title: Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes

authors: Jones, Alister

subjects: technological concepts and processes

abstract: This paper examines recent research in student learning of technological concepts and processes. To explore this area three inter-related aspects are considered; existing concepts of technology, technological knowledge and processes. Different views of technology and technology education are reflected in both research outcomes and curriculum documents. Teacher and student perceptions of technology impact on the way in which technology is undertaken in the classroom. Teacher's perceptions of technology influence what they perceive as being important in learning of technology. student's perceptions of technology and technology education influence what knowledge and skills they operationalise in a technological task and hence affect student technological capability. Technological concepts and processes are often defined in different ways by particular groups. Subject subcultures are strongly held by both teachers and students. The influence of subject subcultures and communities of practice will be discussed in terms of defining and operationalising technological concepts and processes. Technological concepts are not consistently defined in the literature. For students to undertake technological activities, knowledge and processes cannot be divorced. Recent research highlights the problems when processes are emphasised over knowledge. This paper will examine different technological concepts in an attempt to create a critical balance between knowledge and process. Much of the literature in technology education has rightly emphasised definitions, curriculum issues, implementation and teacher training. This paper argues that it is now time to place a great emphasis on in-depth research on student understanding of technological concepts and processes and ways in which these can be enhanced.

text: Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes This paper examines recent research in student learning of technological concepts and processes. To explore this area three inter-related aspects are considered; existing concepts of technology, technological knowledge and processes. Different views of technology and technology education are reflected in both research outcomes and curriculum documents. Teacher and student perceptions of technology impact on the way in which technology is undertaken in the classroom. Teacher's perceptions of technology influence what they perceive as being important in learning of technology. student's perceptions of technology and technology education influence what knowledge and skills they operationalise in a technological task and hence affect student technological capability. Technological concepts and processes are often defined in different ways by particular groups. Subject subcultures are strongly held by both teachers and students. The influence of subject subcultures and communities of practice will be discussed in terms of defining and operationalising technological concepts and processes. Technological concepts are not consistently defined in the literature. For students to undertake technological activities, knowledge and processes cannot be divorced. Recent research highlights the problems when processes are emphasised over knowledge. This paper will examine different technological concepts in an attempt to create a critical balance between knowledge and process. Much of the literature in technology education has rightly emphasised definitions, curriculum issues, implementation and teacher training. This paper argues that it is now time to place a great emphasis on in-depth research on student understanding of technological concepts and processes and ways in which these can be enhanced.

year: 1997

title: Choosing the right microcontroller: A comparison of 8-bit Atmel, Microchip and Freescale MCUs

authors: Slade, Mel

subjects: engineering

abstract: When choosing a microcontroller there are many options, so which platform should you choose? There is little independent information available to help engineers decide which platform might best suit their needs and most designers tend to stick with the brand with which they are familiar. This is a difficult question to answer without bias if the people
conducting the evaluations have had previous experience with MCU programming predominantly on one platform. This article draws on a case study. We built three “Smart” Sprinkler Taps, small, self-contained irrigation controllers, differing only in the microcontroller unit (MCU) on the inside. We compare cost, development software quality and hardware performance from the perspective of a new user to each of the platforms.

text: Choosing the right microcontroller: A comparison of 8-bit Atmel, Microchip and Freescale MCUs When choosing a microcontroller there are many options, so which platform should you choose? There is little independent information available to help engineers decide which platform might best suit their needs and most designers tend to stick with the brand with which they are familiar. This is a difficult question to answer without bias if the people
conducting the evaluations have had previous experience with MCU programming predominantly on one platform. This article draws on a case study. We built three “Smart” Sprinkler Taps, small, self-contained irrigation controllers, differing only in the microcontroller unit (MCU) on the inside. We compare cost, development software quality and hardware performance from the perspective of a new user to each of the platforms.

year: 2011-11

title: Heritage-making in Aotearoa planning: Unsettling norms in contested urban space

