Gender and Technology Education

Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

Technology-oriented fields are still mostly male dominated. Increasing the number of women in natural science and technology careers remains an elusive goal in EU countries. Although gender equality and nondiscrimination have been critical, longtime concerns in education, gender-related divisions continue to occur in the field of technology and the subjects that pupils decide to study. Also, significant variations between girls’ and boys’ interest and behavior have been documented in technology education. In today’s society, technology education plays an important role in providing children with opportunities and in improving their ability to interact with everyday technologies. Technology education also equips children with the necessary knowledge to perform a wide variety of jobs. In order to introduce a more equitable gender balance in higher education, technology-oriented fields, and, consequently, in the corresponding labor market, we must continue to expand our knowledge on the impact of current technology education and focus on gender-related issues. This chapter aims to discuss gender-related topics in technology education and careers. Could technology education have an impact on women and girls or potentially influence their advancement in technology-oriented fields? With the goal of achieving greater gender equality in technology fields, this chapter concludes with further directions for research and suggestions for new ways of thinking.

Keywords

Career aspiration Gender Gendered process Interest Technology education 

References

  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes. Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardies, J. (2015). Students’ attitudes towards technology. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study in secondary education. Doctoral dissertation. Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
  4. Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., & Gijbels, D. (2015a). The effect of classroom activities on students’ interest and career aspirations towards technology. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 2.Google Scholar
  5. 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. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9268-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auger, R. W., Blackhurst, A. E., & Wahl, K. H. (2005). The development of elementary-aged children’s career aspirations and expectations. Professional School Counseling, 8(4), 322–329.Google Scholar
  7. Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Beauregard, T. A. (2007). Family influences on the career life cycle. In M. Ozbilgin & A. Malach-Pines (Eds.), Career choice in management and entrepreneurship: A research companion (pp. 101–126). London: Edward Elgar Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blaine, B. E. (2007). Understanding the psychology of diversity. California: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Committee on Alleviation of Segregation. (2015). Tasa-arvotyö on taitolaji. [The work at equality takes skill]. Ministry of Education and Culture Working Group suggestions. Oppaat ja käsikirjat 2015:5.Google Scholar
  11. Cross, A. (2011). In search of a pedagogy for primary design and technology. In C. Benson & J. Lunt (Eds.), International handbook of primary technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 167–180). London: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dagan, O. (2015). Kindergarten student teachers’ attitudes towards and perceptions of technology: The impact of a one year pre-service course. In M. Chatoney (Ed.), Plurality and complementary of approaches in design & technology education. PATT29 conference (pp. 98–105). Marseille: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar
  13. Dakers, J. R. (2011). The rise of technological literacy in primary education. In C. Benson & J. Lunt (Eds.), International handbook of primary technology education. Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 181–193). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. de Weerd, J., & Rommes, E. (2012). To beta or not to beta? The role of teachers in the gendered choice of science and technology by secondary school students. In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-Ulpe (Eds.), Women’s choices in Europe: Influence of gender on education, occupational career and family development (pp. 63–78). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elshof, L. (2011). Technology education: Overcoming the general motors syndrome. In M. de Vries (Ed.), Positioning technology education in the curriculum (pp. 145–162). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elvstrand, H., Hellberg, K., & Hallström, J. (2012). Technology and gender in early childhood education: How girls and boys explore and learn technology in free play in Swedish preschools. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century. The PATT 26 conference (pp. 163–171). Stockholm: Linköping University/CETIS/KTH.Google Scholar
  19. Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2012). Are females or males disadvantaged in contemporary educational systems? In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-Ulpe (Eds.), Women’s choices in Europe: Influence of gender on education, occupational career and family development (pp. 15–28). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  20. Endepohls-Ulpe, M., Ebach, J., Seiter, J., & Kaul, N. (2012). Barriers and motivational factors for taking up a career in a technological field in Germany and Austria. In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-Ulpe (Eds.), Women’s choices in Europe: Influence of gender on education, occupational career and family development (pp. 79–93). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  21. Engström, S. (2015). The females who succeed within higher technical education: Why do they choose and who are they? Four profiles emerge through the use of cluster analysis. In M. Chatoney (Ed.), Plurality and complementary of approaches in design & technology education. PATT29 conference (pp. 120–125). Marseille: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2013a). Gendered innovations. How gender analysis contributes to research. Research and innovation. Report of the expert group ‘innovation through gender’. European Commission. Luxenbourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2013b). She Figures 2012. Gender in research and innovation. Statistics and indicators. European Commission. Luxenbourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2016). She Figures 2015. Gender in research and innovation. European Commission. Luxenbourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  25. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Francis, B. (2010). Gender, toys and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hallström, J., Elvstrand, H., & Hellberg, K. (2015). Gender and technology in free play in Swedish early childhood education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 137–149. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9274-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Järvinen, E.-M., & Rasinen, A. (2015). Implementing technology education in Finnish general education schools: Studying the cross-curricular theme ‘human being and technology’. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 67–84. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9270-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klapwijk, R., & Rommes, E. (2009). Career orientation of secondary school students (m/f) in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 403–418. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9095-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Layton, D. (1993). Technology's challenge to science education: cathedral, quarry, or company store? Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Mammes, I. (2004). Promoting girls’ interest in technology through technology education: A research study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, M. (2012). Values in design and technology education: Past, present and future. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century. The PATT 26 conference (pp. 309–315). Stockholm: Linköping University/CETIS/KTH.Google Scholar
  34. McDermott, R. P. (1996). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice - Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, L., & Hayward, R. (2006). New jobs, old occupational stereotypes: Gender and jobs in the new economy. Journal of Education and Work, 19(1), 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murphy, P. (2006). Gender and technology. Gender mediation in school knowledge construction. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 219–237). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy, P. (2007). Gender and pedagogy. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design and technology: For the next generation (pp. 236–251). Shropshire: Cliffeco Communications.Google Scholar
  38. Niiranen, S. (2016). Increasing girls’ interest in technology education as a way to advance women in technology. Doctoral dissertation. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  39. Niiranen, S., & Hilmola, A. (2016). Female technology education teachers’ experiences of Finnish craft education. Technology and Design Education: An International Journal, 21(2), 41–48.Google Scholar
  40. Niiranen, S., & Niiranen, S. (2015). Women in technology-oriented fields. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 2.Google Scholar
  41. Paechter, F. (2007). Being boys, being girls: Learning masculinities and femininities. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2012). Women’s choices in STEM – Statistical data and theoretical approaches explaining the gender gap. In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-Ulpe (Eds.), Women’s choices in Europe: Influence of gender on education, occupational career and family development (pp. 53–61). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  43. Quaiser-Pohl, C., & Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2012). Education, occupational career and family work – Similarities and differences in women’s choices in Europe (Editorial). In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-Ulpe (Eds.), Women’s choices in Europe: Influence of gender on education, occupational career and family development (pp. 7–13). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  44. Rasinen, A., Virtanen, S., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., Ikonen, P., Ebach, J., & Stahl-von Zabern, J. (2009). Technology education for children in primary schools in Finland and Germany: Different school systems, similar problems and how to overcome them. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 368–379. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9097-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S.-C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sander, E. (2012). Biographies of female scientists in Austria: Results of an interview study. In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-Ulpe (Eds.), Women’s choices in Europe: Influence of gender on education, occupational career and family development (pp. 107–122). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  47. Snape, P., & Fox-Thurnbull, W. (2013). Perspectives on authenticity: Implementation in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 51–68. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9168-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turja, L., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Chatoney, M. (2009). A conceptual framework for developing the curriculum and delivery of technology education in early childhood. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 353–365. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9093-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & van der Molen, J. H. (2016). Modeling the relation between students’ implicit beliefs about their abilities and their educational STEM choises. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Published online: 18 Nov 2016. doi:10.1007/s10798-016-9387-7.Google Scholar
  50. van Tuijl, C., & van der Molen, J. H. (2016). Study choise and career development in STEM fields: An overview and integration of the research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 159–183. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9308-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Virtanen, S., Räikkönen, E., & Ikonen, P. (2015). Gender-based motivational differences in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 197–211. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9278-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Volk, K. S. (2007). Attitudes. In M. de Vries, R. Custer, J. Dakers, & G. Martin (Eds.), Analyzing best practices in technology education (pp. 191–202). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher EducationUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations