The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education 9781350238411, 9781350238442, 9781350238428

Citation preview

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Also Available from Bloomsbury The Bloomsbury Handbook of Popular Music Education, edited by Zack Moir, Bryan Powell, and Gareth Dylan Smith The Bloomsbury Handbook of Reading Perspectives and Practices, edited by Bethan Marshall, Jackie Manuel, Donna L. Pasternak, and Jennifer Roswell The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning, edited by Douglas Bourn

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education Edited by David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 Copyright © David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff and contributors, 2023 David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff and contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. xv constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Grace Ridge Cover image © Anete Lusina / pexels.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3502-3841-1 ePDF: 978-1-3502-3842-8 eBook: 978-1-3502-3843-5 Series: Bloomsbury Curriculum Handbooks Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www​.bloomsbury​.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Dedication This book is dedicated to educators, policymakers, and stakeholders around the globe who have led, shaped, and advocated for technology education, and for those who continue to do so.



vi

Contents

List of Illustrations x Foreword xii Acknowledgments xv 1

General Introduction  David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff 1

Part I  Conceptualizing Technology Education

7

2

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education  David Gill 9

3

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education  Jeffery Buckley 14

4

Design and Technology Education in England  Stephanie Atkinson 28

5

Overview of Chinese High School General Technology Education: Rationale and Current Status  Meidan Xu, Jianjun Gu, and P. John Williams 42

6

Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development  Jim Tuff and David Gill 60

7

Technology Education’s Place in STEM: The Relationship and Role of Technology in STEM Education, Using the United States as a Case Study  Greg J. Strimel 76

Part II  Technology Education in the Curriculum

95

8

Introduction to Technology Education in the Curriculum  David Wooff 97

9

Thinking: Nurturing Independent Design Thinking and Decision-Making  Belinda von Mengersen 101

10 Doing: Skills, Knowledge, and Understanding in Conceptual, Theoretical, and Practical Contexts  David Morrison-Love 122 11 Communicating: The Importance of Communication in a Technological Literacy Era  Yakhoub Ndiaye 136 12 Including: Thinking Toward an Inclusive Curriculum for Technology Education in German Primary Schools  Franz Schröer and Claudia Tenberge 156

Contents

13 Assessing: How to Get Feedback Back on Track in Technology Education  Eva Hartell 170 14 Collaborating: The Purpose and Potential of Collaboration with Stakeholders and Other Disciplines  David Wooff, Ryan Beales, and Elizabeth Flynn 188 15 Facilitating: The Role of Learning Environments in Technology Education Curricula  Matt McLain and Sarah Finnigan-Moran 198 Part III  Pedagogy for Technology Education

215

16 Introduction to Pedagogy for Technology Education  Matt McLain 217 17 Project-Based Learning: Authentic and Effective Learning in Technology Education Osnat Dagan 223 18 Task-Based Learning: An Opportunity for Focused Learning in Technology Education  Andrew Doyle 240 19 Design Learning: Pedagogic Strategies That Enable Learners to Develop Their Design Capability  Remke M. Klapwijk and Kay Stables 255 20 Play-Based Learning: Play Pedagogies for Technology Education  Pauline Roberts and Marianne Knaus 274 21 Digital Learning: The Role of Digital Technologies in Technology Education  Deborah Winn 288 22 Interdisciplinary Learning: New Perspectives on Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning: Shifting Pedagogies of the Profession and the Muddy Puddle of STEM Teacher Associational Fluency  Michael A. de Miranda 304 23 Risky Learning: How to Master a Risk and Safety in Technology Education Learning and Working Environments  Eila Lindfors 322 Part IV  Technology, Education, and Society

339

24 Introduction to Technology, Education, and Society  Dawne Irving-Bell 341 25 The Philosophical and Political Value of Technology Education: Fostering Technological Multiliteracies  Jonas Hallström 346 26 Industrial Perspectives: Translational and Transactional Agendas  Rónán Dunbar, Niall Seery, and Joseph Phelan 356 27 Cultural Perspectives: Technology and Culture: The Sociocultural Role of Technology Education  Mishack T. Gumbo 368 28 Curricular and Non-Curricular Perspectives: Developing a Technological Identity within Curricular and Non-Curricular Programs  Thomas Kennedy 382 viii

Contents

29 Extracurricular Perspectives: Valuing Technology beyond the Classroom  Mike Martin 401 30 Social and Technological Perspectives: Technology’s Influence on Society  Dawne Irving-Bell 410 Afterword  Ed M. Reeve 423 List of Contributors 425 Index 434

ix

Illustrations

Figures 3.1 5.1 7.1 8.1 11.1 13.1 13.2 16.1 18.1 18.2 18.3 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 21.1 21.2 21.3 22.1 22.2 23.1 23.2

Interaction of mind and hand process model adapted from Kelly et al. (1987) 16 The samples of warning triangles for motor vehicles are provided 53 Example engineering performance matrix for one core concept related to engineering design 89 Dimensions of a technology education curriculum 98 Automatic Remote Control Pan Tilt System 140 Venn diagram of wind power and water power 181 Research design in Purdue studies 1 and 2 184 Banks et al.’s (2004) subject construct model 218 Progression of jointing techniques in woodwork 241 Stages of task-based learning 244 The purposes of teaching technology (Doyle, 2020) 248 There is no clock in the new Delft city hall and train station (©Meccano)257 A moving cat in a tree signals the time 258 Prototyping the time—indicators 258 Agency is developed—ideas are explained 259 Prototype and implemented final design of the time indicator 259 The APU Design and Technology iterative model of designing 262 Scaffolding design projects starting from specific briefs to open contexts267 Five key strategies for formative assessment from the Make Design Learning Visible approach 270 Collective drawings on how to think divergently 271 Digital technologies are embedded in many aspects of life and industry 291 Example slides from game 299 A sample of student outcomes from the final task of the game 300 iSTEM pedagogy contexts and content in engineering and technology education instruction 311 Teachers co-planning interdisciplinary content 315 A pillar drill working station with guards and safety area 323 The model for safety culture management in TE education 328

