To enhance understanding of factors that may improve students’ STEM career participation, we explored Hong Kong secondary students’ self-perceptions of STEM subjects and career interests using the STEM Semantic Survey and Career Interest Survey questionnaire. Results showed that most students thought technology was more appealing than science, mathematics, and engineering subjects. Science was the only subject in which male and female students showed similar attitudes. A gender gap was found in these students’ career interests in STEM. Students held a neutral to mildly positive stance toward a career related to science, technology, and mathematics but had the least interest in a career related to engineering. Males showed more interest than females in careers related to all four subject areas. Results revealed a need to stimulate students’ interest in STEM education and search for ways to make a connection between STEM subjects and future careers through STEM teaching in the classroom. More attention should be paid to encouraging girls to engage in STEM-related activities.
{"title":"Examining Students’ Perceptions of STEM Subjects and Career Interests: An Exploratory Study among Secondary Students in Hong Kong","authors":"Qiaoping Zhang, Hui Min Chia, Kexin Chen","doi":"10.21061/jte.v33i2.a.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i2.a.1","url":null,"abstract":"To enhance understanding of factors that may improve students’ STEM career participation, we explored Hong Kong secondary students’ self-perceptions of STEM subjects and career interests using the STEM Semantic Survey and Career Interest Survey questionnaire. Results showed that most students thought technology was more appealing than science, mathematics, and engineering subjects. Science was the only subject in which male and female students showed similar attitudes. A gender gap was found in these students’ career interests in STEM. Students held a neutral to mildly positive stance toward a career related to science, technology, and mathematics but had the least interest in a career related to engineering. Males showed more interest than females in careers related to all four subject areas. Results revealed a need to stimulate students’ interest in STEM education and search for ways to make a connection between STEM subjects and future careers through STEM teaching in the classroom. More attention should be paid to encouraging girls to engage in STEM-related activities.","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91132531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Developing an Innovation Attitude Survey for Middle School Students","authors":"Rhonda Christenson, G. Knezek","doi":"10.21061/jte.v33i2.a.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i2.a.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90817157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Are Technology and Engineering Educator Programs Really Declining? Reexamining the Status and Characteristics of Programs in the United States","authors":"Tyler S. Love, Trevor Maiseroulle","doi":"10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82627016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
N. Mentzer, Lakshmy Mohandas, Shawn Farrington, Dawn Laux
Teaching design in technology and engineering education is one of the key Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, 2021). Still, it can be challenging to provide a high-quality educational experience aligned with the standards required in introductory technology and engineering courses. Even after thorough preparation and delivering valuable content to students, students may feel the course was of low quality because it was required or not interesting. Our study investigated how improving the design thinking in technology courses based on the Expectancy Value Theory of motivation can impact students’ perceived course quality, as evidenced by course and instructor ratings. This study included nearly 1000 students in 25 sections. Quantitative analysis was completed using a t-test to measure differences in end-of-course evaluation scores for each section, and qualitative analysis of student evaluation responses was done through thematic analysis method. Our study showed that after making changes to a course based on Expectancy Value Theory, students’ ratings of both the course and instructor increased significantly. Expectancy Value Theory focuses the instructors’ course improvement efforts on three aspects which were manageable and resulted in significant improvement.
