Advertisement

Participation and achievement in technology education: the impact of school location and socioeconomic status on senior secondary technology studies

  • Steve MurphyEmail author
Article

Abstract

The rise of STEM education, and the twenty first century skills movement, and the increasingly technologically driven nature of our world, has pushed technology education to the fore in recent times. Technology education faces a range of equity issues and there has been a particular focus on gender issues. This study considers two less explored equity issues: school location and socioeconomic status (SES). Using data routinely collected in Victoria, Australia by the Department of Education and Training, senior school technology subject provision, enrolment and achievement patterns were examined by location and SES. Though little difference was found in the academic performance of students from metropolitan or non-metropolitan locations in technology subjects, there were notable differences in participation. Non-metropolitan students were more likely to enrol in design technology and engineering subjects than students attending metropolitan schools. However, while nonmetropolitan student’s enrolled in the digital technology subjects at a similar rate to metropolitan students, nonmetropolitan students were less likely to have access to these subjects. Students from lower SES schools tended to perform more poorly in technology subjects than students from high SES backgrounds. Further, the lowest SES schools were the least likely to offer technology subjects. This skewed access to, and performance in, technology subjects by SES and location, highlights significant equity issues in technology education that have attracted only limited attention in the literature.

Keywords

Design technology Digital technology Equity Socioeconomic status Rural Metropolitan 

Notes

References

  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). National assessment program: ICT literacy years 6 & 10 report 2014. Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from Sydney: https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/D15_8761__NAP-ICT_2014_Public_Report_Final.pdf.
  2. Australian Industry Group. (2013). Lifting our science, teachnology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills. Retrieved on 13 Jan 2018 from http://www.kvab.be/Denkersprogramma/f2ks/Z-lifting%20our%20STEM%20skills%20Australia.pdf.
  3. Australian Industry Group. (2015). Progressing STEM skills in Australia. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2017 from http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2015/14571_STEM_Skills_Report_Final_-.pdf.
  4. Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102–112.Google Scholar
  5. Caleb, L. (2000). Design technology: Learning how girls learn best. Equity & Excellence in Education, 33(1), 22–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568000330105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dakers, J., Dow, W., & McNamee, L. (2009). De-constructing technology’s masculinity: Discovering a missing pedagogy in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 381–391.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9099-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dar, Y., & Getz, S. (2007). Learning ability, socioeconomic status, and student placement for undergraduate studies in Israel. Higher Education, 54(1), 41–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9045-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, P., Telhaj, S., Hutton, D., Adnett, N., & Coe, R. (2008). Socioeconomic background, gender and subject choice in secondary schooling. Educational Research, 50(3), 235–248.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880802309358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Education and Training. (2016). Equity (social disadvantage): (Reference 11). Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/finance/Pages/srpref011.aspx.
  10. Elsworth, G. R., Harvey-Beavis, A., Ainley, J., & Fabris, S. (1999). Generic interests and school subject choice. Educational Research and Evaluation (An International Journal on Theory and Practice), 5(3), 290–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y., Nakajima, T., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2018). Putting making into high school computer science classrooms: Promoting equity in teaching and learning with electronic textiles in exploring computer science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 21–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1436998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., Southgate, E., & Albright, J. (2015). Socioeconomic status and the career aspirations of Australian school students: Testing enduring assumptions. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(2), 155–177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0172-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hacifazlioglu, O. (2008). Influence of family and environment on students occupational choices and expectations of their prospective universities. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(4), 433–446.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.4.433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hur, J. W., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Marghitu, D. (2017). Girls and computer science: Experiences, perceptions, and career aspirations. Computer Science Education, 27(2), 100–120.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2017.1376385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy, J., Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2018). Australian enrolment trends in technology and engineering: Putting the T and E back into school STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 553–571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9394-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kormos, E. M. (2018). The unseen digital divide: Urban, suburban, and rural teacher use and perceptions of web-based classroom technologies. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1429168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyon, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia: The SiMERR national survey. Retrieved from Armidale, NSW: https://simerr.une.edu.au/pages/projects/1nationalsurvey/Abridged%20report/Abridged_Full.pdf.
  18. Mehboob Ul, H., & Akbar, R. A. (2016). Attitudes and practices of secondary school students about information communication technology: A comparison by gender, locale and subjects of study. Journal of Educational Research (1027–9776), 19(1), 24–38.Google Scholar
  19. Michell, D., Szorenyi, A., Falkner, K., & Szabo, C. (2017). Broadening participation not border protection: How universities can support women in computer science. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 39(4), 406–422.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1330821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan, R., & Kirby, C. (2016). The UK STEM education landscape: A report for the Lloyd’s register foundation from the royal academy of engineering education and skills committee. Retrieved from London: https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/uk-stem-education-landscape.
  21. Mullis, R. L., Mullis, A. K., & Gerwels, D. (1998). Stability of vocational interests among high school students. Adolescence, 33(131), 699–707.Google Scholar
  22. Murphy, S. (2018a). The impact of school disadvantage on senior secondary science: a study of patterns of participation and achievement in government secondary schools in Victoria, Australia. Research in Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9745-4.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, S. (2018b). School location and socioeconomic status and patterns of participation and achievement in senior secondary mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0251-9.Google Scholar
  24. Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, A. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318774190.Google Scholar
  25. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). Technology and engineering litereacy (TEL): The nations report card. Retrieved on 9 Dec 2017 from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2014/files/TEL_101_infographic.pdf.
  26. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra: Office of the Chief Scientist. Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf.
  27. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). The intellectual and policy foundations of the 21st century skills framework. Retrieved on 13 Jan 2018 from United States of America: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/Intellectual_and_Policy_Foundations.pdf.
  28. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rural Australia Institure. (2016). The future of work: Setting kids up for success. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2017 from Canberra: http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Future-of-Work_report.pdf.
  30. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2017a). PISA 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. Retrieved on 9 Dec 2017 from Camberwell, Victoria: https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/22/.
  31. Thomson, S., Wernert, N., O’Grady, E., & Rodrigues, S. (2017b). TIMSS 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from Camberwell, Victoria: https://research.acer.edu.au/timss_2015/2/.
  32. UNESCO. (2017). Cracking the code: Girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Retrieved on 13 Jan 2018 from Paris, France: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002534/253479E.pdf.
  33. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2010). Agrictultural and horticultural studies: Victorian certificate of education study design. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2017 from Melbourne: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au.
  34. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2011). Product design and technology: Victorian certificate of education study design. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2017 from Melbourne: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au.
  35. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2012). Systems engineering: Victorian certificate of education study design. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2017 from Melbourne: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au.
  36. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2014). Food and technology: Victorian certificate of education study design. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2017 from Melbourne, Vicotira: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/technology/foodtechsd2011.pdf.
  37. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2016). Victorian certificate of education: Computing study design. Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from Melbourne: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au.
  38. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2017). VCE and VCAL administrative handbook 2017. Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from Melbourne: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au.
  39. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2018). Victorian certificate of education: Algorithmics (higher education scored study). Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from Melbourne: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/algorithmics/AlgorithmicsSD-2017.pdf.
  40. Victorian Government. (2017). Victorian regions and regional cities. Retrieved on 4 Jan 2018 from http://www.rdv.vic.gov.au/victorian-regions.
  41. Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., et al. (2017). Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9493-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations