Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to explore pre-service STEM teacher perceptions, or misperceptions, about manufacturing, and to identify potential practices for how the K-12 system can better inform students, parents, teachers, and society on education and career paths in manufacturing. The research design and methodology were grounded in participatory action research to qualitatively investigate pre-service teacher perceptions of manufacturing. Data collection was done through photovoice, in which participants took pictures and wrote a narrative related to their perceptions of manufacturing, and photo-elicitation, in which participants completed a focus group session to further elicit and dig deeper into their perceptions. The preliminary findings identified four themes related to the pre-service teacher societal perceptions of manufacturing, including (1) manufacturing is a black box; (2) manufacturing has poor working conditions; (3) the media has a large influence on manufacturing perceptions; and (4) teachers and educational institutions have great potential to influence manufacturing perceptions. Recommendations for educational practice and implications for future research are provided. In particular, the study should be extended to pre-service teachers across concentrations to gain a more holistic understanding of perceptions related to all K-12 teachers entering the workforce, not just teachers with a focus on engineering/technology.
Introduction
In 2016, the USA reportedly had 343,000 available jobs in manufacturing. Yet, in May 2017 about 6.5 million workers were unemployed, of which about half-a-million included previous employment in manufacturing (Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, 2017). Despite a great quantity of available workers, manufacturing firms continue to struggle with hiring qualified employees (Society for Human Resource Management, 2015). The limited pool of qualified applicants, including both shop-floor and professional workers, creates a challenge for manufacturing organizations attempting to remain competitive despite a short supply of experienced and capable workers. This misalignment costs individual firms millions of dollars, limits unemployed workers’ access to stable jobs, and promotes challenges for the US economy in establishing a global manufacturing advantage (Bosman et al., 2019; Weaver and Osterman, 2017).
Deloitte’s 2017 report suggests that, although Americans value manufacturing as a strong economic sector, many are reluctant to pursue manufacturing careers. Specifically, one-third of the surveyed US population would not encourage children to pursue a career in manufacturing because (a) 77% are worried about job security and stability, (b) 70% do not believe manufacturing is a strong career path, and (c) 64% believe manufacturing does not pay enough (Deloitte and Touche, 2017). However, the report suggests, those Americans that are familiar with manufacturing are almost twice as likely to encourage children to pursue a career in manufacturing. Previous research suggests that a major problem underlying the limited pool of qualified workers seeking manufacturing jobs is misperceptions and a lack of awareness concerning the opportunities that manufacturing has to offer both secondary and post-secondary graduates (Walls and Strimel, 2017). Therefore, the authors posit that exposing pre-service Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teachers to manufacturing should have a similar effect on secondary students. However, a gap exists in examining and addressing manufacturing awareness/perceptions for pre-service teachers. Accordingly, the purpose of this exploratory study was set to bridge research and practice in an effort to (a) learn about manufacturing perceptions/misperceptions from the perspective of pre-service teachers and (b) investigate how these perceptions/misperceptions potentially impact students in K-12 classrooms. The research questions that guided this study were:
RQ1: How do pre-service STEM teachers assess public perceptions of manufacturing?
RQ2: How do pre-service STEM teachers propose to better inform the public of careers in manufacturing?
Background
K-12 manufacturing education
In the USA manufacturing education at the post-secondary level is widespread (Rentzos et al., 2014; Samuel et al., 2016; Sengupta et al., 2018). Technical colleges offer students the ability to enroll in skilled trades apprenticeship programs (e.g., electrician or pipefitting trades), certificate programs (e.g., machining or welding) and associate degrees (e.g., supply chain management or automotive performance technology). Bachelor-degree serving institutions tend to focus more on professional manufacturing degrees in content areas, such as manufacturing engineering technology or advanced manufacturing. These types of educational institution also provide graduate-level work in manufacturing that potentially culminates in a manufacturing-focused thesis and/or dissertation. However, manufacturing curricula and educational initiatives often remain limited for the general population of students at the K-12 level. To add to the challenge, pre-service STEM teachers, undergraduates enrolled in a teacher education program, are not normally exposed to the manufacturing industry and are therefore not privy to the work that takes place in manufacturing organizations as well as the high demand for manufacturing workers, especially for high school graduates (Bowen, 2018). As K-12 teachers have great potential for influencing students (Love et al., 2016) toward a career in manufacturing, exposing them to the industry when they are still pre-service teachers could increase the likelihood that they will build confidence in understanding the related career pathways that can influence the way in which they integrate discussions of manufacturing in their future classrooms.
Participatory action research and authentic learning
Participatory action research (PAR) is a strategy that aims to “understand and improve the world by changing it” (Baum et al., 2006: 854). Harvey (2013) proposes that PAR brings together theory and practice through a self-governing process that seeks to develop practical knowledge by engaging stakeholders in identifying solutions to pressing issues. This procedure enables the democratic participation of targeted stakeholders, who have not been traditionally trained in research, in a problem solving process whereby new knowledge and understandings are generated (Lawson et al., 2015). Photovoice and photo-elicitation, which both fall under the umbrella of PAR, are strategies that leverage photography and storytelling to develop and use visual narratives to engage participants in the research process. Through photovoice and photo-elicitation, participants are tasked with purposefully capturing their own series of photographs to help them convey a perspective, thought or idea about a specific problem topic (Bosman et al., 2019; Trott et al., 2018). The photographs then serve as the participant’s voice regarding the given topic to enable the process of photo-elicitation, which involves interactive group discussions through which participants reflect on the images they captured as a group (Trott et al., 2018; Wang and Burris, 1997). The photo-elicitation process engages the participants with one another as well as the researchers so as to extend their interpretations and co-create new meanings and ideas about the given topic (Trott et al., 2018).
In recent years, the PAR approach has become attractive to educators due to its practical nature and emphasis on problem solving (Bell, 2014; Bosman et al., 2019). Schell and colleagues (2009) shared a PAR teaching and learning experience that was applied in a graduate-level sociology course. Through this experience, they found that applying photovoice in the classroom setting gave students an insider’s perspective on how to conduct qualitative research, improved their critical thinking skills and provided them with a new medium (i.e., photos) which can be used for knowledge creation when working in a professional setting. Moreover, Villacanas De Castro (2017) used photovoice to conduct a study with 129 pre-service teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Spain to better understand the challenges and barriers in the teaching and learning process. The findings suggest that the pre-service EFL teachers viewed photovoice as an alternative, yet ideal model for engaging future EFL students who might prefer a more visual approach to education. In conclusion, as stated by Bailey and Van Harken (2014: 241), As aspiring professionals, pre-service teachers must become good consumers of educational research as well as competent researchers who can use tools of inquiry to improve their practice and conduct their own educational research.
Methods
The purpose of the study was to explore pre-service STEM teachers’ perceptions related to manufacturing and to investigate how these perceptions had the potential to impact students in the K-12 classrooms. To meet the study objectives and help address issues relating to the future of the manufacturing workforce, this exploratory study engaged pre-service STEM teachers in the development of new knowledge through participatory action research (PAR) methods. PAR is a qualitative approach to research and inquiry in which researchers work collaboratively with the participant subject population to collect data, reflect and take action (McIntyre, 2007; Ozanne and Saatcioglu, 2008). This approach was selected due to its exploratory nature, as it can “bring together theory and practice to develop practical knowledge by engaging people in the pursuit of solutions to pressing issues” (Baum et al., 2006: 854). PAR promotes the collaborative use of pictures and reflection to explore anecdotal and personal experiences allowing for deeper insights within individual perceptions, in addition to contributing to a wider understanding and generalization across a group of individuals.
Participants
The participants’ backgrounds are shown in Table 1. Following approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, the data collection process was initiated by recruiting pre-service STEM teachers studying engineering technology education. In total, 12 participants, all of whom were planning to become secondary engineering technology teachers, were enrolled in the study—four females and eight males, with ages ranging from 19 to 22 years (two participants did not provide their age). Ten of the 12 participants were reported to have had some prior experience with the manufacturing industry, which included having family members employed by local manufacturers, having completed manufacturing-related coursework at the college and/or high school level, touring manufacturing facilities, developing a manufacturing-related curriculum, and even working for a local manufacturer. These prior experiences are important as the context of this study is set in a vibrant region of manufacturing with strong supply chain networks and a variety of initiatives set to help establish the nation’s next generation of advanced manufacturing workers. These details establish that the selected participants were ideal for this PAR.
Participant demographics.
Note: “X” indicates that the participant did not provide a response.
