Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Taoist Perspective

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
Problem Solving in Technology Education:
A Taoist Perspective
Jim Flowers
Problem solving and product design experiences can empower students by
presenting unique learning opportunities. Although the problem solving method
may have been important to technology education, as well as industrial arts, as
far back as the 1920s (Foster, 1994), the movement to incorporate more problem
solving and product design in technology education kept surfacing in the 1990s.
For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia introduced a series of high school
technology courses grouped together as Design and Technology (Virginia
Department of Education, 1992); TIES Magazine’s web site offered 70 video
tapes “that will support the teaching of design, problem solving and technology”
(Ties, 1998); the use of design briefs was emphasized (Ritz & Deal, 1992); the
popularity of a textbook titled Design and Problem Solving in Technology
(Hutchinson & Karsnitz, 1994) continued to grow; and smiling students and
their technological inventions were featured in articles (Edwards, 1996), at fairs,
and in promotional materials. In the newer approaches to technology education
that center on design, students are often asked to design new products. They
creatively invent products like: pizza cutters with built-in flashlights; roller
skates that work in sand; hats with built-in fans for cooling; and yet another way
to store compact discs.
Subtly, the definition of technology education has evolved to reflect this
movement, since “much technological activity is oriented toward designing and
creating new products, technological systems, and environments” (International
Technology Education Association, 1996, p.18). While there are many
definitions of technology (Dyrenfurth, 1991), a number of them are oriented
toward a product design and problem solving model. Some of these definitions
of technology center on “control” over the “human-made and natural
environment” to better meet “human needs and wants.” For example, Wright
and Lauda (1993) include these elements in their definition of technology as “a
body of knowledge and actions, used by people, to apply resources in designing,
producing, and using products, structures and systems to extend the human
potential for controlling and modifying the natural and human-made
environment” (pp. 3-5).
This is a shift in meaning from the days of the pump handle lamp and other
woodshop projects. Back then, the student often began with a project idea, not
with a problem to solve. As this shift in approach occurs, one problem faced by
____________________________
Jim Flowers is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industry and Technology, Ball
State University, Muncie, IN.
-20-

---

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
today’s teachers of product design is that students tend to subvert a prescribed
design process. For example, a typical teacher may ask a student to engage in
such a design process, beginning with the student identifying a problem to solve.
Often this is a need or want. Next, the student may be asked to gather
information and then to formulate many possible solutions to the problem,
eventually choosing the best. In reality, some students approach the activity with
the thought, “I want to get a CD rack out of this class,” or some similar
sentiment that begins with one particular solution. In order to satisfy the
teacher’s requirements, they then craft a need to fit this product idea. While
most of their designs are fanciful and lack practical application, a few do, in
fact, make sense. However, the entire approach of asking students to design yet
another product to satisfy our needs and wants may be misguided, for two
reasons.
First, few, if any, of today’s products are designed (by technology students
or professional product designers) to meet actual needs. They are almost always
designed to meet open markets, and then human wants can be engineered to
meet the product availability. A common joke asks, “If necessity is the mother
of invention, how come so many inventions are unnecessary?” The phrase, “The
customer is always right,” and its more cynical corollary, “Give the customers
what they think they want,” are not without merit, and have led to economic
success for many capitalists. However, the result of product design activities for
technology students is that these students learn materialism to an extreme. They
are taught that just because something can be invented or produced, it should be.
They are taught that creatively designing products is a good thing, regardless of
the outcomes. The ultimate criterion for success is money.
Second, problem solving and product design are not the same; the best
result of a sound problem solving process is often something other than a new
product. Maybe the solution to a problem would be a change in corporate policy,
new legislation, a consumer education program, or changes in how a product is
marketed. These are each examples of design, but it is a system, not a product,
that is designed or redesigned. Maybe the best solution is non-action, and
acceptance of the situation without change. There have been numerous examples
of technological products or “fixes,” such as DDT, that have backfired. We need
a global citizenry that can entertain a wider variety of solutions than merely a
new technological product. Yet if students are told (even tacitly) that their
solution must be a physical product or model, then we are restricting their
diversity of solutions, and thereby asking them to choose what may not be the
best solution. Maybe that approach to problem solving is part of how teachers
are taught. Boser (1993) compared problem solving educational specialists in
two groups, technology teacher educators (TECH) and other researchers who
were not technology teacher educators (EXT). “Members of the TECH panel
tended to rate most highly those procedures practiced within the field, such as
design-based problem solving, R & D experiences, and innovation activities.
EXT panelists considered techniques such as simulation and case study, which
are perhaps more widely used in content areas outside of technology education,
-21-

---

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
as appropriate delivery vehicles for the recommended problem solving
procedures,” stated Boser.
Some might point to a definition of technology and argue that the goal of
technological acts is control over the environment to meet our needs and wants.
But does technology really give control over the environment? Or is this just one
western (or stereotypically male) approach? Surely technology education should
accommodate people of different religions and belief systems. Yet, there may be
a bias against certain belief systems because of the underlying and unquestioned
assumptions inherent in a definition of technology and a rationale of technology
education.
A Taoist philosophy is summarized in the Tao Te Ching, translated here
from Lao Tsu’s words (1972) from 6th Century BC China. The numbers in
parentheses correspond to the reference numbers in the actual document. Lao
Tsu suggested that less and less should be done “until non-action is achieved.
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by letting
things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering” (#48). The
philosophy of Taoism, like some other belief systems, does not put humans on
an adversarial battleground with nature. Instead, a harmonious existence is
thought to be a proper relationship. “Do you think you can take over the
universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold
it, you will lose it” (#29). It is difficult to delineate the separation between
human and nature, and just as difficult to find the real difference between the
human-made and natural environments. It is nearly impossible to name any
terrestrial environment that is all human-made (without having been affected by
the sun, for example), or one that has not been influenced by humans. These
distinctions seem to isolate people from the world around them in an “unnatural”
way. Yet, definitions of technology often attempt to make just such a distinction.
From a Taoist perspective, some definitions of technology seem more like
creeds about the nature and purpose of humans.
A host of values dominant in much western culture are de-emphasized in
Taoist texts, including materialism: “Having and not having arise together” (#2);
“One gains by losing and loses by gaining” (#42); one “who knows that enough
is enough will always have enough” (#46); and one “who is attached to things
will suffer much” (#44). It is common for western students to strive to improve,
to take pride in their work, and to expect and receive praise. Yet, Lao Tsu
suggests, “Working, yet not taking credit. Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever” (#2), and “Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling”
(#3). Technology students are especially encouraged to be innovative, and to
want to improve the current situation (or solve the problem): “Give up
ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear” (#19);
“Without desire there is tranquility” (#37). It is especially difficult for educators
to question the value of education itself, but Taoism does: “In the pursuit of
learning every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Tao, every day
something is dropped” (#48); and “Give up learning and put an end to your
troubles” (#20). While some Taoist doctrines may cause some to discount the
-22-

---

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
entire philosophy, that would be a mistake. Instead, it would be better to see
what questions are raised by such a stance.
The emphasis on design in technology education may be related to the
current abundance and diversity of technical artifacts. Would more artifacts be
an improvement? While there are positive and negative outcomes of nearly any
technological change, we should question the assumption that more is better.
Does a major league pitcher concentrate on new baseball prototypes? No. The
pitcher practices and experiments with the art of pitching, often hoping to
achieve just a fraction of the skill enjoyed by some of the great pitchers in the
history of the game. The aim is “the essence of pitching.” However, technology
is an important factor. As the clap-skate was introduced to Olympic speed
skating competitions in 1998, the athletes altered their notion of “the essence of
speed skating.” As technology becomes more transparent to the end user, the
user is required to know less technical information to use the technology. A few
decades ago, computer programming was being pushed in the public schools.
Now, the emphasis is more on the use of professionally prepared programs.
Software is updated so often that it can be difficult to develop comfort with one
particular version. This has let to some computer users feeling more comfortable
with an older, and sometimes more reliable, version of a program. Their goal
may not be to use the most advanced word processing program, but to write.
Is the goal to achieve a sustainable future, or to keep accelerating? “There is
no greater sin than desire, no greater curse than discontent, no greater misfortune
than wanting something for oneself. Therefore [one] who knows that enough is
enough will always have enough” (#46). Are there enough designs? Is there
enough technology?
Would it be possible to reconcile technology, technology education, and a
Taoist perspective? Yes. But technology would not be the essence of human
control over others and the environment. It would not be a master, but a tool.
The goal would not be materialistic or technological, but to live life on a
harmonious path. Will that entail problem solving and technology? Yes, but the
goal of the problem solving activity may not be what it seems.
Recommendations
Therefore, I suggest a different approach to teaching problem solving in
technology education. Students should be encouraged to concentrate not on
whimsical wants or fanciful products. They should apply their considerable
problem solving skills to improving the human condition, and the condition of
non-humans, sometimes in spite of what some people want or think they want.
They should be encouraged to find solutions from a broad range of technological
and non-technological realms. Effective and responsible national leaders and
corporate executives are those with enough backbone to do what they believe is
best for the nation or corporation, in spite of mass opinion. They are not afraid
to upset people, even friends, if these people had to be upset by the leader’s
pursuit of their course. While they may be mindful of the concerns of the
workers, citizens, consumers, etc., they are willing to lose their job because they
did what they thought was best, in spite of common opinion. The solutions (i.e.,
-23-

