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

conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

EXPERT CONCEPTIONS OF TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION:

CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES
Jason Newcombe

A Paper presented at the 3rd biennial conference on technology education research–

Learning for Innovation in technology
Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December 2004
Griffith University Centre of learning research

This paper reports on a delphi study seeking expert perceptions of technology

education. Technology education is a new and developing area within educational
circles. There is wide variation in the approach to technology education curriculum
throughout the world. As advocates for the field struggle to identify the commonly
acceptable features of this emerging field, those who would take up related study and/or
careers are left to come to terms with their own understanding of what it means to study
technology and the outcomes that it will provide. The research collected and analysed
the views of scholars in the field. The analysis established the degree of convergence of
those scholars' views. At a practical level the study provides data that will fulfil two
main objectives. Firstly, the provision of useful information that may help to clarify the
nature of the technology education at the classroom level. Secondly, assist in the
development and monitoring of technology education programs that will best serve the
common aims and objectives of the field. The study also has implications for further
research in the field by identifying areas that require specialised attention and
additional development.

Introduction
Technology, when compared to other education areas such as languages, mathematics
and the arts, has only recently been identified as one of the ‘key’ areas of study that all
people should be exposed to. Basu (1997) identifies the introduction of technology
education in some Asian countries occurring just after the Second World War. In
addition, the identification and development of technology as an educational area of
study have not been based on the consideration of a large number of research reports.
Rather, technology education has been seen to be a priority by various governments and
semi-government organisations. Governments and education departments have
determined that technology education should be integral to general education for all
people. Examples of this are seen in the report into school education in Queensland
(Whiltshire, 1994), the standards and profiles prepared by the Curriculum Corporation
(Australian Education Council 1994a & 1994b), a paper presented at the Asia-Pacific
school principals' forum (Basu, 1997), and the standards developed by the International
Technology Education Association (ITEA, 2000).

The developmental process that the field of study is experiencing has resulted in a
variety of conceptions regarding the nature of technology. Anecdotal evidence gave
rise to the author identifying confusion and inconsistencies in understandings of
technology and technology education. This anecdotal evidence was observed during a
teacher education course from analysing literature, the observation of educational policy
decisions and from discussions with education professionals and scholars. It was the

1
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

author’s view that this may, in turn, have implications for the success of technology
education programs as a general education concept.

The hypothesis of the study was that there are areas of convergence and divergence in
expert thinking regarding the defining characteristics of technology and technology
education. To examine this hypothesis, a delphi study was conducted with technology
education experts. The objectives for this study drawn from the hypothesis were as
follows; -

1. Identify the concepts of technology education that experts within the field believe to
be the defining characteristics.
2. Identify areas about which experts do not agree and subsequently require further
research and specialised attention to determine their role in technology education.

The purpose of this study then was, primarily, to provide useful information that may
help to clarify the nature of technology, and of technology education, both as an
academic discipline and as a classroom level subject. This will enable scholars within
the field to effectively communicate the nature of technology education. Secondly, the
information obtained from this study could contribute to the development and
monitoring of technology education programs that would best serve the common aims
and objectives of the field. The study also has implications for further research in the
field by identifying areas that require specialised attention and additional development.

Literature review
From the literature review it was identified that there is a need to identify the key
concepts of technology education, and to identify what it is that students will learn in a
technology education program. As Morgan (1998) argues in the context of terminology
used in an Australian curriculum document:

“…there is an apparent lack of understanding and unnecessary confusion created

through the use of existing terminology, the intended meaning of which is not
readily apparent.”
(Morgan 1998, P127)

Technology concepts
The meanings of concepts such as “technology” and “technical” are central to the field
and required consideration. Other associated terms such as “technological literacy”,
“technology capability” and “systems” also pose problems for the technology education
field in terms of peoples' understanding of their meaning.

Technological literacy has become a popular term used worldwide in the development
of technology education curricular (Morgan, 1998). Jenkins (1997) stresses that any
interpretations of what it means to be technologically literate “…add up to a demanding
and sophisticated profile for any student, teacher, or lay citizen…”(p4). A similar
concept to technological literacy is technological capability and both terms are often
described in terms of criteria that a person meets, or possesses, in order to achieve the
technologically literate or capable status (Scottish Consultative Council on the

2
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

Curriculum; N.D., web page), (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2000, Website), (ITEA,
2000)

Systems are considered to be a method of describing the interactive and interdependent

nature of technology and the concept is used to structure curriculum (Australian
Education Council, 1994a). Morgan (1998), concedes that although the term systems is
appropriate to technology education, many aspects of technology work together and
thus the whole area therefore could also be identified as a system. For this reason
Morgan (1998) argues that there is little value in obtaining an understanding of systems
as an abstract term.

