Terc 06 JN Reviewdraft

This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following
conference proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2006). Core disciplined study of technology: Of value but not valued? In H. Middleton, M. Pavlova & D. Roebuck (Eds.), 4th
Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research Values in Technology Education [CDROM version] (pp. 223-227). Crowne
Plaza Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia 7- 9 December.: Centre for learning research, Griffith University.
Core disciplined study of technology: Of value but not valued?

Paper to be presented at the 4th Biennial conference on Technology Education Research
December 7th – 9th 2006 - Crowne Plaza Gold Coast
Jason Newcombe
Southern Cross University
Coffs Harbour NSW Australia
Initiatives are often brought to bear on curriculum because of a perceived need to inform
students about a greater societal issue. Initiatives may seek to create awareness of
appropriate behavior that might reduce negative effects in the future. As an initiative, one
motivation that is seen as central to technology education is to inform students of the
‘bigger picture’ of how people shape their world and the various consequences. If
technology education already provides a platform to deliver content related to
contemporary issues, but is not accessed for that end, then there may be underlying factors
influencing why the discipline may not to be ‘valued’ for its ‘value’ in education. This may
ultimately affect the sustainable future for the field itself. Therefore the paper subsequently
seeks to put forward some key points and theories providing inspiration for a PhD research
project at Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia. The research will seek to challenge
the viability of technology education in school programs for the purposes of extending
current thinking about technology as a discreet core area of study.
Introduction
In Australia there has been much work put in by few people to strive for an effective,
forward thinking and dynamic technology education curriculum. The Institute of Industrial
Arts Technology Education of New South Wales (IIATE) have certainly expressed their
concern over a lack of full time academics in the field (IIATE, 2004). This leaves very few
who are researching and developing new knowledge and answers providing direction and
the best way forward for the future. Diffusion research however, indicates that good ideas
and effective answers, despite their appropriateness, are not always followed by ‘take-up’
(Rogers, 2003) and so the best work by a few people may not be enough to guarantee the
effectiveness of the field. Political drivers, departmental initiatives, perceptions of decision
makers and economic pressures brought to bear on education are a constant source of
change. Therefore, as suggested by Seemann (2006) there may be a need to completely
“rethink almost everything about technology education”.
Kurt Lewin, a 20th century social psychologist and philosopher, is attributed as suggesting
that the best way to understand something is to attempt to change it (ThinkExist.com
Quotations, 2006). Research within the research tradition of innovation diffusion suggests
that with new ways of doing things will come wariness, avoidance and even active
resistance to uncertainty and perceived failure (Rogers 2005). Further, there is a tendency
to revert to a previous, known and workable idea to achieve a result that is ‘perceived’ as
safe and plausible (ibid). The irony is, that a field that asserts its focus to study the tools
and mechanisms, ethical decisions, systematic failures and successes of the phenomenon of
1
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference proceedings
technological change may also be experiencing the same difficulties it seeks to understand
in what it studies; an almost, self destructive, ‘meta-technical’ dilemma.
The best chance for a sustainable future for technology education in Australia is to develop
a theoretically sound strategy to develop a ‘critical mass’, that is, a large proportion of
advocates that can perpetuate the scholarly intent of the field of study. Rogers (2005) also
indicates that being able to determine the relative advantage of a new idea, information
seeking behaviour, and observation of another’s success assists in being able to determine
if it is viable to ‘take-up’ a new idea. Such information seeking behaviour could be equated
to careful facilitation, support and respect for focused postgraduate research within the
technology education context. The intention of this paper is to provoke and encourage
thought and discussion around the direction for a study to challenge the viability of
technology education as a school curriculum area and as a core discipline of education.
The eternal struggle

‘Struggle’, ‘ego’ and ‘competing interests’ are descriptors that could arguably be used to
describe human development down through the ages. The first time a human infant is aware
that, if it wishes, it may affect a deliberate influence on its environment to its own benefit
may herald the first conscious acknowledgement of technological awareness. Mumford
(1967), an American writer, in his analysis of human development provides a fitting
indication of the complexity and depth of thinking that the human mind is capable to
engender technological change and civil development.
“Man’s potentialities are still more important, infinitely more important, than all his
present achievements. This was so at the beginning and it still holds. His greatest
problem has been how to selectively organize and consciously direct both the
internal and the external agents of the mind, so that they form more coherent and
more intelligible wholes. Technics played a constructive part in solving this
problem; but instruments of stone and wood and fiber could not be put to work on
a sufficient scale until a man had succeeded in inventing other impalpable tools
wrought out of the very stuff of his own body, and not visible in any other form”
(sic) (p45) (italics added for emphasis)
The layperson could be forgiven for considering that the object of knowledge for
technology education was in the production of the artifacts it produces. However,
historically, technical tools and materials are but one ingredient in the technological mix.
Mumford’s comments ought be an indication that the value of an education in technology is
not simply in the teaching of technical facts and practice: though this is necessary. These
same characteristics are just as applicable to the very discipline (technology education) that
professes to study the means by which civilization is shaped and by which it develops.
Perhaps there is a need for a complete relocation away from an “industrial tool use model”
(Hansen & Lovedahl, 2004) to a different, more holistic model (Seemann, 2003) that also
encompasses the human and environmental elements of technological change driven by
clear intentional purpose in its particular context.
2
The struggle for a core disciplined study of technology

There has been a slow and arduous history of policy driven ‘reform’ and initiatives in
Technology education curriculum. This is apparent from those institutions charged with
developing and delivering the curriculum. Government and other non-government groups
seek to influence and develop a curriculum that reflects their understanding of some of the
intent that drives technological change (Barnes, 2004; Hansen & Lovedahl, 2004;
Newcombe, 2000; Wilson & Harris, 2004; Curriculum Corporation, 1994; Turner, 2004).
Education systems focus on the idea of developing its citizens’ literacy and numeracy. Yet
the idea that someone can study technology to develop a single all-encompassing and
descriptive trait, with which laypeople might connect, is difficult to determine
(International Technology Education Association [ITEA], 2000). Failing the use of hope,
patience and passing of time, any effort to convey the importance of technology education
may be simply dismissed by the skeptic as too esoteric. It may require the use of a range of
long-winded arguments and examples in an attempt to describe the key behaviours and
principles that ‘seem’ to characterise the manner in which humans change the environment
in which they live. Worse, technology could be naively viewed as something that simply
requires training in its use to achieve a particular purpose - mindless acts without sense of
moral ethical or deliberate thinking.
As a hypothetical illustration; If an expert in ‘literacy education’ states that all people need
to study their first language as a discreet subject to be a more effective participant in
society, which science, mathematics or other teacher would dare to question this ideal?
Such statements might indeed be accepted at face value. After all, One needs a system of
language in order to share and communicate information about their particular object of
knowledge. However, if an expert in ‘technology education’ was to state the importance of
a subject devoted to studying how materials and tools are used in society so we might better
educate effective citizens, would other teaching professionals equally value this notion?
Perhaps they might consider they already teach technology in their subject area.
This same logic however, could be also used to suggest that there is no requirement other
specialised disciplines. For example, English education might be best taught away from the
English classroom altogether. Perhaps as literacy in different contexts such as science or
business studies. Mathematics might best be taught in contexts such as Physics, Chemistry
and even Music. Subjects such as Biology might also be best taught in Physical education
classes and Art within a Multimedia class. Whilst these examples may already occur to
some extent, the original discipline still exists in the school curriculum. Technology on the
other hand, is at risk of taking the role being something a person is trained to mindlessly
use in the pursuit of another discipline and of little value to those who seek to study other
specialised disciplines.
Current thinking and curriculum approaches s

There is myriad of approaches and apparent understandings and methods of delivery of
technology education curriculum. In the Australian state of Victoria there is a “…new
approach to Victorian curriculum from Prep to Year 10.” (Victorian Curriculum and
3
Assessment Authority, 2006b). In this ‘new’ approach, technology subject areas such as
‘Design, Creativity and Technology’ and ‘Information and communications technologies’
(ICT) are not considered as ‘discipline-based learning’ but rather as ‘interdisciplinary
learning’ (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2006a). This seems not to
follow current thinking in the field. In the Standards for technological literacy, the
International Technology Education Association [ITEA] makes deliberate emphasis on the
importance for all people to study a core field of study (ITEA, 2000) for the benefit of
society.
In the state of Queensland there are five subject specific syllabi that draw upon from the
technology syllabus, among others, that are said to have “unique range of knowledge,
practices and dispositions” for a specific context (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005 :p1).
In New South Wales there are a mix of twenty-four specialised syllabi with one mandatory
syllabus for year seven and eight within an area that is known as Technology and Applied
Studies (TAS)(Chaseling, 2004). These ‘context specific’ programs that appear to draw
upon the ideals of technology education seem to support Hansen & Lovedahl's (2004)
argument where the phrase ‘industrial tool use model’ is used to describe technology
education courses in which they “remain focused on the technical capability with tools and
materials and skills development” (p20).
The previously identified grouping of subjects in New South Wales school curriculum
positioned within the Technology and Applied Studies [TAS] area is the source of some
objections from a teachers’ perspective. The Institute of Industrial Arts Technology
Education [IIATE] in NSW presented a submission to an ‘Inquiry into Recruitment and
Training and Training of Teachers’ (2005) and put forward the case that, “Industrial Arts
teachers reject that a consensus position exists on the nature or acceptance of any
“underlying philosophy” amongst practitioners within the so-called TAS KLA.” (p 25).
They argue that knowledge, skills, materials, and processes, among the different areas are
different despite some common methodology.
Despite the widely recognised and acknowledged need for the education of young people in
the ‘discipline’ of technology, there is strong indication that it continues to be a topic of
conversation and academic discourse. Technology education continues to display a
fragmented and almost “…schizophrenic image that ill served the home economics [or any
technology-based subject] efforts to legitimize themselves within the Dewy decimal system
[or education system]” (Fields & Connell, 2004) (Parenthesis added). Is it a reality that
technology education has value in the way those researching the field actually promote that
study in this area can achieve?
A case of same stuff different century

There is an indication that even in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s there was a ‘struggle’ to
give a particular technology-based subjects ‘pride of place’ amongst other disciplines such
as sociology (Fields & Connell, 2004). In their paper, Fields and Connell discuss the
library cataloging system (Dewey decimal system) in the context of reference books used in
the study of home economics. There was a proposal put forward at a conference in 1902 to
4
move book titles related to sociology and economics into the 330’s leaving titles relating to
technical aspects of the field in the 600’s associated with ‘practical arts’. Today, there
appears to be a continuing struggle to gain some form of academic notoriety or status for
the field as indicated by Lewis (1999) through a discussion identifying research needs in
the field.
Whilst there is evidence that Melvil Dewey’s (of the dewy decimal system) was supportive
of the original scholarly intent behind the home economics discipline, Fields & Connell
(2004) indicate that his, and others’ unwillingness to accept the proposal was a contributing
factor to “artificially emphasized narrow “events and phenomena” such as cooking and
sewing over broader, more relational aspects of the subject”. Technology education’s
struggle for notoriety is emphasized by Lewis (2004) when stating “it shares a similar
history of struggle with other subjects whose initial entry into the curriculum was based on
a utilitarian rather than an academic rationale”.
In their submission IIATE also expressed concern that quality undergraduate teacher
education programs had ceased in NSW and called for increased quality of existing
programs. A source of the problem for the quality of teacher education courses and
beginning teachers was an overemphasis on “design and technology”. Proctor (2005)
argues that whilst design should be part of the course it should not be the only focus. These
are certainly sentiments expressed by some experts within the field in a previous study
(Newcombe, 2000). Nevertheless, this issue is of serious concern when much of the
apparent rhetoric for the promotion of technology education internationally by those
engaged in research and at a strategic level is ‘design’ and ‘technology’ (Curriculum
Corporation, 1994; Queensland Studies Authority, 2005; ITEA 2000).
The IIATE have expressed their belief that “…there is not a critical mass of Industrial Arts
academics to provide the research, development and promote information exchange,
dialogue and professional leadership.” (p19). On this basis is might therefore be prudent to
implement strategies to identify any hindering factors and engage more Industrial
technology teachers in Australia in postgraduate research.
The discussion thus far seems to suggest that there is no clear and consistent shift towards
adopting a theoretically robustly framework for the discipline-based learning of technology.
Some of the concerns by Australian teachers that university programs either being closed
down or not meeting the quality of past programs highlight a need for further focused
research on the viability of all technology education programs. There is a need to
determine if there is value, or it is simply not accurately valued for its contribution to
education. It may be time to seek strategies to develop a value proposition for continued
pursuit to establish a core-disciplined study of technology along with the pursuance of
specialist technology subjects. There also needs to be a preparedness to perhaps abandon
the effort altogether.
5
Sustaining the profession - Key theories to pursue

Concern about the de-valuing of a field is most likely not a phenomenon experienced by
one subject area of education or a single field of study. Future Materials, a research
network partnership founded by six Australian universities is developing a strategy to
improve the ‘take-up’ of their research. As Wachsmann (2006), the chief executive officer
of Future Materials comments, “Our difference is that we will be focussing (sic) on the
field of materials technologies which we’ve found often falls between the cracks of other
more high profile technologies such as biotechnology or information technology”.
Likewise, the research and work done in technology education curriculum may also ‘fall
through the cracks” in school curriculum unless there is a move to encourage a “take-up” at
the school level and acknowledge the true time-tested value of technology education.
Throughout history human development has relied on changes in material production,

which has at times resulted in massive social and economic changes. For example the
changes from bronze to iron weaponry and tooling in ancient times had effects on trade,
and provided a means by which even poor people could obtain affordable tools that would
help them generate and defend their wealth (Weber, 1989). The changes of these times saw
other developments in civilization; the diversifying of culture and religion, the
establishment of a middle class, the money economy and the expansion of trade leading to
another need for communication technology through the development of a common
language (ibid).
These historically evident themes of social and economic change have again become a part
of a modern initiative in Industry and business through concepts of the holistic model of
ecological sustainability and the triple bottom line (Newman, 1999). Concern over the state
of the environment has resulted in a connection being made between sustainable health of
all three aspects of Economic growth; Social wellbeing; and Environmental conservation.
In what initially might seem to be contradictory ideas, various groups are beginning to draw
on these ideas to find a holistic sustainable way forward for humanity (Hawken, Lovins &
Lovins 1999).
In the context of technology education (Seemann, 2003) proposes a model for technology
education. As “technacy” is also referred to as a holistic model it is not surprising that it
has striking similarities with a model presented for sustainable development by the
International Council on Local Environments Initiatives (cited in Newman, 1999).
Seemann (2000, p11) briefly alludes to this link in a discussion of the theoretical structure
behind technacy. Here he makes reference to the notion that implementation of an eco-
friendly technology might be done to the detriment of a social or economic consequence.
Table 1 provides a broad comparison of the two theories, technacy (Seemann, 2000;
Seemann, 2003) and sustainable development (Newman, 1999).
6
Table 1 – Broad comparison of Technacy and Sustainability theories
Technacy Sustainability
Technological Setting Sustainable development
Purposeful intent in a particular context Purposeful intent in a particular context
Human Context factors Community development
Human organisation – needs, factors, Human participation and accountability -
techniques, knowledge, needs and quality of life,
Technological context factors Economic Development
A means to technological development- A means to financial growth and
use of tool to fashion an artifact development – use of market to gain profit
Environment ingredient Environmental Development