Data collection
After the participants had been identified, they each attended an initial individual interview, designed to gain an understanding of participation expectations and at which they signed the appropriate research participation forms. Following these individual meetings, the participants completed the first step of the PAR process – photovoice. Since the demand for manufacturing jobs is a national, and even a global, issue the researchers intentionally took a holistic focus and approach with regard to how perceptions are formed, requesting the student participants to consider perceptions of manufacturing from a variety of viewpoints: Take a picture representing what you think… society perceives of careers in manufacturing, parents perceive of careers in manufacturing, K-12 students perceive of careers in manufacturing, K-12 teachers perceive of careers in manufacturing, K-12 STEM teachers perceive of careers in manufacturing, pre-service teachers perceive of careers in manufacturing, engineering/technology students perceive of careers in manufacturing.
After participants identified a photograph to best represent each prompt, they crafted a narrative explanation. All photographs and their corresponding narratives were shared with the research team in preparation for the next step of the PAR process, the photo-elicitation focus group session.
In preparation for the photo-elicitation focus group session, the researchers prepared a PowerPoint slide show with the photos taken by the participants (the photographs were presented anonymously). Then, participants were brought together to further discuss their perceptions and make recommendations for addressing concerns relating to the next generation of the manufacturing workforce (i.e. use-inspired research). The researchers facilitated the focus group and elicited further discussion using a modified version of the “SHOWED method” (Gant et al., 2009) while recording the audio for transcription and coding purposes.
Data analysis
The researchers used NVIVO qualitative data analysis software to code the photos, narratives and discussion transcripts. Several themes in regard to the manufacturing perceptions for each targeted population were identified. In addition, a summary was written to include recommendations made by the pre-service teachers for engaging and educating each population about manufacturing careers.
Results
RQ1: How do pre-service STEM teachers assess public perceptions of manufacturing?
This section provides a summary of responses related to the various public perception subgroups, as identified in Figure 1.
Overview of public perception focus areas.
Pre-service teacher assessment of society perceptions
In general, the participants agreed that societal perceptions of manufacturing were negative. Keywords associated with societal perceptions of manufacturing included: dark, dirty, secluded, industrial, blue collar, hands on, labor intensive, hard, misunderstood and monotonous. Participants discussed the view that much of society does not have any direct experience of manufacturing. Instead, people rely on the products of manufacturing to inform them about the industry, and consequently they may associate manufacturing with a dirty or monotonous assembly line. One participant noted that society might think that manufacturing was no longer a US-centered job as many products are made overseas. Overall, they agreed that society did not understand the advances in scale, technology, and working conditions that had occurred in the manufacturing field. All the participants had negative images to support the discussion in the focus group. Two had images associating manufacturing careers with dirty jobs and unclean work environments. Another noted that, even if cleanliness issues within the factory were not of concern, society might see manufacturing jobs as a leading factor in pollution and environmental harm. Two participants noted that society might perceive the manufacturing industry as a “black box,” understanding only what comes out of manufacturing without a grasp of what happens within manufacturing facilities.
Pre-service teacher assessment of engineering/technology student perceptions
Overall, there tended to be consensus among participants as to the viewpoints of engineering/technology students. A few keywords they used to describe these views were: future, opportunity, trending, changing, exciting, money and optimistic. In the focus group, they discussed the fact that the images focused on the potential success and rewards of working in manufacturing. The pictures were positive and showed new facilities and smiling graduates, trying to represent the optimism the participants felt these students had. For one of the images submitted, the participant tried to represent the positive view that engineering/technology students have of manufacturing and manufacturing careers from their school work. This participant’s description of the picture fits with the keywords of future, opportunity and optimistic. Another participant noted that, while engineering/technology students might be focused on the mechanical aspect of manufacturing, they might often be provided with further opportunities in an organization, such as managerial positions. This participant description fits with the keywords opportunity, changing, trending and optimistic. Another noted the consistent need for people to work in manufacturing and the career potential that comes with that need: corresponding keywords were future, opportunity, exciting, money and optimistic. Finally, participants noted that students recognized the importance of their potential earnings and the ability for career growth in the manufacturing field (corresponding keywords: opportunity and money).
Pre-service teacher assessment of K-12 student perceptions
The participants seemed split on the ideas within this population, with some assuming the students would have a negative view of manufacturing and others that they would have a positive view of it. Positive keywords associated with this population included: building, fun, creating, amusement and careers. Negative keywords associated with this population were: boring, shop class, back-up plan, labor-intensive, assembly line and confused. Participants noted two possible sources from which K-12 students obtained knowledge about manufacturing: (1) school and (2) the visible world. In particular, participants discussed the fact that K-5 students might have knowledge of manufacturing only from seeing the outside of factories in their hometowns. However, 6–12 students might have an opportunity to take a “shop class” in school involving woods, metals and/or welding which could shape their opinion of manufacturing. Additionally, some students might have developed opinions of manufacturing careers from their history classes, in which the perception could be negative since the context was likely to have been the Industrial Revolution or the history of poor manufacturing practices. One participant noted that children might associate manufacturing with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, as this was one of the most prominent media examples of manufacturing to which children were exposed. Similarly, a participant noted that children might be exposed to manufacturing through outreach demonstrations with robotics or through classes they had taken. Therefore, classes in engineering/technology or career/technical education may be the primary influencers for manufacturing perceptions in K-12 students. Two participants had more negative opinions of K-12 student perceptions of manufacturing: one participant said that the students might see manufacturing as outdated and might associate it with large buildings and abandoned factories; other also said that current cultural norms still portrayed manufacturing as involving dirty, undesirable jobs that uneducated people did.
Pre-service teacher assessment of parents’ perceptions
The participants had conflicting ideas of what parents’ perceptions might be, which they saw as a result of parents’ experience or lack of experience of manufacturing careers. The participants thought that parents who had manufacturing experience might have a positive association, whereas those who had not might have a negative association. Positive keywords identified in the focus group were: hard work pays off, opportunities, pragmatic, reliable and desirable. Negative keywords identified were: dead-end, undesirable, last resort and labor intensive. Participants noted that parents often tried to shape their child’s career goals based on their own experiences. The participants’ parents had all wanted them to go to college and so they felt that their parents did not want them to seek a manufacturing job, which they saw as a destination for those who had not undertaken college or higher education. They also noted that many parents perceived manufacturing to be a more dangerous field than it currently was, and therefore might discourage their children from entering manufacturing. However, one participant did note that their parents had been able to benefit from a manufacturing career and as a result they had been encouraged to pursue a manufacturing career as their parents did not have the same bias against the sector as other participants had noted. One participant suggested that parents might understand manufacturing careers better if their children were involved in a manufacturing course at school. Other parents, one participant stated, might see an appeal in manufacturing careers if they saw them as a local opportunity which would mean that their children could stay near them. Finally, one participant submitted an image that supported the group discussion of parents’ perception of manufacturing jobs as underpaid and not ideal for their children.
Pre-service teacher assessment of K-12 teacher perceptions
The participants had varying opinions about what a teacher’s perception of manufacturing might be depending on the subject taught or professional background. Some noted that teachers might view students working in manufacturing as a failure on their part, perceiving a career in the sector to be something pursued by uneducated people. Others thought that teachers might have a more positive view of manufacturing and might see it as a way for their students to use their knowledge and skills immediately on graduation to make a living wage. Some positive keywords identified by the participants were: option, new aged, practical application, career ready, individual decision and possibility. Some negative keywords identified were: misinformed, complex and will not do it. In the focus group, participants discussed how many teachers set goals for their students. One participant said that teachers might see college as a goal and so, if their pupils went into manufacturing, they might feel that they failed them. Another noted that teachers might push students toward manufacturing as a career if they worked in an area where higher education was not an option for many students due to resource availability. Also discussed was how some teachers might encourage manufacturing because they understood that college was not the ideal path for everyone and they wanted to give their students multiple valid career options. The participants believed that teachers might see manufacturing as less hazardous or messy than society perceived it to be, but were still likely to maintain a negative view of the industry. Many submitted photos for this population that represented the “black box” idea of manufacturing: that is, teachers see manufacturing as a large building where materials go in and products come out, without an understanding of what happens within that environment.
