The Nature of Finnish Technology Education
Matti Lattu
University of Helsinki,
Department of Teacher Education
P.O. Box 39
00014 University of Helsinki
matti.lattu@helsinki.fi
voice +358-9-191 28059
fax + 358-9-191 28073
Abstract
Technology education is usually seen as a problem-solving process which aims to design
devices or procedures which fulfil certain needs. Based on this viewpoint the technology
could be defined to as an activity to ease the life of a man. However, this very engineerbased view is not the only one around. Technology education can also be seen as a
socially oriented activity, which aims to increase the understanding of the relationship
between science and society. An analysis of Finnish Framework Curriculum shows that
both views are present. A successful diffusion of engineering and social way of thinking
needs multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, developing technology education teaching
could be seen as encouraging cross-disciplinary activities in schools.
1. Technology and Technology Education
In a democratic society the curriculum is always a product of a political process. This is
also the case in technology education, as pointed out by Petrina (1998):
In the final analysis, it will be argued that curriculum organisation - what is
selected to be taught and how it is organised to teach - is a moral and political
endeavour, and much less an epistemological issue. There is not a 'natural', logical
way to organise technological knowledge; there are simply political choices and
rhetorics." (italics in the original)
If the curriculum of technology education is a product of a political process, whose voice
exists in the Finnish framework curriculum (took effect 1994; POPS 1994)?
Layton (1994) has presented a list of stakeholders of technology education:
2
1) Economic instrumentalists highlight the instrumental value of technology education as
well as its impact on national economy competitiveness.
2) Professional technologists see technology as a "third culture" with science and arts.
Members of this category are usually members of engineering interest groups and allied
with the economic instrumentalists.
3) Sustainable developers see technology education as a way to empower pupils with the
knowledge, skills, and values to undertake and control the technological development of
tomorrow's society.
4) Girls and woman see technology education as a way to equalise the gender differences
in the male-dominated area. They also argue that technology is based on masculine
values and development could benefit from female approach.
5) Defenders of participatory democracy see technology belonging to the professional
élite. To be able to control this coterie and take part to the decision-making of the society,
citizens should be capable of understanding some technological principles.
6) Liberal educators see technology education as a way to develop a distinctive form of
child's cognition. As such, all children should have a possibility to develop this part of
their human potential.
This paper is based on a presentation which introduced the basic ideas of technology
education and summarised the technological content in the Finnish Framework
Curriculum (Lattu 1999). However, the purpose of this paper is different. Here I will
study whose voices can be distinguished from the technology education content found
from the Framework curriculum.
Technology is often defined using one or more of the following three ideas:
Technology is making use of science. Science makes inventions, which are then utilised
by technologists (cf. Orpwood & Werdelin 1987, 10; Kurki-Suonio & Kurki-Suonio
1996).
Technology is in a dialog with the society. Social sciences are combined with technology
both in Europe and US by the Science, Technology, and Society (STS) movement
(Ginner 1996; de Vries 1994).
There are several different areas of technology. Some authors want to take stand on the
areas of technology (e.g. Parikka & Rasinen 1994, 16; Kankare 1997).
Some scholars have approached the concept by studying its nature. Seeing technology as
knowledge base or problem-solving process is perhaps the most used viewpoint (e.g.
Goralnik 1996; Beatriz 1996; Wicklein 1997). Herschbach (1995) argues, that technology
is linked to the human activity and therefore it cannot be categorized as a scientific
knowledge. He continues, that technology needs a specific application to find an
expression and this is what makes it different from mathematics or physics. Planning and
designing are inherent properties of process and they basically mean making mental
construction of final product. Clearly, cognitive activity and problem-solving are integral
part of technology.
3
Technological problem-solving process is usually seen as integrative (Kimbell 1994;
Herschbach 1995) and following some linear or cyclical design models (Lawson 1997,
31-38; Zeisel 1984, 14-16). However, these models represent design process. Elmer
(1999) argues that learning effort combined with design activity results more fuzzy
processes than those well-structured models in the domain of design.
In figure 1 I have outlined technological process. It has three typical characteristics,
which are:
 It is problem-based
 It is related with science and society
 The process integrates knowledge from a different domains
 The solution affects both society and the science
society
problem
area 1
innovative process
science
area 2
solution
area 4..
area 3
Figure 1. Technological problem-solving process utilises typically a number of
scientific domains as well as non-scientific (practical) knowledge from the society. The
question whether it is meaningful or possible to make a difference between the society
and the science remains here unanswered
The figure above simplifies the situation, as technology clearly has a growing knowledge
base on its own (e.g. engineering science) and problems are being set from this
perspective as well.
2. Technology Education in the Finnish Framework Curricula
2.1. Research questions
The research questions set for the inquiry are:
1) Whose voices can be distinguished from the technology education content
found from the Framework curriculum?
2) What is the nature of technology in the Framework curriculum?
4
2.2. Data and Procedure
The empirical section of the paper analyses the current Finnish framework curriculum
(POPS 1994) for the comprehensive school (grades 1-9) in order to find references to the
technology education.
The analysis was carried out using content analysis (Cohen & Manion 1994, 54-58). The
documents were read through looking for any references to technology education, which
in this case was understood as broadly as possible. Unfortunately, no parallel
classification could not be made because of lack of resources. However, Parikka (1998,
129) and Kananoja (1997, 11-12) have presented similar results concerning the existence
of technology education content in the 1994 framework curriculum. No quantitative
analysis was conducted because of the small number of findings.
After this, the references were extracted from the text and the possible voice and nature
of technology were analysis. In the former, Layton's classification was used. The nature
was analysed using "utilisation of science" and "dialog with the society" -concepts. The
references and the analysis is presented in appendix 1.
2.3. Results
The introduction section of the 1994 framework curriculum defines the aim for the
comprehensive school as follows:
"The comprehensive school is being developed as a compulsory school that offers
a great variety of general education, which each child and youth is entitled to."
(POPS 1994, 13)
Few paragraphs later the general education is defined as consist of three components:
 All-around education is wide and many-sided. It gives an individual a potential to
consider phenomena from a number of views.
 Individual is able to co-operate, take and bear the responsibility, and value the
possible implications of his or her actions.
 Modern society requires that every citizen has a potential to use technology and is
able to work upon the direction of the development of the technology. "What is
especially important is to take a critical look at the effects technology has on the
interaction between man and nature, to be able to make use of the possibilities it
offers and to understand their consequences." (POPS 1994, 14)
Clearly, the 1994 framework curriculum values technology education high. Technology
is seen as knowledge, which is needed by every citizen to be able to make decisions in
the democratic society. This is viewpoint is very closely related to Layton's group
"defenders of participatory democracy".
Although the technology education is highly stressed in the general aims, technology is
not suggested as an intercurricular topic (such as international education or information
technology skills, for example) or a subject.
5
In the analysis of subject-specific goals (see appendix 1) it quickly turned out that the
science/society dichotomy was not descriptive enough to define the nature of technology.
Therefore, some other attributes were adopted.
According to the analysis there seems to be four different groups of subjects with some
kind of technological content.
The first group could be called as "Fundamentals" and its common nominator is scientific
concepts. Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry include a lot of references to the
technology where any (or all) of the Layton's stakeholder groups can not be identified.
However, the selection of some examples, especially production-related issues indicate
that the "economic instrumentalists" have influence on this group.
The second group of subjects stress the relationship between man and his environment,
both natural and social. Mostly, the technology is presented by the voice of "sustainable
developers". Subjects in this group are Environmental and Natural Studies, Biology,
Geography, Religion, Ethics, and History and Social Studies. The group could be labelled
as "Environment".
The third group, "Making things", is more production-oriented than the other three. Craft,
Technical Work and Textile Work stress design and production of objects, but also
environmental issues are present. This group is focused on the practical properties of
technology education.
In the fourth group could be called as "Tool". In these subjects the content sees
technology just as a tool for some other activity. In these excerpts "technology" usually
meant computers. Languages and music belong to the Tools-group.
Stakeholder group "liberal educators" could not be identified, which is most probably a
result of data selection. For example sentences relating to problem-solving without any
direct link to technology were not included in the analysis.
3. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to find out what kind of technology education content there
is in the current Framework curriculum. The content was interpreted using the
stakeholder groups presented by Layton (1994). According to the results the subjects can
be divided in to four different groups based on the stakeholder voices in their content.
The duality of science and society was not very descriptive in the analysis.
The classification process turned out that the voices of different stakeholder groups could
not be easily identified. This is understandable, as the interests of the different groups are
not necessarily contradictory. The industry finds technologies and products related to
sustainable development and nature preservation more and more valuable in the today's
markets. Correspondingly, the western environmental movement sees the only real option
for advancing their interests in the economical wellbeing.
6
As there is a certain division between the Fundamentals and Making things vs.
Environment, it is notable that technology as a concept is used in all of them. Although
the subjects somehow differ in their relation to the technology, the technology also
combines them. This is a clear indication of the integrative potential of technology. A
successful technology education curriculum should be able to make use of this
possibility.
The 1994 framework curriculum has a clear inconsistency between the general aims and
the goals of the individual subjects. While the former ones stress the importance of
technological understanding, technology is not so strongly present in the subject-specific
section as one could imagine.
What is the reason for this inconsistency? In the framework curriculum the general
education is defined using three very broad aims, technology education as one of them.
The other two aims are potential for studying phenomena with multiple views and cooperation skills. It is evident that these aims are far too broad to be reached by a single
subject.
In Finland a vivid discussion has taken place concerning the ways to take care of the
technology education in the comprehensive school. Parikka (1998) suggests, that a new
subject should be formed. Kankare (1997) argues, that technology education can be dealt
by developing Metal- and Woodwork.
If technology education should be understood as an evenly fundamental aim as the other
two (multidisciplinary knowledge and co-operation skills), forming a single subject to
take care of that domain could not be a proper solution. The general aims should be
present in all the activities taking place in the compulsory school. Therefore, from the
perspective of the 1994 curriculum framework, technology education can not be brought
to the curriculum just by creating a single subject, but to enhancing to possibilities to
integrate the different areas of knowledge. At this point it looks like that the improvement
of technology education in Finnish comprehensive schools could be best promoted
through supporting the intercurricular activities in general. The school-level planners
need examples of the ways to take the integral approach into the curricula.
It must be reminded that the framework curriculum is not the only way to aid the change
- far from it. New materials, timetables, flexible grouping of pupils, and in-service
training could help to change existing practices. Also, qualifications and wage conditions
should be considered as a possible methods to promote co-operation.
No matter what actions are we going to take we should always set the goals in a such a
way that all stakeholder groups can see the importance of technology education. By
making a boat big enough and setting the rules favourable to everyone we get a bigger
and stronger crew, which makes the journey more effective and enjoyable to all of us.
7
References
Beatriz, F. L. 1996. Technological Education: Some Conceptual Framesworks. In
Mioduser, D. & Zilberstein, I. (Eds.) JISTEC ´96. Book of Abstracts. Tel-Aviv:
The Centre for Educational Technology, S1- 53-54.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. 1994. Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Herschbach, D. R. 1995. Technology as Knowledge: Implications for Instruction. Journal
of Technology Education 7 (1), 31-42.
Elmer, R. 1999. Probing intentions of design and technology students. Paper presented in
European Conference on Educational Research 23.-25.9.1999, in Lahti, Finland.
Ginner, T. 1996. A Concept of Technology Education Within the Core Curriculum. In
Mioduser, D. & Zilberstein, I. (Eds.) JISTEC ´96. Book of Abstracts. Tel-Aviv:
The Centre for Educational Technology, S1-21 - 22.
Goralnik, I. 1996. A Concept of Technology Education in High Schools. In Mioduser, D.
& Zilberstein, I. (Eds.) JISTEC ´96. Book of Abstracts. Tel-Aviv: The Centre for
Educational Technology, S1-23 - 24.
Kananoja, T. 1997. Teknologia opetussuunnitelmissa (Technology in the Curricula). In
Kananoja, T., Kari, J. & Parikka, M. (Eds.) Practices in Technology Education.
Teaching material of University of Oulu, Faculty of Education, 74, 7-20.
Kankare, P. 1997. Teknologian lukutaidon toteutuskonteksti peruskoulun teknisessä
työssä (The Context of Implementation of Technological Literacy in the Metal- and
Woodwork in the Comprehensive School). Publications of University of Turku, C
139.
Kimbell, R. 1994. Progression in learning and the assessment of children's attainments. In
Layton, D. (Ed.) Innovations in science and technology education. Vol. V. Paris:
Unesco, 181-200.
Kurki-Suonio, K. & Kurki-Suonio, R. 1996. Comprehensive Framework for Scientific
and Technological Learning Processes. In Mioduser, D. & Zilberstein, I. (Eds.)
JISTEC ´96. Book of Abstracts. Tel-Aviv: The Centre for Educational Technology,
S3-73 - 75.
Lattu, M. 1999. Technology Education - Orphan in the Curriculum. Paper presented at
the JULIS'99 symposium at University of Joensuu in the 20th of November.
Lawson, B. 1997. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Completely
rev. 3rd edition. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Layton, D. 1994. A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In
Layton, D. (Ed.) Innovations in science and technology education. Vol. V. Paris:
Unesco, 11-28.
Orpwood, G. & Werdelin, I. 1987. Science and technology in the primary school of
tomorrow. Paris: Unesco.
Parikka, M. 1998. Teknologiakompetenssi. Teknologiakasvatuksen uudistamishaasteita
peruskoulussa ja lukiossa (Technological Competence. The Challenges for
Remodelling Technology Education in the Comprehensive and the Upper
Secondary School). University of Jyväskylä, Studies in education, psychology and
social research, 141.
Parikka, M. & Rasinen, A. 1994. Teknologiakasvatuskokeilu. Kokeilun tavoitteet ja
opetussuunnitelman lähtökohdat (A Pilot Project in Technology Education. The
8
Aims and the Starting Points of the Curriculum). University of Jyväskylä,
Department of Teacher Education, 15.
Petrina, S. 1998. Multidisciplinary Technology Education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education vol 8 no 2, 103-138.
POPS 1994. Framework Curriculum for the Comprehensive School 1994. Helsinki:
National Board of Education.
de Vries, M. J. 1994. Technology Education in Western Europe. In Layton, D. (Ed.)
Innovations in science and technology education. Vol. V. Paris: Unesco, 31-44.
Wicklein, R. C. 1997. Curriculum Focus for Technology Education. Journal of
Technology Education 8 (2), 71-78.
Zeisel, J. 1984. Inquiry by Design. Tools for Environment-Behavior Research.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
Appendix 1. Technology Education in the 1994 framework curriculum (in
the subject-specific goals).
The texts are marked with * were not directly quoted from the document. L1, L2, etc.
refer to the grouping of Layton.
subject
Mother tongue
Finnish
Mother tongue
Swedish
Swedish for
Finnish-speaking
students
Finnish for the
Swedish-speaking
Finns
Mathematics
Environmental and
Natural Studies
(grades 1-6)
goal or content dealing with technology education
(V: voice, N: nature)
The student is able to use technical aids in acquiring, organising,
and conveying information. *
(Technology as a tool)
The students get familiar in using technical aids and media in
acquiring information. *
(Technology as a tool)
Computer technology is used in working and presentation. *
(Technology as a tool)
Computer and other modern technology is used in independent
study and project work. *
(Technology as a tool)
Mathematics can be seen as the foundations for scientific
development and modern society. The ability to read and
understand mathematical information in many forms plays a pivotal
role in modern technological society.
(V: L1-5 , N: society is linked with technology)
When planning the teaching, attention must be paid to the fact that
the students, regardless of sex, also have a chance to familiarize
themselves with phenomena in physics and chemistry and with the
technical applications that relate to them.
(V: L1-5, N: technology is application of science)
(Environmental and Natural Studies) guides the student to
understand different people and cultures and assess the effects of
people's choices on the globe, and it builds grounds for an
ecologically sustainable relationship to the environment.
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
(The student) learns to study materials and their qualities - - (V: -, N: materials technology)
Biology
(grades 7-9)
Man's relation to nature and a built-up environment, conservation
of the environment.
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
(The student) learns to recognize changes in the environment, to
find reasons for them, and to ponder their consequences.
10
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
(The student) learns to evaluate the importance of his own decisions
and to find ways to lessen harmful environmental effects.
(V: L3, L5, N: natural environment)
Geography
(grades 7-9)
Physics and
Chemistry
(grades 7-9)
Man and the environment, man as a user of natural resources and a
causer of environmental changes, the reasons for environmental
problems and their possible solutions, the protection of nature and
culture, and the ways to act for a good environment.
