is it design or is it inquiry?: exploring technology research in a filipino school setting

8/12/2019 IS IT DESIGN OR IS IT INQUIRY?: EXPLORING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN A FILIPINO SCHOOL SETTING

1/212

IS IT DESIGN OR IS IT INQUIRY?: E X P L O R I N G T E C H N O L O G Y R E S E A R C HIN AFILIPINO SCHOOL SETTING

J E S S A M Y NM A R IEO L IV A R E S Y A Z O N

Bachelor of Science in Biology, The University of the Philippines, 1981Master of Science in Biology, The University of the Philippines, 1989

A THESISS U B M I T T E D INP A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OFT H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR TH ED E G R E E OFD O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y

inT H E F A C U L T Y OF E D U C A T I O N

(DepartmentofCurriculumStudies)


2/212

A B S T R A C T

M ycasestudy exploredF i l i p i nosecondarystudents'and teachers' experiences withtechnology research, project-based pedagogy. The study was conducted to examine thenatureo faTechnology Research(TR) Curriculum,and how it mediates non-Westernstudents'learning,and interest in technology-based careers.

The context for my study isPhilippineScienceH i g hSchool's(PSHS)TR programwhereinstudentsoutline a proposal, design an experiment or a device, and implement theirdesign toaddressa realworldproblem. M ydata sources included semi-structured interviews of27studentsand 2 teachers; participant observations ofclassroomand group activities,teacher-

studentconsultations, and Science-TechnologyFairpresentations; TRcurriculum documents;and researcherjournallogs.

M yexamination ofcurriculumdocuments revealedthatsince the 1960s, thePhilippinegovernment has implemented specialized educational programs, such as the P S H SScience/TechnologyStreaming and TR programs, to support F i l i p i noyouth interested inscience and technology courses and careers. Data analyses showedthatthe T R program


3/212

mediatedstudentlearning, and careerdecision-making.M y research findingssuggestthatpresentnotions ofscientific inquiry,and

technologicaldesign need to be re-examined;thatintegrated science-technology schoolprograms must be implemented toenhance students'academic and vocational knowledge andskil ls;andthatcareer direction interventions shouldaddresspersonal and socio-cultural factors

other thanstudentinterest and aptitude.M ystudy provides strong evidencethattechnology research pedagogy can change

teaching-learning approaches in aF i l ip inoclassroom. This study showedthatacademic-vocational,technology-enriched science curriculumcouldbe effectively designed to help equip

studentsto become criticalthinkers and leaders in the 21st century.


4/212


5/212

DataSourcesand CollectionTechniques 57Interviews ; . 58Observations : 61Documents 63

Data Construction, Interpretation and Analysis .. 64DataConstruction andAnalysis 65DataVerification 67

T H E R E S E A R C H E R AS I N / O U T S I D E R 68EpistemologicalIssuesRaised in Conducting a CaseStudy 69EthicalIssuesin ConductingResearchas an In/Outsider 71Addressing the Epistemological and EthicalIssues 73Reflectionson my Role as Researcher-Participant Observer 73

Reflectionson the Interview Strategies 76Increasing Access to Research Participants 76

AddressingIssuesofTrustworthinessin QualitativeResearch 78C H A P T E R 4: S C I E N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G Y E D U C A T I O N I N T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

82T H E P H I L I P P I N E H I S T O R I C A L C O N T E X T 82T H E F I L I P I N O P E O P L E 84

TheFilipino Family 85Respectfor Elders and People in Authority 86

G E N E R A L E D U C A T I O N I N T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 88S C I E N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G Y E D U C A T I O N I N T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 92

The Historical Perspective 9 2Philippine ScienceandTechnologyEducation for NationalDevelopment 95

D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E P S H S T E C H N O L O G Y - E N R I C H E D S C I E N C E P R O G R A M : 99A M O V E T O W A R D S A P R A C T I C A L C U R R I C U L U M 99


6/212

NurturingHigher Order Thinking Skills 138Learning toIntegrateand Apply Knowledge 140ValuingAlternative Pedagogical Practices 141

T E C H N O L O G Y R E S E A R C H C U R R I C U L U M : IS ITT E C H N O L O G I C A L D E S I G N ? 147D O E S T H E S T R E A M I N G P R O G R A M P R E P A R E S T U D E N T S F O R S C I E N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G YC A R E E R S ? 151

Choosing the TechnologyStream 152Interestin "Techy" Topics 152PedagogicalPreference 154Socialization 156Prestige and Challenge 156The 'Easy' Stream 158

Students'Career Goals 159Determiners of Student Career-DecisionM a k in g 160Student Career Options and theMeritsofScience-TechnologyStreaming 165

C H A P T E R6: S U M M A R Y CONCLUSIONS,ANDF U T U R E R E S E A R C H 169S U M M A R Y 170I M P L I C A T I O N S OFT H E R E S E A R C H S T U D Y F I N D I N G S 176R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R F U R T H E R R E S E A R C H 179C O N C L U S I O N S 180F I N A L C O M M E N T S 181

Bibliography 182AppendixA.InterviewQuestions 197AppendixB. A Comparison of PSHS and OtherTypesof Public HighSchoolsin the


7/212

LISTOF TABLES

Table 1.L i s tof Student Participants and TheirProfiles 55Table2. P S H STechnology-EnrichedScienceCurriculum 105

Table3. Sample group activities and consultations inJuana'sclass 125Table4. Reasons WhyStudentsChose theTechnologyRather than the Science Stream 153Table5. Undergraduate Degree Programs in theUniversityof thePhilippinesTaken by P S H S2002 Graduates 161Table6. Top 5 Undergraduate Degree ProgramsStudentsChose to E n r o lin theUniversityofthePhilippines 167


8/212

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Research activities andcasestudytimeline 65Figure 2. Science/ Technology Research 2course requirements 112Figure 3. Group 10 working ongas-detecting pellets 116Figure 4. Studentsingroup6 molding the chitosanbeads 119Figure 5. Science and Technology Fa i ractivities 133


9/212

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS,INSTITUTIONSANDPROGRAMSAsianDevelopmentBank and World BankCommissionon Higher Educationmanagespublic and private post-secondary institutions in thePhilippinesDepartmentof Education, Culture andSports- plans, directs andmanagesthe basic education programs and projects in thePhilippinesDepartmentofScienceandTechnologyplans, directs andmanagesthe science and technology programs and projectsinthePhilippinesto help support national developmentScienceEducation Instituteof theDepartmentofScienceandTechnology

- established toassessand upgradePhilippinescience and technologyeducation, and to implement education programs and projects thatwouldhelpmeetthe science and technology workforceneedsof the country

EngineeringandScienceEducationProject- a 1994 SEI-funded project thatconverted 110 existing schools across thePhilippinesinto science & technology-oriented high schools (also callednode or network schools).

PSHS - PhilippineScienceHighSchool

ADB-WBC H E D

DECS

DOST

DOST-SEI


10/212

STRProgram - Science/Technology ResearchProgram- a two-year programwithinthe P S H S curriculumwhereinstudentswork ingroups us they undertake a scientific or a technological research project thataddressesa problem in the community or the workplace.

S/TStreamingProgram - ScienceorTechnologyStreamingProgram- distinguishes between a science or a technology specialization for P S H S

students.STAND ScienceandTechnologyAgendaforNationalDevelopment

aseries ofstrategiesinitiated by the D O S Tin 1993 to help strengthenPhilippinescience and technology and attain newlyindustrializedcountry-statusby 2000

S T C C ScienceandTechnologyCoordinating Councilas a multi-sectorcouncil withrepresentatives from the governmentdepartments, business, industry and education, it is said to be the highestgoverningbody for science and technologypoliciesin thePhilippines

STEP ScienceandTechnologyEducation Plana1993 education master plan managed and funded by the SEIthataimed toaddressthe problems inPhilippinescience and technology education throughprojects and programs thattargettheteacher,the learner and the deliverymode

Science&Technology-OrientedHighSchools(alsocalled NodeorNetworkSchools)refers to 110 existing secondary schools where the government implementedascience and technology-oriented curriculum in one or two classes pergrade


11/212

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T SMaramingsalamat I thank thefollowingfor their invaluableassistanceand support in thecompletiono fthisproject:

- Dr.Jolie A . Mayer-Smith,my program and thesis advisor, for her encouragement,support and advice.D r.P.JamesGaskelland Dr . L indaPeterat,my thesis committee members, for theirguidance and encouragement.Students,teachers,and school administrators at thePhilippineScienceH i g hSchoolwhoparticipated in this study.TheP S H SFoundation, Inc., under the headship ofD r.Cleofe M . Bacungan, and theP S H SClass 1977 who provided funding for this research project.D r. M a r yLeahDeZwart who read countless drafts o fthis thesis, and provided valuableedits, feedback and encouragement.Friends and colleagues in the C U S TPalace for their companionship anduplifting


12/212

C H A P T E R O N EB A C K G R O U N D O FT H E S T U D Y

Thisresearch study inspects thenatureofaTechnology ResearchCurriculumthataimstoenhanceF i l ip inostudents'interest in technology-related careers. This study also investigatessecondary students'experiences with and perspectives on technology-oriented researchpedagogy as defined in aF i l ip inosetting. In exploring a Technology ResearchCurriculum,Iexamine assumptions thatinform curriculum initiatives, and the dynamics o fcurriculum reformimplementation. I alsoseekto promote adeeperunderstanding o fthe notion of technology-oriented research and its impact on enhancing or impedingstudentlearning.

M y interest in studying Technology Research teaching and learning in a non-Westerncontextstemsfrom my teaching experience in thePhilippineScienceH i g h School( P S H S ) ,asystem of government schools forstudentswith mathematics, technology and science aptitude.A s schools for the intellectually gifted F i l ip inoyouth, the P S H SSystem aims to select, developandprepareits scholars for science and technology-based careers,to contribute to the country's


13/212

educational models, school administrators implemented their reform agenda based on theassumptions thata technology-enriched sciencecurriculum wouldenhance studentlearning andinterest in science and technology. Althoughtheseassumptions about technology-basedlearninghave not been studied, the entire "Western-based" program was used as a template forother P S H S campuses and science high schools in thePhilippines. Despite the investment oftime and money in the reform, the anticipated effect on enhancing thePhilippinescience andtechnology workforce remains unexamined. These issues prompted me to explore the rationaleand the goals o fthe P S H Scurriculumreform programvis-a-visthe participants' classroomexperiences and thestudents'career goals. Specifically,I set out to investigate the influence of

curriculumchanges onstudents'and teachers' experiences in oneaspectof the educationalreform,namely, the Technology Research Program. I was interested in studying how thetechnology design approachtaughtwithina project-based, research course mediates studentlearningin science and technology. This educational approach has not been previouslyexamined in aF i l ip ino context. Through my examinationo fthe P S H STechnology Program, I


14/212

and lessons connected tostudents'experiences in the home, community or future workenvironments provide authentic contexts where learning can occur. Supporters o fthiscontextual approacharguethatstudentslearnbetterand more when providedwithpracticalapplications for the concepts and theories they study (Berryman, 1993; Steinberg, 1998).Educators further maintainthat theseauthentic, open-ended learning contexts increasestudentautonomy, motivation and interest in learning(Krajcik, et al. ,2003).

Intheareaof science education, the practical contexts for learning science concepts andskillshave often been closelylinkedwithtechnology education (Fensham & Gardner, 1994;Layton, 1984, 1993b; M c G i n n&Roth,1999;Roth,2001; Seiler, et al. , 2001). The hands-on

natureo ftechnology design activities and their practical connections to science concepts haveledto their integration into science curricula in the hope o fpromoting science and technologyliteracyand learning by doing(Layton, 1993b). Science and technologyeducatorsandresearchersclaimthatpedagogical practices associated withtechnology research benefitstudents,asthesepracticesenhancethe development ofstudents'higher order thinking and


15/212

Purposeof theStudy

M ypurpose in conducting this research study is to explore the characteristics ofatechnology-enriched science curriculum as defined in theory and experienced in practice in aF i l i p i n o setting. This study investigates an implementedcurriculum initiativeby examining theassumptions thathave informed its development and by analyzing the practices ofteachersand

studentsin one component of thecurriculum,the Technology Research Program.A second purpose ofthisstudy is to describe and analyzestudents'experienceswithand

viewson teaching and learning in a Technology Research program tobetterunderstand how theWestern notion oftechnology-based researchfacilitates or constrains non-Westernstudents'science and technologylearning. The study also aims to examine how participation in atechnology-based sciencecurriculuminfluencesstudents'interest and motivation toenteruniversityprograms andcareersin science and technology.

ResearchQuestions


16/212

2. Whatare Filipino students' experiences withand viewson Technology Researchpedagogy?Thisquestion examines the pedagogical practices o fTechnologyResearchstudentsandteachersas I observed them in the classroom and asstudentsreported in their interviews.

3. How doesparticipation in a technology-enriched science curriculum influence Filipinostudents' interest in science and technology-oriented careers?Thisquestion investigates the students' academic and career choices anddecision-makingpractices in relation to their experiences in the technology-oriented science program.

Research MethodsToinvestigatethesequestions, I conducted a naturalistic case study of a Technology

ResearchCurriculumin thePhilippines fromDecember 2001 to August 2002. I examinedcurriculumdocuments and interviewed school administrators andteachersto explore the


17/212

usingmethods suggested byL i n c o l nand Guba (1985) and byM i le sand Huberman (1994) tosearch for common patterns. I combined interview data, classroom observations, researcherjournalandcurriculumdocuments to triangulate my findings. I present my study findings asemergent themesand insights using vignettes and interview excerpts to characterize theclassroominteractions and practices in theTechnologyResearch Program.

Significanceof the Study

M ystudy of aTechnologyResearchCurriculumin aF i l ip inosetting is timely andrelevant. First,the study contributes to thegrowingbodyo fknowledgeregarding the impact oftechnology-oriented,project-based learning strategies on science and technology teaching andlearning. Findingsfrom this study provide practitioners and education researchers withapictureo fhowtechnology design-based research is practiced in anA s ia ncontext. The findingsalso contribute to an enhanced understanding o fthe role of a technology research curriculuminpromotingstudent learning and interest in science and technology. Educationresearchers oftechnologicaldesign and o fproject-based learning have advocatedtheselearning strategies as


18/212

multiculturalclassrooms.Lastly,a studythatexamines effective science and technologycurriculaiscriticalfor

developingcountries where science and technology education are deemed to playpivotalrolesinthe nation's economy (see e.g.,Brown-Acquaye,2001; Sapnu, 1997), yet funds for alleducational programs are severelylimited. W i t htime and money invested in the developmentand implementation of the technology-enriched sciencecurriculum,it is prudent toassesstheprogram's effectiveness in achieving its goals. Findingsfromthis study caninform F i l ip inoeducation leaders andcurriculumdevelopers on prospective directions for technology-basedscience programs,thatis, whether such programs should be implemented in schools

nationwide, redesigned for further improvement or droppedfrom thecurriculum. In a broadereducational context, datafrom this study can provide future curriculumdevelopers andreformers withpossible models for (re)designingTechnologyResearchcurriculaandaddressing issues oncurriculumreform implementation.

Organization of the Thesis


19/212

implemented in Western settings.Chapter Three of this thesis is a description of the research methodology I employed in

this naturalisticcasestudy. I characterize the setting and context of thePhilippineScienceH i g h School,the F i l ip inoschool where the study was conducted, andpresenttheteachersandstudentswho participated in the research. I outline the methods I used in thecasestudy.Lastly,Iaddressthe issues around the conduct of a qualitative research study in a school whereIam both an insider and an outsider.

InChapter Four of this thesis, I provide thereaderwithahistoricaland asocialperspective o f science and technology education in the Philippines. I first describe the

Philippinehistoricalandsocialcontexts. Then, Ipresentan overviewo fthe general, and thescience and technology educational system in thePhilippines. F ina l l y ,Itracethe developmento fthe P S H STechnology-EnrichedScienceCurriculum, whichis the focus o fmy study.

Chapter F i v eof the dissertation is a report on my research study findings and analyses.First,I characterize the classroom setting, thestudents'activities, and the teaching styles in the


20/212

C H A P T E RTWOR E V I E WOFR E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E

Inthischapter,I review the literature on vocational education thatinforms my study ofaTeclinologyResearch Curriculumdesigned toencourageF i l ip i n ostudentstoentertechnology-related careers. I also examine the literature on scientific inquiry and on technologydesign learning practices tobetterunderstandF i l ip inoteachers'andstudents'practices in andexperiences with Technology Research. I considerthesetwo learningapproaches separately.First,I discuss the historicalcontextsand assumptions underpinning their use in the classroomas advocated by school science and technology reforms of thepast45 years. Second, I define

and characterize scientific inquiry and technology design based on national schoolstandardsand literacy documents. Last, I explore empiricalstudieso fboth learningstrategiesaspracticed in the classroom.

ScienceandTechnologyEducationalReforms:AnOverview

In this age of automation, spacetravel, and medical innovation on the one hand, and


21/212

Inanswer to perceived scientific and technologicalneedso f the nation, government,corporate and industry leaders have recommended a number of educational programs andreforms at various times in the history ofschooling. For example, the Sputnik era moved theAmerican government to callfor more rigorous science, technology and mathematics educationto counter the Soviet Union's perceived scientific and technologicaledge(Fensham, 1992;Hurd, 1995). Educatorsnotethatconcerns about the cold war triggered the government'sundue emphasis on "learning to become scientists" atthatperiod in NorthAmericaneducational history(Hurd, 1969; Spring, 1976). In the more recentpast,legislation through the1990 PerkinsVocationalEducation andA p p l ie dTechnologyA c tand the 1994 School-to-WorkOpportunities Act promoted support for vocational education toaddressindustry's technicalworkforceneeds. These government legislations have spawned various school programsexploringthe integration ofvocationalwithacademic education (see e.g., National School-to-WorkOpportunities Office, 1998).

Other countries outside of the U . S . introducedsimilarreforms in science and technology


22/212

perceivedneedsin the labor market (Layton, 1995). Canadian government and educationleaders implementedsimilarcurricular changes in response to calls for reform from industryand business sectors (see Gaskell& Hepburn, 1997; Wideen, 1996). Beginningin the late1950s,Philippineeducators and government officialshave also established science andtechnology curricula and schools to parallel the educational changes occurring in the Westernworld. I provide more details about thehistoricalcontext ofPhilippinescience education inChapter 4.

Curricularreforms in science and in technology came in two major periods ofcurriculumrestructuring, between the 1950s to 1960s era, and the 1980s to 1990s1 to the

presentperiod. These waves o freforms were premised on varying assumptions and fueled bydifferent advocacies. Scientists and government leaders ralliedbehind the early reforms of the1950s to 1960s and advocated for a science program for would-be scientists and engineers(Duschl, 1990;Hurd, 1969). Students were to learn scientific inquiry as practiced by scientists.

Scienceprograms also incorporated some technology-based activities toenhance students'


23/212

sought to integrate vocational and academic goals, and toenhancescientific and technologicalliteracyfor allstudents.

Inthe next section, I explore some o fthe assumptions underpinning reform initiatives inscience and technology education in thepast45 years as educational goals progressed from"learningto become scientists and engineers" to "science and technology learning for a l l " . Ianalyze how the focus on scientificinquirylearning and on technology design evolvedwithintheseeducational reforminitiatives.I also examine the rationale for introducingthesepracticesinto the science curriculum.

HistoricalContextofScienceInquiry Learning

M u c hofschoolscience teaching in the pre-Sputnik years focused on science knowledgeas acollectionof concepts and theories to be memorized and regurgitated in class discussionsand exams. Science laboratory courses likewisesupported this more conventional method ofscience instruction as laboratory activities focused on reproducing the "right" results. By the

1960s, U . S .scientists and government officials considered it important to improve education


24/212

ScienceEducation in the 1950s to 1960s: Educating Future Scientists

Inanswer to the calls for educational reform, theNationalScience Foundation in theU . S . A .funded the design and implementation ofcurriculumprograms to initiatestudentsto thescience enterprise and train them in the work of scientists(Duschl, 1990;Hurd, 1969;Marshall&Burkman, 1966). W i t hthe help of scientists and science professional groups, the Foundationconceivedsciencecurriculumprojects such as thePhysicalScience Study Committee ( P S S C ) ,SchoolMathematics Study Group( S M S G ) ,ChemicalBondApproach ( C B A ) ,ChemicalEducationMaterials Study( C H E M S )and B io l og ica lSciencesCurriculumStudy ( B S C S )(Lee,1967; Spring, 1976). The government providedteachertraining,textbooks and educationalresources toensurewide use of the redesigned sciencecurriculum withinschools. Thesecurriculaadvocated for a more student-centred approach to science learning through the"discovery"or"inquiry"approach(Duschl,1990;Hurd, 1969;Marshall&Burkman, 1966).

I fmost pre-Sputnik sciencecurriculapresented science ashistorical facts and conceptsto be memorized, the NSF-funded sciencecurriculumprojects were different inthatthey


25/212

scientificknowledge (Hurd, 1969). Educatorsnotethat thatDewey's views on "learning bydoing"(Fensham, 1992, p.792) and psychologists' beliefsthatstudentscan "learn how to learn"(Marshall&Burkman, 1966, p. 6) influenced the focus on the inquiry approach during this erainschool science reform.

Bruner(1973, cl961) referred to inquiry as the "discovery" approach and defined it as"a l lforms ofobtainingknowledge foroneself bythe use ofone'sownmind"(p. 402).Marshalland Burkman (1966) further characterized the inquiry approach as one wherein

. . . thestudentis placed on his own in a carefully contrived problematicsituation andgivenjust enough clues to enable him to have a reasonable chanceo fsolvingthe problem. He isthusforced to "discover" major sciencegeneralisations for himself as opposed to having such information revealed tohimby theteacher,(p.6)Some assumptions in the use of the approach arethatstudentsunderstand concepts

betterwhen they activelyengagein the discoveryo fthis knowledge andthatthey learn to think


26/212

to aproblem. These activities and tasks were consistentwiththe ideao fusinginquirytohighlightthe goals and practices of the scientist(Hurd,1969, 1995;Marshall&Burkman,1966).

Hurd(1969) maintainsthatthe move towards making science "interesting" throughinquirylearning was a shiftfrom the traditional teaching practice offocusingon thetechnologicalapplications and usefulness of science. Fromthe scientists' and industry leaders'pointo fview,a de-emphasis on practical applications was necessary, as they believedthatstudentsentering universities and the workforce lacked the "pure" science academicbackground needed for futurecareersas scientists (Layton,1984). These scientists perceived aneed to add rigor to school science by focusing on theinquiryprocesses, science concepts andtheir evolutionwithinthedisciplines(Fensham, 1992;Hurd,1995).

Insummary, thecurriculumreform projects of the 1950s to 1960s aimed to redefinescience education by advocating: 1) adiscipline-orientedor pure science approach; 2)inquiry-

based learning practices; and 3) an investigative approach in laboratory courses inlinewiththe


27/212

disciplines,to define science applications in realworldcontexts, and to identify technology'srolein science education (Hurd, 1997; Yee &K i r s t. 1994). Someeducatorsalso arguedthat"performingscience" through scienceinquirymay not necessarilytranslateto abetterunderstanding of science (seeDuschl, 1990;Hurd, 1995). Moreover, the process ofinquiringintoscience in the 1950s/1960s focused on investigating teacher-constructed, abstractproblemsthatstudentswereunlikelyto solve or to discover on their own without some guidance from theteacher.

Recognisingthatthe majority ofstudentsdo not opt toenterscience- or technology-related occupations, curriculum developers designed sciencecurriculain the 1980s to the 1990stocaterto theneedsofadiversestudentpopulation(Aldridge, 1992). This emphasis on"science for a l l "implieda redirection from learning science as apuredisciplineto a moregeneric understanding of science needed for day-to-day, decision-making (Rutherford &Ahlgren, 1990). Educators also agreedthatwithscience and technology's increasing influenceonthe global community, any new sciencecurriculamustaddressthesocial,economic and


28/212

educational movement initiated in the late 1970sthatfocused science pedagogy around science-technology-society(STS)contexts. This movement called for integrating knowledge from bothdisciplinesto helpstudentsresolve personal and societal issues (Bybee, 1993;Hickman,et al.,1987; Yager, 1996b; Zuga, 1996). These reform initiatives envisioned the development ofascientificallyandtechnologicallyliterate society ofindividualsfrom diverse backgrounds whocan discern and decideaboutthesociallyresponsible applications of science and technology(Eisenhart, F i n k e l&M a r io n , 1996).

The shift in science education goals during this period was also accompanied by a moveaway from theviewofscientificknowledge asdiscipline-driven,objective, and value-free, atleast among science educators. In the 1980s/1990s,educatorsand educationresearchersstartedto recognizethatscience knowledge was subjective and value-laden andthatthe scienceenterprise was socially constructed (see e.g.,Aikenhead, 1994b; Latour & Woolgar, 1986;Latour, 1987). Scienceeducatorsbegan to acknowledgethatthe "scientific method" was a

myth(seeMcComas, 1996). In addition, new understandings on what constitutes "effective"


29/212

NationalResearchC o u n c i l, 1996, 2000) continued to advocate the use ofinquiry-basedlearningpractices. However,therewas a shift away from teaching inquiry as a methodicalapproach used to "discover" scientific truths. Instead, the science curriculum documentsencouraged students'"construction of knowledge" based on their interpretation ofeventsandhuman experiences through nonlinearinquirystrategies(Duschl,1990; Yager, 1996a).Further, curriculum designers proposedthatscienceinquirypractices be used in waysthatmotivatestudentsto apply scientific-technological concepts,attitudesandcriticalthinkingstrategiesto solve problems inreal-worldcontexts, instead ofabstract ones(Hurd, 1997; Yager,1996a). Curriculumreformers also called for a shift in the "locus ofcontrol"for scienceinquiryfrom theteacher,who normally directs the inquiryactivity,to thestudentswho chooseand implement the project or experiment to investigate (Lochhead & Yager, 1996). Reformersenvisionedthatin learning to doinquiry,studentscouldacquire science skillsand knowledge;and in learning about inquiry,studentscouldgain an understanding o fhowscientists work and

produce knowledge, and thus, make informed decisions about scientific issues (Lederman &


30/212

development ofa parallelreform project through the preparation o ftheCommon Framework ofScienceLearningOutcomes(CouncilofMinistersofEducationCanada, 1997) forK - 1 2sciencestudents. These project reportsemphasize the central rolethatinquirymust play in learningscience and in achieving scientific andtechnologicalliteracy for allstudents ( A A A S , 1993;C o u n c i lofMinistersofEducationCanada, 1997;NationalResearch C o u n c i l, 1996, 2000).However,a perusal o fthe U . S .reportsreveals theabsenceofaprecisedefinition o fthe processo f scientificinquiry". Instead,the documents listand describe the activitiesassociatedwiththeinquiryprocess. For example, theNationalScienceEducationStandardsdocumentstatesthat:

Scientific inquiryrefers to the diverse ways inwhichscientists study the naturalworldand propose explanations based on the evidence derivedfrom their work.Inquiryalso refers to the activities ofstudentsinwhichthey develop knowledgeand understanding ofscientificideas, asw e l las an understanding o fhow

scientists study the naturalworld.


