Abstract
Technology is an important part of the STEM acronym and unites and provides processes to tie all of the STEM disciplines together. Science, Engineering, and Math all depend on Technology to visualize and solve problems. Technology assists the other STEM fields to be creative but also carries with it its own social and cultural implications. To discuss the nature of technology we must first come to a shared definition of technology. This task can be difficult because there are many different lenses through which technology can be viewed. For example, technology can be a thought process, a way of knowing, and a tool. Definitions of technology are influenced by how it is used in practice and the professional organizations like IEEE, ISTE, CSTA, and NCTM that provide guidance and standards for how technology can and should be used. As our lives become more dependent on technology, and jobs become possible only by its use, the ethical nature of technology grows more important to both our present and our future. This chapter ends with a discussion of the work to be done including research on how technology and its affordances interacts with the work and creative activity in the other STEM fields and how technology could be leveraged to support curriculum in the other STEM areas.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Berman, F., & Cerf, V. G. (2017). Social and ethical behavior in the internet of things. Communications of the ACM, 60(2), 6–7.
Bowles, N. (2018). A dark consensus about screens and kids begins to emerge in Silicon Valley. The New York Times, 26.
Cetin, I., & Dubinsky, E. (2017). Reflective abstraction in computational thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 70–80.
Code.org. (2018). State of computer science education. Retrieved from: https://advocacy.code.org/
CSTA. (2017). Computer science standards. Retrieved from: https://www.csteachers.org/page/standards
DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Spinosa, C. (2003). Further reflections on Heidegger, technology, and the everyday. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(5), 339–349.
Fernandes, G. W. R., Rodrigues, A. M., & Ferreira, C. A. (2017). Conceptions of the nature of science and technology: A study with children and youths in a non-formal science and technology education setting. Research in Science Education, 1–36.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology (pp. 3–35). New York: Harper & Row.
Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47.
Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., et al. (2015, July). A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 65–83). ACM.
ISTE. (2018a). ISTE standards. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/standards
ISTE. (2018b). ISTE announces new computational thinking standards for all educators standards. Retrieved from: https://www.iste.org/explore/Press-Releases/ISTE-Announces-New-Computational-Thinking-Standards-for-All-Educators
K–12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36–42.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). New York: Routledge.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American teens navigate the new world of “Digital Citizenship”. In Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/09/teens-kindness-and-cruelty-on-social-network-sites/
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge: MIT press.
Parr, G., Bellis, N., & Bulfin, S. (2013). Teaching English teachers for the future: Speaking back to TPACK. English in Australia, 48(1), 9.
Richmond, A. S & Troisl, J.D. (2018). Technology in the classroom: What the research tells us. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2018/12/12/what-research-tells-us-about-using-technology-classroom-opinion
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1–23.
Sundqvist, P., & Nilsson, T. (2018). Technology education in preschool: Providing opportunities for children to use artifacts and to create. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 29–51.
TESOL (2008). TESOL technology standards framework. Retrieved from: https://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/books/bk_technologystandards_framework_721.pdf?sfvrsn=2&sfvrsn=2
Theis, T. N., & Wong, H. S. P. (2017). The end of Moore’s law: A new beginning for information technology. Computing in Science & Engineering, 19(2), 41.
Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. G. (2008). Information, communications, and educational technology standards for students, teachers, and school leaders. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 333–348). Boston, MA: Springer.
Tiles, M., & Oberdiek, H. (2013). Conflicting visions of technology. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: The technological condition: An anthology (pp. 249–259). Wiley.
Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: High school science teachers’ conception of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1143–1168.
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of Technology: Implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875–2905.
Webb, M. (2008). Impact of IT on science education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Vol. 20, pp. 133–148). Springer
White House. (2018). Summit on STEM education.. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Summary-of-the-2018-White-House-State-Federal-STEM-Education-Summit.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2018, September). The future of jobs: Global challenge insight report, World Economic Forum. Geneva: http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2018/key-findings/
Zvorikine, A. (1961). The history of technology as a science and as a branch of learning: A Soviet view. Technology and Culture, 2(1), 1–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cullen, T.A., Guo, M. (2020). The Nature of Technology. In: Akerson, V.L., Buck, G.A. (eds) Critical Questions in STEM Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 51. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57645-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57646-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)