Illustrations

23.3 23.4 26.1 26.2

Heinrich’s triangle from 1931—the ratio between near-misses and injuries The cheese model of accident causation Contextual translations: The industry–education nexus Transactional model for technology education

330 331 362 365

Tables 1.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 9.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 13.1 15.1 15.2 15.3 19.1 21.1

Comparing Benefits and Limitations of Curriculum Approaches for Technology Education 4 Teaching Hour Arrangement 53 Experiment 1: Shape, Size, and Ground Spacing 55 Experiment 2: Structural Stability 56 Experiment 3: Visual Discrimination of Shapes 56 Experiment 4: Wind-resistant Stability 56 Provincial/Territorial Technology Curriculum Terminology 65 Engineering Practices and Knowledge Domains Concepts 88 Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy Content Organization89 Engineering design-based lesson plan model (adapted from AE3 & ASEE, 2020) 91 Table Providing a Simple Visualization of Where Specific Design Thinking Modes Can Occur in Design Processes Models 104 Checklist for Communication during Teaching (Prozesky, 2000) 150 Written Communication: Handouts (Prozesky, 2000) 150 Principles in the Design of Multimedia Communication Modalities 151 Reactions to Feedback (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015, p. 107) 172 Levels of Supervision (D&TA, 2014, p. 6) 200 Storage of Materials and Components 202 Six Approaches to Classroom Management 204 Links between Twenty-First-Century skills and Design Skills (Klapwijk et al., 2019) 260 Digital Technologies in Technology Education 290

xi

Foreword Chris Humphries C. B. E.

One of the most engrossing and accessible books in recent years—Suzie Sheehy’s The Matter of Everything—was published in April 2022 and paints a beautifully detailed picture of global developments in particle physics since the late nineteenth century. The book opens with the story of Wilhelm Röntgen’s 1895 experiments with cathode ray tubes at a point in history when international scientists, as Sheehy puts it, “agreed that the subject of physics was almost complete.” The smallest particles making up the substances of the universe (science then believed) were atoms, and the forces of gravity and electromagnetism bound our universe together. Then Röntgen observed that his cathode ray tube was causing a phosphor screen across his lab to glow (something that physics theory at that time could not explain), and that the rays from the tube were detectable on the other side of the wooden doors into the adjoining lab. X-Rays had been discovered and the myth of the atom as the smallest particle was about to be overturned. The rest of Sheehy’s book sets out the results of a further 11 technological experiments in physics over the last century that fundamentally shook the foundations of science— including the discovery of dozens of new particles from positrons to pions, and neutrons to neutrinos and, eventually, 127 years after Röntgen, the Higgs Boson. All of which led to some of the most important discoveries and inventions of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: X-Rays, CT Scanners, MRI Scanners, carbon dating, and radio astronomy, to name but a few. Technology has been traditionally defined (quite inaccurately, in my view) as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry” (Oxford English Dictionary) or “the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life” (Britannica​.c​om). Each of these definitions carries the clear implication that relevant scientific knowledge typically precedes, and informs or shapes, the development and application of technology. Yet what Sheehy’s book highlights is that the relationship between science and technology is far more complex and intertwined than these simplistic definitions suggest. As often as not, the results of technological experiments undermine rather than reinforce current scientific theories, and Sheehy documents how hard the scientific community will often fight to resist changing the underlying science until the results of diverse experiments leave them very little room for maneuver. Throughout history, the development of technology has as often preceded and revised the science on which it is supposedly “based,” as it has derived from it.

Foreword

From the first discoveries of the club and fire, then the first arrowhead and flint knife, through the creative tools of the stone mason, the spinning jenny, the steam engine, and on to the destructive weapons of war, technology has as often been created by accident or fortuitous experimentation as by planned design and deduction from scientific principles. To draw on two of the authors in this handbook, Hallström argues (based on the work of Chakrabarty and Dakers) that “Technology and technological endeavour are as old as humanity itself, even to the point of an actual co-evolution of humans and their tools at the dawn of homo sapiens,” and Martin agrees when he writes: “Technology is inextricably linked with our humanity.” This sets out the powerful hypothesis that our human past, present, and future have been, are, and will continue to be, so inextricably linked with technology that we could not live successfully without it. Any historical study of the development of global industry since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (Industry 1.0) in the eighteenth century, through to today’s Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things will find repeated evidence of such linkages. Technology persists, progresses, and advances for one simple reason: because it enables humans to do things better—or faster, or cheaper, or in greater volumes, or more precisely. As Perttu Polonen (2022), the Finnish futurist, pointed out recently, “Technology always outperforms us—it’s why we create it in the first place.” Some people may argue that technology has not always been a positive boon to humanity—it has been used over the centuries to terrorize, control, and demean as well as to enhance, enrich, and advance. While it is unquestionably true that technology can be, and has been, used for both good and ill (and among other things this handbook explores the question of the instrumentality of technology), the choice at the end of the day is for humanity to make. Decades ahead of his time, Buckminster Fuller, the visionary engineer who first coined the phrase “Spaceship Earth,” and has often been called the grandfather of sustainability, reminded us that “We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims.” Today, in the 2020s, the world faces a growing range of extraordinary challenges, in health care, poverty, pollution, climate change and the environment, food, and water supply and security, and now in the very defense of democracy and freedom. Of course, it is from within in our heads and our hearts that most answers to these challenges must come, but it is also clear from its pre-eminence in our lives today, that technology will continue to have an inextricable role to play. So how does society ensure that the choices we make about technology and its contribution will fall, mostly at least, on the side of good rather than ill? It’s simple. We must understand technology, manage its development, and make clear and constructive decisions about its use. We must recognize and appreciate what technology can do if we are going to be able to make clear and informed choices about what we should do. And that’s where education comes to the fore—that’s what education allows us to do! Hence, an important question that sits at the very heart of this Handbook of Technology Education is: Why does the study of science and mathematics theory so xiii

Foreword

dominate the school and college curriculum to the detriment of the study of technology and its application to the real world? Why is it, as Hallström puts it, that “comprehensive, pre-university technology education . . . often has to struggle for its place in the school curriculum, despite the fact that it constitutes the foundation for all tertiary education”? The excellent collection of chapters in the handbook not only examines this question in depth, seeking to both understand its origins and challenge the prejudices and assumptions that have got us to this point, but then goes on to help educators understand how this detriment can successfully be challenged, and to explore the curriculum and pedagogical changes we can and must make if we are to ensure that our secondary and tertiary education systems create both the scientists and the technologists that humanity will need to address the challenges of the century that lies ahead of us. This handbook is a recommended reading not just for teachers who wish to ensure that our youth are adequately equipped to make the right choices for their and our futures but also for academics and educational policy makers who far too often rank theory ahead of practice, science ahead of technology, and thinking ahead of doing. I genuinely believe that all our futures depend on it.

Reference Polonen (2022). Keynote [speech]. International forum for visionaries & leaders: Steering education: From imagination to impact, Riga, Latvia, June 3. https://futures2050​.lv

xiv

Acknowledgments

As an editorial team, we would like to thank Bloomsbury for the opportunity to write this handbook. In particular, Alison Baker and Anna Elliss, who have guided us throughout the process. We appreciate all the feedback and insightful suggestions that have shaped this handbook into what you read today. We thank and acknowledge the professionalism and expertise of our contributors, and know that this book will inspire the next generation of technology educators around the world. We are grateful to the scholars and researchers, at home and around the globe, who have nurtured, challenged, and inspired us. Last, but definitely not least, we thank our families, who have given us the encouragement and space to work on this handbook. Without their support, we would not have been able to achieve what we have.



xvi

Chapter 1

General Introduction David Gill, Dawne Irving-Bell, Matt McLain, and David Wooff

Why Did We Write This Handbook? First, this is not the book we set out to write! When we contacted Bloomsbury, we had an idea for a book based on a journal article, but the publisher came back to us with a “counteroffer” to submit a proposal for their curriculum handbook series. Second, we aimed to make the handbook a collaborative endeavor, with each member of the editorial board taking responsibility for a part, and co-creating the handbook as a coherent whole. Therefore, the editors are listed alphabetically by surname, rather than hierarchically. So here we are proud to be publishing what we hope is the first of many future editions of the Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education, and we are delighted to have been successful in our aim of drawing together an international team of contributors to write a scholarly handbook comprised of carefully curated chapters, rather than a collection of research articles or position pieces written in isolation. This first edition sees thirty-six contributors, representing twenty-eight institutions, from fourteen countries spanning five continents. Before moving further to outline the rationale, structure, and format of the book it is worth noting that we have sought throughout to embrace the unique perspectives each of our authors brings. In editing we have worked to keep each text as close to the authors’ original submission as possible, to help ensure and retain authenticity. Hence as you weave between the chapters and various sections, you will note differences between technology education’s curricular terminology, focus, and content from country to country. For example, in England the subject is called Design and Technology and focuses on designing and making, whereas in the United States, Engineering and Technology, focusing on STEM and technological literacy, has become more common. This is intentional, and we believe has been instrumental in supporting us to create this truly unique, international text that represents the breadth of the subject’s expression around the world. This is a truly international effort, but we can do better and look forward to extending our reach in the next edition! This handbook is written for anyone involved with technology education, working with children and young people from the early years through to upper secondary. So, what do we mean by technology education? There are many different expressions of the

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

subject around the world, but typically we are referring to the subject as a discipline where students apply technological knowledge in the context of real-world problems. This often involves project-based learning where students are engaged with designing and making activities or working collaboratively to solve problems, but a fundamental element that is common across the globe is the principle of learning-by-doing. To avoid confusion, this handbook is not about other elements of education that involved technology, such as information and communication technology (ICT) or educational technology (Ed-Tech), although these are mentioned as and when appropriate. This book is about the subjects variously known as design and technology (England), design and technologies (Australia), technology (Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, etc.), and technology and engineering (USA) and so on. In each country, technology education has its own unique histories, purposes, and priorities, ranging from the development of children and young people’s design capability through to technological literacy, but there are uniting principles of technological ways of knowing and knowledge for action.

How Is the Handbook Structured? The handbook is divided into four parts, with each part overseen by a member of the editorial team: ● ● ● ●

Part I: Conceptualizing Technology Education (Editor: David Gill) Part II: Technology Education in the Curriculum (Editor: David Wooff) Part III: Pedagogy for Technology Education (Editor: Matt McLain) Part IV: Technology, Education, and Society (Editor: Dawne Irving-Bell)

Part I explores the origins of technology education through six chapters and exemplifies a number of iterations of the subject as experienced around the globe, including the contributions from the continents of Asia, Europe, and North America. In Part II, contributors unpack seven dimensions of technology education in the school curriculum, considering different ways of knowing that embody the head, hand, and heart. Part III seeks to develop our understanding of aspects of technology education’s pedagogy, across the phases of education from early years through to secondary school, with diverse themes ranging from play to safety. Finally, the chapters in Part IV reflect on the role and impact technology education plays within society, exploring technology beyond the classroom, the importance of the subject, and the potential benefits of a good technology education.

What Is the Handbook About? Technological knowledge is complex, as it cannot be simply classified as hierarchical (i.e., you need to learn certain concepts before others) as opposed to non-hierarchical or 2

General Introduction

segmented knowledge (i.e., knowledge or experiences that can be taught in any order). The knowledge base for the subject is knowledge for action and is often taught just-intime to be applied in the context of a project, rather than being tested through recall. It involves conceptual (knowing that something is the case), procedural (knowing how to do or achieve something), and strategic (knowing when to do something) knowledge. This is often simplified to knowledge (knowing that) versus skills (knowing how), which we believe is an unhelpful dichotomy that risks demoting practical and creative learning in the curriculum. Different technological ways of knowing are dynamic and context driven. It is important for technology educators to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the subject, its epistemology (relevant bodies of knowledge) and ontology (theories of action and experience), as they influence how the subject is arranged (curriculum) and experienced (pedagogy). They should also be mindful of teleological (understanding of the purposes it serves) and axiological (understanding associated value judgments and ethical) issues in relation to their subject. Part I of this handbook presents a number of conceptualizations of technology education exploring how different countries around the world approach the subject. Technological knowledge and experience together contribute to curriculum design, which in primary schools is often in a learner- or problem-centered curriculum model and subject-centered in most secondary schools. Each approach has benefits and limitations (Table 1.1) but is normally outside of the sphere of influence for most classroom teachers, with decisions about how the school curriculum is arranged and constructed being under the control of school leaders under the direction of national guidance. Therefore, it is important for technology educators to be able to articulate the implications of the whole school or system approaches on the level of the individual subject. Technology educators need to consider the role of curriculum structure, instruction, content, assessment, and evaluation. As stated earlier, the curriculum structure is usually predetermined by school leaders or authorities. However, the limitations of a subjectcentered approach can be mitigated by cross-disciplinary planning and discourse, and the use of cross-curricular activity days. Similarly, the project-based learning approaches common to technology education provide opportunities for problem-centered learning to take place within both subject- and learner-centered curricula. It is also important to balance the assessment of the outcomes from students’ learning (the product) with the learning journey leading up to a summative assessment point (the process). A technology curriculum that focuses solely on the “product” (typically a made or constructed object) risks narrowing attention to technical skills and quality, as opposed to the “process” of learning, being innovative, and taking risks. Therefore, a balanced technology curriculum should be mindful of both product and process. In the choice of instruction methods, the technology educator demonstrates pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which draws on the teacher’s knowledge of the subject, teaching and school context to determine the most appropriate/effective pedagogical approaches to delivering the curriculum in their classroom. Methods 3

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Table 1.1  Comparing Benefits and Limitations of Curriculum Approaches for Technology Education Approach Subject-centered

Learner-centered

Problem-centered

Description

Benefits

Limitations

The curriculum is arranged into separate subjects with discreet lessons.

Typically focuses on Limited opportunities disciplinary areas taught for cross-curricular by specialists in specialist activities. classrooms. Potential for subject Enables bodies of silos where content knowledge to be identified can be taught in and taught discretely. isolation. Easier to timetable than There can be interdisciplinary teaching. an emphasis on knowledge acquisition and recall, rather than application. The curriculum is Treats students as It is difficult to plan arranged around individuals. and standardize a students’ needs and Empowers students to curriculum without interests. direct and shape their own common elements. learning. Requires high levels of expertise and support for teachers. The curriculum is Supports authentic and It is difficult to take arranged to engage interdisciplinary learning the individual students with exposing students to realneeds and interests problem finding life issues, contexts, and of students into and problemproblems. account. solving. Emphasizes the relevance It is difficult to of learning and assess creative encourages creativity and and collaborative collaboration. learning outcomes.

like demonstration, where the teacher shows students how to perform a technique or procedure, are by nature restrictive and tend to result in similar outcomes. Whereas other forms of teacher modeling that exemplify thought-action processes, without demonstrating one “right” approach, are more appropriate for facilitating creativity and innovation using more expansive teaching methods. For example, the teacher might model a technique for solving problems or generating ideas that (a) responds to a different context or brief to what the students are working on and/or (b) highlight other solutions and narrate their thinking process. In the current political context that some countries find themselves in, such as the rising tide of so-called knowledge-rich ideologies that pit curriculum content against curriculum experience, the current and future leaders of technology education need to 4

General Introduction

be aware of alternative ideologies and how to argue coherently for their subject. An education system that prioritizes one way of knowing over others risks creating zerosum curricula, where practical and creative learning (for example) becomes devalued if performance measures favor traditional “academic” subjects—or vice versa. A true non-zero-sum curriculum, where individual or groups of subjects are not vying for control or pre-eminence, values a broad, balanced, and diverse curriculum experience that develops learners as individuals, for future education and employment, as well as contributing to societal change and cohesion

Who Should Use This Handbook? This handbook draws together international perspectives on contemporary praxis in technology education from philosophy to empirical research. It is aimed at pre- and in-service teachers, postgraduate researchers, academics, and policy makers interested in technology education, in the compulsory schooling phases (e.g., K–12). The structure is particularly designed to support the education and training of pre-service teachers and teacher educators in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes with carefully commissioned chapters by leading authors in the field. Chapters discuss technology education as it can be experienced by children and young people, inside and outside of the classroom, across the world. The purpose of this book is to present pragmatic and research-informed perspectives on technology education, seeking to represent shared and divergent themes in the subject’s curricular origins and contemporary expression, curricular and pedagogical principles, and its wider impact on industry and society. The chapters are intended to work in concert with individual authors bringing their expertise, experience, and perspective within the general aims of the handbook. The contributors for each Part worked together, collaboratively, to peer review and shape individual chapters into coherent sections.

