| Education about and through technology.: In Search of More Appropriate Pedagogical Approaches to Technology Education | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Next | |
The purpose of this chapter is to reflect upon both both of the Case Studies, as well as the general issues overlapping through the research. These general issues range from suggestions of more appropriate pedagogical approaches to technology education to reflective discussion of the research process including some ideas of possible future research interests. The discussion also reflects on credibility issues.
The results of this study support the notion that social interaction can be interpreted to promote technological problem solving and learning. For the most part the children taught themselves in an interactive social setting. Knowledge transfer among the children sometimes appeared to be apprenticeship-like in which expert know-how was transferred to the novice. This was not, however, the predominant phenomena. At least equally apparent were the situations in which the children acted more like peers and learned from one another. The teachers were not always in the role of omniscient experts but often were learners themselves. This supports the idea of teacher’s new role as a facilitator of learning and co-ordinator of learning environments where children can be active agents of their learning processes.
According to the socio-cultural interpretation of constructivism learning is understood to take place in the socially interactive context and is seen to be as a process of enculturation, whereby the learner participates increasingly in an authentic and context dependent activity (McCormick et al. 1996, Kooulaidis & Tsatsaroni 1996, Knuth & Cunningham 1992, Ernest 1991). Although the results show that the children were able to work in a collaborative and interactive way, the contributions by the group members were not equal. In spite of this, the final solutions could not have been achieved by just one member of the group. The final solutions consisted of a mixture of ideas, skills and knowledge which were brought together through constant discussions and negotiations in solving the emergent problems.
During Case Study I the Lego Dacta manuals were put aside in order to avoid having the children to copy and model ready-made solutions concerning construction and programming. This procedure derived from the notion that the children should be given opportunities to encounter authentic technological problems and to use their own creativity and spontaneous innovation in the process of solving those problems. Although many of the solutions accomplished by the children were rather simple in terms of mechanisms and programming, they were made by the children themselves and, importantly, raised from the needs significant for the children.
Programming the computer appeared to be the most difficult and frustrating to the children. This is partly due to syntax sensitivity of the Logo-language but also to the limited amount of time that the children had overall. In spite of the difficulties, programming was an essential part of the children’s work. It gave possibilities to apply mathematics naturally in authentic, child-driven problem solving situations. The programming also enabled a feeling of control over constructed devices and thus emphasized the meaning of appropriate commands and procedures in order to make automated systems. Even though the teachers played a more active role in the programming portion of the activity, it did not seem to lessen the constructivist nature of the learning situation. The children were not always able to proceed independently and had to be supported. However, this is in accordance with the constructivist notion of learning in which an individual takes information from the environment and constructs personal interpretations based on prior knowledge and experience. The children used the knowledge they gained from the teacher by applying it in new situations. Moreover, the knowledge was negotiated and transferred among the children.
One possibility to overcome the problem of syntax sensitivity could be a more icon based programming software in which the children could use appropriate icons to achieve the desired functions. Actually, Lego has recently introduced the Mindstorms Robotics Invention System and RoboLab construction sets in which the programming can be done by using picture icons (see Lego Dacta 1998). It would be interesting to make comparisons between these two ways to program; to what extent does programming with the icons make it possible to avoid the frustrations caused by writing the commands and procedures with a syntax sensitive programming language? Do the children then have essentially more energy to orientate their enthusiasm, interest and thinking towards the general principles and logic of automation technology?
The issue mentioned above causes at least two dilemmas. Firstly, from the viewpoint of education about technology, if the aim of technology teaching is to open the ‘black boxes’ of technology, i.e. to make technology transparent and understandable to children, to what extent does the use of icons only reveal the logic of programming behind the icons themselves? Are children just users of an attractive graphical interface, but have no idea of the programming that is needed to create the picture icons? Consequently, there might be just more ‘black boxes’ around children. Moreover, is simplifying the learning environment always a reasonable thing to do? This question does not mean that the children should not learn in a pleasant and easy way, but it aims to ponder the issue of authenticity of school learning in relation to the reality outside the schools. If the learning environments are reduced to the easiest and simplest level, there might not be very much authenticity left for the children to experience and thus the learning is far away from the real-life situations (see Honebein et al. 1993).
Secondly, the question is if there will be a growing demand in the future for people capable of making use of and applying prefabricated graphical interfaces effectively and creatively in order to create useful systems and subsystems? If so, the value of sheer “typed“ programming could be interpreted to have diminished as a relevant skill taught in the schools.
Considering technology education in a larger context, the Lego/Logo learning environment is handicapping in many ways. For example, it does not introduce a very wide range of materials and the constructions must be done within the limits of the Lego components. This restrictive element of Lego construction was obvious in terms of the solutions bearing striking similarities to the previous artifacts. For example, the children applied the ideas of gate and peat conveyors from the second time block to the third time block. Some of the solutions were almost identical to the previous ones, some slightly modified. For example, there were automatic doors (gates) and feeding devices (peat conveyor).
The above-mentioned phenomena can also be understood in a positive way. The children applied and made use of previously assimilated experiences and knowledge in new problem solving situations. The final solution does not always need to be totally new and original. A workable response to an emergent need should be the most important criterion. Moreover, in order to act like a technologist one does not need to be constantly innovative. For instance, the ancient Romans are known to have been capable of applying and modifying previous inventions to meet their practical purposes and needs (Lähteenmäki 1990).
On the other hand, an advantage of the system is that it consists of components with which most children are already familiar from early childhood. The study found that the children seemed to be somewhat amazed when the learning environment was introduced in the first place. Their reactions could be epitomized as follows: “Are we going to play with Legos in the school?“ The ‘Lego world’ of a child’s room at home appeared to be transferred to the school with the comfortable, relaxed atmosphere. This phenomenon was undoubtedly due to the absence of conventional tests and the anxiety that usually accompanies them. This is consistent also with the thoughts of Ausubel and Robinson (1973) regarding the creation of an appropriate atmosphere for solving problems that is low in stress and allows concentration on the task at hand.
Importantly, mathematics, but also science turned out to have an important role as a problem-solving tool in the technological processes. This is consistent with the reality where mathematics, science and technology are entwined together. However, it has to be admitted that the learning situations and experiences that the children went through did not develop children’s understanding of physics very much in a scientific sense. The children did not use scientific language and concepts, nor did they act according to the processes typical of scientific inquiry. The children simply did technology and acted correspondingly. In this respect there are no possibilities to claim that the children were taught to understand the meanings and structures in physics according to definitions within the scientific community (Kurki Suonio & Kurki Suonio 1994). For example, the children did not deal with the issues of friction and mass in the way in which physicists tackle the concepts. In spite of the emphasis on children’s procedural (‘device’) understanding in technology lessons (McCormick 1998), the connections between science and technology teaching are important, even inevitable.
Actually, well-established and properly designed collaboration could contribute positively to both fields of education. A scientific viewpoint could bring some deeper insights into the phenomena in the focus. For example, the science teacher could arrange a workshop where the children’s experiences about the increased mass speeding up their Lego ‘soapbox’ cars would be questioned and challenged by experiments of falling objects in a vacuum. On the other hand, the children’s practical and meaningful experiences, together with the feeling of usefulness in technology lessons could be transferred to a positive attitude towards science. Children with positive attitudes and cognitive drives to learn science, as well as mathematics, form a fertile ground to make science more interesting, acceptable, and even more understandable to the children.
The results of this study show that the children became familiar with some essential aspects of automation technology. The children found an idea based on their own needs and they were able to make use of automation technology. This observation was especially true considering the need to understand the meaning of sensors, the importance of programming in order to make useful systems and as well as the idea of open loop control system. However, children’s skills were not always at the level of their ideas. Quite often the teacher and researcher in the role of a tutor in the need, were needed to achieve the final accomplishment.
One of the most remarkable results of this study was the motivation and task orientation of the children. When the work was based on the problems found in their own life, they seemed to have an ownership and emotional engagement over the task at hand. This phenomena is in accordance with the ideas presented by Savery & Duffy (1995) and Lave (1988). However, at the same time, their work consisted of the classified contents of automation technology and interestingly, without any use of textbooks, worksheets, manuals or the like. Although the children mainly worked on the basis of procedural knowledge, or device knowledge, their knowledge reflected “as much of the context of the device (e.g. its operation) as any abstract knowledge taught in science” (McCormick 1998, p. 7). Moreover and importantly, they participated in the process of the technological development in order to meet one’s needs and wants (Hacker & Barden 1988). Although children’s knowledge and skills were far from complete in this regard the children seemed to be successful.
