Navigating the Straits with Research or Opinion

Navigating the Straits with Research or Opinion?

Setting the Course for Technology Education

Robert Wicklein, Ed.D.

Roger B. Hill, Ph.D.

Department of Occupational Studies

603 Aderhold Hall

The University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602-7162

wicklein@uga.cc.uga.edu

rbhill@uga.cc.uga.edu

706-542-4100 (voice)

706-542-7165 (FAX)

Running Head: Issues and Problems Factor Analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify a concise list of constructs representative of the issues and problems confronting Technology Education today. Data was collected from a random sample of 600 members of the International Technology Education Association. A total of 254 usable instruments were returned for a response rate of 42.3%. A factor analysis using a principal-components analysis followed by orthogonal rotation using a Varimax procedure resulted in possible factor solutions with from 7 to 15 factors. These factor matrices were then examined to determine which was most appropriate to provide a meaningful and concise list of constructs representative of the issues and problems included in the study.

An eight‑factor solution was suggested by the analysis of data. The factors identified were funding, academic content, program vitality, leadership, research base, teacher supply, identity, and integration. Collectively, these factors explained 48 of the 60 items identified by Wicklein's (1993) original study and accounted for 24.4% of the total variance. While the ability of a short list of terms was limited in its capacity to embody the meaning of the 60 distinct concepts represented by the data, the list developed is manageable enough to provide a practical focus for concerted efforts to enhance the field of technology education at a critical time in its existence.

Navigating the Straits with Research or Opinion?

Setting the Course for Technology Education

In order for the field of Technology Education to effectively develop at each level of instruction (elementary, secondary, post secondary) it is necessary that the leaders at each of these echelons understand and respond to the critical issues and problems that are facing the profession. Currently, the field is inundated with unsubstantiated opinions regarding these issues and problems.

Considerable effort has been made by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) to establish a strategic plan (International Technology Education Association, 1994). This strategic plan lists the four major goals of the association, followed by a number of objectives and strategies designed to provide a mechanism to aid in the accomplishment of the primary goals. Even with the strategic plan in place, the question must be asked, "Is this the environment of technology education?" Were the identified goals of the strategic plan established by an exhaustive evaluation of the critical issues and problems that are currently facing the profession. How assured are we that the goals and objectives identified on the strategic plan can solve the problems and issues facing the profession in the future? Without this information, the decision makers in technology education cannot accurately determine if their plan will address and solve the issues and problems of technology education. In 1992 a special symposium on critical issues in technology education was facilitated for a select group of professionals in the field. Papers were presented by six leading experts addressing a variety of topics related to obstacles and opportunities impacting on technology education (Householder, 1992; Israel, 1992; Loepp, 1992; Ritz, 1992; Waetjen, 1992; Wright, 1992). The results of these presentations were based on a combination of personal experience, expert judgement, and historical events, however, little or no hard data was presented to establish the critical issues. Waetjen (1991), identifying the need for research within technology education, stated:

Die-hards claim that research isn't needed and instead offer up dozens of anecdotal accounts of students who have benefitted from taking courses in technology education. But no matter how titillating the anecdotes, they simply do not convince deans, superintendents and boards of education. Only research results will be convincing. Research has moved from the periphery to the very core of the educational process. Indeed, research has established itself as a primary vehicle by which change is promoted and effected in education. Research now has a major impact on the focus, direction, and development of all aspects of education - and properly so. Can technology educators ignore this powerful force that increasingly will shape educational decisions? (p. 3).

In a recent investigation by Wicklein (1993) the topic of issues and problems was addressed. However, the results of this analysis were based on Delphi research techniques that, although an important first step in determining the critical concerns within the field, do not address the profession holistically.

It was the objective of this research to refine the work of Wicklein (1993) by determining the current and future critical issues and problems impacting Technology Education based on evaluations by practicing teachers and teacher educators. The results of this research will identify those concerns which are most significant to practicing technology educators.

Problem Statement

The decade of the 1990's has provided a unique juxtaposition of opportunity and risk for the field of Technology Education. Awareness about present and future needs for technological literacy has been widely acknowledged and support for new approaches to instruction has increased in response to growing public comment regarding traditional methods of delivering academic instruction. Within this environment, technology education has been provided a window of opportunity to exert significant influence to shape efforts such as integration of math, science, and technology. New approaches to instruction provided by modular curriculum designs and other systems for implementing technology education are also receiving considerable attention.

