TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN FINLAND – CRAFT, CREATIVITY, TEXTBOOKS OR TECHNOLOGY

Abstract

Changes in the economy, nature, production and society together with increasing scientific and technological knowledge make demands of transforming school teaching in the field of technology education. This article analyses current trends in Finnish technology education. The aim of the article is briefly to explore the integration between science - technology - and traditional craft education in Finland. Finnish technology education can be characterized as the design approach that has evolved from the craft oriented tradition. Additionally, it involves many elements of computer controlling and electronic principles. Thanks to Finnish industry and their interest groups there are some signs of strengthening in technology education. But still much of the learning is based on traditional craft education focused on production skills. Approaches that are now dominant in craft education do not prepare students to meet the challenges of modern technology and working life.

Keywords

• technology education
• craft education
• science education
• creative problem solving

References

1. Arons, A. (1997) Teaching Introductory Physics, New York: John Wiley and Sons Autio, O. (1997) Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien kehittyminen peruskoulussa [Student's development in technical abilities in Finnish comprehensive school], Research Reports No. 117. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education. Autio, O. 2013. Oppilaiden teknologiset valmiudet – vertailu vuoteen 1993 [Students’technical abilities - a comparison to year 1993], Kasvatus 44 (4), 367-380. Autio, O. & Lavonen, J. (2005) Defining a Process in a Creative and Co-operative Technology Education Course. Journal on School Educational Technology 1 (2), 57-65. Blomdahl, E. & Rogala, W. (2008). Technology in Compulsory School – Why? What? How? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(1), 19–28. Dakers, J. (2005). The Hegemonic Behaviorist Cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15 (2), 111-126. De Luca, V. W. (1993) Survey of Technology Problem-Solving Activities. The Technology Teacher, 51(5), 26-30. Dooley, C. (1997). Problem-centered learning experiences: Exploring past, present and future perspectives. Roeper Review, 19(4), 192–196. Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching Children to Think. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. Framework Curriculum Guidelines (2004). Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Gilbert, J. & Boulter, C. (2000). Developing Models in Science Education. Dodrecht: Kluwer. Ginns, I. S; Norton, S. J & McRobbie, C. J. 2005. Adding Value to the Teaching and Learning of Design and Technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 47-60. Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich Environments for Active Learning. In R. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. A Project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 665–691). London: Prentice Hall International. Hill, J. R. (1999). Teaching Technology: Implementing a Problem-centered, Activity-based Approach. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 261–280. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). 2007. Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Järvinen, E.M., Lindh, M. and Sääskilahti, E. (2000). Planning a New Technology Education Center in Finland: An Investigation of the Need for Systematic In-Service Training Activities on Technology Education. A paper presented at the PATT-10 Conference in Salt Lake City, 6th -8th April, 2000. Lavonen, J., Autio, O. & Meisalo,V. (2004) Creative and Collaborative Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Case Study in Primary School Teacher Education. Journal of Technology Studies 30 (2), 107-115. Lawson, B. (1983). How Designers Think. London: The Architectural Press. Lee, L. S. (1996). Problem-solving as Intent and Content of Technology Education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Technology Education Association (58th, Phoenix, AZ, March 31-April 2, 1996). ERIC ED391959. Michael, M. (2007). How to Understand Mundane Technology: New Ways of Thinking about Human-Technology Relations. In J. R. Dakers (ed.) Defining Technological Literacy. Towards an Epistemological Framework (49-63). Palgrave Macmillan. Mitcham, C. & Holbrook, J. B. (2007). Understanding Technological Design. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.) Defining Technological Literacy. Towards an Epistemological Framework. (pp.105-120). Palgrave Macmillan. National Board of Education (1994) Framework curriculum for the comprehensive school (in Finland), Helsinki: State Printing Press and National Board of Education Norman, D. 1993. Things that makes us smart. New York: Addison-Wesley. Parikka, M. & Rasinen, A. 2009. Teknologiakasvatus tutkimuskohteena [Technology education as a research subject]. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino. Resnick, L. (1986). Learning in School and out. Educational Researcher 16(9), 13–20. Sellwood, P. A. (1991). The Investigative Learning Process. The Journal of Design & Technology Teaching 24(1), 4–12. Silverman, S. & Pritchard, A. (1996). Building Their Future: Girls and Technology Education in Connecticut, Journal of Technology Education 7(2), 41-54. Stables, K. (2009). Educating for Environmental Sustainability and Educating for Creativity; Actively Compatible or Missed Opportunities? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 199-219. Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based Preferences toward Technology Education Content, Activities, and Instructional Methods, Journal of Technology Education 16 (2), 55-71. Williams, A., & Williams, J. (1997). Problem based learning: An appropriate methodology for technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(1), 91-103. Wu, T.F., Custer, R.L., and Dyrenfurth M.J. (1996) Technological and Personal Problem Solving Styles: Is there a Difference? Journal of Technology Education, 7(2). Zeisel, J. (1995). Inquiry by Design . Tools for environment - behaviour research. Cambridge University Press.