Attracting Future Engineers: Students' Choices and Core Concepts in Secondary Education

Invited Workshop Recommended citation: Bertel, L. B., Craps, S., Deprez, H., Guerne, M. G., Josa, I., Kittou, G., Kövesi, K., Kranjc Horvat, A., Mottl, P., & Simarro, C. (2025). Attracting Future Engineers: Students’ Choices and Core Concepts in Secondary Education. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631722. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. ATTRACTING FUTURE ENGINEERS: STUDENTS’ CHOICES AND CORE CONCEPTS IN SECONDARY EDUCATION L. B. Bertela, S. Crapsb, H. Deprezc, M. G. Guerned, I. Josae, 1 , G. Kittouf, K. Kövesig, A. Kranjc Horvath, P. Mottli, C. Simarroj a Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning under the auspices of UNESCO, Aalborg University, Denmark, 0000-0002-1460-2905 b KU Leuven, Leuven Engineering and Science Center (LESEC), Belgium, 00000003-2790-2218 c KU Leuven, Leuven Engineering and Science Center (LESEC), Belgium, 00000001-9784-2826 d Leuphana University, Lueneburg, Germany, 0009-0001-6444-6808 e The Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, United Kingdom, 0000-0002-1538-4567 f University College Twente, The Netherlands, 0009-0001-2933-4958 g ENSTA – Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France, 0000-0002-4036-6475 h EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland, Czechia, 0000-0002-2584-4715 i Czech Technical University in Prague, Czechia, 0000-0003-3388-3658 j Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain, 0000-0001-8532-0879 Conference Key Areas: The attractiveness of engineering; Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: attractiveness; educational pathway; decision-making ABSTRACT The increasing demand for engineers in Europe requires a concerted effort to make engineering education more attractive and accessible. This workshop, organised under SEFI’s Special Interest Group (SIG) on Attractiveness, explores two crucial questions: (1) What factors influence students' decisions to pursue engineering throughout their educational journeys? and (2) Which core engineering concepts should be integrated into secondary education curricula? Discussing these questions is crucial because they strike at the heart of how we can strategically inspire and support the next generation of engineers. Participants in this workshop benefited by gaining a deeper understanding of the drivers of student choice and how curricular content at the secondary level can be optimised to nurture interest in engineering careers. Through interactive discussions, participants examined students' motivations, the influence of early education, and strategies to align secondary education with 1 Corresponding Author I. Josa [email protected] future engineering aspirations. The workshop aimed to foster collaboration among educators, researchers, and industry professionals to shape strategies that enhance engineering attractiveness. 1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE A robust pipeline of qualified engineers is essential to ensure technological progress and innovation towards a more sustainable world as well as other important factors such as investment in R&D, government policies, societal needs and industry collaboration. However, the current number of engineering students and graduating engineers does not meet industry demands. Additionally, there is a lack of diversity in the engineering profession stemming from such body of students and graduates. In this context, understanding students’ choices toward engineering and identifying essential pre-university core concepts are crucial to improving engineering education’s appeal. 1.1 Students’ educational pathways and choices Educational pathways refer to the (structured) routes individuals follow through their education, starting from primary school and extending to higher education and professional careers (Kurlaender & Hibel, 2018). These pathways are shaped by societal expectations, institutional structures, and individual aspirations, forming a dynamic interplay of choices and constraints. Students make multiple choices along their educational journeys, from selecting academic subjects to deciding on post-secondary education (Wint et al., 2024). These decisions are influenced by a myriad of factors, which can be internal, such as personal interests, and career aspirations; and external, such as family expectations and societal perceptions of engineering. Understanding these decision-making processes is essential in fostering an environment where engineering becomes a more attractive option for students. Choice behaviour in education follows a socio-ecological model, where personal and social influences interact to shape student decisions (Bornholt et al., 2004). Students weigh their self-perceptions, interests, and perceived job prospects when making educational choices. Additionally, structural factors such as socioeconomic background, school environment, and geographic location significantly impact access to engineering pathways. By analysing these influences, we can identify key interventions to guide more students toward engineering education. 