Approach of technology education

The approaches of technology education programs are varied throughout the world.
DeVries (1994) identifies eight trends in approaches to technology education programs
that whilst may not be followed precisely, they are able to be identified as one or a
combination of two or more. The eigth approaches are; 1- Craft Orientated Approach;
2- Industrial production orientated approach; 3- High-tech approach; 4- Applied science
approach 5- General technological concepts approach; 6 - Key competences approach;
7- Science/Technology/Society . Patrick, Foster and Wright (1996) conducted a study
identifying twelve (12) similar approaches to technology education as perceived by
leaders in the technology education field. They suggested that research to “identify
agreement and diversity in the field” should be ongoing to provide information to
inform future directions for the profession.

Technology as an area of study

Technology education is in its infancy in terms of its development and status as an
educational discipline. This is problematic for potential technology education
professionals to discern their position amid other educational areas. Lewis (1999)
suggests that “Arguably, the preoccupation with discipline structure really has had to
do with the quest for status and power (p48)”. Herschbach (1995) argues that disciplines
such as science, math or physics have a structured, formal knowledge whereas
technology merely “makes use of formal knowledge (p33).

Agazzi (1998) argues that the greek root ‘Techne’ already includes a certain degree of
theoretical knowledge in terms of understanding ‘how’ to do something efficiently and
why it is more efficient than another way. Use of “ology” in ‘technology’ serves to
provide ‘scientific’ or theoretical emphasis (Agazzi, 1998). Herschbach (1995) argues
that although the Greek root ‘logos’ implies a degree of reasoning in ‘technology’, “ its
application is interdisciplinary and specific to particular activities.”(p33). Lewis
(1999) points out that if technology education has its own central concepts and test of
experience it could be classified a discipline.

If experts within the field identify and can reach agreement as to the central concepts of
technology, this will contribute to the development of a clear direction for the field.
Herchbach (1997) argues that it is “impossible to pin down a definitive structure
underlying technology”(p22). Ropohl (1997) also refers to technological knowledge as
being the transformation of natural laws applied to a technical process.

3
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

Contexts of technology education programs

Reference is made (Harnish & Wilke-Schnaufer, 1998) to technology education as
meeting the training needs for specific vocational occupations. On the other hand, some
literature (Ropohl, 1997 and Basu, 1997) emphasise technology education as an aspect
of general education and not aimed at “breeding half-skilled workers or pocket sized
engineers” (Ropohl, 1997, p71). One common area of confusion about the specifics of
technology education is the idea that “technology” is “computers” (Webb, 1998).
Therefore technology education could be misunderstood as providing students with
technical computing skills or, further, any technical skills required to use tools and
materials.

Methodology and data analysis

The methodology used for the study was the Delphi technique. The research process
was modelled on the “Generalised Research Procedure” example presented by Clayton
(1997; p384). This determined that the process was divided into three rounds of
questionnaires.

The delphi process began after the initial contact was made with the experts. The
selection of the expert panel was an important part of this study. Clayton (1997)
emphasises that “selecting experts is critical to the Delphi and serves to authorise the
Delphi’s superiority and validity over other less painstaking and rigorous survey
procedures.”(p278). To obtain a variety of opinions and give the study international
relevance, experts were selected from different countries including Australia, England,
France, Israel, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and the United States. To mitigate the
limitations of Delphi the experts participating in the study were selected to fulfil the
following criteria.
• Participate in technology education research.
• Have supervised the implementation of a large-scale technology education program.
• Participate in the development of large-scale technology education programs.
• Published significant papers in the area.

During the study, the delphi instruments were developed so that they could be
distributed to the experts using electronic mail. Unfortunately, during the study the
reliability of electronic mail resulted in loss of contact with some experts. This method
of distribution was selected because of the time restriction placed on this study and the
ease of communication that electronic format provides.

Round one employed the use of a stimulus questionnaire to obtain the opinions of
technology education experts regarding concepts of technology and technology
education. The analysis of the stimulus questionnaire was conducted using a cut and
sort technique (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1998). The opinions presented were used to
develop two- (2) subsequent rounds of questionnaires.

The second questionnaire requested the experts to indicate their level of agreement on a
six-(6) point likert scale, towards indicator statements compiled from the previous

4
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

round. The third round required the experts to re-evaluate their level of agreement
whilst taking into consideration the collective view of the expert panel based on the
level of central tendency. The experts were also asked to re-evaluate based on the
changes and clarifications that were made to the statements based on round 2 comments
and recommendations.

For the purposes of analysis these sections were grouped into four (4) categories. The
categories were, A – Concept definitions; B – Technology as an area of study; C –
Technology education programs; and D – Contribution towards a general education.

