Development of Pupils' Key Competencies in the Subject of Technology

in Slovakia and The Czech Republic

DANIEL KUČERKA, MICHAL MRÁZEK, ČESTMÍR SERAFÍN, PAVLÍNA ČÁSTKOVÁ,

HANA BUČKOVÁ, MICHAL SEDLÁČEK

Department of Technical Education and Information Technology,

Faculty of Education, Palacký University Olomouc,

Žižkovo nám. 5, 779 00 Olomouc,

CZECH REPUBLIC

Abstract: - The contribution is focused on key competencies and the development of key competencies of

primary school pupils in the subject of Technology (work-based teaching) in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

In the first part, the authors describe the concept of key competencies, competencies in the work of a teacher,

and then the authors reflect on the key competencies that pupils should achieve in the subject of technology

after finishing primary school and show some possibilities for achieving these competencies. In the second part

of the article, the authors used the questionnaire method to investigate what competencies students acquire

during lessons on the subject of Technology. The research sample consisted of 3516 pupils from the Czech

Republic and Slovakia. When comparing the results, it is shown that approximately the same results are

achieved in the subject of Technology and they also show the students' preference for materials in their work.

This contribution aims to point out the importance of developing the key competencies of pupils in the subject

Technology and work-based teaching and in the empirical part to try to show what competencies pupils will

acquire in primary school.

Key-Words: - Competences, technics education, work-based teaching, technical skills, questionnaire, research

methods.

Received: June 2, 2024. Revised: October 11, 2024. Accepted: November 12, 2024. Published: December 2, 2024.

1 Introduction

Each individual acquires the competencies to obtain

an education and thus to integrate into society. Our

society is undergoing constant changes, and this also

applies to education. Employers' requirements are

also undergoing such changes, and thus the

requirements and view of the student are also

changing. Based on these changes, questions arise

related to the competencies required by employers

from employees. But what are these competencies?

For employees, the required competencies are

essentially unknown to potential employers.

However, it is required that the students possess key

competencies such that they can apply their

knowledge and skills in various contexts and

constantly complexly changing situations, and

therefore find employment as employees or even

employers in the future. Once again, we come to the

question of what kind of competence is necessary to

build in pupils for their professional and life

application, for their full application in society.

However, this key question is still not satisfactorily

answered.

These questions concern not only pupils but

understandably or even primarily teachers, as they

are the first to be responsible for preparing the new

generation for life and work in society. Teachers,

when they want to prepare pupils with the required

knowledge and skills for professional practice, must

necessarily be educated and they too must acquire

new competencies, which they can then pass on to

pupils.

2 Key Competences

In the Slovak Republic, starting in 2023, the

transition to the new ŠVP (State Education

Programs for Basic Education) will gradually take

place, where actors will be able to co-create the

content and form of education.

They will learn and improve together through

their own activity, [1]:

• The student will be the main actor responsible

for his education.

• The teacher will actively accompany the

student and create opportunities for effective

learning, but at the same time, he will have

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

735

Volume 20, 2024

sufficient space and support for his own

development.

• The parent will be invited to actively

participate in the creation of the school's

culture and to actively support the form of

the educational process.

The future is inherently unpredictable; but by

being attuned to some of the trends sweeping the

world now, we can learn—and help our children

learn—to adapt to, thrive in, and even shape

whatever the future holds. Students need support in

developing not only knowledge and skills but also

attitudes and values that can lead them to ethical and

responsible behavior. At the same time, they need

opportunities to develop their creative ingenuity to

help propel humanity toward a bright future, [2].

In the 21st century, the focus of education is

shifting from memorizing lessons and memorizing

isolated facts to the systematic and deliberate

development of versatile and functional literacy in

accordance with the demands of society, which can

be applied to everyday personal and social life and

to the fulfillment of personal, educational, cultural

and social needs. The reason is that the breadth of

acquired knowledge is no longer enough, [1].

The currently valid Framework Educational

Program for Basic Education (hereafter referred to

as RVP ZV), [3] requires teachers and schools to

develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes in mutual

synergy in teaching. Therefore, having competence

means that "the student is equipped with a whole

complex set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, in

which everything is connected so advantageously

that thanks to this, a person can successfully handle

the tasks and situations he gets into in his studies, at

work, in his personal life. life. Having a certain

competence means that we can adequately orient

ourselves in a certain natural situation, perform

appropriate activities, and adopt a beneficial

attitude", [4]. In this context, the concept of

competence is quite succinctly expressed by the

behavioral definition, that competence is behavior

(activity or a complex of activities) that

characterizes excellent performance in a certain area

of human activity, [5].

The reference framework according to the EU

Council for Key Competences establishes eight key

competencies, [6]:

• literacy,

• multilingualism,

• mathematical knowledge and knowledge in

the field of natural sciences and engineering,

• digital competencies and competences in the

field of technology,

• skills in the field of interpersonal relations

and the ability to acquire new competencies,

• active citizenship,

• entrepreneurial thinking,

• cultural awareness and expression.

The concept of key competencies has also been

used in the State Education Programs for Basic

Education (SR) since 2008 and in the Framework

Education Programs for Basic Education (CR) since

2004.

In order for a pedagogical employee to become

a teacher, to acquire another part of competencies in

addition to the knowledge acquired at the university,

i.e. skills, experience, etc. the adaptation process is

not enough. Some experts speak of three or five

years, and some speak of up to eight years of

professional teaching experience. The teaching staff

say that the pupils have changed. This results from

their possibilities, which our generation did not

have, i.e. a number of publications, traveling and

learning about the world from a different point of

view, or working with information technologies.

From this point of view, the teacher must also

change his approach to teaching preparation, to the

course and results of pedagogical practice, and to

this point of view and the description of the

teacher's competencies. According to [7], a teacher's

pedagogical competencies develop gradually and

can be divided into five levels.

3 Research of the Key Competencies

of Pupils in the Teaching of

Technology

The stimulus and at the same time the subject of our

research was the analysis of available research

focused on key competencies in the teaching of

technically oriented subjects in primary schools. We

focused primarily on research that was carried out

during the 21st century, primarily in the Czech

Republic (CZ) and Slovakia (SK), but also abroad.

To what extent are competencies the dominant and

unifying intersection of knowledge, skills, attitudes,

etc. see the definition in part 1, it is necessary to

perceive research on competencies in technical

subjects from a partial perspective. More complex

research in terms of the scope of the issue is rather

an exception, [8], [9], [10], [11]. Many authors

focus their research on sub-categories, contents, or

constructs falling under the constitution of key

competencies. We can mention professional and

research works, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

It is therefore obvious which trend of

competency research in technical subjects prevails.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

736

Volume 20, 2024

We do not deviate from the trend, yet we see the

absence of a more comprehensively understood

research as the main research problem. Therefore,

our goal for the following years is to carry out

partially connected, international, research

investigations, which, after combining the

individual parts, we will be able to present as a

comprehensive set of knowledge about the

development of key competencies in technical

subjects in primary schools.

In this contribution, we aim at an empirically

supported description of the development of key

competencies through the technical skills of primary

school pupils in CZ and SK. The partial intention is

to point out the differences between the skills of

pupils in both countries. On the one hand, we will

present the results from individual countries from

the pupils' point of view on the implemented and

preferred curriculum, on the other hand, we will try

to demonstrate statistical differences in the skills of

pupils in both countries, but we will also offer

suggestions for discussion based on the results and

their placement in the field-didactic context.

3.1 Research Problem, Key Research

Questions, Hypotheses

The research problem stems from the lack of

empirically based information and knowledge about

the current level of technical skills of elementary

school students. The theory and practice of branch

didactics lacks up-to-date answers to many key

questions. Let's list selected questions. What

technical skills do students acquire and at what

level? What technical materials did the students

learn to work with in class? Which technical

materials are students interested in in class? In what

conditions do students learn technical skills? We

wanted to respond empirically to these selected

questions. However, the scope of the research

investigation is so extensive that we cannot fit it into

one professional output. For this reason, we allow

ourselves to narrow down our presented results. We

determined 3 main research questions (MQ), which

are also related to partial sub-questions (PQ).

Research questions

MQ1 What technical materials did the students learn

to work within the lesson?

PQ1.1 What materials did pupils in CZ learn to

work with?

PQ1.2 What materials did pupils in SK learn to

work with?

PQ1.3 The level of skills to work with technical

materials among pupils in CZ and SK differs.

MQ2 Which technical materials would students

prefer in class?

PQ2.1 What materials do pupils prefer in CZ?

PQ2.2 What materials do pupils prefer in SK?

PQ2.3 Are the preferences for technical materials

different among CZ and SK pupils?

MQ3 Is there a discrepancy between the

implemented and preferred curriculum?

From the mentioned research questions, it is

evident that some can be answered using descriptive

methods, while others (PQ1.3; PQ2.3; MQ3) have

the potential for confirmatory statistical verification

of differences, requiring the determination of

substantive hypotheses.

Hypotheses

H1.3 - The level of skills to work with technical SE

materials among pupils in CZ and SK differs.

H2.3 - Do the preferences of technical materials

differ among CZ and SK pupils?

H3 - There is a discrepancy between the

implemented and preferred curriculum.

Note on H3: The implemented curriculum means

the materials with which the students learned to

work. Preferred curriculum means technical

materials that students would welcome in the

classroom.

3.2 Methodology

For the solution of the research, we chose the

quantitative design of pedagogical research, which

is commonly used in research into pedagogical

reality with the aim of obtaining generalizable

answers to research questions, [17]. The target

group was elementary school students in the 8th and

9th grades (ages 13-14). The key quantitative

method was a constructed questionnaire that

contained 3 demographic items and 14 main items

with sub-questions. In total, the questionnaire

contained 29 items. The typology of items is mixed.

Included are scale items, closed items with a choice

of multiple answers, closed items with the option of

open answers, and items with an open answer. The

scale items contained a scale of 1-5 expressing the

opinion or the degree of agreement of the

respondent with the content of the question. The

construction of the questionnaire was divided into 3

phases:

1. creation of the questionnaire;

2. comments by experts from practice (teachers);

3. modification of the questionnaire.

When constructing the questionnaire, internal

and external validity were taken into account in

connection with the considered validity of the

research and the interpretation of the results.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

737

Volume 20, 2024

Furthermore, adjustments to the items were

conditional on content and construct validity.

Subsequently, two verifications of the questionnaire

took place on a smaller sample of respondents

(April-June 2023). First in SK [18] and then in CZ

[19]. As part of the verification, the reliability of the

questionnaire was determined according to

McDonald's ω and Cronbach's α, (Table 1). The

selection of respondents was stratified random, for

the reason that we first chose a completely random

selection of schools and distribution of

questionnaires using online methods within both

countries. Unfortunately, the cooperation of the

schools and thus the return was very unfavorable.

That's why we proceeded to stratify schools based

on availability with the possibility of personal

distribution (the criterion was driving distance).

Stratification was carried out with the knowledge of

reducing the representativeness of the research

sample. After that, schools were randomly

approached within the set radius of the available

reach. The same procedure was applied in the

research itself. Out of the total number of 5754

schools in CZ and SK, 1525 schools (26.5 %) were

selected in a stratified manner according to the

proportional share for both countries. The data were

obtained from official, national statistical offices,

where the number of pupils in schools was also

determined to calculate the ratio coefficient. On the

basis of a successful power analysis, an estimate of

the minimum sample size was determined with the

expected power of the tests ("power" = 0.9), a low

effect size (ES = 0.2), and a sample ratio coefficient

of 2.178, [20], [21]. The expected confirmatory tests

were determined by the parametric T-test and the

non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test. The

minimum range of the entire research sample was

calculated to be N= 2200. The number of

respondents in the survey and the values of the

reliability coefficients are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Number of respondents, return of

questionnaires, and reliability in research

3.3 Analyzed Questionnaire Items

To answer the set research questions in this

contribution, 2 scale items of the questionnaire with

seven sub-questions were analyzed. Pupils chose on

a scale of 1 = definitely yes; 2 = rather yes, 3 = 50-

50, 4 = rather no, 5 = definitely not. The five-point

scale was deliberately chosen because it was worked

with the assumption that students in both countries

are evaluated on a 5-point scale (grade) in schools,

and it will therefore be more natural for them to

express a degree of agreement or an evaluative

opinion in this range.

Questionnaire items:

1. Do you think you have learned to work with

materials? (a1-paper, b1-textile, c1-plastic,

d1 modeling materials, e-1wood and natural

materials, f1-metals, g1-glass) – each

material had its own scale.

2. Which materials did you work with the

most? (a2-paper, b2-textile, c2-plastic, d2

modelling materials, e2-wood and natural

materials, f2-metals, g2-glass) – each

material had its own scale.

3.4 Results of the Research Investigation

We chose two approaches to data evaluation.

A descriptive approach was applied in an attempt to

answer research questions MQ1; PQ1.1; PQ1.2;

MQ2; PQ2.1; and PQ2.2. As the main method, we

chose the analysis of the descriptive characteristics

of the data set, especially the comparison of average

values. A confirmatory approach was chosen when

evaluating hypotheses that are linked to research

questions PQ1.3; PQ2.3; MQ1. As part of the

evaluation of the hypotheses, two-tailed statistical

hypotheses were formulated. Null hypotheses were

formulated in accordance with the hypothesis

verification methodology, [17], [22], i.e. the

formulation of null hypotheses expressed the

absence of differences between the compared

groups of respondents. The Wilcoxon paired test

and the two-sample Mann-Whitney U Test were

applied to test the hypotheses, [23]. The use of the

parametric T-test was not possible due to failure to

meet the requirements of normality and

homogeneity of variances. The verification of these

requirements was solved using Fisher's, Levene's,

and Lilliefor's tests in the software Statistica, 2024.

Most of the tests gave results of p < 0.01α,

therefore, normality or equality of variances was not

proven. Post hoc power analysis for the application

of Mann Whitney's tests was performed for a two-

sample sample of respondents. The power of tests

was detected (by G*Power) at power (1-β) range =

0.901~0.998 and Effect Size d range = 0.09~0.47,

[24].

Verification and research

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Number of verification

respondents N (return rate)

376 (96 %)

313 (93,7 %)

Verification reliability ω (α)

0,844 (0,881)

0,823 (0,871)

Number of research

respondents N (return rate)

1190 (96,7 %)

2435 (94,8 %)

Research of reliability ω (α)

0,897 (0,885)

0,878 (0,863)

Overall research reliability ω (α)

0,893 (0,880)

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

738

Volume 20, 2024

Table 2. Average values of responses to the item:

Do you think you have learned to work with?

Table 3. Average values of the answers to the item:

With which materials did the work interest you the

most?

Based on the results shown in Table 2 and Table

3 we can descriptively answer selected research

questions.

