Chapter 2 The Nature of Technology PDF

Chapter 2 The Nature of Technology Theresa A. Cullen and Meize Guo 2.1 Introduction Technology is both the tools that are used but also the systematic processes by which problems are solved. For example, in biology, technology is used to coordi- nate efforts to find vaccines by allowing for mean...

Chapter 2 The Nature of Technology Theresa A. Cullen and Meize Guo 2.1 Introduction Technology is both the tools that are used but also the systematic processes by which problems are solved. For example, in biology, technology is used to coordi- nate efforts to find vaccines by allowing for meaningful communication and data sharing. Meanwhile, in engineering, technology allows calculations that could not be done before in order to design structures and solutions. In math, technology serves to speed up processing of calculations to allow for greater complexity and to provide application and visualization of mathematical models. The nature of technology is important as we develop our way of knowing in our ever increasingly technological society and use its affordances to solve problems and create solutions in science, engineering and math. Thinking about technology is difficult since people often view it through different perspectives. Like the nature of science, technology views are shaped by individuals’ experiences and cultures, thus affecting their view. They may be focused on the practical uses of technology versus focusing theoretically on technology’s role in our lives. To discuss the nature of technology, we must first examine how technology is defined and then discuss how it is applied in educational settings. Through this examination we can develop a deeper meaning of technology as it relates to learning and integration across the STEM fields. Technology is an integral part of the STEM acronym because it pro- vides the tools and processes by which the other areas advance and do their work. T. A. Cullen (*) Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Guo Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 21 V. L. Akerson, G. A. Buck (eds.), Critical Questions in STEM Education, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_2 22 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo Processes that are developed in one STEM field are often influenced by and shared via technology. For example, models used in biology to for population evolution rely on computational modeling developed within the math field and influence mod- els used in engineering to design solutions and environments. A key to meaningfully integrating technology across STEM is to look for places where technology and other STEM fields share a way of knowing. By doing that, we can integrate not only the technology tools in our teaching and learning of STEM topics but also engage in explicit reflection on the role of technology in our lives and communities. Moreover, the interdependence between technology and science, engineering, mathematics shall emerge in this process as well. 2.2 Definitions of Technology Technology is often understood to mean different things to different people. Not surprisingly, multiple, nuanced definitions of technology exist that reflect its histori- cal development. For some technology is the processes used to solve problems and for others it is the tools like computers and calculators that allow for complex cal- culations and modeling in other STEM fields. Scholars and technology researchers have struggled to define technology for a long time but lack consensus. Major ideas center around process, social impact, and how computers interact with humans. Zvorikine (1961) summarized that technology was defined to indicate art and craftsmanship, but also meant procedure, methods, formulas, and with the develop- ment of machinery production, it primarily referred to the labor. Beyond the con- cepts of technology as artifacts and technology as procedure, Pacey (1983) emphasized the social impacts of technology. Technology develops and interacts with multiple dimensions of society at the individual, social, political, cultural and economic levels. Similarly, Waight and Abd-El-Khalick (2012) state the nature of technology should include an individual’s culture and values as well. This has important implications as technology has evolved. For example, Mitcham (1994) claimed the intention of user can help identify and shape technology from the human computer interaction (HCI) perspective. In HCI, technology is ubiquitous and often wearable, which creates an interesting lens with which to view the social impacts of technology in the modern world. Given new technologies such as the Internet of Things (IOT) where smart technology helps to predict our needs and report our use back to companies. Examining the social impact of technology is growing to be a more important philosophical and practical question (Berman & Cerf, 2017). Technologies like IOT depend on mathematics to model interactions and engineering to apply these technologies to new designs to improve peo- ples’ lives. Technology scholars acknowledge the challenge in defining the term based on these different lenses through which technology is viewed. Tiles and Oberdiek (2013) identified three difficulties when defining “technology.” The first difficulty is that any proposed definition of technology cannot exclude other definitions. Because 2 The Nature of Technology 23 of different backgrounds and perceptions, it is very challenging to come up with a universal definition of technology. A second difficulty is distinguishing prescientific technology from modern scientific technology. For example, a chalkboard could be considered as a teaching technology in the eighteenth century, but now, other tools such as tablets, learning management systems, and interactive whiteboards have evolved by leveraging technology tools to change the pedagogy of how we teach. The third difficulty is to distinguish technology as equipment or as an applied sci- ence. For example, should we identify the computer as technology, or should we identify the computational results produced by a computer as technology. To avoid these concerns, technology scholars argue that people should contextualize technol- ogy to human life, related to living in a technological