Gender-based Preferences toward Technology
Education Content, Activities, and Instructional
Methods
Katherine Weber and Rodney Custer
Prominent U.S. economists and educational leaders have argued that
citizens must become technologically literate to maintain economic growth
(Bybee, 2003; Colaianne, 2000; Greenspan, 1997). All students of both genders
need to acquire the skills necessary to become consumers capable of critically
assessing the technologies they use, resulting in the ability to make more
informed decisions.
One of the key problems confronting educators in the SMET disciplines
(science, mathematics, engineering, and technology) is the disproportionate lack
of involvement of females. Females’ lack of participation has been attributed to
curriculum content that is biased toward males’ interests (Sanders, Koch, &
Urso, 1997). Others (Shroyer, Backe & Powell, 1995) attribute females’ lack of
interest to pedagogical approaches rather than to the inherent nature of the
subject.
One significant challenge is culturally-grounded gender stereotyping, which
has a substantial influence on children’s self-concepts (Witts, 1997). In a variety
of ways, the media, peers, and adults communicate and reinforce gender-based
stereotypes (Martin, Eisenbud, & Rose, 1995). For example, toys have a
powerful influence on what children perceive as appropriate for boys and girls.
Toys designed for boys tend to be highly manipulative or electronic whereas
girls’ toys are less likely to be manipulative or have interchangeable parts
(Caleb, 2000; Sanders 1997). Girls’ toys also tend to feature interpersonal
interaction, such as dolls, which encourage the development of social skills and
relationships (Caleb, 2000). Sanders, Koch, and Urso (1997) assert that girls
who are not exposed to toys that encourage scientific, mathematical or
technological thinking are less likely to develop an interest in related subject
areas at school.
In a study of the interest patterns of middle school students, Shroyer,
Backe, & Powell (1995) found that socially relevant topics were more appealing
______________________
Katherine Weber (tekteach@hotmail.com) is Gender Equity Consultant in Technology Education
and Rodney Custer (rlcuster@ilstu.edu) is Professor in the Department of Technology at Illinois
State University, Normal, Illinois. The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable insights and
assistance of Drs. Chris Merrill and Franzie Loepp, who served as members of Ms. Weber’s thesis
committee.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-56-
to girls, in contrast to boys who were more interested in how things work. They
also found that girls were more interested in topics related to the environment,
people, and the application of this knowledge to social conditions than were
males.
Given the historically disproportionate involvement of males in industrial
arts and technology education, male perspectives and interests tend to pervade
the technology education curriculum (Sanders, Koch, & Urso, 1997; Welty,
1996). The Standards for Technological Literacy represent a positive movement
in addressing this concern, since the structure of the standards provides for
diverse ways of developing curriculum and representing the interests of both
genders. Curriculum developers in technology education need to be informed by
research and theory designed to comprehend “women’s ways of knowing” if
they hope to effectively recruit and retain women and girls into the study of
technology (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; McIntosh, 1983;
Welty, 1996; Zuga, 1999). Shroyer, Backe, & Powell (1995) indicate that the
study of environmental and social technologies may be more appealing to girls
than the study of industrial technologies.
Pedagogical considerations are also critical to sound gender-balanced
curriculum design. Research has found that there are instructional methods,
learning styles, and interests that can be characterized as distinctively female
(Brunner, 1997; Jacobs & Becker, 1997; McIntosh, 1983; Rosser, 1985; Zuga,
1999). Additionally, curriculum materials need to connect in meaningful ways
with students’ prior experiences and the world in which they live (Zuga, 1999).
Teachers are encouraged to construct knowledge from students’
experiences (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Jacobs & Becker,
1997). While this is important for all students, it is particularly important that
teachers and curriculum designers in the SMET disciplines attend to the
experience base of female students. Students often feel that content lacks
relevance to their lives (Markert, 2003; Jacobs & Becker, 1997; Sanders, Koch,
& Urso, 1997). It is important to connect students to content through their life
experiences (Wills, 2000). Rather than continually using traditional tools,
material, or examples to demonstrate technological concepts, teachers should
use examples with which both genders can identify.
Females prefer collaboration over competition (Chapman, 2000; Fiore,
1999; Jacobs & Becker, 1997; McIntosh, 1983; Rosser, 1990; Sanders, Koch, &
Urso, 1997). This is consistent with contemporary trends in technology
education, where the historic use of individual projects is shifting toward small
group work. However, contemporary practice also employs the substantial use
of student competitions. For example, although the Technology Student
Association (TSA) and the Technology Education Collegiate Association
(TECA) feature collaborative activities, considerable emphasis is placed on the
competitive aspects of the events.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-57-
Purpose and Methodology
The purpose of this study was to identify the types of learning activities,
topics, and instructional methods in technology education that are preferred by
middle and high school females and males. Specifically, three questions were
posed:
1. Which activities, related to the study of technology, are most preferred by
females and males at the middle school and high school levels?
2. Which curriculum content topics, related to the study of technology, are
most interesting to females and males at the middle school and high school
levels?
3. Which instructional methods, related to the study of technology, are most
preferred by females and males at the middle school and high school levels?
A descriptive design was employed using two surveys designed by the
researchers. One survey identified the interest preferences of students toward
activities in technology education, while the second identified students’ interest
preferences toward content topics and instructional methods in technology
education.
The population consisted of students enrolled in middle school and
exploratory level high school technology education classes in Wisconsin. A
purposive, stratified sample of consisting of eleven technology education
programs (which had at least forty five minutes of contact time each day) was
selected with the assistance of a representative from the Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction to ensure gender representation as well as coverage across
urban, suburban, and rural areas. Within the eleven programs that agreed to
participate, six were middle school programs (three were urban, one was
suburban, and two were rural) and five were high programs (two were urban,
one was suburban, and two were rural). Within the six middle school programs,
one of the seven participating teachers was female. Within the five high school
programs, one of the nine participating teachers was female.
To ensure gender representation, technology programs with high female
enrollment were selected. Most school districts in Wisconsin require at least one
technology education class for all middle school students; therefore, the study’s
middle school sample was gender balanced.
The sample size for the study was based on the Krejcie and Morgan’s
(1970) formula. A total of 348 middle school students and 311 high school
students participated in the study.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were developed. The Technology Activity Preference
(TAP) Inventory consisted of a set of activities typically used in contemporary
technology education classes. These were gleaned from a variety of carefully
selected technology education curriculum materials with the assistance of state
supervisors.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-58-
To ensure a broad representation of activity types, two conceptual
frameworks were employed. First, activities were coded into context standards
categories corresponding with Standards 14-20 in the Standards for
Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000). The second framework, generally
corresponding to the types of activities involved in technological literacy as
described in the Standards, as well as Technically Speaking (Pearson & Young,
2002), was comprised of designing, making, utilizing, and assessing.
Three technology educators with substantial experience with standardsbased
curriculum development reviewed the activities. They were instructed
independently to rank order each activity according to its relevance, authenticity
related to student experience, and distribution across each of the activity types.
The final version of the TAP contained 56 activity items. Each item was rated on
a 1-5 Likert-type scale according to level of student interest (from Very
Interesting to Not Interesting at All).
The second inventory, Technology topics and Instructional methods
Preference Inventory (TIP) focused on standards-based content topics. Topics
were identified by reviewing the descriptive narrative, standards, and
benchmarks of the STL (2000). The topics compiled for each of the twenty
standards in the STL (2000) were submitted to the panel of technology education
curriculum experts for rating. Rating criteria included representativeness of the
standards category, coverage, and concreteness. The two topics receiving the
highest composite ratings were selected for the instrument for a total of forty
items (2 per STL standard). As with the TAP instrument, each item was rated on
a 1-5 Likert-type scale according to level of student interest.
In addition to the content topics, the TIP also contained a list of
instructional methods typically used in technology education programs (e.g.,
making projects, designing solutions, engaging in debate and discussion, etc.).
These methods were identified through the literature review and were selected
to be representative of gender preferences.
A pilot test was then conducted with a group of middle and high school
students to ensure the instruments’ clarity, students’ understanding of directions
and individual items, and ease of administration. Some minor modifications
were made to the administration protocol and instruments as a result of the pilot
test, primarily to ensure clarity. (Note: Additional detail about the instrument
development process is presented in Weber, 2004).
Data Collection
Technology teachers from the selected programs were invited to participate
in the study. After each teacher agreed to participate, informed consent and
assent forms were distributed to students and returned to each teacher prior to
administration. To ensure administration consistency, the researcher traveled to
each school site to administer the surveys. The instruments were introduced
with a full explanation of how to rate the items. To avoid fatigue from
completing both instruments in the same class hour, a five-minute break was
provided between the administration of the two instruments.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-59-
Data Analysis
The independent variables were gender and grade level. The dependent
variables consisted of level of interest responses to the activities and topics. The
activities and topics variables were analyzed separately using two-way factorial
analysis of variance by gender and grade level. A descriptive analysis was also
conducted to identify the activities and topics students rated most and least
interesting. A crosstabs analysis provided a mechanism for analyzing both
independent variables simultaneously.
The final step in the analysis focused on pedagogical preference, where
students were asked to rank order their preference on three separate sections that
included: instructional methods, instructional approaches to activities, and
instructional groups. The rank order of each section was identified using a
composite rank score, calculated by multiplying the number of people who
ranked the item by the rank number. Separate composite ranking scores were
computed for each independent variable to facilitate gender and grade level
comparisons. Each of the three pedagogical item sets were then placed in rank
order using this composite score, with the lowest score representing the most
preferred method and the highest score being least preferred.
Findings and Discussion
Activity Preferences
A two-way factorial analysis of variance was conducted to compare gender
and grade level differences for the activity variable. At the composite level (the
entire activity data set), no significant differences were found between the
interest ratings of females and males (see Table 1). At the subcategory level,
however, significant gender differences were detected regarding interest in
activities that involved designing and utilizing. Consistent with the literature,
females rated the design activities more interesting than did males, while males
preferred utilizing types of activities (Welty & Puck, 2001). No significant
differences were detected between genders in the make and assess dimensions.
Table 1
Male and Female Interest Preferences toward Activity Categories
Activity Sample Size Mean SD
Category M F M F M F p
Compositea 386 271 2.83 2.86 .72 .66 .321
Design 385 271 2.85 2.64 1.16 .69 .030*
Make 385 271 2.73 2.70 .80 .73 .878
Utilize 387 271 2.54 2.80 .70 .73 .000*
Assess 386 271 3.26 3.31 .86 .80 .518
Note. Lower numerical values indicate higher levels of interest and higher numerical
values indicate lower levels of interest.
aComposite: comprised of responses toward all activities
* p < .05
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-60-
The activities selected for the inventory had similar appeal to both genders.
This is important since the activities were specifically selected to represent
contemporary technology education. This suggests that the field is doing a
reasonably good job of developing activities that are equally appealing to both
genders. This study also suggests that curriculum developers appear to be doing
a relatively good job of selecting and developing activities representing an
appropriate gender balance.
Females’ preference for design and males’ preference for utilizing is
generally consistent with gender stereotypes. This is particularly true when the
design activities include a focus on problem solving or socially relevant issues.
By contrast, males typically are attracted to a variety of building activities,
which involve the use of machinery and tools. Traditional industrial arts
activities have often tended to de-emphasize the design aspects of making, with
students often working from existing project plans. It is possible that the
increased emphasis on design in contemporary technology education courses
could provide some balance between this design and make/utilize dichotomy
and make technology education activities more appealing to both genders.
Responses to the four activity categories were also examined by grade
level. Analysis of the composite activity set detected significant grade level
differences (see Table 2). Middle school students rated the composite of
activities more interesting than did high school students. Significant differences
were also found with the design, make, and utilize activities. The relatively low
interest in assessing activities is consistent with the culture of technology
education, which tends to favor applications-oriented activities over reflection
and analysis.
Table 2
Middle School and High School Interest Preferences Toward Activity
Categories
Activity Sample Size Mean SD
Category MS HS MS HS MS HS p
Compositea 345 310 2.78 2.92 .73 .65 .007
Design 346 310 2.62 2.92 .79 1.16 .002*
Make 345 311 2.60 2.84 .79 .73 .000*
Utilize 347 311 2.59 2.71 .76 .67 .004*
Assess 346 311 3.28 3.29 .88 .77 .994
Note. Lower numerical values indicate higher levels of interest and higher numerical
values indicate lower levels of interest.
aComposite: comprised of responses toward all activities
* p < .05
During the instrument development, a deliberate attempt was made to select
activities that would appeal to both middle and high school students. The
activities were also judged to be representative of contemporary technology
education activities. Consequently, it was somewhat surprising that middle
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-61-
school students rated the activities more appealing. One reason for this outcome
could be that the technology education profession may be doing a better job of
developing curriculum materials for the middle school than for the high school.
This finding may reflect a coherence of curricular focus at the middle school
level, which has yet to be achieved at the high school level, where programs
tend to range from vocationally focused trade and industrial programs to
engineering and pre-professional programs. Significant work remains to be done
to conceptualize the discipline and curriculum materials for the high school
level. This need is particularly pronounced at the advanced level, where the
programs are diverse and where curriculum materials are scant and tend to be
underdeveloped. The curriculum development challenge is further exacerbated
in general by the problems associated with stimulating high school students’
levels of interest in school (Rice, 1997; Roderick, 1993).
The data were also analyzed to identify activities that appeal and do not
appeal to males and females. Several differences among males and females
emerged. The top five activities rated interesting by females generally focused
in the areas of communication or design (see Table 3). Consistent with the
literature, females were interested in activities that support and facilitate
communication and which are of social relevance (Jacobs & Becker, 1997;
Markert, 2003; Sanders, Koch & Urso, 1997; Shroyer, Backe, & Powell, 1995).
In striking contrast, males focused on transportation vehicles with an emphasis
on utilizing and constructing. The interest in design-oriented activities was also
less pronounced with males as was the use of computers to produce designs.
Table 3
Activities Rated Most Interesting
Female preferences at middle school and high school levels n*
1. Use a software-editing program to edit a music video 224
2. Using a computer software program, design a CD cover. 210
3. Design a model of an amusement park. 195
4. Design a school mascot image to print on t-shirts. 192
5. Design a “theme” restaurant in an existing building. 190
Male preferences at middle school and high school levels
1. Build a rocket. 293
2. Construct an electric vehicle that moves on a magnetic track. 284
3. Perform simple car maintenance tasks on a car engine. 279
4. Program a robotic arm. 271
5. Design a model airplane that will glide the greatest distance. 268
*n = the number of students who rated the activity either “very interesting” or “somewhat
interesting”
The activities were also examined for lack of interest patterns. One thread
that spanned both gender and grade levels was a general lack of interest in
agricultural related activities. This finding is striking since these areas are
relatively new to technology education. Additional work remains to be done to
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-62-
develop materials that will stimulate interest in this emerging area. Another
general pattern that emerged was a lack of female interest in construction
activities. While this is consistent with the literature, the finding indicates that
developing engaging construction-related activities for females remains a
significant challenge for curriculum developers (see Table 4). It is also useful to
observe that the activities in this section tend to coincide with pedagogical
strategies typically employed by the traditional academic disciplines (e.g.,
debate, research, evaluate). This suggests that the pedagogical approach may
have a significant impact on student interest beyond the inherent interest in any
particular activity.