MQ1 – Within the collective evaluation Table 3,

pupils in both countries learned to work with wood

and natural materials the most. The second, most

mentioned material was paper. On the contrary, the

students learned to work with glass the hardest. In

the case of a separate evaluation of both nationality

groups, the results are similar, although individual

partial differences can be observed.

PQ1.1 – In the Czech Republic, the order of

materials does not differ from the collective

evaluation. We can therefore formulate the answer

to the research question in the same way as for

MQ1.

PQ1.2 – In Slovakia, the order of materials

differs from the collective evaluation. Pupils can

work best with paper and slightly worse with wood.

The pupils learned to work with glass the least. For

other materials, the ranking differs, however, based

on slight differences between the average values.

In comparison, however, we observe that

students in CZ learned to work with all materials

slightly better than students in SK.

MQ2 – Within the collective evaluation Tab. 3

pupils were most interested in work, or rather they

would prefer work with wood and natural objects.

Then with paper. The least interesting and preferred

material is glass.

PQ2.1 – In the Czech Republic, the order of

materials does not differ compared to the collective

evaluation. We can therefore formulate the answer

to the research question in the same way as for

MQ2.

PQ2.2 – In Slovakia, the order of materials does

not differ from the collective evaluation. Again, we

can formulate the answer to the research question in

the same way as for MQ2.

Looking at the individual preferences, it is clear

that students in the CZ would prefer materials such

as wood, metal, plastic, or glass. Working with

textiles and modeling materials is practically the

same preference of students from both countries.

Pupils in Slovakia would prefer slightly more work

with paper. The most significant difference in the

negative increase in the value of preferences

compared to the value of learning to work with the

material is clear in the case of paper, especially in

the case of CZ pupils.

We will prove whether the mentioned

differences in research questions are relevant and

significant in the following text.

Verification of Hypotheses

A 5% level of significance (α = 0.05) was

established when testing the hypotheses.

H1.3 - The level of skills to work with technical

materials differs among pupils in CZ and SK.

Table 4. Mann Whitney tests differences in students'

skills to work with individual materials

All values of calculated significances in Table 4

are p < 0.05 and even meet the more strictly

established level (α = 0.01). We can therefore state

that we accept the alternative hypothesis about the

difference in the level of pupils' skills to work with

individual materials in CZ and SK. The results of

the differences are statistically significant, while

from Tab. 3 it can be seen that, in comparison to the

average values, pupils in CZ are better at it than

Variable

Average

Diff.

Averages

Average

Total

Mean

Total

a1) Paper

2,216

2,474

-0,258

2,301

b1) Textile

3,268

3,443

-0,175

3,325

c1) Plastic

3,214

3,545

-0,331

3,322

d1)

Modelling

mass

3,208

3,462

-0,254

3,291

e1) Wood

2,101

2,570

-0,469

2,255

f1) Metal

3,248

3,676

-0,428

3,389

g1) Glass

4,004

4,113

-0,109

4,040

Variable

Average

Diff.

Averages

Average

Total

Mean

Total

a2) Paper

2,931

2,906

0,026

2,923

b2) Textile

3,357

3,363

-0,006

3,359

c2) Plastic

3,435

3,625

-0,190

3,497

d2)

Modelling

mass

3,156

3,157

-0,001

3,156

e2) Wood

2,239

2,516

-0,277

2,330

f2) Metal

3,239

3,461

-0,221

3,312

g2) Glass

3,785

3,843

-0,058

3,804

Variable

Mann-Whitneyův U Test (Data_complet)

By variable. Nationality

Marked tests are significant at the level of p<.05000

Rank

sum. CZ

Rank

sum. SK

p-value

Valid N

a1) Paper

4263911

2308214

1298081

-5,09439

0,000000

-5,29439

0,000000

2435

1190

b1) Textile

4297883

2274242

1332053

-3,94630

0,000079

-4,04704

0,000052

2435

1190

c1) Plastic

4204527

2367599

1238697

-7,10130

0,000000

-7,27684

0,000000

2435

1190

d1)

Modelling

mass

4264154

2307971

1298324

-5,08618

0,000000

-5,21464

0,000000

2435

1190

e1) Wood

4137697

2434429

1171867

-9,35982

0,000000

-9,76486

0,000000

2435

1190

f1) Metal

4156777

2415348

1190947

-8,71500

0,000000

-8,95443

0,000000

2435

1190

g1) Glass

4315759

2256367

1349929

-3,34220

0,000831

-3,64499

0,000267

2435

1190

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

739

Volume 20, 2024

pupils in SK for all the surveyed materials.

Differences become min. values |0.109| and max.

values |0.469|. From the point of view of

significance for practice, we consider values of

differences Xdiff< 0.3 to be less significant, in other

words, harder to be identified by the teacher in

practice. These differences could become significant

in hypothetical cases, e.g. if the difference arises for

an individual when deciding on a grade, when the

student's skills are really on the border of the

difference between two grades. Difference values of

Xdiff> 0.3 are considered to be moderately to

completely significant for practice. The teacher

should already be able to identify such partial

differences between pupils and further use them to

optimize teaching, also with regard to the individual

needs of the pupil. Moderately significant

differences in favor of CZ pupils were identified for

the materials wood, metal, and plastic. Differences

in average values of Xdiff> 0.6 do not occur in the

results, however, we would consider these

differences to be crucial for practice, because with

such a difference, the teacher should already be able

to clearly determine at what level the student fulfills

the expected learning outcomes.