Following the example of Wicklein & Rojewski (1999) the analysis for this study used
an inter-quartile range, equal to, or less than (1.0) to indicate consensus had been
reached for a statement. After consideration of the level of consensus the analysis also
included consideration of the alterations made to statements and attributing reasons as to
why the level of consensus altered. This however is not possible to discuss within this
paper.

One of the limitations of the Delphi method, as referred to by Clayton (1997), is the
‘risky shift’ phenomenon. ‘Risky shift’ is the effect of experts moderating or providing
more extreme responses because of the response of others through anticipation or
through discussion. The anonymity and independence of each of the experts in the
delphi technique will reduce the ‘risky shift’ effect on the results of this study. Experts
will only receive feedback through the distribution of the subsequent questionnaires and
will not be directly influenced by personalities, discussion or even body language. In the
context of this study ‘risky shift’ was not viewed as a limitation. If the experts were to
offer more extreme responses in reaction to the revised statements then this would
provide information regarding those areas of the field that are perhaps less well defined
and require further research and clarification. If the experts were to moderate their
opinions this will serve to focus attention on the concepts that are acceptable as defining
characteristics of technology education.

5
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

Table 1
Comparison of the number of statements obtaining consensus across two rounds

STATEMENT CATEGORIES ROUND 1 ROUND 2

& sub categories N IQR IQR IQR IQR
(consensus = IQR < 1.0) < 1.0 >1.0 < 1.0 >1.0

Technology education concepts 33 17 16 33 0

Defining technology 7 1 6 7 0
Defining technical 4 2 2 4 0
Technological literacy 10 6 4 10 0
Technological capability 7 5 2 7 0
Technology education as an area of study 33 15 18 33 0
TE as a discipline 12 1 11 12 0
TE as applied science 5 3 2 5 0
Knowledge base of TE 16 11 5 16 0
Role of TE programs in education 38 23 15 6 0
Program structure and aims 23 14 9 23 0
Cognitive development 6 6 0 6 0
Breadth of study (Voc ed or general) 9 4 5 9 0
Contexts of technology education 30 17 8 2 0
Design approach 7 6 1 7 0
Artefact products and ‘making’ 3 1 2 3 0
Values approach 5 5 0 5 0
Relationship with industry 7 4 3 7 0
Relationship to the ‘engineered’ world 3 3 0 3 0
Computers 5 3 2 5 0

Discussion

From the round one (1) data (see table1) there was clear evidence of divergent thinking
with regards to defining characteristics of technology and technology education. After
making recommended changes to the statements and identifying the median level of
agreement for the third round there was a clear convergence toward consensus among
experts.

The change in variation from round two (2) showed that the experts could reach a
consensus based on the opinions of others and how this affected the statement. This
indicates that although there may be a variation in perception and application of
technology education principles that experts within the field are willing to change their
understanding to reach a commonly acceptable understanding

6
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

As discussed earlier the number of participants reduced as the study progressed. Upon
reflection, there is a concern that the gradual reduction in the number of experts
responding to the questionnaires may have affected the final agreement and consensus
levels for some statements. It is possible that had all original experts participated, some
experts may have varied greatly from the median and some statements may not have
obtained a consensus. If statements did not obtain a consensus this may have provided a
more thorough indication of areas of technology education requiring further
clarification.

All statements and results have provided a useful focus from which to draw logical
conclusions regarding the nature of technology and technology education programs. For
example, the notion that technology education is a discipline appears to be
controversial. Although all statements obtained consensus in the third round only one
(1) statement obtained consensus during the second round. Based on the reduction in
the number of responses for round three (3) and the large movement of consensus for
some statements there could be reason to suggest that there is an underlying factor that
has not been identified through this study. Further research is required to determine if
in fact technology education can be considered a discipline.

The data in table 1 also shows that there were other areas showing indication of other
underlying factors requiring consideration. These include 1- the features of a definition
of technology; 2- the breadth that technology education programs cover; and 3- the
purpose of artefacts in technology education.

Although not within the scope of this paper, the study yielded other important
information related to divergent and convergent thinking about the defining
characteristics of technology and technology education. This information includes; 1-
the level of agreement towards statements and the implications this has to defining
features of the field of study; 2- the comments made by experts about some of the
statements and the implications on including these concepts in the defining
characteristics; and 3- Any change in level of agreement as a consequence of rewording
and clarification of statements may provided indicators of what the experts consider
important to include in the defining characteristics of technology education programs.

Conclusions and implications

On the basis of the results from this study the following recommendations for further
research are made: -

• Conducting a larger study, in terms of the levels of confidence that could be

attributed to any findings.

• As technology and technology education are constantly developing there would

be value in conducting follow-up studies to chart the process of change and
development.