Table 4
Activities Rated Least Interesting
Female preferences at middle school and high school levels n*
1. Debate the advantages and disadvantages of using pesticides in
agriculture production.
164
2. Design a new use for an agricultural product. 156
3. Research why different materials are used to construct buildings
in various areas of the world.
156
4. Evaluate the energy efficiency of your home. 148
5. In order to make a recommendation for a bridge, assess the
environment in the area where a bridge is needed.
144
Male preferences at middle school and high school levels
1. Assess the risks of genetically engineered plants. 241
2. Debate the advantages and disadvantages of using pesticides in
agriculture production.
212
3. Research methods used to recycle plastics into reusable
materials.
203
4. Make a simple working model of a stethoscope. 200
5. Maintain a green house to harvest food year round. 200
*n = the number of students who rated the activity either “not very interesting” or “not
interesting at all”
Topic Preferences
The second major focus of the study was to explore patterns of student
interest in technology education topics derived from the STL. This is important
since the inherent interest in topics could differ from topic-related activities.
Well developed activities can potentially engage students in topics that may be
of little inherent interest. The study’s design included both topics and activities
in an attempt to explore these dynamics. This two-dimensional approach is also
important because the technology education field has historically emphasized
activities, often with a corresponding de-emphasis on content and conceptual
development (Custer, 2003). In this respect, the STL represent significant
progress in identifying an appropriate conceptual framework for the content of
the field. Appropriate curriculum development must select and develop
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-63-
activities that will deliver and reinforce content rather than the other way around
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Thus, exploring student interest patterns for both
topics and activities will begin to develop a base of information for curriculum
developers. Teachers need to know which areas to emphasize as they select and
develop activities.
A two-way factorial ANOVA was conducted to compare gender and grade
level differences related to technological topics. At the composite level,
significant differences were found between males and females, with males
rating the topics significantly more interesting than females. Significant gender
differences were also found with specific STL content areas including The
Nature of Technology, Design, Abilities in a Technological World, and The
Designed World, with the males rating the topics more interesting than females
(see Table 5). These findings are generally consistent with cultural stereotypes,
where males tend to be more interested in technology-related topics than
females. It is interesting to note the lack of significant differences for the
technology and society category. This is consistent with research indicating that
females are interested in technology topics that are socially relevant (Caleb,
2000). No significant grade level differences were found across the major STL
categories.
Table 5
Male and Female Interest Preferences Toward Content Standards
Activity Category Mean SD
(male n = 366, female n = 249) M F M F p
Compositea 3.09 3.35 .91 .84 .001*
The Nature of Technology 3.24 3.59 .99 .91 .000*
Technology and Society 3.31 3.51 1.04 1.00 .067
Design 2.91 3.18 .97 .90 .001*
Abilities for a Technological World 3.05 3.33 .98 .97 .002*
The Designed World 2.94 3.16 .92 .88 .010*
Note. Lower numerical values indicate higher levels of interest and higher numerical
values indicate lower levels of interest.
aComposite: comprised of responses toward all activities
* p < .05
The topics rated most interesting were compared by gender. A striking
degree of similarity was found, with four of the top five topics receiving high
ratings by both genders. The points of difference are consistent with the findings
in the activities component of this study, with females indicating high interest in
design and males indicating interest in repairing products (see Table 6). While
females tend not to prefer utilizing types of activities (see Table 1) when
compared to males, females rated two communications-oriented utilizing topics
as most interesting. This is consistent with the literature, which indicates a
female preference for communication and interpersonal interaction (Caleb,
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-64-
2000). This has important implications for gender-balanced topic selection in
technology education.
Table 6
Topics Rated Most Interesting
Female preferences at middle school and high school levels n*
1. Using computers to communicate 174
2. Cloning 150
3. How video materials are developed to communicate a message 140
4. Robotics 120
5. Characteristics of design 112
Male preferences at middle school and high school levels
1. Robotics 247
2. Using computers to communicate 232
3. Cloning. 221
4. How to repair products 198
5. How video materials are developed to communicate a message 171
*n = the number of students who rated the topic either “very interesting” or “somewhat
interesting”
Some interesting patterns emerged with respect to the topics rated as least
interesting (see Table 7). Both genders were least interested in topics generally
associated with ethical and societal values, which could signal a general lack of
interest in these types of topics among middle and high school level students. At
the same time, this finding is perplexing given the potential impact of
technology on critical social issues such as genetic engineering, information
technology privacy, global resource distribution, and national security, this
finding is somewhat disturbing.
Table 7
Topics Rated Least Interesting
Female preferences at middle school and high school levels n*
1. The correct and safe use of tools and machines 161
2. How technology has improved agriculture 159
3. Ethical issues related to technology 154
4. How societal values and beliefs shape technology 139
5. How to reduce the use of nonrenewable energy resources 135
Male preferences at middle school and high school levels
1. Ethical issues related to technology 195
2. How societal values and beliefs shape technology 188
3. How people decide to buy consumer goods 179
4. Ethical and social issues related to biotechnology 176
5. How technology has improved agriculture 176
*n = the number of students who rated the activity either “not very interesting” or “not
interesting at all”
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-65-
The general lack of interest in agricultural and biotechnology topics may be
due to their relative newness in technology education. As the population
demographics continue to shift from agricultural to urban areas, generating
student interest in the agriculture-related topics may become increasingly
challenging.
The pattern of topics rated least interesting by both genders is generally
aligned with content that is somewhat new to the field and which may be
perceived to be associated more with social studies topics than with technology.
Given the importance of these ethical and resource distribution issues on a
global scale, the field will need to find ways to generate additional student
interest on these topics at a local or community level.
Instructional Approaches
The final component of the study focused on instructional approach
preferences, which represents a third major element of the student preference
complex (along with activity and topical preferences). As with most educational
and behavioral science issues, student motivational and interest pattern
dynamics are complex and multi-dimensional. Specific to gender-based student
interest patterns in technology education, it is quite possible that engaging
instructional approaches could stimulate student engagement with topics that
previously held little interest. For this study, instructional approach data were
gathered and analyzed in three different sets: general instructional approaches,
activity-specific approaches, and instructional grouping preferences.
The rank order preference patterns for general instructional approaches
were similar for males and females (see Table 8). Students who typically enroll
in technology education classes are attracted to the types of projects that they
will be engaged in, so it is not surprising that doing projects was ranked “1” by
both genders. Somewhat inconsistent with research, however, was the high
Table 8
General Instructional Approaches
Females Males
Rank Sum Rank Rank Sum Rank
Doing projects 641 1 939 1
Competitive Activities 888 2 988 2
Collaborative activities 1020 3 1349 4
Online learning 1063 4 1343 3
Debate 1090 5 1603 7
Stations in computer lab 1175 6 1464 5
Discussion 1200 7 1742 8
Independent study 1257 8 1588 6
Lecture with discussion 1614 9 2136 9
Lecture 1877 10 2458 10
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-66-
ranking of competitive activities by females (preference #2). Research indicates
that females are less interested in competitive activities than boys, preferring
learning environments that nurture collaboration (Chapman, 2000; Fiore, 1999;
Jacobs & Becker, 1997; McIntosh, 1983; Rosser, 1990; Sanders, Koch, & Urso,
1997).It is interesting that “online learning” and “stations at a computer lab” are
ranked higher by females than “debate” and “discussion”. This may have to do
with the purpose of computer use. Females’ interest increases if the computer is
used as a tool to create something like a multimedia presentation, but not if the
focus is on learning how to program computers (Brunner & Bennett, 1997,
1998). Consistent with the literature were the relatively low rankings of
“debate” and “discussion” by the males (Welty & Puck, 2001). Also, both
genders ranked “lecture” and “lecture with discussion” as the least preferred
methods of instruction.
The rank order preferences toward activity-specific instructional
approaches were essentially the same for both genders (see Table 9). Consistent
with the literature, females ranked “exploring how well something works” as
their least preferred approach; on the other hand, males’ ranking it as their least
preferred approach is inconsistent with literature (Welty & Puck, 2001).
Table 9
Activity-Specific Instructional Approaches
Females Males
Rank Sum Rank Rank Sum Rank
Making a project 292 1 432 1
Learning how to operate
or use something
555 2 703 2
Designing a solution to a
given problem
624 3 818 3
Exploring how well
something works
689 4 850 4
Table 10
Instructional Grouping Preferences
Females Males
Rank Sum Rank Rank Sum Rank
Working with partners
386 1 539 1
Working in groups of
three or more people
449 2 607 2
Working alone
619 3 758 3
Working together with
the entire class
704 4 895 4
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-67-
The rank order preferences of instructional groupings are the same
regardless of gender or grade level (see Table 10), with both genders expressing
a preference for small group work. This finding is generally consistent with the
evolution in the field from the heavy traditional emphasis on individual projects
to the contemporary emphasis on teamwork and group projects.
Implications and Discussion
The finding that contemporary technology education activities have similar
appeal to both males and females is instructive. Even if the topics presented in
the STL appear to be inherently more interesting to males, the selection and
development of gender-balanced activities appears to overcome the differences
in topical interest. While it may be extremely difficult to change cultural and
gender-related stereotypes, it is possible that carefully selected and welldeveloped
activities could stimulate female interest in topics about which they
may have previously had little interest. This represents a positive challenge for
curriculum developers.
A deliberate attempt was made to select activities for the instrument that
would appeal to both middle and high school students. Consequently, it was
somewhat surprising that middle school students rated the activities more
appealing. One could speculate that technology educators are simply better at
developing curriculum materials for the middle school than for the high school.
Significant work remains to be done to conceptualize the discipline and its
associated curriculum materials for high school students. This need is
particularly pronounced at the advanced level, where the programs are quite
diverse and where curriculum materials are scant and tend to be
underdeveloped.
The extensive use of student competitions should be examined in more
depth by the profession. While the findings of this research indicate support of
competitions by females, this outcome contradicts previous research. Since
technology education competitions tend to be conducted in teams, it could be
that the collaborative aspects of the process enhance the appeal of competitions
for females. It should also be noted that the participants in this study chose to
elect technology education classes. Thus, the characteristics of these female
“selectors” may differ from those who have not opted to take technology
education classes. Regardless, given the emphasis on collaboration and the
concerns about competition in the literature, this represents an important area of
future research.
Females’ preference for designing learning experiences and males’
preference for utilizing learning experiences was consistent with gender
stereotype research. Research indicates that females are more interested in
design-oriented activities. This is particularly true when the design activities
include a focus on problem solving or socially relevant issues. By contrast,
particularly in traditional industrial arts classes, males have been attracted to a
variety of building activities, which involved the use of machinery and tools. In
many cases, traditional industrial arts activities have tended to de-emphasize the
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-68-
design aspects of making, with students often working from existing project
plans. It is possible that the increased emphasis on design activities in
contemporary technology education courses might provide some balance
between designing and making/utilizing – which potentially makes technology
education activities more appealing to both boys and girls.
The findings reflect that students are reluctant to expand their interests in
content and activity types in the areas of agriculture, medicine and
biotechnology. It could be that students who typically enroll in technology
education classes have preconceived notions about the types of activities in
which they will engage and that these expectations do not include medical,
agricultural, and biotechnology related activities. This presents a challenge to
curriculum developers who design activities in these new areas. Students’
interest may increase if there are clear connections established between the skill
and concept similarities in agriculture, medical, and biotechnology activities to
activities found in familiar contextual areas. Additional research will be required
to better understand these dynamics.
Recommendations for the Profession
Based on the findings, conclusions, and implications of this study, the
following recommendations are suggested for future practice:
1. Additional research should be conducted to better understand the dynamics
of student preferences for technology related topics, activities, and
pedagogical approaches. Of particular importance is an understanding of
the factors that are most important for female students.
2. Technology Education curriculum developers should intensify the use of
research results of gender based studies to design and develop standards
based activities that appeal to females. Particular attention should be placed
on research conducted in the SMET areas of study (science, mathematics,
engineering and technology).
3. The profession should invest substantial effort and resources into
developing standards based curricula to deliver agricultural, biotechnology,
and medical technologies with engaging and interesting activities. This will
require collaborating with science teachers (particularly in biology and
earth science).
4. The profession should invest significant effort into developing new
resources focused on ethical and social issues consistent with the Standards
for Technological Literacy. This is particularly important for technology
teachers, many of whom have relatively little formal preparation in teaching
social science oriented topics.
5. The profession should invest resources into conceptualizing and developing
appropriate curriculum materials for upper level high school technology
education programs. This is particularly important given the growing
alliance with engineering.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 16 No. 2, Spring 2005
-69-
6. The profession should invest in additional research identifying demographic
preferences of students toward activities, topics, and instructional methods.
Further refinement and use of the TIP and TAP inventories would assist
curriculum designers in developing curriculum that is gender balanced.

Human Rights and Politically Incorrect Thinking
versus Technically Speaking
Stephen Petrina
University of British Columbia
Pearson, G. and Young, T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all
Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC. National
Academy Press. $19.95 (paperback), 156 pp. (ISBN 0-309-08262-5).
Published in 1963, Technically Speaking is a portrayal of technological
literacy as engineers and technologists are wont to provide. Whoops! Wrong
book, but the same can be said about the new Technically Speaking. There was
a problem with the type of literacy that engineers and technologists were prone
to advocate for themselves and others in 1963 and there is a problem now.
Inherently conservative, both books exhibit the fence-sitting literacy and “happy
consciousness” that Herbert Marcuse wrote about in 1964 (pp. 79, 84). Of
course, the world has changed since Weiss and McGrath (1963) published their
text of technological literacy and since Marcuse published One-Dimensional
Man. Since the tragedies of September 11, there is one word to describe the
type of technological literacy that engineers, technologists and the rest of us
need: Rights. Constitutional rights, civil rights, and human rights, tenuous as
they always are for the disenfranchised of the world, are being seriously
undermined in the war on terrorism and the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive
violence that accompany globalization and expansion of empire. The more the
United States (USA) assumes the role of empire (Ignatieff, 2003), the more
difficult the USA's Bill of Rights and international charters of human rights will
be to sustain. Confrontations with fear and terror, police and military
intimidation, propaganda, global expansionism, oil, and empire are dependent
on the new convergences of communication, information, and medical
technologies. Technological literacy in a post-September 11 context cannot be
described nor understood outside of these dependencies and convergences. If it
is to have any meaning at all, technological literacy must be about the value of
rights, first and foremost— historically won human rights, the rights of women,
worker's rights, civil rights, the rights of the downtrodden of the world, gay and
___________________________
Stephen Petrina (stephen.petrina@ubc.ca) is Associate Professor in Technology Studies at the
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 14 No. 2, Spring 2003
-71-
lesbian rights, animal rights, and today, general environmental rights. This is
the backdrop against which Technically Speaking ought to be read.
Channeled through editors Pearson and Young and the National Academy
of Engineering (NAE), Technically Speaking is the product of nearly three
years’ worth of input from the Committee on Technological Literacy
(TechSpeak), a group appointed through the NAE and National Research
Council. The twenty members of the committee were handpicked from a range
of fields including technology education (Paul DeVore and Rodney Custer).
Judging by their publications, many with which I am quite familiar, the group
represents right and moderate positions on the political spectrum. The few
exceptions, such as Taft Broome, Jonathan Cole, Mae Jemison, and Thomas
Hughes, have leaned left in their analyses of race (Broome), stratification in
science (Cole), adult literacy and development (Jemison), and social history
(Hughes). Of course, technological literacy is not an abstract, neutral concept;
its various manifestations derive from the politics of its creators. It is this basic
sociological concept that the authors of Technically Speaking, be it the 1963 or
the 2002 version, fail to grasp. Neither literacy nor knowledge is neutral, transcultural,
or trans-historical (Petrina, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c).
I demonstrated how derivations of technological literacy from the right of
the technological literati mark commonplace manifestations in “The Politics of
Technological Literacy” analysis published in 2000. In an ethical breach, this
article, which TechSpeak requested for their deliberations, was not cited in
Technically Speaking. In our current global crisis of war and rights, and as an
expatriate living in Canada, there are bigger issues to take up with the committee
and their version of literacy.
Chapter two of Technically Speaking concludes with the juxtaposition of
the USA's unmatched economic and military power against the relative
technological illiteracy of its citizens (pp. 70-71). The authors conclude that this
is a “paradox.” However, there is nothing paradoxical about it. The power of
empire, the type of economic and military power currently exercised by the
USA, is derived from indoctrination in the ways of capitalism, erosions and
violations of basic rights, and illiteracy in the ways of political participation in
science and technology. This power is derived from precisely the type of
literacy that the authors of Technically Speaking advocate. The type of literacy
TechSpeak advocates for citizens would shore up economic and military might
in the USA even further (pp. 40-42). It would shore up the xenophobia
necessary for empire and competitive supremacy. Hence, TechSpeak bemoans
the fact that empire depends “on workers brought in from other countries.” “A
campaign for technological literacy could lessen our dependence on foreign
workers to fill jobs in many sectors,” TechSpeak asserts (pp. 5, 42).
“Technologically literate citizens would be less likely to support policies that
would undermine” the economy, such as regulation and curbs on free enterprise
(p. 40). On the one hand, TechSpeak wants unfettered capitalism for the USA
and on the other wants to increase participation, equity, and enhance the social
well-being (pp. 25, 43-44). This is the double-speak of TechSpeak. These
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 14 No. 2, Spring 2003
-72-
contradictory views, which I documented in my analyses of technological
literacy and the Technology for All Americans project, were commonplace in
the pre-September 11 era as well (2000a). “More power over foreigners without
foreign dependence” is the only disposition toward economic and military might
in Technically Speaking. Similar to the International Technology Association's
Standards for Technological Literacy, there are no connections made between
literacy and the disproportional volumes of consumption and waste in the USA,
or between literacy and resignation to the dangerous arms build-up and
intimidation tactics of the USA government and military across the world. A
values-oriented literacy, such as that described by Michael Moore in Stupid
White Men, would define literacy in terms of rights, sustainability, and
opposition to excessive military and police surveillance.
TechSpeak advocates a values-free, fence-sitting literacy, illustrated in the
three case studies of chapter two (pp. 26-36). The case studies are very well
written, interesting, and if rethought, have great potential to be the types of
exemplars necessary to convey a more critical technological literacy to large
audiences. In these case studies and the characteristics of a technologically
literate citizen that follow, TechSpeak situates literacy on the fence as a
complacent, neutral practice. The case of California's energy crisis and rolling
blackouts is a good example. TechSpeak's average citizen would understand a
few things about electricity, evaluate a few proposals to stabilize energy
markets, weigh the costs and benefits of efficiency, change a light bulb, flip a
tripped circuit breaker, and turn the air conditioner down a bit at home or work
(p. 36). This is already the level and activity of the average citizen and it
underwrites the comfort and convenience demanded by the American dream of
California. My technologically literate middle-class citizen would have the
political disposition to immediately reduce personal consumption by 15%, to
lobby the government for the regulation of energy production and use, and the
courage to speak out against the norm when it came to energy and consumption
(Petrina, 2000c; Petrina and Volk, 1993). Critical literacy would emphasize the
difference between the have middle and upper classes and the have not migrant
workers of California, and the activism necessary to champion citizenship and
rights for the thousands of illegal immigrants at work in the Sacramento Valley.
My average citizen would recognize that the wealth and massive rates of
consumption of energy in the Silicon Valley and water in Los Angeles come at
the poverty and thirst of millions of Mexicans to the south.
Chapters three and four are the most accurate and helpful in the book. Here,
TechSpeak shifts from their troubling normative positions to descriptive
analyses of surveys of technological literacy, participation rates in making
technological decisions, and the institutional players in the teaching of
technological literacy. While there is nothing new in these sections, the data
provided will serve educators and researchers looking to embellish or support
their advocacies for technological literacy. These chapters buttress the eleven
recommendations that conclude the book. A top-heavy reliance is placed on the
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 14 No. 2, Spring 2003
-73-
National Science Foundation to insure the implementation of the altogether
innocuous recommendations.
Technically Speaking will serve boardroom and office maneuvering for
policy based on the recommendations, but at the grass roots technological
literacy is about the rights of everyday people across the world. Rights for most
in the USA were reduced over the last three decades to little more than property
rights and the rights of consumer choice (Apple, 2002). Technological literacy
has to be about more than informed consumer choice, contrary to the portrayal
in Technically Speaking.