H2.3 - Do the preferences of technical materials

differ among CZ and SK pupils?

Table 5. Mann Whitney tests differences in pupils'

preferences for working with individual materials

All values of calculated significances in Table 5

are not significant p < 0.05 at the selected level of

significance. We can therefore state that we cannot

reject the null hypothesis about the difference in

pupils' preferences for working with materials in CZ

and SK. The results of the differences are

statistically significant only for variables c2, e2,

and f2, while from Tab. 4, it can be seen that the

average values of preference for materials such as

wood, metal, and plastic are higher among students

in CZ than among students in SK. The mentioned

differences Xdiff< 0.3 are, however, less significant

in terms of significance for practice. For teachers,

these differences in teaching preferences are

increasingly difficult to recognize and hard to grasp.

On the contrary, pupils in both countries prefer

working with paper, textiles, modeling materials, or

glass.

H3 - There is a mismatch between the

implemented and preferred curriculum.

The hypothesis was verified for each nationality

separately because a summary comparison would be

meaningless due to the difference in the national

(planned) curriculum. In this case, the summary

verification of differences would correspond

significantly less with the pedagogical reality in

individual countries. Therefore, Wilcoxon's tests

were processed to verify the differences between the

implemented and preferred curriculum in CZ and

SK separately.

Table 6. Wilcoxon’s pair tests differences between

the implemented and preferred curriculum in CZ

Differences in Table 6 were not statistically

confirmed at the 5 % significance level for only one

pair of variables (metals). Pupils expressed the

harmony between the implemented and preferred

curriculum for working with metals. In other words,

the students learned to work with metals as much as

they were interested in working with metals, or

rather how they prefer this work. For other pairs of

variables, statistically significant differences were

identified, as the detected significance was p < 0.05.

On the one hand, we can state that relatively in the

dominant majority of pairs of variables, students see

a discrepancy between the implemented and

preferred curriculum. On the other hand, we cannot

unequivocally accept the hypothesis about the

difference between the implemented and preferred

curriculum due to the confirmation of the agreement

of one pair of variables.

However, as we can further in Tab. 6 can be

seen, there is a relatively consistent relational

tendency between the evaluation of students' own

skills and their interests, that is, the preference for

working with specific materials. Although we have

demonstrated statistical differences between the

implemented and preferred curriculum, they are not

practical according to the analysis of the average

Variable

Mann-Whitneyův U Test (Data_complet)

By variable. Nationality

Marked tests are significant at the level of p<.05000

Rank

sum. CZ

Rank

sum. SK

p-value

Valid N

a2) Paper

4431911

2140214

1431569

0,58315

0,559792

0,59613

0,551089

2435

1190

b2) Textile

4411154

2160972

1445324

-0,11832

0,905817

-0,12165

0,903175

2435

1190

c2) Plastic

4292052

2280073

1326222

-4,14336

0,000034

-4,27768

0,000019

2435

1190

d2)

Modelling

mass

4413381

2158745

1447551

-0,04305

0,965658

-0,04416

0,964780

2435

1190

e2) Wood

4257070

2315056

1291240

-5,32560

0,000000

-5,54433

0,000000

2435

1190

f2) Metal

4286494

2285632

1320664

-4,33121

0,000015

-4,45431

0,000008

2435

1190

g2) Glass

4370170

2201955

1404340

-1,50336

0,132748

-1,59447

0,110833

2435

1190

A pair of

variables

Nationality=1 (CZ)

Wilcoxon’s pair test (Data_complete)

Marked tests are significant at the level p <,05000

Platný

p-values

Correlation

"r"

a1 & a2

1431

151553,5

23,07296

0,000000

0,509857

b1 & b2

1239

335726,0

3,83922

0,000123

0,630584

c1 & c2

1229

265397,5

9,04123

0,000000

0,624245

d1 & d2

1198

332246,0

2,24208

0,024957

0,634686

e1 & e2

1121

254235,0

5,55300

0,000000

0,622345

f1 & f2

1146

320872,0

0,69098

0,489577

0,675953

g1 & g2

968

151113,0

9,58361

0,000000

0,615006

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

740

Volume 20, 2024

values from Tab. 3 and Tab. 4 (the differences are

not shown in the tables; they were calculated from

the 1st column – Average CZ) these differences are

clearly understandable (most XDiff_aver values <

0.3), except for the difference between the

implemented and planned curriculum when working

with paper when the difference reached a value of

0.715, which also explains the lower value of the

correlation coefficient "r" = 0.509 compared to the

others. Thus, it is possible to support the evaluation

of PQ1.1, that the students consistently express

(even with a certain structural relational agreement

between the variables) that they have learned to

work with wood the most and at the same time they

like these activities the most.

