Proceedings of the First AAAS Technology Education Research Conference
Technology Education Research: Focusing on the Learner
Brigitte G. Valesey
International Technology Education Association
This conference confirmed what is essential—that the learner needs to
be the focus for technology education research. Models for learning and teaching
reflect only best guesses about how to deliver technology education so students
learn about technology effectively. While focused in theory on students, in
fact research has yet to fully reveal the complexities of how students learn
about technology and the extent to which they develop technological literacy.
Assessment measures and research instruments have yet to be developed to indicate
a student’s understanding about technology.
More and different types of research are needed to increase our understanding
of how students learn, how teachers can effectively deliver technology education,
and the value of technology education to individuals and society. The current
view afforded by research is vague and limited in scope. James Rutherford,
in his keynote address, cited a lack of tradition in research in technology
and a need to establish a research agenda with clear learning goals and priorities.
Karen Zuga, summarizing technology education research between 1987 and 1998,
found that research topics focused largely on curriculum (49%) and profession/instruction
(18%), with few studies dealing with teaching and learning effectiveness.
Also, teacher educators were studied almost twice as often as student populations.
There were few studies dealing with cognition and constructivism, public attitudes
about technology education, integration, diversity, and effectiveness of technology
education.
Critical and interpretative approaches to methodology are needed to complement
the positivistic research that has predominated. Alternatives to traditional
quantitative methodologies—in the form of classroom observations, naturalistic
studies, case studies, and action research—will provide a more holistic
picture of how students actually learn. "How we view our work, or the
nature of the field will help dictate methodology", says Theodore Lewis
of the social component of research. Janet Kolodner presented design experiments
research, i.e. engineering the environment to promote learning and then observing
what happens in that environment. This methodology addresses research questions
such as, what conceptions about technology do they have and when? How do these
conceptions develop? What activities promote learning? What teacher practices
make a difference? Future research must include methodologies and corresponding
instruments that capture a multifaceted view of how students learn and effective
ways to teach.
Classroom research provides key insights about how students construct meaning
and develop understanding. Patricia Rowell studied elementary students to
find out what constructions children were capable of. Her elementary case
study examples provided an exciting glimpse into how students approach design
activities, how they might apply science and math, or how students articulate
what they've learned. Robert McCormick’s research efforts to capture
student thinking during a design and technology activity gave us insights
concerning cognitive processes and how students approach technology problems.
Gary Benenson observed student behaviors and recorded thinking processes during
technology activities to determine how children develop their concepts of
technology. Their studies provide models for interpretive research that reveal
ways students learn about technology. Similar research needs to be done to
develop a more comprehensive view of what actually happens in the classroom.
What we clearly need is an expanded community of researchers with different
backgrounds, yet a common interest—the study of technology and students
who study technology. This community should include educators from fields
such as engineering, science, and mathematics, as well as classroom teachers
and their students. While "we don’t want to impose paradigms on
each other", as James LaPorte stated, research done by and with many
different groups will yield a clearer vision of technology education and what
students can really learn and how or when they may learn best. Mark Sanders
suggested several strategies for developing a research culture including developing
a web-based research forum; attracting science, engineering, and other educators
to doctoral programs; encouraging undergraduates to do research; engaging
children in research; and involving teachers in collaborative efforts.
This conference reconceptualized research in technology education, stressing
a need for clear direction, more rigorous research, newer methodologies, and
a broader continuum of research topics. There are hosts of research issues—theoretical,
empirical, methodological—to be studied. Researchers across educational
fields need to address such topics as student cognition and metacognition,
the nature and role of conceptual knowledge and actual practice, teaching
effectiveness, developmental issues, and assessment as it relates to the study
of technology. What was clear to conference participants is that research
on technological literacy, i.e. K-12 technology education, must refocus on
the learner and how he or she develops an understanding of technology.
Theodore Lewis (1999) has written, "Research is fundamentally a creative
enterprise…." This is an excellent time for researchers to
be creative and to engage in meaningful efforts that have collective significance.
This conference initiated a creative dialogue and established an opportunity
for action. It is time to develop a research culture that embraces broader
communities with a common interest in technology and how students learn it,
and to sustain the momentum needed to take the issues and directions explored
at this conference and advance them further.
Reference:
Lewis, T. (Spring 1999). Research in technology education: some areas
of need. In Journal of Technology Education,10 (2), 1-17.