age first, and only then exam- ine technological meaning and understanding without context. Another approach to defining technology approaches it from a philosophical lens. Tiles and Oberdiek (2013) described technological development as the prob- lem solver and alleviator, but also something that can create more problems as its use becomes part of society. For example, think about smartphones. While this tech- nology has made solving problems, navigating unknown areas, and other informa- tion tasks easier, it has created problems with people losing human to human interaction skills. Through different conceptions of technology development and of the relationship between humans and technology, two conflicting views emerged: technological optimism and technological pessimism (Tiles & Oberdiek, 2013). The optimism view of technology states that technology is applied science and can be used to solve problems. In this view, technology and its production have neutral value, general knowledge could be applied in a similar situation. Under optimism, when technology was introduced into social contexts, irresponsible use was due to human choice not the tool itself. Pessimism focuses on the technological system and technical practice more than technology device. Technology practice might domi- nate and control everything in human life, such as the science, art, culture, economy, and even the ways of doing and making, which shapes humans’ social, moral and political life. In the pessimistic view, the human life is influenced by the technology and associated practices. Heidegger (1977) cautioned that technology is something to be thought about and managed by humans and not the other way around (Dreyfus & Spinosa, 2003). This challenge connects to the ethical dilemmas faced by other STEM fields. Engineering often struggles with how innovations may affect lives and how humans will interact. Biologists often struggle with the ethics of medical treatments weighing the benefits versus the risks. The same challenges exist for technology. Developing a clear definition of technology is complicated by the rapid speed at which technology develops. In the 1960’s and 1970’s Howard Moore predicted that processing power would double every two years as advances in semiconductor man- ufacturing increased (Theis & Wong, 2017). As Moore’s law accurately predicted technology made exponential leaps as chips could become smaller and more com- plex. Technology was able to do more things, which created the need to examine if we should do all the things that technology made possible. As technology leaped so did the need to better understanding of what technology is and how it affects our 24 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo lives. It became more difficult to define what technology is because as it became more complex and more integrated. Our definitions, often based on practical appli- cations, had to radically change. Definitions based on more philosophical examina- tions of technology retain relevancy as technology evolves, but both require reflection and examination to keep up with the pace of innovation in technology and its application in science, engineering and math. 2.3 Research About Nature of Technology in Education Many research studies have been conducted to identify the different perceptions about the nature of technology with students and teachers at various levels of educa- tion. When searching the literature, the most common conception of technology views technology as an instrument or device. Viewing technology systemically or connected to human practice were barely mentioned (DiGironimo, 2011; Fernandes, Rodrigues, & Ferreira, 2017; Sundqvist & Nilsson, 2018; Waight & Abd-El-­ Khalick, 2012). The results of these studies show that students and teachers lack nature of technology knowledge. For example, Fernandes et al. (2017) generalize four categories to identify the concepts of the nature of technology, (1) instrumental concepts, which is characterized as tools, artifacts, and machines; (2) cognitive con- cepts, which is characterized as applying the theoretical knowledge; (3) systemic concepts, which is characterized as the components of a complex system; and (4) value-based concepts, which is characterized as personal value and judgement of science. From a survey and semi-structured interviews of 20 international youth participants, 13 out of 20 students represented the instrumental concepts of technol- ogy, nine of the 13 participants focused on the electronic equipment, such as com- puter, tablet, video games and phones. Five out of 20 students held the cognitive concept of technology, they thought technology is the application of theoretical knowledge. Two participants held the systemic concept of technology, which included the ethical and environmental implication in social context; and three respondents matched with the value-based concept of technology, which was based on participants’ personal view. This study illustrated the challenge that the STEM fields face in making use of technology, the different and incomplete views of the nature of technology can hamper collaboration and innovation because all of the team are viewing technology differently. Sundqvist and Nilsson (2018) surveyed 102 pre-school staff members from Sweden to identify their view about technology education in preschool. The partici- pants confirmed that they emphasized seven categories of technology during their work: “(1) artifacts and systems in children’s environment, (2) create, (3) problem solving, (4) concept of technology, (5) the technological experiments, (6) the tech- nique skills, and (7) the natural science” (p.29). The staff members barely taught technology, instead, they provided the materials and created the environment for children and inspired children to experience their world which included technology as part of it. Also, as we can see from this study, much like in other STEM areas, 2 The Nature of Technology 25 technology views are greatly influence by the sociocultural nature of science. The Swedish views are influenced by their life experiences and cultural approaches to problems. Concepts of the nature of technology from middle/high school students and teachers were studied by researchers as well. For