Ari Alamäki
Introduction
Technology Education in Primary School
This study focuses on the practices and potential of technology
education in Finnish primary schools, where technology education is a
compulsory school subject. As in many other countries, the content of
technology education is currently being discussed and debated in
Finland. For example,
Autio (1997),
Kananoja (1997),
Kankare (1997),
Kantola (1997),
Lind (1996), and
Parikka and Rasinen (1993) argue in their studies that more up-to-date technological content is needed.
Finland has a long tradition of teaching practical school subjects.
Since 1866, educational handwork (sloyd) has been a compulsory school
subject for both boys and girls (
Kantola, 1997).
Finnish technology education, called "technical work" in the national
curriculum guidelines, is a school subject in which pupils design and
make products by using different materials, machines, processes,
techniques and tools (e.g. Kankare, 1997). This emphasis on designing
and making is an essential part of Finnish technology education. It is
believed that such experiences develop pupils' knowledge, personal
qualities, and psychomotor skills (
Peltonen, 1995;
Suojanen, 1993).
As with the traditional (sloyd) programs that preceded it, there is
general belief that the design and build approach used in contemporary
technology education programs enhances the pupils' creativity,
dexterity, diligence, initiative, problem solving, self-image, and
preparation for work.
As technology education has evolved in Finland, more content has been
introduced, including such areas as electricity, electronics,
machinery, and computers. Construction kits for teaching control
technology have also been adopted. In addition, technology education
classes now offers pupils the opportunity to service and repair their
bicycles, mopeds, and other technical equipment. These areas, combined
with the more traditional sloyd (craft and design), have made Finnish
technology education more diverse than in other Scandinavian countries.
In informal discussions among teachers and teacher educators, there
seems to be a general feeling that technology education in Finnish
primary schools is out of date, emphasizing older technological
processes such as the making of wooden and metal items. Even though
technology education has been updated to an extent, there is a general
feeling that there should be more connection to the modern technological
world than that which exists presently. The technological concepts of
communication, construction, energy, manufacturing, and transportation
are rarely reviewed from ecological, economical, cultural, and social
viewpoints. The activities in which the pupils are engaged determine the
kinds of technological knowledge and processes they learn. These
activities must therefore be upgraded.
The Finnish School System
The Finnish comprehensive school provides compulsory basic education
to pupils between the ages of 7 and 16. It is divided into a six-year
lower level (grades 1-6), which corresponds internationally to primary
education, and a three-year upper stage (grades 7-9), corresponding to
lower secondary education. This study focused on technology education at
the primary school level, where pupils are between 7 and 13 years old.
In the third grade of the primary school, it is compulsory that all
pupils study technology education. After that they have to choose either
technology education or textile work. As one might expect, boys usually
choose the former and girls choose the latter. Pupils who have chosen
technology education study it for at least two hours a week from third
through sixth grades.
In Finnish primary schools, technology education is usually taught by
regular classroom teachers. Today these teachers must hold a master's
degree in education and most have studied technology education as part
of their teacher preparation program. A separate technology education
room is provided for instruction, with an ideal maximum of 16 students
in the facility at one a time.
The national curriculum reform in 1994 gave schools noticeably more freedom in developing their own curricula (
Kohonen & Niemi, 1996).
The national core curriculum and curricular guidelines are very vague,
providing only brief outlines. Though this allows for local flexibility,
it also increases the diversity in the way in which technology
education is taught from one school to another. In the latest national
core curriculum, the main emphasis is on the "idea-to-product" process,
with the pupil fully engaged in designing (
Opetushallitus, 1994).
Although, the designing and making of products remains as the central
part of the national curriculum guidelines, the need for a broader
technological understanding and capability is also mentioned.
Research Questions
The research questions of the study are summarized as follows:
- What kinds of teaching practices are there in technology education
in primary school? This question was intended to elicit information,
for example, on the extent of computer usage in technology education now
and that expected in the future, the extent of cooperation with local
industry, and the kinds of tasks performed by students in technology
education.
- What goals of technology education are accomplished in primary
school? This question focused on the extent to which the goals of the
national curriculum were being realized. This included product
design-based work and the extent to which students were copying designs
rather than actually developing designs themselves. Information on the
teaching methods used to teach design was also investigated.