Table 7. Wilcoxon's pair tests of differences

between implemented and preferred curriculum in

For pupils in SK according to Table 7, there

were no statistically proven differences at the 5 %

significance level for two pairs of variables (wood

and plastics). The compliance between the

implemented and preferred curriculum was

expressed by the students in the skills to work with

plastics and wood or natural materials. For other

pairs of variables, statistically significant differences

were identified, as the detected significance was p <

0.05. It is therefore obvious that even pupils in SK

tend to express a discrepancy between the

implemented and preferred curriculum.

Nevertheless, we cannot unequivocally accept the

hypothesis about the difference between the

implemented and preferred curriculum due to the

confirmation of the agreement of the two pairs of

variables.

Although we did not verify the relative

difference between the correlation coefficients,

simply by comparing Tab. 7 and 8 we find the

following. Among pupils in SK, the consistent

relational tendency is lower than among pupils in

CZ between the assessment of pupils' own skills and

their interests, i.e. preference for working with

specific materials. Only for the variable working

with metals do we see a relational tendency value of

"r" > 0.6 between the implemented and preferred

curriculum.

Therefore, although we have demonstrated

statistical differences between the implemented and

preferred curriculum for five pairs of variables,

according to the analysis of the average values from

Tab. 3 and Tab. 4 (the differences are not shown in

the tables; they were calculated from the 2nd

column – Average SK) these differences are clearly

perceptible (most XDiff_aver values < 0.3), except

for the differences between the implemented and

planned curriculum when working with paper and

modeling materials, when the differences reached

values of 0.432 and 0.305. The support of results by

relational consistency is not as obvious as in the

results of students in CZ.

4 Discussion of Results and

Conclusion

Comparing our results with previous research on the

regional scale of both countries concerned is

practically impossible. We could present here

a comparison with students' qualification works or

other research findings, but with a focus on

a different level of schools, but we perceive such

a procedure as scientifically incorrect. Therefore,

with the comparison, we turn to the theoretical level,

establishing optimal or ideal conditions for

determining the planned curriculum. Here, authors

from the pedagogic or didactic community agree

that the development of skills when working with

technical materials is ideal to be implemented multi-

materially using traditional materials such as paper

and cardboard [25], [26], as well as wood, plastics,

metals [15], [27], [28] or textiles [29]. Technical

materials such as glass [30] or modeling materials

[31] are mentioned very sporadically by the authors.

From a comparative perspective, our research

showed a certain agreement with the theory. In their

answers, the students mostly declared that they

learned to work with all the mentioned materials at

different levels.

MQ1: Whether it is pupils in CZ or SK, in the

subjects. Work activities (CZ) and Technology (SK)

are dominated by work with wood, respectively, the

students learned to work with this material the most.

The secondary materials are paper and cardboard.

The pupils learned to work with glass the least. The

more frequent inclusion of technical activities with

wood, paper, and cardboard is common in primary

schools. The advantages of these materials include

A pair of

variables

Nationality =2 (SK)

Wilcoxon’s pair test (Data_ complete)

Marked tests are significant at the level p <,05000

Valid

p-values

Correlation

"r"

a1 & a2

714

74390,0

9,65617

0,000000

r < 0,5

b1 & b2

668

100830,0

2,18316

0,029025

r < 0,5

c1 & c2

636

92903,0

1,80774

0,070647

r < 0,5

d1 & d2

653

71298,0

7,35450

0,000000

0,548679

e1 & e2

658

102824,5

1,14411

0,252577

0,532694

f1 & f2

611

66250,0

6,23866

0,000000

0,60238

g1 & g2

546

47521,5

7,36003

0,000000

r < 0,5

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

741

Volume 20, 2024

relatively good availability and, above all, their less

demanding processing compared to e.g. metals or

glass.

MQ2: The preference for technical materials, or

interest in working with them, is similar in both

countries. Wood dominates again, followed by

paper and cardboard. The least preferred material is

glass. The popularity of working with wood among

pupils in the Czech Republic is common knowledge

among the professional public. As the sample of

respondents in the said survey was small, it fairly

reliably represents a long-term trend in the context

of the results we found. Currently, it will be

interesting to see whether the trends will change, for

example, in favor of a greater emphasis on the use

of plastics in teaching due to the incorporation of

modern technologies into educational concepts such

as 3D printers [32], [33].

MQ3: Inconsistency between the implemented and

preferred curriculum was not clearly demonstrated

in individual countries for all examined materials.

Although most of the examined technical materials

were statistically different. However, the discussion

gains importance from the point of view of practical

significance. When performing the tests, the test

power (1-β) > 0.901 was found, but in almost all

tests the ES d < 0.4. From this, we can conclude that

the performed tests were accurate, but the

significance for pedagogical practice is low

(compar.), [34]. The differences of the average

values XDiff_aver< 0.3 for most pairs of variables

also correspond to this. For teachers in practice,

these differences are very difficult to grasp and

apply. However, it can be helpful for practice in

schools in the Czech Republic to find that pupils

show a relatively consistent relational tendency

between what they learn and what they are

interested in.

We are aware of the limits of the reporting

values of the results of our research, mainly due to

the forced execution of a randomly stratified

selection of the research sample. Therefore, we

assume that the results themselves may deviate

slightly from the base set (the studied population).

Despite this, we believe that we have taken all

scientifically necessary steps to achieve sufficient

representativeness of the research and the relevance

of the results, which reflect the current conditions of

pedagogical practice. We do not currently consider

the research results to be revolutionary, but rather

unique in a way, as they are empirically based.

Thus, scientifically relevant and beneficial for field

theory in terms of documentation of the current

conditions for the development of technical skills in

the context of key competencies in CZ and SK.

The research results show that the most popular

material for pupils in the Slovak Republic and the

Czech Republic is wood. The level of competence

among pupils is different. This state depends on the

teachers' approach to the subject of technology,

and technical education, but also on the students'

approach and interest. The most important factor is

the motivation of the students by the subject teacher

and the use of the principle of combining school

with practice, i.e. theory with practice.

Acknowledgement:

The contribution was supported by the project

GDF_PdF_2023_03 - Development of key

competencies through the use of didactic means of

technical education - teacher 21.

References:

[1] State Education Programs for Basic Education

- SR. Bratislava: MERDY SR, 2023, [Online].

https://vzdelavanie21.sk/digitalny-statny-

vzdelavaci-program/ (Accessed Date: January

5, 2024).

[2] Future of Education and Skills 2030: Learning

Compass 2030. OECD, 2024, [Online].

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/ab

out/projects/edu/education-2040/concept-

notes/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_conc

ept_note.pdf (Accessed Date: February 5,

2024).

[3] Framework Educational Programme for Basic

Education. Prague: MEYS CZ, 2023,

[Online].

https://www.msmt.cz/vzdelavani/zakladni-

vzdelavani/ucebni-dokumenty (Accessed

Date: January 5, 2024).

[4] Belecky, Z., Hausenblas, O., Hucinova, L.,

Kabelacova, I., Kargerova, J., Kostalova, H.,

Krejcirikova, I., Lisnerova, R., Mikova, S.,

Paleckova, J., Prochazkova, I., Stang, J. and

Strakova, J. Key competences in primary

education. Prague: Research Institute of

Education. 2007. ISBN: 978-80-87000-07-6.

[5] Schneider, K. What Does Competence Mean?.

Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 14, 2019. pp. 1938-

1958.

https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.1014125.

[6] Recommendation on key competences for

lifelong learning: 2018/C 189/01. European

Union. 2018, [Online]. https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2018.18

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

742

Volume 20, 2024

9.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2018:189:TOC

(Accessed Date: February 3, 2024).

[7] Hupkova, M., Petlak, E. Self-reflection and

competence in the work of a teacher.

Bratislava: IRIS 2004. p.135, ISBN: 80-

89018-77-7.

[8] Juhasova, J. Development of key

competencies of pupils technical vocational

education. Journal of Technology and

Information Education, Vol.6, No. 2, 2014.

pp. 79–84.

https://doi.org/10.5507/jtie.2014.021.

[9] Hrmo, R., Skrabankova, J., Kucerka, D. A

Kmec, J. Key competences in technical and

science subjects. Warszawa: Warsaw

Management University. 2016. ISBN: 978-83-

7520-204-5.

[10] Cermakova, J., Slabova, M. and Rolinek, L.

Self-evaluation of the level of key

competencies for industry 4.0. In Conference

Proceedings DOKBAT. Vol. 16. Zlin: Tomas

Bata University in Zlin. ISBN: 978-80-7454-

935-9.

[11] Martinez-Borreguero, G., Naranjo-Correa,

F.L. and Mateos-Nunez, M. Cognitive and

Emotional Development of STEM Skills in

Primary School Teacher Training through

Practical Work, Education Sciences, Vol. 12,

No. 7. 2022.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070470.

[12] Andersson, I.-M., Gunnarsson, K., Rosen, G.

and Mostrom-Aberg, M. Knowledge and

Experiences of Risks among Pupils in

Vocational Education, Safety and Health at

Work, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2014. pp.140-146.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.06.002.

[13] Castkova, P. and Kropac, J. Pupil’s Self-

Concept in Inquiry-based Technical

Education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 186, pp. 776–784. 2015.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro

.2015.04.046.

[14] Kokko, S. and Räisänen, R. Craft education in

sustaining and developing craft traditions:

Reflections from Finnish craft teacher

education, Techne Series: Research in Sloyd

Education and Craft Science A, Vol. 26, No.

1, 2019. pp. 27-43. Available at:

https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/techneA/art

icle/view/2911 (Accessed Date: February 6,

2024).

[15] Dostal, J. Comparison of the National

Curriculum from the STEM Perspective with

Focus on Technologies and Engineering in the

Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. TEM

Journal. Vol. 12, No. 1, 2023. pp. 566–577.

https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM121-67.

[16] Zacok, L., Bernat, M., Bernatova, R. and

Pavlovkin, J. Research of Correlation of

Theoretical Knowledge and Psychomotor

Skills of Pupils in Technical Education.

European Journal of Contemporary

Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2020. pp. 645–656.

https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2020.3.645.

[17] Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. Research

Design. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications, 2018. ISBN: 978-1506386706.

[18] Kucerka, D., Mrazek, M., Morovicova, L.,

and Kucerkova, M., Development of key

competences of students in the subject of

technology in primary schools, R&E-

SOURCE, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2024. pp. 117–130.

https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2024.is1.a1

248.

[19] Mrazek, M. and Kucerka, D. Development of

key competencies of students in the subject of

technolgy in primary schools in Czech

republic. Baltica Journal, Vol. 37, No. 10,

2024, [Online].

https://balticajournal.com/baltica/index.php/p

df/stream/TiyLK/1723020895 (Accessed

Date: October 22, 2024).

[20] Thorlund, K. and Mills, E.J. Sample size and

power considerations in network meta-

analysis, Systematic Reviews, Vol. 1, No. 1,

2012. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-

41.

[21] Kang, H. and Huh, S. Sample size

determination and power analysis using the

G*Power software, jeehp, Vol. 18, No. 1,

2021.

https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17.

[22] Emmert-Streib, F. and Dehmer, M.

Understanding Statistical Hypothesis Testing:

The Logic of Statistical Inference, Machine

Learning and Knowledge Extraction, Vol. 1,

No. 3, 2019. 945–961.

https://doi.org/10.3390/make1030054.

[23] Burkner, P.-C., Doebler, P. and Holling, H.

Optimal design of the Wilcoxon–Mann–

Whitney-test, Biometrical Journal, Vol. 59,

No. 1, 2017. pp. 25–40.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201600022.

[24] Happ, M., Bathke, A.C. and Brunner, E.

Optimal sample size planning for the

Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, Statistics in

Medicine, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2019. pp. 363–375.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.798

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

743

Volume 20, 2024

[25] Haratyk, A. and Czerwinska-Gorz, B. Folk art

and culture in the historical and educational

context. Czech-Polish Historical and

Pedagogical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2017. pp.

31-45. https://doi.org/10.5817/cphpj-2017-

0011.

[26] Makoviichuk, O., Shulha, A., Shestobuz, O.,

Pits, I., Prokop, I., and Byhar, H. Training

Future Primary School Teachers in the

Context of Developing Constructive Skills in

Younger Pupils. Revista Romaneasca pentru

Educatie Multidimensionala, Vol. 12, No. 1,

2020. pp. 232–250.

https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.1sup1/233.

[27] Bjorkholm, E., Andree and M., Carlgren, I.

Exploring technical knowledge in the primary

technology classroom. Australasian Journal

of Technology Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016,

[Online].

https://ajte.org/index.php/AJTE/article/view/2

3/17 (Accessed Date: February 11, 2024).

[28] Glaveanu, V.P. (2018) Educating which

creativity?, Thinking Skills and Creativity,

Vol. 27, 2018. pp. 25–32. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.006.

[29] Pavelka, J., Honzikova, J., Duris, M.,

Tomkova, V., and Soltes, J. Interest of

primary school pupils in technical activities

and technical education. Pilsen: University of

West Bohemia in Pilsen, 2019. ISBN: 978-80-

261-0887-0.

[30] Dostal, J. Comparison of the National

Curriculum from the STEM Perspective with

Focus on Technologies and Engineering in

the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia.

TEM Journal. Vol. 12, No. 1, 2023. pp. 566–

577. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM121-67.

[31] Simbartl, P. Modelling Materials on the

Primary School as the Element for an

Improvement of Fine Motor Skills and a

Support of Creativity, Edukacja – Technika –

Informatyka, Vol. 21, No.3, 2017. pp. 82–86.

https://doi.org/10.15584/eti.2017.3.10.

[32] Moc, P., Aichinger, D. and Honzikova, J.

Computer controlled machines and smart

appliances in primary education.In INTED

2022 proceedings. Valencia, SPAIN: IATED,

2022, pp. 6396-6401.

https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2022.1627.

[33] Abu Khurma, O., Ali, N. and Swe Khine, M.

Exploring the impact of 3D printing

integration on STEM attitudes in elementary

schools, Contemporary Educational

Technology, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2023. p. ep458.

https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13568.

[34] Kacmaz, G. and Dube, A.K. Examining

pedagogical approaches and types of

mathematics knowledge in educational games:

A meta-analysis and critical review,

Educational Research Review, Vol. 35, 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100428.

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

- Daniel Kučerka: role funding acquisition, project

administration, writing - original draft.

- Michal Mrázek: role methodology, formal

analysis, writing - original draft.

- Čestmír Serafín: role writing - original draft,

supervision.

- Pavlína Částková: role resources.

- Hana Bučková: role visualization.

- Michal Sedláček: role data curation.

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

Research Presented in a Scientific Article was

funded by project GDF_PdF_2023_03.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.70

Daniel Kučerka, Michal Mrázek,

Čestmír Serafín, Pavlína Částková,

Hana Bučková, Michal Sedláček

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

744

Volume 20, 2024