---

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
way) they choose are holistic, sometimes relying more on technology, other
times involved with laws, communication, and other social arenas. They do not
blindly accept the premise that their current product or service is the single best
solution to a problem. They “know when enough is enough,” and when the
choice to not pursue a technological avenue is the wisest choice. If this is the
type of person a technology teacher hopes their students will become, then
specific educational experiences should be designed to empower students with
those independent, risk-taking abilities where the goal is what is best, not
necessarily only what the clients want or think they want. They must practice the
skills involved in deciding when the best path may not be a new technological
product.
Teaching problem solving in technology education will continue to offer
students invaluable learning experiences. The suggestion is that the focus and
procedure be allowed to shift. This can be directed by how the teacher helps the
student select a problem and frame the context of a problem. Here are four
examples of situations a teacher may pose for students.
• In Costa Rica, some of the urban-dwellers move into the
dwindling tropical rainforest, clear an area of trees, and try to live
a better life than they had in the city.
• In Ghana, there is a shortage of skilled industrial workers, yet
many of the students in Ghana’s trade schools consider such jobs
beneath their qualifications.
• In New York, a woman who played guitar and piano for many
years has to give up these instruments because the guitar causes
problems with her neck and back, and both instruments have
resulted in carpal tunnel syndrome.
• In Delaware, a wife and husband in their seventies were given
their first VCR, but the instructions sounded too intimidating for
them to actually play or record a tape.
In each example, there is a statement of a situation that might (or might not) be
improved by a creative solution. Some solutions may be technological, but
maybe the best solution is not technological. Students should examine such
situations (both big and small, near and far, individual and societal) and use their
creative problem solving abilities to try to plan what is best. This means
weighing short-term gains and costs with long-term gains and costs. It means
asking what is best: best for the individual, for the culture, for future
generations, and for the environment. It means considering educational reform,
personal lifestyle changes, new technology, and governmental action. The Japan
External Trade Organization (1998) concluded that “a fundamental gap exists
between the way Japanese companies and many of their overseas partners,
especially in the West, view problems.” Greater attention to both the diverse
views of problem solving and to holistic approaches may improve the benefits of
education in problem solving. Oddly, this more holistic approach to problem
solving is contrary to popular belief and some research results:
-24-

---

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
The tendency in education has been to employ the term “problem solving”
generically to include such diverse activities as coping with marital problems
and trouble-shooting electronic circuits. The results of this study suggest that
such generalization may be inappropriate. Instead, problem solving should be
viewed as nature specific. In other words, different types of problem situations
(e.g., personal or technological) require different kinds and levels of
knowledge and capability. This is substantiated by this study’s findings that
individuals manifest different style characteristics when addressing problems
of different natures. (Wu, Custer, & Dyrenfurth, 1996, p.69)
However, the best solution to a technological problem may be non-
technological. Students who are practiced in considering this wider range of
alternatives will be better prepared to face the demands of global citizenry than
those who merely make yet another CD rack.
A technology teacher can incorporate elements of a Taoist approach in
subtle ways. These may include less emphasis on the product, less praise (from
an external source), acceptance of some situations as they are, and an attitude of
doing something because it needs to be done, and then moving on. There would
certainly be less emphasis for some on solving problems by designing new
products.
Finally, it is critical for a technology teacher to revisit their definition and
philosophy of technology, analyzing its assumptions and bias. That definition
should be individually crafted by that teacher, so that it is honest and accurate,
and accommodates a variety of belief systems. That definition can lay the path
for a wondrous technological journey for the student and teacher.
References
Boser, R. (1993). The development of problem solving capabilities in
pre-service technology teacher education. Journal of Technology Education,
4(2).
Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1991). Technological literacy synthesized. In M. J.
Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy. 40th Yearbook,
Council on Technology Teacher Education. Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Edwards, D. (1996). Design technology exhibit. The Technology Teacher, 55(8),
14-16.
Foster, P. (1994). Technology education: AKA industrial arts. Journal of
Technology Education, 5(2).
Hutchinson, J., and Karsnitz, J. (1994). Design and problem solving in
technology. Albany, NY: Delmar.
International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all
Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston,
VA: Author.
Japan External Trade Organization. (1998). Problem solving. Retrieved April
23, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.jetro.go.jp/
Negotiating/6.html
-25-

---

Journal of Technology Education
Vol. 10 No. 1, Fall 1998
Lao Tsu. (1972). Tao te ching (Gia-Fu Feng & J. English, Trans.). Westminster,
MD: Random House. (Original work 6th Century BC)
Ritz, J. R., & Deal, W. F. (1992). Design briefs: Writing dynamic learning
activities. The Technology Teacher, 54(5), 33-34.
TIES. (1998). Ties - The magazine of design and technology. Retrieved on
February 12, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.TCNJ.EDU/
~ties/
Virginia Department of Education. (1992). Design and technology: Teacher’s
guide for high school technology education. Richmond, VA: Author.
Wright, R. T., & Lauda, D. P. (1993). Technology education - A position
statement. The Technology Teacher, 52(4), 3-5.
Wu, T., Custer, R. L., & Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1996). Technological and personal
problem solving styles: Is there a difference? Journal of Technology
Education, 7(2), 55-71.
-26-

---