Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing pre-service preschool teachers’ engineering thinking: model development and test

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

Abstract

Engineering thinking enhances real-world learning; it emphasises system thinking, problem finding and creative problem solving as well as visualising, improving, and adapting products and processes. Several studies have investigated how pre-service preschool teachers acquire their knowledge of technology and engineering; however, a clear presentation of the factors that affect their engineering thinking is still lacking. Pre-service preschool teachers’ attitudes to technology, their perceptions of and experiences with their own engagement in technology and engineering activities, and their creative potential could contribute to their engineering thinking. To address these gaps, we used data from an empirical study of 154 early childhood pre-service teachers from two Middle European universities in Slovenia and Poland. A conceptual model was hypothesized, tested, and supported by the results using confirmatory factor analysis with structural equation modelling. Our findings revealed significant associations among pre-service teachers’ attitude towards technology, perceptions, and behaviour as well as on the role of their experience in a technology and engineering course in the relationship between attitudes toward technology and behavioural practice. Our results offer important implications about how to prepare pre-service teachers for innovative performance towards enhancing technological knowledge and skills.

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

  • Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., & Pantoya, M. L. (2016). Engineering literacy and engagement in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 630–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, E., & Seaman, C. (2007). Likert scales and data analysis. Quality Progress, 47(7), 64–65.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avsec, S., & Kocijancic, S. (2016). A path model of technology intensive inquiry-based learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 308–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The teacher’s experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 112–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D. (2007). Creativity in school design and technology in England: A discussion of influences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blunch, N. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modeling using SPSS and AMOS. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., Merrill, J. A., Clifton, W., & DeDios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity specific to engineering with the revised creative engineering design assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 778–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, N. (2015). Fixation and creativity in concept development: the attitudes and practices of expert designers. Design Studies, 38, 54–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artefacts: An analytical view. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 17–30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DuBrin, A. J. (2013). Proactive personality and behaviour for individual and organizational productivity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esjeholm, B.-T. (2015). Design knowledge interplayed with student creativity in D&T Projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferk Savec, V., Hrast, Š., Devetak, I., & Torkar, G. (2016). Beyond the use of an explanatory key accompanying submiscroscopic representations. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 63(4), 864–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerday, T., & Shell, D. F. (2015). Disentangling the effects of interest and choice on learning, engagement, and attitude. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glogger-Frey, I., Fleischer, C., Grüny, L., Kappich, J., & Renkl, A. (2015). Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Y., Justice, L. M., Sawyer, B., & Tompkins, V. (2011). Exploring factors related to preschool teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 961–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, B. Y., Fan, X., Yang, Y., & Neitzel, J. (2017). Chinese preschool teachers’ knowledge and practise of teacher–child interactions: The mediating role of teachers’ beliefs about children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, N. T., Chiu, L. C., & Hong, J. C. (2016). Relationship amongst students’problem-solving attitude, perceived value, behavioral attitude, and intention to participate in a science and technology contest. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1419–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalis, E., Roķe, L., & Krũmiņa, I. (2013). Indicators of creative potential in drawings: Proposing new criteria for assessment of creative potential with the test for creative thinking–drawing production. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 14(1–2), 22–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, M., & Metsärinne, M. (2017). How do different background variables predict learning outcomes? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knogler, M. (2017). Situational interest: A proposal to enhance conceptual clarity. In P. O’Keefe & J. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 109–124). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kraszewski, K. (2001). Podstawy edukacji ogólnotechnicznej uczniów w młodszym wieku szkolnym. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. R., & Kemple, K. (2014). Preservice teachers’ personality traits and engagement in creative activities as predictors of their support for children’s creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., Liu, Y., Liu, L., & Wang, Z. (2016). Proactive personality and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of affective states and creative self-efficacy in teachers. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9457-8 (Advanced online publication).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindfors, E., & Hilmola, A. (2016). Innovation learning in comprehensive education? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 373–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B. J., & Nordgren, L. F. (2015). People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Republic of Poland. (2017). Official Journal. Retrieved August 30, 2017 from http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/2017/356.

  • Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Republic of Slovenia. (1999). The Kindergarten Curriculum. Retrieved August 20, 2017 from http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/vrtci/pdf/vrtci_kur.pdf.

  • Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Linear causal modeling with structural equations. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Odom, L. R., & Morrow, J. R. (2006). What’s this r? A Correlational approach to explaining validity, reliability and objectivity coefficients. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(2), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD [The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. (2017). Starting strong 2017: Key OECD indicators on early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Sociology, attitudes and opinions (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Otterborn, A., Schönborn, K., & Hulten, M. (2018). Surveying preschool teachers use of digital tablets: General and technology education related findings. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9469-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54, 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puente-Díaz, R. (2016). Creative self-efficacy: An exploration of its antecedents, consequnces, and aplied implications. The Journal of Psychology, 150(2), 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rietzschel, E. F., Slijkhuis, J. M., & van Yperen, N. W. (2014). Task structure, need for structure, and creativity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 386–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 32, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 935–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. (2011). Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 993–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & White, P. (2015). What makes a successful undergraduate? The relationship between student characteristics, degree subject and academic success at university. British Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 686–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapola, A., Veermans, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2013). Predictors and outcomes of situational interest during a science learning task. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 41(6), 1047–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorshag, K., & Holmqvist, M. (2018). Pre-school children’s expressed technological volition during construction play. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9481-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torkar, G. (2014). Learning experiences that produce environmentally active and informed minds. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 69, 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, K. L. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Manage. Review, 26(2), 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The test for creative thinking–drawing production (TCT–DP). International Education Journal, 6(2), 272–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Y. L., & Siu, K. W. M. (2012). Is there creativity in design? From a perspective of school design and technology in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(3), 465–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, K.-C., Lin, K.-Y., Han, F.-N., & Hsu, I.-Y. (2012). A model of junior high school students’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaranis, N., & Oikonomidis, V. (2016). The main factors of the attitudes of Greek kindergarten teachers towards information and communication technology. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(4), 615–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Technology Education, Faculty of Education Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Stanislav Avsec

  2. Institute of Preschool and Early School Education, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Podchorążych 2, 30-084, Kraków, Poland

    Jolanta Sajdera

Authors
  1. Stanislav Avsec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jolanta Sajdera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanislav Avsec.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avsec, S., Sajdera, J. Factors influencing pre-service preschool teachers’ engineering thinking: model development and test. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 1105–1132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9486-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9486-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation