PrologFöreläsaren hade kommit till slutet av 1700-talet och ångmaskinens intåg. Det hela rörde teknikhistorisk utveckling och jag var intresserad eftersom jag själv hade undervisat om de viktiga steg teknikutvecklingen tagit, de nya uppfinningar som sett världens ljus och i kraft av sin genialitet och sitt genomslag ofta påverkat både oss människor och vår omvärld på ett genomgripande sätt. Där jag förväntade mig en inträngande redogörelse för övergången från intern till extern kondensering av ångan, från enkel-till dubbelpåverkad cylinder och kanske lite ytterligare heroiserande av James Watt, bröt föreläsaren av i en annan riktning. Först uppfattade jag inte riktigt det hela. Det var som om det slank ur honom lite ur mungipan: "… men egentligen så är ångmaskinen ingenting utan sin gruva eller sin järnväg." I den fortsatta föreläsningen avhandlades så teknikens beroende karaktär -både av sin egen utvecklings historia, sin genes, och av sin inplacering i en samtida omgivning, människorna inkluderade.Allt tog en ny vändning. 4 Tack!Under de ganska många år jag arbetat i grundskolan, vid lärarutbildningen och på CETIS (Centrum för tekniken i skolan), hade jag succesivt jobbat upp en kunskapstörst. Det fanns så mycket jag ville veta om teknik. Forkarutbildningen vid Fontd erbjöd en möjlighet att få stilla en del av denna.Tiden som doktorand har inte enbart varit ett ensamföretag. När jag blickar tillbaka, ser jag den långa rad av människor vilka på olika sätt varit oumbär-liga för att jag skulle komma framåt. Alla ni är värda ett tack, nämnda som onämnda.Till mina båda handledare vill jag sända ett särskilt tack. Det har varit inspirerande, lärorikt och bildande att ha universitetslektor Thomas Ginner som huvudhandledare -och även roligt! Varmt tack, Thomas! Du har betytt oerhört mycket. Som biträdande handledare har universitetslektor Jan-Erik Hagberg spelat en viktig roll. Strategisk och lugn, uppmuntrande och stilsäker. Det har varit givande och trevligt att lära känna dig, Jan-Erik.Institutionen för beteendevetenskap och lärande (IBL) vid Linköpings universitet stödde mig i beslutet att söka doktorandtjänsten, och har stöttat mig under tiden. Det är jag tacksam för! I avhandlingsarbetets olika faser har några personer lyssnat på mig, läst mina texter och bidragit med viktiga inspel, riktningsangivelser och ifrågasättanden. Professor Glenn Hultman visade mig både på spår som jag borde vandra, och spår som jag borde undvika. Professor Kerstin Bergqvist, professor Lars Ingelstam och universitetslektor Magnus Hultén var diskutanter på mina "procentseminarier". Tack till er! Jag vill också tacka alla i Fontd, men speciellt vår administratör, Anna Ericson, och de av mina kollegor som har intresserat sig för teknik -inte minst Maria Svensson och min "partner" Lasse Björklund, med vilka jag diskuterat system. Tack, alla doktorandkollegor, seniora forskare, svenska och internationella fö-reläsare i "Rockelstadgruppen"! Det är viktigt att känna en gemenskap -och att ha skoj.De personer som befolkar CETIS är oerhört vikti...

Technology education is a new school subject in comparison with other subjects within the Swedish compulsory school system. Research in technology education shows that technology teachers lack experience of and support for assessment in comparison with the long-term experiences that other teachers use in their subjects. This becomes especially apparent when technology teachers assess students’ knowledge in and about technological systems. This study thematically analysed the assessment views of eleven technology teachers in a Swedish context. Through the use of in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews, their elaborated thoughts on assessing knowledge about technological systems within the technology subject (for ages 13–16) were analysed. The aim was to describe the teachers’ assessment views in terms of types of knowledge, and essential knowledge in relation to a progression from basic to advanced understanding of technological systems. The results showed three main themes that the interviewed teachers said they consider when performing their assessment of technological systems; understanding (a) a system’s structure, (b) its relations outside the system boundary and (c) its historical context and technological change. Each theme included several underlying items that the teachers said they use in a progressive manner when they assess their students’ basic, intermediate and advanced level of understanding technological systems. In conclusion, the results suggest that the analysed themes can provide a basis for further discussion about defining a progression for assessing students’ understanding about technological systems. However, the findings also need to be examined critically as the interviewed teachers’ views on required assessment levels showed an imbalance; few students were said to reach beyond the basic level, but at the same time most assessment items lay on the intermediate and advanced levels

