A Delphi study on the future of technology education

In 2020 an article about American experts’ opinions on the future of technology education was published. Several concerns were expressed by the experts in the Delphi study that had been conducted, such as a shortage of teachers and funding. From the start of the study in the USA, the idea was to conduct similar studies in other countries. It is interesting to see to what extent the outcomes are USA-specific or more broadly valid. To find that out a similar study was done in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) and the Netherlands. In our Delphi study, consent was found among the experts in three rounds. It became clear that there are similarities between the USA outcomes but also differences. Most of those differences can be explained by taking into account the local developments in the different countries

Empowering teachers’ gender sensitiveness

To this day, few girls in secondary and higher education opt for technology courses, which is reflected in the labour market. In order not to lose this potential, education must focus on gender sensitive teaching, more specifically when it comes to technological activities.   It requires certain insights, skills, and sensitivity to effectively empower girls in science and technology. Previous research is often widespread and not translated into concrete practice. For this design study, we brought together previous research and developed the Gender Sensitive Education Checklist (GSEC) in such a way that it evokes a sense of urgency for teachers and empowers teachers and edutainers in this quest. In an additional workshop we presented the checklist and its four main pillars regarding gender sensitivity in education, namely attitudes, representation, interaction, and pedagogical methods.  Teachers can use the developed checklist both as a practical tool, or as a reflection tool when designing and organising their activities. They scale their own skills, talents, and challenges on a continuum from strong to less strong in response to the relevant questions, relating to the four main pillars. Teachers can also, by using the checklist, be “just-in-time” reminded to make small adjustments to their lessons or workshops and by this means support girls more adequately in their STEM career.   Through multiple feedback-loops, qualitative questionnaires, and focus groups, we have learned that both (student-)teachers and edutainers consider the checklist to be a meaningful support. Teachers recognise a gender sensitive approach in STEM as very important, but also admit that they missed opportunities in the past because they did not know how to tackle these challenges and were not always conscious about the existing stereotypes and bias concerning gender. They indicate that after the workshop, they are motivated to teach in a more gender sensitive way, by focusing on some of the offered practical tools and tips

Are my technology lessons for girls? The Gender Sensitive Education Checklist (GSEC) for teaching Science and Technology.

In times of shortages in STEM professions, the untapped potential of girls with a STEM talent is a waste on a personal, social and economic level. Childhood is believed to be a very important formative stage in which children develop an early interest in specific occupations and teachers can have an important influence by developing lessons in such a way that girls are getting motivated for technology and/or science. This paper describes an educational design research study, in which we developed a checklist for teachers to screen the gender sensitivity of their STEM lessons and materials.  The checklist contains 20 different questions categorised in four main pillars, namely: the fundamental critical attitude, the image of technology, guidance & interactions and didactical methods. Overall, the Gender-Sensitive Education Checklist (GSEC) can be used to tick what is already going well, ensure these roots can anchor strongly and focus on what teachers can do next to act in a more gender sensitive way. Preliminary evaluative findings suggest that the GSEC could potentially be an inspiring tool for teachers to continuously rethink their STEM lessons and materials. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the GSEC

The effect of classroom activities on students' interest and career aspirations towards technology

Many countries implement mandatory technology classes in the secondary education curriculum in the hope of stimulating students’ interest and career aspirations in the field of technology However, there is still a need for empirical studies on how teachers and their classroom activities could enhance interest in technological vocations. This paper focusses on the different effects of classroom activities on boys’ and girls’ interest and career aspirations towards technology. Students (n = 2228) from 20 different schools participated in this study. The effects of different classroom activities were explored: interaction, hands-on activities, student investigations, and applications in technology. A factor analysis of the items enhanced the composition of the four factors. The results of the multi-level analyses indicate that some activities are more effective than others, and this effect is different for boys and girls

The Future of Technology Education in the ‘Low Lands’: Experts’ Views in Flanders and the Netherlands

In 2020 an article about USA experts’ opinions on the future of technology education was published. Several concerns were expressed by the experts in the Delphi study that had been conducted, such as a shortage of teachers and funding. From the start of the study in USA the idea was to conduct similar studies in other countries. In Finland such a study has also been done but the outcomes have not been published yet. It is interesting to see to what extent the outcomes are USA specific or more broadly valid. To find that out a similar study was done also in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) and the Netherlands. It became clear that there are similarities between the USA outcomes but also differences. Most of those differences can be explained by taking into account the local developments in the different countriesScience Education and Communicatio