TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY

Towards a reconsideration of technological literacy

By Cathrine Hasse & Jamie Wallace

Technucations working definition of Technological literacy is:

The learnt ability to gain and combine technical know-how together with other
forms of social and cultural understanding to identify and qualify opportunities
for the deployment, use and application of new and disruptive technologies
within a professional context.

Background to the working definition

Since the early 1990s politicians and educational researchers have endeavoured to
integrate standards for technological literacy into the so called STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) related areas. The term technological
literacy (TL) is related to the attempt to unite the subjects considered as
underpinning our technological society in an effort to combat technological illiteracy
within the STEM areas of primary, secondary and higher education as well as of
society in general.
A review conducted as part of Technucation project has shown the majority of
literature pertaining to the research term technological literacy relates to these
efforts within primary and secondary education. A large portion of the remaining
articles relate to the development of TL within STEM education in vocational or higher
education and ultimately the review points to the term being anchored within policy
documents discussing politicians interest in school reform with a particularly TL focus
found in USA and Australia.
Common to this complex mix of research and policy orientated literature is the
presumption of a predefined curriculum that can satisfy the aims of TL such as STL
(Standards for Technological Literacy) or (ITEA 2000,2007). The international
organisation for technological literacy (ITEA International Technology Education
Association) defines TL as being able to use, manage, assess, and understand
technology (ITEA 2007, 9). Much of the research addresses the didactic challenges
associated with the implementation of these standards. Similarly Scandinavian and
Danish politicians and educational researchers have sought to strengthen TL within
primary and secondary schools through a series of educational related initiatives and
have in many ways attempted to increase societies general interest in technology and
not least policy initiatives with a view to support the use and development of
technology. Technucation project aligns with this field although addressing the
question of what TL is within every day working life doing so from the basis of new
research. ITEA standards point to such a broader understanding of TL that connects it
with the commonplace:
"A technologically literate person understands the significance of technology in
everyday life and the way in which it shapes the world(ITEA 2007,33).
However these standards remain detached from any basic research related to what TL
is within working life.
Rather than the assumption that TL is associated to a particular competence within a
given field, is the assertion that it is something that is learnt and thereby associated
within lifelong learning. This coupling between lifelong learning and TL goes beyond
the argument of STEM related discussions of curricula implementation and turns the
focus towards technology and technological literacy as a process. Consequently
everyday learning within the workplace can be seen to play a central role. Accordingly
this necessitates a focus upon the interrelations between human-machine (Suchmann
2007), between technologies (Wallace 2010), between technological artefacts and
working culture (Hasse 2011), and between sensing and technology (Sndergaard

