Jan Ardies
Karel de Grote University College & University of Antwerp
Sven De Mæyer
University of Antwerp, Belgium
Hanno van Keulen
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Download article
Published in: PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 73:2, p. 22-31
Published: 2012-06-18
ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
In knowledge based economies technological literacy is gaining interest. Technological literacy correlates with the attitude towards technology; therefore; when measuring technological literacy as an outcome of education; one should take the attitude towards technology into account. This requires a valid; reliable instrument that should be as concise as possible; in order to use it in correlation with other instruments. We therefore reconstructed the Pupils’ Attitude Towards Technology (PATT) instrument. We validated and piloted this and used it in a large study. This resulted in an instrument with six subscales and 24 items of attitude towards technology that is easy to use and evaluate. The six items are: Career Aspirations; Interest in Technology; Tediousness of Technology; Positive Perception of Effects of Technology; Perception of Difficulty and Perception of Technology as a Subject for Boys or for Boys and Girls.
Albarracin; D.; Zanna; M.; Johnson; B.; & Kumkala; G. (2005). Attitudes: Introduction and Scope. In D. Albarracin; B. Johnson; & M. Zanna; The handbook of attitudes (pp. 3-19). Mahwah; NJ; US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bame; E.; Dugger; W.; de Vries; M. & McBee; J. 1993. Pupils’ attitudes toward technology - PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies; 19; 40-48. de Vries M.(1988). PhD thesis Techniek in het natuurkunde-onderwijs.TU Eindhoven; 289pg.
Eagly; A.; & Chaiken; S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando; FL; US: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Gardner; P. L. (1995). Measuring attitudes to science. Research in Science Education; 25; 283–289.
Garmire; E. & Pearson; G. 2006. Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Research-Technology Management; 50; 69-69.
Hoyle; R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: concepts; issues and applications. Thousand Oakes: Sage.
Hu L. & Bentler P.M.; (1999): Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives; Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal; 6:1; 1-55
Johansson; L. (2009). Mathematics; Science & Technology Education Report. Brussels; Belgium: European Round Table of Industrials.
Krathwohl; D.; Bloom; B.; & Bertram; B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company; Inc.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2011). Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework for the 2014 NAEP. Washington; DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
OECD. (2008). Encouraging Students Interest in Science and Technology Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osborne; J.; Simon; S.; & Collins; S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Edudaction ; 25 (9); 1049-1079.
Pallant; J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual. John Wiley.
Raat; J.; Coenen-van den Bergh; R.; de Klerk Wolters; F.; & de Vries; M. (1988). Basic principles of school technology; Report PATT-3 conference. Eindhoven; NL: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Stichting Platform Bèta Techniek . (sd). About National Platform Science & Technology. downloaded 01 03 2012; from Platform Betatechniek: http://www.platformbetatechniek. nl/?pid=49&page=About National Platform Science & Technology