instance, DiGironimo (2011) developed a framework of the nature of technology, which explained the five dimen- sions of technology, technology as artifacts, as creation process, and as human prac- tice, history of technology and current role of technology in society. Then the author surveyed 20 middle school students the question: What is technology? and analyzed students’ responses according to the framework. The results showed that 50% of students considered technology as artifacts, and only 26.5% students mentioned the current role of technology in society. A mere 2.9% of students thought technology was a human practice, 8.8% students described the history of technology, and 11.8% stated technology as creation process. Waight (2014) addressed 30 science teachers’ concepts of the nature of technology through interviews, three major themes emerged as “(1) improves and make life easier, (2) artifacts which function to accomplish tasks, and (3) representations of advances in civilization” (p.1155). According to the study, the science teachers understandably held an optimistic view of technology. But the results indicate another problem, when science teachers exhibited an incomplete view of the nature of technology or a background bias, would they be able to effectively promote the development of the nature of technol- ogy in their students? Could they discuss the human, historical and ethical consid- erations that technology influenced on other science, engineering, and math pursuits? Who bears the responsibility to teach the nature of technology? And where should it exist in the curriculum? In some cases, technology has been included as part of STEM education, but in others, it fits into library studies or business educa- tion. To better understand how technology is treated in the curriculum, it is impor- tant to understand the standards that many educators use to make sure that they are teaching about technology. 2.4 Standards Movement in Technology Education Unlike science education where the Nature of Science is included in major stan- dards documents like the Next Generation Science standards, the nature of the tech- nology is not included in major standards movements within educational technology but instead takes a process view about how technology is integrated or applied. Math standards tend to be led by NCTM (National Council for the Teachers of Mathematics). Engineering standards are ITEEA (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association) and IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) - which represents the values of the professional organizations for which they prepare students to enter. Other content areas such as TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) have their own technology standards as well (2008). In many schools, technology is not an independent subject and is 26 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo expected to be taught and utilized across the curriculum. In other districts, technol- ogy is considered a special topic or something relegated to exploration classes or centers on an infrequent basis. The fact that technology is not a core subject limits both deep learning and the discussion of its implication on society and its integra- tion with other STEM fields. Technology standards generally begin with a general conception that using tech- nology is in itself good and desirable for teaching and learning and to promote “digital age learning” (ISTE, 2018a, 2018b). Technology integration standards are drafted by International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Their stan- dards are broken into audiences. For example, ISTE has specific standards for stu- dents in K12 classrooms, educators, and leaders. Technology professionals (coaches, coordinators, etc..) have their own standards as well. Each of these standards mirror each other and focus on how technology is used to promote learning. This organiza- tion is directed toward educators who teach with technology and not necessarily technology related careers, so their focus is integration. This focus on integration philosophically focuses on technology as a tool but can lack the other dimensions of the nature of technology. The ISTE standards focus on the “soft skills” at all levels for students, faculty and administrators. They stress that learners, educators and leaders, use collabora- tion, data, and communication to use technology for meaningful learning. These consistent references to these twenty-first century skills help to define the nature of technology in the same way that the nature of science is defined by empirical social and cultural relationships, and collaboration (Lederman, 2007). The ISTE standards were first written in 1998, which at that time included a specific section on the “Social, ethical, and human issues” of technology, but these have been removed since the 2007 revision where it has been included as an aspect of digital citizenship (Thomas & Knezek, 2008). Digital Citizenship focuses on how students interact with each other online and often includes a discussion of rules and policies for edu- cators (Hollandsworth, Dowdy, & Donovan, 2011). These concerns mirror the ethi- cal nature of science, however again they focus on the use of technology in education and since the 2007 revision do not specifically address the ethical nature of technol- ogy. In later revisions the standards are more general and focus less on content knowledge about technology and more about processes to make effective use of technology to improve learning (ISTE, 2018a, 2018b). Each of the ISTE standards for students, educators, and leaders include digital citizenship. The ISTE standards also lack direct application to other STEM fields. While they mention creativity and collaboration throughout, the connection to science, engineering and math is left for students and teachers to draw themselves. Research in educational technology tends to follow to the same trends as the standards. The studies are segmented and look at particular soft skills but never really get into deep definitions about the nature of technology. Within educational technology one of the prevalent models for assessing the quality of technology inte- gration and preparation is the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This