Technology education has traditionally been male dominated, and many educator providers struggle to both attract and keep females related to education. Gamification, the use of game elements in a non-game context, has been shown to increase student engagement and inclusion in the learning environment. However, the gamification design and development process has been declared resource-demanding, which has reduced the more tailored approaches resulting in more generic ones. This is contradictory to the findings that gamification designs, especially in instruction, are context dependent. Therefore, this chapter displays an analogue gamification approach that is applied in a real-life environment, a technology vocational school, supporting the teachers' combat of gender inequality and expediting diversity and inclusion.
TopIntroduction
Technology education has traditionally been male dominated. As an example technology education in the US connected to STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics lack female involvement (Weber & Custer, 2005) although governments are providing support for STEM educations (see for example America's five year strategy for STEM education, 2018)1. Women are also under-represented in the education system in STEM leadership positions in US academia (McCullough, 2019). Further, previous research has over time shown that both women and girls have been substantially underrepresented both in school and at workplaces connected to mathematics, science and technology (Anaya et al., 2022; Kahn & Ginther, 2017; Hamrick, 2021).
The attempts to attract and keep female students have historically been few and research efforts even after the year 2000 have resulted in smaller and theoretical cases, e.g., opinion papers or library research (Haynie, 2003). Examples of gender-motivational studies that have been performed are for example studies of differences in motivation due to gender (Virtanen et al., 2014) and studies that include promoting awareness of low participation of females in STEM education and work (Davila Dos Santos et al., 2022). Due to studies like these there are recommendations for how efforts can be performed to further study student dynamics, curriculum, activities and pedagogic approaches (Weber & Custer, 2005; Yates & Plagnol, 2022). However, there is still a lot of work to be done to attract and maintain females in technology education as well as in technology centered workplaces.
In 2022 the differences persist and the World Economic Forum reports that although much work has been done to close the gender gap in tech industry 57% women have experienced gender discrimination, compared to only 10% men. In addition the ratio of men to women in engineering are 5:1 and one of four of workers in major tech companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft are women2. As a result, working with gender equity and inclusion connected to education is included in Agenda 2030 through goals four, Quality education, and eight, Decent work and economic growth.
However, the focus on gender is not enough and inequality and exclusion should also include intersectionality which beside gender also include other aspects such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, class etc. Intersectionality includes a multiplicity of identities that is characteristic for an individual (Atewologun, 2018; Crenshaw, 1989; 2017). The integration of intersectionality aspects also implies that the environment where learning takes place needs to be open to different types of students with different experiences and ways of learning.
There are many advantages of working with increased diversity, equity and inclusion. World economic forum states in a report3 that except for the moral and legal imperatives there are a number of economic benefits of working with these challenges e.g. an increase of profitability with 25-36%, up to 20% higher innovation rate, 19% higher innovation revenues, up to 30% greater ability of spotting and reducing business risks and a statistically significant higher engagement and retention for all employees.
Inclusion can be used to increase engagement and learning (Lizzio et al., 2002; Steele, 1997; Walton et al., 2007). This is due to the fact that different types of people use different types of learning strategies (Ileris, 2015). In addition prejudice and perception has effects on a students learning e.g. prejudice can dramatically decrease standardized tests and stigmatization decreases a sense of belonging (Steele, 1997; Walton et al., 2007). Therefore it is relevant to design a learning environment so that it suits many different types of students so that they feel included.