How Could You Use This Handbook? How you use this handbook will depend on your current role or relationship with technology education. Teacher educators may use specific chapters as pre- or postsession readings for lectures, seminars or workshops, or as essential reading for their modules/courses. Pre-service teachers will also want to dip into chapters to inform their academic assignments and help them to reflect on aspects of theory and practice in the technology classroom. We hope that the handbook will also provide opportunities for debate and dialogue around the tensions and controversies in technology education. 5

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

With chapters being written as scholarly position pieces, the contributors have drawn on both personal experience and empirical research. The handbook is intended to be a reference text, with each chapter an essay, rather than a monograph to be read cover to cover. Whether you are a beginning or experienced teacher, academic or policy maker, we hope that you will select chapters that both reinforce and challenge your current understanding of technology education; recognizing that it is multifaceted and evolving around the world. Postgraduate researchers and academics may use it to identify curriculum themes and signature pedagogies, as well as potential gaps in the literature and opportunities for new scholarship.

When Should You Use This Handbook? This handbook can arguably be used by anyone with an interest in technology education for whatever reason they deem suitable. As the handbook draws together international perspectives on contemporary praxis in technology education from philosophy to empirical research, it is designed to appeal to, and be of use to, a wide range of interested parties. Pre-service teachers, and teacher educators, will find this of use in areas of thought stimulus, contextual grounding, and global awareness in a vast array of technology education curricula which align with the training of aspirant teachers. It can be used to support existing programme materials, to act as a catalyst for assessment/ coursework, and to help offer a contemporary perspective to a wide range of topics. Practicing technology educators, academics, scholars, and teachers will also find the content helpful in providing a valuable source of reference for undertaking further studies, scholarly writing, or original research. As stated above, this handbook presents pragmatic and research-informed perspectives on technology education; through the global lens of individual authors who bring their individual expertise, experience, and perspective to the fore in their contribution. The handbook will also be of value to those seeking to understand the nuances of technology education, encompassing design, technology and engineering in the wider context of national examinations, or the derivation of policies at a regional, national, or international level. Thus, the handbook will be of use in drafting such policies, practices, and procedures. Each part begins with a summary introduction from the lead editor. This is most helpful in being able to understand the coherence between chapters within a section, and it provides an opportunity to identify cognizance between the topics covered in each section of the handbook. This will be most helpful in expanding understanding of subjects that align, or contrast, with ones they are already familiar with. It may be that they are familiar with them in their own context and are looking for a different perspective, or maybe the perspective of someone in a different country—in which case, this handbook can be used to provide such a view.

6

PART I

Conceptualizing Technology Education



8

Chapter 2

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education David Gill

Where to start on such a broad and complex subject as technology education? If I were to start from my own local context, this might be an easier task as there would be some familiar conceptual footholds to brace my climb. However, this analogy could cause some confusion for a reader already familiar with other historical curricular developments, as biology or math curricula are almost universally understood across modern educational jurisdictions. Therefore, wouldn’t logic dictate that technology education from the United Kingdom should look very similar to technology education in the Netherlands, the United States, or China? Well, the easy answer to this is yes and no. Yes, in the sense that you will find curricular areas within compulsory education around the world that share theoretical, conceptual, and pedagogical leanings toward the power of learning by engaging both head and hands. No, in the sense that while broader content areas such as material processing, transportation, communications, and control systems may be found within international curricula, what happens in classrooms can vary quite a lot depending on the political, economic, and cultural conditions of the local context. The name itself sheds some light on the difficulty of compartmentalizing and analyzing the international developmental path of the curriculum area as the moniker “technology education” can be contentious as it is just the latest attempt at naming the unnamable. As technology education grew out of various forms of manual education during the latter half of the last century, it has attracted many titles and roles since the dawning of compulsory public education. Craft, vocational education, industrial arts, sloyd, design and technology, technological education, career and technology studies, engineering education, maker education, and the almost ubiquitous and colloquial “shop class,” that seems to refuse to die, are some of the terms that have been used to describe this area. With so much connotation and interpretation attached to these names, it can be difficult to know if you are comparing and analyzing the same thing. So, returning to my original question, you can see that it would be much easier to describe the developmental path of a local context, but that would not paint a clear picture of the international phenomena we describe here as technology education. To do that I will have to lean on some of my friends who have their own contextual lens and perhaps together we can start to