model has its roots in the PCK model (Shulman, 1987) which started as a largely science education model that talked about the nature of teaching knowledge. Shulman 2 The Nature of Technology 27 argued that in order to teach science there is a combination of knowing the scientific content and how to teach specific scientific content. Where the two intertwined was PCK - or specific knowledge about how to teach specific content. Koehler and Mishra (2009) built upon this model to add technology as an equal concern to both content and pedagogy - and created Technological Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Neither of these models examine what is nature of the content knowledge or the nature of technology - instead they look at how technology is taught. One of the criticisms of the TPACK model is the lack of a clear definition of what technol- ogy is, and how technology differs from pedagogy. Other criticism includes TPACK’s emphasis on technology integration as its own domain away from peda- gogy and instead of an examination of the nature of technology, TPACK emphasizes discrete technology knowledge or skills (Parr, Bellis, & Bulfin, 2013). However, given the foundation of TPACK is PCK which has been widely been explored in other STEM fields for decades, it provides an opportunity for exploring the implica- tions of technology use in the teaching of STEM topics as well. Through these shared philosophies, STEM educators can be engaged to look at how technology affects their development of both content knowledge and pedagogy. Computer science is a growing area of emphasis in the United States and around the world (Code.org, 2018). ISTE has specific standards for computer science edu- cators, and in 2018 released specific standards about content for supporting compu- tational thinking (ISTE, 2018a, 2018b). Computer science standards for K-12 education are relatively new. The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) which is a Division of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the pro- fessional organization for computer scientists. The newest version of the CSTA standards were accepted in 2017 and provide the framework for 22 states that have currently adopted them and 11 states that are developing statewide computer sci- ence standards (Code.org, 2018). However, when one looks at all of these standards movements, one would not find much examination of what technology is or any epistemological thinking about technology as a way of knowing, There is much attention spent to how to computer scientists interact and do their work. This relates back to the idea that technology is a process or a skill. The Computer Science Standards developed by CSTA have a similar focus on soft skills but also have more specific knowledge topics, much more like the next generation science standards. They focus on having learners learn how technology is done in the field - career specific processes like collaboration, security, and data protection. However, they have a broader focus on equity and the ethical use of computing and its impact on society. Prior to these standards, there was not much emphasis within technology education on the ethical or social impacts of technol- ogy, beyond looking at digital citizenship (Hollandswort, Dowdy, & Donovan, 2011; Lenhart et al., 2011). One of the ways in which states are measuring their integration of computer sci- ence education is by measuring how many students are taking an advanced place- ment (AP) exam in computer science (Code.org, 2018). As the AP Exam for computer science was being developed, a framework of seven computer science principles were laid out to develop the exam. These principles are show the closest 28 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo linkage to the development of a nature of technology within an instructional frame- work (Grover & Pea, 2013 (page 39). 1. Computing is a creative human activity 2. Abstraction reduces information and detail to focus on concepts relevant to understanding and solving problems 3. Data and information facilitate the creation of knowledge 4. Algorithms are tools for developing and expressing solutions to computational problems 5. Programming is a creative process that produces computational artifacts 6. Digital devices, systems, and the networks that interconnect them enable and foster computational approaches to solving problems 7. Computing enables innovation in other fields, including science, social science, humanities, arts, medicine, engineering, and business. These Computer Science Principles do not seem to be well developed beyond a framework for the AP exam and the CSTA standards instead uses a framework of concepts and competencies. Concepts include computing systems, networks and the internet, data and analysis, algorithms and programming and impacts of computing. They instead list a series of practices that demonstrate computer science. These practices include, fostering an inclusive computing culture, collaborating around computing, recognizing and defining computational problems, developing and using abstractions, creating computational artifacts, testing and refining computa- tional artifacts and communicating about computing (K–12 Computer Science Framework 2016). With the exception of the impacts of computing, these concepts and practices are much more applied and not defining technology or looking at the deeper philosophical issues about computing but instead present best practices without encouraging students to evaluate their inherent value (K–12 Computer Science Framework 2016). The CSTA standards also do not explicitly make con- nections to other STEM fields and discuss how technology is applied to solve prob- lems in these areas, but instead focuses on computer science as an independent domain. Computer science education research is another research strand of interest to the nature of technology. This area of research tends to focus on computational think- ing, problem formation and solving (Grover & Pea, 2013). This research focuses more on how people learn to think about technology but again does not focus on the nature of technology itself. To further complicate the advancement of this line of thinking, it occurs in multiple locations. While the