Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
111
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in
Sloyd Education
Mika Metsärinne & Manne Kallio
Constructing a unique craft quality theory for artifact production is an essential
part of sloyd teacher students´ research studies during which students are faced
with establishing the perspectives of craft methodology for the master‟s thesis. The
student‟s craft quality theory construction is based not only on his inherent needs
or problems with the product and process but on constructing and testing the
theory as a whole. To construct a craft quality theory based on the discipline
knowledge of sloyd education, the student shall define the values representing the
craft as well as its unseen qualities. The purpose of this article is to describe the
perspectives sloyd teacher students (N69) apply to craft quality theory construction
in their master‟s theses. The perspectives applicable to constructing a craft quality
theory are based on the idea of educational growth towards research-based crafts
teachership. The main results constitute the analyses of students‟ craft research
tasks and craft quality targets defined as theory constructions. In conclusion, the
results are compared to the perspectives in theory construction in the capacity of a
craft quality theory framework.
Keywords: method, sloyd, teacher students, master´s theses, phenomenography
Background and theoretical perspective
The aim of this article is to describe how sloyd teacher students (N69) construct a
craft quality theory for their masters´ thesis prepared at the University of Turku,
Sloyd Teacher Education in Rauma. In their theses, students have constructed a
craft quality of their own, testing it with a uniquely produced artifact in its usage
target. So, each craft quality theory (CQT) is uniquely constructed for the purposes
of each research case as a whole. CQT constructing comprises two foundational
parts: 1) Defining the Craft Task embodied in the value and risk analysis of craft,
and 2) Theory Formulation defining the craft qualities. These two parts form a
CQT framework. The research task is titled How students‟ CQTs manifest
themselves in the master‟s theses. To a certain extent, the perspectives of CQT
construction are always associated with the student‟s educational growth towards
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
112
craftsmanship as a craftsteacherhip during sloyd teacher education (Metsärinne,
Kallio, Kullas & Pirttimaa, 2010).
The research task is studied in five parts. This chapter explores the theoretical
perspectives of CQT, Chapter 2 defines the research questions and Chapter 3
comprises the method and analyses while Chapter 4 describes the results of the
empirical study. The discussion forms the CQT framework, showing how it is
linked into students‟ growth towards research-based crafts teachership. The
knowledge to produce craft features the true sense of craft while the knowledge of
design and technology is the other part of it, formulating a general question of
“How does the craft characterise the essence of SE subject knowledge?” Hence,
the pedagogical knowledge raises the question of “How can a teacher student use
the CQT for teaching in future?” Together they form the „teacher knowledge‟ (cf.
Banks, 2008). Teachership cognition may be divided into (i) Declarative
(knowledge that), (ii) Procedural (knowledge how), and (iii) Control Function.
(Chester, 2007, p. 26). The latter can be compared to Hope‟s idea (2009, p. 50),
i.e., „know how‟ and „know that‟ contributing to the strategy knowledge required to
conduct any technological activity. Strategy knowledge can be compared with
control function or regulatory knowledge (Schraw, 2006, p. 245–246). So, Ryles‟
(1949) classification of „knowledge that‟ is based on a student‟s quest and search
for a research task and „knowledge how‟ is based on his ability to apply the
knowledge of craft to the knowledge of new qualities of the craft. They outline the
strategic knowledge, formulating the CQT for the purposes of crafts teachership.
The hypothetical perspectives of CQT construction are: (i) Craft Sense Method, (ii)
Product Planning Methods (iii) Methods of Product Development and (iv) Factual
Problem as the research task itself. The perspectives are based on the levels of
logic (Peltonen, 1988) and the models of sloyd education (Metsärinne, 2007).
The Craft sense method comprises an individual‟s intention of his own transaction-
driven life position which envisions a product vacuum (Metsärinne, 2007).
