Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools Ossi Autio, University of Helsinki, Finland Brynjar OLAFSSON, University of Iceland, Iceland Gisli THORSTEINSSON, University of Iceland, Iceland Abstract also aim to develop students’ understanding of how to This research was undertaken in Finnish and Icelandic assess, understand use and manage technology in a broad schools during the years 2013-14, in order to explore context, both at home and in the community. The goal is students’ technological knowledge and reasoning at the to enhance students’ abilities to survive in their daily lives ages of eleven and thirteen. The research considered the and to ensure personal growth in their personality. congruence between students’ undertakings within Craft and Design education in the national curriculum and their Craft and Design lessons provide students with ability to understand technological concepts. Data was opportunities to learn about various technologies, by using collected using a questionnaire distributed to seven hands-on activities and different design methods. Students H elementary schools and is highlighted with the researchers’ realise their own designs through visible and usable C reviews of the national curricula. The Icelandic part of the projects. The knowledge and skills apply not only to the R research was undertaken with 277 students and Finnish making of new artefacts, but also learning about A sample consisted from 317 participants. Technological technological reasoning and the maintenance of machines E knowledge and reasoning was measured with a or handicraft tools. Learning practical skills can facilitate S questionnaire regarding mechanical systems connected both technological knowledge and understanding through E R with simple physical phenomena. The results highlighted technological reasoning (Thorsteinsson, 2002). that students should have been more familiar with the content of the survey as a result of their Design and Craft Although, the goals in Icelandic and Finnish curriculum are studies and the use of textbooks in other subjects, such as quite similar, the main difference seems to be that Finnish physics. We expected that there is more transfer effect Craft and Design education is nowadays officially named between the content of curriculum and the results in Handicraft and it is claimed that Technical craft and Textile technological knowledge and reasoning. In addition, some craft should be compulsory for boys and girls in grades 3 – differences between boys and girls were found. This is 9. However, in many schools Handicraft is in practice still explained by boys and girls different interests and divided into Technical Craft and Textile Craft in grades 5 - 9. obviously this has an impact on girls’ motivation for Students’ have to select just one of the craft subjects for learning about technology. several practical reasons like timetabling and the number of teachers employed. Because of this, boys will have more experience in the field of science and technology Key words and therefore we can expect that they have better craft and design education, technological reasoning, opportunities to improve their technological understanding technical literacy and reasoning. In Iceland, Textile Craft is included in Home Economics while technological contents are taught in Craft and Design education for both boys and girls. Introduction The article concentrates on the literature concerning the Basically, the goals of the Finnish and Icelandic national teaching of technological knowledge to young students. In curriculums for Craft and Design are similar and aim to addition, it defines related terms and subsequently help students with the knowledge, skills and attitudes explores several research projects. In order to evaluate required to develop technological reasoning and increase students’ technical understanding and reasoning in Iceland their ability to solve problems (Framework Curriculum and Finland, a questionnaire was devised, concerning Guidelines, 2004; Autio & Hansen, 2002; mechanical systems based on simple physical principles. A Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2013). Both curriculums are based survey for students at the ages of eleven and thirteen was on models for learning that include technological conducted in four Finnish and three Icelandic elementary knowledge based on handicraft skills and design principles schools. In practice, the researchers were interested in the within a problem-solving context. Teaching aims to present level of students’ technological knowledge and the empower students to manage their daily lives and congruence between students’ undertakings within Craft successfully earn a living in society through innovative and Design education in the national curriculum. Although, thinking and an entrepreneurial approach. The subjects it was not the authors’ main intention to compare students Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 59 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools and two countries, a numerical analysis was carried out TL and technology is able to take into account the and some interesting differences were found between relationship between human beings and technologies countries and gender to analyse further in discussion. The (Dakers, 2005; 2006; Ihde, 2010; Ingerman & Collier- research questions were: Reed, 2011). 