IJTDE 03

Issues of Learning and Knowledge in Technology Education

Professor Robert McCormick

Centre for Curriculum and Teaching Studies
Faculty of Education and Language Studies
The Open University, UK

Submitted to IJTDE Jan. 03

- 1-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Introduction
In this article I will examine issues that arise from learning and knowledge in technology
education. A consideration of such issues leads to a research agenda for what we have yet to
understand, and I will end with such an agenda.
The first issue concerns the definition of technological knowledge and what the nature of that
knowledge should be. The debate on this has been going on for some time; it was a major
concern at the Jerusalem International Science and Technology Education Conference in 1996
(International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7 (1-2), 1997). In that debate the
interest was in how to work out a map of technological knowledge. In this article my concern is
with how we define and think about that knowledge, especially in the context of how students
learn and use knowledge in technology education.
The second issue is the relationship between learning and knowledge. We often see knowledge
as “out there,” as something to talk about and map; but that stance has a particular view about
learning encapsulated within it, and a particular view about the mind. This view of learning and
mind, characterised as 'cognitive constructivism', is legitimate, but not one that I happen to share.
I will explore the inter-relationship between learning and knowledge, focusing on a situated view
of learning.
The third issue stems from seeing an inter-relationship of learning and knowledge as represented
in this situated learning perspective. This view sees learning related to the context within which
the learning takes place. Such a view of context is extremely difficult to research. Science
educators researching misconceptions (usually from a cognitive constructivist perspective) are
concerned with abstract knowledge, and are trying to establish whether the student has a grasp of
these abstractions. Those interested in knowledge in context cannot “strip the context out”,
which is what such science educators do. This stripping away of context is undertaken because,
to science educators, it is “unimportant.” This stance is problematic in technology education, and
hence there is an important empirical problem.
This paper will explore these three inter-related issues. First, I will outline a view of learning that
has a bearing on knowledge related to the issues above, and in particular one that privileges
context. Second, there will be a consideration of types of knowledge, namely, procedural and
conceptual knowledge. These two types will be elaborated upon through research that my
- 2-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

colleagues and I have done at the Open University, particularly on problem solving and design. 1
It is important to ground discussions of learning and knowledge in empirical research, as
opposed to making only theoretical points about them. In discussing conceptual knowledge I will
draw upon empirical work in mathematics and science education, along with our work on the use
of mathematics and science in technology education. Third, I propose a particular approach to
knowledge in technology and the technology classroom, that is, to value qualitative knowledge.
I will argue that this kind of knowledge should become a part of teaching and learning in
technology education because it both reflects a view of knowledge stemming from situated
learning, and the tasks of technology.

A view of learning and related views of knowledge2

I shall consider a situated view of learning, which draws on social and cultural perspectives. It is
a complicated area and only its features will be outlined, along with brief illustrations in
technology education. A crucial idea is that not only do cognitive processes differ according to
the domain of thinking (a finding from cognitive constructivists; Glaser, 1984 & 1992), but also
the specifics of the task and the context. That is, the way people think depends on where they
are, their 'history' in the situation, the specifics of the context, and the tasks that they are doing.
Knowledge in this sense is embedded in the context and not in abstractions. Problems or
situations are not thought about in abstract ways; rather people tend to think about problems in
relation to what they are doing in that situation. This leads on to an important second point, that
there is an intimate connection between knowing and doing. It is not just that doing is an efficient
way of learning.
Research shows that action affects thinking, and thinking affects action (e.g., Scribner, 1985).
This is not a one-way process; i.e. that a person first thinks and then does. When a person is
talking, that talking is interacting with the thinking process. The cognition is affecting thinking
about the next words coming out and the words that are coming out are affecting thinking. This
is crucial for technology education, because that is in a sense what technology educators are
trying to get children to be able to do; to think through their doing, and for the feedback from this
doing to affect their thinking.

- 3-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

A third feature of situated learning is found in the notions of enculturation and participation.
Learning is a process of enculturation into a domain, through participation in shared activities.
So that when we learn, we learn to become something. It is not just a matter of mastering a body
of knowledge. One argument for learning technology is for young people to understand the
nature of technology and how technologists work; to allow these young people to participate in
technological activity. It is exactly the same for science and for any other subject. Schoenfeld
(1996) takes an approach to mathematics education where he argues that students should be
involved in real mathematical thinking and should debate mathematics with each other. That is
what real mathematicians do, and, although not all children will be professional mathematicians
(or scientist, technologists etc.), to understand the nature of these areas they need to experience
what it is like to engage in mathematical (or any other subject) activity.
The fourth feature of situated learning is the notion of activity as authentic. This authenticity has
two sides. First, personally authenticity: a student has to be involved, and the learning has to be
meaningful to the student. If the activity is problem solving, it should be on a problem that
matters and means something to the learner. It also has to be culturally purposeful, the second
form of authenticity. We frequently find activity in classrooms where students are involved in
really exciting things. But, it does not relate to the technology world outside of school. For any
classroom activity it is necessary to ask the question, “Is it culturally meaningful and important?”
Finally, to the definition of problem solving. All contemporary views of learning (including
cognitive constructivism and situated learning) see problem solving as learning, but situated
learning has a particular view of what is seen as 'problematic' by the learner. From a situated
perspective a problem is a 'dilemma with which the problem solver is emotionally engaged' and
this engagement that makes the problem authentic (Lave, 1988, p. 175). This gives a completely
different conception of problem solving than is offered by, say cognitive constructivists (e.g.
Heibert et al, 1996). Often debates about procedural knowledge, such as problem solving, are
unproductive because of different understandings of the nature of knowledge and learning. 3
Thus, situated learning sets up some important general perspectives on knowledge that I want to
use to examine technological knowledge.

