| Education about and through technology.: In Search of More Appropriate Pedagogical Approaches to Technology Education | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Chapter 2. The theoretical stance on the research | Next |
In this chapter the summarized nature of technology (chapter 2.2.) is viewed in relation to the recent developments in the educational sciences. The purpose is to explore how some current theoretical learning concepts positioning children as active agents of their learning processes could be considered in search of more appropriate pedagogical approaches to technology education.
In general, this viewpoint derives from the somewhat self-evident notion that humans are not passive, but active constructors of knowledge and meanings as well as intentional and goal-directed agents of their behavior (Schwandt 1994). Constructivism itself cannot be seen as a learning theory, but can be regarded as “a philosophical view on how we come to understand or know“ (Savery & Duffy 1995, p. 31). In this regard constructivism is more like a concept of learning, or a framework for education. Although there are various interpretations of constructivism around, they all can be bound together like Ernest (1995), referring to Spivey 1995, says:
The metaphor of carpentry or architecture (or construction work) is about the building up structures from pre-existing pieces, possibly specially shaped for the task. What methaphor of construction does not mean in constructivism is that understanding is built up from received pieces of knowledge. The process is recursive, and so the “building blocks“ of understanding are the product of previous acts of construction. Thus, the distinction between the structure and content of understanding can only be relative in constructivism. Previously built structures become the content in subsequent constructions. (p. 461)
Although written within a new nomenclature, the basic idea of “constructivist“ learning derives from Piaget’s dissatisfaction with the theories of knowledge and epistemological issues available during his time (von Glasersfeld 1995). Piaget (1952) developed two concepts, assimilation and accommodation to describe the learning process in children’s interaction with the environment. Firstly, in the case of assimilation, children’s cognitive structure (schema) incorporates new experiences and knowledge from the environment. Consequently, quantitative changes take place in the children’s thinking. Accommodation is ensued by the full integration of the new information. Cognitive organization is either modified or totally replaced in the process of comparing and manipulating new information to the old information. If the old structure is not compatible in relation to the new one, a more appropriate and useful new structure will be created and consequently qualitative changes take place in the children’s minds. Thus, just incorporating new knowledge is not enough in terms of the cognitive growth of children, but rather, the process needs to go through comparisons and manipulations, preferably taking place in a meaningful interactive context.
The implication of Piaget’s theory is that the learning is an active process where individuals construct their information structure in interactive settings. As a corollary, this viewpoint emphasizes the notion that the child should be the subject of learning rather that object of teaching (Vygotsky 1997). Moreover, the information that teachers distribute is not necessarily acquired by the learner in a similar form. The same information might engender various interpretations in different children.
Piaget’s theory of learning is epitomized in terms of the constructivist notion of learning. It frames learning as an active, continuous process whereby the learner takes information from the environment and constructs personal interpretations and meanings based on prior knowledge and experience (von Glasersfeld 1995, see also Papert 1980). Thus, the learner is not a passive receiver of the information, but rather, an active agent having a substantive responsibility for the learning processes (Savery & Duffy 1995). This idea of learning challenges the behaviorist stimulus-response approach where the distributed knowledge is tested in traditional tests. In order to be successful children need to remember the fact, ‘the truth’, that was distributed by the teacher. In the test the child is expected to ‘return’ the same fact back to the teacher in terms of a right answer. Contrary to this, in a constructivist perspective the truth is relative and dependent on the context in which it appears (von Glasersfeld 1995).
It is not only previous knowledge, skills and experiences that children carry on to new problem solving situations. They have their own feelings, expectations, needs, interests and other equivalent factors which they also bring to school, and as a matter of fact, wherever they go. Consequently, the teacher should be sensitive to notice when he/she can make use of those factors. Also, teachers need to orientate teaching practice in such a way that children could be able to sense the spirit of the nature of technology in their school based activities. In this thesis especially the children’s needs and interests are considered to be fruitful starting points for technological problem solving. (Biesta 1994)
Piaget had to take into account the role of social interaction in cognitive development (Rogoff 1990). However, his theories of learning have been criticized because he viewed children as lone investigators of the natural world (Fox 1998). It was Piaget’s contemporary Lev Semenovitch Vygotsky who substantially emphasized the meaning of the social environment in the development of children.
However, Vygotsky’s theories were “hidden“ for a long time on the eastern side of the iron curtain and have been relatively recently introduced by the scholars of the western world of psychology (Harvard 1998). Vygotsky’s ideas concerning learning developed especially during the time he worked as a school teacher and they can be regarded as the outcomes of his socio-cultural theory in general (Veresov 1998). Vygotsky’s thoughts has been welcomed warmly among the educational psychologists (see Moll 1990).
