Reflections on Practice

Teachers, administrators, and teacher educators in mathematics, science and technology are trying to address several important issues that have plagued public education for years. Among the more pressing problems is the undue emphasis being placed on rote learning, drill and practice activities, and covering content in contrast to facilitating genuine understanding. Students are spending a majority of their time engaged in written activities, listening to lectures and explanations, and preparing sedentary assignments (Goodlad, 1984). Only a tiny percentage of the students' time in school is spent engaged in more active modes of learning.

Another area of concern is the meager ration of time and energy being allocated to science education. In Goodlad's study of 13 elementary schools (1984), students only spent an average of 2.3 hours per week studying science. According to leaders in science education, when attention is given to the study of science, far too much emphasis is placed on teaching "factoids" in contrast to doing science (Ahlgren & Rutherford, 1993; Hurd, 1991). More specifically, these leaders argue more time should be spent actively engaging students in modes of learning that involve asking questions about the natural world, developing strategies for pursuing answers, making qualitative and quantitative observations about natural phenomenon, discussing their findings, and formulating propositions based on evidence.

The mathematics community is also challenging educators to enhance the study of mathematics by engaging students in learning activities that require them to apply mathematical principles and patterns to situations in everyday life (Dossey, 1989; National Research Council, 1989; NCTM, 1989). To improve student performance in mathematics, teachers are also being encouraged to make the study of mathematics more concrete through the use of manipulatives and authentic problems. Furthermore, they are being asked to make the study of mathematics more consistent with the ways students naturally think about numbers.

With the exception of kindergarten, the sedentary nature of classroom life is one of the more commonly sited problems in recent education reform literature. Consequently, teachers are being asked to include more active modes of learning in the curriculum. More specifically, they are being encouraged to design and implement learning activities that have meaning beyond the walls of the schools and utilize more diverse teaching strategies in order to accommodate a wide range of learning styles. Furthermore, they are being pressured to illuminate connections and relationships between the basic disciplines (AAAS, 1989, 1993; Beane, 1995; Hurd, 1991), to engage students in cooperative learning, and to employ more authentic assessment techniques (Wiggins, 1993).

All the these recommendations have a profound impact on the way teachers design and implement learning activities. Few teachers would argue with the importance of engaging their students in meaningful learning experiences that help them construct a genuine understanding of the key concepts and develop basic skills. The following narrative will attempt to define the nature of technology and it relationship with science. It will also examine how the study of technology can be used as a basis for designing and implementing learning activities that enrich the science curriculum as well as the school curriculum in general. Lastly, the narrative will outline some of the pitfalls associated with tapping the interdisciplinary nature of technology to make it a more salient part of the school curriculum.

Technology is one of the most salient aspects of life in a modern society. People depend on technology to process and communicate information; to harness and convert energy; to transport people and goods from one location to another; to produce the food, products, and structures that maintain their quality of life; to facilitate artistic expression; and to provide essential health care.

Describing the essence of technology in human affairs is the subject of numerous philosophical arguments. Unfortunately, no single agreed upon definition for the word technology exists in the literature (Bjorkquist & Swanson, 1981; Wiens, 1985). According to Frey (1987), Johnson (1988), Kline (1985), and Mitcham (1980), philosophical perspectives on technology typically emphasize one or more of the following themes: (a) technology as object; (b) technology as process; (c) technology as knowledge; and (d) technology as volition, or human will.

A review of literature disclosed numerous definitions of technology that were consistent with these four themes. For example, Swyt (1987) defined technology as "all the machines, devices, materials, and processes as tools by which we manipulate, change, and control the material world to satisfy our hierarchy of human needs" (p. 4). Cutcliffe (1981) argued technology is a "social process in which abstract economic, cultural, and social values shape, develop, and implement specific artifacts and techniques that emerge from the distinct technical problem-solving activity called engineering which is embedded in that process" (p. 36). Lux (1983) described technology as "knowledge (ology) of practices (techn)" (p. 1). Roy (1986) characterized technology as "the means by which humans utilize natural and human resources to attain a goal" (p. 133). The literature suggested a comprehensive definition of technology would include all four perspectives: technology as object, process, knowledge, and volition.

In addition to these four themes, technology is often defined as applied science (DeVore, 1987b; Kranzberg, 1987; La Porte & Metlay, 1975; Locatis, 1988). For example, Truxal (1986) stated "technology is simply the application of scientific knowledge to achieve a specific human purpose" (p. 2). However, defining technology as applied science ignores historical evidence and suggests technology is a product of science. Throughout history, humankind has developed and utilized tools, machines, and techniques without understanding how or why they worked or comprehending their physical or chemical composition (Brockway, 1987; DeVore, 1987b; Kranzberg, 1987; Lauda, 1985; Locatis, 1988; Roy, 1989; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1988; Wiens, 1985). The fact that humankind has contrived and employed technical means without scientific understanding suggests that technology maintains a degree of autonomy from science in human affairs.

