14
This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen] On: 05 October 2014, At: 03:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Research in Science & Technological Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20 Teachers’ and Pupils’ Perceptions of Technology and the Implications for Curriculum Leonie J. Rennie a a Department of Education, The University of Western Australia Published online: 03 Aug 2006. To cite this article: Leonie J. Rennie (1987) Teachers’ and Pupils’ Perceptions of Technology and the Implications for Curriculum, Research in Science & Technological Education, 5:2, 121-133, DOI: 10.1080/0263514870050203 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514870050203 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers’ and Pupils’ Perceptions of Technology and the Implications for Curriculum

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]On: 05 October 2014, At: 03:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Teachers’ and Pupils’ Perceptions ofTechnology and the Implications forCurriculumLeonie J. Rennie aa Department of Education, The University of WesternAustraliaPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Leonie J. Rennie (1987) Teachers’ and Pupils’ Perceptions of Technologyand the Implications for Curriculum, Research in Science & Technological Education, 5:2,121-133, DOI: 10.1080/0263514870050203

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514870050203

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1987 121

Teachers' and Pupils'Perceptions of Technology andthe Implications for Curriculum

L E O N I E J . R E N N I E , Department of Education, The University of WesternAustralia

ABSTRACT The recent explicit inclusion of technology into the science component of the schoolcurriculum in Western Australia necessitates changes in both curriculum materials and the natureof classroom teaching. This paper reports an investigation of the perceptions of technology of seniorteachers who are heads of the science department in their schools, and relates these perceptions withthose of a sample of 13-year-old pupils in this state. The investigation reveals that many teachershave a restricted view of technology which may be interpreted as a view that technology is dependentupon science. Such a view may neglect the historical aspects and societal influences on science andtechnology. Further, the available evidence indicates that local pupils have a low level of awarenessof technology. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for curriculum change andsuggests a starting point for achieving a successful balance in the teaching of technology, scienceand society issues in the classroom.

The move to incorporate aspects of technology into the science curriculum hasaccelerated over the last decade (Dowdeswell, 1979; Hurd, 1984; Lowe, 1985;Yager, 1984). In Australia, as in other countries, science curricula have tended toemphasise science with only incidental excursions into technology, usually asillustrations of applied science in an attempt to provide relevance. Brunkhorst &Yager (1986) and Lowe (1985) have discussed the pressures leading to thewidespread adoption of science-technology-society courses, and Bybee (1985) hasargued the need for students to use and understand science and technology intheir lives. The establishment of this Journal is one example of the explication ofthe science and technology link in education and the corresponding increase inrelated research. The recent Pupils Attitude Towards Technology (PATT) interna-tional workshop about the technology awareness of pupils which was held at theEindhoven University of Technology (Raat & de Vries, 1986) and the Girls andScience and Technology Conferences (with the fourth to be held in 1987) provideexamples of ongoing work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

122 L.J.Rennie

The shift to a technological orientation in science education requires changenot only in curriculum materials, but also change in the nature of classroomteaching. Clearly, the knowledge, abilities and attitudes of teachers are thefundamental influence on the degree to which a technological orientation canoccur in the classroom. At this time, however, little attention seems to have beengiven to determining the knowledge and attitudes of teachers about technology,relating this to the knowledge and attitudes" of their pupils, and using thisinformation as input to the designing of new curriculum. The Western Australianeducation system is now moving to incorporate technology and society intoscience, and the transition provides an ideal opportunity to examine the percep-tions about technology of both teachers and pupils and to tailor the transition totake account of these perceptions.

This paper examines teachers' and pupils' perceptions of technology andconsiders the implications of these for curriculum change. The paper begins bydescribing the context of the study, first defining science and technology and thenthe current status of each in the Western Australian educational system. Theperceptions of technology of Senior Science teachers (who head the sciencedepartments in their schools) are then discussed, and a summary of local researchsurveying pupils' perceptions of technology is presented. The results are com-pared and contrasted with similar research elsewhere. The paper concludes bydrawing implications for curriculum development and implementation.

The Context of the Study

The Relationship between Science and Technology

In this paper definitions of science and technology are adopted from Scriven(1985). Science is defined as the process and publicly accessible product of ourattempts to describe, explain and predict natural phenomena. Technology is thesystematic process, and the product, of designing, developing, maintaining andproducing artefacts. Both are clearly human endeavour, science as a search forknowledge and understanding and technology as the search for solutions topractical problems. Science will influence technology because new knowledge willprompt new techniques and products and modify those presently in use. Techno-logy influences science because improved tools and measuring techniques lead torevision and refinement of scientific description and explanation. Both scienceand technology are interrelated with society because their products define thelifestyle of the people and influence the way they think about themselves, whilesociety's norms, values and politics influence the demand for, and direction of,science and technological change.

The Place of Science in Western Australian Schools

Science is taught at all levels in Western Australian primary and secondaryschools. In primary school (Years 1 to 7) the time allotted to science averages 60minutes per week, or 4% of available time. The State Education Departmentprovides a syllabus (Education Department of Western Australia, 1983) whichemphasises an inquiry-centred approach, with a focus on outcomes related toscience process skills, attitudes and concepts, rather than content. In the first

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Technology 123

three years of high school (Years 8 to 10) science is compulsory for all pupils, anduntil 1987, science typically was taught for 240 minutes per week, or 15% ofschool time. Schools include topics in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy andgeology in their syllabus and the Education Department provides curricularguidance to teachers in the form of a series of handbooks. The assessment ofpupil achievement generally emphasises outcomes relating to content. During thefinal two years of secondary schooling (Years 11 and 12) attendance is notcompulsory and the study of science is optional.

The Introduction of Technology into the Science Curriculum

The structure of education during the years of compulsory schooling (Years 1 to10) has recently been reviewed by the Beazley Committee of Inquiry intoEducation in Western Australia (Beazley, 1984). One of the major outcomes hasbeen the adoption of seven curriculum components in restructuring the syllabus.The naming of one of these components Science and Technology has made explicitthe inclusion of technology into the school curriculum. According to the BeazleyReport the courses in the Science and Technology curriculum component shouldbe aiming to:

develop in all pupils a basic scientific and technological literacy and numer-acy;show how, through the various scientific disciplines, the physical world canbe studied, understood and used;examine, making use of real world examples, including technologicalexamples, the manner in which science interacts with the culture it serves andby which it is supported. (Beazley, 1984, p. 49)

There are some differences between these aims and those of the science courseswhich have been part of the syllabus for science in Western Australia for the last15 years. Courses presently aim to produce scientifically literate pupils, but nowliteracy and numeracy in both the scientific and technological sense must bedefined and pursued. The second stated aim is consistent with present classroompractice, although more attention has been given to how the physical world canbe studied and understood, rather than how it is used. The third aim has a focuson culture, suggesting a different perspective to that taken in most, but not all, ofthe present components of the science course. The optional science curriculumunit Case Studies in the History of Science (Education Department of WesternAustralia, 1973), for example, takes this approach by linking the science, techno-logy and culture in two periods of significant sociological change.

The Beazley Report has recommended more than a change of perspective,however. As a result of restructuring the curriculum, the majority of pupils maychoose to do less science than now, perhaps an average of 200 minutes of scienceper week, at least in Government schools. Clearly, this requires a reduction in thecontent of the science curriculum, but at the same time, aspects specificallyrelating to technology have to be included. Teachers need guidance about howthey are to do this. The nature of science, the nature of technology and thenature of the science-technology interface must all be considered during curri-culum development as changes occur to accommodate the Beazley recommenda-tions. The Beazley conception of Science and Technology quoted earlier requires

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

124 L.J.Rennie

considerable fleshing out, involving reference to the 'state-of-the-art' in scienceeducation literature, the new science-technology-society courses and the predic-tion of likely future directions in science education. An important requirementfor curriculum development is knowledge about teachers' and pupils' currentperceptions of science and technology. This paper provides this informationabout teachers and pupils in Western Australia.

Teachers' Perceptions of Technology

Sample and Procedure

Teachers at two science inservice courses held in November 1985 were asked toprovide a definition of technology. The 94 teachers were nearly all in charge ofscience at their school: most of them held the position of Senior Master/Mistress(Science) or were Relieving Senior Masters, some were the senior science teacherat a school without a Senior Master position. A few teachers had been promotedto the position of Senior Master for 1986.

The teachers were given no more than five minutes to write down theirpersonal definition of technology. Five minutes does not give teachers time towrite out a long reasoned argument, but it is time enough to elicit those issueswhich teachers believe are central to the nature of technology. Teachers wereasked to indicate whether their definition derived principally from their ownunderstanding (71 teachers indicated this), from a book, or from a science unit orcourse. The Physical Science Course (a Year 11—12 Western Australian course)was mentioned by 14 teachers, the ABC Science Show (a radio programme) byone, and three quoted a workshop about technology at a recent science teachers'conference. Five teachers referred to units or courses attended by them as part oftheir own education. There was no systematic difference in the nature ofteachers' comments which could be associated with the stated source of thedefinition.

Results

Technology as the application of scientific knowledge. The overwhelming theme,advanced by 76 of the 94 respondents, was technology as the application ofscientific knowledge/laws/principles. Nine teachers left their definition at this,and two more included the words 'practical application'. The other 65 teachers inthis group carried on their definitions to indicate the purpose of the knowledgeapplication and their responses could be grouped into several categories. Techno-logy was defined as the application of scientific knowledge to make some device/machine/artefact/goods (25 respondents), processes (9), services (4), techniques(6) for the purpose of performing tasks more quickly or efficiently (14) or to solveevery day problems (13). Some teachers linked the application of knowledge toproduce something of benefit or value to society (25), to fulfilling society's needs(5) or improving the quality of life (8), and two teachers saw the purpose ascontrol of the environment.

Eighteen teachers did not use 'applied' knowledge as an essential part of theirdefinition of technology. Two teachers saw technology as the knowledge per se andthree others regarded technology as a means of increasing knowledge. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Technology 125

remaining 13 of the 94 teachers did not mention knowledge at all. Eight of theseteachers referred to technology as the use of equipment, two others definedtechnology as products (artefacts/processes/techniques), and another focused thedefinition on the manufacturing process, including the creation, production andassembling of products. One teacher confined the definition to the products oftechnology as the end point in the sequence Science —»Applied Science—> Technology. Another teacher defined technology as "a way of making easierman's control of the environment".

Although expressed in a variety of terms, the thrust of the responses is clear:technology is viewed by most teachers as the application of scientific knowledge todo and/or make things which have a practical purpose. A typical definition was"Technology is the practical application of scientific ideas and concepts toproduce goods and services for the community". Such definitions imply thattechnology is dependent on science, and some teachers made this explicit."Technology minus science does not exist" wrote one teacher.

Some teachers do not consider the scientific knowledge to be part of techno-logy, but maintain a distinction between knowledge ('science') and its application('technology'). For example, six teachers stated in their definition that technologydoes not include the knowledge, rather technology refers to the way in which theknowledge is used. A further four implied that knowledge was not part oftechnology. Another teacher pointed out that the end products of technology canbe used without understanding how or why they worked. It seems fair to say,although many teachers did not make it explicit, that the technological productsthemselves (the processes, artefacts and techniques to use them) are generallyconsidered to be part of technology.

Technology and society. Technology was linked explicitly to society in 66 definitionswhich stated either that technology improved the quality of life or benefittedsociety by providing materials or processes or by solving problems. All but one ofthe remaining 28 definitions implied a link with society because the practicalapplication of knowledge, technological products and the use of them clearlybenefit at least one person. Other definitions implied co-operation as a group.Not one teacher suggested that technology had any ill-effect on people or societyor the environment. The tenor of the definitions acknowledges that technologychanges society, but only two definitions implied that technology was influencedby society.

The history of technology. Five respondents suggested that there exists a history ofchanging technology, or that there are recognisable eras in technology. Incontrast, nine people defined technology as being concerned only with new ideas,discoveries or methods, or used intricate and sophisticated tools (like computers)and two others viewed technology as the 'state-of-the-art' of applied science. Twoothers remarked on the ability of technology and its products to influence'tomorrow's world' and human development. The remaining definitions con-tained no focus either on the cumulative nature of technology or on technologyas a contemporary phenomenon. Possibly the two most contrasting definitions oftechnology were as follows.

[Technology is] The investigation of areas specialised in meeting the demandsof a more 'sophisticated' society. Technology involves intricate and detaileduse of tools like computors [sic] to explore these areas.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

126 L.J.Rennie

Technology is the sum of all the mechanical, electrical... [sic] gadgets andknowledge which mankind has acquired since he/she first fashioned a wea-pon or rounded a stone in order to catch or prepare a meal.

Technology and the teaching of science. There was not time available to ask teachersto suggest ways in which the Beazley recommendations about science and techno-logy could be implemented in the classroom, but three teachers made a commentabout this issue. Each referred to the inclusion of technology as illustrative of theconcepts learned in science, as a way of making science relevant to everyday life."Technology should be integrated", said one teacher, and "should not be a studyin its own right". There was no evidence at all to suggest any teacher woulddisagree with this statement.

Discussion

Not surprisingly, science teachers see science and technology as related. However,the definitions of nearly all of the teachers could be interpreted as a view thattechnology is dependent upon science, because the idea that technology is theapplication of scientific knowledge/principles implies that the science necessarilycame first. This view of technology is restrictive in two ways. First, it suggests thatnew artefacts or processes cannot arise other than from the basis of scientificknowledge. This is not so. Thomas Edison and his associates spent over a yeartrying literally hundreds of substances before they produced a successful filamentfor a light globe. Contemporary scientific knowledge said it could not be done,but there was a societal demand for a better lighting system, and so Edisonpersevered. Second, this view of technology suggests that technology could notexist before there was scientific knowledge. This also is not so. Few would arguethat the stone tools first used centuries ago by hunter and gatherer communitiesrepresent a technology. Community members knew which stones would andwould not make an effective axehead and knew how to shape an axehead. Theirknowledge was the technical knowledge of 'know how' rather than 'know that'.The internal structure, composition and physical properties of rocks are now wellunderstood, and science can explain why flint flakes more favourably than doesgranite and thus makes a better axehead, but the lack of this explanatoryknowledge did not prevent the manufacture of stone tools.

The link between technology and society was stated or implied by about two-thirds of the teachers, but again the definitions suggest a restricted view, with thebenefit of technology for society explicated rather than the effect of society ontechnology. About one-tenth of teachers specifically limited technology to thepresent or directed towards the future. This view is suggestive of what Scriven(1985) calls 'science chauvinism'. He points out that much of what is called thehistory of science is in fact the history of technology.

In fairness, it must be remembered that teachers were not given much time towrite their definition, and certainly not long enough to develop a theme. It can bedifficult to develop a concise yet comprehensive statement on the spur of themoment. Van den Berg (1986) found that teachers had difficulty describing whatthey understood by technology in an interview situation. However, in follow-upwork with a 74 item questionnaire, teachers were found to have a reasonablycomprehensive view of technology. Even so, van den Berg notes that whereas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Technology 127

physics teachers believed that technology is based on science, craft teachers didnot.