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

get a clearer picture of the issues, trends, and themes that run through this otherwise seemingly diverse group of curricula. To address the developmental path of technology education this part of the handbook has gathered evidence and examples from the international community. Part I starts with an overarching view on the international developmental phenomena of technology education. Buckley’s chapter entitled “Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education” tackles the thematic issues addressed earlier and weaves a concise and logical map of the historical and philosophical roots of modern technology education. Following this map are four chapters that support Buckley’s findings by adding concrete evidence from England, China, Canada, and the United States. The major themes that Buckley reports are succinctly illustrated within the local context of these international jurisdictions. So how does Buckley start us off in the right direction? Buckley’s chapter will be of interest to anyone who is uninitiated to both the historical and pedagogical development of technology education. This chapter establishes a baseline of context for the rest of the section and much of the entire handbook. By dividing his attention between the historical roots and goals and the pedagogical variations that have accompanied the area’s development, Buckley has aligned technology education with the major shifts of thought that have happened over the last century or more in general education. Technology education’s history is traced from the Aristotelian non-dualistic idea of the inability to separate techne from episteme (doing and thinking) to the modern interpretation of a subject with a focus on the “interaction of mind and hand.” While Buckley does point to a strong philosophical base, he also highlights the historical issue of the subject being associated with non-academic pursuits, thereby generally giving the curricula a negative stereotype within educational settings. The close relationship with local trade, apprenticeship, and industry seemed at odds as researchers, administrators, and policy makers began to shift the area from vocational to general education and this inter-generational process has left the subject marked with various associated pros and cons. While these internal forces were working on transforming the subject from colloquial and exclusive to universal and inclusive, other theoretical and pedagogical developments exerted their own forces on the process. Technology education as a curricular subject does not exist in an educational vacuum. Buckley makes this clear when he stated that “the primary overarching shift has been from a predominantly behaviorist philosophy to a more constructionist philosophy.” The history of technology education’s idealized theoretical and pedagogical stances is well documented in this chapter, which outlines the changes from behaviorist to cognitivist to constructivist/constructionist pedagogy being favored as the foundation for supporting teaching and learning practices. He rightly notes that regardless of what stance is favored that it is possible, and probable, that technology education can still be delivered through a variety of ideologies—therefore reinforcing the tension of competing interpretations of the value of the subject. Buckley ends his chapter with a short discussion on the effect this shifting ground has had on the assessment methods that have been accepted in the past and others that are challenging their dominance. With the groundwork 10

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education

now established the remaining four chapters of this section detail and reinforce these developmental trends from the local contexts of England, China, Canada, and the United States. Atkinson’s reflective analysis on the development of design and technology as a national curriculum subject in England again strikes close to the themes identified earlier. In her chapter entitled “Design and Technology in England” she gives the reader a detailed account of the rise and fall of the subject from the industrial and educational influences of the 1950 and 1960s to local changes in educational governance and leadership that gave rise to the more centralized control of curriculum development and implementation during the 1970 and 1990s. These changes ushered in an era of “Craft, Design and Technology (CDT)” and its inclusion in the National Curriculum in 1990. She then follows the political tensions associated with the lack of resources, proficiency in teaching, accountability, assumptions of the epistemological weakness of the subject, and assessment that led to the revamping and renaming of the curriculum several times until it reached its current 2013 National Curriculum form. Notwithstanding this narrative of ups and downs, Atkinson leaves the reader with a hopeful vision of design and technology’s future as she outlines several initiatives and developments that may have a significant impact on the status and implementation of the subject. While England has a very long tradition and history of technology education other countries have a much more recent entanglement with the idea. Xu, Gu, and Williams outline such a case in their chapter entitled “Overview of Chinese High School General Technology Education.” Throughout this chapter the authors describe in detail the structure, organization, and hierarchy of Chinese general technology education over its relatively short fifteen- to twenty-year history. This national curriculum subject is very similar to other international curricular areas that include designing, making, and evaluating activities. They discuss how general technology is “based on practice, focusing on creating and embodying the integration of science, technology and humanities” and that there are multiple core literacies associated with its study. From this point they go on to describe the compulsory high school courses “Technology and Design One and Two” by outlining the associated assessment levels of achievement in relation to the aforementioned core literacies. To give readers an even greater understanding of what general technology looks like in the classroom, examples of three technical cases used with students are highlighted within the areas of discussion, experiment, and design and make. Xu, Gu, and Williams end the chapter with a succinct analysis of the Chinese implementation in relation to other international jurisdictions— noting many of the same issues and trends that are present in more established systems. While China’s implementation is very recent, they do share the characteristic of offering a national curriculum with centralized oversight with England, but not all countries share this reality as the next two chapters reveal. Canada encompasses a vast and diverse geographical region that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Artic oceans. This geographical diversity is also matched by a plethora of cultural, economic, and political views that are tied together to form a 11

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

national tapestry. A part of that tapestry is the fact that Canada has no national ministry of education and constitutionally education falls to the provincial and territorial governments. As Tuff and Gill point out in their chapter entitled “Decentralized Technology Education Curricula Development,” this has had an impact on the developmental pathways of the subject across the country. These developments could be viewed as a microcosm that paralleled international developments of the subject. As the national scope is so large, Tuff and Gill focus their attention on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In their chapter they outline how there was no vocational or technical education in the secondary school system until the late 1970s and early 1980s and then trace the subsequential legislative and curricular initiatives that were established and ushered in both elements of technology education and skilled trades for the students of the province. Again, this overview captures some of the recurring themes already presented of a lack of social capital, economic and political pressures, and a gap in teacher education and philosophical acceptance. Moving from this example the last chapter of this part addresses another decentralized system with more of an emphasis on several external forces that have influenced the direction of technology education. Strimel introduces the reader to the current conceptualization of technology education within the landscape of STEM and engineering education, from the context of the United States. His chapter entitled “Technology Education’s Place in STEM” summarizes the competing ideologies found within the rise of STEM and engineering education in and outside traditional technology education circles. This chapter relies heavily on identifying the ambiguity of technology education finding acceptance in state curricula since its shift from Industrial Arts in the late twentieth century. Strimel paints a picture of technology education’s place within school and the push to expand STEM which he describes as paralleling each other. He posits that this overlap has only weakened technology education’s prominence and is one factor that is presented for organizations such as the International Technology and Engineering Educators Associate’s (ITEEA) move to include “engineering” both in their name and the standards and curriculum they develop and support. From a classroom perspective, Strimel moves on to highlight the evolution of technology standards and the various pedagogical approaches that compete and can be misunderstood by practitioners, thus bringing to the reader’s attention the recurring theme of a lack of qualified teachers to teach the moving target that is technology and engineering education in the United States. With this all said, hopefully it is apparent to the reader that situating technology education within an international scope of general compulsory education is still not a straightforward task. While each of the chapters presented in this section emphasize the deeply contextualized nature of the subject there are also a group of shared themes. Many of the challenging themes center on what might be termed an identity crisis and could be viewed as a fatal weakness, but rather than problematizing the diverse nature of technology education, it might be better to take a more positive perspective. There is strength in diversity and this strength has been highlighted in this section by identifying a second set of themes that focus on common threads that could be considered binding. 12

