Discerning technological systems related to everyday objects: mapping the variation in pupils’ experience

Abstract

Understanding technology today implies more than being able to use the technological objects present in our everyday lives. Our society is increasingly integrated with technological systems, of which technological objects, and their function, form a part. Technological literacy in that context implies understanding how knowledge is constituted in technology, and in particular how concrete (objects) and abstract levels (systems) are linked. This article has an educational focus concerning systems in technology education. Using a phenomenographic approach, the study explores pupils' experiences of technological systems as embedded in four everyday objects. We identify five qualitatively different ways of understanding systems, ranging from a focus on using the particular objects, over-focussing on the function of objects, seeing objects as part of a process, and seeing objects as system components, to understanding objects as embedded in systems. As a conclusion, we suggest an educational strategy for teaching about systems in technology education.

Problem Decomposition and Recomposition in Engineering Design: a Comparison of Design Behavior Between Professional Engineers, Engineering Seniors, and Engineering Freshmen

“…Relevance. Students, particularly K-12 students, tend to be more engaged in a design activity if it is perceived to be relevant and pertains to the student's everyday life (Brophy et al, 2008;Sadler, Coyle, & Schwartz, 2000;Svensson & Ingerman, 2010). Overall, the students favorably spoke of the design challenge's relevance.…”

A Phenomenographic Study in Understanding Architecture Students’ Approaches to Learning the Coursework of Architectural Design

“…Svensson & Ingerman (2010) explored technological literacy through the use of technological objects, which literacy in today's society "is increasingly integrated with technological systems". Technological literacy has been viewed through the prism of "how concrete (objects) and abstract levels (systems) are linked" (Svensson & Ingerman 2010). The phenomenographic study looked into "pupils' experiences of technological systems as embedded in four everyday objects".…”

“…The phenomenographic study looked into "pupils' experiences of technological systems as embedded in four everyday objects". The study identified "five qualitatively different ways of understanding systems, ranging from a focus on using the particular objects, over-focusing on the function of objects, seeing objects as part of a process, and seeing objects as system components, to understanding objects as embedded in systems" (Svensson & Ingerman 2010). The authors "suggest an educational strategy for teaching about systems in technology education" (Svensson & Ingerman 2010).…”

“…The study identified "five qualitatively different ways of understanding systems, ranging from a focus on using the particular objects, over-focusing on the function of objects, seeing objects as part of a process, and seeing objects as system components, to understanding objects as embedded in systems" (Svensson & Ingerman 2010). The authors "suggest an educational strategy for teaching about systems in technology education" (Svensson & Ingerman 2010). Their study highlights the need to understand the influence of learning tools, ranging from manual to computer-aided approaches, and their influence on the architecture students' learning approaches.…”

Why Design Thinking Should Matter to Higher Education, Part II

“…Apedoe, Reynolds, Ellefson, and Schunn (2008) have written about bringing engineering design into high school classrooms. Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, and Rogers (2008); Sadler, Coyle, and Schwartz (2000); and Svensson and Ingerman (2010) have all discovered that the greater the relationship of designing to real life, the greater the student interest. Carroll, Goldman, Britos, Koh, Royalty, and Hornstein (2010) studied the role of design thinking in a middle school classroom, finding it not only an alternative to the simplistic No Child Left Behind requirements but that it “fosters the ability to imagine without boundaries and constraints” as well as helping “students become empowered agents in their own learning who possess both the tools and the confidence to change the world” (p. 52).…”