1. What is students present level of technological Technological competence and understanding is important understanding an´d reasoning in Finnish and Icelandic for students, in understanding the changes in the world of elementary schools? today. Furthermore, it enables citizens to play a part in the 2. What is the relationship between students’ Craft and process of changing their surroundings. Technology can be Design education and their technological knowledge and described by means of how humans change the world reasoning? around them in order to meet their needs and solve 3. Are there differences between students’ technological practical problems (Maryland Technology Literacy understanding and reasoning in the two countries? Consortium, 2014). Technological literacy and technological reasoning Craft and Design education and technological H Reasoning is defined as an action of thinking about reasoning C something in a logical way, in order to form a conclusion As already explained earlier in this article, Finnish craft and R A or judgement (The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, design education is, at present, named handicraft and is E 2014). The ability of technological reasoning is important divided in two different subject areas: Technical Craft and S in the development of technological and scientific Textile Craft. However, there are common aims for both E explanation and in students’ ability to understand areas. The general aim of Finnish Craft and Technology R technological phenomena (Sutopo & Waldrip, 2013). In education as defined in the Framework Curriculum technology education, reasoning is essential in identifying Guidelines (2004) is to develop students’ craft skills and and in establishing an explanation for a natural support their self-esteem through enjoyable craft activities; phenomenon (National Research Council, 2012). In it also aims to increase students’ understanding of the addition, technological reasoning has been examined various manufacturing processes and the use of different within the context of science and technology education materials in craft. and some scholars claim that, if students are to successfully learn about technology and science, they must Furthermore, the subject aims to encourage students to be aware of the different concepts and processes and the make their own decisions in designing, allowing them to relationships between them, in order to understand these assess their ideas and products. Students’ practical work is within the context of technological knowledge (Hubber, product orientated and based on experimentation, in Tytler & Haslam, 2010; Prain, Tytler & Peterson, 2009). accordance with the development of their personality. The role of the teacher is to encourage pupils’ independence, Technological literacy (TL) is the basis of technological the growth of their creative skills through problem-based understanding and reasoning (ITEA, 2007) and has been learning, the development of technical literacy and guide defined as the ability to use, manage, assess and students’. In addition, gender issues are important understand technology. This encompasses three throughout the whole curriculum (Framework Curriculum interdependent dimensions: (1) knowledge, (2) ways of Guidelines, 2004). thinking and acting, and (3) capabilities (Technically Speaking, 2006). The International Technology Education In grades 1 – 6, technological themes are also taught as Association (ITEA) Standards defines a technologically part of Environmental and Natural Studies. This forms an literate person, in relation to working life, as ‘understanding entity containing aims and content from science and the significance of technology in everyday life and the technology, environmental studies and civics. The different way in which it shapes the world’ (ITEA, 2007). This areas of Environmental and Natural Studies are: matter and definition places TL within the context of lifelong learning, energy; organisms and their environments; the globe and in which every day learning within the workplace plays a its areas; man and the environment. In grades 5 – 9, there central role. Accordingly, this places a focus upon the are two Science subjects Physics and Chemistry, as well as interrelations between human beings and machines Biology and Geography they contain technology education (Suchmann, 2007), between technologies (Wallace, mainly from theoretical perspective. The common aims of 2010), between technological artefacts and working these subjects are to give a picture of man's living culture (Hasse 2011) and between sensing and environment, and the interaction between man and the technology (Søndergaard, 2009). Thus, the philosophy of environment. Moreover, they help to realise the 60 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools significance of individual and collective responsibility based technological principles through their own experience. on knowledge of the natural sciences and technology. One Waldrip, Prain and Carolan (2010) ascertained that when central purpose of the instruction is to help students students learn to implement materials and tools, using understand the significance of the natural sciences and both new and old technologies, they increase their technology as part of human culture. The instruction understanding (Cox, 1999; diSessa, 2004; Greeno & Hall, should develop the knowledge and skills needed when 1997; Waldrip & Prain, 2006). In addition, Kohl, students formulate their position regarding the values and Rosengrant and Finkelstein (2007) asserted that an ability questions related to life and the surrounding world. From to demonstrate is a key in studying physical science and the point of view of technology education, Physics and students with a higher ability to demonstrate principles are Chemistry teaching in grades 5 – 9 gives the student the better at solving problems (Malone, 2008). Ainsworth necessary material to form a picture of the world, and it (2008) claimed that multiple illustrations play a significant helps them to understand the purpose of natural sciences role in learning and constructing a deeper understanding in and technology as part of the culture. In addition to the students, as they can integrate information from more than traditional areas of Physics and Chemistry, the curriculum one source. Moreover, Rosengrant, Heuvelen and Etkina in grades 7 – 9 underlines the role of environmental (2009) informed that students who frequently used H education, entrepreneurship education, interaction of representations were successful in mechanics tests. C science technology and society and the utilisation of ICT. R Methods A Design and Craft in Iceland focuses on three main areas: The research was undertaken during years 2013-2014 and E