The field of technology education has gone through considerable introspection and revision in the past twenty years. During this time technology educators have instituted multiple changes in curriculum, program requirements, and facilities (Volk, 1993). Daugherty and Boser (1993) stated that: "In the past ten years the philosophy, curricula, and methodologies used to guide the discipline may have changed more dramatically than they have in the preceding one hundred years" (p. 31). Waetjen (1989) supported this assertion when he indicated that the last decade has witnessed a startling change in what was once industrial arts and has now evolved into technology education. As the field of technology education continues to evolve, its unique mission to provide relevant and meaningful learning experiences that reinforce academic content and enhance higher-order thinking skills is becoming clearer (Johnson, 1992).
Through various means, thousands of administrators, teachers, and ancillary staff have been exposed to technology education in recent years. However, the field of study (and the profession) is still often referred to and thought of as "shop" (Clark, 1989). Clark further stated that, "This serves to accentuate the scope of the crisis, and the professional reaction (or lack thereof)" (p.7). Herschbach (1992) suggested that there seemed to be little doubt that by the end of the decade the transformation from industrial arts to technology education would be complete. There is less certainty, however, concerning public understanding of what technology education entails. Dugger (1994) submitted that with the evolution of the technology education discipline, many different opinions have developed about what is taught and where it should be taught. Some view technology as a part of science curriculum, while others think that it is more closely allied with engineering. Some schools place technology as a component of vocational education. Others believe that technology should be taught in an integrative manner with mathematics, science, social studies and other subjects.
Some efforts to integrate technology education into the total school environment have met resistance or failed because administrators, teachers, or ancillary staff members (i.e. guidance counselors) did not adequately understand the new role and purpose of technology education (Clark, 1989). Starkweather (1990) presented a holistic perspective of the problem of misperceptions by educational leaders external to the profession. He insisted that this problem was critical to the field regardless of whether common vision and understanding is held by leaders within the profession.
While professionals in technology education have made considerable strides in curriculum and program development, it is not clear whether the impact of this progression has been felt or understood by educational decision makers. A clear understanding of the purposes of technology education by key public school decision makers is essential for the continued development of the field. Oaks (1991) reported that state supervisors of technology education did not perceive local school administrators to be strong advocates of the technology education curriculum. Betts, Yuill, and Bray (1989) pointed out that, "the problem appears to be that those who make decisions affecting our program do not have a positive image of our program" (p.27). Selby (1988) indicated that outmoded ideas and misguided perceptions are the common enemy of all disciplines. Similarly, Dyrenfurth (1987) suggested that while technology education is considered an essential part of a quality education, there are often misinterpretations and stereo-typical misrepresentations associated with the field. In a study conducted by Wright (1991), he identified "a lack of support and understanding by administration" as the primary reason for teachers leaving the field of technology education. This lack of support may be linked to administrators holding the ill-conceived perception that technology education is a non-scholastic subject which does not promote student achievement. Wicklein (1993), in identifying critical issues and problems in technology education reported that "public relations" was identified as a serious concern and problem for the technology education field. He recommended that:
Serious efforts should be established and implemented to communicate the purpose and scope of technology education to decision makers and interested people groups. All levels of technology educators and administrators need to be made aware of this serious issue/problem of public relations, positioning, and support gathering (p. 70).
Pucel (1993) suggested that technology educators must clearly communicate the field's unique contribution to the education of students. Similarly, Daugherty and Boser (1993) suggested that it is time for professionals within the technology education community to realize that there is an image problem and efforts must be made to take responsibility to inform and educate the public.
Educators in the technology education field must be able to address this need for public awareness as it specifically applies to local school decision makers. Through pre-service and in-service courses, teacher educators can provide instruction about methods that classroom teachers can use to establish a positive public perception of technology education. Dugger (1994) called on the membership within the profession to become "educational entrepreneurs" in the advancement of the field of technology education. He described the entrepreneurial tasks as threefold-- "(a) committing to the development of technology education as a basic subject in all schools, (b) promoting the discipline, and (c) seeking others that share similar concerns related to the goals and missions of technology education" (p. 5). Teacher educators are in a particularly advantageous position to aid the empowerment of these goals as they prepare technology teachers to enter the field.
If the field of technology education is to achieve the status of a general education unit for all students in American schools the key will lie in aiding the decision makers in local schools to understand and appreciate the genuine contributions of technology education. Herschbach (1992) stated that: "Technology education has the potential to become an intellectual discipline and can claim to be more relevant than many of the older subjects" (p.14).
