Subject(s) matter: a grounded theory of technology teachers’ conceptions of the purpose of teaching technology

Author:

Doyle AndrewORCID,Seery NiallORCID,Gumaelius LenaORCID,Canty DonalORCID,Hartell EvaORCID

Abstract

AbstractTechnology 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.

Funder

University of Waikato

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Engineering,Education

Reference50 articles.

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3