Consumed material and data Respect, conserve, recycle & reduce waste
–materials in production - Air, water, soil, biodiversity
As technological development is a key factor in any human development, it appears logical

that the value technology education brings to education might be found in such initiatives
and indicates an opportunity to express a value proposition for the field. It is therefore
suggested that a project seeking to ascertain the current viability of technology education
might best be approached from the perspective of these two contemporary theories.
Conclusion
Technology education in Australia gives the impression of a ‘schizophrenic’ approach to
curriculum. There are conflicting ideals between the search for a core-disciplined study
and an “ industrial tool use model”. The concerns raised by a teachers’ association in the
Australian state of New South Wales over the lack of quality teacher education programs is
only reinforced by a lack of ‘critical mass’ engaged in quality and respected research and
university teaching. As a lead-up to a research project this paper has sought to create
discussion and debate over the value technology education has in general education. The
key ideas in diffusion research and the theories of Sustainability and Technacy (holistic
technology education) are being considered to explore for a sustainable way forward. It
may be time to ask the difficult questions in order to search for the time-tested and robust
value of technology in the development of civilization. Perhaps, if there is no clear value,
then it may be an indication that it may be time to abandon the venture altogether. Or is it
that technology education is simply not valued for what it can offer?
Barnes, R. (2004). Member Profile: Neville Warner (part 2). journal of Industrial Technology Design
Teachers Association of Queensland, 45(4), 31-33.
Chaseling, M. (2004). Memorandum - Whitehouse: Southern Cross University.
7
Corporation, C. (1994). Technology- a curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton South Victoria:
Curriculum corporation.
Fields, A. M., & Connell, T. H. (2004). Classification and the definition of a discipline: the Dewey Decimal
Classification and home economics. Libraries & Culture, 39(3), 245-260.
Hansen, J. W., & Lovedahl, G. G. (2004). Developing technology teachers: questioning the industrial tool use
model. Journal of technology education, 15(2), 20 - 32.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. & Lovins, L. H. (1999). The next industrial revolution In Natural Capitalism:
Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (pp. 1-21). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy. Reston,
Virginia: International Technology Education Association.
Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education – some areas of need. Journal of technology education,
10(2), 41-56.
Lewis, T. (2004). A turn to engineering: The continuing strugle of technology education for legitimization as
a school subject. Journal of technology education, 16(1), 21 - 39.
Newcombe, J. E. (2000). Conceptualising technology education for general education: a delphi study.
Unpublished Dissertation, Griffith university, Brisbane.
Newman, P. K., J. . (1999). Cities and sustainability. Washington: Island Press.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2005). Subject Area Syllabus and Guidelines: Industrial Technology and
Design Education-Level 4 to Beyond Level 6. Retrieved September 2, 2006, from
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/subject-areas/industrial-design/industrial_design_a.pdf.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.): Free Press.
Seemann, K. (2000). Technacy education: Towards holistic pedagogy and epistemology in general and
indigenous/cross-cultural technology education. Paper presented at the First Biennial conference on
technology education research- Crowne Plaza Gold coast Dec 2000|.
Seemann, K. (2003). Basic Principles in Holistic Technology Education. Journal of technology education,
14(2).
Seemann, K. (2006). Preparing Learners for the Innovation Economy: It's time to rethink almost everything
about technology education. Design and technology education: An international journal. 11(2).
Turner, A., Seemann, K. (2004). Innovation education in NSW - Design and technology curriculum. Paper
presented at the Learning for innovation in technology education, Gold Coast.
Victorian curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2006a). Prep to Year 10 Curriculum and Standards.
Retrieved September 2, 2006, from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/essential/index.html
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2006b). Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS).
Retrieved September 2, 2006, from http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/prep10/vels/index.html
Wachsmann, W. (2006, August 2006). From the Chief Executive - A shift in emphasis. Future Materials
News - August, 2006.
Weber, E. (1989 1994). From bronze to iron [videorecording]. On The western tradition. United States: EMA
Open learning Pty Ltd.
Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2004). Creating Change? A review of the impact of design and technology in
schools in England. Journal of technology education, 15(2), 46 - 65.

Terc 06 JN Reviewdraft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Terc 06 JN Reviewdraft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following

Core disciplined study of technology: Of value but not valued?

The eternal struggle

The struggle for a core disciplined study of technology

Current thinking and curriculum approaches s

A case of same stuff different century

Sustaining the profession - Key theories to pursue

Throughout history human development has relied on changes in material production,

Table 1 – Broad comparison of Technacy and Sustainability theories

Environment ingredient Environmental Development

As technological development is a key factor in any human development, it appears logical

You might also like