Pre-service teacher assessment of K-12 STEM teacher perceptions
In contrast to non-STEM teachers, participants thought that STEM K-12 teachers would have a generally positive outlook toward manufacturing careers. The participants considered that STEM teachers seemed to be excited about the new technologies involved in manufacturing and the opportunities their students might have in this field. STEM teachers tend to have access to hands-on laboratory learning environments and can frame manufacturing in a more engaging and exciting context. Participants also noted that STEM teachers might better understand that manufacturing had a wide range of career opportunities for all levels of education and so could steer a large portion of their students toward the sector. Some keywords participants associated with this population’s perceptions of manufacturing were: diverse, successful, possibilities, fun, opportunities, amazing and individualized. Many of the pictures submitted for the K-12 STEM teacher population showed hands-on learning activities related to manufacturing. The participants seemed to believe that STEM teachers were able to bring manufacturing activities to the classroom or take students to manufacturing plants to give them personal experience of manufacturing. Additionally, they noted that local manufacturers might provide funding and resources to STEM teachers to help them teach and to influence their opinions of manufacturing careers. One participant noted that STEM teachers might focus more on the professional development opportunities that manufacturing could provide for students and that they might have a better understanding of the history of manufacturing than others.
Pre-service teacher assessment of pre-service teacher perceptions
Overall, the participants themselves had generally positive views of manufacturing careers. They thought that manufacturing was interesting and involved substantial use of new technology. They also considered it to be a field in which they had to constantly educate themselves and to work in teams, which they viewed positively. Some keywords they identified for their own views were: working, opportunity, involvement, different environment, team work, changing, robotics, and growing. One participant described their view of manufacturing by means of a small robot, reinforcing the new technology used in the field. Three submitted pictures of classroom settings with various manufacturing-related tasks. Finally, one participant noted that many pre-service teachers might focus on how students could make products so that they could see the result of their labor.
RQ2: How do pre-service STEM teachers propose to better inform the public of careers in manufacturing?
During the focus group, participants were asked for recommendations on how to educate the different populations about manufacturing careers. Primarily for themselves, they recommended first-hand experience in manufacturing jobs. One participant said of their professor: I really like what he is doing. He’s actually sending some of the pre-service teachers here to factories and having them report back and do different things.
Another participant noted that pre-service and in-service teachers who had connections with those in industry could shape their lessons to portray manufacturing more accurately, while also providing contacts for the pre-service and in-service teachers and their students: I think we touched earlier on how manufacturing jobs are very diverse and there’s a way to connect basically any type of job that you have in mind. Therefore, by taking pre-service teachers, while in college, and showing them the connections that they can have to industry or manufacturing careers, would help them to share experiences with their students.
Discussion
In general, four themes for discussion emerged based on the coded data: (1) manufacturing is a black box, (2) poor manufacturing environments, (3) media influence on manufacturing perceptions, and (4) education influence on manufacturing perceptions.
Manufacturing is a black box
Little is shared in the general media about what happens behind the closed doors of a manufacturing facility, and many facilities prefer to keeping buildings closed to the general public because of considerations relating to intellectual property, patents, trademarks, copyrights and/or trade secrets. For the small percentage of manufacturing companies that do offer tours, viewing is typically limited to observing end products (such as the BMW experience in Munich, Germany) or seeing an assembly line (such as the Subaru of Indiana Automotive plant in Lafayette, IN). Taking pictures is generally not allowed. As a result, little is known about what actually takes place in a manufacturing facility, and consumers naturally focus more on the product and features than on the process of production. This can result in a perception of manufacturing that is analogous to the perceived “endless” availability of electricity in wall outlets, with consumers more interested in having access to electricity and less concerned with how the electricity is produced. This is in alignment with the literature, which notes that lack of communication can cause misunderstandings related to manufacturing needs; specifically, as Weaver and Osterman (2017: 281) note, It is not that workers have some behavioral resistance to education, or that the school system is fundamentally flawed, but rather that systematic issues prevent [manufacturing employment] supply and demand from equilibrating.
Poor manufacturing environments
Participants also noted the general perception of dismal, dirty manufacturing environments and thought that society in general might still perceive manufacturing as an undesirable career option. They reiterated these ideas in the focus group. One stated: Most parents probably don’t see a future in manufacturing for today’s students. They probably only think of workers on the line and it being an unimportant, underpaid job.
Media influence on manufacturing perceptions
Since there is little known about the “black box” of manufacturing, many perceptions of it are dependent on the media. This was discussed primarily in the focus group. One participant stated, Everyone’s view of careers in manufacturing is outdated and people think that everything is still just workers on the assembly line. If I was asked to give off the top of my head what an average manufacturing worker looks like I would picture Bob the Builder. Students tend to see manufacturing as the old-fashioned large mechanical items that have been portrayed in movies. Often time there is a lot of dirt and grime involved.