Administrators and guidance counselors are primarily responsible for enrollment patterns in secondary technology education programs. Therefore, it is imperative that the field identify the perceptions held by these decision makers and take action to influence the accuracy of these perceptions. Stereotypes and misperceptions of technology education must be dispelled at the grassroots level to achieve the goals of the profession.
Purpose
The purpose of this research was to examine whether there was agreement about selected characteristics of the technology education field among technology education professionals, school principals, and school counselors. Should differences be found, further analysis was planned to identify the nature of that disagreement. The efforts to integrate technology education into the secondary general education curriculum cannot be effectively implemented until there is clear understanding of the purpose of technology education by all members of the educational community.
Based on the purpose of this study, the following research questions were developed for investigation:
1. Is there a significant difference between technology teacher, principal, and counselor responses as measured by the Characteristics of Technology Education Survey (CTES).
2. Identify and interpret underlying structures of the CTES subscales. These subscales are were identified as curriculum content, instructional methodology, integration of subject matter, and environmental fit within the whole school curricula.
Methods
Participants
In selecting the sample for this study, two primary groups were identified, (1) exemplary technology education teachers and (2) the principals and counselors of the schools where the exemplary teachers taught technology education. Exemplary teachers of technology education were selected to establish base-line data regarding the perceived status of the technology education field. Although generalizability of the research results are limited with such a design, it was determined that by evaluating the best-case scenarios, the apex of general understanding achieved within the educational community could be determined. In addition to the exemplary technology teachers, principals and counselors of the schools where the teachers taught technology education were selected to compare perspectives of technology education. The principals and school counselors were considered key decision makers within the school and had significant impact on the success or failure of the technology education program. The principal had authority to support or refuse support to any instructional program within his/her school and the counselor was a significant force in determining which students would be enrolled in the technology education program. Individuals in both of these positions were viewed as playing important roles in the development of any technology education program and were viewed as key sources of information for purposes of this investigation.
The exemplary technology teachers identified in this study were selected through two national surveys targeted at state supervisors/specialists of technology education and university professors of technology education. By the use of a mailed questionnaire, representatives from all 50 states were surveyed. These representatives consisted of 70 university professors of technology education as well as 48 state supervisors/specialists of technology education from State Departments of Education. The criteria used to select the exemplary technology teachers were based on the following teacher qualifications:
1. Currently teaching in a high quality well developed technology education program.
2. Minimum of 3 years teaching experience as a classroom teacher of technology education.
3. Creative developer of technology education curriculum materials.
4. Uses instructional methodologies that go beyond lecture and demonstration.
5. Perceived by peer technology teachers as a leader in technology education within their state.
6. Perceived by peer teachers within their school as innovative and a positive force.
A total of 210 exemplary technology teachers were identified through these surveys. Slightly more than one-half of these teachers (56%) were identified by teacher educators with the remaining exemplary teachers designated by supervisors of technology education (44%). The principals and school counselors portion of the sample was drawn from the same schools as the identified exemplary technology teachers. Therefore, 630 educators were selected to participate in this evaluation of technology education.
A total of 353 usable questionnaires were returned and included in the final research sample. In terms of professional affiliation, 42.2% of the respondents were identified as technology teachers (n=149), 29.7% were classified as principals (n=105), and the remaining 28.0% were designated as school counselors (n=99). The age distribution of the sample was predominately weighted with educators in the 41-50 age group (48.2%). The sample represented a very experienced group of professional educators with 37.4% indicating over 15 years of experience at their present school (n=132) and 68.6% of the respondents reporting over 15 years of experience in professional education (n=242). The sample was well educated with over three-fourths of all respondents (84.4%, n=298) holding graduate-level (master's or doctoral) degrees.
Instrumentation
Individuals selected for participation in this study were mailed the Characteristics of Technology Education Survey (CTES), a two-page (45 item) questionnaire designed to determine their perceptions of the characteristics of the technology education field of study. The self-report questionnaire was divided into five sections. The first section asked for demographic information including age, years of employment at the present school, years of experience, highest degree attained, and educational affiliation (e.g., technology teacher, principal, counselor). Information about educational affiliation was necessary to form the basis for a comparative analysis of the respondents' perceptions. The other information was used to provide descriptive statistics on the sample.
The remaining four sections of the survey represented the following subscales: (a) curriculum content characteristics, (b) methodological characteristics, (c) integration characteristics, and (d) environmental fit characteristics. These interrelated categories were based on a review of the literature and the content model for the study of technology as described in, A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education (Savage & Sterry, 1990). The curriculum content subscale sought to determine understandings of course content for technology education, while the methodological characteristics subscale was utilized to identify perceptions of the pedagogical methodologies used in teaching technology education. The third measure was used to distinguish perceptions of how subject matter integration occurred within the technology education curriculum (primarily mathematics, and science), and the fourth subscale represented the perceptions of the relationship of technology education with the total school environment.