31/212

The A A A S Project 2061 and itssubsequentBenchmarks for Science Literacy document( A A A S , 1993), also promotes the goal ofachievingliteracy in science, mathematics andtechnology for al l studentsthrough the application ofinquirylearning practices. The A A A Scharacterizes scientificinquiryby statingthatit is more sophisticated than a laboratoryexperiment or thestepsin the "scientific method" asstudentsdevelop imagination and becomeinventivein their search for answers to their own questions.

Similarto the earlier 1950s to1960scurriculumrestructuring,theseprojects advocatethe application ofinquirylearning in the science classroom based on the assumptionthatstudents'activeengagementwithinquiry as practiced by scientists, provides effectivemeansfor learners to gain understanding and knowledge about the naturalworld. However, educatorsnotethattheabsenceof an exact definition ofor a goal for"inquirylearning" in the reform orthestandardsdocuments makes itdifficult for scienceteachersto apply the intended curriculumintheir classrooms (seeAnderson,2002; Fensham, 1992; Lederman &F l i c k ,2002;Welch,

Klopfer,Aikenhead,&Robinson, 1981).2 For example, Anderson (2002)notesthatthe


32/212

were few reports on exemplars ofgoodinquirypractices in science classrooms asteachersinterpret the intendedcurriculumin different ways.

Whatexactly is"scientific inquiry"or"inquiry learning"? TheOxford EnglishDictionary (1989) defines inquiryas "a question, a query; a course ofinquiry;the action ofseeking, especially (not always) for truth, knowledge, or information concerning something;search, research, investigation". Compared to theAmericansciencestandardsand literacyreports, the CanadianCommon Framework of Science LearningOutcomesK-12 (CouncilofMinistersofEducationCanada, 1997) provides a more straight-forwarddefinitionofscientificinquiryas the process of "seeking answers to questions through experimentation and research"(p. 14). W i t hthesedefinitions and theinquirypractices listed in thestandardsand literacydocuments as a guide, I now examine whatempiricalresearch reveals aboutstudents'andteachers' involvementwithinquirylearning as practiced in the science classroom.

Inquiry Learning inPractice

M y in i t ialliteraturesearchesforinquirypractices in science classrooms revealed a


33/212

2003;Roth &Bowen,1995), community-based (Donahue, L e w i s,Price,& Schmidt, 1998) ortechnology-mediated ( L i n n , Slotta, & Baumgartner, 2000; White & Frederiksen, 2000),teacher-researchershave also describedtheseapproaches asexhibitingaspectsofinquirylearning. For some o ftheseresearch practitioners,inquiryrefers to the simple task ofexploringanswers to questions on a worksheet. For others, it indicates the more complex and lengthyprocess of investigating andsolvinga problem in the community. Otherresearchers furthercomplicate the multiple meanings for the inquiry label bydistinguishingbetween anopeninquiryapproach, wherein theteacherallowsstudentsto explore science activities on their own,and aguided inquiryapproach, wherein theteacherprovides some information to help directtheinquiryprocess (see e.g., Fisher, 2000; Roth &Bowen, 1995). Some educators refer tothesetwo approaches, respectively, asdiscoveryandguided discovery(e.g.,Ajewole, 1991;Heywood&Heywood, 1992), or asfreeinquiryandmediatedinquiry(e.g.,F l i c k , K e y s ,Westbrook, Crawford, & Carnes, 1997). Teachers have appliedthesedifferent types of

inquiry-basedapproaches in a variety of settings: the science classroom, the field,or the


34/212

inquiry. Polman and Pea (2001)claimthatteacherscan facilitate open-inquiry through"transformative communication" (p. 223) strategies, i.e.,teacher-student interactions where theteacherprovides guidance and coachingthathelpstudentstransform raw information forpossible inquiry explorations. Inquiry-based classrooms are also characterized by extensiveteachersupport and intervention through scaffolding practices (F l i ck ,2000), and by lessteacher-centered activities such as small group sessions thatencourage studentautonomy, peerinteractions and collaborative learning(F l i ck ,et al. , 1997;M a rx ,et al. , 1994). Studiessuggestthatin inquiry-oriented classrooms, theteacher actsmore as a guide or a coach who facilitatesstudentlearning, than an expert who directsstudenttasks (see e.g., F l i c k ,et al. ,1997, 2000;M a r x ,et al. , 1994; Polman & Pea, 2001).

Some research studies seek to compare the effects ofinquiry-based pedagogy againstmore traditional instruction. For example, Scruggs and co-researchers (Scruggs, et al. , 1993)foundthatGrade 7 and 8students(N=26)with learningdisabilitiesperformedbetterontestson

magnetism, electricity, rocks and minerals after a weeklong experiencewithhands-on, inquiry


35/212

studies also revealedthatstudentsin the discovery-oriented groups exhibited higherdegreesofmotivationand enjoyment than those in the expository approach groups. Another study pre-and post-tested 240 secondarystudentsto compare student attitude towardsbiology after oneclass period ofdiscovery(i.e., experimentation) and expository (i.e., teacher-centeredinstruction) learning activities(Ajewole, 1991). The research study showedthatstudentsin the'discoverygroup' had abetterattitude towardsbiologythan those in the 'expository group'.

Resultsfromthe above mentioned comparative studies are important as they mayencourage teachersto move awayfromtraditional instruction and to explore alternativeteaching strategies thatincrease student motivationand interest in sciencelearning. However,assessmentof the (in)effectiveness of theinquiryapproach based solely on a single lesson or aweek o fparticipationin the instructional strategy is questionable. Inaddition,evaluating theimpact ofinquiry-basedteaching strategies by focusing on one-timetestresults is inadequate tocomprehend the complexities o fthe strategy. There are insufficient studiesthatexplore the

long-term use and influence ofinquirypractices in classrooms. There is also a need for


36/212

motivationin science (Gibson & Chase, 2002;K n o x ,Moynihan,&Markowitz,2003).Researchers further maintainthatinquirypedagogy encourages studentsto pursue sciencecareers(Gibson & Chase, 2002;K n o x ,et al.,2003), and increases participation ofgirlswho arenormallyunderrepresented in science (Eisenhart, et al., 1996). In the remainder of this section,Iexaminethreeforms of science learningstrategiesthatespousean inquiry-based approach:informationminingand analysis; apprenticeships or science camps; and project-based learning.Iinspect research data onthesethreetypes ofinquiryapproaches tobetterunderstand whatinquirylooksl ikein science classrooms.

One form ofscientificinquiry is informationminingand analysis. Especiallysuccessfulwithyounger learners, this approach to inquiryinvolvesthe posing of questions thatguidestudentsto explore a science topic without engaging in firsthand laboratory experimentation ordatacollection. Workingin small groups,studentscan uselibraryresources, theInternet,orpre-generated data toaddressinquiry-oriented questions thataredifficult totestin school

science laboratories. For example,teachersused this inquiry strategy withstudentsinterested


37/212

intervention andstudentautonomy in the learning process. F l i ck (2000) foundthatbyprovidingreflection time before class discussions,teacherscan helpstudentsdevelop skillsinscientific inquiry,such as theabilityto analyze,argueand defend their conclusions based onscientificdata and evidence. O ' N e i l land Polman (2004), who inspectedstudents'emailexchanges withscientists and written reports, foundthatinquiryhelpsstudentsdevelop scienceliteracy skil ls. That is,studentswere able to ask their own questions, formulate their owninquirydesigns, use data to support their scientific arguments, and l inkevidence to theirconclusions ( O ' N e i l l &Polman,2004). However, it is evidentthatwhile information miningand analysis activities providestudentswithopportunities toengagein scientific reasoning andlogicalthinking,they do notengageinthinkingabout solutions tosociallyrelevant problems inauthentic contexts,whichis one o fthe goals of science literacy (see e.g., National ResearchC o u n c i l , 1996). Moreover,theseactivities do notinvolvestudentsin thepractical,hands-onexperimentationthatis an integralparto fthe work of scientists.

