Abstract
This paper reports the preliminary results of a pilot study investigating the nature of ‘problem-solving’ activity in technology classrooms. The research focuses on the relationship and potential mismatch between teachers' and children's agendas, aims, perceptions and beliefs concerning design and technology activities. A case study of an 11-week project was undertaken with four pupils aged 13. In-depth classroom observation and interviews allowed us to investigate the problem solving used in designing and making a kite, and the pupils' ‘application’ of the knowledge required. Our analysis charts the influence of the teacher's task structuring and interventions on the children's problem-solving behaviour. The results indicate that the design process is highly complex and not always communicated successfully by teachers. What children typically encounter in design and technology projects are different problems requiring different approaches according to the kind of task and the stage reached in its solution. The popular idea that ‘problem solving’ in technology denotes a holistic ‘design-and-make’ process is hence under challenge. Moreover, the assumed access and application of relevant bodies of knowledge from other contexts is highly problematic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, P. A. & Judy, J. E.: 1988, ‘The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance’,Review of Education Research 58(4), 375–404.
Black, P.: 1990, ‘Implementing Technology in the National Curriculum’, inTechnology in the National Curriculum. Key issues in implementation. The Standing Conference on Schools' Science and Technology and DATA, London.
Bruner, J.: 1986,Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Collins, A., Seely Brown, J., & Holum, A.: 1991, ‘Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible’,American Educator Winter 1991, 6–46.
Luca de, V. W.: 1992, ‘Survey of Technology Education Problem-Solving Activities’,The Technology Teacher February, 26–30.
Department for Education and the Welsh Office (DFE/WO): 1992,Technology for ages 5 to 16 (1992), Department for Education, London.
Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office (DES/WO): 1990,Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO, London.
Donnelly, J. F. & Jenkins, E. W.: 1992,GCSE Technology: Some Precursors and Issues, Education for Capability Research Group Occasional Publication No. 4, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Driver, R.: 1988, ‘A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development’, in P. Fensham (ed.),Development and Dilemmas in Science Education, Falmer Press, London.
Eggleston, J.: 1992,Teaching Design and Technology, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Foulds, K., Gott, R. & Feasey, R.: 1992,Investigative Work in Science, Durham University, Durham.
Gott, R. & Murphy, P.: 1987,Assessing Investigations at Ages 13 and 15, Association for Science Education, Hatfield.
Harrison, M. E.: 1993,An Investigation into the Implementation of National Curriculum Design and Technology in a State Secondary School (unpublished Ph.D thesis), The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Hennessy, S.: 1993, ‘Situated Cognition and Cognitive Apprenticeship: Implications for Classroom Learning’,Studies in Science Education 22, 1–41.
Hennessy, S., McCormick, R. & Murphy, P.: 1993, ‘The Myth of General Problem-Solving Capability: Design and Technology as an Example’,The Curriculum Journal 4(1), 74–89.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools (HMI): 1992,Technology at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3, HMSO, London.
Lave, J.: 1988,Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life, Cambridge University Press, NY.
Lave, J., Smith, S & Butler, M.: 1988, ‘Problem Solving as an Everyday Practice’, in J. Lave, J. G. Greeno, A. Schoenfeld, S. Smith & M. Butler (eds.),Learning Mathematical Problem Solving, Institute for Research on Learning report no. IRL88-0006, Palo Alto, CA.
Layton, D.: 1991, ‘Science Education and Praxis: The Relationship of School Science to Practical Action’,Studies in Science Education 19, 43–79.
McCormick, R.: 1993, ‘Design Education and Science: Practical Implications’, in M. de Vries, N. Cross & D. P. Grant (eds.),Design Methodology and Relationships with Science (NATO), Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
National Curriculum Council (NCC): 1993,Technology Programmes of Study and Attainment Targets: Recommendations of the National Curriculum Council, NCC, York.
Perret-Clermont, A. N., Perret, J. F. & Bell, N.: 1991, ‘The Social Construction of Meaning and Cognitive Activity in Elementary School Children’, in L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (eds.),Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Roazzi, A. & Bryant, P.: 1992, ‘Social Class, Context and Cognitive Development’, in P. Light & G. Butterworth (eds.),Context and Cognition: Ways of Learning and Knowing, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Savage, E. & Sterry, L. (eds.): 1990,A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education, International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA.
Scottish Education Board (SEB): 1989,Standard Grade Arrangements in Technological Studies, Edinburgh, SEB.
Smithers, A. & Robinson, P.: 1992,Technology in the National Curriculum: Getting it Right, The Engineering Council, London.
Tann, S. C.: 1989,Developing Topic Work in the Primary School, The Falmer Press, Lewes.
Winek, G. & Borchers, R.: 1993, ‘Technological Problem Solving Demonstrated’,The Technology Teacher 52(5), 23–25.
Wood, D.: 1988,How Children Think and Learn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCormick, R., Murphy, P. & Hennessy, S. Problem-solving processes in technology education: A pilot study. Int J Technol Des Educ 4, 5–34 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01197581
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01197581