Demographic data about the age of the teacher, educational background,
and teaching experience were collected so that comparisons could be
made. Secondarily, this study investigated how teachers define the word
technology, perceived obstacles to the development of technology
education, and the ideal way in which teachers would like to view
technology education.
Method
Instrument
The research questions were addressed by means of a survey
instrument. The main part of the instrument was modeled after
instruments used in two other technology education studies (see
Alamäki, 1997;
Kankare, 1997).
These initial instruments were shown to be acceptably valid. There was
no reason to believe that the teachers would not answer truthfully.
They answered anonymously and it is plausible that they viewed the
questionnaire as a way for them to contribute to the development of
technology education. The majority of the questions were close-ended,
requiring responses on a five-point scale with the following
descriptors: "never," "seldom," "some extent," "often," "very often."
The responses were assigned numerical values from 1 (never) to 5 (very
often). A few open-ended questions were also included.
Sample
The study was conducted in the Finnish provinces of Oulu and
Varsinais-Suomi. The former lies in northern Finland and the latter in
the southwestern region. The instrument was mailed to a sample of 300
primary schools, stratified by geographic region, in the spring of 1997.
One technology education teacher at each school was selected as the
contact person. At the beginning of the following school year, another
copy of the questionnaire was sent to non-respondents. After these two
mailings, 212 (70.7%) completed questionnaires were received. By
geographic strata, 104 of the responding teachers were in city schools,
28 in provincial towns, and 80 in rural areas. The data showed that the
vast majority (205) of the teachers in the study were male.
The average age was 41.1 years (SD=10.05). The average amount of
teaching experience was 15.8 years (SD=10.22 years), with 14.6 years
(SD= 9.92) spent teaching technology education. On average, the
respondents taught technology education 5.3 hours (SD=4.79) per week.
Twelve of the teachers held a degree in technology education and all of
the respondents except five had a bachelor's or master's degree in
education. Ten of the teachers worked as technology subject teachers,
whereas the remainder of them worked as regular classroom teachers. All
had studied technology education in the teacher preparation program
since such study is compulsory.
Procedure
The close-ended questions were analyzed quantitatively by using
frequencies and averages. Chi-square testing, one-way ANOVA and Pearson
correlation analysis were also applied to selected responses. The
"copying teaching method" and the "design teaching method" were compared
using a dependent sample t-test. The reliability coefficients of the
variables concerning the goals of teaching and the teaching method
ranged between .61 and .83 and were deemed acceptable. The open-ended
questions were also analyzed quantitatively by using descriptive
statistics, grouping similar responses together.
Results
Practices in Technology Education
The first section of the instrument focused on the use of computers
in teaching technology education now and in the future. It included two
close-ended and one open-ended questions. Analysis revealed that 15% of
the respondents had the potential of using a computer in technology
education and 32% felt that they would have this potential in the near
future. There was not a statistically significant difference in the
potential of using a computer among cities, townships and rural areas,
either presently or anticipated in the future. The predominant use of
computers in technology education was for drawing and planning. Use of
the World Wide Web or software developed for educational purposes was
rarely mentioned.
Cooperation with local industry was examined with both closed-ended
and open-ended questions. Nineteen percent of the respondents indicated
that they have cooperated with local industry. In most cases, this
involved the donation of materials or the provision of student field
trips. Examples of the latter include visits to a sawmill, a fiberboard
factory, and a fishing lure manufacturer. In some cases, the teachers
also received expertise from the local industry. No differences were
found among geographic strata.
The study also investigated the kinds of activities used in
technology education and their suitability to students at the primary
level. Respondents were asked to rate nine selected activities. A
description of each activity was provided. For example, it was explained
that in the activity "woodworking," wood was the primary material with
which the students worked. Regarding electrical equipment, it said that
this activity included such topics as transistors, IC-circuits, and
construction kits for teaching electronics. Familiarity with
technological equipment included such elements as exploring the
functional principles of radios or computers; service and repair
included topics such as the maintenance of students' bicycles and other
equipment. These data are reported in
Table 1.