{"title":"Course Quality Improvement in Design Education","authors":"N. Mentzer, Lakshmy Mohandas, Shawn Farrington, Dawn Laux","doi":"10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.2","url":null,"abstract":"Teaching design in technology and engineering education is one of the key Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, 2021). Still, it can be challenging to provide a high-quality educational experience aligned with the standards required in introductory technology and engineering courses. Even after thorough preparation and delivering valuable content to students, students may feel the course was of low quality because it was required or not interesting. Our study investigated how improving the design thinking in technology courses based on the Expectancy Value Theory of motivation can impact students’ perceived course quality, as evidenced by course and instructor ratings. This study included nearly 1000 students in 25 sections. Quantitative analysis was completed using a t-test to measure differences in end-of-course evaluation scores for each section, and qualitative analysis of student evaluation responses was done through thematic analysis method. Our study showed that after making changes to a course based on Expectancy Value Theory, students’ ratings of both the course and instructor increased significantly. Expectancy Value Theory focuses the instructors’ course improvement efforts on three aspects which were manageable and resulted in significant improvement.","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72720530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Johnny J. Moye, Phillip A. Reed, Ray Wu-Rorrer, Douglas Lecorchick
Determining trends and issues is important for the health of any profession. The purpose of this research was to determine the current and future trends and issues facing technology and engineering education (TEE) in the United States (U.S.). The researchers used a three-round Modified-Delphi method to solicit information from technology and engineering education stakeholders across the U.S. In the first round, participants listed what they felt were current trends, future trends, current issues, and future issues facing TEE. The second round was designed to prioritize trends and issues. In the third round, participants were presented with one table for each current and future trend and issue and asked to identify if they felt each was essential or non-essential for technology and engineering leaders to address. Two hundred sixty-eight participants responded in the third round, and the resulting trends and issues were categorized into eight themes: 1) teacher shortage; 2) secondary and university TEE programs; 3) funding programs and teachers; 4) curriculum; 5) technology and engineering education identity and relevance; 6) collaborative efforts; 7) teacher certification and development; and 8) student-centered foci.
{"title":"Current and Future Trends and Issues Facing Technology and Engineering Education in the United States","authors":"Johnny J. Moye, Phillip A. Reed, Ray Wu-Rorrer, Douglas Lecorchick","doi":"10.21061/jte.v32i1.a.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v32i1.a.3","url":null,"abstract":"Determining trends and issues is important for the health of any profession. The purpose of this research was to determine the current and future trends and issues facing technology and engineering education (TEE) in the United States (U.S.). The researchers used a three-round Modified-Delphi method to solicit information from technology and engineering education stakeholders across the U.S. In the first round, participants listed what they felt were current trends, future trends, current issues, and future issues facing TEE. The second round was designed to prioritize trends and issues. In the third round, participants were presented with one table for each current and future trend and issue and asked to identify if they felt each was essential or non-essential for technology and engineering leaders to address. Two hundred sixty-eight participants responded in the third round, and the resulting trends and issues were categorized into eight themes: 1) teacher shortage; 2) secondary and university TEE programs; 3) funding programs and teachers; 4) curriculum; 5) technology and engineering education identity and relevance; 6) collaborative efforts; 7) teacher certification and development; and 8) student-centered foci.","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76815951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the presence of the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) in engineering and technology curricula and in scholarly research (e.g., Strimel & Grubbs, 2016; Kennedy, Quinn, & Lyons, 2018; Bers, Seddighin, & Sullivan, 2013; Harrison, 2011), it is now the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) that are recognized and critiqued by organizations such as the American Society for Engineering Education. This study utilized an analytical content review of scholarly literature published during a recent 6-year period (2011–2016) to identify how engineering and technology researchers, including STEM professionals, position the T and E in the context of the STL in engineering and technology and STEM instruction. Findings revealed that the domains of Design, The Nature of Technology, and The Designed World of the STL provide a rich platform from which researchers and educators can employ evidence-based strategies to promote successful STEM learning.
{"title":"Positioning the T and E in STEM: A STL Analytical Content Review of Engineering and Technology Education Research","authors":"Paul A. Asunda, J. Quintana","doi":"10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.1","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the presence of the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) in engineering and technology curricula and in scholarly research (e.g., Strimel & Grubbs, 2016; Kennedy, Quinn, & Lyons, 2018; Bers, Seddighin, & Sullivan, 2013; Harrison, 2011), it is now the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) that are recognized and critiqued by organizations such as the American Society for Engineering Education. This study utilized an analytical content review of scholarly literature published during a recent 6-year period (2011–2016) to identify how engineering and technology researchers, including STEM professionals, position the T and E in the context of the STL in engineering and technology and STEM instruction. Findings revealed that the domains of Design, The Nature of Technology, and The Designed World of the STL provide a rich platform from which researchers and educators can employ evidence-based strategies to promote successful STEM learning.","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89595109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Teaching Upcycling to Impact Environmental Attitudes","authors":"J. Flowers, C. Rauch, A. Wierzbicki","doi":"10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"271 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75978890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Within the technology education classroom, engineering design has been targeted as key to improving learning, enhancing interest in STEM careers, and positively impacting students. The purpose of this research review was to determine whether the research evidence bears these claims. Four scholarly journals that focus on technology and engineering education research were reviewed resulting in the identification of 25 empirical research studies from the past decade. Across all of the studies, data had been collected from a total of 6,397 technology and engineering education students to analyze: (a) how students design, (b) student learning outcomes, and (c) student interests and perceptions. Just over half of the studies used qualitative methods to explore how small samples of students engage in engineering design. Although the overall research evidence of the impact of engineering design on technology and engineering students is sparse, there are some important descriptive findings relating to how engineering design can impact student learning and how students allocate their time and access information while designing.
