RQ1: How can working with technology mediate elements of deliberative communication while working on an inquiry project related to renewable energy technology?

RQ2: How can working with renewable technology strengthen a whole school approach (WSA) into making the school more sustainable?

The aim of deliberative communication is to reach a joint consensus or at least agree to disagree in a classroom context. There are five distinct elements of deliberative communication in the school (Englund, 2006). The participants:

1. are given space and time to present and challenge different views via argumentation;
2. listen to, tolerate and respect each other’s argumentation;
3. reach a shared will-formation, such as a joint consensus, or are aware of different views, or at least agree to disagree;

4. do not accept everything as the “truth”, even if uttered by a teacher/authority; and
5. essentially fulfil elements a–d without teacher control.       

The elements (a–c) makes up the core elements of deliberative communication (Englund, 2006). Element (d) is about schools being an integrated part of the public sphere and therefore makes up an arena where different views and values will be challenged by fellow students and teachers (Englund, 2015). Element (e) is relevant due to group projects/plenary discussions, and this is a communicative process where meaning is established among equals without teacher control (Englund, 2015). To achieve the elements (a-e) may require handling a specific theme to assess (Englund, 2006), such as renewable energy-technology.

According to Mitcham’s Thinking through technology (1994),one can conceptualise technology in four dimensions (These four dimensions are all present when dealing with technology):

A)   Objects in technology can be such as tools, machines, other types of physical artefacts or technological processes (De Vries, 2016). Technological objects have a “social side”, they have a purpose (Mitcham, 1994), they are to be used for something by someone. Moreover, this applicability is also an important aspect in the design or redesign of technological objects (De Vries, 2016).

B)   Knowledge:  Declarative- (factual), procedural- (“know how”), conceptual- (“know that”) and metacognitive knowledge are different knowledge types that are co-depended on each other and can develop symbiotically when handling technology (Barak, 2013).

C)   Activities in technology can be such as maintaining, operating, working, manufacturing, designing, inventing, and crafting (Mitcham, 1994, p. 210). Activities relies on procedural and conceptual knowledge in the processes of creating technological objects, using, judging and assessing artefacts during student collaborations (Pirttimaa, Husu, & Metsärinne, 2017). .

D)   Volition is connected to choices, intentions, ambitions, motives and will (Mitcham, 1994, p. 247). Volition therefore demands reflections and considerations regarding the design, the use of technology and its effect on society.

We have used Englund’s five elements (a–e) in combination with four dimensions of how to conceptualize technology (A–D) to investigate how they might interact. Levinson (2010) argues that handling technoscientific issues can take place through the process of deliberative discussions (Levinson, 2010, p. 82).

Research indicates that successful implementation of education for sustainability (EFS) involves altering the school culture into a more sustainable everyday practice (Gan & Alkaher, 2021). Thus, dialogues can play a central part of a school culture or ethos (Mathie & Wals, 2022) the culture can be developed by having the students participating in democratic discussions concerning sustainability issues, for instance examine the energy consumption at their school (Mathar, 2015). Enabling democratic discussions on sustainability issues, may strengthen the students’ oral practices which can be viewed as an important characteristic of school culture, and we suggest that this can take place through the conduct of deliberative communication while working with renewable energy-technology supporting WSA in fostering sustainable schools. 