7
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

• The review of literature highlighted the variation in perceptions of technology

and technology education between experts and the general community. A study
examining the variation in perception between these two groups would also
contribute to knowledge about the field.

• An examination of what experts in other fields of study consider to be the

defining characteristics of their fields and comparing the differences to
technology education may contribute towards defining the characteristics that
are unique to the ‘discipline’ of technology education

In summary, the delphi study found that experts within the field of technology education
hold different views regarding the defining characteristics for concepts pertaining to
technology and of technology education. However, upon consideration of the views of
other experts and alterations made to statements, the experts were able to reach
consensus for all statements in the Round 3 questionnaire.

Finally, this paper has suggested that an examining the factors that affected movement
in levels of consensus towards indicator statements assist in clarifying defining
characteristics. This will help to provide an understanding of technology education that
will assist those within the field to consistently and coherently communicate the aims,
the outcomes and the role of technology education programs in a general education
context

References

Australian Education Council. (1994a). Technology-a curriculum profile for Australian

schools. Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.
Australian Education Council. (1994b). A statement on technology for Australian
schools. Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.
Agazzi, E. (1998). From technique to technology: the role of modern science. Society
for philosophy and technology, 4(2), retrieved November 7, 2000 from the World
Wide Web: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu.ejournals/SPT/v4n2/AGAZZI.html
Basu, C.K. (1997) Integration of Technology education in basic and general education
curriculum in Asia-Pacific countries. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific school
principals forum, “managing schools for the 21st century” (manilla, Philippines,
February 18-20, 1997. (ERIC document reproduction service No. ED 405460).
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical
decision-making tasks in education. Educational psychology, 17(4), 373-386.

de Vries, M. (1994) the variety of technology education approaches in western Europe.

In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education. vol V (pp31-
44). France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO) publishing.
Harnish, D & Wilke-Schnaufer, J. (1998). Work-based learning in occupational
education and training. Journal of technology studies, 24(2), Retrieved October 7,
2000 from the World Wide Web:

8
This document is a draft copy only and the final edited version maybe sourced as published in the following conference
proceedings
Newcombe, J. E. (2004). Expert conceptions of technology education: Convergences and divergences. In H. Middleton, Pavlova, M.
& Roebuck, D. (Ed.), 3rd biennial conference on technology education research-Learning for Innovation in technology (Vol. 3, pp.
9-16). Crowne Plaza, Gold Coast Australia, 9-11 December: Centre of learning research, Griffith University.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTS/Summer-Fall-1998/PDF/
Herschbach, D. R. (1997). From industrial arts to technology education: The eclipse of
purpose. Journal of technology studies, 23(2), 20-28.
International technology education association. (2000). Standards for technological
literacy: content for the study of technology. United States of America: ITEA
Jenkins, E.W. (1997). Guest ‘editarticle’- Technological literacy: concepts and
constructs. The journal of technology studies, pp2-5. Retrieved August 24, 1999
from the World Wide Web: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTS/Winter-Spring-
1997/PDF/
Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education – some areas of need. Journal of
technology education, 10(2), pp41-56.
Morgan, K. (1998). A statement on an ideal scope for technology. In, Queensland
School Curriculum Council, Consultative draft in development (pp126-135).
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2000). Technology in the New Zealand
curriculum: strand B: Technological capability. Retrieved 8, November from the
world wide web:
http://www.education.govt.nz/Curriculum/technology/statement/text/p35_40.htm
Patrick, N., Foster, P.N. & Wright, M. D. (1996). Selected leaders’ perceptions of
approaches to technology education. The journal of technology education, 7(2).
Retrieved July 07, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n2/foster.jte-v7n2.html
Rophol, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International journal of technology
and design education 7(1-2) 65-72.
Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum. (N.D.). Principles in brief: concept of
technological capability. Retrieved November 8, 2000 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.sccc.ac.uk/docs/tecnocapability.htm
Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1998). Focus group research: exploration and
discovery. In Leonard, B. & Rog, D.J. (Ed’s), Handbook of applied social
research methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications Inc.
Webb, I. (1998). Technology terminology: RE: clarification of the terms technology,
technology education and information technology. Retrieved July 27, 2000 from
the world wide web: http://www.pa.asn.org.au/tefa/terminology.htm
Whiltshire, K., McMeniman, M. & Tolhurst, T. (1994). Shaping the future: A review of
the Queensland curriculum. Queensland: Government printer
Wicklein, R. C. & Rojewski, J.W. (1999). Toward a “unified curriculum framework”
for technology education. Journal of Industrial teacher education, 36(4.,
Retrieved February 5, 2000 from the World wide Web:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v36n4/wicklein.html