Peltonen (2002) has introduced the basic elements of the craft sense method. The
following are short and modified descriptions of the method. (Cf. Metsärinne,
2009a, 2009b): 1) Gestalt: life situation envisioning and obtaining the knowledge
of research interest; 2) Existence of Artifact Envisioning: defining existential
conditions of invisible artifact envisioning; 3) Artifact Qualities: envisioning and
formulating artifact qualities; 4) Artifact Criteria Defining; 5) Artifact Dimensions:
clarifying artifact criteria to measurable dimensions; 6) Research Problems are
derived from elements 1 and 2 in order to define the research task. They are linked
to elements 3, 4 and 5, which construct an artifact quality theorem for producing
the artifact and for testing the theorem by artifact functions.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
113
Product planning methods in SE are typically linear models (Oakley, 1990, p. 10
and Lindfors, 1992), two-dimensional models (Cross, 1977, Lawson, 1983) and a
spiral model (Zeisel, 1981, p. 14). Yli-Piipari (1991) has associated product
planning models with various problem solving methods used in SE. A very well-
known model is Anttila‟s (e.g. 1993, 1996, p. 150) theory model of craft and
design planning and making. As distinct from product design, product planning
(product development likewise) generally focuses on the product, adding valuable
qualities to it. Design is a more general phenomenon of managing the constructed
environment (cf. Parsons, 2009; Cross, 2007; Koskinen, Battarbee & Mattelmäki,
2003; Valtonen, 2007; Julier, 2008; Kaukinen, 2005). Design is also compared
with ‟craft‟, the major difference being in the way of argumentation and the
language (Rees, 1997, p. 130–135). Craft planning in SE is supposed to follow
different product planning models to create a CQT, for example, by defining the
usage target, atmosphere and place. That can be considered as a composition and a
construction space in craft. (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2000) All artifact planning is
based on a combination of a craftsman, material design and making process of the
craft in a certain culture and time with the given knowledge of sciences (Kaukinen,
2002, 2003). In the professional industrial context, planning appears as a kind of
predefinition stage for the development process (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000).
Product planning and product development are often used for the same purpose. In
SE the perspective of craft development appears to be based on the certain usage
target of the artifact. It is a question of searching for a solution to a certain
predefined case, such as bettering a quality of the artifact(s). In the professional
artifact developing process there is plenty of special craft knowledge that can
define a CQT. However, special craft is related to the manufacturing of a specific
kind. For example, material and immaterial product development has been
connected to the systems of innovation, business as well as social and digital
networks (Valtonen, 2007). Different dimensions of the product, such as economy,
social context and technological factors, should be taken into account, and special
emphasis should be placed on such dimensions when developing the product for its
usage target (Cagan & Vogel, 2003). When development is business orientated, for
example, the objective is to get economic value while developing artifacts may
equal developing a brand (Lindström, 2005). Technology-orientated development
is based on the engineering knowledge to improve products systematically
(Petroski, 1997). Finally, the product as a basis to define qualities in CQT is
anchored to the user and the usage target. The qualities have to be defined in a
multi-dimensional and methodological way encompassing the aspects of human
emotions and needs as well as technological facts. (See Koskinen, Battarbee &
Mattelmäki, 2003; Papanek, 1985, etc.) In certain constructions, innovations and
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
114
the innovative work itself are value as such (Kelley & Littman, 2006; cf. Jokinen,
2001). It is useful to connect it to team work and cooperative learning (Siltala,
2010).
Problem based craft is not involved in any particular method. Usually it consists,
for example, of a predefinition of the research area using a literature overview and
a pre-evaluation of the prospective research problem (cf. Anttila, 2005). In other
words, the problem is specified exactly within the subject area of SE and it needs
no further discussion but a deep insight into the qualities of the subject area.
To sum up, the above perspectives pave the way for composing a CQT. When
students have defined the CQT it must be tested by producing an artifact and
evaluating the theory in the usage target. In many cases, a few empirical tests are
carried out in school, too.
Data collection and empirical investigation
The research task was to study how students‟ CQTs manifest themselves in the
masters‟ theses. The task was based on the hypothetical framework of reference
perspectives and it was carried out, using two research questions. The first question
analysed students‟ research tasks focused on the CQT perspectives. The second
question analysed their theory formulation, based on the results from the first
question. The research questions were:
1. What kind of research tasks do the students define in the perspectives?
2. What do students‟ CQTs manifest in the way of the perspectives?
The SE master‟s theses of this sample (N69) were collected at the University of
Turku in Rauma, and the study was supervised by three teachers in 2005 - 2010.
