We interpret this finding as an effect of two matters: Firstly; technological tasks mainly require technological knowledge rather than science and mathematics in its pure form. Secondly; the conceptual knowledge that is of relevance is not brought to stage due to the strong focus students as well as teachers have on the practical aspects of the student project. From the study we conclude that technology in the Norwegian curriculum should be strengthened as a knowledge domain in itself; and not considered as merely contexts for the learning of conceptual knowledge from other subjects. Links between technology and science/mathematics need to be conceptualised in other ways.
Keywords: Science and mathematics in technology; cross-curricular teaching; conceptual knowledge
PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012
Barlex; D.; & Pitt; J. (2000). Interaction: The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary school curriculum. London: Engineering Council.
Bencze; J. (2001). ‚ÄėTechnoscience‚Äôeducation: Empowering citizens against the tyranny of school science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 11(3); 273-298.
Boon; M. (2006). How Science Is Applied in Technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science; 20(1); 27-47.
Bungum; B. (2004). Teknologi og Design i norsk skole: Faget som ¬ęikke ble¬Ľ. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift; 88(5); 382-394.
Bungum; B. (2006). Teknologi og Design i nye l√¶replaner i Norge: Hvilken vinkling har fagomr√•det f√•tt i naturfagplanen? NorDiNa (4); 28-39.
Dundas; A. A. (2011). Hva skjedde med teknologi i skolen? Masteroppgave i naturfagdidaktikk. Trondheim: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet.
Hadjilouca; R.; Constantinou; C.; & Papadouris; N. (2011). The Rationale for a Teaching Innovation About the Interrelationship Between Science and Technology. Science & Education; 20(10); 981-1005.
Hughes; T. P. (1986). The Seamless Web: Technology; Science; Etcetera; Etcetera. Social Studies of Science; 16(2); 281-292.
Layton; D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education; 19(1); 43-79.
McCormick; R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 7(1-2); 141-159.
Mortimer; E. F.; & Scott; P. H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Petrina; S. (1998). Multidisciplinary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 8(2); 103-138.
Robson; C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sidawi; M. M. (2007). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 19; 269-287.
Staudenmaier; J. (1985). Technology‚Äôs storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Cambridge; Massachusetts: Society for the History of Technology and the M.I.T. Press.
Tala; S. (2009). Unified View of Science and Technology for Education: Technoscience and Technoscience Education. Science & Education; 18(3); 275-298.
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2006). Curricula for subjects in primary and secondary school. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet. Available from www.udir.no.
Vincenti; W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ziman; J. (1984). An introduction to science studies. The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.