Mondragon ZTIM-HUB: the collaborative network for the development of STEM vocations

  1. Anaya, Maite
  2. Iriondo, Jaione
  3. Vivar, María
  4. Otaegi, Maialen
  5. González, Patricia Aranzazu
  6. Bilbao, Ainara
  7. Errasti, Nekane
Proceedings:
EDULEARN proceedings

ISSN: 2340-1117

Year of publication: 2022

Type: Conference paper

DOI: 10.21125/EDULEARN.2022.1503 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

Abstract

It is well known that STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) is one of the most heard concepts both in the field of education and in the business sphere, when talking about the socio-economic needs of the future. The importance and necessity of a STEM educational model is becoming increasingly evident both locally and globally. In Europe, for instance, a 70% job growth in sectors such as ICT and health is expected. Accordingly, the data published by the Basque Business Confederation (Confebask) indicate that the most in-demand professional profiles correspond to STEM-related higher degree studies. Nevertheless, the interest of students in STEM careers is low and industry has difficulties in finding such profiles. One of the principal reasons for this lack of talent is the unawareness and prejudices associated with STEM professions among young people, what requires breaking stereotypes, bringing the professions closer and changing the status quo. To this end, on the one hand, the participation of the educational community is essential to work on pedagogy within this educational model. On the other hand, as most STEM professions take place in industrial companies, it is necessary to involve companies to replace existing prejudices with real examples. Moreover, since young people's perception of STEM professions is not limited to education or the workplace, the role played by society in general cannot be forgotten. Therefore, it is of major interest to create networks and initiatives where these different agents actively interact in favour of the promotion of these vocations, such as in the project MONDRAGON ZTIM-Hub. MONDRAGON ZTIM-Hub is an initiative lead by MONDRAGON and Mondragon Unibertsitatea (Faculty of Engineering and Education) which seeks to create a cooperative network between schools, companies and social agents in the province of Gipuzkoa (Autonomous Community of the Basque Country), with the aim of promoting STEM vocations among high school students. Currently, the network created by MONDRAGON ZTIM-Hub has two active hubs, (i) the pilot hub generated in the county of Debagoiena, where the MONDRAGON cooperative experience and the focus of its institutions on STEM vocations allowed implementing this innovative approach, and (ii) a second hub in the county of Goierri. 8 companies, 10 schools and 2 social agents form the network, and with the coordination of Mondragon Unibertsitatea and support of MONDRAGON and Gipuzkoa’s Provincial Council, they jointly carry out different activities such as inspirational talks to students, visits, workshops, development of challenges, etc. Approximately 4,000 higher school students have taken part in the various and diverse activities carried out since the beginning of the project in 2020. Considering MONDRAGON ZTIM-Hub as a good practice, the aim of this paper is to describe its design and implementation process, the diverse actions carried out in cooperation with companies and schools, and the results obtained.