For validity, an equal number of theses were selected from each supervisor. One of
the supervisors had 23 theses in total and they were all taken into the sample.
Consequently, from the other two supervisors, another 23 theses were randomly
selected 23 to amount to 69 in all. Master‟s theses are usually prepared in pairs
while some of students work individually.
Methods and analysis
Phenomenography research means phenomenon describing (graphic). It studies
humans‟ comprehension of different phenomenon. In the research method each of
the students‟ CQT have a knowledge phenomenon of their own. In the method the
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
115
aim is not to understand them as such. The research phenomenon is formed so that
we have considered CQT cases as a whole meaningful comprehension in SE
context. (Uljens, 1989, p. 7, p. 62–63.) This is to use concepts similarly and avoid
misunderstandings. (Marton, Dahlgren, Swensson & Säljö, 1980). This research
can also be conceived in ex-post research methodology to yield useful information
on the nature of a phenomenon. Although one cannot say with confidence that the
student‟s research task depends on the theory formulation for crafting, it is
nevertheless customary to designate the variables of a task as independent and the
theory formulation as dependent. (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, p. 208–209.)
The first stage is followed by a clear and precise statement of the research
questions to be answered; hence the phenomenography method better describes the
methodological wholeness in this study.
The phenomenon is formed from researchers‟ external world because of the data
but also from researchers‟ inner world and their own research interest in and
experience of SE. Experiences are involved both in external and inner phenomena.
Finally, the comprehension is like a picture of the research problem. It is formed
from the experience and thinking. (Marton, 1994) It is important to realize that one
cannot make a different objective reality from representations. One only develops a
subjective world from the experiences. There is only one world which appears as
different habits in each human‟s comprehensions. (Marton, 1988) In this way
phenomenography produces no factual knowledge but evidence and a kind of
sample knowledge. This connects it strongly to the qualitative research tradition
(Alasuutari, 2001, p. 114) and without exception it produces qualitative phases of
doing phenomenography research (Uljens, 1989). In this study the methodology is
formed in four phases (Syrjälä, Ahonen, Syrjäläinen & Saari, 1996). In the first
phase, we go deeply into the research object, discussing and guiding students in
their master‟s theses studies (Metsärinne, 2009a, b, c) and using other research
studies supervised by the researchers in SE. There is disconcerting comprehension
between some craft concepts of work and research based craft concepts. Therefore
and due to earlier studies of the research object (Peltonen, 2002, 2003; Metsärinne,
2007a, b, c), a preconceived idea of the phenomenon of four methodological
perspectives was formed. Also, it is one positive validity matter of the subject
management based research. Similarly, there is a problem because researchers
cannot easily abandon their deep-seated comprehension and set their mind on a
phenomenological open basis of phenomenography. In the second phase, the idea
of the phenomenon is conceptualized on perusal of literature. In the third phase, the
research data described in the following chapter is collected. Usually this done by
interviews about phenomenography. In the fourth phase, the categorization is
mostly based on vertical and horizontal categorization. (Marton, 1988, p. 141–
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
116
161). Vertical categorization has two criteria. First, one establishes how many
master‟s theses are put in each category and how many of them are linked together
over the categories. Second, one studies the consecution of theory construction and
the theory in proportion to the task of the student. On the basis of the criteria, the
first question is answered. By horizontal categorization, one describes different
conceptions of qualities and their implications for CQT, getting an answer to the
second question. In addition, some hierarchical categorization is suggested but
ranking the theses is not in order. Hierarchical categorization is only linked to
Chapter Reflection, because in education it is strongly related to all aspects of
pedagogical thinking (Kansanen, 1995).
Presentation of results
In Figure 1 the results of the first question are summarized and presented with
reorganized perspectives.
Figure 1. Results of Question 1: Summary table of perspectives.
The research tasks for 54 theses were established within the hypothetical reference
perspectives on method while the other 15 were borderline cases. Table 1
introduces each perspective with examples. The second question is based on the
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
117
results of the first question: “What do students‟ CQTs manifest in way of
perspectives?” It is introduced in Table 2 and Figure 2.
Table 1. Example of each perspective and its borderline
Problem based perspective (N12). Example: Research task was to plan and produce material for sloyd/technology
education in comprehensive school. Theory formulation was based on knowledge of material technology and
education. Research problem was derived from the original problem: how to illustrate material mechanics to
pupils?
Craft developing perspective (N15). Example: The research task was to develop work safety of the surface planing
machine in comprehensive school. The task leads to define qualities for the new unique version of safety
equipment. For that students’ had to search and collect knowledge of comparable market products with theory
formulation
Craft planning perspective (N16). Example: The research task was to design and produce a teaching material for
primary school sloyd design teaching. The solution was defined by envisioning a Power Point based digital
material with design tasks for pupils. The conditional criteria for the produced material were searched through
exploring the knowledge of sloyd subject, design concepts, individual learning and teaching theories. The aim of
the teaching material is to contribute learning design skills in primary school and to give better abilities to do in
sloyd design when moving up to grades 7-9.
Craft sense perspective (N11). Example: The researchers were interested in how teachers and pupils are motivated
in sloyd. Different tasks of sloyd subject were discovered and their values were evaluated a nd compared into the
theories of motivation and the own experiences of the researchers. Especially the project sloyd teaching concept is
connected to motivation. That idea of new concept of motivating in sloyd teaching was defined.
Borderline perspective of craft development and problem based craft (N7). Example: In this study the researchers
developed illustrative teaching material and connected it into teaching solid geometry. There were some market
solutions in this area, but not suitable for the purpose. To develop them the researchers started with problem of
illustrating solid geometry in teaching.
Borderline perspective of craft development and craft planning (N1). Example: As an interesting example of
connecting these perspectives we found a thesis where the researchers searched a new version of compost, but by
using old useless refrigerator. The task of the research is clearly to make better compost, but not any observable
artifact of the new version exists. Criteria of the usage target have been changed. Artifact criteria as such is the
same but the usage target is reconstructed in new quality field. The new quality field must be constructed to the
new criteria of unique artifact.
Borderline perspective of problem based craft and craft sense (N7). Example: In this study the problem is
connected into researchers own life reality by comparing the problem area into the knowledge finding and
analysis. Drawing a circle on the blackboard appears as a common problem. It is as well in close connection with
the life reality of the researcher as a future sloyd teacher or some other purpose of his life. Some technological
alternatives of the forthcoming artifact as well as risk / value analysis of them are discovered to set the research
problem.
Borderline perspective of craft planning and craft sense (N-). Explanation: Craft planning is in connection with
the usage target through artifact envision. It provides so much knowledge of the usage target that one does not
return to apply value and risk analyzes of research task. In individual point of view it is a question of defining craft
in one’s own life situation or some craft planning areas outside of it. Therefore it is obviously very difficult to
theorize them together – none of the theses in this study.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
118
Table 2. Illustration of each perspective
Craft planning perspective (N16). Example: In the category of craft planning all the theses were in the area of
education. They were generally (N15) planned to support pupils’ learning, only one (N1) thesis was to help
teacher in his presentation for pupils’ parents. General (N13) solution was to test the CQT by constructing unique
digital multimedia learning or teaching technologies. Comparing to general models of design craft models the
difference was in the coherent connection to the research based educational task of them. However a strong
connection to the knowledge of product planning models and processes is presented in the CQT of the theses.
Craft development perspective (N15). Example: In the perspective of craft development students had developed
some existing technological tool or system. Majority of the theses in this category dealt with educational
technology (N10). All the technologies were connected especially to the sloyd teaching context but not in the
context of general education or other school subjects. Other theses (N5) had an idea of professional product
development means with some extraordinary challenge like developing a new intake air filter unit for industrial
oxygen production (figure 3). In all theses the CQT had qualities of a unique material artifact. The artifacts had
some inventive new mechanical solutions. In constructing CQT of the theses a large area of the knowledge of
engineering sciences has been explored.
Problem based craft perspective (N13). Example: There were several different usage targets for the unique
artifacts constructed to test CQT of problem based craft. Majority of the theses were for educational means (N9)
and the others (N3) were for some other professional means. There were for example observational instruments
(N3) and different aids for education in the context of teaching especially sloyd (N3) and other school subjects
(N2). In the CQT there were a large view to apply knowledge of technological combination.
