Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.3.363

Suggesting Conceptual Framework on the Nature of Technology (NOT) and Investigating College Students' Perceptions Regarding the Nature of Technology(NOT)  

Baek, Yujin (Dankook University)
Lee, Young Hee (Dankook University)
Publication Information
Journal of Science Education / v.43, no.3, 2019 , pp. 363-381 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to suggest an inclusive conceptual framework for the Nature of Technology (NOT) by examining literature and researches regarding NOT and then to analyze the conceptions of the students in Science and Engineering Department of a college based on the NOT framework. Findings are as follows: First, the conceptual framework of the NOT developed from the study has the five domains of NOT, which are Technology as Artifacts, Technology as Knowledge, Technology as Practice, Technology as History, and Technology as a part of Society. Second, the participants' conceptions of the NOT emphasize on three domains of the Technology as Practice (26.4%), Technology as a part of Society (25.8%), and Technology as Knowledge (24.3%) among the five domains of the NOT. Third, according to the microanalysis of the students' conceptions regarding NOT, students in Science and Engineering Department of a college possess concrete and various views of the NOT even though NOT is abstract and complex ideas. Specifically, they seem to recognize the NOT as a product of process and ability to utilize the technology for convenience of life.
Keywords
nature of technology(NOT); NOT framework; college students' NOT; analysis of NOT;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 National Research Council [NRC]. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2 National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concept, and core idea. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3 National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-teachnologyscoety: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
4 Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5 Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6 Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
7 Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35-52.
8 Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9 Science Co-ordinator's and Consultants' Association of Ontario [SCCAO]., & Science Teachers' Association of Ontario [STAO/APSO]. (2006). Position Paper: The Nature of Science. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer.
10 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.   DOI
11 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
12 Young, A. T., Cole, J. R., & Denton, D. (2002). Improving technological literacy: The first step is understanding what is meant by 'technology'. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(4), 73-79.
13 Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York, NY: First Vintage Books Edition.
14 Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1143-1168.   DOI
15 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
16 Waight, N. (2013). Technology knowledge: High school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1143-1168.   DOI
17 Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18 Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
19 American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20 American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21 Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4, 5-16.   DOI
22 Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, S. (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
23 Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115.   DOI
24 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
25 Choi, Y., & Rye, C. (2007). Analyzing preceding research on the concepts and elements of technological literacy. Korean Technology Education Association, 7(2), 141-153.
26 Clough, M. P. (2013). Teaching about the nature of technology: Issues and pedagogical practices. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.). The nature of technology: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 345-369). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
27 DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating students conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.   DOI
28 Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
29 Feibleman, J. K. (1961). Pure science, applied science, technology, engineering: An attempt at definitions. Technology and Culture, 2(4), 305-317.   DOI
30 Frank, M. (2005). A system approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 19-34.   DOI
31 Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
32 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
33 Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.   DOI
34 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (rationale and structure). Reston, VA: ITEA.
35 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
36 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Students assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.
37 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2004). Measuring progress: Assessing students for technological literacy. Reston, VA: Author.
38 International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
39 Kim, U. S. (1998). Information society and ethics: The nature of technology. Paper presented in the 1st conference of the Korean Institue of Communication and Information Science, Seoul, Korea.
40 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41 Liou, P. (2015). Developing an instrument for assessing students' concepts of the nature of technology. Research in Science & technological Education, 33(2), 162-181.   DOI
42 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, Seoul, Korea.
43 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
44 Lee, Y., Choi, Y., Lee, H., Han, J., & Bang, J. (2005). A content analysis of technology textbooks for the secondary school students on the point of conceptual structure of technological literacy. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 2-22.
45 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
46 Lee, Y. H. (2018). Suggesting the conceptual framework of the nature of technology(NOT) and examing the conceptions of experts of science, technology, and engineering fields regarding the NOT. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(1), 27-42.   DOI
47 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
48 Moore, D. R. (2011). Technology litearcy: The extension of cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 185-193.   DOI
49 Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, England: King's College.
50 Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51 Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 112-121.   DOI
52 National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53 National Research Council [NRC]. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans needs to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Presss.