- 4-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

The Nature of Technological knowledge

First let me explore two basic types of technological knowledge: conceptual and procedural.

• Procedural knowledge includes such things as: design, problem solving, planning,
systems analysis (or systems approach), optimisation, modelling, strategic thinking
(heuristics, algorithms and metacognition).

• Conceptual knowledge: for example, systems concepts.

Most national curricula for technology (e.g. Technology for All Americans Project, 2000;
DfEE/QCA, 2000) deal with a limited range of kinds of procedural knowledge: design and
problem solving.4 But there are many other procedural aspects used in technology. However, we
know very little about them. Not only do we not know how technologists use them in a way that
we could draw upon them as tools in education, but also, we know little of their inter-
relationships. Nor do we know whether they are of the same kinds of thinking or level of
cognition as problem solving and design. I will say more about this later.
Most people assume there must be conceptual knowledge in technology. But are there particular
concepts related to specific aspects of technology or more general concepts across all
technologies? Systems knowledge is very abstract, for example the conceptual knowledge
recognised in Benchmarks (AAAS, 1993) ,. Considering technology as a generality (rather than a
particular technology such as 'electronics'), then it is important to ask “What are the concepts that
apply across all technologies?” The answer to this question has to avoid coming up with a list
that is merely a collection of concepts from a variety of particular technologies.
Consider the example of “systems”. A control system is a particular view of a system, both as a
process of analysing the world (as procedural knowledge) and as a conceptual framework for
viewing a system. An air traffic control system, or an airport as a system, involves human
systems and the interaction between human, physical, and other kinds of systems, including
control systems. An analysis of such 'techno-human' system requires ideas of “soft systems
approaches” and they use a completely different language from say “feedback control systems”
in electronics. How useful, then, is the generality of the analysis method and concepts of
systems?5

- 5-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

It is important to recognise that concepts in technology may differ from those in science, and the
reason it is important to distinguish between science and technology is that science concepts deal
with generalities (abstractions), whereas technology with how these concepts are manifest in
particular contexts. Taking a situated view of learning implies a concern for context, including
the nature of the technological task. The concepts that are important to technologists are not
usually the concepts related to theories, such as kinetic theory of gases, but those related to laws
(such as Boyle’s law). Driver et al. (1996) make an important distinction between theories and
laws. Laws define empirical relationships (stress, strain, Young’s Modulus and so on) common
in many technological concepts. But these are particular technological concepts, because they
relate to particular technologies or areas of technology. In food technology, there are a different
set of concepts from those found in mechanical technology. Thus in defining the nature of
technological knowledge it is necessary to distinguish between particular concepts (special to
particular technologies) and generalities that apply to all technologies.6 A concern for
technological literacy, would not necessarily place an emphasis on young people being expert in
particular sets of technologies. This creates a tension for educators in relation to technological
knowledge as part of literacy for all children and young people.
Let me turn to what is known about both procedural and conceptual knowledge in the classroom
context, and in doing so I will draw upon the work I have been involved with at the Open
University. In particular I will deal with the problem-solving process as is found in the
curriculum subject “design and technology”, which represents technology in the English
curriculum.7 The title of this subject indicates that 'design' is a central kind of procedural
knowledge, but this is often characterised in similar terms to problem solving (Murphy &
McCormick, 1997).
Procedural Knowledge in the classroom
Our work at the Open University focused on problem solving because it is the most important
procedural knowledge that occurs in technology, and indeed, in many other areas of activity.
Various national curricula, however, feature problem solving differently; for example
Benchmarks (AAAS, 1993), on 'design' and 'systems' mentions problem solving more than
design, whereas in the UK problem solving has featured decreasingly over the years (Murphy et
al., 1995), but design has remained central. The notion of “clarifying the problem, thinking of

- 6-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

alternatives, implementing it and evaluating it” is the language of problem solving, not of design,
though teachers will often express design in this language. (Elsewhere I have discussed this
distinction between design and problem solving; McCormick, 1999a.). Expressed in this way,
both are procedural knowledge seen as a generalised abstraction. Another reason it is important
stems from the many claims that technology education will improve or encourage children’s
problem solving, which is why almost all technology education curricula will have problem
solving as an important part. Although it is central, we know relatively little about it in the
classroom;8 a difficulty that is not unique to technology education. For example, in science the
most recent review of research on problem solving as procedural knowledge was in 1988
(Garrett, 1988). Mathematics education offers more discussion on this (e.g. Hiebert et al., 1996;
Schoenfeld, 1985). There is, however, an extensive literature in the more general research on
learning.
This literature does not support the view that problem solving is a general purpose skill that
applies across all areas or domains (Hennessy, 1993). Cognitive constructivist, for example,
stresses the importance of domain knowledge and, although this is not the same conception as
the situated vision of 'context', it recognises the limits of generalised procedural knowledge. Thus
when trying to solve a problem, success depends on knowing a lot about the area within which
the problem requires solving. In some sense, this is fairly obvious; someone working in
electronics is not necessarily going to be good at aircraft design or in solving related
aerodynamic problems. However, the lack of support for a generalised process conflicts with
what teachers (and others) believe.
There is, however, a desire to teach a general problem-solving skill. In Britain there is a notion of
“key skills”, which are to be taught as part of the whole-school curriculum, with problem solving
being one such skill. The difficulty with this view lies in transfer; there is so little evidence for
transfer, i.e. that problem solving capability developed in one area will transfer to another (a
similar issue exists for conceptual knowledge, which I will consider later). Where there is
evidence, it is contested (see note 3).
Now let me turn to the specific research on problem solving in the technology classroom.