{"title":"Research Evidence of the Impact of Engineering Design on Technology and Engineering Education Students","authors":"J. Daugherty, R. Dixon, C. Merrill","doi":"10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.3","url":null,"abstract":"Within the technology education classroom, engineering design has been targeted as key to improving learning, enhancing interest in STEM careers, and positively impacting students. The purpose of this research review was to determine whether the research evidence bears these claims. Four scholarly journals that focus on technology and engineering education research were reviewed resulting in the identification of 25 empirical research studies from the past decade. Across all of the studies, data had been collected from a total of 6,397 technology and engineering education students to analyze: (a) how students design, (b) student learning outcomes, and (c) student interests and perceptions. Just over half of the studies used qualitative methods to explore how small samples of students engage in engineering design. Although the overall research evidence of the impact of engineering design on technology and engineering students is sparse, there are some important descriptive findings relating to how engineering design can impact student learning and how students allocate their time and access information while designing.","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84389649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amelia Chesley, M. W. Coots, Andrew Jackson, Sarah Knapp, N. Mentzer, Dawn Laux
Much recent STEM research indicates that course integration improves the student learning experience and fosters stronger connections among concepts and skills; this study attempts to evaluate whether or not students learn the design process more fully in the integrated version of a required first-year course, Design Thinking in Technology. Drawing from an ongoing assessment of an Integrated First-Year Experience at Purdue University, this article reports on the challenges of teaching design thinking and analyzes whether students in an interdisciplinary course integration can demonstrate the work of their design processes more completely and effectively compared to students in a nonintegrated version of the course. We employ a modified version of the Engineering Design Process Portfolio Scoring Rubric (EDPPSR) as a method of evaluating students’ design portfolios. Our initial and follow-up analyses show that students in both versions of the course struggle to complete design journal assignments satisfactorily. We assess and analyze the impact of STEMhumanities integration on students’ abilities to document and contextualize the design process using journals, and also offer discussion and suggestions about our findings.
{"title":"The Impacts of Integrating Introductory Composition, Communication, and Design Thinking Courses","authors":"Amelia Chesley, M. W. Coots, Andrew Jackson, Sarah Knapp, N. Mentzer, Dawn Laux","doi":"10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.4","url":null,"abstract":"Much recent STEM research indicates that course integration improves the student learning experience and fosters stronger connections among concepts and skills; this study attempts to evaluate whether or not students learn the design process more fully in the integrated version of a required first-year course, Design Thinking in Technology. Drawing from an ongoing assessment of an Integrated First-Year Experience at Purdue University, this article reports on the challenges of teaching design thinking and analyzes whether students in an interdisciplinary course integration can demonstrate the work of their design processes more completely and effectively compared to students in a nonintegrated version of the course. We employ a modified version of the Engineering Design Process Portfolio Scoring Rubric (EDPPSR) as a method of evaluating students’ design portfolios. Our initial and follow-up analyses show that students in both versions of the course struggle to complete design journal assignments satisfactorily. We assess and analyze the impact of STEMhumanities integration on students’ abilities to document and contextualize the design process using journals, and also offer discussion and suggestions about our findings.","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90616075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: STEM Leadership: How do I Create a STEM Culture in my School","authors":"Carlotta Vaughn","doi":"10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/JTE.V30I1.A.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Technology Education","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74447612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：