handicraft, technological understanding and environment. the participants were 11- and 13-year-old students from S Handicraft aims to increase students’ knowledge of craft, three schools in Iceland and four schools in Finland. The E R materials and the use of tools, while technological students were provided with a timeframe in which they understanding allows students to gain technological skill needed to complete the questionnaire and the majority and reasoning. Study of the environment increases managed to complete it within thirty minutes. The Icelandic students’ understanding of how their environment is research was undertaken by 277 students and in Finland affected by human vocational activities and of health and there were 317participants. safety within the workplace (Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2013). In Iceland participating schools were selected through convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is a method Within the Finnish and Icelandic curriculums, the aim of of sampling where the subjects are selected because they Craft and Design is to facilitate students’ technological are easy to access. In addition, the selection is not reasoning, in order to prepare them for participation in supposed to be representative of the entire population modern society and working life. Students learn practical (Coopers & Schindler, 2006; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, skills via the development and creation of prototypes and 2007). In the Finnish sample the schools were the same systems and learn about technology as a field of human as in an earlier research project during years 1993-1996 activity, using various tools from different design contexts (Autio, 1997). The schools were selected in order to associated with the transformation of energy, information ensure that schools with different curriculums as well as and materials (Framework Curriculum Guidelines, 2004; rural and city schools were represented. Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2013). However, in Finnish Textile Craft there is more emphasis on art and design instead of In order to evaluate students’ technical understanding and technological contents. reasoning, a questionnaire was devised, concerning mechanical systems based on simple physical The development of students’ practical handicraft skills phenomena. Mechanical systems are systems commonly provides new opportunities to learn and utilise various built for a single purpose and usually comprise of a few technologies in their designs. Students put ideas into parts or subsystems. Simple mechanical systems are practice through practical projects and the knowledge and prevalent in our daily lives and are built in such a way that skills gained are applied not only to the creation of new their parts are in synchronisation with each other, working products, but to the adaptation and maintenance of towards a shared goal. A mechanical system consists of existing products, machines and other items. (1) a power source and actuators that generate forces and movement, (2) a system of mechanisms that shape the Within the context of Craft and Design education, the link actuator input to achieve a specific application of output between activities and technological reasoning is important forces and movement and (3) a controller with sensors and provides students with opportunities to understand that compares the output to a performance goal and then Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 61 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools H C R A E S E R Figure 1. Examples from the questions in the questionnaire. directs the actuator input. Power that flows through a 1992). A questionnaire should be attractive and mechanical system provides a way to understand the encouraging to respondents (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, performance of devices ranging from levers and gear trains 2007). Unfortunately, our questionnaire was from years to automobiles and robotic systems (Merriam-Webster 1993-1996 and some pictures may have looked old Dictionary, 2014). fashioned, but the layout and general impression of the questionnaire was sufficient to enable accurate answers The Oxford Online Dictionary (2014) defines the adjective from the participants. The questions referred to students’ ‘mechanical’ as skilled in the practical application of an art technological knowledge and reasoning supported by their or science, of the nature of a machine or machines, and education and life experiences. relating to or caused by movement, physical forces, properties or agents such as is dealt with by mechanics. It must be taken into account that the questionnaire was Moreover, the concept can be defined relating to not originally designed to evaluate the curriculum of machinery or tools. A mechanical system is assembled technology education. Some of the questions were quite from components called machine elements: these difficult especially for the younger students, but this was elements provide structure for the system and control its necessary to ensure sufficient statistical dispersion for both movement (Uicker, Pennock & Shigley, 2003). Example 11 and 13 year-old students. questions from mechanical contexts used in a similar questionnaire are presented in Figure 1. A numerical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS), which The questionnaire originated in Finland by the ministry of provided total averages, the median, standard deviation labour and has been widely used as a test for students to and averages for different classes of questions. The see if they are suited to a career in mechanics. In an earlier relationship between variables was examined using research project (Autio, 1997) it was used as a part of a Kendall’s Tau test. As expected from the earlier research larger research instrument examining students’ technical both Finnish and Icelandic samples approximately followed abilities. The questionnaire was based on 28 questions, a normal curve. Reliability was not a problem either. In with related