Implications for Learning the Nature of Technology (Part 2)

Both conceptual change theory (Posner et al., 1982) and hot conceptual change theory (Pintrich et al., 1993) might be useful in accounting for some learners’ difficulty to learn nature of technology (NOT) ideas.  As noted earlier, some NOT ideas are likely very different from ways the students have typically thought about technology.  This discrepancy might prevent learners from understanding the ideas or dismissing the ideas as not fruitful.  Furthermore, because many of the students have been avid users of technology, they may not see much value in critiquing technology through the NOT.

Some struggles to learn the NOT may relate to learners’ self-efficacy regarding technology use.  If students are intimidated by the technologies they are learning, their cognitive effort will be focused on learning the technologies and they will likely not be able to attend as deeply to the more philosophical issues of the NOT.  Just as students might miss nature of science lessons when focusing on science content, students might miss NOT lessons when focusing on learning a particular technology.

From these observations and possible explanations of students’ struggles to learn the NOT, educators might glean some implications.  First, the NOT cannot be simply relegated to one session within a course.  Revisiting these complex ideas is likely necessary to generate deep change in students’ thinking.  This implication might suggest that the NOT should not be relegated to only one course.  Indeed, methods instructors ought to consider addressing NOT issues within the context of methods classes.  Second, NOT ideas need to be introduced in decontextualized scenarios to prevent students’ struggles with technology from hindering their ability to wrestle with NOT ideas.  Furthermore, decontextual activities might prevent students’ emotional attachment to technology from interfering with conceptual change. Yet, strong links need to be made between the decontextual activities and the real world implications of NOT ideas.

—————————————-

This post is from a paper I recently presented at the Association for Science Teacher Educators. For the full paper and citations, click here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nature of technology. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Implications for Learning the Nature of Technology (Part 2)

  1. Jerrid,

    I don’t think you need to make this this complicated. My mother used to always say, “Try it, you might like it,” every time I would rush to judgement without having enough information to accurately make that call. Basically, in order to assess something we have to learn about it. In technology’s case knowing is using. How are we to know if cell phones have any negative effect on our lives if we don’t use them? How am I to know what a technologies biases are if I don’t learn about the technology? Problem is, usually once a person has spent adequate time learning about a new technology their own knowledge tends to bias them toward it. Through our own learning we tend to favor those things we mean to hold a neutral relationship with. Critical distance is necessary but creates a paradox.

    Like

    • jerridkruse says:

      That is why this is somewhat complicated. Using is only part of knowing. We must learn to create that critical distance to better evaluate technology. I have found the nature of technology framework to be a way to start that critical distance journey. Thanks for your insight on this series!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s