According to Gies (1982), "science is knowledge discovered and being discovered by man," and "technology is knowledge created and being created by man" (p. 17). While science deals with understanding natural phenomena, technology deals with creating human-made phenomena (Selby, 1986; Swyt, 1987). Furthermore, science seeks to expand knowledge by investigating nature, describing the laws it obeys, and developing better theories. In contrast, technology seeks to expand human potential by creating new techniques and artifacts (Lauda, 1985; Locatis, 1988; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1988). In short, science is "know why," and technology is "know how" (Kranzberg, 1987, p. 1). However, research suggests science and technology are the same thing in the eyes of the general public (Etzioni & Nunn, 1974; Miller, Suchner, & Voelker, 1980). Although technology should not be confused with science, science and technology do share an interdependence. For example, technology provides science its eyes, ears, and muscle, and technological initiatives create opportunities for scientific research (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1988).

Science, on the other hand, contributes knowledge that can be used to govern, explain, or stimulate technological developments (Locatis, 1988). As technologies become more sophisticated, their links with and dependence on science become stronger. The relationship between science and technology is almost indistinguishable in fields such as solid state physics, nuclear energy, and genetic engineering (Kranzberg, 1987; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1988).

In an effort to propose a more comprehensive definition for technology and clarify its relationship with science, several authors suggested technology is a discipline (DeVore, 1986, 1987a, 1987b; Dugger, 1988; Hales & Snyder, 1981; Lauda, 1985; Skolimowski, 1970; Technology Education Advisory Council, 1988). DeVore (1987b) argued science is a multidimensional entity that represents numerous branches of knowledge or study that have been systematically determined. Furthermore, a vast majority of these branches of knowledge shares a common suffix, -ology (e.g., anthropology, biology, geology, physiology, psychology, sociology, zoology). While DeVore recognized the autonomy of technology, he proposed that technology is a unique branch of knowledge that has been determined systematically and can be viewed as one of the sciences. More specifically, it is "the science that deals with the creation, utilization, and behavior of adaptive systems including tools, machines, materials, techniques, and technical means and the behavior of these elements and systems in relation to human beings, society, and the environment" (DeVore, 1987b, p. 8).

Technology education can play several important roles in the public school curriculum. Some leaders in science education have argued that the introduction of technology learning activities into the curriculum will capture the interest of students, engage them in meaningful thought processes, and accommodate a wide range of learning styles (Bredderman, 1987; Pizzini, Shepardson, & Abell, 1989; Shamos, 1982, 1995). Furthermore, these leaders believe having students engage in technology activities will facilitate an interest in and readiness for genuine inquiry into the laws of nature (Bredderman, 1987; Schauble, Klopfer, & Raghavan, 1991; Shamos, 1982, 1995). In addition to complementing the science curriculum, several leaders in education also believe technology is a unique and important body of knowledge that should be an integral part of the general education curriculum (AAAS, 1989, 1993; Bredderman, 1987; Hurd, 1991; NSF, 1983; Shamos, 1982, 1995). Lastly, there is general agreement that the study of technology provides an authentic context for integrating, transferring, and applying content.

The following section will describe three roles that the study of technology can play in the school curriculum. More specifically, the study of technology can be used to: (1) teach concepts that are unique to technology, (2) create contexts that make other aspects of the curriculum more meaningful to young people, and (3) engage students in thought processes that promote the development of higher-order thinking skills. It is important to note that most learning activities that celebrate technology in the classroom tend to intrinsically address all three of these functions with varying degrees of emphasis. That is to say, the nature of technology intrinsically involves teaching technical content, doing tasks that are performed beyond the walls of the school, and engaging in sophisticated modes of thinking.

Technology as Content

One of the more obvious reasons for designing and implementing technology education learning activities is to enable students to develop a basic understanding of fundamental technology concepts and skills. In addition to learning about language arts, mathematics, natural science, and social science, it is also important for students to begin studying technology in order to understand the human-make world that directly impacts their lives. Even though people are surrounded by technology in everyday life, the basic concepts and skills that need to be included in the general education curriculum are not self-evident.

