Epistemologies for Technology and its Teaching: Untying the Knot of a Three-level Technological Problem

This article negotiates philosophical and epistemological aspects of technology and its teaching. After identifying the nature of technological knowledge, we unveil a number of constrains that raise demands on epistemologies used to describe its production, transfer and sharing, even without taking into account personal or discipline preferences. Difficulties in teaching the subject of technology, that result both from the multiplicity of forms of technological knowledge and the aforementioned constrains, are identified. Some limitations of existing teaching technologies and their incompatibility with the demands and constrains on using them to impart technological knowledge are investigated. The need for multiple epistemologies is identified, along with the possible spectrum they occupy. Then, the possibility of developing an integrating technology that facilitates designing the teaching of technology by using teaching technologies - as in using the modalities that ICTs offer for teaching - at the same time conforming with subject-appropriate and knowledge-type-appropriate methodologies and, in the end, epistemologies is hinted upon, thus creating a three-level technological problem. Finally, some implications for curricula and instruction are identified and the complexity of the resulting system is pointed out, along with the applicability of systems thinking for handling it.

[1]  P. Cohendet,et al.  The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration , 2000 .

[2]  Dale S. Niederhauser,et al.  The Nature of Technology , 2013 .

[3]  A. F. Dorian Dictionary of science and technology : French-English , 1980 .

[4]  Phillip McReynolds Philosophical Tools for Technological Culture: Putting Pragmatism to Work , 2003 .

[5]  P. Cilliers,et al.  From Representation to Emergence: Complexity's challenge to the epistemology of schooling , 2008 .

[6]  M. Heidegger The question concerning technology , 2024, East Asian Journal of Philosophy.

[7]  Marko Lüftenegger,et al.  Conceptual Issues and Assessment of Implicit Theories , 2017 .

[8]  T. C. Collocott Dictionary of Science and Technology , 1984 .

[9]  Robert John Ackermann,et al.  Data, instruments, and theory , 1985 .

[10]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[11]  P. Senge,et al.  The Triple Focus: A New Approach to Education , 2014 .

[12]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[13]  J. Carter,et al.  Extended Knowledge-How , 2016 .

[14]  Matthew Jelavic Socio-Technical Knowledge Management and Epistemological Paradigms: Theoretical Connections at the Individual and Organisational Level , 2011 .

[15]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Participation in groupware-mediated communities of practice: a socio-political analysis of knowledge working , 2001, Inf. Organ..

[16]  B. Latour Science in Action , 1987 .

[17]  G. Walsham Knowledge Management:: The Benefits and Limitations of Computer Systems , 2001 .

[18]  Christian Fleck,et al.  The social origins of modern science , 2000 .

[19]  D. Herschbach Technology as Knowledge: Implications for Instruction. , 1995 .

[20]  Maryanne M. Gobble,et al.  Design Thinking , 2010, The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible.

[22]  Tua Haldin-Herrgård,et al.  Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations , 2000 .

[23]  Harry Scarbrough,et al.  Towards a second generation of KM? The people management challenge , 2001 .

[24]  Andrew Peter Wallace McCarthy E DITOR ’ S C OMMENTS Diversity of Design Science Research , 2022 .

[25]  Jerry Avorn Technology , 1929, Nature.

[26]  D. Ihde Instrumental Realism: The Interface between Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology , 1991 .

[27]  Panos Theodorou,et al.  Perception and action: On the praxial structure of intentional consciousness , 2006 .