Technology, Technology Education, and Teacher Education: A Rose By Any Other Name? Tom Puk Ontario Ministry of education Abstract The word "technology" is used by different groups to mean different things. However, there is a commonality among all usages of the word and this must be reclaimed to empower the learner in making meaning of a world that is not as cryptic as we have allowed it to appear. technology is currently being described as "knowledge- based knowhow". Under the umbrella of technology education, both high- tech and low-tech forms of technology are explored in all disciplines through three curriculum foci: i) human processes, ii) physical products, and iii) environmental ecosystems. Each of these foci are in turn examined using a set of generic central technology concepts of structures, structural arrangement, materials, fabrication, mechanisms, energy and power, control, systems and the aesthetic. Based on the postulate that the nature of teacher education will change in that instruction will require a more interdisciplinary approach to subject- matter, a growth sequence for preservice and inservice training is provided. Traditional Assumptions We can use the word "technology" to create many diverse images. In some educational contexts, the term has come to be associated with physical products used in communications such as the computer. In the workplace, the more traditional understanding has seen technology being equated with industrial processes. However, it is the position of this paper that there is a much more important point to be made of all this; i.e., that the term technology has a much more comprehensive role to play in education. In both of the more common ways we use the term technology (i.e., as educational technology or as industrial processes), the assumption is that defining the term is unnecessary because we all know what it means. In the case of technology as computers, the assumption is that technology is any kind of machine that can be used to augment the teaching/learning process. Thus, other forms of technology such as computer-linked projection panels and laser discs are considered to be in the same category. In industrial processes, machines or tools such as the CAD/CAM system or robotics are considered to be forms of technology. Some serious limitations exit to our usage of this term in education. These limitations have important implications for teacher education. Problems With Our Traditional Assumptions By assuming that technology is either computers or other kinds of complex machines, we are teaching people that technology is "high-tech" and that all "high-tech" development must be good. There are several limitations to this assumption: 1) The narrow focus on the usage of high-tech leaves the user dependent upon the technologically elite to decide what is valuable. Leaving the responsibility for the development of technology to an elite few encourages dependency by the majority. 2) High-tech products are seen to be complex machines that are beyond the understanding of most citizens. If our understanding of technology remains cloudy due to its perceived complexity, it may cause citizens to shrug their shoulders and leave it to others to solve their every day problems. This technological dependency due to the perceived inexplicable nature of technology is insidious in that there is an unseen transference to other contexts. 3) Although the development of "high-tech" may have improved the material world of some, this has not necessarily translated into a corresponding growth in personal happiness and contentment (i.e., the self-actualized person"), in that group of people nor, more importantly, in the majority of citizens. 4) Too often technology has been responsible for the creation of inhospitable environments. Our uncritical willingness to accept complex machines as being our personal saviors has in the past led to the development of high-tech machines simply because we are capable of producing them without a corresponding responsibility to the environment. Expanding Our Definition To say that a computer is a technology does not really define technology. A computer is only one example of a technology. Thus, we must ask ourselves what computers, lasers, and robotics have in common that makes them all forms of technology. Currently, the term technology is being more generically equated to "knowledge-based know how." Boulding has described technology as "ways of doing things" (Franklin, 1991, p.15). Franklin has described technology as being "both the structure and the act of structuring" (p.14). The author has defined technology as being a "systematic method of achieving a practical purpose" (Puk, 1991, p.1). A computer is both a structure and used in the act of structuring products. It is systematic in that it contains mechanisms that follow a set of rules that are repeated over and over again. We can now use this more comprehensive meaning of technology to understand the similarities among computers, lasers, and robotics. Technology Education: The Curriculum Emphases of Human Processes, Physical Products and Environmental Ecosystems No doubt the more comprehensive meaning of the term technology will be understandable to most in terms of physical products. However, human processes such as designing, voting, and group learning procedures also can be analyzed with our definition. Any formal procedure has a set of systematic rules or steps to follow and is used to accomplish specific tasks. Processes and products are also used to create and change environmental ecosystems (for example, the liming of lakes to neutralize acid rain). These are all forms of technology. Generic Knowledge Concepts and Their Role in Teacher Education Much work has occurred over the past decade in identifying and developing generic or interdisciplinary skills; that is, skills that are not specific to a subject-matter or context. Although not as much has been said about generic knowledge concepts, the author has previously suggested some direction in applying the same notion of transferability of skills to the transferability of knowledge structures (Puk, 1990). Since that time, a set of generic, central technology concepts (Puk, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c) has been identified and is beginning to be used in practice. Central Technology Concepts If we were to reflect on what various technologies have in common, we would probably agree that each is an example of a structure, each has a structural arrangement, each is fabricated (made, constructed, manufactured, etc.,) using various kinds of materials, each is composed of mechanisms that allow the larger structure to work, each has a source of power and type of energy, each has its form of control, each is part of a larger system (or is made of smaller systems) and each has its aesthetic qualities. The Taxonomy of technology Curriculum Concepts (Puk, 1991b,1991c) found in figure 1 is a result of combining these central concepts with the curriculum emphases. Students must be taught to use these concepts and curriculum emphases in all disciplines in order to identify the commonalities between diverse kinds of technologies. They then must be taught the mechanisms (i.e., the teaching/learning