Rethinking the notion of technology in education: Techno‐epistemology as a feature inherent to human praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Educators repeatedly underscore the intimate relationship between science and technology. This is problematic because technology, far from being “applied science,” presupposes a unique epistemology (techno‐epistemology). A focus on the role of science in technology overshadows this unique way of knowing and hence limits technology education and privileges a scientific worldview in education. To appropriately frame the unique epistemology of technology in education, we propose a cognitive framework developed to understand the use and development of tools in human activity, namely, Cultural‐Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Drawing on a case study of technology that is not rooted in a (Eurocentric) scientific tradition, the SXOLE (Reef Net) fishing technology of theWSÁNEĆ (Saanich) people, we show how technology can be understood as inherent to human praxis, which presupposes a dialectically related and unique epistemology that is incommensurable and irreducible to a scientific worldview. The implications of this framework for science and technology education are discussed. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Sci Ed93:218–232, 2009
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".