6.3. General issues to be discussed
This chapter aims to make some general statements and suggestions about teaching technology. Importantly, the discussion is intended to be useful also within other activities in technology education, i.e. not only concerning teaching automation technology, or to make noisemakers. My argument is that the discussion below can be applied regardless of the content in focus.
According to the results of both the Case Studies, the socio-cultural constructivist approach appears to be natural and effective in organizing learning, especially in technology education. One of the most important things in education is to adjust the pedagogical approaches according to the nature of the content. When the content is technology, it is essential that children can have a feeling that they are pursuing their own needs, wants and purposes and what is significant and meaningful to them. In this regard the design briefs and task allocations should be open enough to allow children to explore their own living environment in order to find problems that need to be solved (Schwarz 1996, Lehto 1998) and given changes to apply technological knowledge and skills they have previously acquired (Adams 1991, Lindh 1997).
Also, as described earlier in this thesis, technology can be regarded as an inherent part of human activity, which is driven by the very fundamental human nature, the will. In this regard, pedagogical approaches adjusted according to the nature of technology take naturally into account that children are treated as active, intentional and goal-directed humans whose activities are driven by the human volition or will. When participating in the activities, the children were actors in the process where they constructed the technological reality on the basis of their own needs and ideas. This phenomenon was especially prevalent in the third and fourth time blocks (Case Study I) where the problems given to the children were the most open-ended. Actually, it can even be said that the children participated in the process of technological development, the human endeavor that has existed since the dawn of the human race (Hacker & Barden 1988, Barnes 1988, Vohra 1988).
In all of the studies, the tasks presented to the children were designed by adults. In this regard the starting points were not entirely child-centered. Actually, an overly child-centered approach is one of the pitfalls for constructivism (Ernest 1995) and we did not want to fall in to that pit. Importantly, there has to be a certain direction in the learning activity. That direction could be set by curriculum, for example. However, the task allocation should be open enough for children to formulate their specific problems to work with and accomplish solutions unknown in advance (for example Järvinen & Twyford 2000). This does not mean that the requirements of curriculum are not intended to be attainable.
Regardless of the media used in technology education, it is essential that children are encouraged to work and learn in a way that fosters innovation with creativity and discovery (Futschek 1995). To promote effective learning, the emphasis has to be on appropriate pedagogical approaches and in relating the problems to the children themselves. On the other hand, the teacher has to be sensitive in his/her intervention and not assist too much or too early. Children’s problem solving should be given time to develop and mature on its own. Here the teacher’s role is reduced to the kind of educational ‘detective’, who is capable to uncover the situations where children really need help and assistance in order to progress further (Tudge 1990, Gallimore & Tharp 1990).
According to the most radical idea of constructivism (von Glasersfeld 1993, Schwandt 1994) there is no reality that exists outside the individual; he/she has to perceive and experience the outside world personally in order to formulate it as his/her individual reality. Moreover, since the reality is in the ‘eyes’ of the observer, there can be said to be as many realities as there are observers. Also, no one can claim that his/her way to perceive the outside world is the only correct one. The world consists of various and alternative ways to see and experience it.
Similarly, there is not just one right answer to be found in technology. No one, not even the teacher, can claim that ‘my technology’ is the only correct solution to a given purpose. There might be a wide variety of alternative, equally appropriate and useful solutions. Moreover, the actual needs and purposes vary even if the staring point is the same (see Case Study I; Time blocks 3 and 4). Thus, at least to some extent, the technological reality we create represents our understanding, mental construct, of the world and the needs we notice in that world.
Consequently, in technology lessons, there should not be any right answers, or constructs, to the posed questions. Rather, there should be appropriate solutions to the emerging problems. Thus, in technology, truth could not be found in the same sense it is pursued, for example, in science or mathematics. These perspectives have also been agreed on by the Committee for the Future/The parliament of Finland as follows: “In technological fields, teaching cannot be geared towards finding the correct answers. There simply are no correct answers to the questions asked” (Järvinen cited by Suurla 2001, p. 64, also Järvinen et al. 2001) In this way children can be real contributors in the learning activity (Biesta 1994) and the learning structure can be efficient in terms of procedural knowledge acquisition, but also meaningful.
