5.1.1. Study 1. The Lego/logo Learning Environment in Technology Education: An Experiment in a Finnish Context

This study has been published in the Journal of Technology Education (1998 9(2)). It can be regarded as an introductory report of the Case Study I. The results in this study are presented generally. At this stage of my argument there are no detailed classifications of the contents of automation technology and of mathematical or scientific subject-matter.

The results of the Study 1 are as follows:

Assertion 1. (Main problem 1 and Secondary Problem 2)

The working of the pupils was controlled and guided mostly by themselves and the teacher’s role was more like tutor and adviser as needed.

Table 4. Emergent Categories and Operational Definitions.

Categories	Definition
Actors	Pupil as an individual actor or the pupils in mutual social interaction. Includes also the teacher or the researcher participating in social interaction.
Technological content	Content consistent with the theme of the experimental project.
Mathematical-scientific content	Content emerging from the group work as a natural tool to solve technology-related problems.
Group action occurrences	Discourse, mainly verbal, but also includes other noticeable action, which focuses on technological, or scientific content. Also includes the pupil"s independent action on behalf of the group and the final accomplishment (see Vygotsky in Wertsch and Toma, 1995, p. 163)

Table 5. Number of Group Action Occurrences by Time block: Teacher or Researcher Not in Group (TA) Versus Teacher in Group (TP).

	Time Block 1		Time Block 2		Time Block 3
	TA	TP	TA	TP	TA	TP
Technological Content
Pupil Acting Alone	5	9	19	2	23	8
Pupil to Pupil Interaction	20	9	45	11	45	21
Pupil to Pupil to Pupil Interaction	2	1	20	10	11	15
Mathematical-Scientific Content
Pupil Acting Alone	1	3	0	0	3	3
Pupil to Pupil Interaction	7	6	3	1	10	5
Pupil to Pupil to Pupil Interaction	5	1	1	0	1	1

The data in Table 5 clearly show that during the project work the pupils tended to handle technological and mathematical-scientific content mostly by themselves. This phenomena is especially obvious in action with the technological content and leads to the second assertion. (Järvinen 1998, pp. 52-54)

In order to clarify the rationale behind the use of the above tables the following explanation is presented:

During the first viewing of the video recordings, I began to form an idea of the emergent categories relative to the theme of the study. The resultant categories are reported in Table 4. The formation of these categories helped me to make the research process much clearer and structured. Moreover, and importantly, the categories were used to develop a matrix into which the number of Group Action Occurrences (GAO hereafter) could be logged during the subsequent rounds of data analysis.

One GAO stands for a one noticeable action occurrence between the children (TA) or between the teacher/researcher and the children (TP) that focused on technological or mathematical-scientific content (see the definition of the GAO in Table 4). Importantly, these occurrences are presented in terms of examples taken from the video recordings. One example stands for one GAO.

While logging the GAO, time was not the most important criterion. The most important criterion was that the logged GAO included either technological or mathematical-scientific content. As was written previously, the working of the children was not required to take place at a certain pace. The children knew the overall time reserved for working and they were free to decide how they used the time. Thus, there were periods in the children’s working which included only a few GAOs. On the other hand, a lot of activity could take place within relatively short periods of time.

Table 5 reveals the tendency for spontaneous child-‘centeredness’ in the project. This in itself can be said to be a result on its own right, for the use of a child-centered approach does not necessarily guarantee that the children are really doing something meaningful and important independently. The assertions and examples below demonstrate the GAOs logged in the table, and importantly, with the preliminarily emerging technological and mathematical-scientific content.

I think that the table presented above was a kind of quantitative diversion from a qualitative research process and I decided to limit its use to this study only. The results below, as well as the results of Studies 2 and 3, are more like outcomes of inductive, interpretative analysis. It is not any longer the amount of activity, but rather the meaning of the activity that is in the point of interest hereafter.

Assertion 2. (Main Problem 2.)