figures. Each question included three earlier studies by the Finnish ministry of labour reliability possibilities, one of which was the correct answer. was measured to be 0.85 and in a research of students’ Structured and closed questions generate frequencies of technical abilities (Autio, 1997) reliability was 0.88. response, making statistical treatment and analysis easy and enabling comparison across groups (Oppenheim, 62 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools H C R A E S E R Figure 2. The number of Finnish and Icelandic students’ correct answers in the survey. Results In addition, there were statistically significant differences It was not the authors’ main intention to generalise and between boys and girls in Iceland (p=0.025). In terms of compare the results between students and two countries the total answers provided by both sexes, the boys as the main goal was to evaluate the present level of answered 16.0 (57.1 %) of the questions correctly, while students’ technological knowledge and reasoning. the girls answered 14.9 (53.2 %) of the questions However, a numerical analysis was drawn and some correctly. In Finland there were also statistically significant interesting differences were found between countries and differences between boys and girls (p<0.001). Based on gender to analyse further in discussion. As expected the the total answers provided by both sexes, Finnish boys correct answers obey normal distribution. Figure 2 presents answered 15.7 (56.1 %) of the questions correctly, while the number of Finnish and Icelandic students’ correct the girls had 14.0 (50 %) correct answers. However, we answers in the survey. must take into account that spatial skills and technological reasoning consistently improve with a simple training The total average of correct answers to 28 questions was course and they are mostly due to previous experience in 15.5 (55.4 % of all questions) in Iceland and in 15.0 design-related courses such as technical drawing, as well (53.5 %) Finland. The biggest category in Icelandic sample as play with construction toys such as Legos (Sorby & was 16 correct answers scored by 28 students. In the Baartmans, 2000). Finnish sample the biggest category was 13 right answers provided by 33 students. As expected, there were In Iceland, it was impossible to compare all the schools, as differences in the answers provided by the 11- and 13- the numbers of students in different classes were dissimilar year-old students. The average number of correct answers and the questionnaire was used just for 13-year-old for 11-year-old students in the Icelandic sample was 14.7 students in one of the schools. In Finland, no statistical (52.5 %) and in the Finnish sample 14.1 (50.4 %). In the differences were found within the schools of similar group of 13-year-old students the small difference had curriculum of craft and technology education. Even in the almost disappeared as the average in Iceland was 15.8 University training school the results were the same as in (56.4 %) and in Finland 15.7 (56.1 %). rural areas, even though the school is usually ranked one Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 63 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools Table 3. The number of Finnish and Icelandic students’ correct answers in the survey. of the most successful in Finland. Thus, we can assume The second research question was: What is the that the questionnaire measured technological reasoning, relationship between students’ Craft and Design not just the context students learn in school. education and their technological understanding and H reasoning?Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) states C Conclusions that the ultimate goal of transfer is for students to R The main goal of this study was to evaluate the present generalize the knowledge they have learned in school to A level of students’ technological knowledge and reasoning. practical environments such as home, community, and E Furthermore, the study tried to find out if there was a workplace. Students should be able to apply their S relationship between students’ Craft and Design education knowledge and skills inside and outside of the classroom, E and their technological reasoning? It was not the authors’ specifically to new cases. A large part of the Finnish and R main intention to generalise and compare the results Icelandic national curriculum for Craft and Design is between students and two countries, although these associated with technological knowledge, handicraft skills results give interesting information for example in terms of and design principles within a problem-solving context. gender issues. In light of the research results, the authors Gaining practical skills can accommodate both attempted to answer the research questions set out at the technological knowledge and understanding through beginning of the study. technological reasoning (Prain, Tytler & Peterson, 2009). Practising handicraft within Design and Craft provides To answers the first research question: What is the present students with the opportunities to learn about technology level of students’ technological understanding and and to apply their skills in different settings. reasoning in Finnish and Icelandic schools?Our statistical analysis shows that the Icelandic students answered 15.5 However, the influence of the National Curriculum in Craft of 28 questions (55.4 %) correctly. In Finland the amount and Design cannot be seen directly from the results of this of correct answers was 15.0 (53.5 %). The authors survey. Although there is evidence about the lack of considered the outcome was fairly poor. The students’ did transferring (Cree, & Macaulay, 2000; Pugh & Bergin, not perform in the measurement of technical 2006); we expected that there is more transfer effect understanding and reasoning as well as expected. It would between the content of curriculum and the results in appear that there may be multiple reasons for this and technological knowledge and reasoning. The students thus the issue require further examination. However, in too should have been more familiar with the content of the many schools Craft and Design lessons are based on survey as a result of their Design and Craft studies and the reproducing artefacts according to given models without use of textbooks in other subjects, such as physics any creativity. Students only occasionally plan and generate (Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2013; Kohl, Rosengrant & alternatives. Moreover, learning is too often focused on Finkelstein, 2007). It seems that there is still much to do in production skills with the aim of teaching students how to practice, because learning in Craft and Design lessons is replicate demonstrated skill. too often focused on production skills instead of technological reasoning. In Science education a common problem is that many teachers teach the typical presentation-recitation way, with In Finland Craft and design education is nowadays officially students carrying out routine practical work or just solve named Handicraft and it is claimed that Technical Craft and simple textbook problems. These activities do not Textile Craft should be compulsory for boys and girls in encourage students to construct scientific concepts or grades 3–9. As a result of this, since 1996 boys have had meanings; neither does it help them to see phenomena much less technology education lessons than before. and objects in the environment (Arons, 1997). When comparing the results from an earlier research 64 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools project (Autio, 1997) with our current study using the example, there may be a greater emphasis on handicraft same research instrument, boys’ technological knowledge and sustainable design than on technological studies. and reasoning has diminished from 17.2 (61.4 %) to Hence, it was possible that there was a greater emphasis current 15.7 (56.1 %) correct answers in 28 questions. on technological studies for younger students and more Especially, among 13-year-old boys the difference was traditional activities in handicrafts and sustainable studies statistically very significant (p=0.001) as the result has for older students in Iceland. come down from 18.5 (66.1 %) to 16.5 (58.9 %) (Autio, 2013). In Iceland, Textile Craft is included in Home Although, it was not the main goal of this research, we Economics while technological contents are taught in Craft can’t pass the differences between boys and girls. This and Design education for both boys and girls. We can issue is usually emotionally charged, although the assume that this is a relatively good setup for girls, which is difference in technological knowledge, especially in spatial supported by the result for Icelandic girls who scored 14.9 reasoning corroborates with some other researches (Autio, (53.2 %) right answers, which is much better than the 2013; Linn & Petersen, 1985; Voyer, Voyer & Bryden, 14.0 (50 %) scored by Finnish girls. 1995). Furhermore, it is not a surprise that boys and girls differ in their interests, which is consistent with several H In answer to the third research question: Are there other researches (Autio, 1997; Autio, 2013; Johnsson & C differences between students‘technological understanding Murphy, 1986; Streumer, 1988). In addition, a review of R and reasoning in Finland and Iceland?Our empirical data research on motivation and transfer, Pugh and Bergin A from answers given in the questionnaire, indicated that (2006) concluded that motivational factors can influence E there were some differences between the two countries. transfer. Although the research is limited and not wholly S The total average of correct answers to 28 questions was consistent, they also found that interest was related to E R in Iceland 15.5 (55.4 %) and in Finland 15.0 (53.5 %). transfer success when this interest was associated with the The difference was clearly seen especially between Finnish learning content. and Icelandic girls (The average number of correct answers for girls in the Icelandic sample was 14.9 (53.2 %) and in Discussion Finnish sample 14.0 (50 %). Interestingly there was a The aim of the research was to evaluate the present level difference between Finnish and Icelandic 11-year-olds as of students’ technological knowledge. In addition, the study well, with the Icelandic figure of 14.7 (52.5 %) and 14.1 tried to find out a relationship between students’ Craft and (50.4 %) in Finland. For 13-year-old students the Design education and their technological knowledge and difference was almost diminished, while the average in reasoning. Instead, it was not the main intention to Iceland was 15.8 (56.4 %) and 15.7 (56.1 %) in Finland. generalise and compare the results between students and two countries. However, these results give interesting It is possible, that the difference between Finnish and information for example in terms of gender issues. Icelandic girls was due to different curriculums, while in Finland half of the Craft and Design lessons are reserved Every research has obvious limitations. In this case, we can for Textile craft. In Iceland Textile education is part of the assume that some of the questions were too difficult for subject called Home Economics. The difference between especially younger students. This may have had some Finnish and Icelandic 11-year-old students was interesting effect on the reliability and validity. Although to ensure issue and it needs to be researched further, although at reasonable standard deviation and normal distribution for least part of the difference can be explained by different both younger and older students; there should be both results from Finnish and Icelandic girls. difficult and easier questions in the questionnaire. In addition, as seen in Figure 2 the correct answers obey It was quite obvious that there were differences between normal distribution and the reliability measured in earlier 11-year-old students and 13-year-old students. In Iceland studies was sufficient. In order to answer all research younger students scored 14.7 (52.5 %) and older 15.8 question fully, research incorporating a larger sample is (56.4 %) correct answers whereas in Finland the results required. In addition, the questionnaire needs to be were 14.1 (50.4 %) for younger and 15.7 (56.1 %) for improved and some questions needs to be updated with older students. Finnish results were consistent with earlier modern content. studies (Autio, 1997; Autio & Hansen, 2002; Autio, 2013), but relatively small difference between Icelandic younger Learning about technology is becoming an important and older students was difficult to explain. Icelandic aspect of modern education, as a result of the prevalence curriculum gives common aims but leaves the teacher of technology within modern society. The elementary significant freedom in planning the content of lessons; for school subject Craft and Design aims to support students’ Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 65 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools technological knowledge and skills, with an emphasis on about technology. Another possible reason for this might practical handicraft and innovative thinking using be the different social expectations for boys and girls. The technological solutions. Developing students’ practical 1998 Ofsted report, entitled ‘Recent Research on Gender handicraft skills provides them with opportunities to learn and Education Performance’, stated that technology is rated about and utilise various technologies in their design work, as masculine by pupils and is thus preferred by boys which results in a deeper understanding of technology and (Arnot, Gray, James, Rudduck & Duveen, 1998). The modern society. It also helps students to use technology in media frequently depicts men as experts in technology, their creations via experiments that increase their ability to while the structure of learning tasks for boys and girls is use such technology within society. In terms of sometimes different, as is the nature of feedback in technological literacy, students are required to demonstrate classroom situations and the organisation of classroom new skills and knowledge. Thus, within the Finnish and seating (Carter, 2011). However, because these factors are Icelandic curriculum, the subject of Craft and Design aims often subtle, they go unnoticed. to develop advanced technological literacy and competence in students. The purpose is to prepare them Due to several reasons we cannot fully generalise the for participation in modern society and working life. results. Later on, the authors want to develop the H questionnaire and reinforce a new research design, using a C A large part of the Finnish and Icelandic national curricula larger sample in order to ensure validity and reliability. R A for Design and Craft is associated with technological However, the study did provide the authors new ideas to E knowledge, handicraft skills and design principles within a develop students’ technological knowledge and reasoning S problem-solving context. Gaining practical skills can and will be the basis for a future research using a E accommodate both technological knowledge and reconstructed survey. R understanding through technological reasoning (Prain, Tytler & Peterson, 2009). Practising handicraft within Design and Craft provides students with the opportunities References to learn about technology and to apply their skills in Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple different settings. Malone (2008) stated that students with representations when learning complex scientific a higher ability to demonstrate principles are better at concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), solving difficult problems. The subject of Design and Craft Visualisation: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. supports technical literacy and technical skills within a 191-208). New York: Springer. workshop environment and thus should provide students with practical experience. Students’ earlier experiences Arnot, M., Gray, J., James, M., Rudduck, J. & Duveen, G. should also have enabled them to answer the questions. (1998). Recent Research on Gender and Educational Performance. London: OFSTED/HMSO. The influence of students’ lessons in Design and Craft on the research outcome was not readily apparent from the Arons, A. (1997). Teaching Introductory Physics. New York: results. It is possible that the students were unable to John Wiley and Sons. transfer the knowledge gained from their lessons at school to new circumstances. Nevertheless, the authors consider Autio, O. (1997). Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien that although the transferring was not directly seen in the kehittyminen peruskoulussa [Student's development in results, all technological knowledge and experiences the technical abilities in Finnish comprehensive school]. students gained through their education were beneficial for Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher their future. It would have been interesting to compare Education. grades from individual subjects (such as Design and Craft and Physics) with the outcome of the survey. It might also Autio, O. & Hansen, R. (2002). Defining and Measuring have been possible to formulate a new questionnaire Technical Thinking: Students’ Technical Abilities in Finnish based on students’ technological studies in Craft and Comprehensive Schools. Journal of Technology Education, Design education. 14 (1), 5-19. Regarding the answers provided in the questionnaire, there Autio, O. (2013). Oppilaiden teknologiset valmiudet – were differences between the sexes. Kiefer and vertailu vuoteen 1993 [Students’ technical abilities – a Sekaquaptewa (2007), Byrne (1987) and Halperin (1992) comparison to year 1993]. Kasvatus, 44(4), 367-380. suggested that boys and girls differ in their interests and that this has an impact on girls’ motivation for learning 66 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. learning about force with a representational focus: Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5-28. Byrne, M. (1987). Techniques for Classroom Interaction. Harlow: Longman. Ihde, D. (2010). Embodied Technics. Milton Keynes: Automatic Press. Carter, C. (2011). Sex/Gender and the Media: From Sex Roles to Social Construction and Beyond. In Ross, K. (Ed) Ingerman, A. & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological The Handbook of Gender, Sex and Media. Oxford: Wiley- literacy reconsidered: a model for enactment. International Blackwell. Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 137- 148. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison. K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge. ITEA (2007). Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: Author. H Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Marketing Retrieved 12 May 2014 from C Research. New York: McGraw–Hill. http://www.iteaconnect.ora/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf. R A Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised Johnson, S. & Murphy, P. (1986). Girls and physics: E cognition and individual differences. Learning and Reflections on APU survey findings. London: Department S Instruction, 9, 343-363. of Education and Science. E R Cree, V. E., Macaulay, C. (2000). Transfer of learning in Kiefer, A. & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implict stereotypes, professional and vocational education. Routledge, gender identification and math related outcomes: A London: Psychology Press. prospective study of female college students. Psychological Science18(1), 13-18. Dakers, J. (2005). Technology education as solo activity or socially constructed learning. International Journal of Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Technology and Design Education, 15 (1), 73-89. Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physics Review Dakers J. (2006). Introduction: defining technological Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3, 1-10. literacy, In J. R. Dakers (Ed.). Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework. New Linn, M. & Petersen, A. (1985). Emergence and York: Palgrave Macmillan. characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta- analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Malone, K. L. (2008). Correlations among knowledge Instruction, 22(3), 293-331. structures, force concept inventory and problem-solving behaviors. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Framework Curriculum Guidelines (2004). Helsinki: Education Research, 4, 1-15. Opetushallitus. Maryland Technology Literacy Consortium (2014). Greeno, J. G. & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practising representation: Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students. learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Professional Development and Technology Measures for Kappa, 78(5), 361-368. Students, Teachers and School Administrators. Retrieved 12 May 2014 from: Halperin, D. F. (1992). Sex Differences in Cognitive http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/techl Abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. it/. Hasse, C. (2011). Kulturanalyser i organisationer. Begreber, metoder og forbløffende læreprocesser København: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2 67 Examining Technological Knowledge and Reasoning in Icelandic and Finnish Comprehensive Schools Menntamálaráðuneytið (2014). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla. The Oxford English Dictionary Online (2014). Retrieved 12 Reykjavík: Author. May 2014 from http://www.oed.com/ Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2014). Merriam-Webster Thorsteinsson, G. (2002). Innovation and Practical Use of Dictionary. Retrieved 12 May 2014 from Knowledge. Data International Research Conference http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mechanical. 2002, 171-177. National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Uicker, J. J., Pennock, G. G. & Shigley, J. E. (2003). Theory Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and of Machines and Mechanisms. New York: Oxford Core Ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies University Press. Press. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. (1995). Magnitude of sex Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter. consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250-270. Prain, V., Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Waldrip, B & Prain, V. (2006). Changing representations to Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808. learn primary science concepts. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17-21. Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). "Motivational influences on transfer". Educational Psychologist41 (3): 147–160 Wallace, J. (2010). Different Matters of Invention: Design Work as the Transformation of Dissimilar Design Artefacts. Rosengrant, D., Heuvelen, A. V. & Etkina, E. (2009). Do PhD Dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish School of students use and understand freebody diagrams? Physics Education, Aarhus University. Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5, 1-8. S W Sorby, S. & Baartmans, B. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-D spatial E visualization skills of first year engineering students. Journal I V of Engineering Education, 89(3), 301–07. E R Søndergaard, K. D. (2009). Innovating mental health care – a configurative case study in intangible, incoherent and multiple efforts. PhD Dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish School of Education, Aarhus University. Streumer, J.H. (1998). Evalueren van techniek. Encshede: Universiteit van Twente. Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sutopo & Waldrip, B. (2013). Impact of a representational approach on students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding in learning mechanics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 1-24. Technically Speaking (2006). Technical Literacy. Retrieved 3 January 2007 from the National Academies: National Academy of Engineering. Website: http://www.nae.edu/nae/techlithome.nsft 68 Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 21.2