Curriculum conceptions of technology: Theoretical insights from National Education Policies in Brazil, Korea, and the United States

Abstract

Despite its ubiquity in modern life, there presently exists no consensual agreement on what technology is exactly. Striving for theoretical advancement and clarity, this grounded theoretical paper comparatively considers how technology is explicitly defined or implicitly conceptualized in the national education policies of three different countries: Brazil, Korea, and the United States. Serving as a source of theoretical insight, curriculum conceptions of technology are considered in light of scholastic philosophy and academic theorizing about the nature of technology. It is described how curriculum conceptions of technology varies in terms of alignment with humanities-or engineeringoriented philosophical perspectives on technology, in terms of society-centeredness (technology-society relations) or learner-centeredness (technology-self relations), and in terms of prioritizing preparation of informed users or producers/creators of technology. Despite such variations, several common themes are noticeable, including a strong emphasis on the latest technologies, the creative side of technological design, and a tendency to conceive of technology computationally. It is argued that comparing the national curricula of different countries offers a unique opportunity to examine diverse perspectives on technology and potentially advance deliberations about its nature. International comparison also provides a broader and richer context for theorizing about the ontological status of such an important and yet elusive human endeavor. K E Y W O R D S curriculum conceptions, national policies, nature of technology, philosophy and history of technology, technology in the curriculum 1 | INTRODUCTION Whether integrated across the content areas or taught as a separate school subject, technology has become an integral part of the school curriculum. Across the globe and the K-12 grade spectrum, educators have increasingly recognized and capitalized upon the potential of information and communication technologies to pedagogically support student development and learning of academic content like science (Krajcik & Mun, 2014; Oliveira et al., 2019). Students, in turn, have come to learn largely through technological representations (e.g., digitalized images and interactive inscriptions) and can now learn about technology itself with the recent emergence of new school subjects such as computer science in countries like the United States. In curriculum development and policy-making circles, if the question is "What knowledge is most worth?", the answer is likely to include technology. Its ubiquity in education has been celebrated by some scholars who have argued that technology can radically transform and improve schooling (Dede, 2000; Mcdonald & Ingvarson, 1997) and help make it more inclusive to displaced and underprivileged populations worldwide (UNESCO, 2018). In contrast, others have lamented this rapidly

Emergency Remote Computer Science Education in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts and Strategies

“…Researchers have argued that the academic curriculum must be developed with the use of technology. For instance, according to Oliveira, Schneider, and Kim (2020), by promoting technological literacy the students will become familiar with the latest technologies. Although the authors have already warned about little attention on this theme, ERE has added several barriers in the Brazilian context.…”

Investigating Middle School Students’ Conceptions of Technology: The Effects of Gender and Grade Level

“…Nevertheless, the rapidly-changing technology influences both individual and social life, and potentially determines current and future needs. In this case, it can be argued that students should obtain adequate knowledge, skills, attitudes, and habits in this field to capitalize on the opportunities and potential benefits brought about by technology and technological advancements and avoid being excluded from technological developments (Dasgupta et al, 2019;NRC, 2011;Oliveira et al, 2020).…”