Female students’ learning in design and technology projects

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 305-321

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

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011484714     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150309556570     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alberta Education. (1996). Elementary science program. Edmonton, AB: Author.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bennett, R. (1996). An investigation into some key stage 2 children’s learning of foundation concepts associated with geared mechanisms. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 218-229.
4. Board of Studies (NSW). (1991). Science and technology K-6: Syllabus and support document. Sydney, New South Wales: Author.
5. Board of Studies (Victoria). (1995). Technology: Curriculum and standards framework. Carlton, Victoria: Author.
6. Clegg, S., Mayfield, W., & Trayhum, D. (1999). Disciplinary courses: A case study of gender in information technology and design courses. Gender and Education, 11(1), 43-45.
7. Curriculum Corporation. (1994). A statement on technology for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Author.
8. Custer, R. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 219-244.
9. Davis, R.S., Ginns, I.S. & McRobbie, C. J. (2002). Elementary school students’ understandings of technology concepts. Journal of Technology Education,14(1), 35-50.
10. Department of Education and Science, Welsh Office. (1990). Technology in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.
11. 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: Kluwer Academic.
12. Faulkner, W. (1994). Conceptualizing knowledge used in innovation: A second look at the sciencetechnology distinction and industrial innovation. Science Technology & Human Values, 19, 425-458.
13. Gloeckner, G.W. (1997, December). Genderfacts: A moral dilemma. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention, Las Vegas, NV.
14. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Gustafson, B.J., Rowell, P.M., & Rose, D.P. (2001). Children’s ideas about strengthening structures. Research in Science and Technological Education, 79(1), 111-123.
16. Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal for Technology and Design Education, 9, 1-36.
17. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheller, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: Schools Examination and Assessment Authority.
18. Levinson, R., Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Science and technology concepts in a design and technology project: A pilot study. Research in Science and Technology Education, 15(2), 235-255.
19. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. McCormick, R. (1998). Practical knowledge: A view from the snooker table. In R. McCormick & C. Paechter (Eds.), Learning and knowledge (pp. 112-135) London: Paul Chapman.
21. McRobbie, C J., Ginns, I.S., & Stein, S J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 81-101.
22. McRobbie, C.J., Stein, S.J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Elementary school students approaches to design activities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
23. Murphy, P. (1999). Supporting collaborative learning: A gender dimension. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment (pp. 258-276). London: Paul Chapman.
24. Osborne, R.J., & Freyberg, P.S. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland: Heinemann.
25. Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2002). Technology: Years 1—10 syllabus. Brisbane: The State of Queensland.
26. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
27. Silverman, S., & Pritchard, A.-M. (1996). Building their future: Girls and technology education in Connecticut. Journal of Technology Education, 7(2), 41-54.
28. The Northern Territory Board of Studies. (1997). Technology: An outcomes profile for NT schools— Transition to Year 10: First draft. Darwin: Author.
29. Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 77(1), 19-34.
30. Zuga, K.F. (1996). Reclaiming the voices of female and elementary school educators in technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(3), 23-43.