My recommendation is that the technological literati move themselves and
literacy off the fence to attend to the interrelations between technology and
rights. In the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, the First Amendment
secures the freedom for the expression of thought and opinion. It protects our
most sensitive areas of personal expression: religion, ethics and political
philosophy. Technological literacy would empower individuals to use the new
technologies to express and inform themselves about the content and violations
of rights throughout the world. This literacy would also enlighten citizens about
technological threats to free speech and privacy. The Fourth Amendment
protects rights to individual privacy and against the practice of arbitrary power
and surveillance. The new technologies of surveillance threaten individual
rights protected under the First and Fourth amendments. Satellite systems
empower commercial owners and governments with the abilities to monitor and
manipulate public and private activities. Data mining systems, extensively
marshaled for surveillance in the post-September 11 era, provide the means to
track and trail the quotidian cultural and financial activities of citizens. Remote
surveillance violates common notions of privacy and one does not know
anymore whether s/he is under observation. Complementary to remote sensing
systems are the technologies for intimate sensing. Intimate sensing provides the
government— the police, CIA, or FBI— or private companies, with the means
to detect identity and monitor the use of drugs or sexual activities. Fingerprint,
retinal and voice recognition, or semen, urine and DNA analysis, are just some
of the new technologies that threaten Fourth Amendment rights. The power to
intrude into the very core of personal autonomy and privacy is accessible to
nearly anyone or any institution with the means. Invasive technologies also
threaten rights protected under the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. These
amendments protect citizens accused, convicted, or suspected of crimes. The
new forensic technologies offer governments incredible powers to try and
predict who is and who is not a threat to national security or policing. Racial
profiling, biochemical technologies, and genetics provide the incentive to
identify determinants of criminal behavior and the temptation to intervene prior
to the commitment of a crime (Office of Technology Assessment, 1988).
Technological literacy would empower citizens to agitate for the regulation of
intimate and remote surveillance and restrictions on government, police, and
security.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 14 No. 2, Spring 2003
-74-
Prior to September 11, it was easy to be complacent about mundane things
like empire, literacy, security, technology and human rights. Now, we no longer
have the time for complacency and we gambled away the luxury. We are all
complicit in terrorism, war, the abuses of rights, and the technologies that
support these activities. Literacy aside, it's time we got active and smart.

Moving Beyond Cultural Barriers: Successful Strategies of Female Technology Education Teachers

Raymond R. McCarthy and Joseph Berger

Conceptual Framework

• “Situation” as the way a person uses her past experiences and abilities to deal with transitions and make adjustments due to the changes.
• “Self” as the way a person is helped or at a disadvantage due to her personal attributes or resources in facing change.
• “Support” as the many support systems that help a person undergoing change.
• “Strategies” as the way a person responds when facing change (p. 113).

Methodological Approach

1. What are common themes in the female technology educators’ lives and educational experiences that can shed light on more efficacious ways to increase the numbers of females participating in STEM fields and technology education in particular?
2. What strategies did these female technology education teachers develop to overcome the gender barriers blocking their chosen careers?
3. What steps do the participants believe should be taken to attract more women to technology education studies and careers?

Results

Implications

1. Provide information on diversity, accessibility, and learning styles (Gardner, 1993, 2000) to make families and faculty aware of the nature of girls’ learning needs and, as Fiona said, provide “resources, and materials that represent the different genders’ [interests so girls] will be able to form better pictures in their minds about what they can do in technology education.”
2. Provide educational experiences to boys and men that express and impress how important positive, caring, role modeling is to all children’s (girls and boys) [authors’ emphasis] development. Most of this study’s participants had positive relationships with their fathers, grandfathers, and male teachers. These women believe that they proceeded into these STEM related careers because their male role models and teachers encouraged and supported their quests.
3. Create opportunities for elementary teachers to become more familiar and comfortable with the use of math, technology, and science in the classroom, especially emphasizing that all human beings, not just males, can be successful in these areas. Manning & Manning (1991) wrote that American elementary schools create many students who are not comfortable with math and science because the women who teach elementary students have been “conditioned by society and their teachers to dislike” science and math or to feel they cannot do science or math well. The literature (Sanders, 2005; Sadker and Sadker, 1994) suggests that young girls, who look to the teachers as role models, feel inadequate to pursue science, math, and related topics due to their teachers’ implied message that these topics are not for females. Adding to the dilemma is the fact that over 80 % of elementary school teachers are women (NEA, 2003b).
4. Incorporate technology education and engineering principles early in the curriculum to expose girls and boys to real applications for math, science, and technology. The participants in this study indicated that they had positive or very positive experiences with fathers and grandfathers while using tools and technology in their early childhood experiences. However, more than 25 million children in America (Children’s Defense Fund, 1998) are in single parent households with little or no connection to their fathers or other male relatives. Therefore the responsibility of the public school system to provide male modeling and support is increased.
5. Encourage more males to enter early childhood education so that positive male role models are available to young children in balance with the positive female role models that already exist. This balance could be considered a national emergency (see #4 above).