The essential theme of Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory is that a child’s cognitive development is difficult to understand without reference to the social world in which the child lives (Rogoff 1990, Harvard 1998). Actually, for Vygotsky, all our internal mental processes, even in their deepest state of privacy, retain the functions of social interaction (see Wertsch & Toma 1995).
As an implication of the socio-cultural theory Vygotsky (1997) emphasizes the importance of the social environment in education in the following way:
Though the teacher is powerless to produce immediate effects in the student, he is all-powerful when it comes to producing direct effects in him through social environment. The social environment is the true lever of the educational process, and the teacher’s overall role reduces to adjusting this lever. (p. 49)
From the socio-cultural viewpoint learning can also be seen as a social phenomenon in which learning is mediated through the social interactions among the individuals participating in the learning activity (Konold 1995, Rogoff 1990, Vygotsky 1986). Knowledge is seen to be social in nature. It is shared through the members of the learning community through the meanings of a context dependent language (Gergen 1995, Björkvist 1994). Consequently, construction of knowledge takes place predominantly in socially interactive settings having a great influence on the individual. However, even though social interaction is important in learning, in the end the knowledge and skills are constructed at the individual level from personal starting points and through spontaneous action (Tudge 1990).
When an assignment or task is done in a collaborative setting it is essential that all the participants share a common understanding about the purpose and goals of the work in hand. At the general level there is an obvious convergence between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories about the importance of sharing perspectives and thinking. However, true to its preference for social context, Vygotsky’s theory emphasizes both the significance of shared thinking and the opportunities to engage in joint decision-making processes. Moreover, children are supposed to gain from the more capable peers.
The origins of technology are in the era when language had not developed. However, nowadays it is an essentially part of our socio-cultural environment and shared through a context dependent language. According to Chen (1996, p 5): “From the evolutionary perspective, technological intelligence emerged within a non-linguistic mind, yet it is centrally nested today within the symbolic language cognitive milieu.”
Consequently, technology in itself can be regarded as an illustrative example of socio-cultural theory in practice. The technology around us essentially belongs to our collective consciousness. Technological development has usually been highlighted in terms of remarkable and far-reaching inventions. However, from the socio-historical viewpoint, the development of technology is more like a continuing process which is in constant state of transformation influenced by cultural, economical, political, societal and educational factors. For example, possibilities for further technological development in a certain area or country can be dependent on how successfully the inhabitants have been educated. (Kero & Kujanen 1990, Adams 1991)
As a relatively young field of education, technology education does not have the ‘burden’ of positivism-driven teaching approaches. Thus, it might give a fruitful background to take into account the latest ideas of teaching and learning. Considering various parallel definitions about the nature of technology itself and technological problem solving processes, the epistemological paradigm of constructivism seems to be a natural, even inevitable approach to appropriate technology teaching. Contrary to scientific inquiry, technology aims to seek practical solutions, not the ‘truth’, to the emerging problems and the knowledge is created rather than discovered in the process of doing technology. (Dugger & Yung 1995, Welty 1997) Consequently, incorporating the constructivist approach into technology education might be an appropriate and useful procedure to do (see also Lindh 1997).
Moreover, from the ontological viewpoint, technology did not exist before it was made a reality through goal-directed and intentional human activity based on the needs, wants and purposes. Technology has been, literally, constructed out of nothing. We live with it and take it for granted, maybe giving it a thought when some failure occurs, say, if the supply of electricity happens to be interrupted.
It could be fairly justified to speak about constructivist technology education where the human himself/herself is seen as an active, intentional and goal-directed agent driven by the individual and/or collective needs, wants and purposes. What could this mean in practice? Children should have possibilities to create and construct technology, literally to do something tangible and experience the effects of their solutions and outcomes. While doing technology children are in constant interaction with their environment; they use, for example, materials, techniques, modes and rules in order to carry out the process. The materials come from physical environment, but the techniques and modes, not to speak about the rules are fruits of our socio-cultural environment.
However, the above mentioned type of activity can be accomplished through a teaching approach typical for traditional handicraft education; copying prescribed models, patterns, techniques, modes or procedures aim to produce artifacts or workpieces. New experiences and knowledge are incorporated into the children’s cognitive structure causing quantitative changes in thinking. However, there are not a lot of opportunities to accommodate and apply incorporated cognitive ‘capital’ subsequently, because the process is again fairly prescribed by the teacher, worksheets, models or the like. In short, the processes in traditional handicraft education aim at seeking the right answer, ‘the truth’, which is determined and known also to the children in advance.