Introduction to Conceptualizing Technology Education

Threads such as technological problem-solving, designing and making, student autonomy, strong connections to life beyond school, and the interaction of mind and hands all speak to unifying characteristics that cut through local differences. Or I could be wrong, but I challenge you to read ahead and make up your own mind.

13

Chapter 3

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education Jeffery Buckley

Introduction Technology education is still a relatively new introduction to general compulsory education curricula. Less like more established fields, such as mathematics or the natural sciences, there often still exists a degree of conceptual ambiguity or uncertainty which can underscore challenges to the status and position of technology subjects. For instance, it is not uncommon for external stakeholders to conflate the fields of technology education (which could be philosophized as thinking through technology and thinking and teaching about technology) with educational technology (the combined use of computational hardware and software with educational theory to facilitate teaching and learning generally). Further, within technology education a clear epistemological boundary—the nature and remit of relevant knowledge—can be hard to define as learning about technology can and does occur across many subject areas. Moreover, as technology education offers space to consider technological advances within society, there is a dynamic and ever-evolving body of knowledge for technology educators and learners to engage with. The vocational and/or handicraft history of technology education in many countries also provides a unique dimension to the field’s evolution and to current curricula within schools. While a vocational heritage may be a phenomenon shared across many countries, the varied nature of industrial developments internationally has, at least partially, resulted in varied manifestations of technology education curricula (cf. Buckley et al., 2020). Similarly, for instances where technology education has evolved from handicraft, cultural traditions have often shaped or influenced technology school curricula. As the field continues to evolve it is important that stakeholders have an understanding of its historical and philosophical origins so as to prevent reliance on dominant or prevailing assumptions. In a core text on this topic, de Vries (2016) notes the benefits of being familiar with the philosophy of technology, and I would contend these same benefits extend to having an understanding of its historical roots:

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

There are at least four reasons for technology educators to get acquainted with this discipline. The philosophy of technology can be a source of inspiration for determining the content of a curriculum, it can yield insights into how to construct teaching and learning situations, it can provide a conceptual basis and proper understanding of technology which can help technology educators respond to unforeseen situations while teaching about technology, it can help to position the teaching of technology among other subjects, and it can help identity [sic] the research agenda for educational research in technology education. (p. 7) Taking inspiration from the concept of constructive alignment, this chapter will focus broadly on four areas: (1) the vocational and handicraft history of technology education, (2) how goals of technology education have evolved as technology education transitioned from vocational to general education, (3) how pedagogical philosophies within technology education developed in response to these goals, and (4) how assessment practices have and are changing to ensure validity in capturing how technology students evidence their learning and capability.1 Concluding thoughts will be offered as a synthesis to the chapter and to problematize general future steps which readers can reflect on in terms of their relevance to different contexts. While generalizations will be made with respect to technology education internationally, specific developments from a number of countries, most prominently Ireland, will be cited as concrete examples of these generalizations. Importantly, this chapter focuses on technology education within secondary-level curricula (pupil ages ≈ twelve to eighteen). Technology education in many countries also exists at the primary level; however, this will not be discussed within this chapter. As the aim of this chapter is to contextualize developments in technology education and as technology education is arguably still within a period of philosophization, reflection on current relevant discourse will also be provided with respect to the developing intent of the field.

Vocational, Industrial, and Craft History When considering the current state of technology education internationally, much discourse describes the field as having evolved from vocational or handicraft education. Contemporary technology education, which often evokes quite strong constructivist and constructionist narratives, is frequently contrasted with the behaviorist epistemology and provision of vocational-technical education which emerged during the Industrial Age and in many countries persisted until the late 1900s to early 2000s. While mastery of craft remains an important object of learning for students of technology education today, aspects of the field such as nurturing and assessing designerly thinking or the negotiation of provisional knowledge are in stark contrast to the student experience of vocational-technical education. The origins of technology education, however, could be considered to date back much further than the Industrial Age, as the thinking of ancient 15

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

Greek philosophers offers much as a foundation for technology education discourse today. While discussed by other ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Xenophon, and Plato, the virtues of knowledge of epistêmê, which is often described as knowledge, or more specifically at times “scientific” knowledge, and technê, which relates to art, craft, or skill, as considered by Aristotle are of significant importance in how technology education is currently conceived. The Interaction of Mind and Hand process model developed by the Technology Education Research Unit (TERU) in the UK (Figure 3.1) for example is seminal to current descriptions of technological activity. Aristotle’s interpretation of technê was that it was not separable from epistêmê as it involved theoretical understanding, a synthesis which reflects the Interaction of Mind and Hand model. Aristotle’s view that technê and epistêmê could not be separated aligns much more with views associated with the design-based pedagogy prominent in today’s technology education than it does with the more purely vocational provision of technical education. So, it is perhaps useful to consider contemporary technology education internationally as having evolved through Industrial Age technical education or handicraft education, but as having evolved from much earlier thinking with respect to the nature of technological activity.

Figure 3.1  Interaction of mind and hand process model adapted from Kelly et al. (1987). 16

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

While technology subjects across the world tend to have emerged after a form of industrial or handicraft education, with subject areas including wood craft, metal craft, textiles or needlework, cooking, and mechanical drawing, this process occurred at different paces and points in time in different countries in response to changes in social and political values. To contextualize this process by example, Seery et al. (2011) provided a concise summary as it occurred in Ireland. Through charting a timeline of the development of technology education as it evolved from technical education, they explain how the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act of 1899 was an initial step, resulting in the establishment of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in 1900 whose remit included the development of technical education in Ireland. This was followed by the Vocational Education Act of 1930 which saw vocational educational schools being created at quite a rapid pace. In tandem with the political dimension of this journey, using graphical education to focus their discussion, Seery et al. (2011) also illustrated the progression from vocational to general education through evolving school curricula and changes to national assessment practices. Despite this process taking different routes in different countries, it is worth reflecting on this example to gain a sense of how educational policy and practice have typically interfaced into current formulations of technology curricula. Additionally, across different countries there were variances in the nature of initial technical education. For example, graphics or communication graphics, usually in the form of technical or mechanical drawing, was and remains the focus of a discrete subject in some countries such as Ireland, whereas it was not or was integrated within subjects focusing on craft in other countries such as Sweden. While it is important to understand and reflect on the idiosyncrasies within the historic roots of technology education across different countries, some general characteristics of early technical education are important to note when considering the current state of technology education. In line with social values at the time, technical education was traditionally viewed as being a place for male students, or at least within pools of subjects considered under the umbrella of technical education, certain disciplines were viewed as male oriented and others viewed as female oriented. For example, while there were no formal regulations stating this, in England and New Zealand boys who engaged in technical education were stratified into subject areas relating to wood and metal crafts with girls having to study subject areas relating to cooking or textiles. This mindset largely related to the position that technical education at secondary level functioned as a precursor to trade education or apprenticeships, which themselves were gendered. A ripple effect of this can still be seen in many countries today where technology subjects remain optional within general education curricula. Taking Ireland again as an example, while the gender gap in technology education uptake is slowly reducing, female representation in the national examinations at the end of lower-secondary education (pupil ages ≈ twelve to fifteen) remains in the range of 10–25 percent across the suite of four technology subjects. A further implication of the stereotyped narrative that technology education is for male 17

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Technology Education

students or that it is not for female students is the cyclical effect of gendered pedagogical decisions. If the students are predominantly male, educators may tailor their teaching to a male demographic thus further propagating a gendered stereotype for the field. Another generalization of traditional technical education is a perspective that it was non-academic or at least less academic than subjects traditionally found in comprehensive education such as the natural sciences, mathematics, and modern and classical languages. With learning objectives centering around vocational and craft skills, technical education was viewed as having less of a focus on cognitive skills and was thus considered to be of lower educational status. Even today, in most countries school subjects which have a more apparent focus on cognitive skills considered as “academic” tend to be held in higher esteem than subjects which appear more vocational. There are many negative implications for this, such as the negative stereotyping of technology teachers and students, the possible holding of lower expectations of technology students, and the lesser emphasis on technology within national curricula, or the broader STEM or STEAM remit. Strimel (Chapter 6 of this volume) elaborates on the relationship between technology education and STEM. Possibly one of the most negative implications of this narrative can exist when such views are held by students or teachers of the technology subjects themselves. Much like Aristotle’s perspective, technology subjects do intend to foster theoretical understanding of pertinent concepts and I would contend two things at this point: (1) that technological, designerly, and craft activity all involve and can be conduits for higher-order thinking and (2) that craft (the activity commonly stereotyped as characteristic of technology education and as being non- or lower-order with respect to cognition and thinking) offers a wealth of educational merit, including and beyond cognitive development such as in terms of conation and affect. However, there is a danger that, stemming from prevailing but under-evolved discourse, interpretations of the field by internal stakeholders could result in practices and learning outcomes more akin to technology educations’ predecessor, technical education, rather than the general learning outcomes viewed as important in today’s society.

Evolving Goals of Technology Education With the agenda of trying to mitigate such misinterpretations of the intent of modern technology education and in trying to facilitate thinking around the potential of technology subjects, it is prudent to contrast the historic goals of technical education with discourse on the contemporary goals of technology education. Technical education at secondary level in many countries initially began in forms of technical schools and was often separated from more general or comprehensive schools. Technical education and the pupils who attended these schools were often viewed as less academic in comparison to their general education counterparts, with pupils engaging with subjects that would typically lead to a trade, apprenticeship, or other vocational employment. 18

Historical and Philosophical Origins of Technology Education

The development of technical education was progressed to train pupils in areas of national or local need as opposed to general education which had a much broader remit and saw pupils usually having more options after the completion of their compulsory schooling. By way of example, in 2017 in preparation for a reform of Ireland’s technology education at lower-secondary level, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) published a document called “Background Paper and Brief for the Review of Junior Cycle Technology Subjects” which offers a brief review of the hist