Education influence on manufacturing perceptions
Also discussed in the focus group was the role education plays in the creation of manufacturing perceptions. In particular, it was mentioned that history classes discuss manufacturing in the context of the Industrial Revolution and do not address more recent developments. One participant stated: Through my schooling whenever manufacturing was brought up the miracle of the assembly line soon followed. I think that they think that factories still only use this method to create their products.
Additionally, participants noted that manufacturing was typically taught in STEM courses today, limiting the potential for students to identify other non-STEM manufacturing careers: accounting, graphic design, organizational leadership, marketing, etc. are all viable manufacturing careers that are not often represented in STEM classrooms. Some of the focus group comments supporting this idea were: STEM teachers use all sorts of technologies, such as robots, PLCs, coding, Legos, etc. to hit on all sorts of careers in manufacturing you could possibly investigate later in life. I believe students will think manufacturing is what they experience in high school. They will believe these careers involve machining tools, similar projects, and similar overall experiences. Besides the Project Lead the Way classes at my high school, the only classes that dealt with manufacturing was the one that was tasked with building a home throughout the school year. Students’ perceptions of careers in manufacturing are based on the classes that have been offered to them. This means that what students are taught in their class is what they perceive the career as.
Conclusions
Summary
The main purpose of this study was to explore pre-service STEM teachers’ perceptions, or misperceptions, of manufacturing through participatory action research involving the use of photovoice and photo-elicitation techniques. Analysis of the collected data led to the identification of four themes related to pre-service teachers’ societal perceptions of manufacturing: (1) manufacturing is a black box, (2) manufacturing has poor working conditions, (3) the media has a large influence on manufacturing perceptions, and (4) teachers and educational institutions have great potential to influence perceptions of perceptions. In addition, the study conducted a focus group to further elicit participants’ thoughts and to identify (a) potential implications/recommendations for modifying K-12 classrooms to enhance student exposure to jobs in manufacturing, and (b) ideas on how the K-12 system could better inform students, parents, teachers and society about education and career paths in the industry. Recommendations include: (1) updating content within school subjects, such as social studies, to extend discussion beyond the context of the first Industrial Revolution; (2) highlighting non-STEM careers in manufacturing; (3) exposing pre-service and in-service teachers to manufacturing career pathways through internships/externships or research projects in manufacturing facilities; and (4) enhancing industry–education partnerships to demystify the “black box” of manufacturing.
Limitations
This study has a few limitations that should be noted. Because of the qualitative nature of the data, the results cannot be considered to confirm the hypothesis or used to draw any solid conclusions. In addition, the sample size was only 12 participants; a larger sample is needed to draw further conclusions from this research. Similarly, these pre-service teachers were concentrated in engineering and technology education. The views of pre-service teachers concentrating on other subjects and/or primary education should also be considered. Finally, the study was conducted at a university in a manufacturing-centered area: the views of these pre-service teachers about manufacturing could therefore be considered inherently biased due to their location.
Future research
The researchers have suggestions for future studies. First, a multi-site approach would be helpful, not only in increasing the sample size and generalizability, but also to compare and contrast the experiences of pre-service teachers across different institutions. This type of study could include pre-service teachers from all concentrations, not just those focused on engineering and technology – this would help to capture a fuller view of pre-service teachers’ perceptions. Additionally, pre-service teachers from other universities should be considered to help eliminate the manufacturing-area bias inherent in the group participating in this study.
Second, future research would benefit from assessing how pre-service STEM teachers’ involvement in PAR impacts perceptions of research related to teacher education. Here, a study could assess pre-service STEM teachers’ interest in and likelihood of deploying PAR approaches as a pedagogical tool related to career awareness and exposure.
Third, future research would benefit by considering nuanced factors of manufacturing, such as perceived career mobility, perceived wages, perceived pathways into and out of manufacturing, and perceived job stability related to manufacturing.
Finally, the suggestion of manufacturing internships for pre-service teachers should be implemented and tested for impact: this might help to determine whether the action plan suggested by this study’s participants is reasonable.
That all being said, the authors are confident that this study lays the foundation for a starting point to better understand interventions for increasing the manufacturing workforce pipeline starting in K-12.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge internal funding from Purdue University’s Big Idea Challenge (PI, Dr Nathan Hartman).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