Technological content spontaneously handled by the pupils consisted of the elements of control technology, system planning, and at least rudimentary programming skills; this content can be commonly understood and transferred among the pupils acting in the social interaction.

The following example illustrates the situations where the pupils handled the content in accordance with the above assertion.

Ulla is sitting in the front of computer and says: “Now we have to write those commands...motorb..“ Kati advices Ulla and says: “Talkto motorb!“ Ulla begins to write and speaks to herself, “Talkto..“ Now Kati interrupts and writes the quotation mark in the right place (Talkto "motorb) and then she begins to ponder the connections made in the interface: “Motorb...is it really motorb?“ Now the third member of the group, Juuso, says: “It’s motorc“ Kati inverstigates the wires and agrees with Juuso: “Yes it’s motorc...hey Ulla it’s motorc!“

(Time block two; 5.B-class, 5^th group. Transcription from the video recording)

Interpretation

Ulla evidently understands the meaning of the commands in order to get the desired functions out of devices connected to the output section of the interface. Kati seems to know better the syntax of the programming language and thus helped Ulla in her writing. The whole group is involved in attempting to get the motor to operate in the desire manner. (Järvinen 1998, p. 54)

The above example and interpretation can be said to be in accordance; the example is a direct referent for the interpretation. However, the interpretation could have referred more to the assertion 2. Apparently, the general problem seems to be that the claims stated in assertion 1 are not very well substantiated in this particular example, nor in other examples intended to support assertion 2.

Assertion 3. (Secondary Problem 1.)

Mathematical-scientific content appeared to be used as a tool in technological-oriented problem solving and it was naturally applied by the pupils.

Considering mathematics, the focus was now only in situations where the pupils used arithmetic. Although situations dealing with higher order mathematics concepts such as spatial perception, proportionality, inverse proportionality, and symmetry were not included in this study, they were clearly in evidence among the children. Mathematics and science tended to be naturally used as tools for problem solving in the context of technology. Contrary to the normal situation in mathematics lessons, the children never asked why they were expected to learn certain content.

The following two examples illustrate the situations where scientific-mathematical content was used as a tool in problem solving.

Marko looked toward the girls and said, "Hey...do you know what? Let"s put more weight on this (Lego-car) and will accelerate better while going down the hill... and it would be nice to have some oil on the axle also." (However, oil was not used because of it"s messy nature.)

(Time block one; 5. B-class. Transcription from the video recording)

Interpretation

In this example Marko"s statements indicate understanding of the meaning of increased mass in order to increase the speed of the vehicle, a scientific concept. He also seemed to know the significance of the lubrication in decreasing the friction, something he may have learned from science or from practical experience. He clearly applied his existing knowledge and experience to this particular situation as tools for technological problem solving. The girls are passive participants but they intently follow Marko"s reasoning and knowledge transfer can be interpreted to have taken place. The pupil"s deeper understanding of the phenomena behind the increased mass or lubrication is difficult to prove, however.

Pirkko looks at the commands Marko has just written and stated, “Ten...you have programmed it (the motor) to operate for one second (ten equals ten tenths of a second or one second)“. Then Pirkko investigates the movement of the gate using her hand and measures the time by speaking aloud, “One, two…“ Marko also tries the gate with his hand and then continues writing the program while speaking aloud, “Onfor 10...wait a minute...oh yes...talkto motorb onfor ten.“

(Time block three; 5.B-class, 7^th group. Transcription from the video recording)

Interpretation

Here the conversation between Marko and Pirkko indicates their mutual understanding of the principles of the decimal system. Mathematics can be seen as an indispensable tool in technological problem solving dealing with programming. In this way mathematics appears to be natural and meaningful for the pupils; they do not question the need for it. (Järvinen 1998, pp. 55-56)

The first example and interpretation concerning scientific content are informative in many ways. Also, the interpretation is targeted to the main points. Marko’s understanding of the meaning of increased mass and lubrication in order to increase the speed of the vehicle indicate application of his existing knowledge and experience to this particular problem solving situation. In retrospect, the example can be interpreted a little bit further. Firstly, rather than learning the idea of lubrication in science lessons, Marko appears to have used the idea from his practical experience. In this regard “a scientific concept“ should be viewed in relation to the procedural knowledge and understanding of the phenomena (see McCormick 1998), which is obviously the case in this example.

Secondly, the example is interesting from the constructivist viewpoint. Marko has obviously acquired the practical knowledge that he applies from his socio-cultural environment and now, in this novel problem solving situation, he is constructing personal interpretations and meanings based on that information. These additional comments do not undervalue the original interpretation, but rather support it further.

In the latter example and interpretation there is some emerging evidence of the importance of mathematics as a vital problem-solving tool in technology. This time the ‘chain’ of assertion, example and interpretation works the way it actually should: The assertion claims, the example provides evidence and the interpretation reveals how the researcher(s) is/are able to interpret the data from the viewpoint of research focus. Interpretation is an essential part of the results. Actually, without interpretation assertions, and examples would be meaningless. It is the interpretations that give a ‘soul’ to the results in this kind of research. (Compare the above to the interpretation derived from the same example in Study 3, chapter 5.1.3)

More examples and interpretations on the assertions can be found in Study 1 at the end of this thesis.

5.1.2. Study 2. Automation Technology in Elementary Technology Education

This study has been published in the Journal of Industrial Teacher Education (2000 37(4)). Compared to Study 1, this study goes further in the analysis concerning automation technology. I also wrote a conference paper with Jukka Hiltunen (Järvinen & Hiltunen 1999). In the paper we focused the analysis on just one class and only the fourth time block. However, in Study 2 the analysis focused on two classes and the time blocks three and four. Thus, the results differ in terms of empirical assertion and more detailed classifications, as well as in terms of differing data examples and interpretations. Moreover, the data analysis that was carried out also for the third time block yielded one more classification; “closed loop control systems and the concept of feedback“.

The results of the Study 2 are as follows:

Empirical Assertion:

Although pursuing relatively less structured design challenges, the children spontaneously dealt with essential contents of automation technology. The children also have been observed to have at least procedural, socially shared understanding of the substance in the focus.

During analysis process, the following contents of automation technology were classified to emerge from the data corpus:

• using sensors and switches in the context of automation technology,

• open loop control systems,

• closed loop control systems and the concept of feedback,

• block-based programming and system configuration especially in the context of automation technology, and

• logic(al) operations.

Open Loop Control Systems

Open loop control systems appeared to be the most common form of control systems observed in the works of the children (Time block three: 12 groups out of 13. Time block four: 7 groups out of 7). The idea of open loop control systems were attained and accomplished in relatively simple works. They did not need complicated programming either, adequate programming was done even by using only two or three basic commands.

The following example illustrates one such situation in which students were involved in making open loop control systems:

The group had build an automatic door for the dog. Lotta presents the system to the whole class.

01 Lotta:

(“Leads" the dog [made out of Legos] by her hand) This dog is alone in the home while rest of the family has gone for a holiday and now it wants to go out and it passes light sensor on the way, which opens the door....the door is open for five seconds and then it closes....and when this dog wants to go in the house it have to push this touch sensor and the door opens again and the dog can go in.(Time block three; 5.A-class, 2^nd group. Transcription from the video recording)

Interpretation

In this example Lotta explains her a priori process knowledge: the dog wants to go out and come back again and the functions of the door built for the dog. In addition to her understanding of the application process and the meaning of sensors when automating this application process, Lotta"s explanations reveals the idea of an open loop control system. As a matter of fact, the idea is prevalent in both directions: when the dog goes out and when it comes back into the house. Although, in both cases the programmed system meets the requirements of an open loop control system, the solution presented by the group can not be found in teaching materials or curriculum guides. It is a unique piece of successful work based on children’s own ideas, their own contribution to the learning activity (Biesta 1994) and moreover, contextually connected to the (pet care) culture prevalent among the children (see McCormick et al. 1996).

Closed Loop Control Systems and the Principle of Feedback

Closed loop control systems were not commonly understood at a conceptual level. In spite of this some of the children had a procedural (‘device’) knowledge of the idea of closed loop control system and they also applied it in their work (see McCormick 1998) (Time block three: 3 groups out of 13. Time block four: 0 groups out of 7). In spite of the ideas coming from the children themselves, the teacher’s or researcher’s contribution was usually needed in order to achieve a fully functioning system. Interestingly, all closed loop control systems done by the children were achieved only in the third time block, but not in the fourth time block. This phenomena can be interpreted to be due, at least to some extent, to the design challenge in the fourth time block; doing home security systems simply did not prompt the children to tackle closed loop control system and the idea of feedback (Järvinen & Hiltunen 1999).

The following example illustrates a situation in which students worked with the ideas of closed loop control systems and feedback.

The group presents to the whole class their system built for the dog staying alone at home while rest of the family is having a vacation.

01 Lauri:

[Explains the system while Jennistiina operates the functions of it from the command center.] This is a doghouse and if temperature in there rises over 27 degrees [Celsius] this fan starts to rotate. [Takes a temperature sensor to his hand and begins to heat it up. Soon the fan turns on] So this fan turns on and it keeps rotating until the temperature is lower that 25 degrees. [Now he places the sensor into the doghouse just in the front of rotating fan.]

02 Researcher:

Yes, leave it [fan system] to wait until it cools up....and what is this another automation system there?"

(Transcription from the video recording)

The students’ programme was written as follows:

to tuuletin ("fan")
waituntil [temp1 > 27] talkto "motorb on
waituntil [temp1 < 25] talkto "motorb off
repeat 1 [tuuletin]
end

(Program copied from the group’s project file)

(Time block three; 6.A-class, 2^nd group)

Interpretation

This example illustrates those rare situations in which the children managed to do closed loop control systems in their work. The group had accomplished a system which controls a doghouse temperature to be in between 25 and 27 degrees elsius. Output (a rotating fan) gives feedback to the input (a temperature sensor) in order to keep the system in desired, appropriate condition. In explaining the principle of the system Lauri can be interpreted also to understand it (line 01). Actually, they have found out the very basic idea of the system known as a rule-based closed loop control. Importantly, procedural knowledge during the process and the final accomplishment is achieved through spontaneous action connected to the culture close to the children themselves (McCormick 1998, Suomala 1993).

Logic(al) Operations

Logic(al) operations, especially in the output-side of the system, appeared to be very common feature in children’s outcomes (Time block three: 12 groups out of 13. Time block four: 7 groups out of 7). When the children designed different functions for the Output, they managed to do conjunctions of different operations.

The following example is about the process where the children dealt with logic(al) operations.

In this example the group has developed the home security system to the phase they want to test it. The test goes accordingly:

01 Sara:

[Activates the system from the control panel] The thief thinks that it is just a piece of cake to go in to this house...and presses this [touchsensor] and then the thief is captured. [the door closes behind the thief]

02 Lydia:

[playing the role of thief] Cripes!...I got caught...and now the siren began to blare.

(Time block four; 6.A-class, 4^th group. Transcription from the video recording)

Interpretation

When the thief presses the touch sensor input is given to the system, resulting as a desired output and the thief is captured by the closing door (line 01). Moreover, the output consists of blaring siren, as indicated in the Lydia’s comment (line 02), indicating a logic(al) operation; IF(touch sensor)- THEN(door)AND(siren). There were no requirements posed by the teacher or textbook to use logic(al) operations in the work, and importantly, they were achieved in the spontaneous process (Suomala 1993) where the pupils’ pursue their own problem. Interestingly, in this case Lydia is prompted to play the role of the thief and thus she can be interpreted to be emotionally engaged in the situation (Lave 1988). This, although short, piece of process indicates context-dependent authenticity and enculturation took place in the process (McCormick et al. 1996).” (Järvinen & Hiltunen 2000, pp. 60-68)

The above example can also be interpreted from the general viewpoint of systems thinking. The children’s reasoning involves consideration of how every function relates to others (International Technology Education Association 2000).

