Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.1.27

Suggesting the Conceptual Framework of the Nature of Technology(NOT) and Examining the Conceptions of Experts of Science, Technology, and Engineering Fields regarding the NOT  

Lee, Young Hee (Dankook University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.1, 2018 , pp. 27-42 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to suggest the conceptual framework for the Nature of Technology (NOT) by examining the current researches regarding the NOT in science and technology education and to analyze the conceptions of experts in science, technology, and engineering fields based on the framework of NOT. The NOT conceptual framework developed in the study consisted of the six domains of NOT, which are 1. Technology as artifacts, 2. Technology as knowledge, 3. Technology as practice, 4. Technology as system, 5. The role of technology in society, and 6. History of technology. Also, the results of analyzing the conceptions for the 30 experts in science, technology, and engineering fields emphasize on the three domains of the 3. Technology as practice, 4. Technology as system, and 5. The role of technology in society among the 6 domains of the framework of the six domains of the NOT framework. This findings are different from the results of previous researches conducted in science and technology education for exploring the conceptions of NOT in the POV of the public and students. As such, the results show that while the public and students possess naive ideas on NOT only focusing on the technology as products and tools, experts in science, technology, and engineering fields possess the authentic views of the NOT reflecting the complex and abstract concepts of technology in terms of the perspectives of philosophy of technology.
Keywords
nature of technology(NOT); nature of science(NOS); concepts of technology; NOT conceptual framework; conceptions of experts in science; technology; and engineering;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 6  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: ITEA.
2 Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers' classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690.   DOI
3 Kim, U. S. (1998). Information society and ethics: The nature of technology. Paper Presented in the 1st conference of the Korean Institute of Communication and Information Science, Seoul, Korea.
4 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5 Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.   DOI
6 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science quesrionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.   DOI
7 Lee, H. (2015). Construction of nature of technology framework and its utilization for investigation of changes in college students' perception of nature of technology through SSI-based program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ewha Womans University.
8 Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2015). Analysis of students' socioscientific decision-making from the nature of technology perspectives. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 169-177.   DOI
9 Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2016). Contextualized nature of technology in socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(2), 303-315.   DOI
10 Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, (2006). The effect of a "science, technology and society" course on perspective teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 255-273.   DOI
11 Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868.   DOI
12 Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713-725.   DOI
13 Choi, U. H. (2017). The Study of Technology Education. Heoung-Sul Press.
14 Choi, Y., & Rye, C. (2007), Analyzing preceding research on the concepts and elements of technological literacy. Korean Technology Education Association, 7(2), 141-153.
15 Choi, Y. & Ryu, C. (2007). Analyzing preceding research on the concepts and elementary of technological literacy. Korean Technology Education Association, 7(2), 141-153.
16 Collier-Reed, B. I. (2008). Pupils' Experiences of Technology: Exploring Dimensions of Technological Literacy. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller e. K.
17 Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions im mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
18 DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.   DOI
19 Durbin, P. T. (2006). Philosophy of technology: In search of discourse synthesis. Techne, 10(2), 4-319.
20 Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2017). Developing and application of rubric for assessing nature of technology in the context of socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(2), 323-334.   DOI
21 Lee, Y. H. (2013). A proposal of inclusive framework of the nature of science (NOS) based on the 4 themes of scientific literacy for K-12 school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 553-569.   DOI
22 Lee, Y. H. (2014a). Comparative analysis of the presentation of the nature of science(NOS) in Korea and US elementary science textbooks. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(3), 207-212.   DOI
23 Lee, Y. H. (2014b). What do scientists think about the nature of science?- exploring views of the nature of science of korean scientists related with life science area, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(7), 677-691.   DOI
24 Liou, P. (2015). Developing an intrument for assessing students' concepts of the nature of technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 162-181.   DOI
25 Marianne, C. P., Vowell, J. E., Lee, Y. H., & Plankis, B. J. (2015). How do elementary science textbooks present the nature of science? The Educational Forum, 79, 148-162.   DOI
26 McGinn, R. E. (1991). Science, technology, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27 Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28 Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29(4), 389-407.   DOI
29 Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
30 Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31 Misa, T. J. (2009). History of technology. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 7-17). West Sussex, UK: Blackwell.
32 Ministry of Education(MOE). (2015). Curriculum of High School Science Education, Seoul, Korea: Author.
33 Moon, S., Lee, Y. H., & Son, Y. A. (2015). Analysis of middle school environmental education textbooks using the environmental literacy based on the four themes of scientific literacy. The Korean Society of Environmental Education, 28(1), 1-14.   DOI
34 Moore, D. R. (2011). Technology literacy: The extension of cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 185-193.   DOI
35 National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36 National Research Council (NRC) (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans needs to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Presss.
37 National Research Council (NRC) (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38 National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concept, and core idea. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
39 Layton, E. T. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture, 15(1), 31-41.   DOI
40 National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (1982). Science- Technology-Society: Science Education for The 1980s (An NSTA Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author.
41 Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35-52.
42 Oldenziel, R. (2006). Signifying semantics for a history of technology. Technology and Culture, 47, 477-485.   DOI
43 Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44 Pitt, J. C. (2000). Thinking about technology: Foundations of the philosophy of technology. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
45 Schatzberg, E. (2006). Technik comes to America: Changing meaning of technology before 1930. Technology and Culture, 47, 486-512.   DOI
46 Seo, D., Lee, Y. H., & Jho, H. (2017). Understanding of students at a technical high school about the nature of technology through the course of science and technology course. Biology Education, 45(1), 199-212.
47 Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1143-1168.   DOI
48 Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science education. Science Education, 83, 493-509.   DOI
49 Synder, J. (2004). One world, rival theories, Foreign Policy, 145, 52-62.
50 Taylor, A. R., Jones, M.G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry, or accountability? Scientists' and teachers' perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 1058-1075.   DOI
51 Zorlu, Y., Baykara, O., & Zorlu, F. (1993). The views of pre-service classroom teachers about nature of technology. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 3121-3132.
52 Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875-2905.   DOI
53 Wright, R. T., Israel, R. N., & Lauda, D. P. (1993). Teaching technology: A teacher's guide. International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA.
54 Young, A. T., Cole, J. R., & Denton, D. (2002). Improving technological literacy: The first steps is understanding what is meant by 'Technology'. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(4), 73-79.
55 Freenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.
56 Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187-206). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
57 Fedock, P., Zambo, R., & Cobern, W. (1996). The professional development of college science professors as science teacher educators. Science Education, 80(1), 5-19.   DOI
58 Frank, M. (2005). A systems approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 19-34.
59 Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G. J., & van de Poel, I. (2009). Philosophy of technology (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Retrieved August 24, 2010, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/
60 Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-mindness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690.   DOI
61 ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (1996). Technology for All Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (rationale and structure). Reston, VA: ITEA.
62 ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: students assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: ITEA
63 ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2004). Measuring progress: Assessing students for technological literacy. Reston, VA: ITEA.
64 ITEA(International Technology Education Association). (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: ITEA.
65 Aydin, F. & Tasar, F. (2010). An investigation of pre-service science teachers' cognitive structures and ideas about the nature of technology. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 11(4), 209-221.
66 Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on science-technology-society(VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.   DOI
67 American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1990) Project 2061: Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
68 American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University Press.
69 Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists' views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Eduation, 36(8), 1286-1312.   DOI