Craft Sense perspective (N11) was constructed in all areas of life. Example: There were a model to apply traditions
of craft into the education, two solutions for improving safety culture in the context of sloyd education and model
for teaching home technology through wide-range technology construction. To sum up, the idea of craft sense
seems to have a connection to the growth of internal motivation of crafting. It has lead students to explore complex
knowledge of multiple sciences when constructing their CQT. This has lead students to research different areas of
life and evaluate the values and risks of their crafting in them.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
119
Figure 2. Summary of Question 2 (results in bold) with knowledge areas.
According to one result from Question 2, the students‟ had formulated their CQT
for a) versatile technologies for own life situations, b) observational and other aids
for educational means, c) material educative sloyd technology development and d)
immaterial teaching technology for general education. (Figure 2) The interpretation
is that elements a) reveal craft life phenomena, b) reveal craft as observable need,
c) reveal craft as certain craft area innovation and d) craft as craft areas
combination. Results from Questions 1 and 2 together with the above
interpretations appear as the knowledge areas of craft.
Reflection
The results of this study outline how a CQT is constructed and connected into
students‟ growth towards research-based crafts teachership. According to
Kansanen (1995, 2004), teachers´ pedagogical thinking is hierarchical. The first
level is a Functional level (A in Figure 8) with practical thinking („knowledge
that‟). This includes everyday solutions, evaluation and planning. In this study, the
functional level is associated with the thinking of the teachers who have earned a
master‟s degree in sloyd education or in teacher education. (See Jakku-Sihvonen &
Niemi, 2006). The second level is that of Object Theory (B in Figure 8). It
comprises theoretical thinking and content knowledge of the subject as well as
pedagogical knowledge of the science of sloyd education („knowledge how‟). The
third level is a Metatheoretical level (C in Figure 8). It includes critical evaluation
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
120
of the solutions made at lower levels („strategic knowledge‟). In this study the
hierarchy appears in each perspective.
On the first level of thinking one generates novel research ideas, thinking of and
making technological solutions. On the second level, one constructs a craft task for
the CQT, applying the craft knowledge areas of (i) factual, (ii) comparative, (iii)
visionary and (iv) interpretative knowledge. On the third level, the thinking
illustrates one´s metatheoretical profession in craft education research as a whole.
Figure 3. Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
Comparison of visionary knowledge derived from an ontological approach and that
of factual knowledge derived from an epistemological approach to craft is clear.
(Peltonen, 1988; Anttila, 1996, p. 43–44; Kaukinen, 2003). Yet, the interpretative
knowledge comprises analysing one‟s own life situation with some observable
needs of craft. This indicates phenomenon-centered craft. On the other hand, the
comparative knowledge involves a combination of craft fields and developing
certain craft fields, which directly indicate more about the subjects of crafts than
does the interpretative knowledge of craft. Together with factual knowledge the
comparative knowledge represents the field of craft by means of which it is
possible to apply information of mechanical engineering and product types. It
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
121
actively involves the crafts styles, trends and brands in their product making
knowledge. From this point of view one‟s personal and individual CQT
construction is secondary in this field. Together with visionary knowledge the
interpretative knowledge represents one‟s own CQT. It is mostly formed from a
combination of craft fields or certain needs of personal crafting. That is mostly
based on an SE phenomenon centered viewpoint of individual educational growth.
On the metatheoretical level, there is a connection between the results and the
concept of craft knowledge in a scientific network. SE is a kind of central crossing
point when connecting dimensions of natural sciences, engineering, humanism and
aesthetics (Peltonen, 1993). According to this study the emphasis of each
dimension is connected to the perspective where the craft research task is being
searched for and the CQT constructed. On the metatheoretical level, students´
orientation is being directed towards versatile crafts teachership. It remains for
further studies to research how the perspectives are connected to sloyd teachers‟
pedagogical thinking. For example, by emphasising factual knowledge, sloyd
teaching may start applying natural sciences to technological solutions related to
engineering by observing and developing the solutions. (Metsärinne, 2009d) SE
does not lay emphasis only on technology or aesthetics. It needs the knowledge of
humanism, arts and general education for developing school sloyd deeply and
openly.
