by Joel R. Evans
B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 2003
A Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction © Joel R. Evans, 2019 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This project may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
Supervisory Committee
Re-Imagining Technology Education with an Eco-centric Focus
by Joel R. Evans
B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 2003
Supervisory Committee
Dr. Michelle Wiebe - Supervisor (Department of Curriculum and Instruction) Dr. Ted Reiken – 2nd reader (Department of Curriculum and Instruction)
Abstract
How do you take the projects, processes, and skills already being taught in BC’s technology education classrooms, integrate the demands of the new BC curriculum, all while navigating eco-centric ideas and knowledge? This paper was an effort at exemplifying this possibility through the use of three distinct projects. Their placement within three separate technology education disciplines, with focus on three differing experiential levels allows for an informative cross section to appear. This cross section showcases a focus on doing in the first experiential stage, with a gradual and progressive shift to the incorporation and use of design principles. The themes of each of these projects have been carefully chosen so that eco-centric principles will form many of the conversations and self-reflective practices that will unfold as learning takes place. Descriptions of potential outcomes, delivery strategies, guidance related to design process, and evaluative procedures have been presented along with samples that can be used or modified to suit a particular class or project. Selected eco-centric theoretical principals have also been
discussed, serving as a guide in both project choice and delivery. This paper provides direction to the technology education teacher who wants to embrace traditional skills, design and eco-centric ways of thinking and doing in both current and future practice.
Table of Contents Supervisory Committee ________________________________________________________ ii Abstract ____________________________________________________________________ iii Table of Contents _____________________________________________________________ iv List of Tables _________________________________________________________________ vi Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1 Synopsis _________________________________________________________________________ 3 Definitions _______________________________________________________________________ 5
Review of the Literature________________________________________________________ 7
Technical Education: Past Through to Present ___________________________________________ 7
The birth of shop class. _____________________________________________________________________ 7 Manual training takes on new ideals. __________________________________________________________ 8 Ideological hopes for something different. ____________________________________________________ 10 Contemporary technology education. ________________________________________________________ 11
Understanding Technology _________________________________________________________ 15
Technology: a definition. ___________________________________________________________________ 15 Technological interaction. __________________________________________________________________ 16 Contemporary misunderstandings in current curriculum. ________________________________________ 18
Re-Imagining Technology Education with an Eco-Centric Focus ____________________________ 20
Enacting social change through design. _______________________________________________________ 20
Psychological Barriers to Innovative Growth ___________________________________________ 24
Emotional understanding in the face of crisis. __________________________________________________ 24 Healing within by looking out. ______________________________________________________________ 28
Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ 31
Project Implementation _______________________________________________________ 32
Introduction _____________________________________________________________________ 32 Module 1 / Level 1- Speaker Project __________________________________________________ 33
Project overview and intention. _____________________________________________________________ 33 Project delivery strategy. __________________________________________________________________ 34 Pre-construction planning. _________________________________________________________________ 35 Learning portfolio overview. ________________________________________________________________ 36 Process based portfolio component. _______________________________________________________ 37 Material study portfolio component. ______________________________________________________ 37 Drafting overview. ________________________________________________________________________ 38 Design overview. _________________________________________________________________________ 39 Speaker project adapted design thinking process _______________________________________________ 40 Project reflective discussion. _______________________________________________________________ 42
Project link to curriculum. __________________________________________________________________ 43 Relationship to topics in the review of literature. _______________________________________________ 45
Module 2/Level 2 – Robotics Challenge _______________________________________________ 47
Project overview and intention. _____________________________________________________________ 47 Project delivery strategy. __________________________________________________________________ 48 Robot challenge parameters. _______________________________________________________________ 50 Limitations. ___________________________________________________________________________ 50 Expectations. _________________________________________________________________________ 51 Showcase. ____________________________________________________________________________ 51 Robot challenge design thinking process. ___________________________________________________ 51 Project link to curriculum. __________________________________________________________________ 54 Relationship to topics in the literature review. _________________________________________________ 55
Module 3/Level 3- Emergency Shelter Design __________________________________________ 56
Project overview and intention. _____________________________________________________________ 56 Project delivery strategy. __________________________________________________________________ 57 Emergency shelter parameters. _____________________________________________________________ 60 Limitations ___________________________________________________________________________ 60 Expectations __________________________________________________________________________ 61 Showcase ____________________________________________________________________________ 61 Project relationship to curriculum. ___________________________________________________________ 62 Project relationship to literature review. ______________________________________________________ 63
Assessment______________________________________________________________________ 65 Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ 66
Bibliography ________________________________________________________________ 68 Appendix ___________________________________________________________________ 72
Appendix A Material Cost Analysis Sheet Sample _______________________________________ 72 Appendix B Sample Learning Portfolio ________________________________________________ 73 Appendix C Sample Drafting Techniques ______________________________________________ 75 Appendix D BC ADST Curricular Document Design Guidance ______________________________ 76 Appendix E Pre and Post Consumer Study of Product Template ___________________________ 78 Appendix F Completed Sample Material Study Chart ____________________________________ 80 Appendix G Sample Rubric _________________________________________________________ 81
List of Tables
Table 1- Speaker Order of Delivery and Timeline... 35 Table 2- Robot Challenge Order of Delivery and Timeline ... 49 Table 3- Emergency Shelter Order of Delivery and Timeline ... 59
Introduction
In British Columbia, the k-12 education system has been going through the process of adopting a new curriculum. As an individual concerned with the care of and reverence for the environment, I was excited to see reference made to sustainability, recycling and re-use, the study of social and environmental impact, as well as the inclusion of First Peoples cultural principles found throughout the documents (BC Ministry of Education, 2016d). It has been touted as more holistic, and focussed on educating the whole child. Applied design, skills, and technology (ADST), a subheading within the document, is of particular interest to me as a technology education teacher. ADST encompasses the areas of business education, home economics, information technology, and technology education. Technology education (tech ed) being the current moniker used to describe what many would call shop class, includes current technologies and training in electronics and robotics, trades training and design, through to traditional wood and metal classes. As I have investigated the ADST curriculum more, I have come to recognize that there is little guidance offered in regards to how these environmental and global concepts should be deciphered or delivered, and ultimately how they are linked to the goal of offering, “the kinds of skills that build better students and better citizens”
(https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/graduation). I have often found that when I try to generate discussion surrounding the environment with students, I am met with an array of emotions ranging from apathy to anger; effectively getting in the way of any meaningful thinking or knowledge acquisition. This inability to attain the social learning skills needed for collective or individual action makes it difficult to move against the effects of climate change and the other environmental problems that beset us (Seddon, 2016). As part of my concern for the future of the environment I have had a growing feeling that the current state of technology education is
merely a redeployment of industrial education, the moniker used prior to the introduction of tech ed. Much of the content in the current curricular document is still very similar to that used in the past. The concern being that previous versions were formed with an industrial focus on
“productivism” (Seddon, 2016, p. 576); producing employees for industry and propagating the message of, “skills for work, and training for growth” (Seddon, 2016, p. 576), and also assumes, “economic growth and work are permanent and necessary features of human existence” (Seddon, 2016, p. 576). Productivism sets education to the task of creating a populace that believes growth and progress are good, with especially high regard for the advancement and application of
technology to solve problems that arise (Lundmark, as cited in Kopnina, 2014). Within this system of thinking, there is a failure to distinguish that the only true provider of growth is that which the earth can supply, and that the health of the earth must be considered in all such discussions (Seddon, 2016). This concept envisioned to be one of the foremost explanations for our current environmental predicament (Curry, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013). If the
environmental message within the new curriculum has not detached itself effectively from the productivist systems of old, or has not clarified itself in its message as to what true growth is, delivery of the new curriculum could continue to proliferate industrialization and development of the worlds’ unsustainable economies (Case & Gosling, 2013). If, however, technology education can achieve a renewed or different framework where the health of the earth is a primary focus within design, construction, and relative problem solving, then it could be a focal point for a powerful and transformative conversation to take place. By combining the principal nature of technology to transform, and the application of design and skill in a non-human centred mindset that places the ecology of the planet as the main contributor of growth, there is a possibility for true innovation in regards to solutions for these global problems. The anger and apathy that
frames resistance to these changes must also be addressed. The emotional responses to these global dilemmas must be well understood and simultaneously broken down as I move to re-imagine technology education with an eco-centric focus.
Synopsis
The identified topics that have been examined through the review of literature include: 1. Technical Education: Past Through to Present - A look at the beginnings of modern
schooling with a focus on the precursors to technology education. It tracks technical education from past to present and considers the many influences that have been faced as time has passed. This is followed by an analysis of how the most recent curriculum’s format will help or hinder technology education in its path to fulfill its long-standing philosophical goal.
2. Understanding Technology - Looks first at a definition of technology itself, and then progresses to a study of the interaction technology has with the world around it. Through this understanding it becomes clearer why the study of technology is important. This thinking directs the development of concepts that will help guide the action taken within the classroom that will inform the understanding needed to be an adept technology creator and user.
3. Reimagining Technology Education with an Eco-Centric Focus – A series of theoretical lenses are examined that may provide the ability to change the existing state of
technology education into something that will help, rather than hinder, the various climate crises our current way of interacting with technology seems unable to correct.
4. Psychological Barriers to Innovative Growth – Barriers to movement regarding new ways of thinking and doing are explored and possible ways to pass through those barriers are envisioned.
The reflection on classroom practice and practical application of ideas will include:
1. The description of use, of a mixed material speaker project in a classroom environment. The project is intended for delivery in a grade 9 or introductory shop space. Its mix of materials, design, and inclusion of traditional constructive practices nurtures a
conversation surrounding the interaction between man, nature, and technology.
2. The introduction of a robotics design challenge broadens the conversation started in the speaker project by encouraging cognisance of human and non-human needs within its solution. With a broader design scope and expectation of previous constructive practice students have increased freedom to pursue solutions that are more likely innovative. 3. The most advanced of the three projects introduced. An emergency shelter design
challenge pushes empathetic observation to a more pronounced level, and provides a venue from which non-traditional design strategies can be introduced. This approach prompts students to think about solutions in ways that may not have been evident before. This project has no prescriptive skills or design prompts that could work to direct
thinking down a linear path, hopefully allowing creativity and innovation to come through in the derived solutions.
4. An assessment strategy derived from the BC curricular guidelines is presented and explained. Intended to log student improvement instead of summative skill, the rubric offers a way to converse about diverse learners working towards varied goals.
Definitions
Words and phrases defined for the further understanding of the reader include:
• Actuator - Part of a machine that controls, moves, or enables the function of the machine to be physically carried out. Actuators can be hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, chemical or other. Examples include valves, motors, and servos.
• CADD (Computer Aided Design, and Drafting) - A combination of computer and software used to draw adaptable and changeable abstract models of possible physical designs.
• Isometric projection - A method used to represent or visualize 3d objects on a 2d surface. It allows 3d objects to be explained through use of a drawn or printed medium. The technique places a corner facing the observer and projects the rest of the object on a 30-degree plane projecting to both the left and right of the central structure.
• Microcontroller - A programmable integrated circuit that accept inputs from sensors and sends outputs to actuators. Useable in many autonomous or semi-autonomous control scenarios.
• Oblique projection - A method used to represent or visualize 3d objects on a 2d surface. It allows 3d objects to be explained through use of a drawn or printed medium. The technique allows the most complex surface of the object to be drawn facing the viewer while the object behind that surface is represented by lines projected on a 45-degree angle.
• Orthographic projection - A method used to represent or visualize 3d objects on a 2d surface. It allows 3d objects to be explained through use of a drawn or printed medium. Multiple views of the object are shown 90 degrees to each other providing a front, top,
bottom, right side, left side, and back view of the object. Typically, three of the possible views are chosen as excessive views often leads to redundancy.
• PCB (Printed Circuit Board) - A fiberglass or non conductive support material that holds a conductive layer and circuit components on its surface. The conductive layer is in a specific pattern that connects the held components together so that the formed electrical circuit can function.
• Sensor - A sensor detects changes to its environment and sends a signal that can be deciphered as such. Following the input from a sensor, a response can be initiated.