It is very easy for teachers to be overwhelmed by the pervasive and dynamic nature of technology. After all, the knowledge base for technology is as old as humankind (AAAS, 1989; Kranzberg & Pursell, 1967; Staudenmair, 1989) and some observers believe it is expanding at an exponential rate with new advancements in technology (Cardwell, 1995; Naisbitt, 1982). The prominence and growth of technology in society can inspire well-meaning teachers to address as many technology topics as time and resources will allow.

To cope with an imposing body of technological knowledge that is growing everyday, some leaders are recommending that educators adopt the philosophy that "less is more" (AAAS, 1993). In accordance with this principle, teachers are being encouraged to focus their precious time, energy, and resources on developing and implementing learning activities that enable their students to master a modest number of profound understandings in technology.

One of the fundamental premises underlying the principle that "less is more" is the notion that not all the ideas, concepts, and skills that constitute technological knowledge have equal value in the lives of young people. The knowledge base for the study of technology includes broad generalizations that cut across a variety of technologies, as well as specific facts and vocabulary associated with specific technologies. Teachers that embrace this philosophy strive to help their students begin to develop a conceptual knowledge base and the thinking skills necessary for a lifetime of building new understandings, without concentrating on unnecessary details.

Identifying the key concepts and skills that will provide children a sound foundation for future learning is an extremely difficult task that requires a thorough understanding of the content and a genuine empathy for students. To develop learning activities that target profound understandings in technology, reflective teachers evaluate their curricula based on the intellectual and emotional needs of their students. Designing learning activities that put the needs of students first demands making distinctions between trivial factoids and meaningful understandings, as well as between antiquated skills and empowering aptitudes. To define and organize the content for the study of technology, one finds oneself searching for core concepts that provide the students the best foundation for future learning. This reflection and analysis process culminates in a need to compose strings of words, or outcome statements, that capture the essence of the content, exemplify the teacher's empathy and optimism for their students, reflect the deliberations that went into the decision-making process, and communicate the teacher's wisdom to the school's stakeholders (e.g., students, parents, administrators).

The impetus for developing new learning activities for the project appeared to be a genuine desire to make a given unit of instruction more fun and exciting. However, an overwhelming majority of the project's documentation failed to articulate the technological understandings that the authors wanted students to possess as a direct result of their work. The project's participants also had difficulty defining the concepts and skills that they were targeting under the auspices of technology. From this reviewer's point of view, almost one third of the content that the project aspires to address has been, for the most part, ignored. As a matter of fact, several site leaders admitted that they had not included the study of technology in their perspective initiatives. A formal effort needs to be made to target generalizable concepts and skills in the area of technology if the project wants to continue espousing to be a mathematics, science and technology reform initiative.

Identifying content for the study of technology is a very time consuming and intellectually exhausting undertaking. Unfortunately, most classroom teachers do not have time in their schedules to confront the assumptions that underlie their curricula and engage in a disciplined analysis of the content associated with the study of technology. However, with the support of national organizations, several communities of educators have assembled standards for public education that address the study of technology. Currently, the two most popular sources for technology standards are Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). The use of these standards can provide teacher educators, school administrators, and classroom practitioners a head start in their effort to identify meaningful content for their curriculum.

Technology as Context

Many topics in technology are too sophisticated for students to genuinely understand at a given point in their cognitive development. Other times, a given topic may be too abstract for students because it is beyond their realm of experience. Although the students may not be ready to study a given technology in detail, the topic can still be used to provide a rich context for making other concepts and skills in the curriculum more relevant, interesting, and ultimately, more meaningful.

To encourage higher-order thinking and not just rote learning, John Dewey (1938, 1966) suggested the school curriculum should be based on situations that present themselves outside of school and fall within the scope of ordinary life experience. He argued putting the curriculum in the context of ordinary life-experiences gives "pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional noting of connections; learning naturally results" (p. 154).

Life is full of problems that require people to use what they have learned in school. Finding the solutions to these problems typically involves applying concepts and skills from a variety of disciplines. Organizing learning activities around the interesting people, enterprises, and activities that use technology can help to address the problems in everyday life and can help students discover the interrelationships between their school subjects and their relevance in everyday life and work. More importantly, experiencing new ideas and concepts while role playing people performing tasks in the adult world is more fun for students than completing a series of worksheets. A short interview with a young person about their favorite collection (e.g., dolls, baseball cards, books, rocks) will confirm the proposition children have a tremendous capacity to learn about the things that they enjoy.

Technology as Process

One of the goals of public education is to help students develop higher-order thinking skills. Almost all teachers strive to help their students become skillful problem-solvers, creative thinkers, and good decision makers. To enable students to develop these skills, teachers can use technology education learning activities to provide their students opportunities to break ideas, problems, and phenomena down into their pieces; to explore each piece and discover relationships between the pieces; to generate new and creative ways to put pieces together; and to select the best arrangement of pieces among several alternatives. Engaging students in designing solutions to problems is one of the more popular strategies used to promote higher-order thinking skills.

Teachers in the United Kingdom have been experimenting with the concept of design as a teaching strategy since the mid 1960s. They have discovered that learning activities that engage students in the design process can play an important role in the elementary school curriculum (Dunn & Larson, 1990; Kimbell, Stables, Wheeler, Wosniak & Kelly, 1991; Murry, 1990; Todd & Hutchinson, 1991; Welty, Valenzuela, Brearley, Ezell, Matthews, McGirr, Rossman, Sharp & Vincent, 1992). Furthermore, there is a feeling among these educators that the curriculum would be incomplete without a design component.

At the elementary school level, teachers play an integral role in facilitating and directing the design process. For students to experience success, teachers may need to provide the design problem and even suggest some strategies and techniques to develop a viable solution. The design problem needs to be very concrete and within their realm of experience. At the elementary level, the design process will only have a few simple stages and students will typically progress through these stages in a relatively sequential fashion. For example, an elementary teacher might structure a design activity that asks students to look at a problem posed in a piece of children's literature, think of a solution to the problem, make a model of their solution using simple materials, and share it with the rest of the class (Brusic, 1992; Todd, 1994).

Young children are very creative and uninhibited in their thinking. Nonetheless, when given a problem to solve, they typically want to develop the first idea that pops into their minds without considering many (if any) alternative solutions. Under the guidance of a teacher, a small group of young children can generate a wide range of creative ideas. In many cases, students will explore design alternatives during the construction stage of the design process. Some of these alternatives will be inspired by new ideas, while others will be prompted by the materials they employ to construct their solution (Welty, et al. 1992). While they are able to identify their favorite idea, they rarely make a selection based on many criteria, although they can talk about the criteria they employed to make their selection. To help students evaluate their options, the teacher will need to ask questions like "what would happen if..." Student responses are likely to be very egocentric and only address short term consequences.

As students mature and gain experience, they can be more involved in identifying problems within a given context and the design loop will have more stages (Brusic, 1992). For example, a middle school teacher might ask students to identify a problem within a given context, define the specifications and resources available for developing a solution, brainstorm alternative solutions, assess the merits of the alternatives and identify the best solution, and evaluate the final solution against the design specifications. With teacher guidance, students would examine their solutions based on a modest list of criteria.

At the high school level, the primary role of the teacher is that of facilitator and advisor. At this level, students will be asked to identify problematic situations, identify and operationalize their own problems, and independently pursue a viable solution. The design loop has many stages to encourage in depth inquiry, informed decision making, and reflection on the design process. A comprehensive design loop for high school students would include examining a given situation, identifying a problem, defining specifications for a successful solution, gathering information from a variety of sources, generating alternative solutions, evaluating the merits of alternative solutions, selecting and refining the optimum solution, developing and testing a solution that addresses the problem, evaluating the solution in relation to the specifications outlined in the problem statement, and presenting and defending the final solution or product to others (Todd, 1990).

During the course of their problem solving activities, students would be expected to tap a wide range of resources (e.g., materials, information); gather, evaluate, and triangulate evidence; and utilize their evidence to make informed design decisions. At this level, students will be expected to evaluate their designs and make design decisions based on a wide range of social, environmental, ethical, cultural, and technical considerations. Their assessments should account for long term as well as short term implications of their design.

One area of concern associated with using design oriented learning activities is the potential tension that can emerge between the student's interest in developing a solution to a captivating problem and the teacher's desire to capitalize on the design problem to introduce new concepts -- concepts that students may or may not perceive as essential to the solution of their problem (Welty, et al. 1992). Another area of concern is the distinct possibility that many students will develop successful solutions to design problems without a deep and accurate understanding of the concepts that contribute to the solution. One way to address these problems is to place more emphasis on the process of doing design in contrast to the products of design. More specifically, in contrast to assigning grades based on the quality of the final product, the assessment process needs to focus on the students thought processes throughout the design process and their understanding of the key concepts associated with the design problem.

Utilizing design to address specific objectives will require the development of a design culture in schools that emphasizes and rewards the process and by-products of design in contrast to the products of design (Welty, et al. 1992). More specifically, for conceptual learning to occur, teachers will need to create a climate that encourages students to ask questions, to conduct systematic investigations, and to defend their design decisions with evidence. The working climate of engineers, designers, and architects could provide a valuable model for creating learning environments that demand good design.