The above notions lead to the essences of technology. There would not be a technological reality around us if we had not, literally, constructed it. Epistemologically, technology is a human construction. When we construct technology, say a technological artifact, we also form a mental representation of it. Also, technology created by the others is embedded in our minds as mental constructs. Importantly, in technology lessons there could be a huge potential for constructivist learning activities, and not only in the sense of concrete doing, but also in the terms of learning processes to develop higher thinking skills and innovative problem solving.
What could the above mean in practice? In addition to the reported outcomes of the children’s work, I will take one more imaginary but realistic example from the context that is familiar especially in Finland. In traditional handicraft education one of the topics of working has been and still could be to make a ‘sauna ladle’ that is meant to be used for throwing water onto the stove. At the end of the lessons everybody has made a well-finished ‘sauna ladle’. The children have assimilated a great amount of new skills and knowledge concerning the working techniques and modes on differing materials: wood for the handle, copper for the ladle, iron for the rod between the handle and ladle. Some qualitative changes in the cognitive structure may have taken place in relation to the handling and forming of the materials. For example, the child might have thought “I should not use the hammer in this powerful way when forming the copper ladle, but rather in a more sensitive way to avoid breaking the soft material.“ Thus, by comparing and manipulating the assimilated experience-based knowledge, the child has changed his/her hammer handling procedures accordingly.
However, one might say that “in our long and narrow sauna the stove and seating area are in the opposite ends of it. Thus the ladle, although nice in appearance, is just useless piece of work. With this ladle water will be thrown more to the floor and walls than to the right address, the faraway stove.“ (in this regard see Kankare 1998, p. 127) So, what to do? Here ‘convergent’ handicraft education could change to ‘divergent’ technology education. Instead of following meticulously the instructions of making a sauna-ladle, the problem could be posed as “how to get water to the stove in a very long and narrow sauna?” Now the answer is not necessarily the ladle anymore, but through the process which takes place in a meaningful and interactive context-specific situation, alternate solutions to the emerging problem could be found.
In the problem-solving situation posed above, previously acquired knowledge, skills and experiences alone do not guarantee that the solution is found. Nor does the constructed know-how about the properties of materials. What is needed here are new ways of (divergent) thinking, a kind of cognitive storm, which, firstly clears “the table“ of the burden of traditional (convergent) thinking and all prescribed solutions in relation to the problem in the question. Secondly, the mind is needed, from the perspective of this particular problem, to be structured again. In this re-construction, the open problem is now targeted with all that tremendous potential of previous knowledge, skills and experiences that one has accumulated during his/her personal history. Without the restrictions of a prescribed design brief, the cognitive structure goes through comparisons and modifications in the process of seeking the most appropriate and useful solution to the context-specific problem.
Personally constructed knowledge, skills and experiences which will be utilized in the solving of the ‘water to the stove’ problem could be drawn from a child’s past as follows: During the problem solving process one might connect for example the knowledge of water pipes and the experience of a small stream carrying his/her small boat downwards into a workable solution: attach a slightly descending water pipe to the wall of the sauna, the upper end of the pipe in the seating area and the lower end just above the stove. In order to make pouring the water to the pipe easier one might add the idea of a cone (possibly he/she has seen home-made juice to be poured through a cone to the bottle) and construct the upper end of the pipe accordingly. When actualizing the idea in a real functional solution, one needs to use several materials and various techniques and modes. In the problem-solving process described above, the mental construct of the idea precedes the physical solution. The final solution that is made is, in a way, located in two places: it is, in terms of a reconstructed mental construct in the child’s mind, as well as a functional physical solution located in the sauna. Moreover, everybody in the family could proudly enjoy the ingenious fruits of the child’s technological problem solving.
Interestingly, intellectual activity during the time of the Renaissance contributed positively to the development of technology (see Adams 1991). Actually, the lack of intellectual activity has been one of the dilemmas in Finnish handicraft education. For example, in many cases it “has been said to include more copying and reproducing processes....than modern design oriented processes“ (Alamäki 1999, p. 39). Traditionally, handicraft education focuses on mastering certain specific skills and techniques. Thus, in the concept of “technology“ only “techne“ (skills) seems to be prevailing.
