IJTES Volume 3, Number 2, ISSN 2651-5369 Publisher: International Journal of Technology in Education and Science
The research is based on a comparative study of craft and technology education curriculums and students’ attitudes towards craft and technology in Finland, Slovenia, Estonia and Iceland. The study was undertaken by the Helsinki University, University of Ljubljana, University of Tallinn and University of Iceland. A literature review was completed, in order to examine and compare the curriculums of technology education in Finland, Slovenia, Estonia and Iceland. In addition, a quantitative survey was subsequently distributed to 864 school students in Finland, Slovenia, Estonia and Iceland. It consisted of 14 questions, which aimed to ascertain students’ attitudes towards craft and technology. The survey showed substantial differences in students’ attitudes towards technology education in the four countries: these differences may be explained by differences in the national curriculums, the different pedagogical traditions and cultural differences in the field of technology. In addition, the study tried to examine the structure of students’ attitudes towards technology. The factors can be interpreted as matching with the affective, cognitive and behavioral components. However, no far-reaching generalizations were allowed regarding the structure or properties of the attitudes towards technology as the questionnaire consisted of only 14 items.
Autio, O., Jamsek, J., Soobik, M. & Olafsson, B. (2019). Technology Education in Finland, Slovenia, Estonia and Iceland: The Structure of Students’ Attitudes towards Technology. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 3(2), 95-106. Retrieved March 26, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/207263/.
- Ankiewicz, P., van Rensburg, S. & Myburgh, C. (2001). Assessing the Attitudinal Profile of South African Learners: A Piloy Study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 11(2), 93-109.
- Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S. & Van Keulen, H. (2012). Reconstructing the Pupils Attitude Towards TechnologySurvey. PATT 26(1) Proceedings: Technology education in the 21st century (pp.22-31). Stockholm,
- Autio, O. (2013). Oppilaiden teknologiset valmiudet – vertailu vuoteen 1993. [Students‟ technological abilities– a comparison to a year 1997] Kasvatus 44 (4), 367-380.
- Autio, O & Soobik, M. (2013). A Comparative Study of Craft and technology Education Curriculums and Students‟ Attitudes towards Craft and Technology in Finnish and Estonian Schools. Techne series A, 20 (2), 17-33.
- Autio, O., Thorsteinsson, G. & Olafsson, B. (2012). A Comparative Study of Finnish and Icelandic Craft Education Curriculums and Students‟ Attitudes towards Craft and Technology in Schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 45 (2012), 114-124.
- Bjerrum Nielsen, H. & Rudberg, M. (1989). Historien om jenter og gutter. Kjonnsosialisering i ett utvecklingspsykoligisk perspektiv. Oslo: Universitetslaget
- De Klerk Wolters, F. (1989) The attitude of pupils towards technology. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
- Dunteman, G. (1989). Principal Components Analysis: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, No. 69. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
- Dyrenfruth, M.J. (1990). Technological Literacy: Characteristics and Competencies, Revealed and Detailed. In H. Szydlowski & R. Stryjski (Eds.) Technology and School: Report of the PATT Conference (pp. 26-50).
- Eccles, J. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In Ceci, S. & Williams, W. (Eds.) Why Aren’t more Women in Science. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
- Eccles, J. (2008). Agency and Structure in Human Development. Research in Human Development 5 (4), 231243.
- Eccles, J. (2009). Who Am I and What Am I Going to Do With My Life? Personal and Collective Identities as Motivators of Action. Educational Psychologist 44(2), 78-89.
- Falkin (2011). Design and technology curriculum. Ministrstvo za šolstvo, znanost in šport. Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo.
- Fensham, P. (1992). Science and Technology. In Jackson, P. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: MacMillan.
- Framework Curriculum Guidelines (2004). Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Garmire, E. & Pearson, G. 2006. Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. ResearchTechnology Management, 50, 69-69.
- Lauren, J. (1993). Osaavatko peruskoululaiset luonnontietoa. In Linnankylä, P. & Saari, H. (Eds.). Oppiiko oppilas peruskoulussa? [Do students’ learn in comprehensive school?]. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Kasvatustieteen tutkimuslaitos.
- Layton, D. (1994). A School Subject in the Making? The Search for Fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.) Innovations in Science and Technology Education (Vol.5). Paris: Unesco.
- Mammes, I. (2004). Promoting Girls‟ Interest in Technology through Technology Education: A Research Study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 14, 89-100.
- Olafsson, B. & Thorsteinsson, G. (2010). Examining Design and Craft Education in Iceland: Curriculum Development and Present Situation. FORMakadmisk, 3(2), 39-50.
- Raat, J. & De Vries, M. (1986). What do Girls and Boys think about Technology? Eindhoven, University of Technology.
- Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmiahlyi, M., Schneider, B. & Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly 18, 207-231.
- Silverman, S. & Pritchard, A. (1996). Building Their Future: Girls and Technology Education in Connecticut, Journal of Technology Education 7 (2), 41-54.
- Sjøberg, S. (2002). Science and Technology Education: Current Challenges and Possible Solutions. In Jenkins, E. (ed.) Innovations in Science and Technology Education Vol VIII, Paris: UNESCO.
- Vander Velde, J. (1992). Technology in Basic Education. In Kananoja, T. (Ed.) Technology Education Conference. Helsinki: The National Board of Education (151-170).
- Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based Preferences toward Technology Education Content, Activities, and Instructional Methods, Journal of Technology Education 16 (2), 55-71.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.