How can children be educated about and through technology according to the spirit of constructivism? Literate creation and construction aside, children should have possibilities to assimilate, but especially to accommodate their cognitive structure. Thus, just incorporating new knowledge is not enough in terms of cognitive growth, but rather the process should go through comparisons and manipulations, preferably taking place in a meaningful interactive context. There are many meaningful and interactive contexts that can be found in the field of technology where comparisons as well as manipulations are brought about, providing that the starting point is not too prescriptive. Innovation, divergent thinking and creative production arise better from open problem solving situations.
Constructivist related approaches, with various interpretations, have actually been applied in several research experiments related to the teaching of technology. For instance, in the University of Joensuu, Lego/Logo learning environments have been used from the viewpoint of cognitive apprenticeship methods emphasizing the authenticity of the learning processes (for example Enkenberg 1995, Järvelä 1996). Suomala’s (1995) research experiment also relates closely to both technology education and teaching methods deriving from the constructivist idea of learning. (see also Futschek 1995, Järvinen 1998)
A learning environment should be based upon something where children want to ‘enter’. Children should have a positive feeling and sense of usefulness of the learning environment that they are supposed to work with. Effective teaching requires the creation of optimal learning opportunities through pedagogical means, including the encouragement and maintenance of a positive willingness to learn. Here again the keyword is ‘volition’. Thus, a teacher"s role changes to the role of a facilitator of learning and co-ordinator of learning environments. (Opetushallitus 1994b)
As for the instructional principles of designing learning environments according to constructivist idea of learning, the following guidelines are offered by Savery & Duffy (1995):
Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem.
Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task.
Design an authentic task.
Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they (learners) should be able to function in at the end of learning.
Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution.
Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner’s thinking.
Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative context.
Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process. (pp. 32-35)
Thus, when planning and utilizing different learning environments from the constructivist point of view, it is essential that children are provided with possibilities for personal cognitive construction processes and authentic activities connected to real-life environment, preferably to their own living environment (Duffy et al. 1992). An effective constructivist learning environment gives many possibilities to apply previous skills, knowledge and experiences in a large platform including also the world outside the school. (Savery & Duffy 1995).
Whilst social interaction can be seen as something essential to the learning processes, it should also be given an important role in designing learning environments for technology education. A natural part of child-centered activity is social interaction in small group settings, where the skills and knowledge are transferred through apprentice-like situations. (Honebein et al. 1993, Savery & Duffy 1995) According to Rogoff (1990) social interaction in cognitive development quite often resembles an apprenticeship situation, where the novice and the expert are engaged in the same problem solving situation, thus enabling assistance by experts (Gallimore & Tharp 1990, Järvelä 1996).
A traditional wood shop, metal shop or textile classroom can also be understood as an efficient learning environment in which learning of many skills and knowledge can take place. Broadly defined, the whole school, even our daily living environment, can be seen as a learning environment, in which constant social contacts support our personal construction processes and, moreover, often make learning possible in the first place. (Wilson 1995). Actually, even before children start their formal schooling, they have already learnt a wide variety of skills and knowledge through informal learning situations.
What does the concept of “learning environment“ mean in the context of this research? In Case Study I the concept of learning environment is ‘narrowed’ to ready-made environments having features of construction kits used in technology lessons (Parkinson in press, Järvinen 1997, Järvinen 1998). In some instances the term ‘device-environment’ has been used (for example http://www.vaala.fi/~lml/Teknologia1.html), and even just ‘environment’ (see Enkenberg 1993). These definitions can be seen to be more appropriate, as it is not necessarily the learning environment itself that guarantees that learning does take place. The point is that in education all the learning environments have to be used in a pedagogically appropriate way in order to make them real learning environments. Although the term “learning environment“ might be too promising, it has been used by many of the researchers in education (for example, Järvelä 1996, Suomala 1993). Consequently, the Lego Dacta Control Lab is called a Lego/Logo learning environment also in this research.
In Study 4., the learning environment consisted mainly of a wood shop in which conventional tools were used by the children. However, as the results of this study indicate, a learning environment in teaching technology alongside with the possibilities for constructivist learning could be arranged with relatively cheap and simple materials and equipment. It is important, that the teaching strategies in technology lessons are in accordance with the nature of the subject matter. Due to many parallel definitions of technology, it is natural to observe practical child-centered problem solving, divergent production with creativity and innovation. Moreover, the significance of creating a personal, as well as collective, need and volition to do technology should not be forgotten. These views need to be taken into account when designing effective learning environments for technology education. These considerations are in accordance with Alamäki (1999, p. 152): “The central duty of technology education is to develop the students’ technological higher thinking skills and attitudes. Therefore it is not so decisive which matters are studied, but rather the means by which the students’ technological thinking and conclusions develop.“