Recent efforts by classroom teachers within the technology education field to change, update, and develop their curriculum has been difficult to achieve. Even the most creative teacher finds the curriculum development process to be tedious, time consuming, and to a degree, somewhat beyond their expertise. McCabe and Litowitz (1990) indicated that one of the major obstacles hindering the continued growth of technology education is the lack of a curriculum development aptitude by secondary level teachers to create and implement curricular change.
This study was conducted to address the need for developing a relevant curricular approach for secondary level technology education teachers that would best serve students in accomplishing their educational program goals. It is the belief of this author that process-based curriculum design is apropos for the current goals and directions of the technology education field of study. Therefore, the development of a curriculum framework that would allow for the flexibility of a process-based design for secondary level technology education was the goal of this developmental research.
Recent efforts by classroom teachers within the technology education field to change, update, and develop their curriculum have been difficult to achieve. Even the most creative teacher finds the curriculum development process to be demanding, time consuming, and, to a degree, somewhat beyond their expertise. McCabe and Litowitz (1990) indicated that one of the major obstacles hindering the continued growth of technology education is the lack of a curriculum development aptitude by secondary level teachers to create and implement curricular change.
In spite of this problem, significant movement has occurred. By in large, teachers of technology education are no longer asking "why" they need to change or update their curriculum. Rather, they are asking "how" they can revise their curriculum to insure that current and appropriate instructional goals are being delivered to their students. Zuga (1989) stressed this concern for curriculum design capabilities by calling for training in curriculum design that can be operationalized into a user friendly set of curriculum framework organizers.
Many of the existing curriculum development efforts within technology education continue to use planning models based on technical applications and behaviorism that have been standards for vocational education and industrial arts since the early 1900's (Herschbach, 1989; Hutchinson & Hutchinson, 1991; Todd, 1990; Zuga; 1989, Zuga, 1987). If classroom teachers of technology education are to create curriculum for their school environments that is compatible with the overall goals that have been established for technology education they must know and use curriculum planning processes that are consistent with these goals (Zuga, 1989). This study was designed to research and create an operational curriculum framework from which classroom teachers of technology education could develop, revise, or evaluate their own curriculum.
Background of the Study
Curriculum design and planning for technology education has its historical roots in vocational education. Zuga (1989) reports that the technical curriculum design plan continues to be the most widely used curriculum design approach employed within technology education. This approach accentuates the development of specific technical skills which are foundational to vocational education. Similarly, Todd (1990) states that the field of technology education/industrial arts has historically been much more interested in the technical content aspect of the curriculum (e.g., elements, structures, functions, systems of technology) and has neglected the process aspect of technology. Process, according to Todd (1990, p.3) relates to thinking, applying, synthesizing, and to the transferring of knowledge (e.g., design problem solving, research & development, exploring, developing, improving, optimizing assessing and controlling technology). Therefore, the curriculum for the processed based technology education will be significantly different from the technical content based curriculum for technology education.
This shift in approach and emphasis is reflected in the current mission and goals of the profession. Historical developments within the field have generally and gradually shifted from an emphasis on technical skill development to a focus on a process based approach. The Industrial Arts Curriculum Project of the 1960's and 70's was an early reformer in this movement followed by the development of the Jackson's Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory in the early 1980's.
As the goals of the profession have changed over the past years, curriculum designs should also change to accommodate and meet new emphases for the field. Savage and Sterry, (1991) presented a model for technology education that reflects
these changes in the technology education field and incorporated a process-based curricular approach that addressed the technological literacy issue. The technology education curriculum incorporating this process-based model would:
1. Utilize technology to solve problems or meet opportunities to satisfy human needs and wants.
2. Recognize problems and opportunities that relate to and often can be addressed by technology.
3. Identify, select, and use resources to create technology for human purposes.
4. Identify, select, and efficiently use appropriate technological knowledge, resources, and processes to satisfy human wants and needs.
5. Evaluate technological ventures according to their positive and negative, planned and unplanned, and immediate and delayed consequences.
(Savage & Sterry, 1991)
Clearly, the trend within the field of technology education has been toward a broader conceptual and process-based approach to the study of technology (e.g., Jackson's Mill Curriculum Theory, 1981). These changes are essential if the field of technology education is to address societal and technological literacy needs.