I would like to encourage technology teachers to try open-ended, constructivist ideas of teaching in their classroom practice. This kind of teaching might require a little bit more work and preparation time. It might also require the teacher to take new perspectives and reject some of the old modes of thinking. But it is certainly rewarding in many ways. When the final outcome of children’s problem-solving processes is unknown in the design brief, it is not boredom, but rather a thrilling anticipation that lingers over the technology lessons. Moreover, it would be fruitful if the teachers could develop a kind of opportunistic attitude to look constantly around in order to find authentic and meaningful problems to be solved by the children. This kind of opportunism requires certain amount of sensitiveness to notice emerging possibilities for technological problem solving situations.
Knowledge and skills acquired at school should be useful, meaningful and applicable outside the school setting. From the perspective of technology the children should be educated to be aware of technological reality around them, to be sensitive in noticing possible problems to solve and capable of applying acquired technological knowledge and skills to those problems. Understanding the logic and functional mechanisms of everyday technology are also considered to be essential features of technological capability. (Morrison & Twyford 1994, Lindh 1997)
Since the schools are not acting in a ‘vacuum’ void of connections to the real outside world, the curriculum should ensure that children are systematically given skills and knowledge to cope with the socio-cultural environment in which they are already living and going to live in the future. This environment also consists of the outcomes of human intelligence and skills in terms of technology, mathematics and science. (see Stenhouse 1976, Benjamin 1975, Mc Cormick 1994). Thus the contents, but also the methods of teaching should be under a constant state of evaluation; how do they relate to the real world. Skills and knowledge taught in the schools should be meaningful and useful in everyday life, they should be applicable in a wide variety of different contexts and transferable to be used even in the future working life. Here the question is essentially about proper and up-to-date enculturation as well (McCormick et al. 1996).
In the above regard, the human made environment should not be forgotten. I am confident that this thesis has made a sufficient emphasis on this. However, recently, I have been thinking of bionics as an area to combine nature and technology in education. In retrospect, I think we did not explore the idea of bionics to the extent it deserves. There would be lots of fruitful opportunities for collaboration, even integration, between biological and technological education. If technology is taught through the multidisciplinary approach, bionics could give an enormous potential to introduce the children to the surrounding environment on a much broader level.
6.3.1. Open vs. prescribed problem solving
If children are working according to prescribed instructions, the working methods and the final outcomes are already known at the beginning of the process. This has been, and to an unfortunately great extent still is, the case in traditional handicraft education. This kind of repetitive process is like moving along a very narrow platform which leads to a certain product or solution. Moreover, children have rather few opportunities to apply previous knowledge, skills and experiences while working in the narrow problem-solving platform. Even if some personal and unique, more appropriate and useful ideas come across their minds concerning the task in hand, they are still restricted to follow instructions.
Thus, in addition to the need to do something and possessing appropriate skills and knowledge to progress in task accomplishment it is also important to enable children to proceed in an open problem-solving platform. Although open-endedness is quite naturally achieved when children’s work is based on problems arising from their own meaningful needs, it might be useful to explore this idea a little bit further. Open-endedness in task allocation should mean that nobody knows exactly what the actual outcomes will be at the end of the process. The solutions are not found in the teacher’s manuals, answer books or the like, and thus every situation is new and unique even for the teacher. Consequently, the problem solving process is really an interactive, mutual endeavor between the children and the teacher.
When the problems presented to children are open-ended in nature, there are more opportunities for applying previous knowledge, skills and experiences in the process, which finally leads to unique, personal outcomes and solutions. Moreover, there might be even more possibilities for discovery learning and re-construction of cognitive structure, not to speak about social interaction between children and also between children and teacher. Due to the traditional prescribed pedagogical approaches, as in traditional handicraft education, children can feel truly open ended tasks a bit confusing, especially so because not even the teacher can tell where the process lead and what would be exactly the right answer. Thus, also children need to be educated to encounter learning situations where they have to consider various possible ideas, test them and select the most appropriate one as the final solution. In this way they would act according to the technological processes (Layton 1993). In this respect, the process can be seen to progress in an open platform, not restricted by the narrowing limits of prescribed instructions (see Fig. 7.). However, it is essential that the process in which children are engaged has a certain broadly defined direction. Significance and meaningfulness to the task comes with motivation, volition or will, arising from the need to do technology.