authors: Hill, Carolyn Joy

subjects: Authorised heritage discourse

abstract: Heritage is currently a high-profile and often contentious topic in urban environments. As cities face growing challenges of climate change, intensification needs and cultural contestation, state-mandated heritage continues to have a significant influence on how cities are perceived, whose pasts are remembered, and what future change can be. However, this is being increasingly tested as urban pressures bring questions of who has a right to the city to the fore. 
Situated within the field of critical heritage studies, this thesis critically examines how heritage is officially “made” in the cities of Aotearoa New Zealand, and how emerging views and values may reshape these established norms for more spatially and culturally just futures. Focused on urban locations within the so-called “CANZUS” states (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America (USA)), the thesis centres on statutory heritage – the objects and places that are identified and managed within state-mandated planning systems that create dominant assumptions about what is worthy of protection. As such, its contribution is at the intersection of heritage and planning as it critically queries heritage’s future legacy claims and considers what other legacies may be imagined. 
The thesis includes four key enquiries. First, it explores the history of state-led heritage-making in Aotearoa, focusing on the city of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. It examines the tension between contemporary urban intensification priorities and heritage / special character regulation, critiquing the narrative of heritage as a “public good” given its entanglement with spatial and cultural inequity. Second, it studies three cases of urban heritage protest across Australia, Aotearoa and the USA. These cases expose the continued inadequacy of statutory heritage-making for Indigenous and emerging aspirations, as normative approaches are embedded not only by the heritage sector itself but by the planning and legislation systems that structure its mandate. 
Third, the thesis explores the current thinking of those shaping and working within heritage’s statutory framing across Aotearoa. It finds that heritage policy leaders are cognisant of, and concerned to change, heritage’s entrenched Eurocentricity, expert dominance and material orientation, but that shifting established practice remains a multi-dimensional challenge. Finally, it investigates the perspectives of young emerging planners in the city of Kirikiriroa / Hamilton, which again foregrounds the obstacles to displacing systemic norms but also highlights planning policy’s significant potential to shape different heritage futures. 
This thesis has important implications both for Aotearoa’s urban environments and for CANZUS cities more broadly. Grounded in contemporary real-world examples, it not only exposes heritage’s imbrication with issues of urban inequity but its deeper role in maintaining settler state security, making “home” on Indigenous land. It finds that unpicking this legacy will involve more than adding the heritages of “others” into the existing canon. Rather, deeper reconsideration of heritage’s societal purpose as part of Indigenous, multi-storied and dynamic cities is required. Finally, it highlights the central role for planning in transforming the heritage field, both through statutory policy reform and through integration with broader urban objectives. However, planners will need to be better equipped for critical engagement with heritage if they are to creatively support more inclusive, democratic and malleable alternatives.

text: Heritage-making in Aotearoa planning: Unsettling norms in contested urban space Heritage is currently a high-profile and often contentious topic in urban environments. As cities face growing challenges of climate change, intensification needs and cultural contestation, state-mandated heritage continues to have a significant influence on how cities are perceived, whose pasts are remembered, and what future change can be. However, this is being increasingly tested as urban pressures bring questions of who has a right to the city to the fore. 
Situated within the field of critical heritage studies, this thesis critically examines how heritage is officially “made” in the cities of Aotearoa New Zealand, and how emerging views and values may reshape these established norms for more spatially and culturally just futures. Focused on urban locations within the so-called “CANZUS” states (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America (USA)), the thesis centres on statutory heritage – the objects and places that are identified and managed within state-mandated planning systems that create dominant assumptions about what is worthy of protection. As such, its contribution is at the intersection of heritage and planning as it critically queries heritage’s future legacy claims and considers what other legacies may be imagined. 
The thesis includes four key enquiries. First, it explores the history of state-led heritage-making in Aotearoa, focusing on the city of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. It examines the tension between contemporary urban intensification priorities and heritage / special character regulation, critiquing the narrative of heritage as a “public good” given its entanglement with spatial and cultural inequity. Second, it studies three cases of urban heritage protest across Australia, Aotearoa and the USA. These cases expose the continued inadequacy of statutory heritage-making for Indigenous and emerging aspirations, as normative approaches are embedded not only by the heritage sector itself but by the planning and legislation systems that structure its mandate. 
Third, the thesis explores the current thinking of those shaping and working within heritage’s statutory framing across Aotearoa. It finds that heritage policy leaders are cognisant of, and concerned to change, heritage’s entrenched Eurocentricity, expert dominance and material orientation, but that shifting established practice remains a multi-dimensional challenge. Finally, it investigates the perspectives of young emerging planners in the city of Kirikiriroa / Hamilton, which again foregrounds the obstacles to displacing systemic norms but also highlights planning policy’s significant potential to shape different heritage futures. 
This thesis has important implications both for Aotearoa’s urban environments and for CANZUS cities more broadly. Grounded in contemporary real-world examples, it not only exposes heritage’s imbrication with issues of urban inequity but its deeper role in maintaining settler state security, making “home” on Indigenous land. It finds that unpicking this legacy will involve more than adding the heritages of “others” into the existing canon. Rather, deeper reconsideration of heritage’s societal purpose as part of Indigenous, multi-storied and dynamic cities is required. Finally, it highlights the central role for planning in transforming the heritage field, both through statutory policy reform and through integration with broader urban objectives. However, planners will need to be better equipped for critical engagement with heritage if they are to creatively support more inclusive, democratic and malleable alternatives.

year: 2024-12-16