The study of technology is a relatively new subject in the school curriculum. Given the overwhelming demands on the current curriculum, school administrators and teachers are justifiably reluctant to add a new subject like technology into their school's agenda. Therefore, leaders striving to introduce the study of technology into the curriculum will need to help their colleagues understand why the study of technology is an important part of their students' education. Furthermore, they will also need to explain how the study of technology can complement and enhance the existing curriculum without detracting from other essential subjects.

In addition to being time and cost effective, technology learning activities need to be efficient from a curriculum and instruction perspective. One way to think about integrating the study of technology into the curriculum in an efficient manner is to strive for synergy. Synergy is achieved when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. More specifically, the students are able to experience and learn more when the concepts and skills are linked and taught together than they would if all the concepts and skills were isolated and taught separately (Beane, 1995; Fogarty, 1991; Jacobs, 1989; Palmer, 1992).

Teacher Roles and Responsibilities

To facilitate collaboration, science and technology teachers need to work together and take turns being leaders and consultants depending on the nature of the content being targeted. Educators with expertise in science and technology have unique skills and perspectives that enable them to make an important contribution to the study of technology. Many talented and professional educators have already embraced the ethic that they have an intrinsic responsibility to teach and reinforce concepts and skills related to reading and writing despite their primary discipline. Similarly, many science and technology educators invest a lot of time and energy teaching mathematics without giving it a second thought. Conscientious educators, regardless of their primary discipline, also take pride in teaching communication skills, problem-solving, cooperation and teamwork, career awareness, computer literacy, and other generalizable skills and concepts.

While numerous teachers should play an integral role in teaching a variety of subjects including technology, there is a need for teachers who are experts in a given discipline to take a leadership role in the school. To be an expert in a given discipline, one needs to be immersed in its culture, learn its language of discourse, and master its mode of disciplined inquiry. Conventional wisdom suggests that the dedication and focus required to develop genuine expertise makes it extremely difficult to be an expert and leader in more than one discipline. Consequently, each school needs to assemble an eclectic collection of knowledgeable people who represent different communities of scholars who generate and disseminate new knowledge (e.g., science, mathematics, humanities, engineering) and engage in significant human endeavors.

Collaboration between subject area specialists is essential. Many science educators who have an excellent command of the theory behind a concept often do not understand how it is applied beyond the walls of the school. Technology teachers can help them translate troublesome and abstract concepts into concrete principles for analyzing, understanding, or solving authentic problems. Helping the science community to understand the importance of their disciplines in everyday life and the world of work can help them realize the essential role of technology education in the general education curriculum. In turn, technology educators need to join ranks with their science colleagues to gain the knowledge and aptitudes needed to help students discover and appreciate the scientific, social, and mathematical theories that underlie technology.

Therefore, in the interest of literacy, synergy, and illuminating relationships between bodies of knowledge, it is easy to envision several teachers representing various disciplines playing a role in teaching technology. One can also envision a technology educator playing a leadership role when the concepts and skills being addressed are strongly aligned with technology and warrant expertise to insure content accuracy, contextual authenticity, and student success.

Looking at Technology from Different Perspectives

Many leaders in education are advocating reforms that encourage and create curricular synergy in contrast to fragmentation. For example, a social science teacher as well as a technology teacher could address the study of manufacturing and automation. Although both teachers are addressing the same topic, each would encourage their students to study the topic from a different perspective. There are basically two generic strategies that can be use to teach technology and each represents a different perspective on the subject.

The first strategy is to engage students in "studies about technology." When this strategy is employed, the student plays the role of an enthusiast, a spectator, and a critic of technology. This strategy emphasizes learning through critical thinking and looks at a technological phenomena from the perspective of a citizen (a person on the street). Consistent with Science, Technology and Society (STS) movement, a learning event might be initiated with a social or environmental issue (e.g., acid rain, hunger, soil erosion, homeless people, nuclear waste, solid waste disposal, genetic engineering, work place automation). Students would spend a majority of their time analyzing the implications of a given technology on people, society, and the environment. The learning experience would involve exploring the issues, exchanging points of view, and formulating positions. Implementing this strategy would require modest facilities (e.g., a conventional classroom) and a facilitator with an aptitude for exploring technological issues; gathering and synthesizing information; and formulating and presenting arguments. Returning to the manufacturing/automation example, a social science teacher could have his or her students explore the impacts of automation on labor, its effects on communities, and its role in helping manufacturing enterprises be competitive in a global economy.