- 7-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Problem solving as ritual

Teachers often treat design or problem solving as a series of steps. An “algorithm” notion of
design or problem solving characterises them as consisting of posing the problem and thinking
about the problem, clarifying it, thinking of alternate solutions, implementing it, and then
evaluating it. This reflects their view of it as generalised procedural knowledge. Treating
problem solving in this way can lead to it becoming a ritual, with lessons structured around a
series of steps. But it is a ritual that does not necessarily affect the students' thinking. Asking
students to create a predetermined number of ideas is one of those activities (thinking of
alternative solutions) that become part of a ritual. (For example, teachers require students to have
four ideas, without telling them why.) From students' work, as represented in their design
portfolios, it appears they followed such a procedure or algorithm, because it is nicely laid out in
terms of the problem solving or design steps. In response to questions about their design ideas
they say such things as: “Oh, yeah, I created that fourth idea after I finished”, partly because of
assessment grading. They are required to show the development of ideas, and gain marks for the
number of ideas; so they do it afterwards to gain those marks, indicating that these ideas did not
contribute to the design or problem-solving process. This is what is called a veneer of
accomplishment (Lave, 1988). From their recorded work it looks as if students can carry out the
process, but the recording process does not represent their thinking processes.
Our second finding relates to emergent problems. These are the problems students spend their
time on: knowing how to cut something, how to join something, how to construct in a particular
way, etc. These are the problems they are engaged with, not the one the teacher poses at the
beginning of the project or lesson. I will now turn to the student experience of problem solving to
show this idea of emergent problems, the dilemmas that are manifest in student strategies.

Student problem-solving strategies9

These strategies certainly do not resemble the “algorithms” of problem solving that are so often
taught. The first strategy is what we characterised as problem solving as dealing with classroom
culture. This occurs when students try to work out the rules the teacher sets in the classroom, and
play to those rules. For example, two girls (Kathy and Alice) producing a mobile. Alice wanted
to do something that clinks when the wind blows, and so had an idea of using metal, in the form
of disks about two inches diameter. Kathy designed a moon and planets going around it, and
- 8-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

wanted some kind of glinting material. Alice played the rules of the classroom. When the teacher
took the students into the workshop he said, “Here are three boxes. One with metal, one with
plastic, and one with wood,” Alice, looking for a clinking effect, went to the metal box and
picked out eighth-inch mild steel. But to cut disks two inches in diameter required spending
hours, first trying a large foot-operated guillotine, then tin snips gripped in a vice and finally a
file. She ended up with very red hands, and took a long time; a very inappropriate way of doing
it. (But she did learn quite a lot about mild steel, as it turned out.)
When presented with the choice of the three boxes of material, Kathy in contrast to Alice, looked
over in the corner and saw some aluminium (not available to the class) and asked to use this. The
teacher agreed, and she cut this easily with tin snips. Kathy took this approach many times
throughout the project. She broke the rules of the classroom, knowing what she could and
couldn’t get away with. She experienced different kinds of issues and problems from Alice, but
she was avoiding many technological problems. Kathy may have known quite a bit about
materials, to know which was the choice to make, but she experienced different problem solving
from Alice.
The second strategy is problem solving as giving and finding a solution. This is the most
common strategy we found in our research. It is illustrated with an example of a project
involving a moisture sensor, which is ubiquitous in UK design and technology classrooms. As a
design and make exercise, the main focus is on designing a box to contain the electronics. Again
we studied two girls, Anne and Nina. The teacher in this study defined the task in terms of
making a box in which to put the electronics (the transistor circuit, the bulb or the little buzzer,
switch, etc.). This had to be appropriate to the situation of detecting moisture or lack of it. He
taught them to cut in straight lines because when he said “box”, he had in mind a rectangular
box. He therefore taught them to cut the material (styrene) in straight lines with a steel ruler and
a knife. He also gave them a jig so that they could put the two edges together at right angles and
run the solvent along to stick the two together. But Nina wanted to do the shape shown in Figure
1. She was detecting moisture (rain) on the washing line, and wanted her box to look like the
sock hung out on the washing line. (Anne had an equally demanding shape - a teardrop.)
Figure 1: Nina's sock-shaped box to contain the electronics

- 9-
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Nina encountered three problems that we observed. The first, cutting the shape 'A' (Figure 1),
was quite difficult, because the teacher had only taught the class to cut in straight lines not the
complex curves she wanted. She asked the teacher:

“What do I do?”

Teacher: “Well, it’s easy. All you do is mark out the shape you want, and just cut it slowly with the knife
following the line.”

Teacher adds, “You’ll have to put the two bits together for the top and bottom of the box, and then file
them off so that they are identical in shape.”

Nina completes this task.

Next she wanted to produce the 'B' shape (Figure 1), where the styrene must bend round the
curve shape, but the thickness of the styrene would not permit this amount of bending. Again she
asked the teacher:

“What do I do?”

Teacher: “Just use the thinner styrene over there.”

Again she carried out this instruction.

The third problem was then how to stick 'A' and 'B' together. For the other two problems the
teacher had an instant response, an instant solution. This time the teacher had to think about it, so
went over to Nina's workbench, picked up the two sides of A, and looked, puzzled a bit, looked
around the bench, and told Nina to hold one side. She held one, and he put the other on top of it,
picked up bits (as struts) and tried to fit them to the two sides, appeared to think about it, and
said, “Right, cut 16 of these (small struts) and when you’ve done that, come back and I’ll tell you
what to do next.” What the teacher had done was to think about rigidity to hold the structure
stable, and to create some surface area to put the solvent along (to glue 'B'). None of that was
shared with Nina. All she received was the solution without being involved in the problem
solving. This continually being “given solutions” becomes a culture of the classroom at the
expense of a “problem-solving” culture.
We found a teacher in elementary school, who worked with younger children (10- and 11-year-
olds), who was able to create this problem-solving culture through interactions with students.

