Történelem | Tudomány és Technika » P John Williams - Processes of Science and Technology, A Rationale for Cooperation or Separation

Source: http://www.doksinet Processes of Science and Technology: A Rationale for Cooperation or Separation P John Williams Edith Cowan University Australia INTRODUCTION There has been much discussion and writing about the relationship between science and technology, resulting in a diversity of views about this relationship, ranging between the antithetical views of technology as science dependent, and at the other end of the spectrum, science as technology dependent. As a technology educator, my concern for clarification between these two areas is that technology generally gets the raw end of the deal when the two are placed together. Almost daily one comes across the terms science and technology in the media and in government reports and policy statements, which more often than not precede a discussion of science, rather than science and technology. Bencze (2001) makes the point that, as a result, science has so co-opted the status of fields of technology that people routinely refer

to them as sciences: for example rocket science, medial science and computer science (273). This seems to result in a public misconception about both the relationship between science and technology and the nature of technology, a misconception which extends to educators and education policy makers. The difference between science and technology is important in terms of government policy. For example in Western Australia the government has recently released a policy statement on science and technology (Department of Commerce and Trade, 2000). Two of the outlined strategies to implement the policy parallel each other, one related to improving technology education and the other to improving science education in schools. Funding for science is listed as $500,000, and funding for technology is listed as N/A. The difference is also important in terms of curriculum development - how should the two areas relate to each other in the curriculum? For example in Israel and Brazil, Science and

Technology are combined as one subject. In New South Wales, Science and Technology is a single learning area in primary, then separated in secondary. In the United States, one of the seven content standards in the National Standards for Science Education (National Academy of Sciences, 1996) is technology, but the converse, science in the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000), is not the case. What is the rationale for integration or separation? While the relationships between science and technology are undeniably significant, the differences between the two areas are just as important, particularly in terms of the goals of the developing area of technology education. The hypothesis of this paper is that an examination of the methodologies of science and technology will assist in the clarification of technology education and the elevation of its status, and will provide an additional rationale for its independence as a subject in the curriculum. - 33 - Source:

http://www.doksinet TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER LEARNING AREAS There appear to be at least three conceptions of the relationship between technology and other curriculum learning areas. The first sees technology as discrete and separate from other learning areas. The rationale for this approach was clearly enunciated and accepted in Australia in 1994 with the publication of the technology learning area statement. The rationale relates to the unique opportunities the learning area provides students to interact with technology in innovative, ethical and thoughtful ways. This conception of technology as a demarcated (Gardner, 1994) learning area also remains internationally popular (See UK National Curriculum Orders, 1999 and US Standards for Technological Literacy, 2000). The second conception is of technology as part of an integrated study. The Integrated Maths, Science and Technology in Elementary schools Project (Hacker, 1996) in New York State has been working for some years trialing

integrated learning activities in mathematics, science and technology. This project is well funded and there may be some question as to the viability of the concept without the specific funding. Hacker (1996) argues that for primary level education, not only is it possible to integrate science and technology, but that there is a strong logic for including mathematics as well. However a review of the teaching of Science and Technology in NSW primary schools in 1995 indicated that the integrity of technology education was severely compromised (Science and Technology Syllabus Evaluation, 1995) by this approach. The third conception (Solomon, 1994) is of technology providing the basis for integrated activities, where students will learn about, for example, mathematical concepts and language through engaging in meaningful design activities, that require knowledge from a range of areas in addition to technology. This could be taken to be the same as integrated technology However, the

difference is that the activity or project is technological, and the mathematical concepts and language development emanate from this technological activity. The link between technology and science has been addressed by many authors (Harrison, 1994; Gardner, 1994; Hacker, 1996; Williams, 1998; Raudebaugh, 2000). Harrison saw science and technology as two disciplines which need to be treated separately to ensure the important learning in each is covered. However, Harrison pointed out that it is also inevitable that technology education will include science, and science include technology. Raudebaugh (2000) presented the results of a project intended to supplement science coursework through the development, by students, of technological products. Williams (1998) argued that the differences between science and technology (differences in method, aims, use of knowledge and type of knowledge) are fundamentally significant enough to teach them seperately. Whether or not it draws on new

scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not of science" (Goodman, in Postman, 1995, vi) It may sound confusing rather than clarifying, but technology has been aptly described as the liberal arts of the sciences, the unifying discipline because it spans so many areas. The distinctions between science and the liberal arts are sharp, but technology in fact has more in - 34 - Source: http://www.doksinet common with the humanities. The humanities (and technology) are generally concerned with questions of quality and value rather than with quantitative methodology. Sir Eric Ashby (1958) elaborates on this relationship in his book Technology and the Academics: Technology is inseparable from men and communities. In this respect, technology differs from pure science. It is the essence of the scientific method that the human element must be eliminated. Science does not dispense with values but it does eliminate the variability of human response to values.

Unlike science, technology concerns the application of science to the needs of man and society, therefore technology is inseparable from humanism. Consequently the Technology learning area has strong conceptual links with other learning areas such as Society and Environment and English. ASSUMPTIONS In a desire not to revisit debates which have previously been authoritatively dealt with, I would like to make a number of assumptions. 1. Technology is not applied science Gardner (1994, 1995) deals with this perception of technology in detail, and concludes by rejecting it as historically unsound and simplistic. Technology is more than the application of scientific knowledge and principles, ‘it is a knowledge of techniques, methods and designs that work, and that work in certain ways and with certain consequences, even when one cannot explain exactly why. It is a form of knowledge which has generated a certain rate of economic progress for thousands of years. Indeed if the human race had

been confined to technologies that were understood in a scientific sense, it would have passed from the scene long ago’ (Rosenberg, 1982, 143). 2. Which comes first is an unresolvable question In a historical sense, technology was an element of human activity long before science was established. In an incidental sense, there is no general agreement. Layton in his book ‘Technology’s challenge to science education’ (Layton, 1993, 25) gives two examples to illustrate this. The first was the USA Defence Department’s Project Hindsight which analysed 20 weapons systems adopted by the armed forces since the end of the war. Each system was broken down into innovative events in development Out of 700 such events, only two appeared to be derived from basic scientific research. Ninety percent of the remainder were classified as technological. In response to this finding, a National Science Foundation funded study at the Illinois Institute for Technology explored five ‘high tech’

innovations including the contraceptive pill, the electron microscope and video tape recording. The resulting report claimed that 70 percent of all the critical events in the development of the artefacts came from basic science. 3. Science and technology are different Many writers (Hindel, 1966; Skolimowski, 1966; Mackenzie and Waejman, 1985; Lauda, 1985; Sparks, 1987; Narin and Olivastrrro, 1992; Gardner, 1994; Williams,A., 1996) have utilized various notions to contrast science and technology. These include: Goals: the pursuit of knowledge vs the creations of solutions Focus: analytical vs practical - 35 - Source: http://www.doksinet Knowledge: production (abstract, general) vs transformation (detailed and functional) Success: better theories of understanding vs better products in the market Methodology: discovery vs design Approach: reductionism vs holism Communication: expository and symbolic vs visual and non verbal Theories: about causes vs about processes Attitude:

reductionalism vs holism Search for: causes vs solutions Real world: descriptive of laws vs interferes with natural order 4. Science and technology are dependent Technology often preceded the scientific understanding of certain developments, and technological knowledge is at times necessary for the growth of subsequent scientific understanding (Gardner, 1997). Conversely, technological developments have often been informed and directed by scientific understandings. CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNOLOGY One picture of technology is as a complex and creative activity, drawing upon science as well as other knowledge resources , but very different from science in many ways - an activity infused with value considerations of diverse kinds and whose products, whilst carrying the imprint of their own social origins, can in turn reshape society, often in unpredictable ways (Layton, 1993, 36). This picture reinforces the alliance between technology and the humanities, which some authors state (Ashby,

1958) is a more logical alliance than that of technology and science, because of the essentially humanistic nature of technological activity. Technology is extremely diversified, and consequently the term technology has many connotations (Gardner, 1994, Mitcham, 1978, Williams, 1996). Frey (1989) describes these as perceptions of technology, and organizes them in a progressively more profound schema of: artefacts - physical objects, probably most commonly computers technique - the set of process skills required to make an artefact cognitive technique - broader than the skills to include knowledge and invention, design, innovation, improvement technological system - a complex system of artefacts, processes , knowledge, materials and people, for example a bank. A comprehensive perception of technology brings all these elements together in the valueladen context of human intervention and intent. Such a perception would encompass objects, technological knowledge, the processes people

employ in using the knowledge to create objects, and the way people organize themselves to satisfy needs and wants. Of the many definitions of technology developed in the literature, (Kranzberg, 1963; Fores, 1971; Black and Harrison, 1992; Kline, 1985; Wright, Israel and Lauda, 1993; Layton, 1993: Williams, 1996; Technology for all Americans, 1997) the most common elements seem to include interdisciplinary, useful, practical, creative, related to human needs, socially contextualized, environmentally influential, knowledge based and accumulative. - 36 - Source: http://www.doksinet The pace and scope of technological change challenges the capacity of individuals and communities to make wise, well-informed decisions about their broad application. Many developments will raise profound issues of ethics, global equity and social justice. In a context of change, the value or relevance of specific technological knowledge and processes is continually under review. Some technologies continue

to be relevant because they address fundamental human needs. Some technologies gain and lose relevance over short time spans. This occurs when alternate forms of technology are developed to better address a particular area of human need. For instance telegraph and morse code have lost relevance or value as more sophisticated communication systems have been introduced. This cycle of development, usefulness and obsolescence is shortening at a rapid rate, demanding greater understanding and more versatile educational preparation of the younger generations. Still other forms of technology diminish in value or disappear as dominant groups impose social, economic or cultural change on minorities. It is only in recent times that Western cultures have discovered the depth and value of technological expertise that resides with traditional and indigenous cultures, for example, the use of natural and herbal remedies and land management techniques. Overall, specific technologies tend to have a

different value at different times in history, in different circumstances and in different environments and cultures. The belief that the transfer of technology between cultures and countries was a quick answer to the development of underdeveloped countries was destroyed when it was realized that the links between technology and its contextual culture were so strong that the technology would not function without the culture. THE PROCESSES OF TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION The two most generally accepted processes of technology education are design (for example in the UK) and problem solving (for example in the USA), despite the fact that there are seemingly endless permutations of each of these approaches to the methodology of technology. One of the major characterising differences between them is that a problem solving approach generally begins with a pre-defined problem, where as design may not be problem oriented. Within the development of the design, however, what McCormick (1996) refers to

as ‘emergent problems’ arise continually and need to be solved before the process of design can continue to develop. It is conceptually helpful to have some way of modelling the process of technology. The problem is that the models are not based on systematic observation of people, but on accumulated technology education ‘folk lore’ about what people think happens when students do technology. Many models have been produced, some for analytical/philosophical purposes, and some for practical teaching purposes. The idea is that a systematic process can be taught and learnt by all pupils who can then apply it to subsequent problems or situations. These are commonly reproduced in booklet form as workbooks for students to use as they do technology. The situation in Western Australia is representative of more global thinking about the nature of the processes of technology. There has been a move away from the notion of a prescribed process (such as Design-Make-Appraise; Australian

Education Council, 1994) to the idea that - 37 - Source: http://www.doksinet there are a range of processes in which students engage when they do technology (Curriculum Council, 1997). They do not necessarily do all the activities every time they design something, and certainly do not do them in the same order every time. The activities depend on the nature of the student and the nature of the problem. There are many specific activities in these processes, but the most important include generating ideas, research and investigation, evaluation, modelling, producing and documenting. It may be appropriate that these activities be called aspects of design rather than stages of design; stages has a sequential connotation which is not appropriate as a technology process. The skills involved in these activities are not ends in themselves, but are done and practised in order to achieve other goals such as becoming creative, reflective, critical and expressive; that is the generic

competencies that all students need and should have upon leaving school. These processes of technology may include the following. 1. Design Design is justifiably the most common and popular of the processes appropriate to technology education. In the real world it is a significant process in the development of technology, and from an educational perspective it is an ideal methodology to use as a vehicle to achieve the desired competencies. There is little research about design, and therefore very little informed guidance on how to teach it. But there is some There seems to be no simple generalizable process ‘The processes involved in designing are not linear, they do not always start from human needs, and they do not always proceed in an orderly way. They are reiterative, spiralling back on themselves, proceeding by incremental change and occasional flashes of insight’ (Baynes, 1992). 2. Problem Solving Despite the fact that the terms design and problem solving are often used

interchangeably, problem solving is different from design in that design deals with ill defined problems. It is helpful to clarify different types of problem solving. McCormick (1996) identified three types of problem solving: ! a general problem solving approach referring to the process more than the problem itself. ! a global problem referring to a significant problem, the solution to which will take some time. ! emergent problems which arise throughout any process and must be overcome in order to proceed. 3. Systems Approach A systems approach (input-process-output) is often placed in a problem solving context, for example in many technology curricula in the USA. A systems approach may be either analytical, and utilized as a way of viewing the world or a specific context, or functional in that a systems process is followed for diagnostic or production purposes. - 38 - Source: http://www.doksinet 4. Invention Inventions could be accidental or intentional. I am not sure that the

ability to invent can be taught, but the classroom climate can be such that when this process does occur, it is acceptable. 5. Manufacturing A manufacturing orientation to technology covers a number of more specific types of processes such as a custom made craft approach, a production line, batch production and one-off production. Related factors in each of these processes is a consideration of materials, capital, information, transport, time and energy. It may also be the case that specific areas of technology education can adopt processes which are particularly suitable to the knowledge and content being dealt with. For example: ! Business may use a planning process, in the contextual sense of a business plan. ! Agriculture may utilize a process to mirror the growth cycle of a particular product. ! Technology oriented to product development may use processes of repair and restoration. CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE While the boundaries and the content of the discipline of science seem

better established than those of technology, there is less consensus on what scientists do. It seems as though there may be three areas of scientific activity, though the boundaries are not clear and sharp: 1. Pure/fundamental science - driven by thought and speculation about the natural world without thought of possible applications 2. Strategic science - the development of knowledge which has the potential to yield products and processes 3. Applied science - related to a specific project with practical outcomes often specified by a customer. Similarly with technology, and even more specifically with design in technology, studies of scientists at work seem to indicate that there is no generalizable method (Carey, 1994; Gibbs and Lawson ,1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen 1989), so it could well be that the activities of scientists in each of these three areas are quite different. The notion that there is a common series of steps followed by all research scientists, consisting of, for

example, define the problem, gather information, form a hypothesis, make observations, test hypothesis, and draw conclusions, is not generally held. One of the reasons for the continued perpetration of this myth is the way in which results are presented in research journals (Medawar, 1990, McComas, 1996). The standardized style of presentation makes it appear that all scientists follow a standard research plan. Scientists approach and solve problems in many different ways, using the skills and methods used by all problem solvers in whatever area. THE PROCESSES OF SCIENCE EDUCATION - 39 - Source: http://www.doksinet Both the content and the processes of school science have traditionally been drawn from the pure science category of activity. This means that the content was studied in strictly disciplinary categories, and the process was a prescriptive and linear one of defining the problem, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, making observations, testing hypotheses, and

drawing conclusions. This method served to work against the creativity element in science. For example many of the laboratory exercises are simply verification activities where teacher discussion is followed by step by step instructions and work toward a predetermined solution. This is the antithesis of the way science really operates, and is no longer generally accepted as appropriate. Research has indicated that in the context of science, children construct knowledge in ways different from scientists, and so the validity of using scientist’s methodologies in the classroom has been questioned. The ‘Five E’s’ instructional model for science (Australian Academy of Science, 1994) is similar to the sequence of process learning in science summarized by Fensham (1985), and Swain’s (1989) process skills. It consists of: engage: create interest and stimulate curiosity explore: explore questions and test ideas, experience the phenomenon or concept explain: construct explanations and

justify claims in terms of observation and data elaborate: apply concepts and explanations in new contexts evaluate: evidence of changes in students ideas, beliefs and skills, evaluate own learning The Statement on Science for Australian Schools (Australian Education Council, 1994) acknowledges the traditional scientific method and the body of knowledge that has been developed through this method. But it also acknowledges the determinism of the personal context in which this development occurs, and the occasional importance of imagination and guesswork in extending scientific understanding. There is, nevertheless, much debate about the validity of this statement. The two sides of the argument are represented well by Neville Fletcher, then Chief Research Scientist at CSIRO, and Ian Lowe, Associate Professor at Griffith University (Fletcher, 1993; Lowe, 1993; 18-22). Fletcher holds that there is nothing mysterious about science, it is simply structured, reliable, public knowledge, and

science education should be structured similarly in the traditional scientific disciplines. Science is not culturally constructed, and is the only reliable way of knowing. He is very critical of the national statement on science with its social science emphasis, and describes it as an upward expansion of a science designed for primary school, and quite inappropriate. He sees the two goals of science as incompatible (science for all, and science for future scientists), and separate courses must be provided to meet the needs of the two groups. Lowe on the other hand sees the reality of the world not arranged neatly along disciplinary boundaries. He agrees that the emphasis in science education should be on the process rather than the content. He considers an understanding of science as a social process embodying the values of its practitioners to be at a higher level then making predictions from theories and models. It is a delusion that science is value free and socially neutral When it

is taught in the absence of these dynamic contexts, students perceive it as boring and uninteresting. Science education in the past has failed because it has denied students the experience of seeing how the process of scientific enquiry is relevant to their lives. - 40 - Source: http://www.doksinet This debate surrounding science education is an extension of the issues that have been argued continually in its history, that is, science for all, or science for those who will pursue science related careers; or stated in a more general way, vocational science or general science. DEPICTIONS OF THE LINKS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION The perception of the relationship between science and technology outside of education fundamentally effects the ways teachers choose to teach the subjects in the classroom (Davies, 1997). There have been many depictions of this relationship, the three conceptions developed by Gardner (1995) summarizes a number of these. 1. Autonomous and

distinctive The differences between the two fields are distinctive enough for this relationship to be reasonable. The stimulus for action is different, and the results of the action are different. 2. Transformation of technology Over time technologists have made increasing use of scientific knowledge, and the nature of technological development changed as scientific modes of research were increasingly utilized. Technology developed from a craft into a profession, with some branches of engineering for example building directly on science. There is also a parallel argument that science developed into applied science as a result of the influence of technology, that is a focus on application rather than understanding. 3. Interactive and complementary and separate Notable technological improvements have required scientific advancements, and technological successes have renewed the field of opportunity for science. The interactions between modern scientists and technologists are so extensive

that they are difficult to distinguish, for example in computing or bio-engineering. Each area is represented by a different community (Layton, 1971), each with their own system of goals and values and social controls. Advocates of the social approach in both disciplines propose each as the vehicle for the integration of the whole school program (Yager and Lutz, 1995; Hanson and Froelich, 1994), and the case for Science-Technology-Society as the centrality of the curriculum has also often been made (Roy, 1990). It has the potential to be ‘the interactive heart of general education’, the unifying and multi disciplinary force across the disciplinary divide of science and the humanities (p.16) This implies at least some commonalities between science and technology An advantage of science over technology is the definition of the body of knowledge within which the processes can be pursued. Despite the fact that many science educators are calling for a reorganization of this content into

something which is more relevant and meaningful for students, the traditional organization is accepted and in place, the rationale being that the ‘powerful’ organizers were those which scientists everywhere used repeatedly. In technology there is no consensus on the conceptual organizers of the content. A recurring rationale for technology curriculum structure in the US has been the endurance of elements of technology over time and space. The logic has been that if this is the case, then such categories can be validly used as curriculum organizers for the subject. For example the case was made in 1982 (Hales and Snyder) for the curriculum organizers of manufacturing, transportation, construction and communication because these have been elements of - 41 - Source: http://www.doksinet technology throughout history and in many countries. Elements of this rationale are again emerging in the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000), though the enduring nature of set

organizers is disputed by the inclusion of additional categories. Australia tends to adopt the organizers of information, material and systems but does not elaborate on the specifics and Sweden proposes no content, insisting that it is the process which is important and content needs to be selected which is relevant to the school and community. THE PROCESSES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The historical baggage brought to the current situation is significant for both science and technology. For technology one aspect of this baggage is the expectation that the result of any process engaged in by the student is a product, which represents the culmination of learning and skill development, and has often in the past been the sole source of a norm referenced assessment. For science the traditions include the text book organized courses and the ‘lecture - experiment - result’ lesson procedure. All of this tradition impedes development in more student entered and contextual based studies in

technology and science. An analysis of the way scientists work, and the development from that of skills which may be appropriate in the teaching of science has been done in many curriculum projects (Woolnough, 1994). In commenting on this reductionist approach Woolnough concludes that it is not very helpful because doing science is more than being competent in a series of scientific skills. ‘The whole activity of doing science does not equal the sum of the parts, it differs from and exceeds it’ (p 18). This method of deriving processes from the real world, however, is not necessarily reductionist, and could remain a valid insight for students into the world of doing science. In technology, what Woolnough refers to as the reductionist approach is a recognized source of ideas about processes. The methods used in the advance and development of technology are recognized as appropriate for technology education. But at the same time there is a recognition that technology is also more

than the accomplishment of a set of process steps. The outcome of a design, or the solution to a problem involves more variables than can be represented in a sequence of process steps. This reductionist approach to processes in science or technology serves to identify many of the individual and specific activities in which practitioners engage as general life skills, such as planning, observing, reporting, evaluating and communicating. These activities only become science or technology when they are contextualized, when they are accompanied by scientific or technological knowledge, and set in the context of a scientific investigation or a technological design. In a rationale for the development of a curricular approach called technoscience, Bencze (2001) identified the following parallels between the teaching of the two areas: ! Scientists and Technologists interactions with the phenomenal world are theory-based. ! Many of the processes used are comparable. For example cause-result

questions in science and cause-result problems in technology, predicted hypotheses in science and predicted solutions in technology. ! Conclusions rely on some form of discussion and debate. ! There has been an historic variability in their co-dependence. - 42 - Source: http://www.doksinet The Centre for Mathematics Science and Technology (Illinois State University) propose an integrated linear process approach to these three curriculum areas involving: Define, Assess, Plan, Implement and Communicate (DAPIC). This may appropriately represent Science and Mathematics, but it falls short in its representation of Technology in that technology processes are never linear, they do not always begin with defining a problem, and manipulating materials in working toward a solution is inadequately represented. Meier, Hovde and Meier (1996) proposed the same problem solving model: DAPIC; they however make the point that it is not linear (‘a loop with multiple entry points’ p.235) CURRICULUM

Curriculum documentation in science and technology seem to reiterate similar process themes - problem solving, communication, reasoning, creativity and other cognitive and student centred skills. For example the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (1989), National Science Education Standards (National Research Council,(1995), Statement on Technology for Australian Schools (Australian Education Council, 1994), Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000), Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993), Statement on Science for Australian Schools (Australian Education Council, 1994), Technology and Enterprise Learning Area Framework (Curriculum Council, 1997) and the Design and Technology National Curriculum (DfEE, 1999). Barlex and Pitt (2000), in recognising that the weak curricular relationship between science and technology is at odds with the general community perception of a dynamic relationship, proposed the following reasons for a

close curriculum relationship: ! each subject requires pupils to be reflective about their practice, ! each subject requires pupils to mentally model, or image that which has not yet been seen, ! pupils can use knowledge gained in science to justify technical design decisions, ! the use of technological contexts in science lessons can be motivating. Some important issues related to this discussion include constructivism, design, problem solving and transferability. CONSTRUCTIVISM The current incorporation of constructivist notions of learning do not derive from the conduct of real science, they derive from research about the way students learn. Real science is not really done constructively, nor is scientific knowledge developed constructively. The goal of scientists is often not necessarily to simply add to the domain of scientific knowledge (even in pure science this may be a spin off rather than the primary goal) but to understand, for example, how a specific object functions or

behaves. There is a difference between scientists cognition and students cognition, children construct knowledge in different ways. Is constructivism then also an appropriate approach to technology education? I don’t think so, because the development of knowledge is not the primary goal in technology. Knowledge is only developed to the extent that it assists in the completion of a design, the criteria becomes: is it useful? Not, as in science, where the criteria is: is this knowledge appropriate in the development of students perceptions of the theory of the reality around them to explain their sense impressions? - 43 - Source: http://www.doksinet So while in science education the presentation of new knowledge to students must be carefully selected to allow its construction in relationship to what is already known, the rationale for the introduction of new knowledge in technology is its usefulness in solving a problem. DESIGN If it is accepted that the prevailing and most common

methodology of technology education is design, then a focus on this approach seems to move even further away from any process commonalities with science. For example the description of design developed through the conference ‘Design Methodology and Relationship with Science’ and reported by deVries (1993) describes design in terms of four discipline characteristics: ! teleology - the goal of designing to make products that will be used by people involving matching customers requirements with using products. ! epistemology - the three different types of knowledge required are experience based technologies, macro and micro technologies. ! methodology - the organization of activities into a process which is contextual and flexible. ! ontology - the means technology offers in the drive to survive and control the environment and develop a quality of life. In this description of design as the disciplined methodology of technology, the differences rather than the commonalities with

science are clear. PROBLEM SOLVING Layton (1993, 45) cites some proposals (for example by the Institute of Physics) to link science and technology through a general problem solving process which has related derivatives which apply more specifically to science and technology, and draws the implication from this that a mastery of the processes of doing science will benefit those doing technology because of the similarities of the processes. To the extent that problem solving is a significant methodology of both science and technology, and that the specific skills utilized in this process are similar despite the differing aims and philosophies of the two disciplines, then there do exist commonalities of process. The commonalities however are tempered by the fact that problem solving is only one of a range of processes appropriate to technology, and the specific skills in the problem solving process are not the same in science and technology. There is an aspect of the processes of science

which distinguish it from technology, and that is those cognitive skills which are brought to bear on observations in order to make sense of and incorporate them into existing knowledge. Solving problems quantitatively, using analogies and mathematical models are important processes. In technology, it is not a requirement to evaluate and make sense of new knowledge, the relevance of knowledge is determined by its usefulness in working toward the intended solution. Authors such as Locatis (1988) stretch the comparisons between the two areas in order to establish links. He asserts that the methods used in both science and technology are empirical, systematic, are based on common sense, and are goal directed; the goals of technology being - 44 - Source: http://www.doksinet practical, learning results from experience; and the goals of science being knowledge, learning results from experiments. He further posits that the testing and evaluation of inventions in technology are a form of

experimental research, even though the aim is to determine if they work rather than to study the laws and principles which make them work. ‘Science and technology are symbiotic, and it is naive to consider one the step child of the other’ (p. 4) This approach of commonalities of process may have some validity, though I doubt it because of the essential differences between the disciplines. For example what is science or technology trying to achieve, the essential core of the two areas is different and the goals are different, and while the links are strong and important in developing students realistic perceptions of their world, the unique essence of each may be lost through an emphasis on the parallels of the processes. After a comparison of empirical based models of the processes derived from observations of children working on science and technology problems, Layton (1993) concurs by concluding that the similarities are superficial (both are purposeful, require value judgements

and visual imaging) and the differences are significant (the limitations on the process, the cost of satisfying needs, rationale for evaluation). In this sense expertise in doing science is of no assistance in developing technological capability. Another approach to an examination of the process links between science and technology is to view educational activity in each area on a spectrum (Figure 1). The spectrum operates on the horizontal from traditional to contemporary notions of methods, and the vertical dimension indicates the differences between the processes of science and technology. Traditional Pure Science Modern Social Science Craft Technology Social Technology Figure 1 If dealing with just one end of the spectrum, then the relationship could be described with some degree of certain generalizability. For example at the traditional end, pure science education devoted to an explanation of the workings of the natural universe through experiments results in learning

generalizable laws of behaviour. The traditional end of the technology education spectrum is concerned with mastery of a sequence of processes to produce a high quality product. At the contemporary end of the spectrum, each discipline appears to employ a more similar methodology and approach - ie problem oriented, student centred, multidisciplinary and - 45 - Source: http://www.doksinet contextualized. So where on this spectrum one chooses to make comparisons determines the extent of the similarities. Suffice it to say that in science and technology education, process similarities are greater now than they have been in the past. Some of the outcomes of these trends include: ! courses not defined by textbooks, but books become resources ! information is justified by its use, its immediate need of application ! in dealing with real contexts students find classes relevant ! teachers role is facilitator rather than the source of all information ! success measured in terms of

performance TRANSFERABILITY The issue of the generalizability and transferability of both knowledge and processes has been alluded to, and is important. Those who propose that processes such as problem solving are essentially contextual, state that consequently the transferability of process knowledge is very difficult for students, and teaching needs to be directed at facilitating such transferability. In technology and science this is a critical issue, because one of the major rationales for the teaching of these subjects in schools is to provide students with skills they will need in the technological society when they leave school (Curriculum Council, 1997), implying ease of transferability. Maybe it is not any complete process that is transferable, but the skills utilized in that process. If problem solving is taught as a simple application of a set sequence of skills, then the expectation that the sequence can be effectively transferred to a different context is not reasonable.