The most common venues for inquiry-based learning in science are hands-on, laboratory


38/212

activitiesvia apprenticeship and science camp programs enhance learning, and foster interest inscience and science careers amongstudents(e.g.,Abraham,2002;K n o x ,et al. ,2003). Someresearch studies alsoclaimthatthe hands-on activities intheseprograms make science moreenjoyable for thestudents(e.g.,Giscombe,2004). I exploretheseclaims about inquirylearningbyinspecting someempiricaldata.

Intheir study of an 8-week apprenticeship program,B e l land co-researchers ( Be l l ,et al.,2003) conducted surveys and interviewswithhigh schoolstudents(N=10) and their scientist-mentors toassesswhatstudentslearnedfromparticipation in the program. Students, workingalongsidepracticingscientists, engaged in experimental design, datacollectionand dataanalyses. Study findings revealedthatcontrary to the mentors' perceptions, studentunderstanding o f thenatureof science and theinquiryprocess did not change because of theapprenticeship experience. For example,studentssti llbelievedthata singlescientificmethodexisted, andthatthe process is linear. The research study concludesthatstudentsdo not

necessarily understand thenatureof science just bydoing scienceunless mentors who guide


39/212

to more questions than conclusions. Students also recognized and valued thesocialaspectoflearningwithpeersand scientists as they engaged in their research work.

Inanother study, K n o xand co-researchers (Knox,et al. ,2003) surveyed andinterviewed112 secondary studentson theirattitudestowards science, and their perceived skillsand knowledge after participating in a two- to four-week summer science program. Thisscience program engaged studentsin laboratory experiments, discussions, computer sessions,and fieldtrips. The pre- and post-surveys showedthatstudentsfelt more confident in theirscience laboratory and instrumentation skillsafter takingpartin the inquiry-based program.Interviewresponses suggestthatworking withreal scientists and authentic science projectsenhances studentinterest in science and in science careers. Due to attrition,only 16o f theoriginal 112studentsparticipated in alongitudinalaspectof the studythatinvestigated theprogram's impact onstudentacademic performance after 16 months. Self-reported data revealthatstudentsfeltthatthe science program did contribute to their academic performance in

advanced science courses, but did not influence their interest in pursuing a science career since


40/212

heavilyonstudents'self-reported data,withno corroborative data on what thestudentsactuallylearned and experienced through the inquiry-based science programs.

Other examples of contextual learningwithan inquiry approach are science or researchinvestigations wherestudentsexplore a problem in a specificlocalityor the bigger globalcommunity. This type ofinquiryapproach has been termed community-based4or project-basedlearning5. In project-based learning,studentstypicallyselect their own research problem andresearch design. Workingcollaborativelywiththeir peers, teacherand other adults,studentschoose alocalorreal-worldproblem, propose a project or design an experiment, andimplement the proposal toaddressthe problem(Krajcik,et al., 2003). Blumenfeld andothers(1991)notethatan essentialfeatureof the project isthatit "result(s) in a series of artifacts, orproducts,thatculminate in afinalproductthataddressesthedrivingquestion" (p. 371).Particularlyuseful science projects arethosedealingwith social controversies on health-relatedor environmental issues (e.g., Eisenhart, et al., 1996; Helms, 1998). Some educators claimthatprovidinginquiry-oriented learning opportunitieswithinthis socio-scientificcontext is an


41/212

documents, but more importantly, for promoting an interest insocioscientificand technologicalissues (see also Donahue, etal. ,1998).

E m p i r i c a lstudies supporttheseclaims about the benefits oflearningthrough project orcommunity-basedinquiry. A study byGiscombe(2004) used classroom observations, focus-groups, andindividualinterviews to investigate Grade 7 students' experienceswithand viewsonproject-based instruction. Giscombe(2004) also collected student portfolios and sciencefairdisplayboards tobetterassesswhatstudentslearned in the process of conducting their projects.Students' interview responses indicatedthatthey found science learning fun, interesting andmotivatingwhen taught through the hands-on, project-based approach. Students statedthatworkon the science projects,whichdealtwiththe different environmental issues aroundarsenic, was challenging and thus, prompted them to investigate their project topics moreextensively. Giscombe's (2004) analyses of the informationfromthe portfolios and projectboards showedthatstudent involvement in project-based inquiryenhanced their scienceknowledgeand skillsinareas thatmatch intended learning outcomes in theNationalScience


42/212

showedthatP B Sstudentsoutscored the national sample on 44%o fthe N A E P testitems. Thedata also revealedthatstudentsperformedbetterintestquestions thateither required a lengthyresponse or made reference to scientific investigations. Theresearchersclaimthatstudents'long-termengagement(from 8 to 15 weeks) inP B Spedagogy provides anadvantageforthesestudentsto dow e llontestsitemsthatentailcriticalthinking,reasoning or scientific inquiryskil ls. Theresearchers suggestthatwithits positive impact onstudentlearning, science inquirythrough a project-based approach should be more extensively used as vehicles for curricularreforms in science classrooms. In conjunctionwith allthe other benefits associatedwith theuse of project-based learning, I concurwiththeir suggestion.

Tosummarize, all forms ofinquirylearning described and explored in the abovementioned studies appearto be variations on thesametheme, namely,providingstudentswithacontext to learn scientific concepts and to applyinquiry skil ls. Mostscience educators andteachersacknowledgethatthe end goal oftheselearningstrategiesis to develop independent

learners who are equipped to investigate, problem-solve and make informed decisions about


43/212

curriculumcame from groups with varyinginterestsand motivations. For example, in Englandand Wales in the early 1980s, engineers lobbying for thestatuso ftheir profession andgovernment leaders concerned for the economy initiated moves for introducing technologyeducation in the national curriculum (Layton, 1995). The move tointegratewas anattempttoincrease the number of trained industrial workers in the country. Politiciansand otheradvocates hopedthatearly exposure to technical courses would providestudentswith practicalskillsto equip them for everyday, realworldexperiences. The seriousness in the government'spursuit of this goal can be seen from the amount o fmoney invested in technology education. In1983,the Br i t i shgovernment funded the Technical andVocationalEducation Initiative projectwithabudgetof46 m i l li o nfor anin i t ial5-year period and 2mi l l ionfor the succeeding 5years. Layton (1995)reportsthatmoney went towards equipping schools and fundingadditionalteaching staff.

Similar initiatives to develop strong technical-vocational education programs wereevident in the U . S .as government legislated the Perkins Act in 1990 and the School-to-Work


44/212

includes descriptions and analyses of thesociopoliticalinfluences exerted by variousstakeholders on technology education. Mosteducators arguethat theseinfluences helped toshapehow technical education is defined andtaughtin schools (e.g., Cajas, 2001;Layton,1993a, 1993b; M c C o r m i c k , 1994). M c C o r m i c k(1994)presentsdifferent traditions, whileCajas (2001) cites contrasting definitions o ftechnology and goals for technology education assome o fthe important sociopolitical influences on technology education.

M c C o r m i c k (1994)tracesthe evolutiono ftechnology education in England and Wales,whichwere among the first countries to effectively implement technology-based schoolprograms, as it progressed through thefivetraditions o ftradecraft, art and design, science andtechnology, home economics, and science-technology-society. Technology learning throughtradecraft focused on the development o ftool skillsasstudentsworkedwithwood, metal, handtools and machinery. M c C o r m i ck(1994) points outthatwithinthis tradition of technologylearning,the model of a single workercontrollingthe entire manufacturing process is flawedandrunscounter to the industrial culture o fteamwork. Supporters of an art-and-design


45/212

both science and technology had expanding influence on society, the STS movement sought tointegratethe two disciplines through learning contexts thatdealt with their social influences(McCormick, 1994). These fivedifferent traditions in teachingabouttechnologyimplyavaluingfor different notions o ftechnology: as artifact, as process or ski l l ,or social enterprise.Thisis what Cajas (2001)argues.

Cajas (2001) claimsthatchangesin the pedagogical focus for technical educationthrough theyearscoincide with the different ways society perceives or defines "technology".Hestates thatin the early 20t hcentury, the curriculum offered technology courses intradecraftsor manualartsin line with the notiono fteclinologyas tool or artifact. Then, when schoolcurriculaintroduced technicalartsin the 1920s,therewas a shift in focus towards technologyteaching and learningthatleads to the acquisitiono ftechnicaland toolskil ls. This focusparallels a viewo ftechnology as vocation-related knowledge and practical skil ls. Beginning inthe 1980s to thepresent,societytendsto perceive technology more as a "social practice"(Cajas, 2001, p. 717). Parallel to this notiono ftechnology as social practice, technology


46/212

o fintegrating technology educationwithscience and general curricula (Cajas, 2001;Kincheloe,1995;Krause, Baker, Roberts,Kurpius,Yasar, 2004;Layton,1993a, 1993b; Penick, 2002).Educators cite at leastthreemain objectives for this integration, namely, to achieve vocationalgoals, to make education practical and relevant, and to increase scientific and technologicalliteracy(Cajas, 2001; Fensham, 1992;Layton,1993b). I discuss each o fthesethreegoals fortechnology education in the next sections.