Thus, open ended, though clearly focused, teaching approaches are recommended in design and technology education. They give children wider possibilities to make connections to their previous experiences and knowledge, especially in order to create original and innovative designs and products.
The teaching model based upon inquiry and discovery is offered as a means of structuring children"s acquisition of design knowledge and understanding so that their different views can be addressed, accounted for or let be. Within a given project useful interaction and acknowledgment of children"s experiences can be established when teachers and children:
find out which ideas children already have about a problem, issue or situation being dealt with respect to designing;
know what children think should happen, for which reasons and with which words they can use to explain or describe design issues;
take children"s ideas seriously;
give them the opportunities to try out their ideas by investigating the issues, objects or situations for themselves;
challenge children in discussion to find evidence for their own ideas, especially by ensuring that children talk through their ideas;
organise discussions so that different ideas about the same things can be brought together;
enable children to become aware of ideas which are different from their own and to try them out;
offer a designer"s view of a problem or brief allowing children to explore its value for themselves.
provide challenges for children to use or modify ideas in trying to solve different problems, as well as to make sense of new experience.
Moreover, it is vital that children are encouraged to become interested in the explanations which their classmates or others may give for certain events or tasks in design. Knowing how to respect the views of others is part of learning in technology. (Järvinen & Twyford 2000, pp. 37-39)
6.3.2. Credible or not?
While considering the credibility and quality of qualitative analysis at least the following issues, according to Patton (1990), have to be taken in to the consideration:
1) rigorous techniques and methods for gathering and analyzing qualitative data, including attention to validity, reliability and triangulation;
2) the credibility, competence and perceived trustworthiness of the qualitative researcher; and
3) the philosophical beliefs of evaluation users about such paradigm-based preferences as objectivity versus subjectivity, truth versus perspective, generalization versus extrapolations and theory versus action. (p. 491)
Since the data gathering methods focused on authentic situations where the children were engaged in real technological problem solving, the data appeared to be rich in terms of such detailed information that would be impossible to acquire by using quantitative methods. Literally, the children’s social interaction ‘spoke’on its behalf. When the child expresses himself/herself verbally in intentional authentic activity he/she reveals attitudes, knowledge, skills in the form that might be difficult to find out by traditional examinations or tests.
In qualitative inquiry it is essential that the whole report is written in such a way that the reader can understand what happened in the scene and why. According to Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 279) it is important that “the account “rings true“, makes sense, seems convincing or plausible, and enables a “vicarious presence“ for the reader“. This requirement is hopefully satisfied through a detailed account of both of the Case Studies.
The credibility of qualitative research is also dependent on the external reviewers; can they agree with the presented results and interpretations, do they accept the methodological perspective and methods of inquiry used in the studies? In a way, the journal reviewers have been taking part in the interpretative analysis process when giving suggestions, feedback and proposals for corrections. In short, this research process was done openly within the scientific community and was constantly revised along the way. The above-mentioned notion of reliability is correspondent with the thoughts of Patton (1990, p. 462): “The qualitative researcher has an obligation to be methodological in reporting sufficient details of data collection and the processes of analysis to permit others to judge the quality of the resulting product“
The credibility of the research was also enhanced by two kinds of triangulation. Firstly, multiple data collecting sources and strategies were employed. Data were collected by means of group observations documented in a field diary and video recordings. The field diary were written on all of the groups and were done partly by the help of dictating machine recordings. Moreover, the groups project files, including the written programs, were saved and copied to a floppy disc to be used in the analysis. As reported in chapter 4.3.1, I encountered some unexpected difficulties to collect some of the data in a completely consistent way. In this regard multiple data collection methods were very important indeed. (see Miles & Huberman 1994, Wiersma 1986). Secondly, the concept of triangulation was also achieved through investigator triangulation (Cohen & Manion 1986, Ritchie & Hampson 1996, Denzin 1988). This was true not only in terms of multiple observers, as in Case Study II, but also through other investigators who participated in the interpretative analysis process.