Several authors have argued for the application of processed-based curriculum in technology education. Todd (1990) is a strong advocate of incorporating process based curricular components into technology education. The belief that a process based curriculum aids students to learn and transfer concepts is of critical importance to the overall mission of technology education and is fitting with the current goals of the technology education field (Todd, 1990). Likewise, Hutchinson & Hutchinson (1991) are advocates of "Processed-Based Technology Education" (p. 3). Process-based technology education, according to Hutchinson & Hutchinson (1991), is designed to help students develop abilities in identifying and solving technological problems. Furthermore, the goal is to enable them to transfer their knowledge and ability into a vast array of other issues, topics and applications. The essence of technology education that applies the process-basis to curriculum development is, that by nature, technology is the designing/altering of tools/mechanisms to accomplish a task or solve a problem. Therefore, technology education instruction and evaluation should be based on the processes which students use to identify and solve problems (Hutchinson & Hutchinson, 1991).
Herschbach (1989) points to inconsistences within the curriculum plans of technology education. According to his analysis, curriculum designs that are being employed within the technology education field continue to be dominated by the separate subjects and competency patterns of curriculum development. This is attributed to the domination of the historically close alliance between industrial arts and vocational education. The proponents of technology education tend to represent a social-functions and process-based rationale for curriculum, yet the selection and organization of subject and instructional matter is done within the separate-subjects and competency based framework of curriculum development. Herschbach suggested that the "process pattern" for curriculum development was a plausible approach to addressing the current goals of technology education thus, being more consistent with the overall mission of technology education. This perspective of the process curricular design pattern is based on general process skills (e.g., ability to observe, to classify, to interpret data, identifying skills that have approximate applications to real-life situations). In Herschbach's view, the process approach would provide for appropriate instructional strategies for technology education. This approach to curriculum development aligns with the viewpoints of Hutchinson & Hutchinson (1991), Todd (1990) and Zuga (1989).
Purpose of the Study
This study was conducted to address the need for developing a relevant curricular framework from which secondary level technology education teachers could develop, revise, or evaluate their technology education curriculum. The process based curriculum design is apropos for the current and future goals and directions of the technology education profession. It provides a flexible structure within which teachers can take many approaches with numerous types of activities. Therefore, the development of a curriculum framework that would allow for the flexibility of a process-based design for secondary level technology education was the goal of this developmental research.
Methodology
There has been a long history of developing a conceptual structure/framework for technology education, beginning with William Warner's "An Industrial Arts Curriculum To Reflect Technology At All School Levels" (1947) and culminating more recently with Savage and Sterry's "A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education" (1991). The majority of this curricular work has taken place within the confines of university departments and programs. The need exists to pursue an alternate, if somewhat parallel path; namely, to probe the expertise of exemplary practitioners. To that end, this research sought to evolve a comprehensive framework for curriculum development from exemplary classroom teachers to provide the fundamental components for a process-based technology education curriculum. By using this strategy, a comparison of the works of Savage and Sterry (1991) could be evaluated based on the results of this curriculum development effort. This type of comparative procedure is absolutely essential in order to assess and promote the degree of convergence between practitioners and theoreticians. Additionally, input from unique and various perspectives cannot help but yield a more robust and conceptually complete structure for the profession.
To accomplish this task, the curriculum development process needed to include critical goals and objectives for technology education yet not regulate specific criteria that were to be used to accomplish these goals and objectives. By approaching the curriculum development process in this way, central themes for technology education could be developed without restricting the creativity of individual teachers. The DACUM (Developing A Curriculum) procedure was selected to create the initial curriculum framework. The DACUM procedure provides curriculum planners with a developmental strategy that prepares a defined inventory of essential components for a given curriculum. Historically, the DACUM curriculum development process has been used in vocational curriculum planning where an accurate analysis of job related skills was essential in establishing the curriculum. In this study, the DACUM method provides a methodology for identifying essential curriculum components for a process-based secondary level technology education curriculum. With slight modifications, the DACUM procedure can also be used to identify and validate the broader framework within which specific components reside. The DACUM operates on three basic premises, they are:
1. Expert workers are better able to describe/define their jobs than anyone else.
2. Any job can be effectively described in terms of the duties and tasks that successful workers in that occupation perform.
3. Workers need specific attitudes and knowledge in order to perform each duty and task correctly.
(Norton, 1987, p. 15)
The job in this case was what the teacher of technology should be able to do with relation to process-based learning in technology education. In this case, expert secondary level teachers of technology education who were currently implementing process-based concepts in their programs were designated as the expert workers. However, implementation ability clearly does not translate into a willingness or ability to reflect on the process. The modified DACUM method was designed to encourage and extract their best thinking about their teaching, including specific components of their curriculum. Specific attitudes and knowledge were defined as what the teacher should know in relation to process-based learning in technology education.
Again, it is important to emphasize that the DACUM process was extended beyond developing specific competencies as is normally done in vocational education. It was modified for use in developing a frame or skeleton curriculum within which technology teachers can create a personalized curriculum for their programs while maintaining a central theme of process-based technology education. It was believed that these modifications to the DACUM procedure could result in the development of a model curriculum framework which could be highly usable for secondary level technology education teachers.
Subjects
The DACUM procedure calls for the identification of 8-12 experts (in this case exemplary teachers of technology education that currently use a process based curriculum) to be used in the curriculum development process (Norton, 1987). This was accomplished through a two phase approach that sought input from state supervisors of technology education and university professors of technology education. State supervisors and university professors representatives were solicited from all states to provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of secondary level teachers of technology education that met or exceeded the following qualifying criteria:
1. Currently teaching in a high quality secondary level technology education program
2. Minimum of three years teaching experience as a secondary level classroom teacher of technology education
3. Prior experience in developing process-based curriculum for technology education at the secondary level
4. Creative and innovative thinkers in technology education
5. Technically competent in their assigned teaching area
6. Active participants in state and national professional associations
Phase one (1) of the two phase identification process began with a national solicitation of technology education state supervisors (or related title) to determine the teachers they would recommend for this curriculum development activity. Each of the 50 state supervisors were sent a cover letter explaining the process along with an attached reference form. Upon completion of the initial mailing and follow-up letter, 31 (62%) of the reference forms were returned yielding 92 possible candidates for the DACUM curriculum development team.
Phase two (2) of the identification process consisted of a similar solicitation to university professors of technology education. One department head or equivalent from each state was identified based on listings in the Industrial Teacher Directory. Their university programs were chosen to be surveyed because they had the highest number of technology education graduates within their state. The same cover letter was sent to the university professors explaining the process along with the reference form. Each state was solicited; states with larger populations receiving more than one instrument. A total of 66 university professors were selected as representatives from their state to identify exemplary secondary level technology education teachers.
Upon completion of the initial and follow-up letter, 39 (59%) of the survey forms were returned yielding 112 possible candidates. By combining the candidates of the state supervisors and the university professors, 204 potential candidates were identified, of these 17 were indicated more than once. The author interviewed each of these potential candidates via telephone conversations seeking to gain additional information regarding their understanding and use of process-based curriculum. Based on the combined analysis of the two surveys and the telephone interviews, 11 of these individuals were selected to represent their region of the country on the DACUM team.
Procedures
Following the selection of the DACUM panel members, arrangements were made to conduct the DACUM meeting. With the guidance of a facilitator the DACUM panel began by identifying the fundamental duties or criteria that should make up a process-based curriculum framework for secondary level technology education. These major criteria were developed through extensive discussions and analysis within the panel. Two (2) major factors were considered in this curriculum development: (1) What teachers need to include within their instructional programs in order to accomplish a process-based curriculum; and (2) What students need to learn within their instructional program of a process- based curriculum. Some of these concepts were determined to be the same for teachers and students, while other concepts were specific for the teacher or the student.
Upon reaching consensus on the fundamental duties of the process-based curriculum, the DACUM panel was asked to identify the specific tasks or objectives that would serve in accomplishing each of the fundamental duties needed to operationalize the process-based curriculum; that is, the tasks would serve as objectives designed to accomplish the overall goals (duties). The DACUM team was encouraged to use a variety of small group techniques (e,g., discussion, dialogue, interaction) to arrive at a consensus of what each of these tasks should be.
After all duties and tasks were identified, the final responsibility of the DACUM team was to prioritize tasks within each duty and to prioritize the duties within the overall curriculum. This was based on the perceived importance of each curricular component within the overall curriculum of secondary level process-based technology education.
Data Analysis
Following the curriculum development session a verification process was initiated to determine the validity of the established curriculum framework. Fifty (50) representatives, one from each state, were selected from the 193 exemplary teachers remaining from the initial survey. Using a stratified random sampling method. A validation form was sent to each of the representatives along with a cover letter explaining the validation process. A follow-up letter was sent to non-responders culminating with a total of 43 (86%) returned and usable validation forms. The verification form sought input from the evaluators as to their perceptions of the importance of each of the items on the curriculum framework for secondary level process-based technology education (see Table 1 for a complete listing of duties and tasks) . Evaluators responses were to be coded on a likert scale by indicating:
3 Essential for the curriculum
2 Important for the curriculum
1 Not Important for the curriculum
0 Have No Opinion
Findings
The primary goal of this curriculum development research was to create a framework within which classroom teachers of technology education could develop a process-based curriculum. The goal was to develop a framework which could serve as a useful structure within which specific and unique curriculum development could occur by individuals instructors. The 11 member DACUM (Developing A Curriculum) team was asked to consider two major concepts as they formulated the curriculum framework, these were: (1) What teachers need to include within their instructional programs in order to accomplish a process-based curriculum; and (2) What students need to learn within their instructional program of a process-based curriculum. The primary organizing categories of the curriculum, termed duties, are highlighted in bold text and are designated with an alphabetical letter. They represent the principal goals (structural components of the framework) that the teachers and/or students would attempt to achieve within a technology education program. Following each of the duties is a list of tasks. The tasks are the operational indicators that would be used to achieve the primary duty items. The tasks range in length and scope depending on the complexity of the duty statement. The duty and task statements have been prioritized representing their perceived level of importance within the technology education curriculum. Table 1 represents the identified framework items from this formative effort.
The results of the validation process yielded a high degree of agreement with the identified curriculum framework items (see Table 2). Mean scores and standard
deviations were computed for each of the curriculum framework items (see Table 2). The results of the validation process indicate that there was a high degree of agreement among the verification evaluators with seven (7) of the nine (9) major duty statements scoring in the 2.501 to 3.000 range (Essential for the Curriculum) while the remaining two duty statements scored in the 2.001 to 2.500 range (Importance for the Curriculum). Task statements received 25 evaluations within the 2.501 to 3.000 range, 22 evaluations within the 2.001 to 2.500 range and two (2) within the 1.501 to 2.000 range. Standard deviation scores ranged from .2544 on the low end to .7257 on the high end of variations from the mean for all items on the verification form. The low standard deviation scores indicate a broad range agreement regarding the identified goals (duties) and objectives (tasks) for the curriculum framework.
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of this research effort have yielded valuable information and material for future curricular efforts in technology education. Teachers of technology education will have a specific frame within which to develop their curriculum. This curriculum model can be used by teachers of technology education to create and structure their own unique approach to curriculum development. In using this approach, teachers can have confidence in creating an original curriculum that meshes well with their specific school environment and have assurances that the curriculum they are developing is in-line with the current directions and issues found within the technology education field of study. In addition, teachers and administrators/supervisors can use the curriculum framework as an evaluation outline with which to judge the progress of their faculty in producing a process-based curriculum for technology education. In a similar fashion, teachers can use the curriculum framework as an evaluation profile to measure expected student outcomes.
It is also important to note the similarities between the developments in this curriculum effort and some of the more recent conceptual efforts for technology education, specifically, "A Conceptual Framework For Technology Education" (Savage and Sterry, 1991). Several of the methodological and content characteristics are shared between these developmental works (e.g., Emphasis should be placed on problem solving as a delivery method; Emphasis should be placed on cross disciplines, intertechnology activities; Developing student skills, creative abilities, positive self concepts, and individual potentials in technology; Preparing students for lifelong learning in a technological society, etc.). The culmination of the long developmental years of effort and transition has led to a convergence of thrusts among teacher educators, classroom practitioners and theoreticians. Classroom teachers are arriving at the same conceptual conclusions as are the university level thinkers. These change efforts are having impacts in university programs as well as in local schools. Plainly stated, results of this study which focused on perceptions and thinking of secondary level teachers, appears to correspond closely to the conceptual work which has been occurring in the universities.
Goodlad (1966) stated that a quality curriculum plan should be more than "merely an arrangement of topics in an ascending order of difficulty believed to be inherent in the subject" (p. 91). He further stated that "what is taught in the laboratory and classroom should be the result of decisions previously made instead of just letting learning happen by chance" (p. 91). The results of this research represent much more than "an arrangement of topics in ascending order of difficulty". The use of the curriculum framework for technology education provides the technology teacher with a base set of guides within which to develop his/her own personal approach to process-based curriculum within their school conditions. It has been found that curriculum guides that take a step-by-step approach to daily/weekly/monthly planning tend to be short lived in usefulness and reduce the creativity and flexibility of the professional teacher (i.e., World of Construction, World of Manufacturing, Oswego Movement).