In the midst of these abundant opportunities, however, numerous issues and problems threaten the positioning of technology education as an integral part of the curriculum. Furthermore, a lack of focus has resulted from numerous unsubstantiated opinions that have been put forward regarding these issues and problems. A clear, research based, analysis of the significant concerns and obstacles is needed so that leaders and practitioners of technology education can move the field in positive, coherent directions.

The purpose of this study was to provide a concise, manageable list of the major concerns that are impeding the advancement of technology education, based on input from practicing technology education professionals.

Method

Sample. A total of 600 members of the ITEA were randomly sampled from the accessible sampling frame (e.g., 4 ITEA regions). Each member of the sample was mailed a one-page cover letter, questionnaire, and a pre-addressed postage paid envelope during the Fall of 1992. A follow-up mailing was made for those not responding to the initial survey request after a 3-week waiting period. Responses were collected for an additional 3-week period at which time data collection ceased. This procedure resulted in a total of 254 usable questionnaires being returned for a response rate of 42.3%. While the response rate was not as high as was hoped, it was considered acceptable given Fowler's (1988) declaration that samples larger than 150 typically did not change the degree of generalizability of the sample to the population. Response rate may have been low for several reasons - perhaps the most plausible explanation being the length of the issues and problems survey (although not exorbitantly long, it did take approximately 15 minutes to complete). Further, no response bias was detected from a comparison of early and late respondents. Whipple and Muffo (1982) demonstrated that late respondents are similar to nonrespondents in terms of questionnaire completion. Therefore, we concluded that the number returned would be representative of the entire sample.

Respondents included 207 (81.5%) males and 47 (18.5%) females. Ages ranged from 25 years to 67 years with a mean age of 45.5 years (SD=9.1). The mean duration work experience in the profession was 20.4 years (SD=9.6), with a low of 1 year of experience and a high of 42 years of experience. Forty-five states were represented in the sample with only Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wyoming lacking representation.

Design and Instrumentation. The research design used in this study was ex-post facto with data collected using the survey method. Data were collected using a survey instrument containing statements of present and future issues and present and future problems. The instrument was based on a four round, modified Delphi study conducted with a panel of 25 recognized technology education experts (Wicklein, 1993). The sixty items placed on the instrument included 15 present issues, 15 future issues, 15 present problems, and 15 future problems. A rating system was used to allow respondents to identify the items they considered to be most important. This process gathered facts from a representative pool of practicing technology educators regarding issues and problems already identified as significant to the profession.

Data Analysis. Although all of the issues and problems stated as items on the instrument

had been discussed in the literature, no theoretical basis was available to select the essential constructs from among the sixty items represented by the data. For this reason, exploratory factor analytic procedures were used to identify the desired explanatory concepts.

To extract the initial factors, a principal-components analysis was used. To eliminate error variance that would be included along with common variance and specific variance at this stage, Kaiser's criterion was applied prior to factor rotation, thus retaining only those factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or greater. Factor analysis is a technique for achieving parsimony by identifying the smallest number of descriptive terms to explain the maximum amount of common variance in a correlation matrix (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). Orthogonal rotation using a Varimax procedure was employed in this study to maximize parsimony in the final solution. Extracted factors were examined using a content analysis to find the most concise list of items representative of the data collected.

Findings

The purpose of this study was to identify a concise list of constructs representative of the issues and problems confronting Technology Education today. Using squared multiple correlations as the initial communality estimates, principal-components analysis of the data yielded 15 factors which met the Kaiser's criterion to be retained. To further refine and focus the results, however, orthogonal rotation using a Varimax procedure was used to compute solutions with from 7 to 15 factors. These factor matrices were then examined to determine which was most appropriate to provide a meaningful and concise list of constructs representative of the issues and problems included in the study.

Tables 1 through 8 provide factor loadings, item means, standard deviations, and the actual items which loaded on each factor. Only those items with a factor loading of .30 or greater were retained for each of the factors identified. The .30 level is a generally accepted minimum factor loading because it indicates that approximately 10% of the variance for a correspondent variable has been explained by a factor (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987).

Factor 1. Funding. All four items which loaded on this factor specifically addressed funding concerns for technology education. Loadings on each of the items were consistently high and the data supported this item as a clear concern.

Factor 2. Academic Content. The items which loaded on this factor were related to what should be taught in technology education courses. The change from industrial arts to technology education was mentioned in two of the items and internal problems with determining what academic content should be included were addressed in the other items. The internal focus of this factor was strengthened by the negative loadings for three items related to external concerns including public relations and outside support. A negative loading can help clarify what a factor is by showing what it is not.

Factor 3. Program Vitality. This factor was comprised of items describing reduction in or elimination of technology education programs and the place of technology education within the overall school program. Two negative loading items dealing with methodology indicated that pedagogy was not the concern; rather the concern was with how other influences were negatively impacting programs.

Factor 4. Leadership. Four of the items which loaded on this factor included references to leadership in the field of technology education and two of these four specifically addressed the inadequacy of this leadership. Two additional items with negative loadings on this factor dealt with opportunities for students to enroll in technology education and with expected outcomes of the programs. This factor pointed toward concern over leadership effectiveness within the competitive environment of the curricular program of contemporary schools.

Factor 5. Research Base. The items which loaded on this factor pointed toward concern over research in technology education. One of the items also referred to the impact of the professional association on technology education. This factor conveyed a concern that the research base and research agenda for technology education is insufficient to meet the needs of the profession.

Factor 6. Teacher Supply. All of the items which loaded on this factor communicated apprehension about where future technology teachers would come from. Statements listed under this factor referred to inadequate certification procedures, lack of teacher education opportunities, and a shortage of technology education teachers.

Factor 7. Identity. Concern about both internal and external identity were referred to by the items which loaded on Factor 7. Statements referred to ignorance about technology education within the general population and also to resistance to change among technology education professionals. One item with a negative loading was included and it referred to limited opportunity for students to take technology education courses due to increased graduation requirements.

Factor 8. Integration. The items which loaded on this factor referred to interdisciplinary approaches to technology education and to various ways of approaching the development of technology education curriculum. One negative loading was noted for an item which referred to changes in technology teacher education.

Conclusions

The key issues and problems impacting technology education consist of a combination of factors, some more easily addressed than others. While items such as funding and integration are largely controlled by persons outside the field, academic content, program vitality, leadership, research base, teacher supply, and identity are largely under the control of those within the profession. The factors provided by this study should guide concerned technology educators, collectively and as individuals, by providing a sound basis for strategic planning and advancement of the profession. Just as organizers are helpful in dealing with instructional content, a concise list of focused concerns can direct efforts for a particular cause.

The issues of funding and integration involve entities external to the field of technology education. Based on the findings of this research, technology educators should concentrate on finding ways to influence decisions about funding technology education programs and should work to clarify and advance the benefits of integrated approaches for delivering technological instruction.

Technology education professionals should also give attention to clarification of academic content and identity. A clear perspective of what the content of technology education should be will come from professional support for research. While other aspects of technology education are integral to the needed research base that was also identified as a factor, attention to identifying and validating the academic content of the field should be given a high priority by those who are in a position to provide this service. As content is clarified within the profession, internal questions of identity will be largely alleviated. Once this has happened, issues of identity with external entities can be adequately dealt with through public relations based on a consistent definition of what the profession is about.

Program vitality, teacher supply, and leadership were identified as separate factors, but are all somewhat intertwined. Concerns about program closings among technology education professionals casts a shadow on the viability of preparing for entry into the profession for those who are making career choices. On the other hand, low enrollments in technology teacher education programs have resulted in program closings and reduced opportunities for obtaining appropriate credentials to teach. This cycle creates a black hole which threatens to engulf the profession if strong leadership does not emerge to stimulate a perception of success and opportunity. The concern for leadership, identified as a factor in its own right, is a key item for consideration by anyone seeking to genuinely advance technology education as a component of the educational system.