Technological systems are included as a component of national technology curricula and standards for primary and secondary education as well as corresponding teacher education around the world. Little is known, however, of how pupils, students, and teachers conceive of technological systems. In this article we report on a study investigating Swedish technology student teachers' conceptions of technological systems. The following research question is posed: How do Swedish technology student teachers conceive of technological systems? Data was collected through in-depth qualitative surveys with 26 Swedish technology student teachers. The data was analysed using a hermeneutic method, aided by a theoretical synthesis of established system theories (system significants). The main results of the study are that the technology student teachers expressed diverse conceptions of technological systems, but that on average almost half of them provided answers that were considered as undefined. The parts of the systems that the students understood were mostly the visible parts, either components, devices, or products such as buttons, power lines, hydroelectric plants, or the interface with the software inside a mobile phone. However, the 'invisible' or abstract aspects of the technological systems, such as flows of information, energy or matter, or control operations were difficult to understand for the majority of the students. The flow of information was particularly challenging in this regard. The students could identify the input and often the output of the systems, that is, what systems or components do, but the processes that take place within the systems were elusive. Comparing between technological systems also proved difficult for many students. The role of humans was considered important but it was mostly humans as users not as actors on a more systemic level, for example, as system owners, innovators, or politicians. This study confirms previous research in that the students had a basic understanding of structure, input and output of a technological system. Thus, the adult students in this study did not seem to have better understanding of technological systems than school pupils and teachers in previous studies, although this is in line with previous investigations on the general system thinking capabilities of children and adults. The most important implication of this study is that students need to be trained in systems thinking, particularly regarding how components work and connect to each other, flows (especially of information), system dependency, and the human role in technological systems.

In technology education, assessment is challenging and underdeveloped as it is a nascent practice and teachers do not have a well-defined subject tradition to lean on when assessing students. The aim of this study is to explore Swedish secondary technology teachers’ cognitive beliefs about assessing students’ learning of technological systems, in relation to the assessment tools they use. Data for the study were collected through a questionnaire which was completed by 511 Swedish technology teachers in lower secondary education (grades 7–9). The data were analysed statistically in three main steps. Exploratory factor analysis revealed underlying dimensions in teachers’ cognitive beliefs, which was followed by correlation analysis to discern associations between dimensions of cognitive beliefs. Finally, comparisons were made between groups of teachers to discern how teachers’ cognitive beliefs are influenced by their experience and educational background. The results show that additional education in the technology and engineering fields relates to more positive cognitive beliefs concerning teachers’ ability to assess students’ learning of technological systems. Teachers’ cognitive beliefs about assessment therefore did not primarily relate to the content of technological systems per se but to increased engineering and technology competence more broadly, which may indicate the importance of a comprehensive technological knowledge base in order to be confident in assessment. Furthermore, strong cognitive beliefs about assessment were connected specifically to local, regional and national technological systems, which are generally well-known and visible types of systems, and to the human, socio-technical dimensions of the systems. Cognitive beliefs about knowledge for assessment were also associated with positive attitudes to assessment tools that followed the formative tradition, which may be explained by the prevalence of procedural epistemic practices and modelling in the design and understanding of technological systems. Technology teachers would need additional in-service courses in engineering to broaden their knowledge and increase their cognitive beliefs about assessment. Formative assessment should also be preferred, and it might be appropriate to begin teaching and assessment with well-known local and regional infrastructural systems with a clear socio-technical dimension.

No abstract