- 10 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

When students came up with problems, the teacher asked questions about their problem, or posed
alternative solutions (because sometimes students cannot cope with the questions or provide
solutions). Students were given more than one solution, because the teacher was trying to engage
students in the problem and the problem-solving process. Such a teacher has to set up a
completely different culture in the classroom. It takes longer, and it is harder to do, but it is
crucial to foster problem solving.
The final strategy is the student collaboration model, and that happens in a variety of ways. 10
One way is through co-operation. In design and technology in the UK students are usually set
individual projects, so they may be working alongside each other on a table or a bench, and they
can co-operate because they’re doing similar things; they are not identical, but similar enough to
help each other. Nina and Anne, students in the second strategy, did this and would share ideas
occasionally, but more often than not, they would simply share tasks; Nina was good at
soldering, so she took the lead in soldering; Anne was good at cutting, and she did the cutting.
The second form of collaboration involved students in dividing up the task: “You do this bit, I’ll
do that bit. You’re good at that and I’m good at this.” Some of the learning is lost in this
approach. But at least it is a way of collaborating, because they have to put the bits together at
some stage, and that is an element of good collaborative problem solving. (The two students
shown in the section on Qualitative knowledge exhibit this form of collaboration. See Murphy,
1999.)
The final form of collaboration occurs when students have a shared task, and they can talk about
it. This means the design of the task must require the students to collaborate. It has to be
designed into it, so that there is no way the students can avoid it. These group tasks are difficult
in Britain, because so much activity is driven by individual assessment; students have to have
their own product and their own design. (This focus on individual assessment occurs, in part,
because teachers have to report on each student’s performance at ages 7, 11 and 14.) This
prevents collaboration that would allow a joint problem, and hence some of the joint problem
solving and sharing. Underlying the teachers' desire for individual work is also the students’
desire to have a finished product that can be taken home. This leads to what a colleague and I
called “the tyranny of product outcomes” (McCormick and Davidson, 1996). Designed correctly
tasks should require solutions to a problem to be considered by all students through discussion

- 11 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

and decision making. In the real world of industry, individuals may work on their own, but that
work contributes to the overall task. They share the products of their work, but not necessarily
the process, whereas in the learning situation we want both.
These four strategies of problem solving in the technology classroom differ from the way
problem solving is depicted in national curricula, and the way technology educators normally
think about it. How common are the kinds of strategies we found? More needs to be known
about whether these are consistent strategies across classrooms and areas of technological
activity.
Technological conceptual knowledge in the classroom
There is much research on the learning of scientific conceptual knowledge but, for technology
educators, it is problematic to try to learn something from science education in relation to
conceptual knowledge. In science, context is ignored, because abstractions are the important
focus; science educators tend to ignore practical knowledge and play it down. It is not just a
matter of the status of knowledge, as in the philosophical debate about the lack of value of
practical knowledge because society values the power of abstractions (see Lewis, 1993). If a
person can use an abstraction in a variety of situations, it is seen as very powerful. In fact few
can do this, instead people work within their own domains, using science or mathematical
knowledge within a limited range of situations. Practical knowledge should, however, be an
important element of technology education, 11 and later I will return to consider an aspect of this,
qualitative knowledge.

The effect of context

I have already indicated how a situated view of learning privileges context. The effect of context
is found in the evidence from the UK Assessment of Performance Unit (APU), obtained when
children were questioned about their mathematical understanding of parallel lines. Given the
lines in Figure 2, students were asked the question “Which of these lines is not parallel?” When
11-year-olds were questioned, 56 percent of them answered correctly, and 82 percent of 15 year
olds were correct (APU, undated). This is a question where the context of parallel lines is varied
a small amount: some of the lines are longer than others, some of them are at one angle, some
another, and some of them are offset, yet there is evident difficulty even for 15 year-olds. Often

- 12 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

students are presented with parallel lines in mathematics textbooks as being horizontal, of the
same length and even with arrows on them to tell them they are parallel.
Figure 2: various lines presented in a question on parallel lines
In this question there is only slight changes in context, and yet students are unable to transfer
across the contexts (i.e. from those in which they have learned about such lines). The context in
the technological situation is more complex, in for example, orthographic projection (Figure 3),
where there are many parallel lines, perpendicular lines, lines of reflection. Imagine, then,
students who walk out of a geometry class, where they can barely understand a slight shift in
context of the way parallel lines are presented, moving into a technology class where no one tells
them there might be parallel lines involved, indeed the teacher may not even talk about them. 12
In testing students' scientific understanding of reflection, the APU (1984) presented students with
various kinds of reflections in different contexts (Figure 4): “If these are bouncing balls, what do
you expect to happen and which of these is right?” If the context is changed to “light”, rather
than balls or if they are presented as abstract lines, the success of students changes. They are
much better in answering the question in the context of 'bouncing balls' than they are with
'abstractions' (i.e. no context given), with the 'light' context being in between.13
Figure 3: orthographic projection
Figure 4: a question on reflection
Interestingly, students do better in answering questions about spinning balls bouncing, the
science of which is a more complex, of the kind typically found in snooker, or when playing with
a ball against the wall (pastime activities of students). They are better at predicting reflection in
that spinning situation than they are in situation with simple linear motion. This indicates they
are using their every-day knowledge of what happens, and learning activities and assessment
often do not capitalise on their understanding of situations (Murphy, 1995). Rather we emphasise
that science is counter-intuitive, and we dispense with the real world that students inhabit.
It is very important that technology educators realise that students' knowledge is learned in
context, and that they find it very difficult to move from one context to another. This at the very
least means it is necessary to give students experience of this change of context, rather than
expect it as a result of teaching abstractions.

