Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problem solving in science and technology education

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Both science and technology education have a commitment to teaching process; investigations or scientific method in science, design in technology, and problem solving in both areas. The separate debates in science and technology education reveal different curricular emphases in processes and content, reflecting different goals, and pedagogic and educational research traditions. This paper explores these differences and argues that each curriculum area can learn from the other. Despite the interest in processes, problem solving remains neglected in each area, particularly with respect to empirical accounts of student problem-solving activities and the supporting pedagogy. This paper draws on the situated learning and social constructivist literature to provide insights into problem solving in technology education. The research reported here, gives accounts of the problem-solving strategies of English secondary school students. These strategies represent their responses to technology activities and the learning environment created by teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Assessment of Performance Unit (APU). (1991).The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buccarelli, L. L. (1994).Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Children's Learning in Science [CLIS]. (1987).CLIS in the classroom: Approaches to teaching. Leeds: Leeds University, Centre for Studies in Science Education and Mathematics Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education and the Welsh Office (DFE/WO). (1995a).Design and technology in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education and the Welsh Office (DFE/WO). (1995b).Science in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. F., Buchan, A. S., Jenkins, E. W., & Welford, A. G. (1994).Science 1 in the national curriculum for England and Wales. Leeds: Centre for Policy and Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. F., Buchan, A. S., Jenkins, E. W., & Welford, A. G. (1996).Investigations by order: Policy, curriculum and science teachers' work under the Education Reform Act. Nafferton: Studies in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1983).The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996).Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duell, O. K. (1986). Metacognitive skills. In G. D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.),Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, thinking, and problem solving (pp. 205–242). Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R. M. (1988). Problem-solving in science education.Studies in Science Education, 13, 70–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.American Psychologist, 39(2), 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.)Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 63–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Murphy, P. (1987).Assessing investigations at ages 13 and 15. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, S. H. (1988). Apprenticeship instruction for real-world tasks: The coordination of procedures mental models and strategies. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.),Review of research in education (Vol. 15) (pp. 97–169). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, S., McCormick, R., & Murphy, P. (1993). The myth of general problem-solving capability: Design and technology as an example.Curriculum Journal, 4(1), 74–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Education Committee. (1995).Fourth report: Science and technology in schools (Volumes I & II). London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J., & Karsnitz, J. R. (1994).Design and problem solving in technology. Albany, NY: Delmar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, P., & Sellwood, P. (1995).Design and problem solving (TechKnowledge Reference Series) Cincinnati, Ohio: Thompson Learning Tools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, J. R. (1990). Design methods in CDT.Journal of Art and Design Education, 9(1), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996).Understanding practice in design and technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988).Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.),Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, P. H., Buckingham, W., & Robbins, A. H. (1979). The conservation task as an international setting.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 304–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1992). The evolution of current practice in technology education (Part 1).Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 18(2), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1994). Learning through apprenticeship. In D. Blandow & M. J. Dyrenfurth (Eds.),Technology education in school and industry: Emerging didactics for human resource development (pp. 16–36). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge.International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R., & Banks, F. (1994).Design and technology in the secondary curriculum: Study Guide (Course E650). Milton Keynes: The Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R., Murphy, P., Davidson, M. (1994). Design and technology as revelation and ritual. In J. S. Smith (Ed.),IDATER 94-International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 38–42). Loughborough: University of Loughborough.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994, April).Problem-solving in design and technology: A case of situated learning? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • McCormick, R., Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., & Davidson, M. (1996, April).Research on student learning of designing and problem solving in technology activity in schools in England. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

  • Millar, R. (1988). The pursuit of the impossible.Physics Education, 23(3), 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (1996). In pursuit of authenticity.Studies in Science Education, 27, 157–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes.Studies in Science Education, 14, 33–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1994). Investigating in the school science laboratory: conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance.Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. (1991). Gender and practical work. In B. Woolnough (Ed.),Practical work in science (pp. 112–122). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. (1994, September).Teaching and learning the process of science: Meassages for technology education? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Educational Research Association, Oxford University, England.

  • Murphy, P. (1996, September).Teachers' and students' approaches to problem solving in design and technology. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Seville, Spain.

  • Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1995, September).The nature of problem solving in technology education. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Bath, England.

  • Murphy, P., Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. with Hodgson, B., & Whitelegg, E. (1996). Group work in Primary Science-emerging issues for learning and teaching. In K. Schnack (Ed.),Studies in Educational Theory and Curriculum (Vol. 14) Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Danish School of Educational Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Writing for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pòlya, G. (1957).How to solve it (2nd ed.). New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1995).Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1997, August).Situated assessment. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece.

  • Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (Eds.). (1990).A conceptual framework for technology education. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Screen, P. (1988). A case for a process approach: The Warwick experience.Physics Education, 23(3), 146–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. L. (1986). The whole is greater: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in evaluation studies. In D. D. Williams (Ed.),Naturalistic evaluation. San Franscisco, Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A., Howe, C. J., Mackenzie, M., & Green, K. (1993). Task design as an influence on dialogue and learning: Primary school group work with objection.Social Development, 2, 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M. (1991).The science of problem solving. Portsmouth, NH: Cassell/Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (1988). Process and content in physics education.Physics Education, 23(3), 150–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (Ed.), (1989).Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolnough, B. (1988). Whither process in science teaching?Physics Education, 23(3), 139–140.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Curriculum and Teaching Studies, School of Education, Open University, Walton Hall, MK7 6AA, Milton Keynes

    Patricia Murphy & Robert McCormick

Authors
  1. Patricia Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Patricia Murphy or Robert McCormick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murphy, P., McCormick, R. Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education 27, 461–481 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461765

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461765

Keywords

Search

Navigation