A spreviously discussed, the in i t ialgoal for introducing technology studies into thecurriculumwas vocational in nature. Fensham (1992) claimsthatthethrustof technologyeducation in theUnitedStatesand in Canada in the late 19thcentury was to l inkthe goals oftechnicallearning to theneedsof industry and the economy. Thus, the mandated technologycurriculainthesetwo countries continue to emphasize traditionaltradeskillsinworkingwithwood,metals, and other materials used in industry. Other education stakeholders such asparentsandstudentsseek a clearer l inkbetween school and work to increasestudent's futureemployability. Employers hire workers whopossessgoodsocial,communication and


47/212

Scienceeducators in the 1980s infused technology topics into science classes to enablestudentsto explore and appreciate the practical applications of science principles in everydaytechnologicalartifacts (Layton, 1993b). It is also claimedthattechnology infusion has helpedmake science learning interesting as the technological device provides context to what werepreviouslyde-contextualized scienceprinciples(Layton,1993a). In addition, the hands-onnatureof computers and other technicalgadgetsprovidesstudentswithmotivationaland funways oflearningscience,artsor humanities (Foster, 1997). Thecallto l inkpracticalski l lswithacademic learning continues to face resistance among specialistteacherswho are reluctant torelinquishtheir subject areasexpertise. There is also resistance to explore the integration ofvocationalwithacademic educational goalsbecauseof the perceived lowerstatuso ftechnicalcourses (Foster, 1997;Gaskell& Hepburn, 1997).

Inthepast10 years, educators have promoted technology education for the goal ofdevelopingtechnological literacy for allstudents( IT E A ,2000; Pearson &Young,2002). W i t htechnology's growing influence on the environment, and onsocialpractices and norms,


48/212

technology in general education,theseinfluences have placed value on technology as aseparatedisciplinefrom theartsand sciences. Foster (1997)arguesthatthe continuing struggle tochangethestatuso ftechnology in the curriculumdependson theopennessof both academicand vocationalteachersto embrace the pedagogical practicesthataccompany this curriculumchange. Young(1998) andKincheloe(1995)notethatthe higher value placed on academicover practical learning in schoolsperpetuatesthe socioeconomic inequalities and distinctionsbetween intellectual and skilledlabour in the workplace and the larger society. For example,the lowerstatusplaced on learning technicalskil ls,as opposed to learning classical knowledge,has strongly influenced the exclusion of technology education from the general curriculum inthepast(Foster, 1997). Theseauthorscallfor the integration of the academic and the practicalgoals of learning(Kincheloe, 1995; Layton, 1993b;Young, 1998). Layton (1993b)arguesthatteachingabouttechnology as technological design may be the way to bridge this head-vs-handdichotomy. Layton (1993b) maintainsthattechnologytaughtwithinthe technology designapproach providesstudentswith opportunities toengagein both mental and manual learning


49/212

DefiningTechnology DesignResearchers andauthorsapply thephrasesdesign-and-construct7, design, engineering,

technology (see e.g., Krause, et al. ,2004), or engineering design (Eggleston, 2001;I T E A ,2000;2003;Roth,et al. ,2001) to the process oftechnologydesign. I usethesetermsinterchangeablywhen I want to refer to the technology design approach I discuss in this dissertation. Eggleston(1976), definesdesignas:

the process o fproblemsolving whichbeginswitha detailed preliminaryidentification ofaproblem and a diagnosis of theneedsthathave to be met by asolution,andgoesthrough a series ofstagesinwhichvarious solutions areconceived,explored and evaluateduntilan optimum answer is foundthatappearsto satisfy the necessary criteria as ful lyas possiblewithinthelimitsandopportunities available, (p. 17)A tleast four attributes of design are evident in the above-mentioneddefinition. The

design process involves establishing a goal (e.g.,addressasocialneed), identifying the product


50/212

thatas designers engagein the iterativestagesof"designing-making-using"(p. 37), they shouldalso be aware o fthepoliticalinfluences on and thesocialimpacto fthe technological artifactthey create. TheI T E A (2000) characterizes design as one strategy o fproblemsolving withintechnologyactivities. Layton(1993b) claimsthatcreating andproblem-solvingwithin thedesign-and-construct approach makes this approach an effective tool in teaching not onlytechnology, but also otherdisciplinesin thecurriculum. Advocateso ftechnologicaldesigncontendthatstudents' engagementwithdesign tasksenhancestheir creativity, technical, andanalyticalthinkingskil ls. I now examine this and other assumptions about technology design.

TechnologyDesigninPracticeTechnology educators andresearchersclaimthatteaching technology education through

the design process is important in nurturingstudents'technological and scientificskillsandknowledge. For example,K i m b e ll(1982)arguesthatdesign education not onlyteachesstudentstool skillsand technical knowledge, but also advances the learners' potential toexplore,design andcreatea technological product in answer to a particular need. Benenson


51/212

Fensham (1992) further statesthatdesigning, as a novel alternative to technology education,provides a practical context for learning since the invention and creation of a productaddressesasocietal need.

Educationresearchersmaintainthatin addition to developingstudents' science-relatedknowledge, skillsand literacy, technology designenhancesproblem-solving,communicationandsocial skillsasstudentscollaboratewithteachersandpeers(Hennessy &Murphy,1999;Murphy& Hennessy, 2001,Roth,1998). Education and industry leaders considertheseskillsimportant in preparingstudentsfor theworld o fwork. Ipresentempiricalresearch ontechnology design to helpsubstantiatetheseeducators' claims, and tobetterunderstand thenatureo ftechnology education as it is practiced in the classroom.

Roth,who has extensively researched classroomsthatengage studentsin design andtechnology (see e.g.,Roth,1998, 2001), asw e llas in scientificinquirypractices (e.g.,Roth,1995,Roth &Bowen, 1995),arguesthattechnological design is an effective approach tolearningscience. He further maintainsthatin the process ofcompletingprojects,studentslearn


52/212

and on teaching and learning. For example, asstudentsmanipulated glue guns, adhesivetapes,straws, strings and other materials for their design projects, they learned about the natural lawsand the properties o fmaterials. Students also exhibited an increased understanding ofengineering concepts and skil ls. This included knowledge in the designing (e.g., designlimits,specifications),and the testing processes (e.g., weakness, stability). Students learned about thesources o fknowledge (e.g., peers,teacher)and the learning process (e.g., discussing ideas).Roth(1998) observedthatteacherscaffolding and eventual 'fading' helped fosterstudents'independent learning and increased their confidence to initiate interactions. For example,duringsmall group discussions, theteacherdid not have to promptstudentswithher ownquestionsbecausestudentsdiscussed project-related issues on theirown. In addition, theteacherdid not ask about factual information or design terminologies, but was more interestedintalking tostudentsabout the design process. These instructionalstrategiesencouraged smallgroup andstudent-studentconversations, and supported student-directed discourse.

Inanother study, Roth (2001) examined the practices o f Grade 6 and 7studentsin his


53/212

advantage" (p. 786) as theycreateboth a mental, and aphysicalmodelo ftheir design ideas.Students' use o fphysicalor manipulative artifacts enhancetheirabilityto think through theirideas (a process Roth calls "thinkering" [p. 780]), compared to i ftheysimplyrelied on mentalmodels. Thesestudentslearn to communicate, develop ideas, describe and explain theoriesbehindtheir designs, andthusbecome good problem-solvers. Roth (2001) also observes thatstudentsdo not talk about the science concepts inherent in their projects during the constructionprocess, but w i l ldo so when prompted topresentanddemonstratetheir device through bothsmallgroup and whole-class discussions. Hearguesthatthisk indofdiscussionmust besustained in technology design classrooms, i f science learning is an equally important goal.Roth(2001) claimsthatsimilaritiesbetween inquiry-based science (Roth, 1995) andtechnology-oriented classrooms are evident from his analyses of study findings. He anchors hisclaimson the observationthatin boththeselearning approaches, studentsextensively useartifacts (e.g.,gestures,concept maps, experiments, drawings, technological devices) to thinkwithand to communicate what they have learned. Thecasestudies conducted by Roth (1998,


54/212

students'experiences withengineering challenges as they participated in iterative designactivities. Fromacross 22 classrooms, theresearchersengaged 457studentsfromGrades 5 to 9invarious engineering competitions and challenged them tobuild,testand re-design technologyproducts. A n example was the design challenge wherestudentsconstructed a bridge using asinglesheeto fnotebook paper suspended by twopostsat the end. The challenge was to usepaper o fminimalweight (i.e., by cuttingo ffpartso fthe paper) without hampering the capacityo fthe bridge to carry a 1-kilogrammasshangingfrom its center. Theresearchersinvestigatedthe impact of the design competitions onstudentlearning through pre- andpost-tests,interviews,classroom observations and storyboard analyses. The open-ended, 11-itemtestsassessed studentknowledge and skillsinhypothesizing,identifyingvariables, and analyzingexperimental data before and after the design competitions. Student interviews focused onsolicitingstudentexplanations regarding the results o ftheir design artifacts. Theresearchersclaimthattestscores indicated a slight improvement instudents'scientific thinking andanalytical ski l lsafter participating in the design challenges. They also maintainthat effective


55/212

multipledata sources. The significanceo fthe large sample size and multiple data sources isthatthey illustratethatthereis strong evidence for the claimsthattheresearchersmake in this study.The study is also significantbecauseit providespractical,alternativestrategies for assessingstudentlearning in technology design environments,whicha technologyteachermay want toapplyin his/her classroom. Data from this study help support claims by some science educatorsthattechnology design is an effective vehicle to learn science concepts when design activitiesare not limitedto a one-time design challenge (see e.g., Penick, 2002). However, althoughdesign challenges are important vehicles for encouragingstudentparticipation and interest intechnology-related activities,thesechallenges arelimitedin thesense thatthe product is built tosatisfy an imagined, instead ofareal-world,need. Technology literacy andstandardsdocuments highlight the need forteachersto providestudentswithpractical,authentic contextsthatenablestudentsto see the value and connections of school-based learning to theworldofthe home, community or workplace( IT E A ,2000; Pearson &Young,2002).