The three groups of participants responded to identical statements on the CTES concerning the characteristics of technology education. The responses were made by marking each statement according to a five point Likert scale. Participant agreement or disagreement with each statement was coded on the Likert scale as follows: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), No Opinion (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5).
Pilot testing of the instrument was conducted to refine individual instrument items and to insure an accurate interpretation of the instrument instructions. Pilot test data was collected during a professional association workshop where the researchers had access to a group of practicing professional educators in teaching as well as in supervisory positions. A total of 14 respondents participated in the pilot test. Participants completed the instrument and provided written feedback regarding the clarity and validity of the instrument. Based on these evaluations two minor changes were made to instrument items and one specific clarification was made on the attached cover letter. The Cronbach Coefficient Alpha test was used to establish reliability and internal consistency for the questionnaire and resulted in a reliability index of .90 for the pilot study.
Design and Procedure
A total of 630 educators were selected as a sampling frame for this study; 210 exemplary technology teachers, 210 principals, and 210 school counselors. Each member of the sample was mailed a one-page cover letter, a questionnaire, and a pre-addressed postage paid envelope during the Fall of 1993. 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 and then data collection ceased. This procedure resulted in a total of 371 questionnaires being returned for a response rate of 58.8%. Of the returned surveys, 18 were judged incomplete and unusable and were excluded from further analysis. Therefore, the remaining 353 questionnaires comprised the total usable data (56%). 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 total number of questionnaires returned would be representative of the entire sample. The reliability index of the instrument based on the collected data as measured by the Cronbach Coefficient Alpha test was .94.
Results
An examination of the responses on the CTES revealed general agreement for individual items between each group of educators across the four subscales (curriculum content, methodology, integration, and environmental fit). Table 1 provides a details of educator group responses to specific items on the instrument. The mean group score ranking of each statement was based on the following breakdown of the Likert scale: 1.000 to 1.499 - Strongly Disagree; 1.500 to 2.499 - Disagree; 2.500 to 3.499 - No Opinion/Neutral; 3.500 to 4.499 - Agree; and 4.500 to 5.000 - Strongly Agree. Although responses on the Likert scale appeared to be generally positive, further analysis was required to determine whether differences differed in any significant way.
________________________________
Place Table 1 About Here
________________________________
When instrument responses were grouped by CTES subscale, mean responses from the technology teacher group were higher than those of the principals and counselors on all outcome variables. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics for subscale responses by exemplary technology teachers, principals, and school counselors.
________________________________
Place Table 2 About Here
_______________________________
To answer the first research question and to determine whether mean responses for CTES subscales for the technology teachers, principals, and school guidance counselor groups differed significantly, a multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used. MANOVA is an inferential statistical procedure used to test simultaneously differences among groups on multiple outcome variables while controlling for Type I error (Haase & Ellis, 1987; Pedhauzer, 1982). An a priori alpha level of .05 was set for the Wilks' Lambda computed by the MANOVA used at this point in the study.
The omnibus test provided by the Wilks' Lambda with 8 and 694 degrees of freedom indicated that the multivariate F-value for group comparison on characteristics of technology education was 3.1255 (see Table 3). This value was significant at the .05 level so the first research question was answered in the affirmative and further analysis was conducted to determine the contribution of the outcome variables to the omnibus effects of the independent variable.
Place Table 3 About Here
A post hoc descriptive discriminant analysis (DDA) was used as a follow-up on significant MANOVA results (Huberty & Wisenbaker, 1991). When used as a follow-up to a MANOVA, DDA affords three procedural benefits. The DDA is useful to examine the nature of the significant differences, it controls for experiment-wise error common to analyses where multiple dependent variables are used, and it is useful where there are high interscale correlations (Bray & Maxwell, 1982; Chartrand & Camp, 1991; Haase & Ellis, 1987).
Use of the DDA afforded an examination of the outcome variables that represented the underlying structure of each subscale. Additionally, when overall group differences are considered, the relative contribution of the outcome variables to the group separation could be observed (Huberty & Wisenbaker, 1991). Using the DDA, all instrument subscales were considered simultaneously, allowing the full range of variable relationships to be examined. This resulted in a thorough accounting of the complexity of the technology education characteristics being measured by the CTES subscales. Table 4 presents the statistical results of these analyses.
