Knowledge Types in Technology

This paper tells the story of how two biotechnologists used models, one working as a technologist and the other as a scientist. These stories were collected during the development of the key ideas about the nature of technology and technological knowledge during the latest curriculum development in New Zealand. Their stories of how and why they used models provided insight into the different role of modelling in technology and science. This difference can be linked to the fundamental difference between technology as a discipline that attempts to intervene in the world and create something other, and science as a discipline that attempts to explain the world. The stories illustrate the differences in the purpose, outcome and the underpinning reasoning across technology and science. We suggest that using such stories supports learning about the nature of technology and the nature of science and provides an opportunity to add a critical dimension to the development of technological literacy and scientific literacy.

Section: Why Modelling?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding modelling in technology and science: the potential of stories from the field

Compton

Gilbert

2010

“…According to Gardner (1994Gardner ( , 1995, the determination of a definition for the word 'technology' is complex because of the variations in meaning that exist within the English language to explain it. Indeed, Hansen and Froelich (1994) argue that the German word 'Technik' provides a better understanding, an idea highlighted by, for example, Ropohl (1997) and Norman (1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This is no less the case for the word 'technology'. The term technology is not well defined nor its scope delineated and this is generally seen as problematic (Barnett 1994;Black and Harrison 1995;Ropohl 1997;Evans 1998;Yeomans 1998;Barlex 2000;Owen-Jackson 2002a). As indicated by McCormick, ''the nature of technology is not easy to pin down, and the definitions that exist do not give us much guidance as to what activities it includes' ' (1990, p. 45) and by Medway ''the term technology itself is unhelpfully fluid' ' (1989, p. 3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology and Design, at Key Stage 3, within the Northern Ireland curriculum: teachers’ perceptions

Gibson

2007

Technology and Design was introduced at Key Stage 3 for all pupils in Northern Ireland, as a result of the Education Reform (NI) Order in 1989. Central to the process of introducing this new and compulsory subject, the government spent in excess of £167M to make provision for the subject in all post-primary schools. This paper explores the perceptions of teachers of Technology and Design (known as Design and Technology in GB) in post-primary schools throughout Northern Ireland to the introduction and implementation of the subject. The methods involved a questionnaire survey to all teachers of Technology and Design throughout Northern Ireland (n = 587) and one-to-one interviews with 24. Findings suggest that teachers consider Technology and Design to be a worthwhile subject and believe that it adds much to the educational experience of the pupils involved. Nonetheless, there is general acceptance that difficulties surround the whole issue of subject definition and content delineation. As a consequence, significant demands are placed upon these teachers as they work to ensure that all pupils are given a worthwhile and valuable learning experience. These findings are discussed in terms of teachers' perceptions of subject definition, delineation of subject content, the nature of the work involved and issues related to academic ability.

“…The levels of knowledge are structured from less to more conceptual: artisan skills, technical maxims, descriptive laws, and scientific theory (on two levels). This approach was supported and developed by Mitcham (1978), Ropohl (1997) and others. Mitcham (1978) changed the level called scientific theory to one called technological theories, so that technological theories were placed at the highest level of technological knowledge:…”

Section: Levels Of Generalisation Of Technological Knowledgementioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the Carpenter-Mitcham approach to technological knowledge, the issues of rational/non-rational and the role of values are not, but should be seen as implicitly incorporated. Ropohl (1997) expands the Carpenter-Mitcham classification by adding socio-technological understanding to state values explicitly. As a result he distinguishes five types of technical knowledge (i) technical know-how, (ii) functional rules, (iii) structural rules, (iv) technological laws, and (v) socio-technological understanding.…”

Section: Levels Of Generalisation Of Technological Knowledgementioning

confidence: 98%

Knowledge and Values in Technology Education

Pavlova

2005

This paper addresses two closely interrelated issues in Technology Education: knowledge and values. The starting point for the discussion is analysis of the nature of knowledge in technology education. Approaches for theorising knowledge will be analysed in this paper as well as problems associated with them. Three major types of problems are identified: problems with finding an appropriate approach for the analysis of technological knowledge; problems with a technocratic interpretation of technological knowledge for the purpose of its classification; and problems with establishing a consistent approach to distinguish common features of technological knowledge. A model that represents knowledge in technology education and the place of values in it is presented as a way of overcoming the problems specified. The claim is made that understanding of knowledge/values relationships can improve theoretical understanding of how technology education can be constructed.