Partnership-centered learning: The case for pedagogic balance in technology education

Journal of Technology Education

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 56-69

  Walmsley, Brad ^a  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18344373702     PISSN: 10451064     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21061/jte.v14i2.a.5     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Bell, C. R. (2000). Finding the balance: Comparing the effectiveness of student-managed and teacher-directed learning in science classes. Master's thesis, Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved June 19, 2000, from http://jennifer.lis.curtin.edu.au/thesis/available/adt-WCU20020429.100506/
2. Bryman, A., & Cramer D. (1997). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for Windows. London & New York: Routledge.
3. Davies, T. (1999). Taking risks as a feature of creativity in the teaching and learning of design and technology. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(2), 101-108.
4. Davies, T. (2000). Confidence! Its role in the creative teaching and learning of design and technology. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 18-31.
5. Deluca, W. V. (1992). Survey of technology education problem-solving activities. The Technology Teacher, 51(5), 26-30.
6. Eggleston, J. (1992). Teaching design and technology. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
7. Engestrom, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp.64-103). Cambridge University Press.
8. th Annual International Conference on Post-Compulsory Education and Training. Changing Practice Through Research: Changing Research Through Practice. December 6-8, 1999. Centre for Learning and Work Research, School of Vocational, Technology and Arts Education, Faculty of Education, Griffith University, Brisbane.
9. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. Sage Publications, Inc.
10. Fritz, A. (1996). Reflective practice: Enhancing the outcomes of technology learning experiences. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 7(3), 212-217.
11. Garcia, J. R. (1994). Use of technology in developing problem solving/critical thinking skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 944).
12. Grossman, P. L. & Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, 20 (pp.179-221). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
13. Hennessy, S., McCormick, R., & Murphy, P. (1993). The myth of general problem-solving capability: Design and technology as an example. The Curriculum Journal, 4(1), 73-89.
14. ITEA, International Technology Education Association, (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Retrieved August 13, 2002, from http://www.itea.www.org/TAA/PDF/Taa.RandS.pdf
15. ITEA, International Technology Education Association, (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology, executive summary. Retrieved August 13, 2002, from http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDF/Execsum. pdf
16. Johnson, S. D. (1996). Technology education as the focus of research. The Technology Teacher, 55(8), 47-49.
17. Johnson, S. D. (1997). Learning technological concepts and developing intellectual skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 161-180.
18. Lauda, D. P. (1988). Technology education. In W. H. Kemp & A. E. Schwaller (Eds.), Instructional strategies for technology education (pp. 3-15). Glencoe Publishing Company.
19. th Annual Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, March 31-April 2, 1996. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 959).
20. Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education: Some areas of need. Journal of Technology Education. 10(2), 41-56.
21. Lewis, T., & Gagel, C. (1992). Technological literacy: A critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 117-138.
22. McCormick, R. (1996). Instructional methodology. In J. Williams & A. Williams (Eds.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 63-92). Macmillan Education Australia Pty. Ltd.
23. McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230-241.
24. McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem-solving processes in technology education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 5-34.
25. Newberry, P. B. (2001). Technology education in the U.S.: A status report. Technology Teacher, 61(1), 8-12.
26. QCA, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Design and technology: The national curriculum for England. Retrieved August 13, 2002, from http://www.nc.uk.net/download/bDT.pdf
27. QSA/Queensland Studies Authority. (2002a). Consultative network. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu/au/yrs1-10/kla/technology/ consultative.network.html
28. QSA/Queensland Studies Authority. (2002b). Industrial technology and design subject area syllabus. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1-10/kla/otherstudies/sas/itd.ed.pdf
29. QSCC/Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2000). The technology years 1 to 10 syllabus-in-development pilot draft terms 1 to 3, 2000. Retrieved September 15, 2000, from http://qscc.qld.edu.au/kla/technology/pdf/ pilotsyllabus.pdf
30. Sanders, M. (2001). New paradigm or old wine? The status of technology education practice in the United States. Journal of Technology Education. 12(2), 35-55.
31. Stevenson, J. C. (1998). Performance of the cognitive holding power questionnaire in schools. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 393-410.
32. Stevenson, J. C., & Evans, G. T. (1994). Conceptualization and measurement of cognitive holding power. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(2), 161-181.
33. Stevenson, J. C., & McKavanagh, C. W. (1992). Skill formation for the workplace. In M. Poole (Ed.), Education and work. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. (pp. 72-90).
34. Talbert, J. E. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 167-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Walmsley, B. D. (2001). Technology education learning environments and higher-order thinking. Honours Thesis. Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
36. Wicklein, R. C. (1993). Developing goals and objectives for a process-based technology education curriculum. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 30(3), 66-80.
37. Williams, J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2) Spring 2000. Retrieved September 10, 2000, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v11n2/williams.jte-v11n2.html
38. Wiske, M. S. (1994). How teaching for understanding changes the rules in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 19-21.
39. Young-Hawkins, L. V., & Mouzes, M. (1991). Transforming facilities: Industrial arts to technology education. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention, Los Angeles, CA, December 7, 1991. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 868).