Evaluating the (instrumental) values and risks of craft – as well the product and
processes of CQT – falls into the metatheoretical thinking. Evaluation of values
and risks of forthcoming craft mostly appeared in visionary and/or interpretative
knowledge, using the craft sense method. From the point of view of risk
management the craft appears not only as producing values but as producing values
to hide some risk (Kallio, 2010). This makes it even necessary to evaluate values
and risks in every single case. It is a civic concern, too. Everyone is entitled by
civil right to receive education against excessively technological somnambulism.
(cf. Winner, 1997, p. 57–61) From this point of view, SE has its mission to make
teacher students aware of their ability to manage technological environment and
make things work. (Metsärinne, Kallio, Kullas & Pirttimaa, 2010; Peltonen, 2001,
2009; cf. Kansanen, 2004, p. 98). The CQT in SE is connected into solving
research problems through general phases (i) to search and quest for the craft
research task, level A, (ii) to set the craft quality theory by understanding the craft
knowledge areas, level B and (iii) to test it with an artifact. The test result is
significant on level C only, if the craft research process takes place at every level of
thinking. In order to facilitate growth into a versatile research-based crafts
teachership, it necessary to lend each perspective to levels A, B and C alike.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
122
References
Alasuutari, P. (2001). Laadullinen tutkimus. 3. uudistettu painos. Vastapaino.
Anttila, P. (1993). Käsityön ja muotoilun teoreettiset perusteet. [Theoretical basics of
craft and design]. Porvoo: WSOY.
Anttila, P. (1996). Tutkimisen taito ja tiedon hankinta. Taito-, taide-, ja muotoilualojen
tutkimuksen työvälineet. [Research skill and knowledge acquisition Research
equipments of skill-, art- and design areas] Artefakta 2.
Anttila, P. (2005). Ilmaisu, teos, tekeminen ja tutkiva toiminta. Akatiimi. Hamina.
Banks, F. (2008). Learning in DEPTH: developing a graphical tool for professional
thinking for technology teachers. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education. Vol. 18, No.3. 221–228.
Cagan, J. & Vogel, C. (2003). Kehitä kärkituote. Ideasta innovaatioksi. Talentum
Media. Jyväskylä.
Chester, I. (2007). Teaching for CAD expertise. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education. Vol. 17, No. 1. 23–35.
Cohen, L.; Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th
Edition. Routledge Falmer. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York.
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Birkhäuser.
Hope, G. (2009). Beyond Knowing How to Make it Work: The conceptual foundations
of designing. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 14.1.
49–55.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R & Niemi, H. (2006). (eds.) Research-based Teacher Education in
Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Finnish Educational research
Association. Research in Educational Sciences 25.
Jokinen, T. (2001). Tuotekehitys. Otatieto. Oy Yliopistokustannus University Press
Finland.
Julier, G. (2008). The culture of design. SAGE Publications.
Kallio, M. (2010). Managing Values and Risks of a Product and a Production by Craft
Sense and Safety Sense. In the conference publication the Insea European
Congress. Traces: Sustainable Art Education. University of Lapland.
Kansanen, P. (1995). Teachers´ Pedagogical Thinking. – What Is It About? In:
Stensmo, C. & Isberg, L. (eds.) Omsorg och engagemang. Uppsala Universitet.
32–45.
Kansanen, P. (2004). Opetuksen käsitemaailma. PS-kustannus.
Kaukinen, L. (2002). Concepts and Domains of Craft Sciences, especially in Textiles,
Clothing and Craft Design Studies. In Kärnä-Behm, J & Salo-Mattila, K (eds.)
Current Themes in Craft Research. Techne Series. Research in Sloyd Education
and Craft Science A: 11. 9–22.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
123
Kaukinen, L. (2003). Ajatuksia käsityötieteen ontologiasta. Teoksessa: Virta, A &
Marttila, O. (toim.) Opettaja, asiantuntijuus ja yhteiskunta. Ainedidaktiikan
symposium 7.2.2003. Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan julkaisuja
B:72. 307–315.
