Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?

Mateja Ploj Virtič; Andrej Šorgo

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

Full Text (PDF)

Mateja Ploj Virtič ¹ ^* , Andrej Šorgo ²

More Detail

¹ University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics² University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Institute for iInformatics^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background:
Education has traditionally focused on the importance of content and cognitive goals and in this style also the curriculum design is made. While content knowledge is important to enter to the labour market today graduates need to develop also manual skills and technical literacy.

Materials and methods:
We set indicators of the intention to become a future engineer. One indicator can be the usage of hands-on activities at home and school, as well as the opinions about engineering education formed at the lower secondary school level. A total of 578 lower secondary students from Slovenia responded a questionnaire.

Results:
From the usage frequencies of different tools and performance of procedures, a large gap between home and school technics can be recognized. The results of research showed that practical and hand-on activities are, to a large extent, lacking in lower secondary education in Slovenia.

Conclusions:
The findings call for a redesign of curricula and a reform of teacher education towards more practically oriented and inspiring teaching.

Keywords

hands-on activities
lower secondary school
science and engineering education
technology literacy

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 12, Issue 2, February 2016, 249-266

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

Publication date: 01 Jul 2016

Article Views: 2122

Article Downloads: 1052

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Aberšek, B. (2004). Vocational education system in Slovenia between the past and the future. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 547-558. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2003.08.004
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35–54. doi : 10.1177/0963662506070159
Alpaslan, M.M., Yalvac, B., & Loving, C.C. (2015). Curriculum Reform Movements and Science Textbooks: A Retrospective Examination of 6th Grade Science Textbooks. Eurasia Journal Of Mathematics Science And Technology Education, 11, 207-216. Doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1316a
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617-639. doi: 10.1002/sce.20399
Avery, L.M. (2013). Rural Science Education: Valuing Local Knowledge. Theory into Practice, 52, 28-35. doi: 10.1080/07351690.2013.743769
Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
Basto, M., & Pereira, J.M. (2012). An SPSS R-Menu for Ordinal Factor Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 46(4), 1–29.
Bilek, M. (2010). Natural Science Education in the Time of Virtual Worlds. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(1), 4-5.
Bonga, S. W., et al. (2006). Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies Policy Report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Global Science Forum.
Borchert, M. (2002). Career choice factors of high school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Stout).
Brunello, G., Fort, M., & Weber, G. (2009). Changes in compulsory schooling, education and the distribution of wages in Europe*. The Economic Journal, 119(536), 516-539.
Bybee, W. R. (2013). The Case for Stem Education: Challenges and Opportunities. National Science Teacher Education Press, USA.
Carr, R.L., Bennett, L.D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM Standards of the 50 U.S. States: An Analysis of Presence and Extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-364.
Cerinšek, G., Hribar, T., Glodež, N., & Dolinšek, S. (2013).Which are my Future Career Priorities and What Influenced my Choice of Studying Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics? Some Insights on Educational Choice-Case of Slovenia. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2999-3025. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.681813
Cotman, C.W., & Berchtold, N.C. (2002). Exercise: a behavioral intervention to enhance brain health and plasticity. Trends in Neurosciences, 25, 295-301. doi: 10.1016/S0166- 2236(02)02143-4
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use by curriculum developers. Toronto, ON, Canada.
Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557-569. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.015
Dillon, J. (2009). On Scientific Literacy and Curriculum Reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 201-213.
Erceg-Hurn, D.M., & Mirosevich, V.M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist, 63, 591– 601. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3nd edition. London: Sage Publications.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Han, I. (2013). Embodiment: A New Perspective for Evaluating Physicality in Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49, 41-59. doi: 10.2190/EC.49.1.b
Hus, V., & Ivanuš Grmek, M. (2011). Didactic strategies in early science teaching. Educational Studies, 37, 159–169. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2010.506336
Jaušovec, N., & Jaušovec, K. (2012). Working memory training: improving intelligence - changing brain activity. Brain and cognition, 79, 96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2012.02.007
Johnson, W. C., & Jones, R. C. (2006). Declining interest in engineering studies at a time of increased business need. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.
De Jong, T., Linn, M.C., & Zacharia Z.C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305-308. doi: 10.1126/science.1230579
Kan, I.P., Barsalou, L.W., Solomon, K.O., Minor, J.K., & Thompson-Schill, S.L. (2003). Role of mental imagery in a property verification task: fMRI evidence for perceptual representations of conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 525-540. doi: 10.1080/02643290244000257
Kapanadze, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal Of Mathematics Science And Technology Education, 10, 47-58. doi: 10.12973/euraisa.2014.1011a
Koc, Y., Isiksal, M., & Bulut, S. (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 8(1), 30–39.
Kocijančič, S., & O'Sullivan, C. (2004). Real or virtual laboratories in science teaching - is this actually a dilemma? Informatics in education, 3(2), 239-250.
Kocijančič, S. (2011a). An overview of research and development activities in technology education. Proc. 2nd World Conf. on Technol. and Engng. Educ., 10-15.
Kocijančič, S. (2011b). Ocena stanja tehniškega izobraževanja v Sloveniji in predlogi za izboljšave. Acta chimica slovenica, 58(1), S9-S10.
Kocijančič, S., Vaupotič, R., Prešeren, I., Papotnik, A., Florjančič, F., Gaberšek, M., et al. (2011). Ocena stanja tehniškega izobraževanja v Sloveniji in predlogi za izboljšanje (Report). Ljubljana: Society for the Development of Technology Education. Retrieved February 1, 2014, from http://www.drti.si/docs/StanjeTeh.pdf.
Koštomaj, M., & Boh, B. (2011). Design and evaluation of user`s physical experience in an Ambient Interactive Storybook and full body interaction games. Multimedia tools and applications, 54, 499-525. doi: 10.1007/s11042-010-0549-4
Kubiatko, M., Usak, M., Yilmaz, K., & Tasar, M.F. (2010). A Cross-National Study of Czech and Turkish University Students’ Attitudes towards ICT Used in Science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(2), 119 – 134.
Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by Embodiment: Six Precepts for Research on Embodied Learning and Mixed Reality. Educational Researcher, 42, 445- 452. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13511661
Lövheim, D. (2014). Scientists, Engineers and the Society of Free Choice: Enrollment as Policy and Practice in Swedish Science and Technology Education 1960–1990. Science & Education, 1-22.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J.F. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future (Report). London: King’s College London.
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport [MESS]. (2009). Educational system in Slovenia. Retrieved February 10. 2015 from http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/background_information/education/educati onal_system_in_slovenia/.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049- 1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199
Osborne, J. (2007). Science Education for the Twenty First Century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184.
Pacilli, M.G., Giovannelli, I., Prezza, M., & Augimeri, M.L. (2013). Children and the public realm: antecedents and consequences of independent mobility in a group of 11-13- year-old Italian children. Children’s Geographies, 11, 377-393. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2013.812277
Pinar, W. F. (2013). International handbook of curriculum research. Routledge.
Pisano, R. (2011). Textbooks, foundations, history of science and science education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 35, 5–10.
Pisano, R., & Bussoti, P. (2012). Galileo and Kepler: On Theoremata Circa Centrum Gravitatis Solidorum and Mysterium Cosmographicum. History Research, 2, 110-145.
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chudá, J. (2007). Slovakian students’ attitudes toward biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 287-295.
Puhek, M., Perše, M., & Šorgo, A. (2012). Comparison between a real field trip and a virtual field trip in a nature preserve: knowledge gained in biology and ecology. Journal of Baltic science education, 11(2), 164-174.
Randler, C., Osti, J., & Hummel, E. (2012). Decline in Interest in Biology among Elementary School Pupils during a Generation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 8(3), 201-205. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2012.835a
Rennie, L., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.
Rihtaršič, D., & Kocijančič, S. (2012). The role of equipment and accessories in the early teaching of robotics. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 10(1), 29-34.
Robnett, R.D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship Groups, Personal Motivation, and Gender in Relation to High School Students' STEM Career Interest. Journal of Research On Adolescence, 23(4), 652-664.
Serin, G. (2015). Alternative Assessment Practices of a Classroom Teacher: Alignment with Reform-Based Science Curriculum. Eurasia Journal Of Mathematics Science And Technology Education, 11(2), 277-297. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1330a
Small, B., & Jollands, N. (2006). Technology and ecological economics: Promethean technology, Pandorian potential. Ecological Economics, 56, 343-358.
Sneider, C., & Rosen, L. (2009). Towards a vision for engineering education in science and mathematics standard. In Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Šorgo, A., & Kocijančič, S. (2004). Teaching basic engineering and technology principles to pre-university students through a computerised laboratory. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 3(2), 239-242.
Šorgo, A., & Špernjak, A. (2012). Practical work in biology, chemistry and physics at lower secondary and general upper secondary schools in Slovenia. Eurasia Journal Of Mathematics Science And Technology Education, 8(1), 11-19.
Tasar, M.F., & Atasoy, B. (2006). Turkish educational system and the recent reform efforts: The example of the new science and technology curriculum for grade, 4–8. Paper presented at the meeting of Asia Pacific Educational Research Association, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Taylor, H.A., & Hutton, A. (2013). Think3d!: Training Spatial Thinking Fundamental to STEM Education. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 434-455. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.828727.
The Belgrade Chapter. (1976). Connect, UNESCO UNEP environmental Education Newsletter 1(1), 1 – 9 Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001533/153391eb.pdf.
Valentine, G., & McKendrick, J. (1997). Children's outdoor play: Exploring parental concerns about children's safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum, 28, 219-235. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7185(97)00010-9
Wysocki, B., McDonald, N., Fanto, M., & McEwen, T. (2013). Designing STEM Activities to Complement Neural Development in Children. In Proceedings of Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), 1-5. Princeton, NJ: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ISECon.2013.6525234

How to cite this article

APA

Virtič, M. P., & Šorgo, A. (2016). Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

Vancouver

Virtič MP, Šorgo A. Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(2):249-66. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

AMA

Virtič MP, Šorgo A. Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(2), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

Chicago

Virtič, Mateja Ploj, and Andrej Šorgo. "Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 2 (2016): 249-266. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

Harvard

Virtič, M. P., and Šorgo, A. (2016). Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), pp. 249-266. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a

MLA

Virtič, Mateja Ploj et al. "Can We Expect to Recruit Future Engineers among Students who have Never Repaired a Toy?". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 2, 2016, pp. 249-266. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a