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
(The student) learns to observe the dependency of mankind on the
opportunities offered by nature, and to recognize the changes that
occur in technological, economical and cultural development in
different areas.
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
(The student) learns to understand that every man is responsible for
the environment and that the future of the earth and man depends
on the choices made by communities.
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
(The student) can discuss things pertaining to the field and
phenomena in physics and can also apply physics knowledge to
issues concerning nature and the environment and in problem
solving and decision making. (Physics)
(V: L1-3, N: technology is application of science, natural
environment mentioned)
(The student) learns terminology with which he can discuss issues
pertaining to nature, the environment and technology. (Chemistry)
(V: L1-5, N: technology is application of science, natural
environment mentioned)
(The student) learns to apply chemical information in such a way
that it can be used in different areas, such as, in clarifying issues
pertaining to nature and the environment and in problem solving.
(Chemistry)
(V: L1-5, N: technology is application of science, natural
environment mentioned)
Structures and systems created by man, like machines and circuits.
(V: -, N: technological structures)
Radioactivity, use of radiation and protection against it.
(V: -, N: technology is application of science)
11
The sources, production, use and environmental effects of energy.
The saving of energy and welfare.
(V: L1-5, especially L3, N: natural environment mentioned)
Religion
(EvangelicalLutheran and
Orthodox)
Ethics
History and Social
Studies
Music
Art
Home Economics
(grades 7-9)
Substance in chemical and other industrial processes. Raw
materials and their refining. The uniting and separating of
substances examples of various processes.
(V: L1-2, N: production technology)
- - - the student attains a diversified religious all-round education - - by developing ethically responsibility towards life so that he
learns the consequences of his actions, is able to make personal
choices in values and to influence decisions made in society.
(V: L3, N: society)
The pondering of the issues that come from the immediate
environment.
(V: -, N: society)
An investigative and innovative student begins to understand his
and the world's incompleteness. Studying different views of life
opens perspectives to outline the possible, likely and hopeful.
(V: -, N: society)
(The student) realizes the relation of man and nature as a basic issue
in history, the present day and the future.
(V: L3, N: natural environment )
(The student) understands that he, as a citizen and consumer, can
wield influence when social decisions are made.
(V: L5, N: society)
- - - (students) are also prepared to receive and produce music with
modern technology and instruments.
(Technology as a tool)
Special emphasis is laid on the ability to combine aesthetics with
ethic, ecological, technical, and economic aspects in design,
architecture, and community planning.
(V: L1-2, N: technology in man-made environment)
Another important topic is the awareness, assessment, and
appreciation of nature, cultural scenery, the urban environment and
material culture from an aesthetic and ecological point of view.
(V: L2-3, N: technology in man-made environment)
(The student) learns to evaluate options and practices in the home,
which exploit nature as little as possible and are in harmony with
the environment.
(V: L3, N: natural environment)
In studying, the student is also familiarized with the meaning of
12
Craft, Technical
Work, Textile
Work
new technology in everyday life and in seeking and handling
information.
(V: L2, N: society, technology as a tool)
The value basis for Craft teaching is the appreciation of work in
respect of, ethics, ecology, aesthetics and economy, safe working
habits, responsibility, consideration for others and the all-around
development of the student.
(V: L1-2, N: design, production technology)
In the production process, the control of one's life and
environmental needs are considered.
(V: L1-3, N: production technology, natural environment)
The student is guided to observe and solve problems and to use the
means provided by technology in the planning and making of a
product.
(V: L1-2, N: design)
(The students) masters entities which involve critical planning and
activity that aesthetic, ethic, and ecological values.
(V: L1-3, N: design, natural environment)
(The students) can manufacture products that he or she has
designed and that are aesthetic, of good quality, and functional.
(V: L1-2, N: design)
(The students) can manage in technical environment - - -.
(V: L1-2, L5, N: society)
(The students) on his own, acquires knowledge and skills connected
with traditional and modern technology, materials, tools and
methods, which can be implemented in everyday life, in further
studies, in work, and in hobbies.
(V: L1, N: design and production skills)
The teaching of Craft aims at a broad, traditional and modern
technological knowledge of materials, tools and working practices.
(V: L1, N: design and production skills)