However if it is recognized that the sequence of skills will vary according to the type of problem and the context in which it has been formed, then the selective and appropriate application of skills drawn from a repertoire which has been developed over time and context may be reasonably expected. So the predicament is: processes are not general but contextualized, contextualized processes do not transfer easily, but process knowledge must be transferable to satisfy subject rationales. The proposed solutions to this predicament are muddy (McCormick, 1996; deVries and Tamir, 1997) and advocate structuring situations in which students practice transfer, and teaching both general and contextual at the same time. GENERAL VS VOCATIONAL APPROACHES Questions related to the importance of the process must also relate to the vocational or general philosophy of the subject. Where the goal is vocational, in science to prepare scientists and related professionals, and in technology to prepare

technologists at all levels from engineers to tradesmen, then the assumption is reasonable that the methodologies employed in teaching and the consequent processes employed by the students in learning , should be derived from the practice of the discipline. If however the goal is general, is to develop a more scientifically or technologically literate citizenry, then what is the rationale for deriving the educational processes from the discipline? Surely it would be more reasonable to derive them from learning theory. - 46 - Source: http://www.doksinet The answer is that the process enhances the level of literacy in the area. For example if in technology a design process was being utilized as both the pedagogy of the moment and the process that students follow in a particular task, then conforming to a constructivist framework for the development of knowledge would be inappropriate in that a structured sequence in the development of knowledge/understanding is irrelevant given that

the defining criteria for relevant knowledge is not what fits together developmentally, but that which works toward the satisfaction of the design brief. The compatibility of vocational and general approaches to either science or technology has been rejected (Fensham, 1985, 417; Williams, 1996) despite, or in spite of, continued curriculum development efforts to amalgamate the two approaches. CONCLUSION Scientists and technologists may seem to undertake activities which are superficially similar, but the gaols and the purposes for the activities are quite different. The major advantage to arise from this recognition is that cooperation between the two areas may result in students having the opportunities to develop similar skills in different contexts, potentially contributing to their abilities to generalize and transfer such skills. Because of the differences between technology and science, the extent to which each profession is drawn upon as a source of process knowledge for

education is also different. Science education largely derives its process from learning theory, and technology education from the profession of technology. After this brief examination of some aspects of science and technology, there develops no clear representation regarding the process links between these two areas of education. Generally they are so different in so many ways that the processes themselves are dissimilar. If however the processes are broken down into more specific skills, then there seems to be a number of parallels at this level. The advantage in the recognition of these parallels is that students may get practice in doing similar things in different contexts and so may be able to more easily transfer these competencies into other situations outside of school. References American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061; Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archer, B. and Roberts, P

(1979) Internal Paper, Design Education Unit London: Royal College of Art. Ashby, Sir E. (1958) Technology and the Academics New York: St Martins Press Australian Education Council (1994). Statement on Technology for Australian Schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation Australian Education Council (1994). Statement on Science for Australian Schools Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Australian Academy of Science (1994). Primary Investigations Canberra: Australian Academy of Science - 47 - Source: http://www.doksinet Barlex, D. and Pitt, J (2000) Interaction: the relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary school curriculum. London, UK: Engineering Council Baynes, K. (1992) Children Designing Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology. Bencze, J.L (2001) ‘Technoscience’ Education: Empowering Citizens against the Tyranny of School Science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273-298. Black, P. & Harrison, G

(1985) In place of confusion: Technology and Science in the school curriculum. London: Nuffield Chelsea Curriculum Trust Black, P. & Harrison, G (1992) in McCormick, R et al (Eds) Teaching and learning technology. Wokingham, England: Addison Wesley Publishing Company Carey, S. S (1994) A beginners guide to scientific method Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Centre for Mathematics Science and Technology. Integrated Mathematics, Science and Technology, Problem solving using DAPIC. http://www.ilstuedu/depts/cemast/imast/dapichtm Chalmers, A. (1990) Science and its fabrication Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Champagne, A. B & Klopfer, L E (1984) Research in science education: the cognitive psychology perspective. In D Holdzkom & P Lutz (Eds), Research within reach: science education (pp. 171-189) Charleston WV: RDIS, Appalachia Educational Laboratory Curriculum Council (1997). Technology and Enterprise Learning Area Framework Perth: Curriculum Council.