The rapid pace of technological change and emerging research thrusts in technology education demand approaches capable of capturing, framing, and organizing the goals and key elements of the curriculum while providing for maximum flexibility for individual teachers. The curriculum framework approach operates on the assumption that a good teacher can place their own unique and specific curriculum content around the frame. In the absence of a solid conceptual structure, there is a serious risk of technology education classes slipping into an incoherent series of activities selected primarily on the basis of student (or teacher) appeal. This process-based framework provides a solid structure while, at the same time, allowing for creativity, flexibility, and individuality in the development of technology education curricula for the future.
References
Goodlad, J.I. (1966). The development of a conceptual system for dealing with problems of curriculum and instruction. (U.S.O.E. Project No. 454). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Institute for Development of Education Activities.
Herschbach, D.R. (1989). Conceptualizing curriculum change. The Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 15(1), 19-28.
Hutchinson J., & Hutchinson, P. (1991). Process-based technology education. The Technology Teacher, 50(8), 3-7.
McCabe J., & Litowitz, L. (1990). Technology education demands a balanced curriculum. The Technology Teacher, 49(8), 6-8.
Norton, R. (1987). A tool for developing curricula. Vocational Education Journal, 62(3), 5.
Todd, R.D., (1990). The teaching and learning environment. The Technology Teacher, 50(3), 3-7.
Savage, E. & Sterry L. (1991). A conceptual framework for technology education, (Research Report from the International Technology Education Association). Reston, VA. Author.
Snyder, J.F. and Hales, J.F. (Eds.). (1981). Jackson's Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education.
Warner, W.E., (1947). An industrial arts curriculum to reflect technology at all school levels. Epsilon Pi Tau. Columbus.
Zuga, K.F. (1989). Relating technology education goals to curriculum planning. Journal of Technology Education, 1(1), 34-58.
Zuga, K.F. (1987). Conceptualizing the technology education curriculum. The Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 13(1), 50-58.
A. Develop Human Potential
1. Enhance student's positive self-image
2. Manage the learning environment
3. Develop appropriate social skills
4. Develop student technical skills
5. Enhance student thinking
6. Augment communications skills
7. Encourage and develop student leadership skills
8. Utilize and expand team work skills
B. Appreciate Learning About Technology
1. Realize the importance of technological literacy
2. Realize the connection between technology and society
3. Realize the importance of how things work
4. Become an informed decision maker regarding technology
C. Explore and Experience Technology
1. Identify and utilize the current content organizers for technology education
2. Utilize an organizational process model to explore and experience technology
3. Experience the intellectual process a of technologist by: analyzing, visualizing, computing, constructing, designing, modeling, etc.
4. Experience the safe use of tools, equipment, material and processes associated with current and future technologies
5. Assess, evaluate, and act upon the use and impacts of technology in society
6. Perceive and experience change as it relates to technology
7. Understand and apply the process of innovation/invention
D. Study the Impact of Technology on Society
1. Identify technology's impact on society
2. Research the impacts of technology on society
3. Debate the impacts of technology on society
4. Discriminate among possible/potential technological impact outcomes
E. Integrate Other Disciplines With Technology Education
1. Network and develop cooperative interaction with other disciplines
2. Share, exchange, and evaluate human and physical resources with other disciplines
3. Develop and conduct multidisciplinary education activities
4. Apply knowledge and skills acquired from all disciplines
F. Develop Problem Solving Skills Related to Technology Education
1. Develop critical thinking skills related to technology education
2. Develop creative abilities to solve problems
3. Research and Develop ideas related to solving problems
4. Develop the ability to manage problem solving processes
5. Apply systematic approaches to solve problems
G. Utilize and Evaluate Appropriate Resources in Technology
1. Identify appropriate resources as per a system model
2. Select the resources needed and determine their impacts
3. Determine the availability of resources
4. Apply the resources in a given environment
5. Analyze the effects of the resources
H. Utilize the Process of Futuring
1. Identify forecasting Techniques (i.e., predicting, extrapolating, etc.)
2. Select appropriate forecasting techniques as applied to technology
3. Apply specific forecasting techniques
4. Report results of futures forecasting
I. Integrate Technology and Careers by Awareness, Application, and Exploration
1. Create awareness of career opportunities related to technology
2. Develop positive work ethics
3. Assess student career interests and abilities
4. Develop student career interests
5. Provide direction for career opportunities
6. Reinforce basic skills (i.e., math, science, communication skills)
7. Develop employability competencies (i.e., rsponsibility, cooperation,
dependability, etc.)
8. Develop an ability to prepare for careers and/or make career changes
Duty/Task Mean X Standard Deviation SD