2009). In other words a TL and technological philosophy able to take into account
human relations with technologies (Dakers 2005, 2006, Ihde 2010, Ingerman &
Collier-Reed 2011).
In short a TL and technological philosophy able to take into account the human
relations with technologies (Dakers 2005, 2006, Ihde 2010, Ingerman & Collier-Reed
2011).
Through our review we have identified a smaller percentage of research papers
aligned towards the necessity to research and understand the ways in which TL
becomes an everyday practice. This perspective stretching far beyond an
understanding of technology as an instrument or tool intended to satisfy predefined
and coherent tasks.
Within the STS field there is no direct reference to the term technological literacy
however there is found a considerable amount of literature providing critical and
appropriate discussions towards a newer and more situated understanding of
technologies interconnections within our everyday lives. Many of these articles
suggesting that technological illitaracy isnt simply a matter of the lack of
understanding technology itself but rather what technology does to our material and
social culture as a result of the complex interactions of our everyday.
We are transforming our world at an alarming rate and in so doing, we are alienating
ourselves from it. Our technologically mediated existence is threatening the very
democratic process itself. We need to develop a new language, a new literacy, in
order to both understand our brave new world, and learn how to live a meaningful
existence in it (Dakers 2006, 1).
Given this perspective questions are raised as to the taken for granted nature of
technological standards referred to in ITEA and further points to the mediation
between technology, human life and power that makes it possible to consider
technology as a form of materialiseret handling (Schraube 2009, 297).
Technologies arent simply tools but can be interruptive to agents (disruptive
technologies) who through creativity or even intimidation reconfigure working life,
know-how and human fantasy. Technologies are evocative objects (Turkle 2007) and
having a deeper understating can permit new questions as to the ways in which
technologies arrive at the ability to transform.
In Technucation project we suggest technologies transformational potential as
stemming from the cultural learning process attached to an understanding of learning
in practice (see for example Chaiklin & Lave 1993, Engestrm 2001), that contains
both technologies and humans complex interactions as active agents. Technucation
builds upon a learning perspective that shifts focus from generally accepted standards
and skills towards responsible research (Edwards 2002) into the everyday learning
processes of teachers and nurses working lives. We examine the ways TL arises
through everyday interactions and relations seen from the premise that people learn
through, with or from technologies associated with their practice orientated know-how
(see Hasse 2011).
The above outlines the background for the projects current working definition for TL
intended to be continually reconsidered and assessed throughout the developed the
research activity.
The learnt ability to gain and combine technical know-how together with
other forms of social and cultural understanding to identify and qualify
opportunities for the deployment, use and application of new and disruptive
technologies within a professional context.
Our reconsideration of the term technological literacy stems from the wish to account
for everyday practice related to what is seen as important and necessary to learn
about technology within education. Even though our empirical work centres upon the
education of teachers and nurses, our reinterpretation of technological literacy can be
seen as equally relevant to other forms of vocational education.

Read more about our current empirical research

Read about further discussions within the field of technological

literacy

Referencer

Chaiklin, S. and Lave J. (Eds). (1993). Understanding Practice: Perspectives on

Activity and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dakers J (2006). Introduction: Defining technological literacy, In J. R. Dakers (Ed.).
Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 1-2). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan,
Dakers, J. (2005) Technology education as solo activity or socially constructed
learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15 (1), pp. 73-89
Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2001a) "Phase III Technology for All Americans Project."
Technology Teacher. 60, no. 4 (January 2001): 27-31.
Dugger, W. E.,(2001) Jr. "Standards for Technological Literacy." Phi Delta Kappan. 82,
no. 7 (March 2001): 513-517.
Edwards, A. (2002). Responsible Research: ways of being a researcher In: British
Educational
Research Journal. Vol. 28(2), pp 157-169.
Engestrm, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical
Reconceptualization In: Journal of Education and Work. Vol. 14(1), pp.133-156.
Garmire, E., & Pearson, G. (Eds.). (2006) Tech tally: Approaches to assessing
technological
literacy. Washington: National Academy Press.
Ingerman, A., Collier-Reed, B. (2011) Technological literacy reconsidered: a model for
enactment
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, (2011) 21:137148
Hasse, C. 2011 Kulturanalyser i organisationer. Begreber, metoder og forblffende
lreprocesserKbenhavn: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.
Ihde, D. (2010). Embodied Technics, Milton Keynes: Automatic Press
ITEA. (1996). Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study
of Technology. Reston, VA: Author.
ITEA. (2000/2007). Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the study of
technology. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from www.iteaconnect.ora/
TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf.
Meade, Shelli; Dugger Jr., William E. Technology Teacher, Mar2006, Vol. 65 Issue 6,
p25-27.
Rose, Mary Annette. Journal of Technology Education, Fall 2007, Vol. 19 Issue 1,
p35-52
Shackelford, Ray L.; Brown, Ryan; Warner, Scott A. Technology Teacher, Feb2004,
Vol. 63 Issue 5, p7-11
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions
(2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sndergaard; K.D. (2009) Innovating mental health care a configurative case study
in intangible, incoherent and multiple efforts. PhD Dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish
School of Education, Aarhus University
Turkle, S. (2007). What makes an object evocative? In S. Turkle (Ed.), Evocative
objects - Things we think with (pp. 307-326). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press.
Wallace, Jamie (2010) Different Matters of Invention. Design work as the
transformation of dissimilar design artefacts. PhD Dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish
School of Education, Aarhus University