Review of the Literature
Technical Education: Past Through to Present
The birth of shop class. Technology education’s beginnings have followed closely on
the heels of democratization itself (Leavitt, 1912). Within Western democratic nations, changes within the political systems prompted the adoption of, “universal and appropriate education” (Leavitt, 1912, p. 1). With the acceptance of publicly funded elementary education by about 1870 in the US, there was demand for greater access to an expanded curriculum that provided for the needs of all social classes, and the more individual and varied requirements of students (Barlow, 1967). Technical education was a reaction to the call to deliver to the needs of every “intelligent working man” (Barlow, 1967, p. 31). The movement, however, did not begin in the United States, only converging there after beginning elsewhere. Hand training, as it was
originally perceived, started in Finland in the 1850’s, cultivated by the educator Uno Cygnaes as a theoretical adaptation of the works of Friedrich Froebel; the creator of kindergarten, who believed that children learn much through their tactile senses rather than through abstract reasoning (Douglas, 1921). The original implementation was directed at primary grades and focussed on manipulation of wood and other natural materials (Douglas, 1921). It was not intended to direct or prepare a student for an occupation but to, “train the hand in developing a sense of form, and of aesthetics” (Douglas, 1921, p. 176), From these early beginnings, the concept spread and the implementation developed and changed. Sloyd, as it became known in Sweden maintained the primary school focus that Cygnaes had intended (Hoffman, 1892). A school in Naas taught the Swedish adaptation and spread the ideas further, while a Russian version also appeared (Douglas, 1921; Hoffman, 1892). Victor Della-Vos developed what would be known as the Russian model, which instead focussed on post-secondary students (Douglas,
1921; Schenck, 1984). This variant was less fixed on exploration and more on procedural efficiency (Bennett, 1937; Douglas, 1921). When these two systems found proponents in the United States in the 1870’s the progressively more accessible secondary school became the place where manual training began taking form (Barlow, 1967; Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). Manual training generally took cues from the Russian model while Sloyd made inroads, although to a lesser degree into elementary schools (Barlow, 1967; Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912).
Manual training takes on new ideals. Manual Training was a contentious form of
education in its early years (Barlow, 1967; Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). While its initial proponents argued that it was as, “culturally meaningful and as preparatory as literary education itself” (Douglas, 1921, p. 177), and that its intention was to, “develop a student’s character and their ability to navigate life” (Leavitt, 1912, p. 13), critics felt as though it was not, “educative” (Douglas, 1921, p. 177), and that its motivations were purely economic and worked only to train “vocational efficiency” (Leavitt, 1912, p. 12). In the early years, as educational discourse
contemplated its existence, manual training’s form and function remained in constant flux (Douglas, 1921). It found difficulty in finding its place within the secondary school (Douglas, 1921). Some schools positioned it within the general curriculum, making it at odds with the established traditional curricular subjects (Douglas, 1921). Other schools placed it alongside the traditional curriculum as a separate stream of study, while others housed it in its own school; allowing it to develop in a space that did not have to compete or compromise with the established school form (Douglas, 1921). As time elapsed, manual training generally and gradually transitioned from an integrated model, to the more separated school (Douglas, 1921). With manual training separated from the academic traditions held in traditional teaching and learning institutions, industry began to play a greater role in its operations (Barlow, 1967;
Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). Industry was drawn to manual training as it was struggling to find competent workers (Barlow, 1967; Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). The traditional apprentice system was in a period of collapse as the workshop transitioned from hand work to machine work, and labour was divided more extensively (Douglas, 1921; Leavitt 1912). As such, the apprentice became too disconnected from a master craftsman for the transfer of knowledge to function well (Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). Industry began to argue successfully that the school system provided training for the professions (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.), and so the publicly funded school should also provide vocational training (Douglas, 1921). Interestingly, the Russian model, which served to encourage the creation of manual training, also had a profound effect on industry itself. Taylorism, a system of scientific management that was generated through work and motion analysis of a worker’s action, implemented the most efficient way of doing a task in order to improve production and increase profit (Armytage, 2007). This movement, which took hold in the early 20th century was grounded in the methods taught within the Russian model and the manual training that it gave rise to (Armytage, 2007). What seemed like the perfect education system for industry; training students to work in the way they would come to know as they entered the workforce, was eventually regarded as a failure (Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). The most prominent of these reasons being that students who entered into secondary schools, or even manual training secondary schools, did not enter into manufacturing vocations (Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). Instead it was the poorer classes who had to start work before they had completed school that made up the class that would generally become the workers producing the goods of the day (Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). Manual training trained people for occupations they would never hold. This detail led to the loss of industry confidence in manual training; which then began to look to post-secondary trades
schools to fill the worker void (Douglas, 1921). Manual training did, however, play a role in the indoctrination of the ideals of an industrial society amongst those who would never be directly involved in production (Douglas, 1921; Leavitt, 1912). Manual training taught those who participated in it to have expectations that industry could maximize production and minimize price. This in turn showcased how the use of technology, work, and education together can benefit the end user in a society based upon the perceived economic growth that results
(Douglas, 1921; Gonon, 2008; Leavitt, 1912; Seddon, 2016). Productivism, was therefore one of the teachings within manual training; reinforcing the mantra “training for growth and skills for work” (Anderson, as cited in Seddon, 2016, p. 576). This type of training also works to separate and rationalize the divide between humans and nature (Kopnina, 2011; Seddon, 2016).
Productivist patterns in education only serve to replicate existing thinking that is held within an industrial society and, “produces its subjects as compliant and compulsive agents of economic growth” (Anderson, as cited in Seddon, 2016. p. 576). The actions taught within manual training were imparted through such a lens, therefore going uncriticised and accepted as truths in the way that industry envisioned them.
Ideological hopes for something different. Manual training was the result of an
extensive worldwide movement. Its cultural motives created many who would defend its survival and development, but its split from mainstream schooling divided it from its cultural identity and pushed it to become a failed industrial servant. Its failure to command any role left the future of technology education unclear. After 1910, scholarly debate surrounding the place of manual training was reinvigorated, and industrial arts was borne (Gonon, 2008; Petrina & Volk, 1995). Petrina & Volk (1995) credit the ideology of Dewey, Bonser, and Mossman in creating the “autonomy” (Petrina & Volk, 1995, p. 25) of industrial arts, and its “place in the curriculum”
(Petrina & Volk, 1995, p. 25). New ideology pressed what remained of manual training back into the comprehensive high school, within which hand training and general education were again offered alongside one another (Kliebard, as cited in Gonon, 2008). It was quickly recognized however, that apart from its new moniker, industrial arts, most programs remained firmly within the original mould of manual training (Petrina & Volk, 1995). Petrina & Volk (1995) describe a series of both direct and indirect forces that caused opposition to the “operationalism of
formative ideals” (p. 25). Latimer (as cited in Petrina & Volk, 1995) directed attention to teacher education as such a force and described such education as, “[having] centred on skill or technical training” (p. 26), and not being, “concerned about the psychological, sociological, and
philosophical concepts Bonser had emphasised in [his] vision of the industrial arts curriculum” (p. 26). Industrial arts teachers were taught to teach within the original mandate of manual training and vocational education with business and corporate interests still firmly attached (Petrina & Volk, 1995). While the industrial arts ideology was intended to dissuade the Deweyan principle of social predestination; or the idea that, “workers should not adapt to existing
structures and submit to an industrial regime, but instead transform the system” (Gonon, 2008, p. 89). The inability of industrial arts to detach from industry counteracted its theoretical promise and promoted instead of deterred social predestination (Petrina & Volk, 1995). Industrial arts, in the same way manual training had before it, become about societal reproduction and was
unsuited to enact meaningful social change.