Table 1
Extent of Use of Selected Activities in Primary School Programs
| |
Never
|
Seldom
|
Sometimes
|
Often
|
Very Often
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Activities
|
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%)
|
M
|
SD
|
| Woodwork |
1(1) |
0(0) |
11(5) |
92(44) |
107(51) |
211(100) |
4.44 |
.64 |
| Service and Repair |
11(5) |
46(22) |
111(53) |
33(16) |
9(4) |
210(100) |
2.92 |
.87 |
| Metal Work |
10(5) |
60(29) |
100(48) |
36(17) |
4(2) |
210(100) |
2.83 |
.84 |
| Plastic Work |
14(7) |
60(29) |
88(42) |
45(21) |
3(1) |
210(100) |
2.82 |
.89 |
| Electro-mechanical equipment |
20(10) |
78(37) |
88(42) |
22(10) |
3(1) |
211(100) |
2.57 |
.96 |
| Electronic equipment |
44(21) |
55(26) |
75(36) |
31(15) |
5(2) |
210(100) |
2.51 |
1.05 |
| Familiarity with technological equipment |
124(59) |
52(25) |
26(12) |
5(2) |
2(1) |
209(100) |
1.61 |
.87 |
| Construction kits |
135(64) |
51(24) |
20(10) |
3(1) |
2(1) |
211(100) |
1.51 |
.80 |
| Internal-combustion engines |
131(62) |
56(27) |
18(9) |
5(2) |
0(0) |
210(100) |
1.50 |
.75 |
Woodwork was clearly the most popular technological activity in
Finnish primary education. The next activities in terms of popularity
consisted of plastic work, metal work, service and repair of technical
equipment and vehicles, electric-mechanical equipment, and electronic
equipment. Least popular were construction kits, internal-combustion
engines, and familiarity with technological equipment. In addition to
the nine listed activities, respondents were asked to list one other
activity. Leather, rattan, mosaic work, and building model airplanes
were among those listed most often. When age, education, school
location, and work experience were considered, the only statistically
significant result was that those teachers who hold degrees in
technology education use more activities that are related to
electro-mechanical equipment than those who did not hold such degrees
(p=.01).
The teachers generally felt that all of the nine prescribed
activities could be suitable for technology education at the primary
level (see
Table 2).
Woodworking was considered the most suitable (and the most popular);
72% of teachers stated that it is a very well suited activity for
technology education. In addition, the teachers felt that activities
such as service and repair, electronic equipment, electric-mechanical
equipment, plastic work, and metalwork were well suited to the primary
level, although they did not teach them often. The teachers, however,
supportive of the suitability of activities related to techno-logical
equipment and internal-combustion engines. When age, education, the
location of school, and work experience were considered, it was found
that there were not any statistically significant differences that had
relevance to the study.
Table 2
Suitability of Selected Activities to Primary Level Technology Education
Level of Suitability
| |
Not at all
|
Poorly
|
Neutral
|
Well
|
Very Well
|
Total
|
|
Activities
|
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%)
|
M
|
SD
|
| Woodwork |
0(0) |
1(1) |
9(4) |
48(23) |
150(72) |
208 |
4.67 |
.58 |
| Service and Repair |
0(0) |
7(3) |
54(26) |
87(42) |
59(29) |
207 |
3.96 |
.83 |
| Electric-Mechanical Equipment |
1(1) |
8(4) |
56(27) |
96(47) |
45(22) |
206 |
3.85 |
.89 |
| Plastic Work |
1(1) |
12(6) |
64(31) |
96(46) |
34(16) |
207 |
3.73 |
.82 |
| Metal Work |
0(0) |
12(6) |
71(34) |
91(44) |
33(16) |
207(100) |
3.70 |
.81 |
| Electronic equipment |
7(3) |
18(9) |
57(28) |
82(40) |
42(20) |
206 |
3.65 |
1.00 |
| Construction Kits |
8(4) |
16(8) |
87(42) |
72(35) |
22(11) |
205 |
3.41 |
.92 |
| Familiarity with technical equipment |
24(12) |
65(32) |
74(36) |
31(15) |
11(5) |
205 |
2.71 |
1.03 |
| Internal-combustion engines |
27(13) |
65(32) |
74(36) |
29(14) |
9(4) |
204 |
2.65 |
1.02 |
The Goals of Teaching
The Finnish curriculum guidelines mention creativity, cultural
heritage, environmental education, entrepreneur education, self-image,
problem solving skills, social skills, and readiness for work life as
the general goals of a comprehensive education. This study investigated
how these general goals were manifested in technology education. The
responding teachers were asked to describe the extent to which pupils'
activities in technology education corresponded to the goals.
According to the results reported in
Table 3,
technology education focuses most on students' creativity. The
development of problem-solving skills, self-image, cultural heritage,
and social skills are also often associated with technology education.
However, readiness for work life, environmental education, and
entrepreneur education are associated to only a limited extent with
technology education according to the responding teachers.
In addition to general goals, this study also considered activities
related to product design. Product design strongly emphasizes creating
products, such as that suggested in the "idea-to-product" processes
mentioned earlier. Traditional product design-based work includes the
development of manual dexterity, product planning, work safety, work
education, and aesthetic education. The results indicated that manual
dexterity was most central to the product design-based work. In
addition, work education, work safety, and product planning
were considered essential components. Aesthetics were considered to be a
limited part of teaching and the pupils' work.
The study also included an assessment of the three dimensions of technological literacy as espoused by
Dyrenfurth and Kozak (1991)
and others: the utilization of technology, the evaluation of
technology, and the appreciation of technology. The utilization of
technology refers to the acquisition of the knowledge and skills
necessary to use and make technological products and solutions. The
evaluation of technology refers to the critical evaluation of the impact
and consequences of technological processes. The appreciation of
technology refers to understanding the outcomes of technological
innovations as they relate to a higher standard of living. The data in
Table 3
indicate that the respondents feel that technology education is most
concerned with the utilization of technology and that the evaluation and
appreciation of technology are of lesser significance.
Table 3
Educational Goals and Dimensions Realized Through Technology Education
| |
Never
|
Little
|
Some Extent
|
Much
|
Very Much
|
Total
|
|
Activities
|
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%) |
f (%)
|
M
|
SD
|
| Creativity |
1(1) |
3(1) |
53(25) |
113(54) |
41(19) |
211 |
3.90 |
.73 |
| Problem solving skills |
0(0) |
14(7) |
61(29) |
114(54) |
20(10) |
209 |
3.67 |
.74 |
| Student's self-image |
2(1) |
10(5) |
78(37) |
90(43) |
29(14) |
209 |
3.64 |
.82 |
| Social Skills |
0(0) |
19(9) |
81(38) |
95(45) |
16(8) |
211 |
3.51 |
.77 |
| Cultural heritage |
2(1) |
14(7) |
85(41) |
91(43) |
17(8) |
209 |
3.51 |
.78 |
| Work life |
4(2) |
39(18) |
90(43) |
66(31) |
12(6) |
211 |
3.20 |
.87 |
| Environment education |
8(4) |
57(27) |
104(49) |
39(18) |
4(2) |
212 |
2.88 |
.82 |
| Enterprise education |
19(9) |
77(37) |
84(40) |
26(12) |
4(2) |
210 |
2.61 |
.89 |
| Manual dexterity |
0(0) |
1(1) |
5(2) |
86(41) |
119(56) |
211 |
4.53 |
.57 |
| Work education |
0(0) |
4(2) |
34(16) |
106(50) |
68(32) |
212 |
4.12 |
.74 |
| Work safety |
0(0) | 1(1) | 39(18) | 118(56) | 54(25) | 212 | 4.06 | .68 |
| Product planning |
0(0) | 4(2) | 87(41) | 96(45) | 25(12) | 212 | 3.67 | .71 |
| Aesthetics |
1(1) | 16(7) | 90(42) | 99(47) | 6(3) | 212 | 3.44 | .70 |
| Utilization of technol. |
1(1) | 12(6) | 92(43) | 98(46) | 9(4) | 212 | 3.48 | .69 |
| Evaluation of technol. |
4(2) | 45(21) | 115(54) | 44(21) | 4(2) | 212 | 3.00 | .76 |
| Appreciation of technol. |
4(2) | 66(31) | 101(48) | 39(18) | 2(1) | 212 | 2.85 | .77 |
One approach used in technology education involves students in the
making of artifacts using prescribed drawings or plans. In this study,
the aforementioned approach is referred to as the "copying teaching
method." Pupils can also invent, design and make products by themselves.
This second method is referred to as the "design teaching method." Five
statements with a five-point scale focused on each teaching method.
According to the results, the teachers use the design teaching method
significantly more (p<.001) than the copying teaching method. The
means were 3.12 and 2.85 respectively. Thus technology education in
primary school is more design-oriented.
