Interactive technology: Can children construct their own technological design briefs?

Research in Science Education

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 241-253

  Fleer, Marilyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4344607294     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02461631     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Anning, A. (1994). Dilemmas and opportunities of a new curriculum: Design and technology with young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 155-177.
2. Biddulph, R., & Osborne, R. (1984) Making sense of our world: an interactive teaching approach. Hamilton, NZ: Science Education Research Unit, University of Waikato.
3. Curriculum Corporation. (1994). A statement on technology for Australian Schools. Melbourne, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.
4. Egan, B. A. (1995). How do children perceive the act of drawing? Some initial observations of children in an infant school. DATER, 95, 10-14.
5. Fleer, M. (1992). Introducing technology education to young children: A design, make and appraise approach. Research in Science Education, 22, 132-139.
6. Fleer, M. (1993). Can we incorporate the principles of the national statement on technology education into our early childhood programs? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 18(4), 26-34.
7. Fleer, M. (1996). Talking technologically in preschool and school: Three case examples. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(2), 1-6.
8. Fleer, M., & Sukroo, J. (1995). I can make my robot dance: Technology for 3 to 8 year olds. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.
9. Fleer, M. (in press). The science technology: Young children working technologically. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
10. Fry, T. (1994, December). Design and action and design reinvented. Unpublished Keynote Address, Technology Educators Association of the ACT, ACT Department of Education and the University of Canberra, School of Environmental Design, ACT, Australia.
11. Griffin, H. (1984). The coordination of meaning in the creation of a shared make-believe reality. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play. The development of social understanding (pp. 73-100). New York: Academic press.
12. Hayes, D., Symington, D., & Martin, M. (1994). Drawing during science activity in the primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 265-277.
13. Jane, B. (1995). Technology in the primary curriculum: A teacher's perceptions and student's learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
14. Jeffery, J. R. (1991). An investigation into the effect of systematic design methods in craft, design and technology (CDT). International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1(3), 141-149.
15. Jones, A., & Carr, M. (1993). Analysis of student capability. Working paper of the Learning in Technology Education Project (Vol. 2). Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Research.
16. McLaren, S. (1997). Value judgements: Evaluating design. A Scottish perspective on a global issue. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 259-276.
17. Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children's choice of drawing to communicate their ideas about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239-252.
18. Ritchie, S. M., & Hampson, B. (1996). Learning in-the-making: A case study of science and technology projects in a year six classroom. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 391-407.
19. Rogers, G. (1998, July). The designing stage of design, make and appraise: A case study involving young children designing. Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Association conference, Darwin, NT.
20. Roth, W.-M. (1995). From "wiggly structures" to "unshaky towers": problem framing, solution finding, and negotiation of course of actions during a civil engineering unit for elementary students Research in Science Education, 25(4), 365-382.
21. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Learning to talk engineering design: Results from an interpretive study in a grade 4/5 classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 6, 107-135.
22. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. London, England: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Design and methods (Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.