Contemporary technology education. As the 20th century progressed there were several
more iterations of technical education, and with each a host of ideological reasons to back up those changes. In British Columbia in the early 1960’s, industrial arts was renamed industrial education. The surveyed Ministry of Education curricular documents were found to be devoid of
any cultural study and instead reflect only purely technical learning (BC Ministry or Education, 1964). Change took place again in the early 1990’s. Likely as a response to an almost decade long debate over the shortfalls of the current technical education offerings (Petrina & Volk, 1995). The technology education curriculum that was adopted in BC schools was different than the industrial education it was replacing as it included skills-based outcomes, but also incited conversation surrounding: self and society, communication, production, control, energy and power (BC Ministry of Education, 1995). As a junior secondary thru to secondary student in this era of education, followed by my enrollment in a technology teacher education program and the initiation of my career, I bore witness to teachers calling out the non-technical portions of the curriculum as largely a waste of time. By 2012, the technology education curriculum had been issued supplements that reduced the study of social contexts and design focussed technology education. It was once again divided into subject based curriculums that outlined specific skills-based activities and dictated processes (O’Henly, 2001). Despite the theoretical calls for change to technical education, it has always seemed unable to pull itself away from its beginnings. Petrina and Volk (1995) reflect on the failure of industrial arts and technology education
educators to develop formative ideals, and have noted that Bennett (1934) and Svendson (1963) both recognize, “conscious rejection of ideals” (p. 27) within their respective era’s as well. Petrina and Volk (1995) go on to say that in the 1990’s that conscious rejection had given way to, “[an] eroded sense, or unwitting rejection of ideals” (p. 27), and that, “without a sense of shared ideals, technology educators will continue along wanton courses that in many ways are paved by disciplinary subjugation, confusion, economic efficiency, and vocationalism” (p. 27). As I read this statement in 2018, I see all the properties that Petrina predicted 23 years earlier. I feel as though technology education is lost and without a focussed vision as the various
stakeholders pull technology education in directions from which it feels as if there is no centre. My recent experiences with the Ministry of Education, local colleges, community groups, as well as other curricular areas such as science, math, and information technology have demonstrated to me that there are multiple and competing external visions as to what technology education is or should be. As a result, each school harbours very different programs based upon those pressures and the personality inputs of the teachers who operate each respective program. This look at past development and happenings within technical education and reflecting on them, makes it
difficult to believe that the 2016 BC curriculum will head down a different path. A path in which collective formative ideals are formed that are not guided by third party interests. I have had thoughts however, that the pull away from the centre, may also be the embodiment of the
changes that we seek within the technology curriculum. When manual training first divided itself from the academic learning that was already established within high schools, the division that resulted is often referenced in contemporary thought as the, “academic vocational divide” (Sych, 2016, p. 45). This divide is often cited as the reason for the perception that tradesman are lesser than their university bound counterparts, and also contributes the divisions between race, gender, and socio-economic status (Rose, 2008; Sych, 2016). With so many stakeholders now looking at technology education and pulling it in a direction that they feel strengthens their curricular, political, or vocational cause, it would seem an appropriate time to create the formative ideals that Petrina and Volk (1995) reference. It is only with establishment of those ideals that the valuable features of technology education will be passed on effectively to the other curricular areas and the academic vocational divide will have a chance at being abolished. If, however, we just try to hold onto technology education as it was, the academic areas on the other side of the void may just see technology educators and students as the productive means to demonstrate the
principles within their own subject areas, and further subjugate them as just a necessary tool to use from their elevated position. Dewey, Bonser and Mossman saw the benefit of technical education as a critical part of functional and dynamic societies (Gonon, 2008; Petrina & Volk, 1995). Without a centre that contains a technology specialist who understands the underlying principles of technology itself, and can guide others in the propagation of technology, it may be that the vision surrounding technology could be easily skewed, distorted, or re-shaped to serve the hand that wields it. In a societal context those negative consequences have already been mandated and appear in several forms. Up until this point I would argue those negative
consequences have even been promoted by technical education. We see this in the concepts of progress and quality of life for which societies have come to connect perceived utopias to the furthering of industrialization and growth of our economies (Kopnina, 2011). In reality those beliefs have led to the perceived need for material possession, rampant consumerism and acceptance of wage labour as a means to that end (Case & Gosling, 2013; Kopnina, 2011). Anthropocentric thought is also at this convergence. Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are separated from, and in some way elevated above the natural systems that surround them (Kopnina, 2011). This generally propagates a feeling of optimism towards human action as being morally superior (Eckersley, as cited in Kopnina, 2011), and as such leads to the belief that humans are, “in control of the surrounding world and that problems arising from modern living can be taken care of primarily through technological development” (Lundmark, as cited in
Kopnina, 2011, p. 79). Technology has been used as a hallmark to validate anthropocentrism as a just and truthful way of thinking and being. Yet anthropocentric thought implementing the use of technology is considered as a primary contributor of human caused climate change, reduction in biodiversity, resource depletion, and other current environmental crises (Case & Gosling, 2013).
Technology needs spokespeople within education and society at large who recognize that
progress and quality of life cannot be measured through material signs of betterment, but instead need to be recalibrated around health, social justice, and wellness concerns in a way that
recognizes that these concepts as linked to the well-being of earths ecological strength. Transitioning the worldview from anthropocentric to eco-centric has been identified as a powerful tool in fostering innovative and ethical technologies (Case & Gosling, 2013). An eco-centric worldview recognizes the earth’s system as the only provider of growth while identifying its limitations and careful balances (Seddon, 2016). By framing technological choices in an eco-centric context, the needs of the earth will be considered first (Case & Gosling, 2013). Human societies could experience growth in an untraditional sense while beginning to undo the damage done through past technological choices. The interaction between human, technology, and earth is a juncture that must be understood more fully if eco-centric decision-making is to take hold.