Pupils' Perceptions of Technology

The data summarised here are part of an international pilot survey of technologyawareness in 13-year-old pupils (Raat & de Vries, 1986). The survey is being co-ordinated by Professor J. H. Raat & Dr M. de Vries in the Netherlands, whodeveloped the Questionnaire About Technology in the project Physics and Techno-logy at Eindhoven University of Technology (Raat et al., 1985). The questionnairecontains 78 items in eight categories: general knowledge of technology, interest intechnology, importance of technology, girls and technology, technological profes-sions, difficulty of technology, creativity in technology, and consequences oftechnology. The response categories are agree strongly—agree—undecided—disagree—disagree strongly.

The Western Australian Sample

The questionnaire was administered to 229 Year 8 students in nine intact classesin the Perth metropolitan area. The classes were not selected randomly, ratherthey were chosen to achieve a representative balance overall in academic abilityand socio-economic status. Three students presented incomplete sets of data,leaving a final sample of 109 boys and 117 girls. More information about thesurvey and local administration are presented in Rennie & Parker (1985).

Results

The responses of the Western Australian students for several items are presentedin Tables I and II to illustrate the kinds of perceptions these students have abouttechnology. No attempt was made to sum scores over items because of the heavyuse of the undecided category. Students were quizzed after completing thequestionnaire about how they had used this category. They reported that theychose the undecided response if they did not understand the question and/or ifthey had no opinion or were undecided. Several students claiming not to knowthe meaning of technology used this midpoint response for many of the itemswhich contained the word 'technology'. The 78 items were all scored from 1(agree strongly) through 5 (disagree strongly) regardless of the direction of itemwording, thus a low mean corresponds to agreement with the item content.

Awareness of technology. An idea of students' awareness of technology can beobtained by the strength of their opinions about ideas tapped by the question-naire. A total of 27 items had a mode of 3, the midpoint, whereas 13 items had amode of 1 or 5, the extremes of the response choices. It seems clear that the highpercentage of undecided responses indicates not only a lack of opinion but a lackof awareness, as many of these items related to the nature of technology, theintroduction of technology into developing countries, creativity in technology andthe consequences of technology. It was noticeable that girls were more likely thanboys to choose the middle category—they did so on 70 of the 78 items.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

128 L.J.Rennie

TABLE I. Boys' and girls' responses to some items about technology

1.

11.

24.

40.

73.

Item

Technology is very importantin life.

In everyday life you do nothave much to do withtechnology.

A hundred years ago therewas no technology.

I do not know what the wordtechnology includes.

I cannot list many technicaljobs.

Sex

BG

BG

BG

BG

BG

Response

1

5734

94

1112

614

714

2

3546

2621

1414

1716

2527

category 1

3

518

1735

2141

1925

2133

4

NO

N

O

2827

2321

3037

2719

;%)

5

10

2013

3112

288

207

Mean

1-55**1-87

3-253-22

3-50*3-08

3-56**3-07

3-28**2-78

Note. The difference between boys' mean and girls' mean is significant.*p<0-05; **p<0-01.

Further evidence of students' lack of awareness is revealed in Table I. Item 1had the second lowest mean of all items—clearly most students agree thattechnology is important, yet their responses to the other items in Table I suggestthat many do not have an understanding of technology. The results for Item 11reveal that about 44% disagree with that item, indicating that more than half ofthe students are unaware of the pervasiveness of technology in everyday life. Allstudents use technological products everyday, but it seems that many students donot recognise their radio, their bicycle and their pencil case as products oftechnology. The historical aspects of technology are also not recognised. Theagree categories for Item 24 attracted 25% of responses, and 31% chose unde-cided, suggesting that more than half of the students fail to appreciate thattechnology existed more than a 100 years ago. On two other items (not reportedin Table I) 6% of students agreed that technology only concerned computers and14% agreed that technology always had to do with electricity. The undecidedcategory attracted 21% and 29% respectively for these two items. It is notsurprising, therefore, that only about half of the students indicated for Item 40that they knew what 'technology includes', and, according to the responses forItem 73, less than half were able to list many technical jobs.

