Subject(s) matter: a grounded theory of technology teachers’ conceptions of the purpose of teaching technology
International Journal of Technology and Design Education - Trang 1-21 - 2023
Tóm tắt
Technology education internationally has for some time struggled to achieve continuity between what is depicted in policy and curricular documents and the reality of day-to-day practices. With its focus often articulated through the nature of activity students are to engage with, technology teachers are recognised as having significant autonomy in the design and implementation of their practices. From this, it is important to understand teachers’ beliefs about technology education, as their conceptions of the subject will inform practice. As such, this study sought to investigate teachers’ conceptions of the purpose of teaching technology through reflection on their enacted practices. A constructivist grounded theory methodology was employed for the design of the study and analysis of data. According to our analysis, despite similarities between the nature of student activity that teachers designed and implemented, teachers represented the purpose of the subject in different ways. Three different conceptions of the purpose of teaching technology were identified; obtaining knowledge and skills for application, ability to act in a technological way, and ability to think in a technological way. Central to the three conceptions were contentions in the representations of what constituted subject matter knowledge in the subject, and the role that different application cases played in teaching technology. Without consideration and explicit articulation of the purposes for teaching technology, this lack of clarity and differences in rationale for teaching technology are likely to continue.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Atkinson, S. (2017). So what went wrong and why? In E. Norman, & K. Baynes (Eds.), Design epistemology and Curriculum Planning (pp. 13–17). Loughborough Design Press.
Autio, O. (2011). The Development of Technological competence from adolescence to Adulthood. Journal of Technology Education, 22(2), https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v22i2.a.5
Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (1999). No one forgets a good teacher!’: What do good technology teachers know? Journal of Design & Technology Education, 4(3), 223–229.
Banks, F., & Williams, P. J. (2022). International perspectives on technology education. In A. Hardy (Ed.), Debates in design and Technology Education (2nd ed., pp. 26–44). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003166689-4
Barlex, D. (2007). Assessing capability in design and technology: The case for a minimally invasive approach. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 49–56.
Barlex, D. (2015). Developing a technology curriculum. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 143–167). Springer.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
Compton, V. J., & Compton, A. D. (2013). Teaching the nature of technology: Determining and supporting student learning of the philosophy of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9176-2
Dakers, J. R. (2005). The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-8275-3
Dakers, J. R. (2014a). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (2nd ed.). Palgrave MacMillan.
Dakers, J. R. (2014b). New frontiers in technological literacy: Breaking with the past. Palgrave Macmillan.
Doyle, A., Seery, N., Canty, D., & Buckley, J. (2019). Agendas, influences, and capability: Perspectives on practice in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9433-0
Doyle, A., Seery, N., & Gumaelius, L. (2019). Operationalising pedagogical content knowledge research in technology education: Considerations for methodological approaches to exploring enacted practice. British Educational Research Journal, 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3524
Doyle, A., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Canty, D., & Hartell, E. (2019). Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: Proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9456-1
Gagel, C. W. (2004). Technology profile: An assessment strategy for technological literacy. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(4), 38–45.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). Model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). Routledge.
Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 3–15.
Glaser, B. G. (1967). In A. L. Strauss (Ed.), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Hallström, J. (2018). Exploring the Relationship Between Technology Education and Educational Sloyd. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of Technology Education (pp. 205–217). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_13
Hallström, J., & Klasander, C. (2017). Visible parts, invisible whole: Swedish technology student teachers’ conceptions about technological systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9356-1
Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Grounded theory in psychological research. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 131–155). American Psychological Association.
Hicks, G. (1983). Another step forward for design and technology. Assessment and Performance Unit (APU) Newsletter, 4.
Ingerman, Å., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: A model for enactment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 137–148.
ITEA (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology.
Jones, A., Buntting, C., & De Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212.
Kelly, V., Kimbell, R., Paterson, V., Sexton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment.
Kimbell, R. (2006). Innovative technological performance. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 159–178). Palgrave MacMillan.
Kimbell, R. (2009). Holism and the challenge of Teachers’ judgement. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 5–6.
Kimbell, R. (2011). Wrong … but right enough. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(2), 6–7.
Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Springer.
Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: The foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294
McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019). How technology makes us human: Cultural historical roots for design and technology education. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 464–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1649163
NESH (2016). Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, humanities, law and theology (4th Ed.) Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. Retrieved from: https://www.etikkom.no/
Pleasants, J., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Miller, G. (2019). Fundamental issues regarding the nature of technology: Implications for STEM education. Science & Education, 28, 561–597.
Ritz, J. M. (2009). A new generation of goals for technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 50–64.
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.
Seemann, K. W. (2009). Technacy education: Understanding cross-cultural technological practice. Work, learning and sustainable development (pp. 117–131). Springer.
Seery, N., Kimbell, R., Buckley, J., & Phelan, J. (2019). Considering the relationship between research and practice in technology education: A perspective on future research endeavours. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 163–174.
Spendlove, D. (2012). Teaching technology. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 35–54). Sense Publishers.
Spendlove, D. (2015). Developing a deeper understanding of design in technology education. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 169–185). Springer.
Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education into the curriculum of young learners. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v8i2.a.4
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 127–146). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9046-0
Williams, P. J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.740005
Williams, P. J., Lockley, J., & Mangan, J. (2016). Technology teachers’ use of CoRe to develop their PCK. In M. J. de Vries, A. Bekker-Holtland, & G. van Dijk (Eds.), PATT-32 proceedings: Technology education for 21st century skills (pp. 489–499). 23–26th August, Utrecht.
Wright, G., Reeves, E., Williams, J., Morrison-Love, D., Patrick, F., Gineste, J., Mammes, I., & Graube, G. (2018). Abridged international perspectives of technology education and its connection to STEM education. International Journal of Education, 10(4), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v10i4.13704
Wu, X., & Ding, B. (2022). Technology teachers’ conceptions of technology teaching in secondary schools in Beijing: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 1037–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09629-3