procedures) that empower them to further explore these technologies using "meta- explorations" (Puk, 1991c). In particular, students must be taught how to develop conceptual models that allow them to understand what is occurring within a complex technology. "Often it is the structural arrangement of the physical product or human process which creates this unfathomable nature of technology. A learner can not observe the inner workings of a computer because the computer has an external "skin" that prevents observation. [However, even if we go beyond the casing of the computer, for example, there are no moving, perceptual parts]. Much of what does occur in the internal workings of a high- tech machine does so at the level of the atom or even at the sub-atomic level". (Puk, 1991d, p.31) The only way to make the invisible visible in complex technologies is through the conceptual world. Preservice Training and Inservice Workshops The inclusion of technology education into teacher education will require a restructuring of mind- sets. technology education will be for all teachers in all disciplines. Thus, specific strategies must be used to bring about this integration and acceptance. Unfortunately, teacher education as conducted through universities to this point has chosen to emphasize the differences between disciplines rather than their similarities. The following growth sequence for integrating the taxonomy into teacher education would occur through a series of sessions. However, the first thing that will be required to implement this growth sequence is for those involved to value preservice training and inservice workshops as an opportunity to gather together teachers and would-be teachers representing various disciplines. 1) The first session should involve a discussion about the definition of technology, the past assumptions about technology, the limitations inherent in these assumptions, and the implications of a more comprehensive understanding of technology to teacher education. The group should attempt to get at the essence of what technologies as physical products really are (i.e., what makes a computer a technology). 2) Once the nature of the comprehensive definition of technology has been explored in regard to physical products, the conversation should be expanded to include human processes and environmental ecosystems. Teachers should attempt to identify examples of technologies that fit the definition as they apply to these other two curriculum emphases. 3) Once the more comprehensive definition is understood as it applies to all three curriculum emphases, teachers should then be shown one example of a technology that is a physical product and asked to describe what it does, how it is made, what it is made of, what powers it, what controls are involved, and what is appealing about it. In this way, teachers are beginning to identify specific examples of central concepts without yet realizing that these specific examples also have a generic application. 4) Examples of various kinds of physical technologies can then be presented in order to make comparisons with the first example. The same set of initial questions would be utilized. The next question would be, "What do these products have in common?" At this point a comparison matrix could be used to identify the commonalities. In most instances, teachers will identify labels specific to a technology rather than the central concept name. At that point, the question becomes, "Is there a generic term we could use to describe these different labels?" At this point, the more formal set of central concepts should be identified. 5) Once the group has become comfortable with the central concepts as they apply to physical products, the group should proceed to apply the central concepts to human processes and environmental ecosystems. 6) The group might then become more systematic in its analysis of central concepts and curriculum emphases as they apply to discipline-specific subject-matter. Once these central concepts have become internalized, teachers would then reflect on how these knowledge objectives (i.e., acquiring knowledge about central concepts) can be integrated with learning skills objectives. A more indepth explanation of how this would work is found in Puk (1991). Teachers of Technology in Teacher Education If the growth sequence described above were to be put into practice, it would change the nature of teacher education in that technology education by definition is not an isolated discipline. There is a technology inherent in any subject matter. Instructors at colleges of education will require the expertise to visualize the generic knowledge and skills patterns found in any subject matter. These people might be utilized to complement existing discipline-specific courses by working within those courses or as instructors of interdisciplinary-focused courses. In the former example, the focus would be on discipline specific subject matter augmented by generic technology concepts and learning skills while in the former the emphasis would be on generic technology concepts and learning skills brought to bear on each teacher or student teacher's specialization. Conclusions The discussion began with reference to what has become a cultural problem: the unexamined assumptions involved in the usage of concepts. The term technology has become somewhat of an empty vessel to which individual agendas bring specific images. Although some might say that this is necessary for individual expression, unfortunately it is a confusing phenomenon that shackles the new learner to dependency on others. The concept of "technology" has a much more comprehensive, utilitarian role to play in education than has traditionally been the case. The generic definition of a technology being a systematic method of achieving a practical purpose serves to empower the individual in making meaning in what must appear to be a world of disconnected parts. The notion of a generic set of central concepts that can be used to understand technology as it is found in physical products, human processes and environmental ecosystems is appealing in that it provides a mechanism to derive meaning in diverse forms of technology. There should be an interdisciplinary emphasis placed on technology education in teacher education and this restructuring will have an impact on the expertise required from those who teach teachers. References Franklin, U. (1990). The real world of technology. Toronto: CBC Enterprises. Puk, T.G. (1991a). The restructuring of technology education: Preparing for the 21st century. Thunder By, ONT: Ontario Ministry of education. Puk, T.G. (1991b). Design processes curriculum guideline (draft). Toronto, ONT: Ontario Ministry of education. Puk, T.G. (1991c). Overview of technology education: Human processes, physical processes, and environmental ecosystems. Toronto, ONT: Ontario Ministry of education. Puk, T.G. (1991d). A macro framework for the development of technology education: Human processes, physical products, and environmental ecosystems. Thunder Bay, ONT: Ontario Ministry of education. Dr. Tom Puk is an education officer with the Ontario Ministry of education, Box 5000, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7C 5G6, fax 807 475-1550. .