The Obstacles to the Development of Technology Education
The study investigated obstacles to developing technology education in
primary education with both closed-ended and open-ended questions. The
respondents indicated that the three most significant obstacles, in
order, were:
- Lack of financial resources.
- Insufficient material on how to teach technology education.
- Lack of other accompanying resources.
The lack of financial resources determines what type of teaching
materials may be purchased. In turn, this relates to the teachers'
perceptions about delivering a valid technology education program. One
teacher, for example, stated, "Can anybody manage to develop technology
education in a positive direction with these kinds of financial
resources?" The lack of financial resources was followed by the lack of
teaching ideas and the lack of other accompanying resources. The latter
is related to classroom tools, machines, and other equipment that must
be purchased with resources other than those used for supplies and
materials. No significant differences among the respondents were found
for the top three obstacles listed above. Though not at the top of the
list, motivation was one of the obstacles identified. It was found that
older teachers felt that they had significantly less motivation compared
to younger teachers (p<.05).
The Development of Technology Education
Perceptions about technology education in the future were also
investigated in this study. An open-ended question asked the respondents
how or in what direction they would like to see technology education
change in the future. Over one-fourth of the respondents felt that
program updating was the most important goal to pursue in the future for
the development of technology education. Samples of the respondents'
statements with some caveats included, "...modern technology must be
included in the right amount in the curriculum in such a way that it
does not become an end in itself" or "More technology should be
generally forced into the comprehensive school. But it can not take away
from the diminishing number of handwork specialization courses...people
have a need to do work with their hands...".
Eighteen percent of the respondents felt that the making of products
should continue in the future. Several connected this perception with
the need to bolster the content as well. There seemed to be a strong
sentiment about moving toward a changed program but not discarding
critical elements of traditional programs. Examples of statements
supporting this were:
- "I appreciate the teaching of handiwork tradition and
the applying of technological integration...Therefore, teaching of
technological understanding is already entitled to start from
childhood."
- "The diversified use of different materials, new work
methods, and technology should nonetheless be realized without losing
traditional woodworking."
- "Generally more technology to the comprehensive school, but this may not take time from more and more important dexterity...".
- "In technology education the final product is also
important. The subject may not only be going toward technological
knowledge. The making of concrete articles is very rewarding for many
kids...".
- "Certain basic skills, techniques and traditional tasks
should be saved, but stressing technology education could be moved
toward so-called new teaching of electronics."
Diversification of curricular content to increase breadth was
mentioned by 17% of teachers. Sample responses included, "Technology
education should strive toward diversification" and "more diverse
content is needed." Modernizing programs was mentioned by nine percent
of the respondents. The term modernizing in this context refers to the
need for programs to reflect contemporary society. A sample response in
this category was, "More connection with these modern times." Nine
percent of the teachers mentioned creativity, such as: "Move away from
wood, toward creativity and new materials" or, simply, "More
creativity." Teaching basic skills, electronics, planning, and the
traditional handwork were also mentioned, but to a lesser extent.
Table 4
Goals for the Future Development of Technology Education (n=118)
|
f
|
%
|
| More technological content |
32
|
27
|
| The making of products (handwork) |
21
|
18
|
| Diversification of Curriculum |
20
|
17
|
| Modernizing Curriculum |
10
|
9
|
| Creativity |
10
|
9
|
| Other |
85
|
72
|
| Total |
178
|
--
|
The Concept of Technology
The study sought to determine teachers' perceptions of the word
technology by asking them to write a definition for it. Due to the
breadth of the responses, some of the definitions were placed in more
than one category. These data are reported in
Table 5.
Table 5
Teachers' Definitions of Technology (n=170)
|
Definitions
|
f
|
%
|
| Utilizing technical devices |
61
|
36
|
| Knowledge, skills, and means for doing different tasks |
56
|
33
|
| Technical devices and machines (artifacts) |
38
|
22
|
| Production process |
25
|
15
|
| Knowledge of how technical devices and machines work |
8
|
5
|
| Others |
45
|
27
|
| Total |
233
|
--
|
Over a third of the teachers defined technology as the utilization of
technical devices. The teachers in this group tended to emphasize the
practical purposes of technology. Examples of definitions in this group
included "work which is accomplished with machines" or "the use of
technical devices instead of muscular strength."
