Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Teaching and assessing 21st 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit Edubron, Department of Training and Education Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

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

  2. Expertise Center for Urban Education, Faculty of Teacher Training, Karel de Grote University of Apllied Sciences and Arts, Brusselstraat 45, 2018, Antwerp, Belgium

    Jelle Boeve-de Pauw, Jan Ardies & Katrien Hens

  3. Department of Education and Training, AP University of Applied Sciences, Lange Nieuwstraat 101, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Jan Ardies

Authors
  1. Jelle Boeve-de Pauw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Ardies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrien Hens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann Wullemen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yannick Van de Vyver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tom Rydant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lotje De Spiegeleer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hanne Verbraeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jelle Boeve-de Pauw or Jan Ardies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Ardies, J., Hens, K. et al. Short and long term impact of a high-tech STEM intervention on pupils’ attitudes towards technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 825–843 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09627-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09627-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation