Top

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Published in:

21-07-2017

The things that belong: a grounded theory study of student categorizations of complex technical artifacts

Authors: Michael T. Rücker, Niels Pinkwart

Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Issue 3/2018

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Technical artifacts play a central role in teaching and learning about technology. The artifact exemplars used in the classroom to illustrate and discuss various technological concepts should therefore be carefully chosen in order to actually support the abstraction and successful transfer of these concepts. Research from the learning and cognitive sciences strongly suggests that this requires an understanding of how students actually perceive and conceptualize various technical artifacts, what similarities, differences and features are most salient and meaningful in their eyes. In this paper, we propose a grounded theory of how students differentiate and relate various complex technical artifacts. The core of our theory is formed by four hierarchically ordered juxtapositions: (1) technology versus non-technology, (2) everyday versus specialized, (3) private versus public, and (4) luxury versus necessity, which divide the realm of technical artifacts into five broad categories: high technology, household technology, public technology, real technology, and no/low technology. Our claim is that these differentiations and categories are generally salient and meaningful for students. Based on the theory of variation, we outline how they might help educators make more informed and systematic selections of exemplar artifacts to use in the classroom.

previous article Development of a Technology Education Cascading Theory through community engagement site-based support

next article STEM education in the twenty-first century: learning at work—an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

We will use the term conception to denote students’ ideas and beliefs about certain phenomena, and the term concept to denote more normative or scientifically accepted ideas and beliefs about these phenomena. Cognitively speaking, however, there is no difference between them.

All quotes from the interviews were translated from German.

Consider, for a moment, the very meaning of “technical” in “technical term” or the qualifier “technically,” which is essentially “expert language”.

Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775712.CrossRef

Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & van Keulen, H. (2015). Students attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 43–65.CrossRef

Charmaz, K. (2011). Constructing Grounded Theory, 1. Ed., re. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.

Collier-Reed, B. I. (2009). Exploring learners’ conceptions of technology. In M. Schafer, & C. Mcnamara (Eds.) 17th Annual conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, pp. 76–82.

Collier-Reed, B. I., Case, J. M., & Linder, C. (2009). The experience of interacting with technological artefacts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 295–303.CrossRef

Compton, V., Compton, A., & Patterson, M. (2012). Reading technological artifacts: Does technology education help? In PATT 26 conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26–30 June; 2012, number 073, pp. 126–134. Linköping University Electronic Press.

de Vries, M. J. (2013). Transfer in technology through a concept-context approach. In Transfer, transitions and transformations of learning, pp. 13–22. Berlin: Springer.

de Vries, M. J. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers, 2 edn. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32945-1.

DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.495400.CrossRef

Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. http://archiv.ipn.uni-kiel.de/stcse/stcse.html (visited on 06/21/2017).

Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Firat, M. (2017). Growing misconception of technology: Investigation of elementary students’ recognition of and reasoning about technological artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 183–199. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9351-y.CrossRef

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14222-7.CrossRef

Frederik, I., Sonneveld, W., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Teaching and learning the nature of technical artifacts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 277–290. doi:10.1007/s10798-010-9119-3.CrossRef

Ginns, I. S., Norton, S. J., & Mcrobbie, C. J. (2005). Adding value to the teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 47–60. doi:10.1007/s10798-004-6193-4.CrossRef

Goldstone, R. L., & Kersten, A. (2003). Concepts and categorization. In Handbook of psychology, pp. 597–621. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0422.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 233–252. doi:10.1007/BF02765185.

Guo, J.-P., Pang, M. F., Yang, L.-Y., & Ding, Y. (2012). Learning from comparing multiple examples: On the dilemma of similar or different. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 251–269. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9192-0.CrossRef

Heit, E. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 569–592. doi:10.3758/BF03212996.CrossRef

Impedovo, M., Andreucci, C., Delserieys-Pedregosa, A., Coiffard, C., & Ginestié, J. (2015). Technical objects between categorisation and learning: An exploratory case study in French middle school. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(2), 32–45.

Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L. J. (1996). Understanding technology: The development of a concept. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 977–992. doi:10.1080/0950069960180809.CrossRef

Jarvis, T., & Rennie, L . J. (1998). Factors that influence children’s Developing perceptions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 261–279. doi:10.1023/A:1008826320260. ISSN: 0957-7572.CrossRef

Koski, M.-I., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). An exploratory study on how primary pupils approach systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 835–848. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9234-z.CrossRef

Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning. Göteborg studies in educational sciences: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Lo, M. L., Pong, W. Y., & Chick, P. P. M. (Eds.). (2005). For each and everyone: Catering for individual differences through learning studies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001017.CrossRef

Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Artifact categorization: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 85–123). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1504_3.CrossRef

Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_2.CrossRef

Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254.CrossRef

Mortimer, E . F., & El-Hani, C . N. (Eds.). (2014). Conceptual profiles: A theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts. Berlin: Springer.

Murphy, G . L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian children’s perceptions about technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 37–52. doi:10.1080/0263514950130104.CrossRef

Rosch, E . H. (1978). Cognition and categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Principles of categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427.CrossRef

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.

Solomonidou, C., & Tassios, A. (2005). How do Primary School Students Conceive Technology and its Use in Everyday Life? In Kommers, P. and Richard, G., editors, Proceedings of ED-Media 2005 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, pages 1916–1923, Norfolk, VA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Solomonidou, C., & Tassios, A. (2007). A phenomenographic study of Greek primary school students’ representations concerning technology in daily life. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 113–133. doi:10.1007/s10798-006-0007-9.CrossRef

Svensson, M., & Ingerman, Å. (2010). Discerning technological systems related to everyday objects: mapping the variation in pupils’ experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 255–275. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9084-x.CrossRef

Svensson, M., Zetterqvist, A., & Ingerman, Å. (2012). On young people’s experience of systems in technology. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(1), 66–77.

Title: The things that belong: a grounded theory study of student categorizations of complex technical artifacts
Authors: Michael T. Rücker
Niels Pinkwart
Publication date: 21-07-2017
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9419-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

The cosmopolitan engineering student: an analysis of a recruitment campaign for KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm

Mechanical engineering and issues on teaching mechanical engineering design in Turkey

Are their designs iterative or fixated? Investigating design patterns from student digital footprints in computer-aided design software

Engineering attitudes: an investigation of the effect of literature on student attitudes toward engineering

Using software to engage design students in academic writing

The role of space in interdisciplinary collaboration in design education

Premium Partner