Attitudes to technology. The items in Table II refer to students' attitudes abouttechnology. In response to Item 17, 15% of boys and 27% of girls have stated thatthey are not interested in technology, and another 21% of boys and 36% of girlswere undecided. Encouragingly, over half of the students disagreed that techno-logy was too difficult for them. Also encouraging was the fact that the majority ofstudents disagreed with the statement that boys know more about technologythan girls do. Even so there was a sex-related difference in response for this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Technology 129

item—girls disagreed with it much more strongly than did boys. There were othersex-related differences suggesting boys have more positive views about technologythan do girls. It was remarked earlier that no science teacher commented on anyill-effect of technology. It is significant to note that the results for Item 42 showthat 14% of students agreed that technology was always bad for the environment,and a further 32% could not decide.

TABLE II. Boys' and girls' attitudes about technology

17.

13.

43.

42.

47.

25.

44.

Item

I am not interested intechnology.

Technology is too difficultfor me.

Boys know more abouttechnology than girls do.

Technology is always badfor the environment.

At school you do not hearmuch of technology.

I would like to learn moreabout technology at school.

I would like to work intechnology later.

Sex

BG

BG

BG

BG

BG

BG

BG

Response

1

613

98

72

53

1220

4319

185

2

914

99

163

119

3436

3432

2211

category I

3

2136

1936

2114

2736

1524

927

4259

4

00 to

CM C

M

3233

2820

00 00

OO

OO

2415

614

713

(%)

5

3611

3114

2862

2414

165

00

00

1112

Mean

3-77**3-09

3-653-38

3-53**4-36

3-613-54

2-97**2-50

2-02**2-61

2-70**3-15

Note. The difference between boys' mean and girls' mean is significant.**/><0-01.

A large proportion of students—46% of boys and 56% of girls—agreed that atschool you do not hear much of technology. In one classroom where thequestionnaire was administered there was a large poster proclaiming 'InformationTechnology Month'. Even with this poster hanging in their usual classroom, onehalf of this class agreed with the statement in Item 47. The results for Item 25reveal that students, particularly boys, are generally desirous of learning moreabout technology at school. The large number of midpoint responses to Item 44make clear that most pupils at this age do not have the information necessary tomake a decision about a career in technology.

Discussion

The selection of results presented here are representative of the results for thewhole questionnaire. Many pupils have no idea that technology includes thedesign and manufacture of the household appliances they take for granted,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

130 L.J.Rennie

consequently, they have little understanding of the meaning of technology andare unable to give opinions on many statements. This lack of awareness makesdifficult the task of interpreting the results of the questionnaire. Nevertheless, theresults sampled here and those presented by Parker & Rennie (1986), interpretedwith caution, indicate that boys generally are more aware of, more interested in,and have a broader view of technology than do girls. Further, girls are perceivedby boys to be less able in technology-related areas. These sex-related differencesmatch closely those found by Raat et al. (1985) in pupils of the same age in theNetherlands.

Other research in children of the same age has produced similar results. Usingthe same Dutch pilot questionnaire as that used here, researchers in Belgium,Canada, England, Hungary, Kenya, Nigeria, Poland, Sweden and the USA havecollected data which, according to factor analysis, have similar structure (Raat &de Vries, 1986). Despite the diversity in educational background and emphasisgiven to technology in the different countries, the main factor to emerge in 11 ofthe 13 analyses reported by Raat & de Vries (1986) was labelled interest. Girls andtechnology was the second or third factor in 10 of the analyses. The results of thefactor analyses must be treated cautiously because of problems with use of themiddle category. Researchers from some of these countries also commented uponthe high level of unawareness of technology among the respondents (see Raat &de Vries, 1986, for discussion). A similar problem was experienced by the OxfordEducational Research Group Technology Project. Nash, Allsop & Woolnough(1984) reported that many pupils (particularly girls) stated ignorance of whattechnology involved as a reason for not opting to take the course.