The children can be interpreted to spontaneously acquire procedural ‘device’ knowledge, and to learn to act like a technologist in many ways:
they created something which has not existed before,
their knowledge and skills developed in the course of the experiment and were applied in forthcoming problem solving situations,
they transferred knowledge and skills among themselves in expert-apprenticeship-like situations and
they acted on the basis of social or individual needs thus carrying out the true nature of technology. (Järvinen & Hiltunen 2000, p. 69)
In technology lessons, the action itself, as well as its understanding, are most important. Teaching technology should not begin with the introduction of conceptual jargon, but with design challenges which enable children to come across the underlying technological principles spontaneously while engaged in the learning activity (Papert 1980, Suomala 1993). Technological principles encountered by the children at procedural level can be conceptualized later on.
From the viewpoint of automation technology in general, it is essential for children to understand the differences between the two systems (open and closed loop control system) as well as their most appropriate fields of use according to their differing principles. Children should also be capable of applying the knowledge and skills of automation technology that they acquire to problem situations that arise from their own needs. Based on their needs, they should be able to design and implement simple control systems and they should also be able to explain their usefulness, intended use and working mechanisms as fully as possible.
The purpose in Case Study I was not to teach and do science and mathematics with the children. Rather, the main purpose of the technology teaching was to familiarize children with automation technology, and to apply automation in the problems that were identified from their own living environment and experiences of life. However, mathematics also emerged to be one of the key issues in the course of the children’s work. As the results of this study indicate, the children encountered the classified contents of mathematics and ‘had to’ use them in order to accomplish their work. Essentially, the children could not have been able to work and succeed in the way they did without the use of mathematics.
Importantly, most of the mathematics appeared spontaneously and naturally and in a form that the children did not recognize. Much of the mathematics was disguised in the ‘cloak’ of other activities. This was obvious in spite of the fact that the children did not make workbook exercises on mathematics, nor did they work under the pressure of traditional school evaluation practices. This seems to indicate how profoundly saturated our world is with mathematics and gives it the importance it deserves in technological problem solving. The children never asked: “what is this math for...do we really need it?“. Actually, natural and meaningful appearance of mathematics in the children’s work is in accordance with Adams’s (1991) thoughts of mathematics being one the most important tools for an engineer. Also, in modern technology education mathematics could naturally have an important role as a problem-solving tool. As a matter of fact, even in general (not vocational!) technology education mathematics is valued from the quite utilitarian problem solving point of view (Laridon 1996).
However, not everyone agrees with the use of real world problems in order to teach mathematics (see Fordham Foundation 1998). One might argue that this kind of ‘utilitarian’ perspective on mathematics does not help to teach the subject itself? It has to be emphasized here again that the purpose of this study was to teach automation, not mathematics. As indicated above, the children confronted, at least to some extent, similar concepts and problems of mathematics which are to be found in the actual mathematics lessons. Take the decimal system, for example. Although the decimal system did not appear as a complete system in the teaching, an essential feature of it was handled by the children: one second consists of ten tenths of a second.
Consequently, the results of this study suggest that increased collaboration between teaching in technology and mathematics could be mutually beneficial. This can be achieved through substantial parallelism between the ongoing contents of mathematics taught and the themes in technology lessons. If, for example, the decimal system is in the focus in mathematics lessons, the technology teacher should take this into account in terms of tasks that offer a considerable potential for children to apply it spontaneously in their work. On the other hand, when there are certain themes planned to be taught in the technology lessons, the mathematics teachers should be well informed about the plans in order to adjust teaching according to those themes.
Most importantly, acquired mathematical knowledge and skills should be given possibilities to ‘come to life and flourish’ ’in real world, authentic problem solving situations (see Laridon 1996, Ernest 1991). However, mathematical tools have to be mastered, at least to some extent, before they can be applied appropriately in technological problem solving. For example, in playing piano, some basic rules have to be learned before proper playing is possible, not to speak of being creative in combining different techniques.
In technology education, children themselves may be better at defining appropriate learning outcomes than are shown in textbooks or teaching manuals. This also fits to the idea of having meaningful mathematics through technology education, as the children tend to deal spontaneously with mathematical content in their work. Moreover, mathematics was not done by following the rule laid down by the teacher, nor were the answers [solutions] ratified by the teacher. (Lampert 1990, Franke & Carey 1997).
Owing to the important role of mathematics and science in the development of modern technology, they have to be taken into account in a technology education curriculum. Otherwise, the technology education would not reflect the real world around us. This is true in spite of the fact that there can be found various interpretations about the relationship between technology and mathematics and science.