In a rapidly digitalized world, the role of ICT education and training is increasingly significant, yet it also raises concerns regarding access and equity. Tsatsou (2021) notes that the growing reliance on digital technologies in education offers opportunities to enhance learning; while digital tools can bridge educational gaps, they can also deepen the vulnerabilities of disadvantaged individuals. This is evident in studies such as Scherer and Siddiq (2019), which highlight disparities in ICT literacy among K-12 students, particularly across different socioeconomic groups. Adaptability to technological advancements is critical for today’s youth, influencing their career opportunities, digital competencies, and life skills (OECD, 2022; Padaste et al., 2023; van Laar et al., 2020). As such, it is essential to explore how ICT education and training can both address and reinforce these inequalities. Using technological tools effectively is essential for educational improvements (Lawrence et al., 2020). Educational systems, workplaces, and institutions must prioritize these skills, which include knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for societal contribution (Çetin & Çetin, 2021; Liu et al., 2024). This paper examines the barriers, opportunities, and impacts of digital tools in educational settings, focusing on the ethical, practical, and pedagogical implications for diverse learning environments.

The context of DENEYAP Youth Technology Skills Teaching Workshops (DYTW)

Community-driven, non-formal ICT learning environments, characterized by flexibility and local engagement, allow marginalized and underserved communities to gain digital skills. With this goal in vision, DYTWs were founded by the [Nationality] Technology Team Foundation (XXX Foundation) in 2017. The program seeks to cultivate young individuals who will be the driving force behind the National Technology Initiative (Author, 2018; Presidency of Republic of [Country], 2018). To date, 139 of those have been established in 81 provinces, with 2700 students having graduated from the program with courses and workshops such as Robotic coding, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of things, Material Science and so on (see Figure 1). 

Objectives

This research evaluates how community-driven, tech-based non-formal learning promotes equity and access to science and ICT education for youth, guided by these research questions:

• Instructional design elements in DYTW?

• Lesson plans of DYTW?

• Experiences and opinions of DYTW trainers?

• The strengths and weaknesses of DYTW?

• Experiences and opinions of DYTW students and graduates?

• DYTW in public media?

Theoretical Frameworks: 

The ADDIE Instructional Design Model and Critical Pedagogy

The ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) provides a framework for enhancing educational programs (Molenda, 2003), while Critical Pedagogy focuses on minimizing barriers to equal participation in a pluralistic society (Bradshaw, 2017). This study integrates Critical Pedagogy with the linear structure of ADDIE to align with emerging instructional design elements.

Methods and Modes of Inquiry As is common in education studies, this research uses qualitative and quantitative methods to explore community-driven non-formal learning environments (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Emery et al., 2018) from the perspectives of learners, trainers, program designers, public opinion, and researchers. Data Sources and Materials Data for this study were collected from various sources: Visionary Founders (n=2), Program Developers (n=2), and Trainers (n=5): Insights were gathered through interviews to understand their roles and perspectives. Learners and Recent Graduates (n=5): Feedback was collected to analyze their experiences and outcomes. Lesson Plans and Observations (n=5): Instructional content was evaluated using a validated 5E lesson plan rubric (Goldston et al., 2013). News and Media Logs (n=53): Reports and articles provided public perception and additional program context. Quantitative Surveys (n=300): Learners completed two validated surveys on attitudes toward problem-solving strategies (Baran-Bulut et al., 2018) and STEM activities (Benek & Akcay, 2019). Thematic analysis with deductive, selective, and axial coding was applied to interview data, while survey data were analyzed using SPSS (v.26) and Excel for descriptive statistics. Trustworthiness was ensured through member checking, peer debriefing, and inter-coder agreement. Validated instruments ensured reliability and validity of the quantitative findings. Consensus on Lesson Plans’ Instructional Quality and Weaknesses Researchers collaborated to ensure inter-coder reliability during the initial coding process, achieving satisfactory results (Cohen’s Kappa, K = .70). Discrepancies were resolved, and final codes reached 100% agreement. Further analysis of 11 sample lesson plans showed inter-rater agreement ranging from .50 to .97, with a median agreement of 85%. This highlights the need for stronger theoretical underpinnings in lesson plan design to enhance instructional quality.

This study integrates answers to all research questions through the lens of program design and critical pedagogy perspectives. Key findings include the pivotal role of visionary and inclusive leadership in driving ICT learning through community-driven, non-formal learning programs. Strong synergy between the DYTW program and public authorities facilitates mutual collaboration, enhancing accessibility. Well-prepared trainers with subject matter expertise and visionary approaches significantly support learners in their ICT learning journey. However, notable issues arise in lesson plan preparation, particularly a lack of research-based frameworks like 5E or Cognitive Presence (Adiguzel et al., 2023). Access to Technology and Science Skills The availability of technology resources and infrastructure significantly impacts program effectiveness. Programs offering hands-on experiences with current technologies and learning materials are better equipped to foster technological and scientific thinking skills. Nevertheless, disparities in access often diminish or delay the potential benefits, particularly for underserved communities. Critical Learning Materials and Infrastructure Access to appropriate learning materials and infrastructure is essential for program success. Lack of Quality Assessment and Evaluation Despite the presence of visionary leadership, skilled trainers, and active learning opportunities, a major weakness is the lack of robust assessment and evaluation mechanisms in non-formal DYTW programs. Learners' feedback reflects dissatisfaction with these processes, highlighting the need for more transparent evaluation practices. Quantitative Findings Learners expressed positive views on various aspects of the DYTW program, including content, instruction, teamwork during product design, program duration, physical conditions, and instructors. However, only 64.12% had a favorable opinion of the measurement and evaluation process (M = 16.03, SD = 5.82, min = 5, max = 25). Learners emphasized the need for more feedback on their development after project festivals and expected their families to be informed about their progress after graduation.

Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., Bulut, M. A., Mete, S. E., & Nalkesen-Akin, Y. (2023). Integrating cognitive presence strategies: A professional development training for k-12 teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2). Baran-Bulut, B., İpek, A. S. & Aygün, B. (2018). Yaratıcı problem çözme özellikleri envanterini türkçeye uyarlama çalışması [Adaptation study of creative problems]. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 18 (3), 1360-1377. Bradshaw, A.C. (2017). Critical pedagogy and educational technology, in A.D. Benson, R. Joseph, & J.L. Moore (eds.) Culture, Learning and Technology: Research and Practice (pp. 8-27). Routledge. Emery, A., Sanders, M., Anderman, L. H., & Yu, S. L. (2018). When mastery goals meet mastery learning: Administrator, teacher, and student perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 419-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1341863 Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 89-119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x10383211 Lawrence, G., Ahmed, F., Cole, C.,& Johnston, K. P. (2020). Not more technology but more effective technology: Examining the state of technology integration in EAP programmes. RELC Journal, 51(1), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220907199 Liu, X., Gu., Gu, J., & Xu, J. (2024). The impact of the design thinking model on pre‐service teachers’ creativity, self‐efficacy, inventive problem‐solving skills, and technology‐related motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34,167-190. Marty, P. F., Alemanne, N. D., Mendenhall, A., Maurya, M., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., Douglas., I., Kazmer, M. M., Clark, A., & Schellinger, J. (2013). Scientific inquiry, digital literacy, and mobile computing in informal learning environments. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 407-428. Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance improvement, 42(5), 34-37. http://www.damiantgordon.com/Courses/DT580/In-Search-of-Elusive-ADDIE.pdf Norqvist., L., & Leffler, E. (2017). Learning in non-formal education: Is it “youthful” for youth in action? International Review of Education, 63(2), 235-256. OECD (2022). Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en Pedaste, M., Kallas, K., & Baucal, A. (2023). Digital competence test for learning in schools: Development of items and scales. Computers & Education, 203, 104830. Pihlainen, K., Korjonen-Kuusipuro, K., & Kärnä, E. (2021). Perceived benefits from non-formal digital training sessions in later life: views of older adult learners, peer tutors, and teachers. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40(2), 155-169. van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 10(1), 215824401990017.