Kaukinen, L. (2005). Focusing on the research of design elements. In: Kullas, S. &
Pelkonen, M.-L. (eds.) The relationship of Nordic handicraft studies to product
development and technology. Techne Series. Research in Sloyd Education and
Craft Science B: 14/2005. NordFo. Nordic Forum for Research and Development
in Craft and Design. 13–24.
Kelley, T. & Littman J. (2006). The ten faces of innovation. Strategies for heightening
creativity. Profile books.
Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K. & Mattelmäki, T. (eds.) (2003). Emphatic Design. User
Experience in Product Design. IT Press.
Lawson, B. (1983). How designers think. The Architectural Press. London.
Lindström, M. (2005). Brand Sense. Sensory Secrets behind the stuff we buy. Free
Press
Lindfors, L. (1992). Formgivning i slöjd. Ämneteoretisk och slöjdpedagogisk
orienteringsgrund med exempel från textilsöjdundervisning. Rapporter från
pedagogiska fakulteten vid Åbo Academi, nr 1. Institution för lärarutbildningen.
Vasa.
Lindström, M. (2005). Brand Sense. Sensory secrets behind the stuff we buy. Free
Press.
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: A Research Approach to Investigating Different
Understandings of Reality. In: Sherman, R. R. & Webb, R. B. (eds.) Qualitative
Research in Education: Focus and methods. The Falmer Press. London. 141–161.
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In: Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (eds.) The
international encyclopedia of education. Second edition. Vol. 8. Pergamon.
Oxford U.K. 4424–4429.
Marton, F.; Dahlgren, L. O.; Svensson, L. & Säljö, R. (1985). Oppimisen ohjaaminen.
Prisma tietokirjasto – psykologia. Amer -yhtymä.
Metsärinne, M. (2003). Teknisen käsityön visio-opetus ja -oppiminen. Toiminta- ja
tapaustutkimus peruskoulun 9. luokalla. [Sloyd vision teaching and learning. Case
and action research on the 9th classes.] Turun yliopiston julkaisuja. Annales
Universitatis Turkuensis. Sarja – ser. C osa – tom. 198. Turku: Painosalama.
Metsärinne, M. (2007). Käsityön oppimisen innovointi. [Sloyd learning innovation] In:
Metsärinne, M & Peltonen, J (edit.): Katosiko tekninen työ Turun yliopistosta? -
Käsityön oppimisen innovointi. Techne Series. Research in Sloyd Education and
Craft Science A: 11.
Metsärinne, M. (2009a). A Theorethical Approach to Artifact Development in
Sloyd/technology Education. In: Kaukinen, L. K (Ed.) Proceedings of the
Crafticulation & Education Conference. Techne Serien, Research in Sloyd
Education and Craft Science A: 14/2009. 299–306.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
124
Metsärinne, M. (2009b). Käsityökasvatuksen pro gradu-tutkielmien toiminnan
tavoitteet. [Functional aims in the sloyd education master’s thesis]. In: Metsärinne,
M (ed.) Käsityökasvatus tieteenalana 20v [Sloyd education 20 years as
discipline]. Techne Serien, Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A:
15/2009. 79–97.
Metsärinne, M. (2009c). Käsityökasvatuksen didaktiikan ja oppimisen tutkimussuuntia
[Formulation of craft research methods for sloyd experiment]. In: Metsärinne, M
(toim.) Käsityökasvatus tieteenalana 20v - Sloyd education 20 years as discipline.
Techne Serien, Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A: 15/2009. 98–
130.
Metsärinne, M. (2009d). Teknologisten käsityösysteemien tuottaminen. [Creating
technological craft systems in sloyd education]. In: Metsärinne, M (toim.)
Käsityökasvatus tieteenalana 20v - Sloyd education 20 years as discipline. Techne
Serien, Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A: 15/2009. 131–156.
Metsärinne, M., Kallio, M., Kullas, S. & Pirttimaa, M. (2010). Teacher students’
individual growth into the craftsteachership. In: In the spirit of Uno Cygnaeus –
pedagogical questions of today and tomorrow. Conference publication: University
of Jyväskylä.
