Top

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Published in:

18-10-2020

Short and long term impact of a high-tech STEM intervention on pupils’ attitudes towards technology

Authors: Jelle Boeve-de Pauw, Jan Ardies, Katrien Hens, Ann Wullemen, Yannick Van de Vyver, Tom Rydant, Lotje De Spiegeleer, Hanne Verbraeken

Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Issue 2/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

STEM presents a challenge to education at large. The enrollment numbers in higher education STEM tracks are ever-decreasing numbers all around the globe. More so, young people’s interest in and attitudes towards STEM seem to be free falling. Educational interventions that can help boost the attractiveness of STEM are therefore needed, and diverse such interventions are implemented worldwide. We present a longitudinal impact study of a STEM education intervention focusing on the attitudes of pupils towards technology. The intervention involves young students visiting a high-tech truck (Techno Trailer) at their schools. Inside this truck grade 5 and 6 students (average age 11 years) experience diverse interactions with high tech material and exhibits, focusing on how technology can contribute to solving problems in industry and society. 1496 elementary school students aged 10–12 years old (grades 5 and 6) participated in the study. Some of their teachers were prepared for the visit through a preparatory workshop, while others were not. We used the PATT to measure the pupil’s attitudes towards technology. Three separate measurement occasions were included: just before, 3 days after and 3 weeks after the intervention. Differences between the measurement occasions reflect changes in attitudes over time. Overall, the study shows that the intervention rendered technology as less boring, more interesting and more viable as a career option for the pupils. For girls specifically, the intervention contributed to reversing the gender stereotypical view that technology is mainly a topic for boys. For boys we did not observer such an effect. The immediate educational impacts (3 days later) tended to decrease across time but most remained significant (3 weeks later) as compared to the base line. The results of this study show that short-term high-tech STEM education interventions can positively impact on students’ attitudes towards technology. At the same time, they show that such interventions in themselves are not enough and that they need to be part of a wider strategy to boost STEM attractiveness. Furthermore, our results highlight the added value of the preparatory workshop for teachers in terms of generating educational impact on pupils’ attitudes towards technology.

previous article Technology teacher’s perceptions of model functions in technology education

next article Understanding design-based learning context and the associated emotional experience

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Provincie Antwerpen. (2010). TechnoTrailer bengt chemie en technologie in je school.

Ardies, J., & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2014). Techniek in het onderwijs, een tweesporenbeleid. In Nicaise, I., Spruyt, B., Van Houtte, M., & Kavadias, D. (Eds.), Het Onderwijsdebat. Waarom de Hervorming van het Secundair Broodnodig Is. EPO.

Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Reconstructing the pupils’ attitude towards technology-survey. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 18(1), 8–19.

Ardies, J., De Maeyer, D., & Gijbels, D. (2015a). The effect of classroom activities on students’ interest and career aspirations towards technology. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 2, 2–18.CrossRef

Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & van Keulen, H. (2015b). Students’ attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 43–65.CrossRef

Armstrong, G. R., Tucker, J. M., & Massad, V. (2009) Interviewing the experts: Student produced podcast. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8.

Barak, M. (2009). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9092-x.CrossRef

Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730–745.CrossRef

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Hoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2018). Effective field trips in nature: The interplay between novelty and learning. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1418760.CrossRef

Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599124.CrossRef

Boser, R., Palmer, J., & Michael, D. (1998). Students attitudes toward technology in selected technology education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 4–19.CrossRef

Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645.CrossRef

Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243–257.CrossRef

Chi, S. H., Wang, Z., Liu, X., & Zhu, L. (2017). Associations among attitudes, perceived difficulty of learning science, gender, parents’ occupation and students’ scientific competencies. International Journal of Science Education, 39(16), 2171–2188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1366675.CrossRef

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2009). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.

Cronin, C., & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 639–661.CrossRef

De Groof, J., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Onderzoekend leren stimuleren: effecten, maatregelen en principes. Leuven: Acco.

de Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education., 8(1), 7–15.CrossRef

de Vries, M. (2009). The developing field of technology education: An introduction. In A. T. Jones & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of researchand development in technology education (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam: Sense.

Eckes, A., Grossman, N., & Wilde, M. (2018). Studies on the effects of structure in the context of autonomy-supportive or controlling teacher behavior on students’ intrinsic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.011.CrossRef

Edison, S. W., & Geissler, G. L. (2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104.CrossRef

Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1.CrossRef

Evans, R. (2015). Self-efficacy in learning science. In Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 961–964).

Fernandez-Limon, C., Fernandez-Cardenas, J. M., & Gomez Galindo, A. A. (2018). The role of non-formal contexts in teacher education for STEM: The case of horno³ science and technology interactive centre. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1422623.CrossRef

Gibson, H. L., & Van Strat, G. A. (2001). A longitudinal study of the impact of constructivist instructional methods on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward teaching and learning mathematics and science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 517–555). New York, NY: Wiley.

Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190107.CrossRef

Hartung, P. J., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2008). Career adaptability in childhood. Career Development Quarterly, 57, 63–74.CrossRef

Hill, A. M., & Smith, H. A. (1998). Practice meets theory in technology education: A case of authentic learning in the high school setting. Journal of Technology Education, 9(2), 29–46.CrossRef

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few ? Why so few ?. Washington, DC: AAUW.

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of science education, 29(11), 1347–1362.CrossRef

Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis techniques and applications. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRef

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.CrossRef

Hummel, E., & Randler, C. (2011). Living animals in the classroom: a meta-analysis on learning outcome and a treatment-control study focusing on knowledge and motivation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 65–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9285-4.CrossRef

Jones, M. G., Howe, A. N. N., & Rua, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192. .CrossRef

Kennedy, J. P., Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2018). The Keys to STEM: Australian year 7 students’ attitudes and intentions towards science, mathematics and technology courses. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9754-3.CrossRef

Lacey, H. (2005). Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRef

Van Houte, H., Merckx, B., De Lange, J., & De Bruyker, M. 2013. Zin in wetenschappen, wiskunde en techniek. Leerlingen motiveren voor STEM. Leuven/Den Haag: ACCO.

Liang, L. L., & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1143–1162.CrossRef

Lindahl, B. (2007). A longitudinal study of students’ attitudes towards science and choice of career. Paper presented at the 80th NARST international conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2007.

Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89–100.CrossRef

Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Teaching and assessing 21^st century skills. Marzano Research.

McLaren, S. (2015). “It takes a village: The value of partnership working in design and technology teacher education. In M. Chatoney (Ed.), Plurality and complementarity of approaches in design and technology education (pp. 281–287). HAL, Marseilles: PATT.

Miele, E. (2014). Using the draw-a-scientist-test for inquiry and evaluation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 36–40.CrossRef

Miller, A. L. (2012). Investigating social desirability bias in student self-report surveys. Educational Research Quarterly, 36, 30–47.

Minogue, J. (2010). What is the teacher doing? What are the students doing? An application of the draw-a-science-teacher-test. Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(7), 767–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9170-7.CrossRef

Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003.CrossRef

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implicatons. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199.CrossRef

Prokop, P., & Fancovicová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: Do they really draw what they know? Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86–95.

Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasničák, R. (2007). Short-term effects of a field program on students’ knowledge and attitude toward biology: A Slovak experience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9044-8.CrossRef

Raat, J., Coenen-van den Bergh, R., de Klerk Wolters, F., & de Vries, M. (1988). Basic principles of school technology; Report PATT-3 conference. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Comission.

Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204.CrossRef

Schmidt, A. L. (2011). Creativity in science: Tensions between perception and practice. Creative Education, 2(5), 435–445.CrossRef

Schönfelder, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2017). How to sustainably increase students’ willingness to protect pollinators. Environmental Education Research, 24(3), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1283486.CrossRef

Sellman, D., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Effects of a 1-day environmental education intervention on environmental attitudes and connectedness with nature. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0155-0.CrossRef

Sperling, E., & Bencze, J. L. (2015). Reimagining non-formal science education: a case of ecojustice-oriented citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1062937.CrossRef

Stryf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). ‘Hard science’: A career option for socially and societally interested students? Grade 12 students’ vocational interest gap explored. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2304–2320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1376259.CrossRef

Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1145.CrossRef

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., et al. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525.CrossRef

Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2.CrossRef

van Langen, A., Rekers-Mombarg, L., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Sex-related differences in the determinants and process of science and mathematics choice in pre-university education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 71–94.CrossRef

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x.CrossRef

Wang, J. R., Huang, B. Y., Tsay, R. F., Lee, K. P., Lin, S. W., & Kao, H. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of inquiry-based instruction on student learning outcomes in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20, 534–542.

Woods, S. A., & Hampson, S. E. (2010). Predicting adult occupational environments from gender and childhood personality traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1045–1057.CrossRef

Title: Short and long term impact of a high-tech STEM intervention on pupils’ attitudes towards technology
Authors: Jelle Boeve-de Pauw
Jan Ardies
Katrien Hens
Ann Wullemen
Yannick Van de Vyver
Tom Rydant
Lotje De Spiegeleer
Hanne Verbraeken
Publication date: 18-10-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09627-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Using an iSTEAM project-based learning model for technology senior high school students: Design, development, and evaluation

Transcending disciplines in architecture, structural and building services engineering: a new multidisciplinary educational approach

Learning by evaluating (LbE) through adaptive comparative judgment

Design principles for language sensitive technology lessons in teacher education

Analysis of problem decomposition strategies of novice industrial designers using network-based cognitive maps

CAD training for digital product quality: a formative approach with computer-based adaptable resources for self-assessment

Premium Partner