The concern of external validity is generalization. Because the analysis process was qualitative in nature and based on examples of activities taken from a relatively small number of people, there are not very much possibilities to make generalizations in the traditional sense. Actually, the research did not aim to generalize the findings, but rather to understand the learning processes of the participating children. However, there are some features within the Cases that might offer possibilities for increased external validity. Wiersma (1986, p. 256) states that “the external validity can be enhanced by including variations of the research context in the same study. For example, if writing instruction in the elementary school is being studied, including two or more elementary classrooms in the same study would increase external validity.“ There were two classes participating in two of the three studies conducted within the Case Study I (Studies 2 and 3), and consequently, the results are of those classes. In this way, it is a well-justified claim that the external validity was better in the Studies 2 and 3 than in Study 1 where just one class was in the focus of analysis.
In Case Study II there were also, on the Finnish side of the study, two classes participating in the making of “noisemakers“. However, in the UK context there was only one class taking part in the activities. Because the teaching approach differed considerably between Finland and the UK, it cannot be claimed that the external validity was enhanced by three participating classes. Rather, I would say that external validity was more substantial on the Finnish side of the study, because there were two classes taught with similar instruction.
However, enhanced external validity does not mean that the results of the Case Studies can be ‘taken out’ of their context and generalized in other classes or schools in Finland. Rather, the results are about the participating classes. I do not see this as a problem for the thesis does not aim to make any generalizations, but to gain in-depth information about the participating classes. (Patton 1990, Radnor 1999)
Wiersma (1986, p. 255) notes that researchers conducting naturalistic, qualitative research “are not very much concerned about whether or not others could replicate their studies.“ The results of this thesis are only about singular cases carried out in the unique context of particular field schools. Both of the Case Studies belong now to the past and it will never be possible to generate identical case, but only cases which might have some similarities with the ‘original’ one (Golby 1999). However, what is seen to be important are the possibilities to replicate the data gathering and analyzing methods. In order to make this possible for others the researcher is obliged to a complete account about the research process. In addition to the rather detailed account, I have described the research process also in terms of “the structure of the research process“ (see Figure 4.). Importantly, the figure did not precede the research, but was formulated during the course of the process. It can be used to structure similar kinds of research activities regardless of the phenomena in the focus, and this is where, at least to my mind, its value and contribution lies.
Because the researcher himself/herself is the instrument in qualitative research, the report must include some information about him/her (Patton 1990). I have explained my background, position and interests at the beginning of the research. However, it is quite difficult for me to evaluate whether the information that I have given is sufficient or not. Thus, it is the reader who shall make the final judgment about this issue.
Have I been subjective during the course of research? I was closely involved in the activities in both of the Cases. Especially in the case of teaching automation I was truly immersed in the scene. Actually, I rejected purposefully the traditional notion that keeping at a distance from those in the focus of the research increases its objectivity. In this regard, I agree with Patton (1990, p. 480) “distance does not guarantee objectivity; it merely guarantees distance“.
But how did my role and relation to the children develop during the course of the research? When the data collection started, I was not any longer in the role of the class teacher, as I had been prior to the project, but in the role of a participant observer and tutor in the need. I was an outsider in the class and I did not share everyday school life with the children in the same way as the class teacher did. Did I lose something essential because of my role? Would it have been better to have a class of my own and be more like an ‘insider’ during the activities? The dilemma is twofold. Firstly, if I had been collecting and analyzing data in the role of a class teacher, I could have had possibilities to be a little bit more sensitive in data collection knowing each child in a more comprehensive way. But, on the other hand, I could have been too sensitive by targeting data collection procedures to those children that I might have thought would be good informants from the viewpoint of the research problems. Then, data collection would have been biased and the validity of the research decreased. Thus, I think in the role of an ‘outsider’, I was better able to aim the data collection evenly among a larger number of children. Here I mean especially situations where I, equipped with pen, paper and dictating machine, visited the working groups.
I am confident that my role was suitable from the viewpoint of carrying out in-depth qualitative research. Importantly, at the beginning of the data collection, I told the children that I was collecting data for my own research purposes and I would not be showing any of it to the teacher, nor to their parents. I also told the children that they were not going to be evaluated in any way, nor could their teacher use any of the data for evaluation purposes. Moreover, I mentioned that in order to secure anonymity all the names of the children were to be treated as pseudonyms. I think the children trusted me, and during the course of the time blocks began to consider me as a ‘natural’ part of their school environment. This is evident, for example, in the video recordings; the children discussed issues that were apparently not intended to be heard by their teacher.