Understanding Technology
Technology: a definition. When making decisions regarding technology it would seem
an important first step to define technology so that the relationship with human and earth can be perceived. In my research I have found that a working definition of technology was more complicated than I first anticipated. I explored definitions proposed by Hallstrom (2011), Parikka, Rasinen & Ojala, (2011), and Adiels (2011). I found them all to be compelling, and yet different; hardly offering the clarity needed for a definition. Adiels (2011) points out that in order to answer questions surrounding technology, the definition is necessary, yet notes that time and place effect the way that the definition is understood. Some philosophers suggest that a definition is not possible because the definition of technology is too context dependent (Schatchburg & Mitcham, as cited in Adiels, 2011). This may be part of the difficulty in the enaction of the
formative ideals that Petrina & Volk (1995) saw as critical in moving technical education away from its past history and implementing the psychological, sociological, and philosophical content that has been at the centre of each technical education movement. The definition of technology is perhaps too dynamic for informed educative practice to be developed or to be easily
contextualized. Parikka, et al. (2011) remind us that regardless of the definition, there is also ambiguity in the way that definitions are interpreted, and that they can be host to a whole series of values. To one individual, technology could mean, “everything that is good and worth aiming for” (p. 133), and to another, “is something threatening, something that destroys living
conditions and therefore should be opposed” (p. 133). Debate is cited as a way to weed out the preconception held within the two statements, but it is only by coming to terms with an
individual’s values and exploring the positive and negative consequences of technology that individuals can effectively make choices that relate to technology (Parikka et al. 2011).
Technological interaction. Fleer (2015) perceives interaction with technology as more
than just a practical activity, but instead a higher order, “cultural-historical” (p. 36) practice in which “tools and signs” (Vygotsky & Luria, as cited in Fleer 2015, p. 36) work together to allow technological decision making to take place. As an individual makes changes to their world, there is a sign, or a feedback that is perceived. Directed from the community that gives, “a value and knowledge to [the] endeavour” (Fleer, 2015, p. 52). The values that are expressed to the technology user in this case are derived from cultural and historical contexts in which they are dynamic and evolutionary participants (Fleer, 2015). Fleer (2015) perceives technology as futurist and forward thinking, and as a, “mediator and transformer of human culture that is realized collectively for a social purpose” (p. 43). The application of technology engages tools and signs dialectically to one another; anticipated to create a tension that causes technology to be
used in an ethical and responsible manner (Fleer, 2015). I struggle with parts of this concept because, while I perceive a feedback loop of decision making that will change as time progresses, I also see the progress within this interaction as being too slow to react to
technological changes necessary to produce the ethical results as desired. Parikka et al. (2011) outline a similar technological, cultural interconnectedness that support my feelings regarding Fleer’s concept. Parikka et al. (2011) describe the majority of interactions with technology as “reactive” (p. 13). They describe the social/cultural interaction with technology as an adaptive process where people essentially get used to, or adapt to formative changes that take place without contemplation of values. “It can be argued that the nature of technology is based on humanities inventions and production; it is future oriented and innovative, practical, and based on commercial needs. However, it is not usually environmentally friendly and might have a negative effect on nature” (Parikka et al. 2011, p. 135). They recognize that decisions will never be value free but look to the adoption of a proactive approach to technology with open analysis of values and lifestyle integrated into technological decision making (Parikka et al. 2011).
Another analyses of technology interaction is presented by Dakers (2011). He describes the current world of decision making in technology as being essentialist in form. One in which clearly demarcated boundaries separate man from nature, nature from technology, and
technology from man (Dakers, 2011). An essentialist belief recognizes each entity as separate from the next, and therefore unaffected and unchangeable by one another (Dakers, 2011). While these views were challenged by the middle of the 20th century, Dakers (2011) recognizes that in the present we can still see and feel those divides, yet are unable to derive meaning for their existence as we don’t remember or recognize why those divisions existed in the first place. As such, we just accept them, and allow technology, humanity, and nature to evolve on their own
behalf without critically examining their relationship or effect on one another when we make technological choices (Dakers, 2011). Dakers (2011) suggests that, “there is no longer a natural world that is readily available to us as human beings today. If this is so there can no longer exist a boundary between the natural world and a technologically mediated one” (p. 46). He describes a world that in its entirety has been affected by the technological choices we have made.
Ecosystems and animal life have all been changed by human technology. While we are physically separate from nature, technology “mediates” (Dakers, 2011, p. 46) our action upon nature and has gradually eroded the wall between us to the point that nature and man are synonymous with one another (Dakers, 2011). The same can be deduced for the human
technology divide (Dakers, 2011). Dakers (2011) references the work of Donna Haraway, who proposed that we are to some degree cyborgs; entities that are somewhere between human and technology. As we rely on technology to do, live, and be; it marks technology as effectively becoming a part of human existence (Dakers, 2011). As many of the technologies that we use are provided by companies that have monetary interest in selling people goods, the likelihood of falling victim to hegemonic powers becomes more likely (Dakers, 2011). As a method of combatting this possibility, Dakers (2011) remarks that, “technological literacy, is (…) more important than the development of an understanding of the functional aspects of technology” (p. 50). Dakers (2011) emphasises that empowerment and the ability to expose meaning in
technological interaction comes through understanding it, not just through its use and acceptance.