- 13 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Another simple illustration of a change in context is shown in Figure 5, where the top
representation of a circuit would be typical of that shown in a science laboratory. In a technology
laboratory or workshop the bottom representation may be used. This lower 'technology' circuit
derives from AC circuit representation, where the bottom line should be zero voltage and the top
one a plus or minus value. But this notion of “rails” (the bottom and top lines) requires an
understanding of voltage and potential difference. Many technology teachers use a “current”
model and create complex explanations of current moving down the circuit (from top to bottom),
rather than the potential difference across the circuit (McCormick & Murphy, 1994). 14 Students
are expected to transfer their notions of circuits from science to technology, in a situation where
the conceptions and the way it is represented are quite different. Rarely would teachers in either
subject discuss these different kinds of representations.
Figure 5: two representations of circuits found in schools
Because of the potential use of science concepts in technology it is worth exploring how such
concepts are represented in curricula and whether they are appropriate for technology.

Science knowledge for technology

The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) represent concepts of science that are
important in technology, but not always in the way that is appropriate. 15 For example, in the area
of “properties and materials”:

The choice of materials for a job depends on their properties and on how they interact with other materials.
Similarly, the usefulness of some manufactured parts of an object depends on how well they fit together
with the other parts. 8B(6-8) No. 1, p. 190.

When a new material is made by combining two or more materials, it has properties that are different from
the original materials. For that reason, a lot of different materials can be made from a small number of basic
kinds of materials. 4D(3-5) No. 4, p. 77.

These two statements focus on chemistry, with the second being particularly about the theories
of elements and molecules, etc. For most technologists this latter level is not important, except in
hi-tech and high-cost situations, where the molecular structure might be important. Most
technologists care about the properties the materials exhibit rather than molecular structure.
Their principle concern, as noted earlier, is with the law that indicates how the material behaves,

- 14 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

for example, stiffness and strength. When a technologist is dealing with design constraints, the
laws that predict the behaviour of materials are central. But in science, the concern is with
theories. This gives rise to empirical questions such as "How are these two kinds of concerns co-
ordinated in students’ minds? What is the interrelationship of them?"
Another example from Benchmarks is found in the area of “heat”:

Heat energy in a material consists of the disordered motions of its atoms or molecules. In any interactions
of atoms and molecules, the statistical odds are that they will end up with less order than they began—that
is, with the heat energy spread out more evenly. With huge numbers of atoms and molecules, the greater
disorder is almost certain. 4E(9-12) No. 2 (AAAS, 1993, p. 86).

Linn and Muilenburg (1996) have written very interestingly about the use of the kinetic theory
model that is at the heart of the above Benchmark. It is a theory about the interaction at the
molecular level. Most students, when they are dealing with heat in school technology, need a
heat flow model. They need to be concerned about the relationships of temperature change from
one surface of a material to another, to understand the difference between conductors or
insulators, etc. In such a situation this difference is based on an empirical relationship, a law. But
in science education the focus is on a theory, and the model of heat flow is given at the molecular
level. Linn and Muilenburg argue that this is not useful for everyday life, and that it is the heat
flow model that most adolescents require. They point out that many engineers also use that
model, because it is often the most appropriate one in the technological context. This creates a
problem of modelling an environment through a theory that does not necessarily relate to the use
of the model in a technological sense. It could set up a conflict between learning in science and
technology classrooms.
Benchmarks deals with systems in the following way (typical of many technology curricula):

Almost all control systems have inputs, outputs, and feedback. The essence of control is comparing
information about what is happening to what people want to happen and then making appropriate
adjustments. This procedure requires sensing information, processing it, and making changes. In almost all
modern machines, microprocessors serve as centers of performance control. 3B(6-8) No. 3 (AAAS, 1993,
p. 51).

As noted earlier, systems require abstract representations and these abstractions of systems can,
in principle, be applied across all sorts of areas and practical contexts. It is an extraordinarily

