). Barnlitteraturens tekniklandskap: En didaktisk vandring från Nils Holgersson till Pettson och Findus. [The technical landscape of children’s literature. A didactic walk from Nils Holgersson to Pettson and Findus]. Norrköping: Linköpings University. Axell, C., & Hallström, J. (2013). Representations of technology in the “Technical Stories” for children by Otto Witt, early 20th century Swedish technology educator. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 817–834. Björkholm, E. (2015). Konstruktioner som fungerar: en studie av teknikkunnande i de tidiga skolåren. [Constructions that work: A study of technology knowledge in school’s early years]. Stockholm: University of Stockholm. Bjurulf, V. (2008). Teknikämnets gestaltningar, en studie av lärares arbete med skolämnet teknik. [The portrayal of the technical subject. A study of teaches work with the subject of technology]. Karlstad: Karlstad University. Blomdahl, E. (2006). Att undervisa i teknik – försök till en utbildningsfilosofi utifrån Heidegger och Dewey. [Teaching technology—Attempts at an educational philosophy based on Heidegger and Dewey]. NorDiNa, 2(1), 44–57. Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and criticism. Poststructural investigation in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Dakers, J. R. (2006). Introduction. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Davis, R. S., Ginns, I. S., & McRobbie, C. J. (2002). Elementary school students’ understandings of technology concepts. Journal of Technology Education, 14(1), 35–50. de Vries, M. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordecht: Springer. de Vries, M. (2006). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 17–30). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education. Gothenburg: Daidalos. Dewey, J., & Bently, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works (Vol. 16). Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press. Englund, T. (1998). Teaching as an offer of (discursive) meaning. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue (pp. 215–226). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Englund, T. (2004). Skillnad och konsekvens: Mötet lärare-studerande och undervisning som meningserbjudande. [Difference and consequence: The meeting teacher-pupil and teaching as companion meaning]. Lund: Student Literature AB. Elvstrand, H., Hallström, J., & Hellberg, K. (2018). Vad är teknik? Pedagogers uppfattningar om och erfarenheter av teknik och teknikundervisning i förskolan. [What is technology? Educators’ perceptions and experiences of technology and technology education in preschool]. NorDiNa, 14(1), 37–53. Folque, M. A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2011). Fostering communities of learning in two Portuguese pre-school classrooms applying the Movimento da Escola Moderna (MEM) pedagogy. International Journal of Early Childhood., 43, 227–244. GDPR. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation. Retrieved September 19, 2019, from https://www.datainspektionen.se/lagar--regler/dataskyddsforordningen/. Grimvall, G. (2013). Teknikens väsen: Skolans teknikämne i tidigare årskurser. [The being of technology: The school’s technical subjects in early years]. Lund: Student Literature AB. Gyberg, P., & Hallström, J. (2009). Världens gång - teknikens utveckling, om samspelet mellan teknik, människa och samhälle. [The course of the world—The development of technology, about the interplay between technology, humans and society]. Lund: Student Literature AB. Heidegger, M. (1974). Teknikens väsen och andra uppsatser, translation R. Matz. [Vorträge und Aufsätze och Die Technik und die Kehre], [The being of technology and other articles, translation]. Uddevalla: Rabén and Sjögren. Hudson, B., & Meyer, M. A. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Klasander, C. (2010). Talet om tekniska system – förväntningar, traditioner och skolverkligheter.[Conversations about technical systems—Expectations, traditions and realities in school]. Norrkoping: Linköping University. Lave, J. (1996). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2009). Epistemological norms and companion meanings in science classroom communication. Science Education., 93(5), 859–874. Mawson, W. B. (2013). Emergent technological literacy: What do children bring to school? International Journal of Technology and Design Education., 23, 443–453. Norström, P. (2013). Engineers’ non-scientific models in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education., 23(2), 377–390. Norström, P. (2014). Technological knowledge and technology education. KTA Royal Institute of Technology, Architecture: Stockholm. Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meanings in science curriculum (pp. 54–70). London: Teacher College Press. Östman, L. (2015). Companion meanings. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 182–185). Dordrecht: Springer. Pavlova, M. (2009). Conceptualisation of technology education within the paradigm of sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education., 19, 109–132. Quennerstedt, M. (2008). Pragmatisk diskursanalys av praktiknära texter, en analys av meningsskapandets institutionella innehåll och villkor. [Pragmatic discourse analysis of practical texts, an analysis of the companion meaning’s institutional content and terms]. Education & Democracy, 17(3), 89–112. Roberts, D., & Östman, L. (Eds.). (1998). Problems of meaning in science curriculum. London: Teacher College Press. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 65–72. Sundin, B. (1991). Den kupade Handen, historien om människan och tekniken. [The cupped hand, the history of humans and technology]. Helsingborg: Carlsson's Publishing House. Svensson, M. (2011). Att urskilja tekniska system, didaktiska dimensioner i grundskolan. [To distinguish technical systems, didactical dimensions in the preschool]. Norrköping: Linköping University. Swedish Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the elementary school, preschool class and the leisure center 2011 revised in 2016. Stockholm: Fritzes. Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Retrieved September 11, 2019 from www.vr.se/english/analysis-and-assignments/we-analyse-and-evaluate/all-publications/publications/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html. Twyford, T., & Järvinen, E.-M. (2000). The formation of children’s technological concepts: A study of what it means to do technology from a child’s perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 32–48. von Wright, G. H. (1993). Myten om framstegen, tankar 1987–1992 med en intellektuell självbiografi. [The myth of progress, thoughts 1987–1992 with an intellectual autobiography]. Falun: Bonniers.