education research literature on computational thinking is relatively new, it has existed in computer science venues (i.e. ACM journals) for decades (Grover & Pea, 2013). However, fundamental con- cepts in computer science like abstraction are mirrored in science and mathematics standards and offer a wonderful opportunity to integrate the study of what is tech- nology with the other disciplines while also looking at the impact of technology on the world through the lens of science or math curriculum (Cetin & Dubinsky, 2017; Kramer, 2007). If we want technology to be a focus of STEM curriculum, we need to learn from other standards developed by organizations where the focus of the standards 2 The Nature of Technology 29 (science, math, etc.) are philosophically examined as part of the standards. In addi- tion, recent criticism about technology use in education points to the general issue that technology use and integration is not well examined as a social good. It is this kind of orientation that looks at technology without teaching students how to man- age it, evaluate its role in their life, examine its relationship to other fields and acknowledge innovation that results. There are a flurry of articles that regularly appear in the mainstream news like Richmond and Troisl (2018) which asks if com- puters should be banned from the classroom due to things like texting or distraction. This shows that instead of examining the affordances of technology or the applica- tion of technology to our lives, the authors are defining technology by device or utility. Another common example seen in popular articles are stories about Silicon Valley parents who will not let their children use technology due to its addictive nature (Bowles, 2018). If we were engaged with discussions about the nature of technology from early ages and explicitly reflecting on it, these discussions would go in a different direction. This lack of examination of what technology is, what are the social benefits and concerns, and what does technology mean to our way of life (i.e. an examination of the nature of technology may be at the root of the debates and concerns. In addition, by looking at the nature of technology, the public would have more tools to assess and participate in innovation and understand how issues like data sharing and privacy can be weighed against the value of available innova- tions. As both technology and science continue to evolve, these ethical and philo- sophical questions become key to both an informed electorate and an engaged scientifically literate population. 2.5 Conclusion The way that we work in the world is changing. The World Economic Forum (2018) reported that many of today’s jobs will not exist in 2022, and the main driver of that change is adoption of technologies of like cloud computing, automation, data ana- lytics, and robotics. The report goes on to say that there will be a lack of skilled workers to the do the work. Technological changes expose a greater issue that needs to be addressed, that is the philosophical and ethical nature of technology. While it might be cost effective to rely on technology to do the jobs of the future, are we preparing our citizens to be thoughtful about the nature of technology and how it impacts our society? Are we preparing our workers to be both optimistic about the value that technology brings to our society but also pessimistic about how humans must guard against unintended consequences of technology use? Because technol- ogy is necessary part of modern life, having explored the nature of technology can help citizens explore the relationship between technology and themselves, and make informed choices. This understanding and reflection of the nature of technol- ogy is integral to the study and advancement of other STEM fields that rely on both the data and collaboration abilities that technology affords. 30 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo We are at a pivotal point related to technology education in the United States and throughout the world (Hubwieser et al., 2015). The Summit on STEM Education (White House, 2018) stressed that computer science is key to the future of our econ- omy and is their priority for STEM Education. The impetus of the computer science education movement and adoption of computer science standards around the globe presents an opportunity for educators to incorporate the nature of technology in new meaningful ways and to reflect on how technology affects our lives. Not only can examining the nature of technology help lead to thoughtful and ethical technology use but it can it also help us address issues of equity and access. These issues are shared by all the STEM fields and their discussion offers another opportunity for technology to better contribute to STEM education discussions and advancement. Understanding the nature of technology and technology itself seems urgent in K-12 education. By mapping the nature of science aspects on to computer science standards and activities, this can be easily seen (Lederman, 2007). For example, the CSTA standards deal specifically with the sociocultural nature of technology by discussing and assessing technology on everyday life. In addition, the standards and computer science education activities focus on access and equity in computer sci- ence, and much of the computer science standards movement is driven by this social aim. Activities throughout different computer science curricula illustrate observa- tion and inference especially when it comes to debugging and problem solving in code. Computer programming is a highly creative activity and that is considered an important part of the problem-solving process. These aspects of the nature of tech- nology are very important, but much like the nature of science can only be taught and explored when students are engaged in explicit reflective activities (Lederman, 2007). Webb (2008) discussed the value of technology to traditional science educa- tion in that affordances that come with technology like simulations can support student inquiry and argumentation. The nature of technology is compatible with the nature of science, and through the affordances of technology we can engage learners in thinking deeply about the nature of all STEM fields. To achieve our goals, there is more research to be done. More research could be performed on how people view technology and how they relate it to human endeav- ors. More research could be designed about technology as a thought process and approach versus practical uses. More research could investigate technology as a way of knowing and solving problems. Also, the research could be expanded to con- nect technology to other STEM curriculum, such as how to use the nature of tech- nology to enhance student STEM learning and the advancement of STEM content. References Berman, F., & Cerf, V. G. (2017). Social and ethical behavior in the internet of things. Communications of the ACM, 60(2), 6–7. Bowles, N. (2018). A dark consensus about screens and kids begins to emerge in Silicon Valley. The New York Times, 26. Cetin, I., & Dubinsky, E. (2017). Reflective abstraction in computational thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 70–80. 