- 15 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

difficult idea, because of one simple thing: how a system is characterised depends on the purpose
of the characterisation.
Consider the example of a flush cistern in a toilet where the ballcock regulates the level of the
tank. If a variety of technologists are asked to draw a systems diagram of a cistern, they will
probably produce different diagrams. Drawing such a systems diagram is difficult (not least
because the goal and the feedback are represented by the ballcock position). But it is very easy to
explain how a cistern works, and it is obvious to students. Using a systems representation,
sometimes becomes more complicated than the practical system. Systems approaches aim to
reduce complexity, not increase it!
An example of a central heating system is shown in Figure 6. This is a system that is referred to
in many national curricula (e.g. Benchmarks; AAAS, 1993, p. 50), that children aged 11-13
typically should know how to control. This system is extremely complex, for example, with
primary and secondary inputs. Simple input, process, output systems are already complex
enough for students of this age. For example, English 13 year olds working on a sensor circuit
with the input (make-or-break contact), the process (transistor as switch) and the output (e.g. a
buzzer) show difficulties in making these links with system ideas. When such pupils are asked
“What’s the input?” they say, “The battery,” which is a secondary input. What may appear a
simple system requires a level of abstraction that students may not understand. This is an area for
research, to explore across what range of situations systems concepts can be used, and to see how
understanding of complexity might vary according to age. Although in technology education it is
thought to be important to teach students about systems, as a central concept, little is understood
about how students come to understand the concepts involved.
Figure 6: a systems diagram of a central heating system
Looking back over the argument on the nature of technological knowledge, both procedural and
conceptual, we see the important role of context, which derives in part from a view of learning
and in part from the nature of technological activity. This renders problematic the reliance on
abstractions, whose use depends on stripping out context. In addition research indicates that
experts think in very context-bound ways. These kinds of considerations that I have dealt with
thus far, lead me to consider other ways of thinking about technological knowledge, in particular
'qualitative knowledge'. (I intimated earlier this was important in technology.)
- 16 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Qualitative knowledge
In considering this alternative approach to thinking about technological knowledge, which draws
on ideas of qualitative thinking, I want to start with a classroom project where students are
making a woodpecker moneybox (Figure 7 and 8).
Figure 7: a woodpecker moneybox mechanism (front view)
Figure 8: a woodpecker moneybox mechanism (rear view)
Money is put in at the top (right in Figure 8), the coin drops down and hits a horizontal “lever”
and drops into the box (bottom right in Figure 8). This lever then rocks and it causes the bird to
peck on the front side (Figure 7); a relatively simple mechanism. Consider the science of this
mechanism and the fact that 11-year-olds typically undertake this project. When a coin drops
through the coin slot and hits the lever the latter then goes out of balance (Figure 9). The size of
the coin, and the distance it travels to hit the lever, will determine the momentum that it acquires.
The rate of change of momentum when it hits the lever exerts the force, and the greater the
distance and coin size, the greater will be the force. The “lever” (or 'beam' as the technologist
would refer to it as) is counter-weighted on the left end because, unlike most of the beams in
science education, this beam has mass. There is also an offset pivot, and the length of that beam
(on the right hand side) will determine the amount it swings when hit by the coin (it gives a
mechanical advantage to the force of the coin). 16 The pendulum is part of the lever system, which
will make that system swing, exerting a torque on the pivot. The bird (on the other side of the
board; see Figure 7), the pivot, and the beam are all fixed together. It is also possible to consider
that the bird itself will have a moment of inertia as it rocks back and forward, depending on its
shape.
Figure 9: a diagram of the woodpecker mechanism
Based on an understanding of science, would it be possible to write the equations that describe
how the system works? If it was possible, it would be extremely complex, and hence unlikely to
be successful and certainly not worth the effort to produce a working system. To create a system
like that requires design thinking. As Polanyi (1962) argued, the science will give ideas about the
effect of changing the size of the coin, or making the beam longer, etc. 17 Science will probably
indicate that the pendulum size can be ignored, because it would not be possible to obtain the
frequency of oscillation resembling that of the pecking of a woodpecker. If engineers were trying
- 17 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

to get this mechanism to work they would not use quantitative science, but use what might
appear to be trial and error. In fact they would use qualitative thinking. They would know that if
they increased the height of the coin drop or made the right-hand end of the beam slightly longer,
and so on, it would be possible to eventually obtain sufficient movement in the bird for all size of
coins. It is my view that technology educators should start to teach this kind of thinking. Such
situations do not use the quantitative ideas of science, but their qualitative counterparts. 18
Although there may be successive iterations in evolving a design for this system, it is necessary
to have some concepts about what is to be changed. Otherwise, it does become trial and error,
and it would be a random event if a successful mechanism was produced.

A classroom example of qualitative thinking

Now let me consider excerpts from a classroom in which students are working on this
woodpecker mechanism with very little understanding of the science knowledge just discussed,
and where I think qualitative knowledge is being used. There are two aspects of this qualitative
knowledge. One is that, as I have noted, it is qualitative, it isn’t quantitative; thus I talked earlier
of making “the beam slightly longer.” The other is that it involves device knowledge (Gott,
1988). Experts often talk about machines and the like not in the abstract, but in the particulars of
the machine or device, and it is very evident in the classroom incident below that the teacher and
students are using these two features of qualitative knowledge.
In the first of the classroom extracts, the students are just starting the project, and about to try to
model the mechanism in cardboard. This modelling will allow them to obtain an idea of
dimensions and how the mechanism will work. The teacher has given them a model from
previous students who used it for a rocking boat. Their mechanism will, however, have a
completely different feel about it, so they have to redesign it to work in their context. The teacher
is at the front of the class illustrating some of the ideas of the mechanism.
Figure 10: teacher illustrating rocking mechanism with his hand
During this classroom incident, the teacher uses his hand to illustrate the rocking movement of
the mechanism and woodpecker (Figure 10). He also uses device-related, “non-science”,
language:

T: Transmit movement [from lever to bird] to the front …

- 18 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

T: Lock pivot to lever to make sure it runs … [with the lever]

There is probably no other way the ideas involved could be explained for students to understand
motion and how the mechanism operates. The phrase “to make sure it runs … [with the lever]” is
device knowledge expressed in terms of the elements of the mechanism (so that the bird follows
the rocking motion of the lever).
Figure 11: Students working on the project after their teacher's instructions
About 20 minutes after the above incident, the students are back at their desk (Figure 11), and
they start to operate their cardboard model, trying to work out what will happen, and also talk
about the model they have been given.
An extract from what they say illustrates the students’ attempts at qualitative reasoning:

P: It’ll be in that position first of all, then it’s going to go knock, knock.
[As the bird is rocked to peck the tree.]

P: It depends how much money they put in, because if it’s a 50p [a large UK coin], it's going to do “dong”
like that, so it’s going to go really far. [Because the lever is pushed down as far as it will go.]

P: Then if it’s a 5p [a small UK coin] … it will still move only a bit. [Again referring to the lever.]