1.2 Core engineering concepts in secondary education Within this myriad of factors, the knowledge that students have about engineering (including both conceptual and epistemological knowledge) may shape students' identities (Ashwin et al., 2023; McPhail, 2017). Ensuring that fundamental engineering principles are effectively introduced in secondary education can help bridge the gap between students' interest and enrolment in engineering programs. Recent efforts have aimed to clarify what K-12 students should learn about engineering, particularly from an epistemic perspective (Yeşilyurt et al., 2024). From this viewpoint, discussions have centred on the engineering knowledge base, the engineering design process, key aspects of engineering practices, and the norms, values, and rules of the engineering community. Specifically, regarding the knowledge base of engineering, scientific, mathematical, technological, and engineering knowledge have been identified as key components. However, concerns have emerged about the epistemic specificity of these knowledge areas in engineering, with some arguing that scientific and mathematical knowledge are uniquely tailored to the field. In this regard, there is a lack of consensus on which core engineering concepts should be taught in K-12 education. These core concepts, also known as threshold concepts, are understood as overarching ideas that provide coherence and a sense of progression throughout K-12 education, equipping students with a rich understanding of engineering, fostering their aspirations, and preparing them for potential careers in the field. 2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES This workshop aimed to explore two key priority areas linked to the attractiveness of engineering education: 1. Students’ educational pathways and the critical decisions that shape their pursuit of engineering careers. 2. Core engineering concepts that should be integrated into secondary education to foster early aspirations toward engineering. 2.1 Target audience This workshop was designed for educators, researchers, and industry professionals interested in enhancing the attractiveness of engineering education. In total, 17 people participated in the workshop. 2.2 Expected learning outcomes The workshop enhanced participants’ ability to: • Analyse how educational pathways and key decision points influence students’ pursuit of engineering careers. • Reflect on actionable strategies to enhance the attractiveness of engineering education. • Identify and prioritise core engineering concepts suitable for secondary education integration. • Reflect critically on some internal and external factors impacting educational choices. 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN 3.1 Time plan The workshop was organised in two parts, as presented in Table 1. 3.2 Interactivity The workshop incorporated group discussions and brainstorming to capture participants’ perspectives on student motivations and core engineering concepts. In particular: • During Part 1, a poster with an educational pathway was placed on each table. The scheme included key critical points where students must make choices or decisions regarding their education. Participants went through the poster and used guiding questions as a prompt for discussion about critical decisions, internal/external influences, and potential interventions. Small groups (3-4 people) worked on different pathways. • During Part 2, participants filled a questionnaire and then engaged in structured discussions based on their responses to the questions. Table 1. Time plan Run time Activity Notes 5 min Introduction Overview of workshop objectives and structure 25 min Part 1: What are students’ choices toward engineering throughout their educational pathways? Interactive discussion and group activity 25 min Part 2: What are the core engineering concepts that should be taught in secondary education? Discussion based on a questionnaire. 5 min Conclusion and Next steps Summary and participant takeaways 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS This paper reports on key insights from discussions, participant feedback, and proposed strategies for making engineering education more attractive. 4.1 Part 1: What are students’ choices toward engineering throughout their educational pathways? Participants of the workshop were grouped into four different tables, and each of them analysed the pathway from a different country, including Spain, France, Belgium (Flanders), and Denmark. The conversations were around retention points, leak points and interventions. Below, the discussions that were carried out are summarised. Spanish pathway Leak points include early divergence into non-technical vocational tracks, high university entry requirements, and preference for employment over further study after vocational training or bachelor’s degrees. Retention factors include financial incentives, structured pathways, and family role models. Interventions suggested include stronger engineering presence in secondary curricula, mentorship, industry engagement, and flexible transitions such as paid internships or part-time study options to support continued progression. French pathway Perceived as complex and opaque, the French system features two key secondary routes: academic and vocational. The main engineering path—through preparatory classes and a competitive entrance exam—is selective and a major leak point. Engineering is not well integrated into general secondary curricula, limiting visibility. Interventions proposed include improved guidance, better articulation between vocational and academic tracks, and training for schoolteachers to promote awareness of engineering pathways and careers. Belgian (Flemish) pathway Two routes exist: academic (leading directly to engineering degrees) and vocational (requiring bridging programs). Open access to higher education makes the secondaryto-tertiary transition a major leak point, especially as 50% of science-track students do not pursue STEM in higher education. Suggested interventions include early and continuous exposure to engineering, motivational strategies, support for non-STEM students, and smoother transitions through flexible or delayed entry programs. Danish pathway Key leak points occur early, around age 14, due to an overwhelming number of educational options before students have clear aspirations. Vocational tracks often lead to unskilled jobs rather than engineering. Positive aspects include flexible re-entry options into engineering degrees and admissions based on competencies rather than grades. Interventions discussed include better career orientation at younger ages, support for transitions into engineering from vocational routes, and recognition of nontraditional qualifications in admissions. 4.2 Part 2: What are the core engineering concepts that should be taught in secondary education? In the second part of the workshop, which aimed to gather participants’ views on the specific engineering knowledge that should be taught at the pre-college level, participants individually completed the questionnaire designed for the Delphi study. A pilot version of this questionnaire had been previously distributed. However, some shortcomings were detected in the initial results. For this reason, the workshop was used not only to collect participants’ responses but also to gather their feedback on the design and clarity of the questions. Following the completion of the questionnaire, an open discussion was held on the topics addressed. In total, fourteen questionnaires were collected from participants with the following profiles: university engineering teachers (6), K–12 teachers with hands-on experience in teaching engineering (3), engineering education researchers (1), engineering teacher educators (1), university STEM students (1), engineering researchers (1), and STEM university teachers (1). The preliminary results suggest several key points: • There is no consensus regarding the existence of a specific corpus of engineering knowledge. While some participants argued that engineering knowledge consists of specialized scientific and mathematical knowledge, others emphasized a process of transforming such knowledge into more applied domains (e.g., concepts such as stability or structural robustness). • Participants found it difficult to identify specific conceptual knowledge. Despite the questionnaire explicitly asking for such knowledge, most responses focused instead on practices or skills. • Some participants argued that conceptual knowledge is not necessary at the pre-college level for engineering education. Furthermore, the post-questionnaire discussion highlighted the blurred boundaries between engineering and other STEM disciplines within pre-college curricula. For instance, topics such as machines are typically taught in physics, rather than being considered as part of technology or engineering. More significantly, the discussion revealed a lack of established knowledge and research frameworks regarding the teaching of engineering and technological concepts at the pre-college level. Finally, participants’ comments on the questionnaire, together with the shortcomings observed in their responses, have prompted the research team to reconsider its approach to the Delphi study. The lack of shared meanings and limited awareness of theoretical frameworks were identified as barriers to obtaining high-quality responses from participants. 5 CONCLUSIONS This workshop highlighted the complexity and diversity of educational pathways toward engineering across European contexts. Through collaborative analysis, participants identified critical leak points and discussed targeted interventions that could increase retention and broaden access to engineering careers. A common thread across countries was the need for earlier, clearer, and more inclusive exposure to engineering — both in school curricula and through practical experiences. Moving forward, strengthening transitions between educational tracks, enhancing guidance and counselling, and fostering collaboration across sectors will be essential to making engineering more attractive and accessible to a wider range of students. REFERENCES Ashwin, P., Blackie, M., Pitterson, N., & Smit, R. (2023). Undergraduate students’ knowledge outcomes and how these relate to their educational experiences: a longitudinal study of chemistry in two countries. Higher Education, 86(5), 1065–1080. Bornholt, L., Gientzotis, J., & Cooney, G. (2004). Understanding choice behaviours: Pathways from school to university with changing aspirations and opportunities. Social Psychology of Education, 7(2), 211-228. Kurlaender, M., Hibel, J., & Schneider, B. (2018). Handbook of the Sociology of Education in the 21st Century. McPhail, G. J. (2017). Does Knowledge Matter? Disciplinary Identities and Students’ Readiness for University. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 57–71. Wint, N., Craps, S., Deprez, H., & Mottl, P. (2024). Exploring the Role of National Education System on Pathways into Engineering: A Comparative Study. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). Yesilyurt, E., Deniz, H., & Kaya, E. (2024). Exploring epistemic aspects of engineering for K–12 science and engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(2), 439-467.