Publishedresearch studies thatprovideempiricaldata on technology education practices


56/212

analyses ofinterviews,questionnaires and reports, asw e llas observations of classroompractices,researchersexaminedthesenovice teachers' perspectives on and experienceswith thecourse. Study findings indicatethatpre-serviceteachersgained knowledge about technologyprinciplesbecauseo ftheir courseparticipation. For example,student-teachersrecognizedthatto solve their design problems, they had to choose thebestamong various possible solutions,and consider the product trade-offs. Research data revealedthatpre-serviceteachersdevelopedabetterunderstanding of science-technology interconnections. Student-teachers alsoencountered some challengeswiththe project-based learning approach,whichincludedchallenges in dealingwithgroupconflicts, copingwith time and effort demands, and adjustingto the unstructured, non-traditional learning environment. Thisstudy provides valuableresearch data on how science and technology pre-service teachers, who are encouraged to teachthrough a project-based, technology approach, experience firsthand the benefits and thechallenges o fthis learning strategy. The study is also a source of significant information aboutthe implementation o fproject-based technology learning in a non-Western classroom. But,


57/212

growingbodyo fresearchthatcriticallyexamines the issues around applications oftheseWestern notions of science and technology learning in non-Western classrooms. For example,somemulticulturalresearchersquestion the assumptionthat theseWestern science practices cansupport learning forallstudents(see e.g.,Aikenhead,1996; Eisenhart, et al. , 1996). Otherresearchershave investigated the role of culture and language in non-Western scienceclassrooms (see, e.g., Lee, 2002). Thesecriticalstudies pave the way for my research studythatexamines technology design in thePhilippineclassroom.


58/212

C H A P T E R T H R E EM E T H O D O L O G Y

Thisresearch study investigatedF i l ip inosecondarystudents'and teachers' experiencesand practices in a Science/TechnologyResearch programthataims toenhancethestudents'interest and participation in science and technology-related courses and careers. Thisstudy wasconductedwiththe intent ofexamininghow a science-technology coursewitha technologyresearch approach is defined in aF i l ip inosetting and how the course mediates science andtechnologylearning among thestudents. In this chapter, I begin by describing the context ofthe study, the school and program setting where the research study was conducted and thescience-technologycurriculumthatwas being implemented. Then, I describe thestudentsandteacherswho volunteered to participate in the study and the research methods I used to conducttheinvestigation. Lastly,I outline some personal reflections on what itmeantto be both anoutsider and insider in the research setting.

Contextof theStudy


59/212

The School Setting

ThePhilippineScienceH i g hSchool(PSHS)is a system of government schoolsthatprovides a scholarship program for F i l ip inoyouth who are identified as gifted in mathematicsand the sciences. Since the inceptiono fthe firstP S H Scampus in 1964, the school's mainobjective has beenthatstudentswho undergo its unique four-year program

. . . shall someday constitute a pool of science and technology professionals who areendowed with the spirito finquiry,analytical thinking, creativity and innovation,motivated by love ofG o d ,concern for society and the environment, and prepared forresponsible leadership and citizenship.( P S H S , 1997,p.16)

Thisgoal is aligned with thePhilippinegovernment's vision o fusingquality science andtechnology education to move the country towards industrialization and economic stability.Whereas other public secondary schools in thePhilippinesare under thejurisdiction o f thenation's Department ofEducation,the P S H Sis the only system o fhighschool financed andmanaged by thePhilippineDepartment of Science and Technology( D O S T ) . Thejurisdiction


60/212

plans for the addition of one campus each yearuntilall 16 campuses are established. Thisresearch was conducted in one o fthe seven campuses existing at the time of the study.

Admissionto the school system is based upon two competitive written examinationsthatmeasurethestudents'English,Science, Mathematics and non-verbal (analytical) aptitudes.Theentrancetestsare administered nationally to recruitstudentsfrom across thePhilippinearchipelago. Students who qualify in the examinations and maintain good academic and moralstanding are granted a four-year high school scholarship. W i t h the country's 7,100 islandscomprisedof79provinces and aMetropolitanM a n i laarea of 16 cities,studentsentering P S H Scome from varied socioeconomic, cultural and educational backgrounds. The population ofstudentsthatattend the P S H SSystem consists ofF i l ip inoyouth ranging in age from 11 to 17years o l d . Thesestudentsare equivalent tostudentsenrolled in Grades 7-10 in the Canadianeducational system10. TheP S H Scurriculumaims to provide quality secondary educationthatsupports learning in the sciences, mathematics, technology, languages, humanities,artsandphysicaleducation, andenhancesthestudent'spersonal andsocial development.


61/212

requiredthatstudentstakethreeor more Sciencesubjectsper year. In 1993, the P S H Scurriculumchanged. In addition to the core subjects, studentswere now required to enroll inspecializedelectives based on one of two ability groups orstreams11:the Science or theTechnologyStream. BothScience and Technology Stream electives had an applied focus. Forexample, Science Stream electives included such courses asMicrobiology,Food Science,Industrial Chemistry, Environmental Science, and D ig i ta lDesign, among others, while theTechnologyStream electives included Woodcraft and Metalcraft, Drafting, Computer-aidedDesign,andElectronics. The assumption underlying the introductiono fthe TechnologyStream and an applied focus into what wasoriginallya science-intensive curriculum isthatstudentswith high mechanical aptitude might benefit more from a technology-enriched scienceprogram than a purely science one. The exposure to Technology courses was believed toenhancethesestudents' interest and encourage them topursuefuture degreesandcareersinengineering. The claimsaboutthe benefits of the Science/ Technology Streaming programhave gone unexamined since 1993 but continue to serve as thebasesfor the design o fthetaught


62/212

The Research Program is the focus o fmystudy as I examine both the assumptions behind theimplementation o fthe Science/Technology Streaming process and the experiences ofF i l ip inostudentswitha project-based, technology research learning strategy.

Science/Technology Research Program

The Science/ Technology Research(STR)Program at P S H Sconsists of two coreresearch courses: Science/ Technology Research1(STR 1)whichis taken by third-yearstudents,and Science/ Technology Research 2( S T R2)whichis offered to fourth-year students.The S T RProgramengages studentsin the process ofscientific research and/or design-and-technology through a combination of an "investigative research" and a "project-based learning"approaches. The S T RProgram is intended to help thestudentsacquire higher order thinkingskills through research-related learning experiences (J.M . C r u z ,personal communication, June1999).

The STRstudentswork in groups of 3 s or 4s as they seek out science- or technology-

u


63/212

designprocess. The classes meet for two periods per week for one school year. As part ofthecurriculum,all STR1 studentsselect a problem they w i l linvestigate, plan theirexperimentaldesign, write a reviewo frelated literature and a researchproposal,and run apilotversion o ftheir project. Core topics taught in this course include the basicprinciplesofresearchinquiry,sampling, design andwriting.The course also provides lessons on statisticaltests thatstudentsmay need to know in order to process and analyze their research data. TheS T R1 teachersdiscuss additional concepts and skillsintended to helpstudentsdesign projectsconsistentwiththeir chosen science or technologyspecialization. That is,studentsin the STR1ScienceStream learn basic laboratory techniques, instrumentation and safety in preparation forconductinga scientificinvestigation. Whi le ,studentsin the STR1 Technologytrack areexposed to design-and-build learning activities and encouraged to work on the production ofatechnology device.

The S T R2 course focuses on hands-on activities dealingwiththe scientific researchand/or design-and-technology process. TheS T R2 classes meet forthreeperiods per week for


64/212

writean examination. Because of the specialization attributed to the two streams, P S H Sstudentsandteachersalso refer to the S T R courses dealingwithtechnology as TechnologyResearch1 and 2, and to the Science Stream counterparts as Science Research1 and 2.