One third of the teachers defined technology in terms of human
knowledge and capability relative to accomplishing tasks. Technology was
seen as know-how, or "human capital," which helps humans satisfy their
needs and wants. Examples of statements in this category are "the
adapting of modern technical know-how for the needs of humans" or "an
activity which is realized with the help of thinking and equipment in
practice."
Nearly a quarter of the group thought of technology in terms of
artifacts. Sample definitions include "devices and machines which help
the work and activity of humans" and "today's high technology consumer
products, such as mobile phones, computers, gauges, etc." Technology was
understood as a production process by 15% of the responses. Included in
the "other" response category were concerns about the elimination of
existing content such as, "the killer of a traditional handwork...or at
least a big threat" and "everything involving dexterity is technology."
Discussion
Woodwork is the most popular activity area in technology education in
Finnish primary schools. Electricity and electronics tasks, plastic
work, and service and repair are taught to a certain extent.
Nonetheless, all of the activities listed in the study were considered
suitable for technology education at the primary level except for those
related to familiarity with technological equipment and
internal-combustion engines. Computers are not yet used to a large
extent in technology education, but use is expected to increase rather
dramatically in the near future. There is evidence of substantial
cooperation between teachers and industry. The biggest obstacle for the
development of technology education is inadequate financial resources
and the resultant lack of materials and equipment necessary to teach it.
The age, education, and work experience of the teacher and the school
location did not seem to be related to technology education practice.
The traditional goals of Finnish technology education and the general
goals of primary education are clearly manifested in technology
education. The practical aspects of technological literacy were
considered to be essential aspects of technology education. The
design-based teaching method is more commonly used than the more
antiquated and less educationally sound copying-based teaching method.
It appears as though most of the teachers in primary schools understand
the concept of technology from a perspective that encompasses more than
just new technological artifacts or computers. The definitions of the
term technology, in fact, seemed to match
Mitcham's (1994)
modes of technology. The study showed that the teachers felt that
technology education should include more modern technological content
while, at the same time, retaining traditional educational handwork.
Wood as an educational material has over 130 years of history in
Finnish technology education, and it is still an appropriate material
for design-based work. Teaching resources in school, for example,
support the use of wood as a construction material. Significant learning
experiences in technology, such as inventing or design, do not always
require complicated tasks. The cognitive and affective processes that
the activities of technology education evoke are more important than
what the appearance of the products produced. However, it appears that a
shift is needed toward activities through which students solve
real-world, technological problems. Moreover, the development of
technological literacy requires experiences that are representative of
all fields of technology, not just the physical elements.
A surprising result of this study was that familiarity with
technological equipment was not considered very suitable for technology
education at the primary school. Although the teaching of abstract and
rapidly changing technical facts is not advisable, some technological
concepts, principles, and their consequences and impact on nature and
society can be learned through such activities. For example, as students
design and make electronic or electro-mechanical equipment, the teacher
could easily organize class discussion that would cause pupils to
reflect upon how their work relates to society and the environment.
It was surprising to find that neither the age of the teacher nor the
geographic location of the school seemed to make a difference in
technology education. The respondents were optimistic about the further
development of technology education in the future. This was encouraging
since the teachers are the principal determinants of the curriculum. The
teachers clearly felt that more financial resources were needed in
order for the programs to improve. In other words, they were willing to
change if the resources are available. Yet the lack of necessary
resources seems to be a problem shared with technology education in most
other countries. Technology education is universally one of the most
expensive school subjects. Efforts to change the values of financial
decision makers must continue, along with the efforts by teachers to
convincingly demonstrate the values of the program relative to the cost.
One way to diversify technology education is to develop activities
that correspond more closely with the modern technological world. The
designing and making of products should include more theoretical
elements, abstract thinking, and links to the technology that students
encounter in their everyday lives. Pupils, as current and future
consumers of technological products, should be able to make valid
inferences about the impact of technological products and solutions on
their lives. Pedagogically, more attention must be placed on developing
activities that are suitable for a particular grade level.
On the other hand, the aim in developing technology education in
primary schools is not to create a technology education classroom
wherein pupils only read textbooks, watch videos, use computer software,
and complete worksheets. The cultural, economic, natural, and social
aspects, together with the technological aspects, should be considered
in connection with designing and making products. Chemical and
biotechnology could also be taught in conjunction with science, although
they can also be taught in connection with design and making processes.
The history of technology could be correlated to humanities classes as
well. In summary, the objects designed and made in technology education
should not be "museum artifacts," but rather ones that are relevant to
modern society. An example of such a project might be an electronic
device found in some modern consumer product. In designing and making
products, pupils should be taught to reflect upon the impact and
consequences of technology to the society and the environment around
them.
As the study indicates, teachers would be ready to include more
technological content in their teaching if they had more financial
resources and teaching ideas. However, they also want to preserve the
traditional design and making of products, which enjoys a long,
successful history in Finnish technology education. Hence, we must not
throw "the baby away with the bath water" when making decisions about
technology education. More than just technological understanding is
needed in the future. Although technological thinking depends on
specific knowledge, many examples of powerful and productive thinking
result from sharing across disciplines and situations (see
Bruer, 1994;
Resnick, 1987). Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach like that suggested by
Petrina (1998)
seems most appropriate to the development of technology education in
primary education in Finland. Nevertheless, more research and many more
proven examples of practice are needed to accomplish these ideals.
References
Alamäki, A. (1997). Käsityö- ja teknologiakasvatuksen kehittämisen
lähtökohtia
varhaiskasvatuksessa [Starting points of developing for craft and
technology education in early childhood education]. (Publication series
A. Research reports No. 181). University of Turku, Finland: Faculty of
Education.
Autio, O. (1997). Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien kehittyminen
peruskoulussa. [Student's development in technical abilities in Finnish
comprehensive school]. (Research reports No. 117). University of
Helsinki, Finland: Department of teacher education.
Bruer, J. (1994). Schools for thought. A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Dyrenfurth, M., & Kozak, M. (Eds.), (1991). Technological
literacy. 40th Yearbook. Council on technology teacher education.
Illinois: MacMillan.
Kananoja, T. (1997). Teacher training in technological education in
Finland. In T. Kananoja (Eds.), Seminars on technology education. Oulu,
7.-8.5.1996; 18.20.10.1996 (pp. 9-16). (Research reports No. 69).
University of Oulu, Finland: Faculty of Education.
Kankare, P. (1997). Teknologian lukutaidon toteutuskonteksti
peruskoulun teknisessä työssä. [The context of technology education
(Technical work) in schools]. (Publication series C. Research reports
No. 139). Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
Kantola, J. (1997). Cygnaeuksen jäljillä käsityönopetuksesta
teknologiseen kasvatukseen. [In the footsteps of Cygnaeus: From
handicraft teaching to technological education]. (Studies in education,
psychology and social research 133). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of
Jyväskylä.
Kohonen, V., & Niemi, H. (1996). Developing and evaluating
teacher education in Finland: Current trends and future challenges. In
S. Tella (Ed.), Teacher education in Finland. Present and future trends
and challenges (pp. 21-43). (Studia Pedagogica 11). University of
Helsinki, Finland: Department of Teacher Education.
Lindh, M. (1996). Matematiikan ja fysiikan integrointi tekniseen
työhön. Virikeaineistoa yleissivistävän koulun teknologiakasvatukseen.
[The integration of math and science into technology education.
Practical examples for technology education in comprehensive school].
(Publication series C. Research reports No. 68). University of Oulu,
Finland: Faculty of Education.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. The path between
engineering and philosophy. Chigago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Opetushallitus. (1994). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet.
[The curriculum guidelines for general education]. Helsinki: Valtion
painatuskeskus.
Parikka, M., & Rasinen, A. (1993). Technology education
experiment, curricular points of departure for the experiment, In I.
Mottiers, J. Ratt & M. de Vries (Eds.), Technology education and the
environment. Improving our environment through technology education
(pp. 189-206). Proceedings of PATT-6 conference, The Netherlands.
Peltonen, J. (1995). Craft and prevocational education in pre-primary
and primary education. In J. Lasonen, & M-L. Stenström (Eds.),
Contemporary issues of occupational education in Finland (pp. 27-41).
University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for educational research.
Petrina, S. (1998). Multidisciplinary technology education.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 103-138.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Suojanen, U. (1993). From a technical crafts students into a critical
one - a process of development through reflective teaching. The Finnish
Journal of Education. Supplement 1(24), 61-66.
Ari Alamäki (ari.alamaki@utu.fi) is with the Department of Teacher Education in Rauma, University of Turku, Finland.