Contemporary misunderstandings in current curriculum. A common theme that has
surfaced in the exploration of technological interaction is that it is generally futurist and forward thinking in nature. Yet even with the implementation of ethics within our current societal
environment at an exponential rate (Case & Gosling, 2013). Dakers (2011) warning regarding the monetary interests of companies and the possible hegemonic power structures that result made me contemplate the new curriculum in that regard. Within the new curriculum, the one component I feel allows a conversation to take place that incorporates futurist thinking,
discussion surrounding materials, sustainability, and allows a space for open analysis of values and lifestyle, is design (Evans, 2018). Within the recent curriculum, design is one of the few areas that demarcates itself from the technical action expressed in past curriculums with the integration of design thinking (Evans, 2018). Design thinking is a new iteration of what was once referenced as the design process; that which focussed on developing solutions following the action, “identify the problem” (BC Ministry of Education, 1995, p.11)). The design thinking outlined in the new curriculum, however, cites, “empathetic observation” (BC Ministry of Education, 2016a, p. 1) as part the first stage within the process. Empathising with the end user, however, does not suggest that the designer is taking an eco-centric stance on the solution. While the curricular documents all contain principles that are environmental and social in nature, they are variable depending on which document you study. In the case of the Electronics and
Robotics 10 curriculum, the big ideas are described as, “user needs and interests drive the design process; social, ethical, and sustainability considerations impact design; complex tasks require different technologies and tools at different stages” (BC Ministry of Education, 2016b, p. 1), these statements do not express an eco-centric stance to me. Instead I feel that they still allow an interpretation that supports the productivist system of the past as the human anthropocentric needs still “drive” the design process, whereas “social, ethical, and sustainability” is only a concern that serves as a secondary “consideration” in the “impact” of the design. I do however think that the implementation of eco-centric design within technology education, with the
allowance to move those frameworks into cross curricular areas, has the power to help direct the future to one that is better than the one for which we are currently heading. Incorporation of the lessons learned within design is a place where the interaction between man, nature and
technology can possibly be negotiated for the benefit of all.
Re-Imagining Technology Education with an Eco-Centric Focus
Enacting social change through design. Humans have been engaged in design probably
just as long as technology has been employed. Design has played a large part in creating many of the structures that are part of the catastrophe that the earth currently navigates. Thus, how can design be changed so that the outcomes it creates will be more likely to have concern for the earth? Fleer’s (2015) explanation of Vygotsky and Luria’s tools and signs gives us part of that answer. As discussed in the previous section, as technology is employed there are signs that are created that show the effect that technology has on its surroundings from which a change can be enacted within human culture as a response (Fleer, 2015). By looking at those signs, predictions or “futures perspectives” (Fleer, 2015, p. 43) can be developed. These perspectives, if adopted as a cultural practice can lead to more informed choices when technology is employed (Fleer, 2015). Fleer (2015) touts technology education as the system that, “supports how humans re-imagine and evolve [the] cultural knowledge and practice to the next generation” (p. 44). In practice, however, technology education only employing skills-based exploration that is devoid of the cultural practice of developing perspectives, fails to incite abstract technical thought (Fleer, 2015). If practiced together, however, Fleer (2015) believes that the abstract technological thought that develops can lead to continual and dynamic societal change. Continual of course does not necessarily mean positive, and so Fleer (2015) cites Hammond as saying, “We need to develop educational settings which build on the knowledge which all parties bring to the
situation” (p. 48). A broad base of knowledge and experience that begins to form abstract thinking, developed from multiple perspectives that include those of subjugated peoples and the natural world will more likely lead to ways of doing that are better for all.
Seddon (2011) uses a parallel but corroborating concept to help explain why
environmental change is often slow to occur, stagnant, or unreflective of peoples wishes. She contextualizes a persons perceived space in society as a, “space of orientation” (Seddon, 2011, p. 567), for which overlapping contextual elements that effect our social and cultural lives change our positioning in that space (Seddon, 2011). Environmental, political, and economic concerns are such examples. When changes take place in each one of these competing elements, a
person’s space of orientation changes to reflect the tensions placed upon that individual (Seddon, 2011). Trying to understand the competing elements, and the effect they have, allows greater clarity in determining what elements must change or be recontextualized in order for movement to be realized (Seddon, 2011). Seddon (2011) cites Haug’s suggestion that making change is not about defining a utopia and pressing toward a right goal, but instead the process is a more political venture. It is one in which building connections is imperative for shifting a space of orientation in a direction that changes peoples social learning. Social learning in this case is described as, “common sense which is anchored in experience, historical memory, and
imaginable futures” (Seddon, 2011, p. 567). In Seddon’s view, stationary social learning is the cause for slow changes in relation to environmental practice. By altering one’s social learning their interaction with the competing elements within their space of orientation can begin to change as the elements become of lesser or greater importance (Seddon, 2011). Designing a relational space in which people can advocate for sustainable futures, provides s a greater likelihood of a more expedient move to a future that is desired. Although Seddon’s (2011)
concepts are discussed primarily within the curricular areas of ESD (education for sustainable development), and VET (vocation education and training), rather than technology education with a focus on design, she does assert that school assists in stopping our social learning by arranging and ordering knowledge into historical and political “topos” (p. 572). This creates selective thinkers who, “authorize peoples conscious and unconscious choices which orient social learning and social action” (Seddon, 2011, p. 572). By using Seddon’s concept of space of orientation in a design environment, this framework will have an effect on the ability of design to navigate or change the tensions that hold one from moving towards another relational space. This effect will be felt in both the individuals who observe and interact with the design as a user, and in the individual who works to form and create such designs. The action and interaction of design can make one more cognisant of the respective forces that effect their place in tension, and allow one to make life choices that move them into another relational space.
Another method of recontextualizing societal forces is explained by Dakers (2011) as informed by the philosophy of Deleauze and Guattari (as cited in Dakers, 2011). It too could be incorporated into the design classroom and has the potential to have a powerful effect on our ecological future. In this perception of the world, man’s relationship with technology has not made us a cyborg as Haraway (as cited in Dakers, 2011) suggests, but instead the world is perceived as made up of “machinic assemblages” (Dakers, 2011, p. 49).1 These machinic
assemblages could be described as deployed pieces of technology used to transform the way our interaction with the world unfolds (Dakers, 2011). Adding further assemblages to a functional machinic assemblage, could shift our interaction in a transformative or changed way, as the system of parts will interact with the world differently than the preceding system did (Dakers,
1 “machinic assemblage” is a phrase introduced in: Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus.
2011). Likewise, if a part of the machinic assemblage is removed it could also be a
transformative action in the same regard (Dakers, 2011). Dakers (2011) uses the example of a car as being a standalone machinic assemblage. With the addition of the driver, who could be
regarded as a separate machinic assemblage; the car and driver are altered. Without each other, they have less capability. The roadway, nature of driver, the types of parts within the car, and so on are also considerations within the machinic assemblage as a whole. Each part has some impact on how the final assemblage performs its function and effects the surrounding world (Dakers, 2011). This way of thinking about the technological world allows one to simply explore possibility. Contemplating the addition or subtraction of machinic assemblages surrounding deployed technology can allow us a way to perceive the relationship technology and humans have on each other as well as the natural world. It is also worth considering the context of use, with reflection on the social constructions that we instinctively apply to those technologies. We tend to have preconceived notions concerning where certain technologies are used or how they should be applied (Dakers, 2011). By breaking through such boundaries and focussing not on solving problems but instead looking at questioning the technology in regards to its usefulness as opposed to its efficiency; possibilities are likely to open up that could make technologies
applicable in areas that were previously not considered, or even cause the development of innovative technologies that were simply not comprehended (Dakers, 2011). These are a few of the potentially many different ways to recontextualize the interaction between human,
technology, and nature. If an eco-centric light is placed upon these conversations and the divide between human, technology, and nature is bridged in a way that new designs concern themselves with all three aspects at the same time, then there is the potential that the designs that result will be likely still be futurist and optimistic, but will also lead to more options and better choices.
Psychological Barriers to Innovative Growth
Emotional understanding in the face of crisis. In the introduction I alluded to
conversations I have tried to have with individuals surrounding the state of the environment. These conversations have also incorporated aspects of resource allocation, and social justice issues. My efforts to facilitate have been met with emotions on the fringes; either anger or apathy, which often seem to get in the way of productive knowledge building. I feel as though these emotions need to be understood so they can be either bypassed or embraced in a way that allows, at a minimum, mutual understanding. Luis, Vauclair, and Lima (2017) describe a
psychological effect known as risk perception normalization, which culminates in a response to a perceived risk with a, “negative association between the presence and awareness of a hazard and an individuals risk perception” (p. 74). Recognition of a perceived risk has been documented as having a considerable effect on individuals support of countermeasures to those risks (Luis et al. 2017). This enacted internal coping strategy allows individuals to normalize threats and
minimize perceived risk to themselves (Luis et al. 2017). This effect has been known to be more likely to occur when the consequences are not directly associated with the individual but are further from them in both physical distance and capability of control; such as in regard to the current state of climate change perception (Luis et al. 2017). While this might be a contributing source to the apathy I noted in the interactions I have experienced with students, anger can also be associated as an expression of the emotions of fear, guilt, and helplessness, which have also been attributed to dissociation of everyday life activities and environmental dilemma (Norgaard, as cited in Luis et al. 2017). A lack of connection between the abstract information people hold and the action they take in everyday life, or the reinterpretation of information into modes of thought that are considered more internally palatable and acceptable are the expression of their
need for risk perception normalization (Norgaard, as cited in Luis et al. 2017). These acts are recognized as the root of the culture that is at the heart of climate change denial (Washington, as cited in Luis et al. 2017). There are also indicators that people who are integrated into societies that participate more in activities tied to risks, or engaged with technologies that had a direct link to climate change were found to have a lower risk perception regarding the effect of those
actions (Luis et al. 2017). If individuals were engaged in activities on a daily basis that were regarded as the cause of risk factors, yet were at that moment in time insulated from the end result of those risks, they would begin to regard those risks as being negligible.
Luis et al. (2017) also looked for social predictors that would influence an individual’s risk perception within a societal structure. While unstated in their study, this understanding of such influences could be used to affect the general level of risk perception by supporting or dissuading certain social influences. They found that female or liberal in political standing were the best indicators of a higher climate change risk perception, while age, level of education and socio-economic status did not produce consistent results in that regard (Lima et al. 2017). Since being liberal or female are well-nigh impossible to predictably influence, it is prudent to look elsewhere for solutions to this dilemma. Luis et al. (2017) did note that individuals who identify as being high in environmental concern were more likely to be immune or unsusceptible to the effects of risk perception normalization. Environmental concern in this case was defined as a, “general attitude towards the environment. Which has positive effects on the perception and evaluation of environmental-related cognitions and on pro environmental behavior” (Bamberg, as cited in Luis et al, 2017, p. 75). Those who have a high environmental concern instead used ideological reasoning to promote and support their identity as such (Lima et al. 2017). Their choices and actions as a result are, connected to the concern for the environment and are more
likely to push beyond the effects of risk perception normalization (Lima et al. 2017). Gifford and Nilsson (2014) take on the social and personal factors that create such a pro-environmental behavior and discover that the connections to these indicators are complex and multi-faceted. They identify eighteen psychological factors that possibly have an effect on pro-environmental behaviour and thirty psychological barriers that limit individual behavioral change. While they could not identify specific properties that would guarantee the generation of the desired pro environmental individual; someone who is more immune to the effects of apathy, they did suggest a personal and social profile that would increase the probability of resulting in such an individual. Gifford & Nilsson (2014) suggested that these individuals:
are likely to have spent time in nature as a child, to have accurate knowledge of the environment, its problems and potential solutions, to have an open, agreeable and conscientious personality, to consider the future consequences of their actions, to feel in control of their behaviors, to harbour biospheric, post material, liberal values and responsibility for environmental problems, to be among the upper half of the economic classes, to hold personal and descriptive norms about pro environmental action, to adhere to a religion that teaches a stewardship orientation to the earth, and to spend time in non consumptive nature activities. (p. 151)
They also found the same effect can be produced when none of indicators are present in an individual’s existence, and that some act in an environmental way yet with no concern for the environment at all. Instead, health and monetary concern can lead to lifestyle choices that mimic the choices of those who have truly pro-environmental interests (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014). Take note that Gifford and Nilsson’s description of what likely constitutes a pro environmental
(2017) found direct correlation between lack of an individual’s risk perception concerning climate change and participation in a technologically active society; which are the richer
industrialized western nations. Gifford and Nilsson (2014) describe the pro environmental person as likely having, “accurate knowledge of the environment, its problems and potential solutions” (p. 151) and to, “be among the upper half of the economic classes” (p. 151). Both descriptions generally describe those educated in the concerns of the environment and who live in the richer industrialized countries. This could be regarded as the same societal sector and as a result, is counterintuitive. Luis, et al. (2017) noted that those who had high levels of environmental
concern were less affected by diminished risk perception, while Gifford and Nilsson (2014) were focussed on those that had pro-environmental behavior. I have ascertained the individuals that Luis, et al. (2017) described as being a, “variable that mitigate its occurrence” (p. 75), and the pro environmental individuals focussed on in Gifford and Nilsson’s study as being one and the same. These two studies did not leave me with the answer I was looking to acquire in an
education sense, which I presupposed as: How do I engage students in productive conversations about climate change? As is the case with much of academic learning, an answer was not provided but instead moved me towards a new awareness. In this case I felt the concept that Luis, et al. (2017) had explored regarding risk perception normalization, and the section of society that moved to reduce their negative feelings, were perhaps those that prescribe to an anthropocentric way of thinking and being, while the pro-environmental group discussed in more detail in the Gifford and Nilsson (2014) article were tending towards a more eco-centric way of thinking. While I have no evidence to back up my next statements, I reacted to the thought of society as possibly transitioning to one that is post material in nature as prompted by one of the “likely to” (p. 151), items in Gifford and Nilsson’s (2014) perception of the pro-environmental
individual, and that eco-centrist could be part of the new normal in global social development. As society in the past has transitioned from agrarian, to industrial, to post-industrial, perhaps the framework for the next iteration will be eco-centric; to counteract the damage done as a result of the mindsets of the industrial and post-industrial settings. As such, I looked at a framework for healing that could be also incorporated into the concept of design.
Healing within by looking out. Since my exploration regarding climate change, resource
allocation, and social justice concerns didn’t lead me to an act that would foster formative action and productive conversation, I thought instead that the anger and apathy was perhaps not
invoked by the need to control risk, but instead by a societal wide subconscious recognition that we are indeed the cause of the majority of the planet’s woes. As we hold that understanding, anger and apathy could be a result of what Case and Goslings (2013) describe as a “cannot cope with-and therefore cannot face up to the guilt” (p. 713) feeling, and parallels Steins (as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013) notion of denial and panic that is outlined as part of the critical period of a catastrophe. Three stages are inherent in crises: the incubation period, the critical period, and the aftermath (Stein, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013). Within the critical period, anxiety toleration is described to result in slow reaction to the forthcoming trigger point from which existing social structures begin to collapse and fail (Case & Gosling, 2013). Anxiety toleration leads to the rationalization of choices by diverting blame for signs of failure to other unrelated objects and create excuses that allow individuals to ethically divert their attention elsewhere (Case & Gosling, 2013). Case and Gosling (2013) surmise, with the consensus of climate scientists, that we have entered the critical period. Stein (as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013) suggests that the most successful response in these moments of crisis are articulated by
as having a more likely chance of, “coping and maximizing their chances of surviving” (Stein, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013, p. 713). Case and Gosling (2013) incorporate the work of Lear, who looks to the North American indigenous populations for insight as to how to
psychologically survive cultural annihilation, which was an experience they faced at the hands of Western anthropocentric thinking and action. Since cultures don’t typically prepare their youth for cultural devastation, it serves as an unexpected and unprepared for phenomenon (Lear, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013). Anticipating the possibilities following the trigger point, however, may offer societies a greater chance to retain some aspects of their cultural identity when a new world with potentially unfamiliar social structures takes hold (Case & Gosling, 2013). The indigenous method that Case and Gosling (2013) focus on, is that of dream analysis done with the engagement of the individual’s community. Lear (as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013) describes different cultural purposes for dreams ranging from, “those that carried no significance, through [to] dreams that assisted with practical tasks (…), to dreams with powerful ‘medicine’ which were interpreted as foretelling events” (p. 711). Dreams were interpreted by a formal council of elders after they had shown themselves, and usually helped to guide response when immanent threat was upon them (Lear, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013). In the case of the Crow people described in Case and Gosling’s (2013) article, the dreams that guided the choices made by the tribe put them in a more advantageous position then those who did nothing, and those who fought back physically. Yet the outcome in the case of the Crow people should not be evidence of dream analysis as working, or being the right way of making decisions; but rather seen as a tool capable of showing the collective anxieties within a culture (Lear, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013). These anxieties may be unspoken and unfelt in conscious thought but are believed to appear in dreams (Lear, as cited in Case & Gosling, 2013). When the community
who is also potentially and unconsciously feeling these anxieties participates in deciphering these dreams, it can lead to a greater understanding of the needs of all, and the actions necessary to alleviate the anxieties felt (Case & Gosling, 2013). Case and Gosling (2013) contend that the Crow story advises us that dreaming provides, “social resources that might be mobilized in order to provoke imaginative ways of seeing through to the other side of climate catastrophe” (p. 712). While the allegory Case and Gosling (2013) provide is far removed from the current
environmental crises, it does provide us with a suggestion of possibility that comes from outside the cultural Western sphere controlling our way of thinking. The anger, and apathy I describe in my interaction with students could be but a symptom of a much larger societal problem. One that science, technology, analytical thought, and the other tools that the Western realm has to offer, cannot seem to stop. Thus, tools and techniques gleaned from outside our Western cultural sphere may offer the possibilities needed to alleviate and improve our positioning as a crisis unfolds. I felt that this particular indigenous practice spoke to me as I read it, and fit well into the futurist thinking that I discussed earlier as part of technology education with a design focus. It reinforced for me how incorporating innovative thinking into design has the power to transform, and that its reflective and purposeful intention can be changed as different inputs are integrated into its formula. As we investigate and experience more ways of doing and thinking, new adaptable constructs can be created that may potentially quell the feelings of anger and apathy, and allow a return to centre; the place where we are more likely to make the choices needed to ride out the challenges that come ahead. Perhaps those choices will lead to eco-centric ways of thinking or doing, or perhaps some other unseen, un-thought human context.
Conclusion
While my exploration of literature related to technology education has confirmed for me that productivism has been and still is part of the curricular area. It has also informed me that within its core philosophies, such intention has never been there. Manual training, industrial arts, and technology education lack the cohesive formative ideals to allow their respective
psychological, sociological, and philosophical components to come through. In order to develop the formative ideals that will be necessary to break free from the past of technology education, I looked at what technology is and what its current interactions are with society. I found that technology is generally optimistic and forward thinking, but that anthropocentric forces that place humans at the centre of this thought, divide us from the decision making necessary to mediate our effect on the environment in a truly ethical way. Instead, outcomes must consider human, technology and environment as one in order for decisions to be made that have regard for the collective whole. I see this as an area where technology education incorporating design may be an especially strong contender. The current state of design in the new curriculum, however, is still lacking the components that necessitate the involvement and balance of human, technology and environment. In response, I explored several methods that could be enacted that would open up new possibilities and might break free from current ways of thinking and doing. Roadblocks do, however, exist which limit these changes from taking place, such as those that have appeared to me in the form of anger and apathy. As such, those emotions were examined so that they could be better understood, and better managed. While the emotions were thought to be an effect of the current anthropocentric systems in place and do not have immediate solutions within that system. I looked to an example outside that realm; to indigenous cultures for a tool to possibly move the emotions of the extreme back to the centre. The expressed example is perhaps one of many ways