Insert Table 4 about here.
A plot of the group centroids along the canonical variables suggested that technology teachers were differentiated from principals and guidance counselors. The general approach used in this study to determine the importance of each of the outcome variables as a contributor to the group differences was to examine the impact of removing a variable on the overall results. If deleting a variable had little impact, it was concluded that the variable was relatively unimportant. If the converse was true when a variable was deleted, that variable was determined to be of greater importance to the outcome (Huberty & Barton, 1989). Using this procedure, the rank ordering of outcome variables placed curriculum content characteristics first and then integration of academics, perception of technology education, and teaching methodology. For the purpose of identifying overall group differences, an examination of the F-to-remove values (see Table 4) indicated that curriculum content in technology education was primarily responsible for the separation of technology teacher perceptions from those held by the principals and counselors.
Discussion
At this juncture, it is appropriate that the reader be apprised of the inherent limitations of this research. Specifically, the use of self-reporting measures and the absence of random selection restrict the degree to which these results can be generalized. Further, Huberty and Wisenbaker (1991), caution against over-generalizing beyond the data when ordering overall group differences using DDA. When thought of as an initial investigation, however, these results do provide interesting insight into the perceptions of decision makers regarding technology education. Further, this study does establish a base of information while providing a direction for further research.
The examination of data in this study revealed overall differences between exemplary technology teachers and the principals and counselors of the schools where the exemplary teachers taught technology education. Technology teachers differed significantly in their perceptions of the curriculum content in technology education. Additionally, the need for integration of academics, environmental fit, and teaching methodology used in technology education, while not statistically significant at the a priori level, were ranked with respect to their contribution to the group differences observed. The remainder of this section examines these differences.
Curriculum Content Characteristics
Differences in conceptions of curriculum content between the technology teachers and the principals and counselors might be an expected conclusion. The classroom teachers of technology education were more knowledgeable about their curriculum than other educators, so the difference in perceptions about curriculum content was due in part to the greater awareness of curriculum issues in technology education by the teachers and lesser awareness by the associated staff. Another likely factor being identified here is more problematic--that the new focus of technology education curriculum has not been fully recognized by those outside the field.
To the extent that school professionals who are instrumental to the vitality of technology education programs do not fully understand what these programs do, support for student enrollment and program expansion may be limited. Bear in mind that the technology teachers under examination in this study were distinguished as being exemplary in their field. The programs these teachers were responsible for had often generated publicity and attracted public attention or they would not have been selected. Even so, additional work was needed to promote awareness of curriculum content.
Methodological Characteristics
The observations concerning methodological characteristics yielded by this study were similar to those in the curriculum characteristics section. The classroom teachers of technology education held a higher perception of the instructional methodologies used to teach technology education. Conclusions that may be drawn from these results are similar in nature to those inferred from the curriculum content characteristics. One perspective is that methodological characteristics used in technology education classes are more accurately perceived by the actual instructors conducting the teaching, while a less than precise perspective of the instructional methodologies were held by the associated staff. However, another applicable conclusion for this result may be that associated principals and counselors perceived the instructional methods used in technology education programs to be inconsistent with traditional methods of instruction.
The instructional approaches being implemented in technology education programs could appear somewhat unconventional to the uninformed. Events such as taking a group of students to an open second floor window to allow them to drop an egg package onto a concrete surface below may appear to be out-of-sync with the back-to-basics movement some are demanding. In addition, the modular technology curriculum with self contained learning activities, has required a unique change in instructional methodologies. It is important for technology teachers to make every effort to communicate the goals and learning objectives being fulfilled through methodological approaches which might be misunderstood from outside observation.
Integration Characteristics
The integration of subject specific instructional topics with technology education has been gaining support in recent years (Bottoms, Presson, & Johnson, 1992; LaPorte & Sanders, 1993; Roy, 1990; Schell & Wicklein, 1993; Senge, 1990: Wicklein & Schell, 1993). The CTES used in this study included a measure related to the need for integrating technology education with other school subjects. Again the classroom teachers of technology education perceived this need at a higher level than did the associated principals and school counselors. A part of this might have been the newness of this concept, however, these results may also be indicative of misgivings on behalf of the associated staff regarding the ability of technology teachers to support or adequately integrate academic subject matter.
In order to implement integration of subject matter at meaningful levels, school decision makers must be convinced that this approach to learning is valuable and that the technology education program can provide appropriate levels of instruction in these areas. In some instances, refusing to allow credit for certain graduation requirements can essentially block more significant efforts at integration represented by courses such as applied physics. Support by associated principals and guidance counselors is an essential element for many of the more extensive integration efforts.