W i t hthecurriculumchanges attributed to the introductiono fthe Science/ TechnologyStreaming in 1993,1 was interested in examining the rationales and goals of the curriculumreformprogram in lighto fthe P S H S students'classroom experiences. Specifically,I wanted toinvestigate the supposed benefits o fthe Streaming program for enhancingstudents'interest andlearningin science and technology by examining one o f the technology-based courses, namely,the Technology Research 2 course. I was also interested in studying how the research approachtaughtwitha technology focus mediatedstudentlearning in science and technology. Thetechnology-based, research learning approach has not been previously examined in a F i l ip inosetting.

TheR esearchS tudyParticipantsThissection describes thestudentsandteacherswho agreed to participate in my

o fparticipatingstudentswas not, however, representative o fthe gender distribution in TR2


65/212

classes,whichenrolls twice as many boys/asgirls. This may reflect the factthatthe femaleFi l ip inostudentswere morew i l li n gthan the malestudentsto volunteer and conversewithafemale researcher in the classroom. Table1provides alisto fa llstudents(by pseudonyms)who participated, and a summary o ftheir demographic and educational backgrounds.

The TeachersIwanted to examine the teaching practices in the Technology Research class in order to

gaina richer understanding of the classroom context for thestudents'experiences withtechnology-based, research pedagogy. I invited the twoteacherso fthe Technology Research 2sections, Juana and M a r ia(pseudonyms), to participate in the study, and both agreed. Juanaand M a r iaare P S H Salumni who are nowteachersin the school's Computer Science andTechnology U ni t .

JuanaJuana, who had been teaching for 12 years at the timeo fthe study, had her


66/212

Table 1. List ofStudentParticipantsand TheirProfilesN A M 1 OISTUDENT

A G E 1YPE OEELEMENTARY

SCHOOLGRADUATED F R O M

SOCIOECONOMIC'STATUS

4,h YEARSECTION 0

A. BOYS1.Aaron 17 private high A2 Anthony 16 private high A3 Eric 17 private upper middle C4 Frank 17 private high C5 James 16 private low c6 John 16 private lowermiddle c7 Jomari 17 private high B8 Jonathan 17 private high B9 Noel 16 public uppermiddle C10 Raul 17 private upper middle A11 Roland 17 public lowermiddle A12 Steve 16 private high A13 Xander 16 public lowermiddle CB GIRLS14 Ana 16 private high A15 Cherry 17 private high A


67/212

she was recruited to teach atP S H S . At the time of the study, she planned to pursue a Master'sdegreein Information Technology.

M a r i a

M a r i ahas an academic background in Mathematics, IndustrialArtsEducation andArchitecture. She began teaching at P S H Safter returningfrom Australiawhere she had beenworkingtowards adegreein architecture. At the P S H S ,shetaughtComputer Science,TechnologySk i l l s , V i s u a l Communication,and S T R2. At the time of this study, she wasteaching S T R2 and TechnologySki l l s classes. She says, "I realizedthatI ended up in a goodplace [in teaching]becauseI really enjoy interactingwithmany people" (Interview, June 19,2002). While M a r i aclaimsthatshedoesnot see herselfgoinginto teaching as a long-termcareer, she was enrolled in a Master's program in Education at the time of the study.

M e t h o d s of the Study

Toexplore the research questions on what technology research pedagogy isl ikein a

setting,withina particular time and specific learning context, my research questions werebest


68/212

answered through a naturalistic case study methodology. A case study methodology is the

appropriate research design to use when a qualitative researcher's questions are directedtowards observing an event or experience happeningwithina particular context (Mi les&Huberman, 1994) orexamining"a contemporary phenomenonwithinits real-life context,especiallywhen the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident"( Y i n , 1994,p. 13).

Thisstudy fits thethreeattributes ofaqualitative case described byMerriam (1998). Itisparticularisticas I focus on the experiences o faspecific groupo fteachersandstudentsin aparticular learning context. It is descriptive as I use a range of data sources to produce adetailed and thick descriptiono fthe research context and findings. F i n a l l y ,it is heuristic as ther ichdata I collect and analyze are used to help others gain a deeper understanding o f thepedagogical practices and experiences in theTechnologyResearch classroom.

DataSources andCollectionTechniques

as they worked on theirScience-Technologyprojects. Other sources of data for my study


69/212

included 1) observations of the students' presentations during the school's annual Science &TechnologyFair;2)informalconversationswithteachersand students; 3) samples of studentwork;4) email exchanges; and 5)curriculumdocuments pertaining to the S T RProgram.

Throughout the study, I kept a researchjournalwhere I recorded myfield notes,descriptionso ftheactivities,direct quotations fromconversations, and other observationsduringthe weekly classroom andsmallgroupvisits. As suggested byMerriam(1998), I alsokept a personal record ofmy"ideas, fears, mistakes, confusions and reactions to the [research]experience and ... includefd] thoughts about the research methodologyitself (p.l 10) to supportmy research study notes.

Idiscuss my datacollectionstrategies under tlrree general categories: interviews,observations and documents, and describe each strategy in more detail in the next sections.

InterviewsIconducted interviewswiththe research study participants through 1) semi-structured,

history,future education and career plans, and aspirations.


70/212

Iinterviewed the teachers, Juana andM a r ia ,on two occasions. Eachinterview lastedfrom 45 to 90 minutes. M y first interviewswithJuana and M a r iatook place on December 5,2001 and June 19, 200214 , respectively. Through this interview, I became (re)-acquainted withtheteacher'spersonal backgrounds, as w e l las their educational and professional history, andfuture plans. DuringJuana'sfirst interview, I also asked questions about the history andevolution o fthe Technology Stream in the P S H Scurriculum. In my second set ofinterviews,Iprimarilyasked theteachersabout their experiences withand viewso fteaching and learning inthe Technology Research program. These second interviews took place onA p r il3, 2002 forJuana, and August 27, 2002 for M a r i a.I audiotaped allstudentandteacherinterviews.

Althoughthe interview questions were posed inEnglish(see AppendixA for theinterviewprotocols), the participants were given the choiceo fresponding either inEnglishor inF i l i p i n o . This option was providedbecausemost o ftheteachersandstudentswere morecomfortable speaking in the native language ofF i l ip inoeven thoughEnglishis the medium of

1 5

be included in the data set. The participants provided their comments and edits on the paper or


71/212

electronicversionso fthe transcript. Thisstrategy ofseekingthe participants'verificationofthe information on the interview transcripts was repeated throughout the study and continuedinto the dissertationwritingstageas the process was arranged around the participants'availability.

InformalConversationsIhadinformalconversationswiththestudentsandteacherson a regular basis

throughout the studyperiod,and kept a record oftheseconversations in my researchjournal.Interactions and conversationswiththestudentstook place during theirsmallgroup meetingswiththeir S T Rteacher,outside the class periodswhilethey wereworkingon their projects,duringthe Science &TechnologyFair,and at the regional or national sciencefaircompetitionswhere some o fthem participated. Duringtheseconversations we discussed the progress oftheir work, any problems they were encountering in their research projects, and their

experiences at thefaircompetitions. I also asked thestudentsto explain some of the scientific

m a i lto pose additional questions after the interviews were conducted, and the participantssent


72/212

their responses byemail.

Ialso had email exchangeswitha number o fteachers(n = 3) and administrators (n = 4)who helped in the development o fthe schoolcurriculuminto a technology-enhanced version.Theseindividualsprovided information about the goals, program rationale andhistoricalcontext for the introduction of technology-based courses into what wasoriginallya science-intensive school program.

ObservationsWhilethe semi-structured interviews served as my main data sources for this case study,

Ialso observed classroom,smallgroup, and sciencefairactivities to help set the interviewquestions and to contextualise the interview findings. AsMerriam(1998) notes, observingbehaviour as it happens provides important first-hand informationthatmay be lost when askingsomeone to describe it instead.

were observed. I also watched for "off-task" student behaviours and activities.


73/212

Ikeptnoteson theteacher'splannedactivityor lesson for the day, and her deadlines forsubmitting course requirements. Teachers' and students' responses to myinformal questionswere also recorded in my researchjournal. F ina l l y ,recognisingthatmy presence could affectclassroom dynamics, I kept a recordo fwhat I did and said, where I positionedmyselfduringlessons, and howstudentsreacted as I observed the classroom andsmallgroup activities.

ScienceFair-RelatedObservationsAdditionalsources of data in my studyincludedobservations of the students' poster and

oraldefense presentations as thestudentsshowcased their projects at local ,regional andnational Science &TechnologyFaircompetitions.

A l l S T R2studentswere required to present their group's research findings andproducts to a panelo fpracticingscientists and/ or engineers for evaluation and to thepublicforviewingduring the school's annual Science &TechnologyFair. Ten winnersfroma total of 75

team projects were chosen by the judges based on the evaluation criteria suggested by the

EngineeringFairheld in the U . S . A . At the timeo fthe study, two of thethreeS T R2 projects


74/212

thatcompeted at the regionallevelwere designed by two pairs ofstudentswho participated inmystudy. One ofthesetwo projects won second place at the regiona