The second strategy is to engage students in "studies in technology." With this strategy, the student is required to play the role of an amateur technologist (some people prefer the role of "amateur engineer"). In contrast to examining, discussing, and critiquing technology, the learner is an active participant in a technological endeavor. An emphasis is placed on developing an understanding of technology by doing technology. Consistent with the Design and Technology movement in the United Kingdom, a learning event might be initiated with a problem that needs to be solved. To develop a viable solution, the student would work with his or her peers to gather information, generate alternative solutions, select and refine the optimum solution, build and test a prototype, and evaluate and revise the final product. Implementing this strategy would require a well equipped technology education laboratory and a facilitator with technical skills and aptitudes as well as a rich understanding of the research and development process. Returning to my manufacturing/automation example, a technology educator would enable his or her students to construct an understanding of feedback and control by designing and testing an automated system that would perform a monotonous or dangerous task without human intervention.

Both of these vignettes addressed essentially the same board topic, manufacturing. However, each vignette illustrated how teachers with different areas of expertise could provide students a unique perspective on the topic. It is important to note that each teacher would probably target different understandings or objectives. At the risk of over generalizing, teachers with "academic" backgrounds are uniquely qualified to engage students in "studies about technology" and teachers with formal training in technology education would be more qualified to engage students in "studies in technology."

Basic Integration Strategies

Technology learning activities should be designed to provide students holistic learning experiences that are connected in a manner that develops an understanding of profound ideas. A variety of strategies can be used to maximize continuity within and across the school curriculum. One of the simplest strategies to give the curriculum greater continuity is to maximize the connections between lessons and learning activities (Ahlgren & Kesidou, 1985; Fogarty, 1991). Too often teachers are captivated by the aesthetics or feasibility of a given activity and implement it regardless of its fit in the curriculum.

Another strategy is to design learning activities in a manner that provides students with a sense of continuity from one lesson to the next (Ahlgren & Kesidou, 1985; Fogarty, 1991). For example, elementary students might begin a unit on electricity by studying the concept of potential difference and making simple batteries using coins, zinc coated sheet metal, paper towels, and lemon juice. After students have developed a basic understanding of how a battery works, the next lesson would focus on the concept of a circuit. During a laboratory activity, students could build a simple continuity tester using a battery, a light bulb, and several lengths of wire. Furthermore, the students could use their continuity tester to test a variety of materials and to discriminate between conductors and non-conductors. Once the students have mastered the concept of a simple circuit, they could begin to modify circuits by adding and subtracting batteries and bulbs to discover the relationships between voltage and current as well as between resistance and current. Subsequent lessons and learning activities could involve learning how to trouble-shoot circuits while servicing broken flashlights and building an original circuit under the auspices of designing a burglar alarm. Each lesson and learning activity builds on the previous one by targeting a new concept and expanding the students realm of experience.

The most sophisticated strategy to make technology learning activities more synergistic is to tap the potential of technology to facilitate interdisciplinary education. According to Heidi Jacobs (1989), interdisciplinary education is "a curriculum approach that consciously embraces and applies concepts and skills from more than one discipline while addressing a central theme, issue, problem, topic, or experience" (p. 8).

Complementing and reinforcing academic skills and concepts is an important agenda in the technology education curriculum. For example, during a simulation titled WKID Radio, middle school students used a simple wireless microphone to facilitate a mock radio station that broadcast a series of 10 minute programs to radios distributed throughout the classroom. To compose their radio programs, students had to monitor current events; write informative, persuasive, and creative stories; develop a pie chart dividing time into segments; and practice public speaking. All of these skills were important topics in the teacher's curriculum prior to implementing this activity. The learning activity was designed to bring these skills together in practical context and to demonstrate their importance in everyday life outside of school. It is important, especially in times of back-to-basics and education reform, to identify and maximize opportunities to introduce or reinforce academic skills and concepts during the learning activity design process.

Potential & Pitfalls

There are several potential pitfalls associated with interdisciplinary teaching and learning. The first one is called the "potpourri phenomena" (Jacobs, 1989, p. 2). This phenomena emerges when the integrating learning experience provides students superficial samplings of important concepts and skills associated with other disciplines. The content did not receive the same level of thoughtfulness in the integrated learning activity as it would if it were being addressed in a discipline specific unit of instruction.

Another potential pitfall is called the "polarity problem" (Jacobs, 1989, p. 2). This dilemma can surface when educators whose allegiance to a given discipline is so strong that they are unwilling to share content with others or do not trust others to represent their discipline in a responsible manner. Inversely, there are also educators who feel so strongly about integrating the curriculum that they lose sight of the value of discipline specific perspectives on knowledge. In either case, the potential and integrity of the learning activity is compromised.

The last potential pitfall is content validity (Ackerman, 1989). Sometimes, well meaning teachers fall into the trap of integrating content for the sake of doing curriculum integration. That is to say, they get caught up in the process of integrating the content at the expense of the integrity of the curriculum. Some of the content that is being addressed under the auspices of an integrated learning activity does not warrant the time and resources that are invested. For example, young children are enchanted by hot air balloons. More importantly, small model hot air balloons are relatively easy to make out of simple and inexpensive materials and, weather permitting, they can be flown outdoors like a kite. Although they clearly demonstrate that hot air rises, their structural, propulsion, and control systems are not as sophisticated as those found on a student's mountain bike. A teacher can easily invest several class periods teaching his or her students about hot air balloons and the laws of nature that cause the balloon to rise. Time and energy would also have to be invested in demonstrating how to construct a large tissue paper balloon, helping students build their balloon, and conducting test flights.

Despite the popularity of this activity, one has to evaluate the relative value of spending five or more class periods on hot-air balloons given their novelty and technological simplicity. One might feel a five day unit on hot-air-balloons can be justified by capitalizing on the interdisciplinary potential of the topic. More specifically, in addition to the science content, the unit could include having students studying the history of hot-air-balloons. Furthermore, attention could also be given to decorating the balloon under the auspices of art education. However, in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the curriculum, one has to assess the importance of the history of hot-air-balloons in the history curriculum and the utility of hot-air-balloons as an art medium.

The following questions can be used to evaluate interdisciplinary merit of a potential learning activity. Your responses to these questions can help you design screen learning activities ideas, maximize connections between concepts and ultimately, maintain the integrity of the curriculum.

• Are the concepts and skills being associated with the integrating theme, problem, or experience essential elements in the curriculum?
• Would we be studying the content if we were not trying to integrate the curriculum?
• Will learning be genuinely enhanced by integrating the concepts in contrast to teaching them separately?
• Are we maintaining the integrity of specific disciplines in our representation of their content in the integrated learning experience?
• Will the integration of concepts and skills provide students a unique perspective that would not be possible without integration?
• Is the whole (e.g., total experience) greater than the sum of its parts (e.g., discipline specific experiences)?

In closing, an exchange of ideas, perspectives, and expertise between science and technology will intrinsically enhance and enrich the general education curriculum. More importantly, developing better working relationships between these two disciplines will enable educators to better prepare a new generation of citizens that will be asked to make connections between science and technology when they leave school. Improving collaboration between science education and technology education will ultimately produce a unique form of synergy that is not present in many schools today. More simply, the knowledge base and pedagogy that emerges from a strong partnership between these two communities will be richer than what each discrete discipline can offer its students in isolation of one another. Thank you for inviting me to visit your fine country. I thoroughly enjoyed learning about your efforts to make the study of technology an integral part of the school curriculum, exchanging ideas with new friends and colleagues, and hopefully, being of some modest assistance. I hope the perspective provided in this paper proves to be helpful in your efforts to enhance mathematics, science, and technology education in Finland. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Ackerman, D. B. (1989). Intellectual and practical criteria for successful curriculum integration. In Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation (pp 25-37), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ahlgren, A. & Kesidou, S. (1995). Attempting curriculum coherence in Project 2061. In Beane, J. A. (Ed.), Toward a Coherent Curriculum (pp 44-54), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ahlgren, A. & Rutherford, J. (1993). Where is Project 2061 today. Educational Leadership. 50(8), 19-22.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

Beane, J. (Ed.) (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bjorkquist, D. C., & Swanson, R. A. (1981). Technology education: A good beat, but hard to dance to. In L. Smalley (Ed.), Proceedings of the Technology Education Symposium II (pp. 14-17). Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 915)

Bredderman, T. (1987). A technology strand in elementary science: Is it defensible. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 7(1/2), 218-224.

Brusic, S. (1992). Kids & technology: Mission 21 (teacher manual). Albany, NY: Delmar.

Cardwell, D. (1995). Technology. New York: W. W. Norton. Cutcliffe, S. H. (1981). Technological literacy for the nontechnologist. In L. Smalley (Ed.), Proceedings of the Technology Education Symposium II (pp. 36-37). Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 915)

DeVore, P. W. (1986). Measuring technological literacy: Problems and issues. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 6 (2 & 3), 202-209.

DeVore, P. W. (1987a). Dichotomies, relationships and the development of technological literacy. In E. K. Blankenbaker & A. J. Miller (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Technological Literacy: The Role of the Practical Arts and Vocational Education (pp. 209-248). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

DeVore, P. W. (1987b). Science and technology: An analysis of meaning. The Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 13 (1), 3-9. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillian.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.