Examples and interpretations of the other classifications of automation technology can be found in Study 2 at the end of this thesis.

5.1.3. Study 3. Meaningful Mathematics through Technology Education

This study has been submitted to School Science and Mathematics. Compared to Study 1, this study goes further in terms of more extensive, structured and detailed classifications and interpretations of the mathematical subject matter.

The results of this study illustrate how profoundly teaching automation technology is naturally saturated with a mathematical substance. Since this phenomenon is prevalent also in other activities related to technology teaching (Lindh 1996), it is quite surprising that there is not more collaboration between mathematics teachers and, for example “technical work“ teachers. This issue is tackled in more detail in the discussion of Study 3 (chapter 6.1).

The results of Study 3 are as follows:

Empirical Assertion

Mathematical content appeared in children"s work spontaneously and meaningfully when they applied it within the automation technology context in solving their own problems and they can also be interpreted to understand, mainly at procedural level, the mathematical subject matter they encountered.

During the analysis process, the following contents of mathematics were classified to emerge spontaneously from the data:

• decimal system,

• logical reasoning and thinking,

• symmetry,

• proportional reasoning, and

• three-dimensional spatial thinking.*

*Not supported by particular example, but rather interpreted to emerge throughout the process.

Decimal System

Example

The children are making an environment that enables the pet to survive alone at home. The group is just programming an automatic door for the dog.

01 Pirkko:

[looks at the command line Marko has just written] Ten...so you have programmed it [the motor attached to run the gate] to operate for one second.

Both Pirkko and Marko explores the movement of the gate by their hands.

02 Marko:

[continues programming and thinks aloud] Onfor 10....wait a minute...yes...of course...talkto motorb onfor 10.

(Time block three; 5.B- class, 7^th group. Transcription from the video recording)

Interpretation

The conversation between Pirkko and Marko seems to indicate their understanding of the principle of the decimal system (lines 01 and 02) [value 10 in programming language stands for one second]. They use this particular mathematical content as an indispensable problem-solving tool in technological problem solving situation (Adams 1991). Marko’s speaking aloud while writing program (line 02) indicates that he is at a stage where learning is assisted more by his own self and not any longer so much by the more capable peers (Gallimore & Tharp 1990). Importantly, the programmed value “onfor 10“ is neither a right answer to the textbook question, nor is it an answer to the question posed by the teacher. Rather, it is the most appropriate solution to the specific problem in which the children are engaged (see Lampert 1990, Franke & Carey 1997).

Symmetry

In making various constructions out of Legos the children seemed to have a natural tendency to symmetrical solutions. This phenomenon can be seen to be in accordance with all the symmetry that surrounds us, both in terms of human-made symmetry and also symmetry found in nature (Nagy & Darvas 1990).

Example

This example is from the group"s presentation at the end of the second time block:

to auki ("open")
tto "motora setleft setpower 5
tto "motorb setright setpower 5
tto [motora motorb] onfor 10
endto kiinni ("close")
tto "motora setright setpower 5
tto "motorb setleft setpower 5
tto [motora motorb] onfor 10
end

(Program copied from the group’s project file)

Figure 5. Symmetrical gate made by the group of children. (Still picture taken from the video recording).

(Time block two; 5.B-class, 6^th group)

Interpretation

In this example symmetry is prevalent at two "stages". Firstly, it emerges in the gate constructed by the children: the gate consists of two symmetrical halves and motors. Moreover, the lamps are symmetrically positioned as well. Secondly, the above program is written to be parallel to the construction. Provided the other half of the gate has been constructed differently, the program would also have to be asymmetrical.” (Järvinen & Karjalainen submitted)

Examples and interpretations of the other classifications of mathematical content can be found in Study 3 at the end of this thesis.