1.1. Background

Finland has a valuable and internationally revered history in education. It has been influenced by many contributors and developers. One of the most notable forerunners of his time was Uno Cygnaeus who developed the idea of educative handicraft. The legacy of Cygnaeus seems to be still widely apparent in Finland. Numerous Finns have basic skills to use various tools in order to build, say, summer cottages and even their own houses.

Nowadays Finnish general education still has handicraft education [“käsityö“] as a school subject. In practice, it is divided into two separate subjects: textile work [“tekstiilityö“] and technical work [“tekninen työ“]. They are taught as compulsory subjects from the third grade of primary education. Then, due to the possibility of choosing either “tekninen työ“ or “tekstiilityö“, the first is mostly taken by boys and the latter is widely regarded to be the girls’ domain.

At primary level woodworking is the most common technological area in “tekninen työ“ (Alamäki 1999). However, at secondary level more machines and tools are used in order to produce artifacts and workpieces. Metal, wood and plastics are still the most popular materials, even though electronics and computers have also been introduced recently. (Kananoja 1994b). Similarly, machines, tools and, increasingly, computers are used in “tekstiilityö“ and the outcomes are artifacts and workpieces. Nevertheless, the materials differ from those used in “tekninen työ“. ”Tekstiilityö”, true to its name, uses textiles as the main materials. In this regard, the subject “tekninen työ” undeniably covers a wider spectrum of the materials used in the technological world. Moreover, the contents taught and activities carried out in “tekninen työ” correspond to the idea of technology education in many countries (Alamäki 1999).

However, from the viewpoint of this thesis, translating “tekninen työ“ as technology education (see http://alasin.rokl.utu.fi/) is problematic and cannot be regarded as fully justified. Actually, technology can be regarded a much wider concept consisting of the entire human-made environment. Thus, “tekninen työ“, with all the possible developments in its methods and contents, still represents only a fraction of the technological reality around us. Moreover, the framework of the subject is still in handicraft education focusing more on the learning of specific manual skills within the range of various techniques (sawing, nailing, welding, cutting, etc.).

In fact, from the viewpoint of the present general education curriculum in Finland, no single school subject alone can claim to represent technology in a comprehensive way. De Vries (2000, p. 3) writes that “In Finland, as in a number of other countries, there is a danger that either Technology Education will be equated with crafts or technical work, or that it will be equated with (applied) science. Both are misconceptions and need to be corrected.”

From the viewpoint of general technology education, the problem in the Finnish curriculum lies both in contents and methods. The Compulsory education curriculum does not take fully into account the meaning and importance of the environment which we have developed on the basis of our own needs. Children in schools are not systematically made aware of technology around us.

Due to the latest developments related to a Finnish core curriculum, guidelines are rather loose, providing only a brief framework. Because of this, schools can be freer and more flexible in how they orientate their contents, practices and aims. Consequently, there are good opportunities to develop and carry out technology education across the curriculum, especially through a multidisciplinary approach. As a matter of fact, all technology education activities in the studies on which this thesis is based were carried out through technology oriented teaching across several school subjects. In spite of the multidisciplinary nature of the approach, the main focus in all the studies was to teach technology, not for example, simply applied science or handicraft.

Although a general technology education curriculum has been already introduced, for example, in the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands, it is a relatively new concept in the field of general education. It is still in a constant phase of development through revisions and amendments. This is partly due to the rapid pace of development of the subject matter itself.

Environmental education has a widely agreeable position in the Finnish compulsory education curriculum. It is seen as important to know about the surrounding natural environment and the relationship of man and nature in terms of appreciation and caring. Interestingly, in recent environmental and science education teaching materials, there are some references to technology. For example, the principle of the combustion engine is in focus (Aho et al. 1995). However, this can be regarded only as a marginal and not satisfactory solution to the present situation. Considering the meaning of the environment that we have made by and for ourselves, it is rather surprising how little attention it attracts in curriculum development. In spite of technology’s immense influence on society and individuals, it has not been considered important enough, in its own right, to be taken as an essential subject matter in the Finnish general compulsory education curriculum. Although computer skills and browsing the Internet are widely agreed to be important and relevant in a general education, they only represent a narrow ‘using technology’- approach.

The aforementioned problems are illustrated also by the Encyclopaedia Britannica on-line (1999):

The recognition of the importance of technological education, however, has never been complete in Western civilization, and the continued coexistence of other traditions has caused problems of assimilation and adjustment. Arthur Koestler put the same point in another way by observing that the traditionally humanities-educated Western man is reluctant to admit that a work of art is beyond his comprehension, but will cheerfully confess that he does not understand how his radio or heating system works. Koestler characterized such a modern man, isolated from a technological environment that he possesses without understanding, as an "urban barbarian." Yet the growing prevalence of "black-box" technology, in which only the rarefied expert is able to understand the enormously complex operations that go on inside the electronic equipment, makes it more and more difficult to avoid becoming such a "barbarian."

(http://members.eb.com/cgi-bin/g?DocF=macro/5006/17/75.html&bold=on&sw=education&sw=technology&keywords=technology%20education&DBase=Articles&hits=10&pt=1&sort=relevance&config=config&firsthit=off)

Whether we want it or not, a technological reality surrounds both ‘barbarians’ and technologically literate citizens. Transportation, communication, construction and health care are just a few examples of the technologies encountered in our everyday life. We carry out most of our daily routines by using various technological products and appliances. (Hacker & Barden 1988)

Technology has changed considerably the world in which we live. In fact, it might be difficult to live without the benefits of technology. Also, the development of technology has substantially changed our habits and routines. Most of us are in a constant “adaptation“ process: a very short time ago we queued in bank halls with a handfuls of bills, now we are paying bills at home through the Internet. Due to the development of WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) technology, in the future we will increasingly do our banking through mobile phones totally regardless of time and place. What comes next? This gives us food for thought; do we really need and want all this? Nevertheless, technology has been considered to be a response to the human needs and wants (Kimbell et al. 1996). In short: “necessity is the mother of invention“, but who decides what is necessary?

The development of technology has been quite often dependent on mathematics and science and vice versa. The relationship between technology and mathematics and science has actually strengthened during the past two centuries. For example, the precursory work of Isaac Newton contributed to the Industrial Revolution. Also, it was the findings of sub-atomic particles that gave birth to nuclear power and electronics. Moreover, the origins of modern digital processing are in the binary system developed by mathematicians. All these are still relevant and useful ‘ingredients’ for further technological development even at the beginning of a new millennium. (Teerikorpi & Valtonen 1994, Spielberg & Anderson 1995)

Skills and knowledge in technology have been transferred through generations in the course of history. The first occurrences in teaching and learning technology could have been very occasional and strongly contextualized activities. For example, ‘Stone Age man’ could have taken his children on a hunting trip and shown them how to make effective weapons. During the course of time more organized ways to teach technology were developed. The apprenticeship system within the Medieval Guilds was already rather well organized. However, more widespread teaching of technology began with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Emphases in teaching methods and contents have varied considerably and are connected to their historical contexts. The purpose of teaching has been more or less according to the requirements posed by the surrounding environment, i.e. by society, the industrial life and so forth. However, the notion about general technology education for all has emerged quite recently (Layton 1994, Banks 1994). It is this development that this study aims to contribute to and to support.