This study focuses on the aesthetic dimensions of the learning of technology; taking the stance that the doing of technology - in and out of schools - is inseparable from aesthetic experiences. In technology education, aesthetics has been emphasized as foundational to design and appreciation of aesthetical qualities in technological artifacts related to personal identity and lifestyle (DeVries, 2016). Previous research has however primarily attended to aesthetics in technology education in terms of student attitudes and motivation towards different aspects of the technology subject based on student reports in surveys (Potvin & Hasni, 2014). The studies are usually motivated by the important relation between student interest and learning (del Olmo-Muñoz et al., 2021; Witherspoon et al., 2016), observed gender differences in attitudes (Virtanen et al., 2015), the need of a qualified workforce and societies need of technological literate citizens (Ardies et al., 2015). Since most of previous research on student attitudes builds on Likert-type questionnaires, such as the PATT-survey, the knowledge of the role of aesthetics and taste for student learning technology is largely based on students’ recollections of their experiences of technology class. To our knowledge, only rarely have attitudes and identity work been contextualized as situated and so describing aesthetic experiences as constituted in classroom action. What role aesthetics has for student learning and identity work in technology class is thus little investigated. The aim of the study is therefore to explore aesthetics and technology education, and more specifically we ask: What role has aesthetics for learning when students are programming robots in technology class? The study thus focuses on programming activities where aesthetic experiences are not so much related to exterior design features but more with the processes designing functional programming solutions. In the Swedish technology syllabus, programming is part of the core content methods for developing technological solutions and in years 1-3 (age 7-9) the students are supposed to learn to control objects, such as a robot, using programming. In years 4-6 (age 10-12) the students should learn to control their own constructions or other objects by using programming, and in years 7-9 (age 13-15), the students are supposed to use programming for controlling and regulating their own constructions. Programming is thus primarily a tool for controlling objects and a progression in terms of knowledge in programming is not formulated in the technology syllabus.

 The study is grounded in a pragmatic and anti-representational perspective on meaning-making (eg. Kelly et al., 2012), words and actions are thus not understood as ready-made once for all but rather approached as gaining their meaning through their use and consequences as part of activities. Here we primarily draw on previous studies within the pragmatic perspective that have approached the teaching and learning of a school subject as constituting a process in which cognition, norms and values (aesthetics) are intertwined (eg. Wickman, 2006)

The data for the study comes from two lower secondary technology classrooms in Stockholm, Sweden. One of the authors was the teacher of one of the student groups participating. The students (year 9, ages 15-16) were working with a task of pair-programming Lego robots that should perform specified movements, such as following a curved line. Every group screen recorded while they were coding which resulted in films showing how the program gradually emerged. This in situ programming activity and associated student talk constitutes the data of the study. In total 7 screen recorded films, 4 from School A and 3 from school B, were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. The length of the films varied from 30 to 60 minutes. The transcribed films were initially analyzed to identify aesthetic situations, primarily evident when students made taste distinctions (Author et al., 2015) and aesthetic evaluations while they were programming. These situations were categorized and further analyzed using Practical Epistemological Analysis (PEA) (Wickman & Östman, 2002). PEA is grounded in a situated perspective on meaning making and learning is operationalized as discourse change as part of an activity (Kelly et al., 2012). We primarily used three of the analytical concepts of PEA, stand fast, gap and relation, to identify the role of aesthetics for student learning. Relations are established by the participants in an activity between the words and action that make sense, that is stand fast, in the situation and what is not. Analytically, this is described as the participants establishing a relation to fill a gap. A gap is evident in student talk and actions as they ask questions or acknowledge that there is something that they do not understand, such as for example what a loop is or why the use of a loop may solve a certain coding dilemma. Here we are primarily interested in situations where taste distinctions and/or aesthetic judgements are used by the students and the teachers to acknowledge or fill gaps.

The results show that aesthetics contribute to student learning in several ways, for example were aesthetic judgements used by the students and their teacher for evaluating distinctions on ways to proceed and so orienting learning towards the purpose of the activity. The students and their teacher negotiated and aesthetically evaluated norms concerning what constitutes functional code but also ways-to-be to be in the programming activity. The aesthetic language thus played an important part in socialization and how the students would position themselves as programmers or as non-programmers. Throughout the activity, expectations and evaluations of the code's construction and the robot's behavior became visible through students' expressions of frustration, anger, resignation, laughter, joy, and humor. An interesting finding was that student talk and doings revolved around the construction of the code in terms of its functionality. This became evident when the students executed their programs and used aesthetic expressions evaluating the extent to which the robot behaved as anticipated. Through aesthetic expressions, the students thus continuously evaluated the functionality of their programs (did the codes do what was intended, i.e. moving the robot in a specific way). Our findings contribute to the understanding of aesthetic experiences in technology education as contributing to the processes of learning and meaning-making and not only connected to design features of the artifacts produced.

Author et al., 2015 Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & van Keulen, H. (2015). Students attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 43–65 del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. & González-Calero, J.A. (2022). Promoting second graders’ attitudes towards technology through computational thinking instruction. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 2019–2037 Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In K. Tobin, B. J. Fraser & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 281–291). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129. Virtanen, S., Räikkönen, E. & Ikonen, P. (2015). Gender-based motivational differences in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25,197–211 Vries, M.J. de (2016). Teaching about Technology an Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology for Non-philosophers. (2nd ed. 2016.) Cham: Springer International Publishing. Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wickman, P.-O. & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601-623. Witherspoon, E.B., Schunn, C.D., Higashi, R.M. & Baehr, E.C. (2016). Gender, interest, and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 18, 1-12