Findings of this study were generally consistent with prior research involving associated educators perceptions of technology education characteristics (Daugherty & Wicklein, 1993). The overall results indicated that viewpoints differ across the school environment about what technology education is and how it is taught. However, we must not assume that statistical significance is the same as practical significance. When we examine the analysis with an eye for realism we see that although there was a mathematical significant difference the overall differences were small and the perceptions among the educator groups indicated a rather high evaluation of the various characteristic topics of technology education. With this in mind, the professionals in the field of technology education should be encouraged by the evidence that differences in perception are not polarized. Nevertheless, continued efforts to better communicate the nature of technology education content (curriculum), how it is delivering that content (methodology), and how technology education fits within the general education curriculum (integration) must be a priority for the field. By identifying the currently held perceptions of administrators and guidance counselors, technology education teachers, supervisors, teacher educators, and association representatives have been provided with an initiation point from which to take concerted action toward positioning technology education as an essential educational building block for all students participating in the public school curriculum.
References
Betts, R., Yuill, R. & Bray, R. (1989). Building a positive image. The Technology Teacher., 48(4), 27-30.
Bray, J.H., & Maxwell, S.E. (1982) Analyzing and interpreting significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational Research, 52, 340-367.
Bottoms, G., Presson, A., & Johnson, M. (1992). Making high schools work. Atlanta, GA.: Southern Regional Education Board.
Chartrand, J. M. & Camp, C.C. (1991). Advances in the measurement of career development constructs: A 20-year review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 1-39.
Clark, S. (1989). The industrial arts paradigm: Adjustment, replacement or extinction? Journal of Technology Education., 1(1), 7-21.
Daugherty, M. & Boser, R. (1993). The recruitment imperative: Replacement or displacement. The Technology Teacher., 52(7), 31-32.
Daugherty, M. & Wicklein, R. (1993). Mathematics, science, and technology teachers' perceptions of technology education. Journal of Technology Education., 4(2), 31-46.
Dugger, W. (1994). The relationship between technology, science, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology Teacher., 53(7), 5-8.
Dyrenfurth, M. (1987, November). Technological literacy: More than computer literacy. Paper presented at the National School Board's Association Conference, Dallas, TX.
Haase, R.F., & Ellis, M.V. (1987). Multivariate analysis of variance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 404-413.
Herschbach, D. (1992). Curriculum change in technology education differing theoretical perspectives. Journal of Technology Education., 3(2), 4-16.
Huberty, C.J., & Barton, R.M. (1989). Methods, plainly speaking: An introduction to discriminant analysis. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development., 22, 158-168.
Huberty, C.J., & Wisenbaker, J.M. (1991). Discriminant analysis Potential improvements in typical practice (pp. 169-208). Advances in Social Science Methodology (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
LaPorte, J. & Sanders, M. (1993). The T/S/M integration project. The Technology Teacher., 52(6), 7-22.
Oaks, M. (1991). A progress report on the transition from industrial arts to technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education., 28(2), 61-72.
Pedhauzer, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Pucel, D. (1993). The role that technology education must play. The Journal of Technology Studies., 24(2), 41-49.
Roy, R. (1990). The relationship of technology to science and the teaching of technology. Journal of Technology Education., 1(2), 5-18.
Savage, E. & Sterry, L. (1991). A conceptual framework for technology education. International Technology Education Association. Reston, VA.
Schell, J. & Wicklein, R. (1993). Integrated programs in mathematics, science, and technology education: An exploratory study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Selby, C. (1988). Integrated mathematics, science and technology education. The Technology Teacher., 47(5), 3-5.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York. Doubleday/Currency.
Starkweather, K. (1990). Who cares: The role of teachers in shaping the future of education. The Technology Teacher., 50(1), 3.
Stone, R. (1989). Technology education in the 21st century: A challenge. Proceedings of the Technology Education Symposium XI., 40-44.
Volk, K.S.(1993). Enrollment trends in industrial arts/technology teacher education from 1970-1990. Journal of Technology Education, 4(1), 46-59.
Waetjen, W. (1989). Technological problem solving. International Technology Education Association. Reston, VA.
Whipple, T. & Muffo, J. (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. & Schell, J. (1993). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, science, and technology education. Submitted for publication.
Wicklein, R. (1993). Developing goals and objectives for a process-based technology education curriculum. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education., 30(3), 7-21.
Wright, M. (1991). Retaining teachers in technology education: Probable causes, possible solutions. Journal of Technology Education., 3(1), 55-69.