Oakley, M. (1990). Design Management. A Handbook of issues and methods, ed.
Oakley, M. Great Britain. Butler & Tanner Ltd.
Papanek, V. (1985). Design for the Real World. Thames & Hudson.
Parsons, T. 2009. Thinking: Objects. Contemporary approaches to Product design.
Thames & Hudson.
Peltonen, J. (1988). Käsityökasvatuksen perusteet [Grounds of Sloyd Education]
Koulukäsityön ja sen opetuksen teoria sekä teoreettinen ja empiirinen tutkimus
peruskoulun yläasteen teknisen työn oppisisällöistä ja opetuksesta. Turun
yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Julkaisusarja A:132.
Peltonen, J. (1993). Outlines of Research on Craft Education. Kasvatus 24 –
supplement 1/1993. 6–11.
Peltonen, J. (2001). Utbildning for akademiskt innehållsproduction inom
slöjdpedagogik. In: Nygren-Landgärds, C. & Peltonen, J. (eds.) Visioner om slöjd
och slojdpedagogik. B:10/2001. Techne Series. Research in Sloyd Education and
Craft Science. NordFo. Nordic Forum for Research and Development in Craft and
Design. 331–342.
Peltonen, J. (2002). Research study instructions. University of Turku. Department of
Teacher Education in Rauma.
Peltonen, J. (2009). Core Curriculum: Linkki yliopiston käsityökasvatuksen
tutkimuksen sekä peruskoulun käsityön opetuksen välillä. In Metsärinne, M (ed.)
Käsityökasvatus tieteenalana 20v – Sloyd Education 20 Years as Discipline.
Techne Series A:15. Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science. NordFo.
Nordic Forum for Research and Development in Craft and Design. 11-38.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
125
Petroski, H. (1997). Ideasta tuotteeksi. Miten insinöörit keksivät suunnitelmallisesti.
Terra Cognita: Vaasa.
Rees, H. (1997). Patterns of making: thinking and making in industrial design. In:
Dormer, P. (ed.) The Culture of Craft. Manchester University Press.
Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind; London. Huchinson.
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and Processes. In Alexander, P. A. &
Winne, P. H. (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2000). The weaving-design process as a dual-space search.
University of Helsinki. Department of Home Economics and Craft Science.
Research Report 6.
Siltala, R. (2010). Innovatiivisuus ja yhteistoiminnallinen oppiminen liike-elämässä ja
opetuksessa. C 304. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Turun yliopisto.
Syrjälä, L.; Ahonen, S.; Syrjäläinen, E. & Saari, S. (1996). Laadullisen tutkimuksen
työtapoja. Kirjayhtymä Oy.
Uljens, M. (1989). Fenomenografi – forskning om uppfattningar. Studentlitteratur,
Lund.
Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000). Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill.
Valtonen, A. (2007). Redefining Industrial Design. Changes in the Design Practice in
Finland. Gummerus Printing. Jyväskylä.
Winner, L. (1997). Technologies as Forms of Life. In: Shrader-Frechette, K. & Westra,
L. (eds.) Technology and Values. Rowman & Littlefield.
Zeisel, F. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research.
Moterey, California: Brooks/Cole publishing Company.
Yli-Piipari, E. (1991). Tuotteen suunnittelusta ja suunnitteluprosesseista peruskoulun
teknisessä työssä: Teoreettis-didaktista tarkastelua. Turun yliopisto.
Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Julkaisusarja B: 34.
Mika Metsärinne, PeD, forskare i slöjdpedagogik [käsityökasvatus] vid Åbo
universitets pedagogiska fakultet, Institutionen för lärarutbildning, Raumo, Finland.
Metsärinnes forskningsintressen utgörs av teorier kring undervisning och lärande i
slöjd samt forskningsmetoder i slöjdpedagogik.
Manne Kallio, PeM, doktorand, Åbo universitets pedagogiska fakultet/Institutionen för
lärarutbildning, Raumo, Finland. Kallios forskningsintresse utgörs av att utreda
riskerna med och värdet av produkter som tillverkas i slöjden.
Defining Craft Quality Theory Framework in Sloyd Education
126