The findings that are reported here stems from a design-based research (DBR) project. One of the main objectives and advantages of DBR is to initiate changes and improvements of existing educational practices (Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p. 6). This particular inquiry project was initiated by the first author in a close collaboration with teachers. It was part of a physics course where students aged 17 took part (ISCED 3). Juuti and Lavonen (2006) state that one of the characteristics that make up DBR “is to develop an artefact to help teachers and pupils to act … more intelligible.” (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006, p. 59). In our case, these artefacts are mainly booklets concerning renewable energy technology. The booklets structured the students’ work with the renewable energy technology. Our main data sources were video observations of one group of two students over 4 lessons, and additionally, a plenary discussion where 12 students participated. Student dialogues from all lessons and the plenary discussion were fully transcribed. The research design had a naturalistic approach to deliberative communication. This means that the students were not informed about the concept of deliberative communication or what it entailed before or during the inquiry project. Our analytical framework is based on Englund’s view of deliberative communication (elements a–e) and Mitcham’s dimensions of technology (A–D). The data analysis is based on content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018) and involved both interpretations and measurements of frequency of dialogue excerpts. The unit of analysis could vary between 3-25 student utterances. Initially, we used the programme NVivo deductively, defining deliberative communication and technology-related discussions as categories; each element and dimension was given a unique code. During coding, we had to inductively expand the number of categories and codes due to non-deliberative communication and non-technology-related discussions because this gives an indication of the proportion of deliberative communication. The codes within the same category are mutually exclusive, but the same excerpt could often be placed in both categories depending on the interpretation. Elements of Englund’s deliberative communication was initially satisfied throughout the project because the student dialogues primarily took place in groups without teacher control. The framework states that a deliberative dialogue should comprise all five elements (a–e). In practice we search mostly for elements a–c and discovered that student dialogues often tended to become rather unsophisticated in terms of quite simplistic argumentation and often a lack of substantial counterarguments.

The research results indicate that there were a vast number of technology-related discussions not containing elements of deliberative communication. However, the empirical evidence suggests that the students engaged in deliberative communication while working with technology in group settings (lessons 1–4) but to a limited degree. The plenary discussion generated the highest degree of deliberative communication while discussing technology-related issues. However, in both the group settings and plenary discussion, technology as volition was almost totally absent. The NVivo results show that the student dialogues contained elements of deliberative communication (a–e) in all four lessons and in the plenary discussion. The four dimensions of technology (knowledge, object, activity and volition) were also represented in each lesson. Lesson (1a) was dominated by knowledge, lessons (1b) and 2 were dominated by activities, lessons 3 and 4 were dominated by objects, and the plenary discussion was dominated by both objects and (talk of) activities. The results indicate that working with renewable energy technology can, to varying degrees, mediate the elements of deliberative communication both in group settings and plenary discussions. The plenary discussion contained the highest level of deliberative communication throughout the project, here as dominated by elements a (participants present argumentation) and c (participants reach a joint consensus). Elements a and c occurred most frequently when the students deliberated on issues concerning objects and actions related to technology. Deliberative communication initiated by inquiry projects that focus on ‘green transitions’ may support a WSA by fostering schools for sustainability. This can be related to the scrutiny of the schools’ energy system, which enables the students to critically investigate sustainable resources and renewable technologies (Mathar, 2015). For instance, the students’ energy awareness concerning the school’s ability to reduce its energy consumption can be activated and stimulated while deliberating on technology from a sustainable perspective.

Barak, M. (2013). Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 11(3), 316-333. De Vries, M. J. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Switzerland Springer. Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503-520. Englund, T. (2015). Toward a deliberative curriculum? Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 48-56. Gan, D., & Alkaher, I. (2021). School staff perceptions on education for sustainability and sense of community as reflected in an elementary school culture in Israel. Environmental Education Research, 27(6), 821-847. Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2006). Design-based research in science education: One step towards methodology. Nordic studies in science education, 2(2), 54-68. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (Fourth ed.). USA: Sage publications. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69-119. Mathar, R. (2015). A whole school approach to sustainable development: Elements of education for sustainable development and students’ competencies for sustainable development. In R. Jucker & R. Mathar (Eds.), Schooling for Sustainable Development in Europe (pp. 15-30): Springer. Mathie, R., & Wals, A. (2022). Whole school approaches to sustainability: Exemplary practices from around the world (9464471514). Retrieved from https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/566782 Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pirttimaa, M., Husu, J., & Metsärinne, M. (2017). Uncovering procedural knowledge in craft, design, and technology education: A case of hands-on activities in electronics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 215-231. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 5-23.