Published: 2012-06-18
ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
From various forms of art and craft education; technology education has been based traditionally on the articulation between design; technology and use. It aimed to improve understanding of the existence’s mode of the technical objects; through the social organizations by and for whom these objects exist. Based on concepts and references borrowed from sciences and the social sciences; this education privileges an approach by problem solving. It gives a broad place to the creativity and activities of group work.
Beyond these intentions; such structures are not simple to implement; at least in the French school’s tradition. In fact; this teaching was organized according to logics of guidance and control opposed to these ambitions. In addition; under the pressure of the disaffection of the pupils for the scientific studies; many are those who think that it is necessary to reinforce the links between sciences and technologies in order to increase the social purposes of sciences. In this perspective; technology appears as applied sciences; or as applications of sciences.
To build a social meaning between sciences; technology; engineering and mathematics; the privileged link would be the process through which the mathematical modelling founds the production of the scientific knowledge; which organizes the process of engineering and induces the technological choices. This rationality excludes the design from the process and thus the links with the social sciences and the development of the creativity. For which benefit? We tackle this question in this presentation.
Andreucci; C. (2006). La fabrication d’artefacts comme moyen didactique de conceptualisation de la réalité technique. Aster; 41; 153-184.
Andreucci; C. (2008). The structuring role of artefacts in thought development. In J. Ginestié (Ed.); The cultural transmission of artefacts; skills and knowledge: Eleven studies in technology education (pp. 21-41). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Andreucci; C.; & Ginestié; J. (2002). Un premier aperçu sur l’extension du concept d’objet technique chez les collégiens. Didaskalia; 20; 41-65.
Atkinson; S. (2000). Does the need for high levels of performance curtail the development of creativity in design and technology project work? International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 10(3); 255-281.
Barlex; D. (2007). Creativity in school design & technology in England: a discussion of influences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 17(2); 149-162. doi: 10.1007/s10798-006-0006-x
Bonnardel; N. (2009). Design activities and creativity: from the analysis of cognitive factors to creative design support. Travail Humain; 72(1); 5-22.
Chevalier; A.; Anceaux; F.; & Tijus; C. (2009). Design activities: creativity; cooperation; support. Travail Humain; 72(1); 1-4.
Chevalier; A.; Fouquereau; N.; & Vanderdonckt; J. (2009). Between creativity; aesthetics and ergonomics in web page design: the role of a knowledge-based system on web designers’ activities. Travail Humain; 72(1); 23-42.
Christiaans; H.; & Venselaar; K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 15(3); 217-236. doi: 10.1007/s10798-004-1904-4
Crindal; A. (2001). Enque^te sur les figures de la de´marche de projet en technologie. Doctorat Ressource e´lectronique; ENS; Cachan.
Deforge; Y. (1993). De l’e´ducation technologique a` la culture technique pour une mai^trise sociale de la technique. Paris: ESF éditeur.
Dorst; K.; & Cross; N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies; 22(5); 425-437. doi: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/S0142- 694X(01)00009-6
Ellis; A. B. (2007). Connections between generalizing and justifying: Students’ reasoning with linear relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education; 38(3); 194-229.
Ginestié; J. (2002). The industrial project method in French industry and in French schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 12(2); 99-122. doi: 10.1023/A:1015213511549
Ginestié; J. (2005). Résolutions de problèmes en éducation technologique. Éducation technologique; 28; 23-34.
Ginestié; J. (2008). The cultural transmission of artefacts; skills and knowledge: eleven studies in technology education (R. Watson; Trans.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ginestié; J. (2011a; 26-27 janvier). Enseigner la créativité ou apprendre à être créatif. Paper presented at the La créativité peut-elle s’enseigner. A tribute to Jean-Charles Lebahar; Marseille.
Ginestié; J. (2011b). How pupils solve problems in technology education and what they learn. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.); Fostering Human Development through Engineering and Technology Education (pp. 171-190). Rotterdam: Sense publisher.
Haudricourt; A.-G. (1988). La Technologie science humaine : recherches d’histoire et d’ethnologie des techniques. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’Homme.
Kimbell; R. (2000). Creativity in Crisis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 5(3); 206-211.
Lebeaume; J.; & Martinand; J.-L. (1998). Enseigner la technologie au collège. Paris: Hachette éducation.
Leplat; J.; Veloso; M.; & Aamodt; A. (1997). Case-based reasoning research and development. Travail Humain; 60(3); 327-328.
Lindfors; E. (2010). Creativity; innovation and entrepreneurship and education 2020. In A. Rasinen & T. Rissanen (Eds.); In the spirit of Uno Cygnaeus; pedagogical questions of today and tomorow (pp. 109-120). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Martinand; J.-L. (1989). Pratiques de référence; transposition didactique et savoirs professionnels. Les Sciences de l’Éducation; 2; 23-29.
Martinand; J.-L. (1995). Rudiments d’épistémologie appliquée pour une discipline nouvelle : la technologie. In M. Develay (Ed.); Les savoirs scolaires et didactique des disciplines. Paris: éditions ESF.
Mauss; M. (1936). Les techniques du corps. Journal de Psychologie; 32(176); 279-327.
Mauss; M. (1948). Les techniques et la technologie. Journal de psychologie; n° spécial: Le travail et les techniques(dirigé par I. Meyerson et L. Febvre).
Middleton; H. (2005). Creative thinking; values and design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 15(1); 61-71. doi: 10.1007/s10798- 004-6199-y
Rak; I. (2001). Les activités de préparation et de réalisation dans une éducation technologique. Conceptions et modélisation de la démarche de projet industriel par les élèves de première de lycée. Proposition pour une matrice curriculaire au lycée. Doctorat; ENS; Cachan.
Rutland; M.; & Barlex; D. (2008). Perspectives on pupil creativity in design and technology in the lower secondary curriculum in England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 18(2); 139-165. doi: 10.1007/s10798-007-9024-6
Séris; J.-P. (1994). La technique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Sigault; F. (1988). Haudricourt et la technologie. In A.-G. Haudricourt (Ed.); La Technologie science humaine : recherches d’histoire et d’ethnologie des techniques (pp. 9-34). Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’Homme.
Sigault; F. (1994). La technologie; une science humaine. In R. Scheps (Ed.); L’empire des techniques (pp. 51-62). Paris: éditions du Seuil.
Simondon; G. (1989). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques (Réédition ed.). Paris: Aubier.
Simondon; G. (2005). L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information. Grenoble: J. Millon. Zeidler; D. L.; Sadler; T. D.; Simmons; M. L.; & Howes; E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A researchbased framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education; 89(3); 357-377.
