Introducing the Technology Education Iceberg
by Jacob Pleasants, Dan Krutka, & Phil Nichols
We probably don’t need to spend any time convincing the Civics of Technology community that schools ought to teach students how to think critically about technology. We also probably don’t need to spend much time convincing the community that our schools largely fail to do so. The question that occupies our attention is not whether technology should be taught but how.
One aim of the Civics of Technology project is to create and share educational resources that can be used to stimulate critical inquiries into technologies. Contributors have identified ways to conduct inquiries into specific technologies from Smartphones to classroom furniture. Individual lessons are valuable, but there is also a need for general-purpose pedagogical tools and strategies. We particularly need ones that can be applied across subject area contexts, because technology education should be pervasive in our schools, not relegated to the margins. The five technoskeptical questions are one example of a cross-context tool. Not only can teachers use those questions to structure inquiries across a wide variety of situations, they also provide a common framework that can bind together otherwise fragmented attempts to teach about technology.
In an article recently published in Phi Delta Kappan, we offer up another general-purpose pedagogical tool that we have found generative: the Technology Education Iceberg. We think of it as a “guiding framework that educators can use to plan, or reflect on, how they teach about technology and make sure that their curriculum is more well-rounded in its approach.” We describe it as follows:
“The iceberg framework consists of three dimensions of technology that can be explored at different levels of depth.
The technical dimension includes how technologies are made and how they function, ideas often addressed in science/STEM classes as well as coding or robotics clubs. It also can include deeper examinations of how technologies fit into larger systems of production, use, and maintenance, as well as their effects on human health and the environment.
The psycho-social dimension focuses on how technology affects how humans think and interact as individuals and communities. Students might investigate how constant access to social media affects their concentration, changes their social relationships, and influences cultures and institutions.
The political dimension concerns who makes (and ought to make) decisions about technologies, from individuals to companies to lawmakers.
For each dimension, educators might ask students to think about technologies as tools that produce direct and predictable outcomes. But to promote deeper thinking that goes beyond the surface, educators should encourage students to think of technologies as parts of systems with complex and collateral effects, and as reflecting and reinforcing values such as efficiency, freedom, power, democracy, and justice.”
The Iceberg not only suggests worthwhile lines of inquiry, but also illuminates the kinds of complex thinking about technology that we want students to exhibit. In short, we want students to be able to “see” more dimensions of the iceberg. Not necessarily all the time; there are plenty of everyday tasks for which thinking about technologies as tools is a reasonable course of action. We neither want or need to engage in deep critical analysis every time we get into our cars. However, there are plenty of occasions that absolutely call for complex analysis, and the Iceberg can point the way forward.
In our article, we suggest how the Iceberg can be put to use in Social Studies, Science, and English Language Arts classrooms. We also point out that it can be used to guide more thoughtful examinations of school-wide technological issues. How, for instance, should a school react to ChatGPT or a disruptive TikTok meme? Rather than leave it up to administrators to concoct a scheme for monitoring and punishing misuse, the iceberg could be used to frame more generative and participatory explorations of important questions.
We could say more, but the article is not long and is open access. You can read it here: https://kappanonline.org/talking-to-students-about-technology-krutka-pleasants-nichols/
You can also find the PDF on our site HERE.
We have a long version of the article that delves far more into the theory and history that helped lead us to this model, but that one is still under review. Until then, we would love to hear from anyone who finds it helpful for their classes.
Reference
Krutka, D. G., Pleasants, J., & Nichols, T. P. (2023). Talking the technology talk. Phi Delta Kappan, 104(7), 42-46.