6.3.3. Closing remarks
It is quite amazing how little influence the nature of the subject matter seems to have had on technology teaching in general education. In many countries teaching materials are still rather descriptive and the outcomes of the children are well known beforehand with only marginal variations. Thus, the question is; do the children then really have any motivation to work with a feeling that they are pursuing their own needs, wants and purposes? If not, then something very essential is missing about technology itself.
According to the major research task, more appropriate pedagogical approaches to technology education were under consideration and development. During the course of the research process many interesting theoretical insights emerged, and these were subsequently tested on practice. Even though this thesis is not an ultimate and complete answer to the questions raised during the research process, I am confident that it has been on the ‘right tracks’. My hope is that the recommendations and proposals presented earlier would offer food for thought for the future development of this field of education.
One of the purposes of this thesis was to produce evidence about the impact of technology education on children’s learning processes. Although there is still a need for a lot more research to be done, the results in this thesis can be regarded as a starting point to explore further the children’s problem solving processes in technology. There seems to be some initial evidence concerning what it means for children to be educated about and through technology. Educating about technology, i.e. taking the human-made environment into focus, was evident, for example, in terms of meaningful connections to the automation around us. While the children in Case Study I worked on the basis of their needs, they were educated about technology in terms of increased procedural understanding or device knowledge (McCormick 1998) concerning the basic principles of automation. In the proceedings of the PATT-9- conference de Vries (1999 p. 150) writes accordingly: “In the study by Esa-Matti Järvinen and Jukka Hiltunen we find evidence of an impact on the pupils’ understanding of underlying principles for the case of automation as part of Technology Education.” Moreover, the children were educated through technology by giving them possibilities to act like technologists, i.e. to create something useful on the basis of their needs, wants and purposes.
In spite of the fact that the Finnish handicraft education, at least “tekninen työ”, appears to be in the phase of re-evaluating contents and methods (see Alamäki 1999) it still seems to provide a rather narrow framework for comprehensive technology education. In this regard, a useful way to introduce technology education to the Finnish schools, at least on the primary level, could be through a multidisciplinary approach. Due to the loose guidelines of the curriculum framework, there are possibilities, in spite of the preferences in handicraft education, to profile both the contents and methods through cross-domain activities. Actually, I would claim that technology can be an umbrella concept for almost all school activities. For example, in Case Study I automation technology was not taught solely within the framework of handicraft education, but rather through cross- domain activities for both boys and girls. Similarly, in Case Study II, all the activities in making “noisemakers“ took place through a multidisciplinary approach. Here, the question is about the profile chosen for the school curriculum. However, if the multidisciplinary approach is taken, serious consideration should be given to the true nature of technology and its processes. Otherwise the essence would be obscured.
A further problem in the Finnish educational handicraft is that in practice it effectively separates boys and girls. Although “tekstiilityö“ might be oriented too much artistically, there is also a potential for real technological activities, in which the students’ thinking skills and technological problem solving processes are fostered as efficiently as in “tekninen työ“ lessons. Importantly, all the aforementioned issues could be appropriate approaches to ‘textile’ education as well. In fact, technological processes overlap through different materials. They are commonly encountered and accomplished in a wide spectrum of technological activities regardless of the materials used (Open University 1987). The main focus of handicraft education should not be anymore solely in producing artifacts or workpieces but, rather, move towards offering general all-round awareness and capabilities about technology.
Actually, one way to implement technology education in Finnish schools could be by introducing a new school subject called “technology“. Further, even though this may be a radical idea, it could be worth of revising the contents and methods in both of the current handicraft subjects, “tekninen työ“ and “tekstiilityö“, and merge them together in order to create one broad, comprehensive technology education which would be equal for both boys and girls. This new subject should actively seek opportunities for collaboration with other related subject areas such as mathematics, science, and environmental studies (Kantola 1998), or even history.
During the course of the research process I started to ask myself why technology education should be developed and taught only in the framework of handicraft education. This is still an acute dilemma for me, in spite of the fact that various differing approaches in technology education have their origins in a craft-oriented approach (de Vries 1994). However, from the viewpoint of this thesis, the dilemma is by no means the most essential thing. The thesis has focused, true to its title, on developing more appropriate pedagogical approaches to technology education.