Dossey, J. A. (1989). Transforming mathematics education. Educational Leadership. 47(3), 22-24.

Dugger, W. E. (1988). Technology - The discipline. The Technology Teacher, 48 (1), 3-6. Dunn, S. & Larson, R. (1990). Design technology: Children's engineering. New York: Falmer.

Etzioni, A., & Nunn, C. (1974). The public appreciation of science in contemporary America. Daedalus, 103 (3), 191-205.

Fogarty, R. (1991). The mindful school: How to integrate the curricula. Palatine, IL: Skylight.

Frey, R. E. (1987, November). Is there a philosophy of technology? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Education Conference, Chicago, IL.

Gies, J. C. (1982). Technology: A new liberal art. AGB Reports, 24 (1), 17-20. Goodlad, J. A. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hales, J. A., & Snyder, J. F. (1981). Jackson's Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. Fairmont, WV: Fairmont State College.

Hurd, P. (1991). Why we must transform science education. Educational Leadership. 49(2), 33-35.

Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, D. S. (1988). A philosophical base for developing technology education programs. Illinois Industrial Educator, 9 (3), p. 2-5.

Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A. & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London, UK: School Examination and Assessment Council.

Kline, S. J. (1985). What is technology? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 5, 215-218.

Kranzberg, M. (1987). Technological literacy: What? Why? For whom? In E. K. Blankenbaker & A. J. Miller (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Technological Literacy: The Role of the Practical Arts and Vocational Education (pp. 1-9). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Kranzberg, M. & Pursell, C. W. (1967). Technology in western civilization: Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lauda, D. P. (1985). Technology education: A fundamental framework for improving capability in math and science. The Technology Teacher, 45 (2), 3-6.

Locatis, C. N. (1988). Notes on the nature of technology. The Technology Teacher, 47 (7), 3-6.

Lux, D. G. (1983, April). Science & technology: A new alliance. A paper presented at the American Industrial Arts Association Annual Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Miller, J.D., Suchner, R. W., & Voelker, A. V. (1980). Citizenship in the age of science. New York: Pergamon Press.

Mitcham, C. (1980). Philosophy of technology. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), A guide to the culture of science, technology, and medicine (pp. 282-363). New York: Free Press.

Murry, R. (Ed.) (1990). Managing design & technology in the national curriculum: A co-ordinated approach. Oxford, UK: Heinemann Educational.

Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.: Author. National Research Council (1996).

National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century. (A Report to the American People and the National Science Board). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

Palmer, J. M. (1995). Interdisciplinary curriculum - Again. In Beane, J. A. (Ed.), Toward a Coherent Curriculum (pp 55-61), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pate, P. E. , McGinnis, K. & Homestead, E. (1995). Creating coherence through curriculum integration. In Beane, J. A. (Ed.), Toward a Coherent Curriculum (pp 62-70), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1989). A rationale for and the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education. Science Education, 73(5), 523-534.

Roy, R. (1986). Technological literacy--Clarifying the concept and its relation to STS. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 6, 131-137.

Roy, R. (1989). Natural allies - STS and technology education. The Technology Teacher, 48 (4), 13-17.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Rethinking the science curriculum. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Content of the curriculum: 1988 ASCD yearbook (pp. 75-90). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schauble, L., Klopfer, L.E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882.

Selby, C. C. (1986). Technological literacy: A national imperative and benefit. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 6, 145-151.

Shamos, M. H. (1982). Science for everyone? New York Education Quarterly, 13(4), 2-10.

Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Skolimowski, H. (1970). Extensions of technology: From utopia to reality. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual American Industrial Arts Association Conference (pp. 24-36). Washington, DC: American Industrial Arts Association.

Staudenmaire, S. J. (1989). Technology's storytellers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Swyt, D. A. (1987). An agenda for progress in technology education: A personal view. The Technology Teacher. 47 (1), 3-8. Technology Education Advisory Council. (1988). Technology: A national imperative. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Todd, D. & Hutchinson, P. (1991). Design and technology: Good practice and a new paradigm. TIES, p. 5-10.

Todd, R. D. (1990). The teaching and learning environment: Designing instruction via the technological method. The Technology Teacher, 50(3), p. 3-7.

Todd, R. (1994). Project Update: Design and technology for elementary education. TIES, Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.

Wiens, A. E. (1985). Technology and the liberal arts. The Technology Teacher, 45 (2), 13-14.

Welty, K., Valenzuela, S., Brearley, D., Ezell, D., Matthews, S., McGirr, B., Rossman, P., Sharp, R. & Vincent, F. (1992, July) Thoughts on design. An unpublished paper written for Project 2061, Summer Institute at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1), 200-214.