In summary, pupils' perceptions about technology reveal a lack of understand-ing of the nature of technology, and girls seem to be less informed than boys. InWestern Australia, pupils must make educational decisions relating to careerchoice at age 15 years. The results here show that 13-year-old pupils do not haveenough information to do this. Clearly, there is a need to incorporate technologyexplicitly in the curriculum, with care being taken to adopt a broad, genderinclusive approach.

Summary and Implications for Curriculum

The perceptions of teachers and pupils about technology have several implica-tions for the success of incorporating technology into the science curriculum. Thefact that over two-thirds of the sampled science teachers espoused the science—*technology view hints at two kinds of risk in the implementation of the scienceand technology curriculum component in Western Australian schools from 1987.The first is a risk that in some classrooms the science may dominate thetechnology to such an extent that it will be difficult to achieve the aims set out byBeazley (1984) in terms of the manner in which science, technology and cultureinteract. Pupils need to understand that science does not unilaterally direct thetechnology and determine the lifestyle of people in society. The cultural andtechnological needs of society also affect the science that is practised and thedirection in which scientific research is allowed to develop. The second risk is thatthe history of technology may be ignored. The pupils' responses to the question-naire reveal that many of them do not know that technology has a history, andsome confine technology to computers and electricity. Further, about 10% of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Technology 131

teachers tied their definition of technology to contemporary aspects. It is easy toincorporate history into science, but often, like the example of the light globe,science history has technological and social perspectives which are not alwaysrecognised and made explicit.

Another implication for curriculum implementation arises from the pupils'perceptions of technology reported earlier. A large proportion of pupils, amajority of whom are girls, show a high level of unawareness and misconceptionsabout technology, and it is important that teachers realise this and preventpotential problems by taking account of it. Many pupils seem not to know thatthey are consumers of technology. The familiar everyday household appliances,from the cooking utensils to the television set, are products of technology. Whenboys and girls use needles and threads, hammers and nails, they are usingtechnological products. A basic tenet of teaching is to move from the familiar tothe unfamiliar. If pupils understand how technology is part of their everyday life,that technology has been present as long as society, that it changes society andsociety changes it, then the new 'high' technologies may not be so frightening.

There is no suggestion that teachers would prefer a separate course fortechnology, although it could be desirable to have some units which are based onone segment of technology, such as information technology. A more successfulapproach could be a change in emphasis of the present science course to includemore of the interaction between science, technology and society. In the Austra-lian context, the May 1985 issue of The Australian Science Teachers Journalcontains a number of articles suggesting how such changes can be made withincurrent syllabus topics. Some curriculum units have already been developedwhich incorporate the science-technology-society interface while still teaching theusual science content.

If the aims stated by Beazley (1984) for the Science and Technology curriculumcomponent are to permeate all Western Australian science classrooms, a usefulfirst step may well be to define for teachers just what is meant by scientific andtechnological literacy and numeracy. A statement which has relevance here comesfrom the National Science Teachers Association (quoted in Yager, 1984):

The goal of science education during the 1980s is to develop scientifi-cally literate individuals who understand how science, technology, andsociety influence one another, and who are able to use this knowledge intheir everyday decision-making. The scientifically literate person has asubstantial knowledge base of facts, concepts, conceptual networks, andprocess skills which enable the individual to continue to learn and thinklogically. This individual both appreciates the value of science andtechnology in society and understands their limitations.

