Towards a Transformative Epistemology of Technology Education

Technology Education offers an authentic and invaluable range of skills, knowledge, capabilities, contexts and ways of thinking for learners in the 21^st century. However, it is recognised that it occupies a comparatively less defined and more fragile curricular position than associated, but longer established, subjects such as Mathematics and Science. While recognising that no single factor lies behind such a condition, this paper draws upon thinking in the philosophy of technology, technology education and the ontology of artefacts to argue that transformation may be considered as an epistemic source for technology in a similar way to ‘proof’ within Mathematics and ‘interpretation’ within Science. Encapsulating technology's intimate relationship with materials, it is ultimately argued that the transformation of a technical artefact from an ill‐defined into a well‐defined ontological state constitutes a prime source of technological knowledge for pupils. Moreover, it provides an alternative route into further consideration about the nature of the domain, epistemology and curricular identity of the subject.     

How Pupils Can be Helped to Develop Socially and Emotionally in Science Lessons

In this article, the authors argue that secondary school academic subjects should integrate elements of pastoral work into their teaching through the use of collaborative group work. Pupils who are given the opportunity to develop emotionally and socially are more likely to understand each other, which can lead to a reduction of conflict in the classroom. Social and emotional development can be facilitated in normal school lessons, such as science, through structured group work. The evidence shows that pupils do improve their communication and understanding of other pupils in the class, developing their emotional literacy. Further investigation indicates that benefits are sustained and that the class is more cohesive and mutually supportive.     

The poverty of curriculum theory: a critique of Wraga and Hlebowitsh

This paper offers a critique of a paper by Wraga and Hlebowitsh in the Journal of Curriculum Studies (2003) for narrowness of vision, repetition of already‐familiar material, irrelevance, a retreat into the academy, reductionism, and ultimate sterility as an approach to moving forward the fields of curriculum theory and development. Curriculum discourse should be marked by richness, diversity, discordant voices, fecundity, multiple rationalities, and theories, and should be touched by humanity and practicality in a hundred thousand contexts. To replace outworn but convenient labels and to advance the field, curriculum theory must catch the untidy but authentic lived experiences of curricularists of every hue, draw on emergent disciplines outside education, and touch major issues in everyday life.