Davies, D. (1996) The relationship between science and technology in the primary curriculum - alternative perspectives. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 2(2), 101-111. Department for Education and Employment. (1999) Design and Technology – The National Curriculum for England. London, UK: DfEE Department of Commerce and Trade. (2000) A science and technology policy for Western Australia. Perth: Department of Commerce and Trade Fensham, P. (1985) Science for all: a reflective essay Journal of curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415-435. Fletcher, N. (1994) Science education: contested territory EQ Australia, 1, 18-22 Fores, M. (1971) Price, technology and the paper model Technology and Culture, 12(4), 621-627. Frey, R.E (1989) A philosophical framework for understanding technology Journal of industrial Teacher Education, 27(1), 23-35. Gardner, P. (1997) The roots of technology and science: a philosophical and historical view. International Journal of Technology and Design

Education, 7, 13-20 Gardner, P. (1994) The relationship between technology and science International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 123-153. Gardner, P. (1994) Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24, 1-28 Gauld, C. (1989) A study of pupils responses to empirical evidence In R Miller (Ed.), Doing Science Philadelphia: The Falmer Press Gibbs, A. and Lawson, A E (1992) The nature of scientific thinking as reflected in the work of biologists and by biology textbooks. American Biology Teacher, 54(3), 137-152 Gjertsen, D (1989). Science and philosophy, past and present New York: Penguin Books. - 48 - Source: http://www.doksinet Hales, J. & Snyder, J (1982) Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts curriculum theory Man/Society/Technology, 41(5), 6-10. Hanson, R. and Froelich, M (1994) Defining technology and technology education: a crisis, or cause for celebration? International Journal of

Technology and Design Education, 4, 179-207. Hindel, B. (1966) Technology in early America Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. International Technology Education Association (2000) Standards for Technological Literacy. Washington: ITEA Kimbell, R. et al (1991) The assessment of performance in design and technology London: School Examinations and Assessment Council. Klerk Wolters, F. de, Raat, J H & Vries, M J (1990) Assessing students attitudes toward technology. In D Layton (Ed), Innovations in science and technology education, Vol V. Paris: UNESCO, 111-121 Kline, S.J (1985) What is technology? Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 5(3), 215-218. Kranzberg, M. (1963) Commentary on the Technical Act in CF Stower (Ed), The technological order: proceedings of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Conference. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Layton, D. (1993) Technology’s challenge to science education Buckingham: Open University Press. Locatis, C. N (1988) Notes on

the nature of technology The Technology Teacher, 47(7), 3-6. Lowe, I. (1994) Science education: contested territory EQ Australia, 1, 18-22 Mackenzie, D. & Waejman, J (1985) The social shaping of technology London: Open University Press. McComas, W. F (1996) Ten Myths of Science: reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10-16 McCormick, R., Murphy, P & Harrison, M (1992) Teaching and learning technology. Wokingham: Addison Wesley Publishing Company McCormick, R (1997). Instructional methodology In A Williams & PJ Williams (Eds.), Technology Education for Teachers Melbourne: Macmillan Medawar, P. B (1990) Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P B Medawar, The threat and the glory. New York: Harper Collins Meier, S. L, Hovde, R L & Meier, R L (1996) Problem solving: teachers perceptions, content area models and interdisciplinary connections. School Science and Mathematics, 96(5), 230-237. Meier, S. L (1989) Teacher

conception of mathematical problem solving and student ability in relation to their classroom instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. Mitcham, C. (1978) Types of technology Research in Philosophy and Technology, 1, 229-294. Narin, F. & Olivastrrro, D (1992) Status report: linkage between technology and science. Research policy, 21(3), 237-239 Rosenberg, N. (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roy, R. (1990) The relationship of technology to science and the teaching of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 1(2), 5-18 - 49 - Source: http://www.doksinet Skolimowski, H. (1966) The structure of thinking in technology Technology and Culture, 7, 371-383. Sparkes, J. (1987) Technology education In Living with technology - a course for teachers. Wokingham: Open University Press Staudenmaier, J. M (1985) Technology’s Storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric Cambridge: MIT Press

Swain, J. (1989) The development of a framework for the assessment of process skills in a graded assessments in science project. International Journal of Science Education, 11(3), 251-259 Vries, de M. and Tamir, A (1997) Shaping concepts of technology: what concepts and how to shape them. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 510 Vries, de M. (1997) Science, technology and society: a methodological perspective International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 21-32. Vries, de M. (1993) Design Methodology and relationships with science: introduction In M. J de Vries, N Cross and D P Grant (Eds), Design Methodology and Relationships with Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Williams, A. (1996) An introduction to technology education In A Williams & PJ Williams (Eds.), Technology Education for Teachers Melbourne: Macmillan Williams, P.J (1996a) Philosophy of technology education, in A Williams & PJ Williams (Eds.), Technology Education

for Teachers Melbourne: Macmillan Williams, P.J (1996b) International approaches to technology education In A Williams & P.J Williams (Eds), Technology Education for Teachers Melbourne: Macmillan. Williams, P. J (1996c) The confluence of the goals of industry and technology education. A presentation at the Jerusalem International Science and Technology Education Conference (JISTEC), January. Jerusalem Woolnough, B. E (1994) Effective science teaching Buckingham: Open University Press Wright, T., Israel, E N & Lauda, D (1993) Teaching technology: a teachers guide Reston VA: International Technology Education Association. Yager, R. E & Lutz, M V (1995) STS to enhance total curriculum School Science and Mathematics, 95(1), 28-35. - 50 -