In this article, the author studies the introduction of
technology into the science curriculum. He offers a
general framework for analyzing technology as artifact, knowledge, and social practice. This framework
provides analytical tools to study the implications of
technology in general education. The analysis is
framed using two events: (a) the current movement of
scientific literacy, which now includes technology literacy such as in the case of Project 2061, a science
education initiative of the American Association for
the Advancement of the Science and (b) international
calls for including technology in the school curricula
of developing countries. The primary context of this
article is the demand of technology education in Guatemala.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of the Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of the Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy . New York: Oxford University Press .
3.
Barners, B. (1982). The science-technology relationship: A model and a query. Social Studies of Science, 12, 166-172.
Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1992). General introduction. In W. Bijkir, and J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
7.
Bucciarelli, L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Bunge, M. (1985). Treatise on basic philosophy. Vol. 7: Epistemology and methodology III. Boston: Reidel .
9.
Caillods, F. (1984). Education, organization of work and indigenous technological capacity. In M. Fransman & K. King (Eds.), Technological capability in the Third World (pp. 211-222). New York: St. Martin's.
10.
Campbell, C., & Laherrére, J. (1998). The end of cheap oil. Scientific American, 278(3), 78-83.
11.
Davis, G. (1990). Energy for planet Earth. Scientific American, 263(3), 55-62.
12.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
Gooding, D. (1992). Putting agency back into experiment. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Herrera, R. (1989). La practica teconologica. Revista Filosofia, 27(66), 349-359.
15.
Herrera, R. (1996). Ingeniería: Un marco teórico. Ingeneria, 5(1), 39-59.
16.
Johnson, J. (1989). Technology (Report of Project 2061, Phase 1. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of the Science.
17.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Layton, D. (1993). Technology's challenge to science education. London: Open University.
19.
Layton, E. (1974). Technological knowledge. Technology and Culture, 17, 688-700.
20.
Layton, E. (1977). Condition of technological development. In I. Spiegel-Rösing & D. Solla (Eds.), Science technology and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 197-222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Lewis, T. (1995). Including technology in the school curriculum of developing countries' education. Canadian and International Education, 24(2), 36-54.
22.
Olsen, M., & Joerges, B. (1981). The process of promoting consumer energy conservation: An international perspective. Berlin, Germany: International Institute for Environment and Society.
23.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social constructions of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. Bijkir, T. Hughes, and T. PinchThe social construction of technological systems (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Polyani, M. (1962). Personal knowledge. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1958)
25.
Raizen, S., Sellwood, P., Todd, R., & Vickers, M. (1995). Technology education in the classroom: Understanding the designed world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Roth, W.M. (1996). Art and artifact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning of Sciences , 5, 129-166.
27.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Arena.
28.
Simon, H. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1977). The study of science, technology, and society (SISS): Recent trends and future challenges. In I. Spiegel-Rosing and D. Solla (Eds.) Science, technology, and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 7-42). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 3-33
31.
United Nations. (1979). Proceedings of the workshop on biogas and other rural energy resources and the roving seminar on rural energy development (Energy Resource Development Series No. 19. New York: Author.
32.
Vicenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .
33.
Wheeler, C., Gallagher, J., MacDonough, M., & Sookpokakit-Namfa, B., (1997). Improving school-community relations in Thailand. In W. Cummings & P. Altbach (Eds.), The challenge of Eastern Asian education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
Yager, R. (1996). History of science: Technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/ aociety as reform in science education (pp. 3-15). Albany: State University of New York Press .