Although only scientific literacy is mentioned, technological literacy is implied inthis statement. The first sentence highlights the intellectual skills required forcoping with the science-technology-society interface. They are the skills involvingthe ability to gather, organise and interpret information as a means of denning aproblem and deciding how to solve it. The development of such skills is a majorgoal of science education. The second sentence describes the kind of scienceeducation which puts these skills into focus, and is the kind of science educationfor which most science syllabi currently aim. In the past, science education hasbeen criticised for imbalance: the skills and processes of inquiry have been

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

132 L.J.Rennie

emphasised to the detriment of the skills and abilities which can make use ofinformation already discovered (Hurd, 1984). The result of this imbalance hasbeen a hiatus between science and technology, divorcing from science the verypart of it which has application and relevance in the everyday life of pupils(Yager, 1984). If pupils are to develop scientific and technological literacy, thenboth theory and application are necessary, and further, both should be linkedwith society. It is important that the educational bodies responsible for curricu-lum change give teachers the encouragement, scope, and curricular support todevelop scientific and technological literacy in their pupils.

The role teachers must play is two-fold. The facts, principles and processes ofscience are just as important as they ever were, and teachers must continue toemphasise the relevancy of those facts, principles and processes to the real world.The other role teachers must play is to provide pupils with opportunities fordecision-making in a social context. Then, using the knowledge they have gainedthey can learn to recognise how science, technology and society are interrelated.The result can only be pupils who are better able to cope with a rapidly changingsociety.

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank the Superintendents of Education (Science) inWestern Australia for their co-operation in collecting information from seniorscience teachers.

Correspondence: Dr Leonie J. Rennie, Department of Education, University ofWestern Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, 6009.

REFERENCES

BEAZLEY, K.E. (Chairman) (1984) Education in Western Australia, Report of the Committeeof Inquiry into Education in Western Australia (Perth, Western Australia).

BRUNKHORST, H.K. & YAGER, R.E. (1986) A new rationale for Science Education—1985,School Science and Mathematics, 86, pp. 364—374.

BYBEE, R.W. (1985) The restoration of confidence in science and technology education,School Science and Mathematics, 85, pp. 95—108.

DOWDESWELL, W.H. (1979) Science and technology in the classroom, European Journal ofScience Education, 1, pp. 51-56.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (1973) Case Studies in the History of Science(Lower Secondary Science Research Project, Perth, Western Australia).

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (1983) Science Syllabus K-7 (Perth, WesternAustralia).

HURD, P.D. (1984) Science education: the search for a new vision, Educational Leadership,41(4), pp. 20-22.

LOWE, I. (1985) STS: the future mode of science education, The Australian Science TeachersJournal, 31(1), pp. 23-32.

NASH, M., ALLSOP, T. & WOOLNOUGH, B.E. (1984) Factors affecting pupil uptake ofTechnology at 14 + , Research in Science and Technology Education, 2, pp. 5-19.

RAAT, J.H. & DE VRIES, M. (Eds) (1986) What do Girls and Boys Think of Technology? Pupils'attitude towards technology (Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Eindhoven University of Tech-nology).

RAAT, J.H., DE VRIES, M. & ALTING, A. (1985) Student's attitude towards technology,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Technology 133

Contributions to the Third Annual G.A.S.A.T. Conference, pp. 80-87 (Chelsea College,London).

RENNIE, L.J. & PARKER, L.H. (1985) Technology Awareness: an international survey, Proceed-ings of the Eleventh Annual Science Education Conference, pp. 59-64 (Perth, WesternAustralia).

SCRIVEN, M. (1985) Appendix to a report on Education and Technology in Western Australia: theconcepts of technology and of education for technology (Western Australian Science, Industryand Technology Council, Perth, Western Australia).

VAN DEN BERG, R. (1986) Teachers' attitudes towards technology, in: J.H. RAAT & M. DEVRIES (Eds) What do Girls and Boys Think of Technology? Pupils attitude towards technology,pp. 37-46 (Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Eindhoven University of Technology).

YAGER, R.E. (1984) Toward new meaning for school science, Educational Leadership, 41(4),pp. 12-18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

3:29

05

Oct

ober

201

4