From Gender-segregated Subjects to Multi-material Craft: Craft Student Teachers’Views on the Future of the Craft Subject

This paper describes the views of student teachers of craft about the future of craft as a school subject. The study was conducted at the University of Turku, Department of Teacher Education, in Rauma in 2014. The literature review revealed that the subject of craft in Finnish basic education is understood as a dialog between the maker and the materials. However, teaching and learning craft in schools and in teacher education has a strong gender-based tradition. The aim of this study is to investigate student teachers’ understanding of craft as a school subject in the future and their solutions to teaching craft in basic education. The data were collected from essays (N = 20) written by student teachers of craft. The essays were analyzed qualitatively using content analysis. The results showed that the student teachers of craft viewed holistic craft, reflective action readiness, entrepreneurial behaviour, multiple skills, the use of versatile materials, and craft as sources of pleasure and the main solutions for the future of craft as a subject.

[1]  Ossi Autio,et al.  A Comparative Study of Craft and Technology Education Curriculums and Students’ Attitudes towards Craft and Technology in Finnish and Estonian Schools , 2013 .

[2]  Liisa Remes.  Yrittäjyyskasvatus pedagogisessa toimintatehtävässä , 2001 .

[3]  Erja Syrjäläinen,et al.  The Quality of Design in 9th Grade Pupils’ Design-and-Make Assignments in Craft Education , 2014 .

[4]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy , 2010, TCHI.

[5]  Mavis Haigh,et al.  Can Investigative Practical Work in High School Biology Foster Creativity? , 2007 .

[6]  John R. Dakers,et al.  De-constructing technology’s masculinity , 2009 .

[7]  P. Mayring.  On Generalization in Qualitatively Oriented Research , 2007 .

[8]  Marja-Leena Rönkkö,et al.  Integrating Literature with Craft in a Learning Process with Creative Elements , 2015 .

[9]  Sinikka Pöllänen,et al.  The meaning of craft: Craft makers' descriptions of craft as an occupation , 2013, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[10]  Erik Sigurdson.  Det sitter i väggarna : en studie av trä- och metallslöjdsalens materialitet, maskulinitet och förkroppsliganden , 2014 .

[11]  B. Thorne,et al.  Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School , 1993 .

[12]  Lasse Lipponen,et al.  Learning Bridges – Toward Participatory Learning Environments , 2009 .

[13]  Sirpa Kokko,et al.  Learning practices of femininity through gendered craft education in Finland , 2009 .

[14]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[15]  Jaana Lepistö,et al.  Finnish student teachers’ critical conceptions of entrepreneurship education , 2015 .

[16]  Sinikka Pöllänen,et al.  Contextualising Craft: Pedagogical Models for Craft Education. , 2009 .

[17]  Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen,et al.  Design Thinking in Elementary Students’ Collaborative Lamp Designing Process , 2013 .

[18]  Aki Rasinen,et al.  Technology education for children in primary schools in Finland and Germany: different school systems, similar problems and how to overcome them , 2009 .

[19]  Jaana Lepistö,et al.  Teacher students as future entrepreneurship educators and learning facilitators , 2013 .

[20]  B. Carrington,et al.  Boys' ‘underachievement’ and the feminization of teaching , 2008 .

[21]  Howard Anthony Risatti,et al.  A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression , 2007 .

[22]  Jaana Lepistö,et al.  The craft process developing student decision making , 2016 .

[23]  Virpi Yliverronen.  From Story to Product: Pre-schoolers’ Designing and Making Processes in a Holistic Craft Context , 2014 .

[24]  Glenn Adamson,et al.  Thinking Through Craft , 2007 .

[25]  J. Cope,et al.  Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship , 2005 .

[26]  Sinikka Pöllänen,et al.  Beyond craft and art: A pedagogical model for craft as self-expression , 2011 .

[27]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[28]  H. Salavou,et al.  The concept of innovativeness: should we need to focus? , 2004 .

[29]  Sirpa Kokko,et al.  Learning crafts as practices of masculinity. Finnish male trainee teachers' reflections and experiences , 2012 .

[30]  J. Cope,et al.  Learning by doing – An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning , 2000 .

[31]  Christine Bieri Buschor,et al.  I want to be a scientist/a teacher: students' perceptions of career decision-making in gender-typed, non-traditional areas of work , 2014 .

[32]  Jenessa R. Shapiro,et al.  The Role of Stereotype Threats in Undermining Girls’ and Women’s Performance and Interest in STEM Fields , 2012 .

[33]  Eila Lindfors,et al.  Innovation learning in comprehensive education? , 2016 .

[34]  Sirkka Ahonen.  Uraa uurtava teos tyttöjen käsityökasvatuksesta. Arvosteltu teos: Päivi Marjanen 2012. Koulukäsityö vuosina 1866–2003. Kodin hyvinvointiin kasvattavista tavoitteista kohti elämänhallinnan taitoja. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja C 344. 296 s. , 2012 .

[35]  Carrie Paechter,et al.  Being Boys; Being Girls: Learning masculinities and femininities , 2007 .

[36]  Carrie Paechter,et al.  Masculine femininities/feminine masculinities: power, identities and gender , 2006 .