In saying “it will go knock, knock,” (and moving the bird at the same time) she is thinking about
the device. In referring to the effect of the coins, she says the big coin (50 pence) is going to go
“dong”, an illustration of device knowledge. The use of the phrase “to go really far” shows a
qualitative idea, contrasting with the small coin (5 pence), which will only move “only a bit.” So
they are starting to reason qualitatively about how the device works.
Two important points emerge for me in looking at such incidents. First we should be developing
students' thinking about machines and other technological devices. Second, such thinking is
often hidden, because teachers, in the business of classrooms may not be able to monitor that
kind of interaction between students. But it is important that they talk about it. I think, therefore,
that qualitative knowledge is a productive area of research work in technology education. In
carrying out research into both conceptual and procedural knowledge, there are, as I have
illustrated, many complexities with which we have to deal.

- 19 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Conclusions: a research agenda

I have illustrated the ways in which a situated view of learning has much to offer in
understanding technology classrooms and that it requires a particular view of knowledge. In
particular the role of the context, within which the knowledge is situated, needs to be seen as part
of that knowledge, not something that it 'transfers into and out of'; context is not a box that
contains the learning situation (Lave, 1996). This approach gives us different insights into the
nature of the procedural and conceptual knowledge than are represented in many national
curricula. Problem solving and design are prominent amongst types of procedural knowledge
relevant in technology, and the situated learning perspective calls educators to be more aware of
the student experience of these processes. Similarly this perspective's emphasis on learning in
context requires us to take seriously, not just how science knowledge may be used in the
technological context, but also the learning of technological knowledge. On the one hand
apparently abstract technological ideas such as systems have to be seen in this light, and on the
other I have argued for the importance of qualitative knowledge.
Although we know increasing amounts about student learning in relation to procedural and
conceptual knowledge, there remains much to understand. This gives us a research agenda for
technology education based on the arguments and examples I have given.
Let me end with a list of topics and issues for research in technology education that forms this
agenda:

• further clarify student experience of procedural knowledge, such as problem solving and
design;

• delineate other procedural knowledge relevant to technology (e.g. systems analysis),

perhaps through studies of experts in industry;

• investigate how students use both scientific and technological knowledge in technology
classrooms;

• investigate student understanding of systems ideas and how they relate them to their use
in a variety of areas of technology;

• investigate the nature of qualitative knowledge particularly as used by expert

technologists;

- 20 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

• investigate the kinds and uses of qualitative knowledge that occur in the classroom and
how it can be encouraged and developed by teachers and students.
In all these investigations it is essential to keep a clear focus on what happens in classrooms and
move from “what is” to “what ought to be” the situation. Too often in the past we have been
strong on prescriptions and weak on the evidence upon which to base action.

- 21 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., Simon, H. A. (2000) 'Perspectives on learning,
thinking, and activity.' Educational Researcher 29 (4), 11-13.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M. and Simon, H. A. (1996) ‘Situated learning and education.’
Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5-11.
Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (undated). A Review of monitoring in Mathematics
1978-82, Part 1. London, APU.
Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (1984). Science in Schools Age 13: Report Number 1.
London, Department of Education and Science, Department of Education for Northern Ireland
and Welsh Office.
Cobb, P. & Bowers, J. (1999) 'Cognitive and situated learning: perspectives in theory and
practice.' Educational Researcher, 28 (2), pp. 4-15.
Department for Education and Employment [DfEE]/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
[QCA] (2000) The National Curriculum Handbook for secondary teachers in England. London,
HMSO.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Scott, P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science.
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Evens, H. and McCormick, R. (1997). Mathematics by Design: An Investigation into Key Stage
3. Report to the Design Council. Milton Keynes, School of Education, Open University.
Garrett, R.M. (1988). “Problem-solving in science education.” Studies in Science Education, 13,
pp. 70-95.
Glaser, R. (1984) Education and thinking: the role of knowledge, American Psychologist, 39 (2),
pp. 93-104.
Glaser, R. (1992) Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (ed.) Enhancing
Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics (pp. 63-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

- 22 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Gott, S. H. (1988). “Apprenticeship instruction for real-world tasks: the coordination of

procedures, mental models and strategies.” In E. Z. Rothkopf (ed.) Review of Research in
Education 15 1988-89 (pp. 97-169). Washington DC, American Educational Research
Association.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). “On claims that answer the wrong question.” Educational Researcher, 26
(1), pp. 5-17.
Hennessy, S. (1993) Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: implications for classroom
learning, Studies in Science Education, 22, pp. 1-41.
Hennessy, S. and Murphy, P. (1999) 'The potential for collaborative problem solving in D&T.'
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9 (1), pp. 1-36.
Hiebert, J. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A. and
Wearne, D. (1996) ‘Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the case
of mathematics.’ Educational Researcher, 25 (4), pp. 12-21.
Hill, A. M. (1998) 'Problem solving in real-life contexts: an alternative for design in technology
education.' International Jorunal of Technology and Design Education, 8 (3), pp. 203-220.
Järvinen, E-M. and Twyford, J. (2000) 'The influences of socio-cultural interaction upon
children' thinking and actions in prescribed and open-ended problem solving situations (an
investigation involving design and technology lessons in English and Finnish primary schools).'
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10 (1), pp. 21-41.
Kirshner, D. & Whitson, J. A. (1998) 'Obstacles to understanding cognition as situated.'
Educational Researcher, 27 (8), pp. 22-28.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1996) ‘The practice of learning.’ In S. Chaiklin and J. Lave (eds.) Understanding
Practice: perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Layton, D. (1993) Technology's Challenge to Science Education. Buckingham: Open University
Press.

- 23 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Lewis, T. (1993). “Valid knowledge and the problem of the practical arts curricula.” Curriculum
Inquiry, 23 (2), pp. 175-202.
Linn, M. C. and Muilenburg, L. (1996). “Creating lifelong science learners: what models form a
firm foundation?” Educational Researcher, 25 (5), pp. 18-24.
McCormick, R. (1999a). “Capability lost and found?” Journal of Design and Technology
Education, 4 (1), pp. 5-14.
McCormick, R. (1999b). “Practical knowledge: a view from the snooker table.” In R.
McCormick and C. Paechter (eds.) Learning and Knowledge (pp. 112-135). London, Paul
Chapman.
McCormick, R. and Davidson, M. (1996). “Problem solving and the tyranny of product
outcomes.” Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1 (3), pp. 230-241.
McCormick, R. and Murphy, P. (1994) Learning the processes in technology. Paper presented at
the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Oxford University, England,
September.
McCormick, R. and Murphy, P. (2000) Curriculum: a focus on learning.’ In B. Moon, S. Brown,
and M. Ben-Peretz, (eds.) International Companion of Education (pp. 204-234). London,
Routledge.
Mioduser, D. (1998) Framework for the study of cognitive and curricular issues of technological
problem solving.' International Journal for Technology and Design Education, 8 (2), pp. 167-
184.
Mioduser, D. and Kpperman, D. (2002) 'Evaluation/modification cycles in junior high students'
technological problem solving.' International Journal for Technology and Design Education, 12
(2), pp. 123-138.
Murphy, P. (1995) 'Gender and assessment in science.' In L. Parker, L. Rennie and B. Fraser
(eds.) Gender, Science and Mathematics: shortening the shadow (pp. [?]). Dordecht, Kluwer
Academic Press.
Murphy, P. (1999) 'Supporting collaborative learning.' In P. Murphy (ed.) Learners, Learning
and Assessment (pp.258-276). London, Paul Chapman.

- 24 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Murphy, P. & Hennessy, S. (2001) 'Realising the potential - and lost opportunities - for peer
collaboration in a D&T setting.' International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11
(3), pp. 203-237.
Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., McCormick, R. & Davidson, M. (1995) The Nature of problem
solving in technology education. Paper presented to the European Conference on Educational
Research, University of Bath, England, 14-17 September.
Murphy, P. and McCormick, R. (1997) ‘Problem solving in science and technology education.’
Research in Science and Education, 27 (3), pp. 461-481.
Polanyi, M. (1962) Personal Knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985) Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando, Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. (1996) “In fostering communities of inquiry, must it matter that the teacher
knows the answer?” For the Learning of Mathematics, 14 (1), pp. 44-55.
Scribner, S. (1985) ‘Knowledge at work.’ Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16 (3), pp.
199-206.
Technology for All Americans Project (2000) Standards for technological literacy. Reston, VA,
International Technology Education Association.

- 25 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

Notes

1
This work has involved Marian Davidson, Sara Hennessy, Hilary Evens, and particularly Patricia Murphy.
2
This is inevitably a brief discussion of the issues. For a fuller account see McCormick & Murphy (2000).
3
These differences have been the subject of a long debate in the literature; see for example the series of articles in
the Educational Researcher (Anderson, Reder and Simon, 1996; Greeno, 1997; Kirshner & Whitson, 1998; Cobb &
Bowers, 1999; Anderson, Greeno, Reder and Simon, 2000).
4
This is also true in the case of the technological knowledge in the USA science standards (AAAS, 1993).
5
Similar arguments could be made for concepts associated with processes such as 'optimisation' that, although may
exist in many kinds of technology, has quite different manifestations in each area of technology.
6
It is true that in some areas technologies are being thought of together, for example mechantronics, and this may
require my argument to be reconsidered.
7
The UK is not at all united in its technology curricular specifications. Wales uses this term and has a similar
specification as found in England, whereas in Northern Ireland the subject is 'technology and design'! Although the
latter has a similar content to that in England there are important differences; for example, it contains nothing on
food or textile technology. In Scotland there are several curriculum subjects that deal with technology, and the
specification that specifically has the title 'technology' is drawn much broader than that elsewhere in the UK.
8
In this journal only four articles in the last 5 years have taken problem solving as major focus: Hill (1998),
Mioduser (1998), Järvinen & Twyford (2000) and Mioduser and Kpperman (2002),
9
These strategies are dealt with in more detail in Murphy and McCormick (1997).
10
See Hennessy & Murphy (1999) for the literature on collaborative activity and Murphy & Hennessy (2001) for an
analysis of examples of collaboration in technology
11
I have made the general argument for this elsewhere (McCormick, 1999b).
12
Our research has shown how tools, such as T-squares that automatically produce parallel lines, hide the geometry
(Evens and McCormick, 1997). This applies to a number of geometric ideas including 'angle' and 'perpendicular
lines'.
13
I am indebted to Patricia Murphy for drawing my attention to this research.
14
This is exacerbated by the fact that science teaching will delay the teaching of voltage until later in secondary
schooling, preventing technology teachers from using ideas of potential dividers in technology activity because
students have little understanding of voltage.
15
I use USA examples because they give a detailed account of the kinds of conceptual understanding that students
are expected to have; UK specifications tend to much vaguer.
16
Interestingly in most mechanisms British students deal with in technology education at this age, 'velocity ratio' is a
more important concept for the resulting movement.
- 26 -
McCormick.doc
IJTDE 03

17
Layton (1993) has explored this kind of issue and the more general challenge that technology gives to science
education.
18
It is also the case that when experts start problem solving, they do so with qualitative considerations of a situation
before resorting to quantitative approaches; novices do the opposite (Glaser, 1992).

- 27 -
McCormick.doc