Implications of missed opportunities for learning and assessment in design and technology education

Teaching and Teacher Education

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 35-49

  Stein, Sarah J ^a   McRobbie, Campbell J ^b   Ginns, Ian S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Case study; Curriculum change; Design and technology education; Problem solving activities; Professional development; Teacher knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036133611     PISSN: 0742051X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00049-X     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Black, P., & Willam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
2. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Curriculum Corporation. (1994). A statement on technology for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Author.
4. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
5. Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 63-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
7. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8. Hameyer, U. (1986). Transferability of school improvement knowledge: A conceptual framework. Kiel: Institute for Science Education, Kiel University.
9. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1-36.
10. Holroyd, C., & Harlen, W. (1996). Primary teachers' confidence about teaching science and technology. Research Papers in Education, 11(3), 323-335.
11. Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1992). Teachers' perceptions of technology education: Implications for curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 22, 230-239.
12. Jones, A., & Compton, V. (1998). Towards a model for teacher development in technology education: From research to practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8, 51-65.
13. Kimbell, R. (1997). Assessing technology. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
15. Layton, D. (1993). Technology's challenge to science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
16. Layton, D. (Ed.). (1994). Innovations in science and technology education. Paris: UNESCO.
17. McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230-241.
18. Muralidhar, S. (1993). The role of multiple data sources in interpretive science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 445-455.
19. Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: The Falmer Press.
20. Queensland School Curriculum Council (QSCC). (2000). Technology: Years 1-10 syllabus-in-development pilot draft. Terms 1 to 3, 2000. Brisbane: The State of Queens-land.
21. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1994). Helping children understand technology. Adelaide: Department of Education and Children's Services.
22. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(12), 13-20.
23. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95-116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
26. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1993). An investigation of problem framing and solving in a grade 8 open-inquiry science program. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 165-204.
27. Rowell, P. M., Gustafson, B. J., & Guilbert, S. (1999). Characterization of technology within an elementary science program. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 37-55.
28. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
29. Stein, S. J. (1999). The development of teachers' beliefs and practices as they introduce technology education in their primary school classrooms. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
30. Stein, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. (1999). A model for the professional development of teachers in design and technology. Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education conference, Melbourne, Australia [http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/].
31. Stein, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Recognising uniqueness in the technology key learning area: The search for meaning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 105-123.
32. Stein, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. (2001). Authentic program planning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 263-272.
33. Williams, J. (1996). International approaches to technology education. In J. Williams, & A. Williams (Eds.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 266-290). South Melbourne: Macmillan Educational Australia.