Funding information

We would like to thank the Mondragon Corporation and the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa for their financial support.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • [1] S. M. Breznitz, and M. P. Feldman, “The larger role of the university in economic development: introduction to the special issue,” Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 37, pp. 135–138, 2012.
  • [2] M. Guerrero, and D. Urbano, “EMPRENDIMIENTO E INNOVACIÓN: REALIDADES Y RETOS DE LAS UNIVERSIDADES ESPAÑOLAS,” Economía Industrial, vol. 404, pp. 21–30, 2017.
  • [3] P. Chatterton, and J. Goddard, “The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs,” European Journal of Education, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 475–496, 2000.
  • [4] H. Etzkowitz, and L. Leydesdorff, “The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ’Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations,” Research Policy, vol. 29, pp. 109–123, 2000.
  • [5] H. Etzkowitz, “The evolution of the entrepreneurial university,” International Journal of Technology and Globalization, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 64–77, 2004.
  • [6] C. Gunasekara, “The generative and developmental roles of universities in regional innovation systems,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 137–150, 2006.
  • [7] J. Goddard, et al., “Introduction: why the civic university?,” in, CIVIC UNIVERSITY: THE POLICY AND LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES (J. Goddard, E. Hazelkorn, L. Kempton, and P. Vallance, eds.), pp. 3–15, England: EDWARD ELGAR PUBLISHING LTD, 2016.
  • [8] M. Guerrero, et al., “Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape,” Small Business Economics. Springer US, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 551–563, 2016.
  • [9] J. Harrison, and I. Turok, “Universities, knowledge and regional development,” vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 977–981, 2017.
  • [10] C. Plewa, et al., “The evolution of university – industry linkages — A framework,” Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 30, pp. 21–44, 2013.
  • [11] D. S. Siegel, D. Waldman, and A. Link, “Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study”, Research policy, vol. 32, pp. 27–48, 2003.
  • [12] R. Bekkers, and I. M. Bodas Freitas, “Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?,” Research Policy, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1837–1853, 2008.
  • [13] S. Ankrah, and O. Al-Tabbaa, “Universities — industry collaboration: A systematic review,” Scandinavian Journal of Management. Elsevier Ltd, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 387–408, 2015.
  • [14] D. R. Snyder, and D. E. Blevins, “Business and University Technical Research Cooperation: Some Important Issues,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 136–144, 1986.
  • [15] P. D’Este, and M. Perkmann, “Why do Academics Engage with Industry? The Entrepreneurial University and Individual Motivations,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 316–339, 2011.
  • [16] B. Looy, et al., “Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs,” Research Policy. Elsevier B.V., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 553–564, 2011.
  • [17] M. Perkmann, Z. King, and S. Pavelin, “Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry,” Research Policy. Elsevier B.V., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 539–552, 2011.
  • [18] B. Bozeman, D. Fay, and C. P. Slade, “Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art,” Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–67, 2013.
  • [19] M. Perkmann, et al., “Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations”, Research Policy. Elsevier B.V., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 423–442, 2013.
  • [20] L. Orcos, and N. Aris, “Percepciones del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria ante la Robótica Educativa como recurso didáctico en el enfoque STEM,” Opción, Año 35, Regular, no. 90, pp. 810–843, 2019.
  • [21] M. Rocard, P. Csermely, D. Jorde, D. Lenzen, H. Walwerg-Heriksson, and V. Hemmo, “Science Education Now: a new pedagogy for the future of Europe,” Report for the European Comission, 2006.
  • [22] J. Domènech-Casal, S. Lope, and L. Mora L. “Qué proyectos STEM diseña y qué dificultades expresa el profesorado de secundaria sobre Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos,” Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 2203, 2019.
  • [23] K. C. Margot, and T. Kettler, “Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 6, no. 1, 2019.
  • [24] M. Pérez Torres, D. Couso, and C. Márquez, “¿Cómo diseñar UN buen proyecto STEM? Identificación de tensiones en la Co-Construcción de Una rúbrica para Su mejora,” Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2021.
  • [25] J. Pitt, “Blurring the Boundaries – STEM Education and Education for Sustainable Development,” Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37–48, 2018.
  • [26] A. Sarobe, U. Carmona, N. Lopez, I. Azkue, E. Astigarraga, I. García, H. Iribas, and P. A. González, “Zertarako behar dugu STEM hezkuntza?,” Hik Hasi, vol. 249, pp. 36–38, 2020.
  • [27] F. J. Perales-Palacios, and D. Aguilera, “Ciencia-Tecnología-Sociedad vs. STEM: ¿evolución, revolución o disyunción?,” Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2020.
  • [28] J. Arabit, and M. P. Prendes, “Metodologías y Tecnologías para enseñar STEM en Educación Primaria: análisis de necesidades,” Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, vol. 57, pp. 107–128, 2020.
  • [29] A. Asghar, R. Ellington, E. Rice, F. Johnson, and G. M. Prime, “Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 85–125, 2012.
  • [30] H. Park, S. Byun, J. Sim, H. Han, and Y. S. Baek, “Teachers’ perceptions and practices of STEAM education in South Korea,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1739–1753, 2016.
  • [31] R. B. Toma, and D. A. Retana-Alvarado, “Mejora de las concepciones de maestros en formación de la educación STEM,” Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, vol. 87, no.1, pp. 15–33, 2021.
  • [32] J. Laurence, R. Smith, J. Smythe, and V. Rachel, “Challenge-based learning: an approach for our time,” The New Media Consortium, 2009.
  • [33] E. Astigarraga. El aprendizaje basado en retos de la formación profesional del País Vasco. Senac, 2019. Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11984/1954
  • [34] M. Vivar-Simon, N. Errasti, and L. Markuerkiaga, “An analysis of the organisational factors that determine education-related university-business cooperation activities in manufacturing SMEs,”. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 982–989, 2022.