2 The Nature of Technology 31 Code.org. (2018). State of computer science education. Retrieved from: https://advocacy.code.org/ CSTA. (2017). Computer science standards. Retrieved from: https://www.csteachers.org/page/ standards DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352. Dreyfus, H. L., & Spinosa, C. (2003). Further reflections on Heidegger, technology, and the every- day. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(5), 339–349. Fernandes, G. W. R., Rodrigues, A. M., & Ferreira, C. A. (2017). Conceptions of the nature of sci- ence and technology: A study with children and youths in a non-formal science and technology education setting. Research in Science Education, 1–36. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology (pp. 3–35). New York: Harper & Row. Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a vil- lage. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47. Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., et al. (2015, July). A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 65–83). ACM. ISTE. (2018a). ISTE standards. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/standards ISTE. (2018b). ISTE announces new computational thinking standards for all edu- cators standards. Retrieved from: https://www.iste.org/explore/Press-Releases/ ISTE-Announces-New-Computational-Thinking-Standards-for-All-Educators K–12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36–42. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). New York: Routledge. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American teens navigate the new world of “Digital Citizenship”. In Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinter- net.org/2011/11/09/teens-kindness-and-cruelty-on-social-network-sites/ Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge: MIT press. Parr, G., Bellis, N., & Bulfin, S. (2013). Teaching English teachers for the future: Speaking back to TPACK. English in Australia, 48(1), 9. Richmond, A. S & Troisl, J.D. (2018). Technology in the classroom: What the research tells us. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2018/12/12/ what-research-tells-us-about-using-technology-classroom-opinion Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educa- tional review, 57(1), 1–23. Sundqvist, P., & Nilsson, T. (2018). Technology education in preschool: Providing opportunities for children to use artifacts and to create. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 29–51. TESOL (2008). TESOL technology standards framework. Retrieved from: https://www.tesol.org/ docs/default-source/books/bk_technologystandards_framework_721.pdf?sfvrsn=2&sfvrsn=2 Theis, T. N., & Wong, H. S. P. (2017). The end of Moore’s law: A new beginning for information technology. Computing in Science & Engineering, 19(2), 41. Thomas, L. G., & Knezek, D. G. (2008). Information, communications, and educational technol- ogy standards for students, teachers, and school leaders. In International handbook of informa- tion technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 333–348). Boston, MA: Springer. 32 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo Tiles, M., & Oberdiek, H. (2013). Conflicting visions of technology. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: The technological condition: An anthology (pp. 249–259). Wiley. Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: High school science teachers’ conception of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1143–1168. Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of Technology: Implications for design, develop- ment, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875–2905. Webb, M. (2008). Impact of IT on science education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Vol. 20, pp. 133–148). Springer White House. (2018). Summit on STEM education.. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse. gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Summary-of-the-2018-White-House-State-Federal-STEM- Education-Summit.pdf World Economic Forum. (2018, September). The future of jobs: Global challenge insight report, World Economic Forum. Geneva: http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2018/key-findings/ Zvorikine, A. (1961). The history of technology as a science and as a branch of learning: A Soviet view. Technology and Culture, 2(1), 1–4. Theresa A. Cullen is the Department Head of Curriculum and Instruction at Arkansas Tech University. She was the Director of Digital Strategy and an Associate Professor at the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education at the University of Oklahoma. She coordinated the undergraduate technology integration courses and the 1-to-1 iPad program for all students studying to be teachers in grades Pre-K to 12. She became an Apple Distinguished Educator in 2015 and is currently the 2020 Research Chair for the ISTE Conference. She earned her PhD in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University. Meize Guo is a Doctoral Candidate in Instructional Systems Technology and minored in Science Education at Indiana University. Her research focuses on technology integration and computer science education, especially on teacher education and professional development. Currently, she is researching elementary STEM teachers’ conception and practice of teaching computer science.