All persons related to the field of technology education should make a concerted effort to address the concepts identified in this study. These eight factors, based on the collective input of numerous practicing professionals represent the key issues and problems that are facing technology education today and are likely to be relevant to its future progress. They should be incorporated into plans for action at the local, state, and national levels so that efforts are directed toward a research rather than opinion based agenda. By addressing these issues and problems, the leadership of technology education can proactively establish action plans to meet specific challenges, thus strategically marshalling the use of human and physical resources.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, several specific recommendations are offered. The first of these deals with funding, one of the more prominent factors identified in this study. Funding of the educational enterprise can be enhanced by looking toward non-traditional sources of support. Technology educators should vigorously pursue opportunities to form alliances with local industries and businesses. Such cooperation, although taxing in terms of time and commitment, can result in mutual benefit for all involved and can provide significant new sources of funding for technology education programs.

Curriculum development should be directed toward clarifying what academic content is to be included in technology education courses. Standards for curriculum should be established at a national level to provide substantial and consistent guidance to technology education programs at the state and local levels.

Technology educators at all levels should develop heightened awareness of those school functions which influence program vitality. This might include participation on school committees charged with making curriculum recommendations, seeking ways to make programs more visible within the school and community, and maintaining close ties with school guidance personnel as students and parents are provided information about the benefits of various courses available through the school program.

The International Technology Education Association and other professional organizations of technology educators should make renewed efforts to develop and support development of leadership within the profession. Events such as the 1994 Technology Education Leadership Development Program, where 40 select technology education professionals were provided with a week of intensive leadership training, should be continued and expanded.

A healthy and growing body of research must undergird future developments in technology education if sound direction is to be maintained. To provide for this ongoing need, it is essential that senior members of the research community encourage and support the development of junior members of the profession, especially within the university environment. Without the advancement of young research professionals, especially at research institutions where technology education programs exist, technology education research needed to support the profession will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain.

Through the various professional and student organizations, technology education professionals should strategically promote technology teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities. With the present shortages in teacher supply, no major student organization events or activities should transpire without the presence of literature or other forms of information about available teacher education programs. In addition, state and national technology education leaders should purposefully look for opportunities to host various student events on college or university campuses where technology teacher education is available, to encourage student consideration of technology education as a career path. These are just two examples of the kinds of actions that thoughtful technology education professionals should be taking to reduce the shortage of technology education teachers.

Technology educators at all levels should be cognizant of opportunities to communicate the scope and purpose of technology education to other educational professionals as well as to the general public. Only through concerted efforts will the identity of technology education become widely known to parents, students, and community decision makers whose support is critical to the long-term existence of technology education.

While retaining the integrity of technology education as a program area within the curriculum, technology educators should seek to cooperate with other professional educators within the school community to provide opportunities for integrated delivery of academic instruction. Such efforts, undertaken by competent technology educators, can enhance the understanding and respect for technology education as an integral and important element within the educational system.

All of these recommendations extend the meaning of the research based factors provided by this study to actual practice. The intent is to provide a focused list of concerns, based on the collective wisdom of the profession, to guide the efforts of those who are committed to the success of technology education. With the passing of time, additional research will be needed to provide an updated assessment of these concerns, but only through sound, research-based action can a course be charted which will steer the profession toward success.

References

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1988). Survey research methods (rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Householder, D. L. (1992). Redesign of technology teacher education: Model programs for the future. Technical Foundation of America. San Marcos, TX.

International Technology Education Association. (1994). ITEA Strategic Plan: Advancing Technological Literacy, 1994-95. Reston, VA

Israel, E. N. (1992). A need exists to expand the scope of technology education to reflect reality. Technical Foundation of America. San Marcos, TX.

Loepp, F. (1992). The relationship of technology education to mathematics, science, and social studies. Technical Foundation of America. San Marcos, TX.

Ritz, J. M. (1992). Establishing evaluative criteria for technology education programs. Technical Foundation of America. San Marcos, TX.

Tinsley, H. E. A. & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424.

Waetjen, W. B. (1992). Shaping the future of a profession. Technical Foundation of America. San Marcos, TX.

Waetjen, W. B. (1991). A research agenda for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 51(2), 3-4.

Whipple, T. W., & Muffo, J. A. (1982). Adjusting for nonresponse bias: The case of an alumni survey. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Denver, CO.

Wicklein, R. C. (1993). Identifying critical issues and problems in technology education using a modified-delphi technique. Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 54-71

Table 1.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 1: Funding

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.78274 1.66 1.92 Inadequate financial support for Technology Education.

.77238 1.73 1.99 Insufficient funding of Technology Education programs.

.75366 2.01 2.02 Funding of Technology Education.

.74214 2.02 1.97 Adequate funding sources for Technology Education.

Table 2.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 2: Academic Content

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.56702 1.43 1.88 Lack of consensus of curriculum content for Technology Education.

.40754 1.12 1.73 Difficulty of changing from Industrial Arts to Technology Education.

.36832 1.18 1.78 Identity of the knowledge base of Technology Education.

.35981 0.84 1.50 Knowledge base identification for Technology Education.

.33900 0.78 1.45 Non-unified curriculum for Technology Education.

.33757 0.59 1.39 Conversion validity from Industrial Arts to Technology Education.

.32982 0.38 1.04 Deficient knowledge base for Technology Education.

-.37249 1.02 1.59 Poor and/or inadequate public relations for Technology Education.

-.38142 1.43 1.86 Business & industry and political support for Technology Education.

-.49653 1.22 1.83 Inadequate marketing and public relations of Technology Education.

Table 3.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 3: Program Vitality

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.58775 1.29 1.84 Program closings and eliminations in Technology Education.

.53508 1.42 1.79 Elimination of Technology Education programs.

.51075 1.24 1.71 Declining enrollments in Technology Education courses.

.40295 1.35 1.84 Recruitment of students and teachers in Technology Education.

.37632 2.17 2.06 Positioning of Technology Education in the school program.

-.30376 0.80 1.38 Methodology strategies for teaching Technology Education.

-.44995 0.57 1.23 Inadequate methodological training/inservicing for Technology Education.

Table 4.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 4: Leadership

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.62270 0.41 1.12 Inadequate/ineffective leadership within Technology Education.

.62020 0.62 1.29 Leadership (or lack of) within the Technology Education profession.

.58278 0.75 1.40 Leadership directions and training for Technology Education.

.55240 0.30 0.89 Inadequate leadership and leadership training for Technology Education.

-.32247 1.51 1.79 Reduced opportunities for elective Technology Education based on increased high school graduation requirements.

-.34562 1.09 1.62 Defining measurable outcomes for Technology Education students.

Table 5.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 5: Research Base

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.69304 0.20 0.86 Inadequate research base for Technology Education.

.66812 0.32 0.99 Clear research agenda for Technology Education.

.65861 0.21 0.85 Insufficient research base for Technology Education.

.59604 0.20 0.81 Research agenda for Technology Education.

.32481 0.12 0.50 Professional association impact on the Technology Education

Table 6.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 6: Teacher Supply

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.52002 1.13 1.80 Insufficient quantities of Technology Education teachers and the elimination of teacher education programs in Technology Education.

.48386 0.23 0.85 Inappropriate certification procedures for Technology Education.

.45845 0.50 1.28 Shortage of Technology Education teachers.

.35573 0.54 1.28 Redefining the teacher education structure for Technology Education.

.34726 0.56 1.20 Inadequate/inappropriate Technology Education teacher preparation.

.31942 0.25 0.81 Certification options and strategies for Technology Education.

Table 7.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 7: Identity

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.51258 0.23 0.85 General populous ignorance regarding technology and the discipline of Technology Education.

.41914 0.72 1.36 Slow transition and retraining of teachers to Technology Education.

.39518 1.06 1.65 Teachers resistance to changes within Technology Education.

.37179 0.95 1.58 Inadequate involvement of Technology Education personnel in education reform issues.

-.38244 1.66 1.88 High School graduation requirements restrictions on Technology Education.

Table 8.

Variable Loadings and Item Means for Factor 8: Integration

Loading Item Mean SD Item

.68409 1.23 1.61 Interdisciplinary approaches for Technology Education.

.62687 1.28 1.70 Interdisciplinary approaches to teaching Technology Education.

.37109 2.00 1.93 Curriculum development approaches for Technology Education.

.33322 1.42 1.81 Curriculum development paradigms for Technology Education.

-.32443 0.74 1.42 Revisions and developments in teacher education for Technology Education.