关于在校学生的简历- A Résumé of a Student at School

在学校的学生的简历

简历

姓名：李明

地址：北京路，上海256

国籍：中国

出生日期：八月9,1970

出生地：中国江苏省苏州市，

健康：优秀

教育：

19xx年----1982：北京，上海路小学

1982----19xx年：市第十六中学，上海

19xx年----19xx年：华康中学，上海

第二篇：School Physics Student Achievement Using a Principles of Technology Achievement Test

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Journal of Technology Education

EditorMARK SANDERS, Technology Education,

144 Smyth Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0432

(703)231-8173 Internet: msanders @ vt.edu

JAMES LAPORTE, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State UniversityAssociate Editor

Assistant

to the EditorLINDA SOLOWIEJ, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University

MARION ASCHE, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University

DENNIS CHEEK, Rhode Island Department of

Education

WILLIAM DELUCA, North Carolina State University

MARC DE VRIES, Pedagogical Technological

College, The Netherlands

TAD FOSTER, Central Connecticut State University

GENE GLOECKNER, Colorado State University

JAMES HAYNIE, North Carolina State University

JOHN KARSNITZ, Trenton State College

JANE LIEDTKE, Illinois State University

EDWARD PYTLIK, West Virginia University

MICHAEL SCOTT, The Ohio State University

SAM STERN, Oregon State University

JOHN WILLIAMS, University of Newcastle,

AustraliaEditorial Board

Copyright, 1994, Journal of Technology Education

ISSN 1045-1064

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Contents

From the Editor

2Thoughts on the Electronic JTE

Articles

5A Comparison of Second-Year Principles of Technology and High

School Physics Student Achievement Using a Principles of TechnologyAchievement Test

by John C. Dugger & Ronald L. Meier

15Technology Education: AKA Industrial Arts

by Patrick N. Foster

PHYS-MA-TECH: An Integrated Partnership

by Jule Dee Scarborough & Conard White

Operative Computer Learning with Cooperative Task and Reward

Structures

by Susan R. Seymour

Materials Science and Technology: What do the Students Say?

by Guy Whittaker314052

Book Reviews

68Technology, Theology, and the Idea of Progress

by Richard A. Deitrich

72The Machine That Changed the World

by Harvey Fred Walker

Miscellany

74Scope of the JTE

Editorial/Review Process

Manuscript Submission Guidelines

Subscription Information

JTE Co-sponsors

Electronic Access to the JTE

-1-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

From the Editor

Thoughts on the Electronic JTE

Lately, I have begun to wonder if the Journal of Technology Education is aprinted journal that is also available electronically, or an electronic journal thatis also available in print. Since its inception in 1983, the JTE paid subscriptionlist (for the print version) has grown to about 550 professionals in more than 15countries around the world. While not a particularly large following for a pro-fessional journal, this number represents the majority of those who call them-selves “technology teacher educators,” the group toward whom the JTE wasoriginally directed. Now, however, with the advent of the electronic version ofthe JTE, the audience has become quite a bit larger.

In the fall of 1991, Associate Editor Jim LaPorte and I met with the

Scholarly Communications Project (SCP) here at Virginia Tech. They wereinterested in providing technical support for the publication of scholarly elec-tronic journals and we were interested in reaching a larger population. Thus,when Volume 3, #2 of the JTE went to press in early February, 1992, I beganworking closely with the SCP to publish an electronic version of the JTE(hereafter referred to as the E-JTE). Together, we worked out a variety of for-matting and technical considerations that would enable electronic publication ofthe Journal. Since there were literally only a handful of scholarly electronicjournals at that time, we were “making it up as we went along.” About a monthlater, when the hard copy version was rolling off the presses, the electronic JTEwas on-line and accessible around the world via an electronic distribution

scheme known as “listserv.”1 This fact was noted in the hard-copy version, andpromoted on the internet electronically.

The E-JTE was, from the beginning, an experiment of sorts. While only asmall percentage of technology education professionals were actively usinginternet, the idea of worldwide distribution was very attractive. We went into itwith a “what can we lose” attitude. What we didn’t realize was how much therewas to gain!

Now, less than two years later, one could describe the Journal as an elec-tronic journal that is also available in print, rather than the other way around. Forthe first time, I am consciously aware of the fact that the majority of thosereading these words are likely reading a computer monitor, rather than the1Listserv is an electronic mail distribution system on the internet.

-2-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994printed page. If you think that isn’t the case, consider the following statistics onelectronic access of the E-JTE.

At last count, we had 1160 subscribers to the E-JTE listserv. Each time ahard copy of the JTE is released, these listserv subscribers all over the world(you know who you are) automatically receive an electronic notification of theE-JTE, just as they would receive any other electronic mail message. Listservsubscribers may then use the “get” command to retrieve any of the articles in aparticular issue as a file or as an e-mail message.

While there are roughly twice as many E-JTE listserv subscribers as thereare subscribers to the JTE in print, listserv access represents only the tip of theiceberg. The E-JTE is also accessible electronically via a number of other now-popular internet access strategies. These include FTP, Gopher, Wide AreaInformation Server (WAIS) and World Wide Web (WWW).2

The electronic access data for calendar year 19933 are illuminating. In ad-dition to those who used listserv to acquire the E-JTE, 4679 individuals re-trieved E-JTE files using FTP. An additional 6018 “gophered” to the JTE, and1783 individual WAIS searches resulted in 13,601 E-JTE file retrievals. Thus,a total of 13,640 individuals retrieved some 24,298 E-JTE files during 1993.Dividing by two to take care of the fact the E-JTE is issued twice a year, thatsuggests about 12 times as many individuals accessed the Journal electronicallyas picked it up out of their mailbox! And with the exponential increase ininternet use of late, these figures will undoubtedly be surpassed in the comingyear.

It is important to note the differences between the two audiences.

Excluding libraries, virtually all of those who purchase the JTE in print areprofessionals in the field now known as “technology education.” Their primarytask is teaching the youth of the world about the many different technologiesthat confront them in their daily lives. These include communication technolo-gies such as computers, print and broadcast technologies; production

technologies (e.g. robotics, computer control, the materials and processes ofindustry, etc.) power and transportation technologies, and so forth.

I mention this for the benefit of the E-JTE readers, most of whom are notin the field of “technology education.” While I do not yet have hard demo-graphic data on E-JTE readers (I’m currently in the process of finalizing a sur-vey to collect these data), it appears from my analysis of the listserv subscrip-tion list that you electronic readers are librarians, computer scientists, tech-2For those unfamiliar with these internet access strategies, FTP (file transfer protocol) is an internetutility for transferring files from one computer to another. Gopher is a menu driven system for ac-cessing text and other data on the internet. WAIS is a full text indexing and natural language querysystem and WWW is a hypertext system that allows access to digital text, graphics, audio and videofiles.3All data are from January-December 1993, except the Gopher data, which are from March-December 1993.

-3-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994nologists, computer hackers, and above all, very curious people from all overthe world (please forgive me) “hitchhiking on the information superhighway.”My guess is that many of you did a keyword search on “technology” whichcaused a “hit” on the E-JTE or else you thought the E-JTE might be a journalfor and about computing education.

Regardless of how and why you internauts landed the E-JTE on your moni-tor, I am delighted you are giving the Journal a look. Though this Journal is notabout computer education specifically, I think you will find articles here thatrelate to computer education, since technology teachers teach more computingapplications in grades 6-12 than do any other school subject teachers. In thisissue, for example, you may find Susan Seymour’s article on Operative

Computer Learning of particular interest. But you will also find articles and re-search relating to all aspects of technology education, not just the computercomponent.

Since spring, 1992 when the E-JTE was first released, our subscription listfor the printed JTE has roughly doubled, so perhaps some of you are subscribingto the JTE after reading the E-JTE. Obviously, there are advantages to each. Theprinted version provides “off the shelf” access and a more lasting record, whilethe E-JTE currently costs nothing and may be accessed readily from around theworld.

Electronic distribution of the Journal has thus far been very successful. Butit is unrealistic to think that electronic information will remain free forevermoreon the internet. The question as yet unanswered is, who will in fact pay for

electronic dissemination of information? Or, more specifically, who will pay forthe E-JTE? The two professional associations that sponsor the JTE (the

International Technology Education Association and the Council on TechnologyTeacher Education), among others, are interested in the answer to that question.For now, of course, you E-JTE readers don’t have to make this call. But

sometime soon you may have to decide if you are just hitchhiking, or are willingto pay bus fare. Until then, we are delighted to have you along for the ride.

MS

Letters and editorials relating to the issue of charging for the E-JTE or any other topic ofinterest to JTE readers may be sent directly to Mark Sanders, JTE Editor via msanders@vt.edu.

-4-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Articles

A Comparison of Second-YearPrinciples of Technology and High SchoolPhysics Student Achievement Using aPrinciples of Technology Achievement Test

John C. Dugger and Ronald L. Meier1

Many American companies are now faced with the toughest choices thatthey will ever have to make. They can continue to surrender entire industries toforeign competition, or make a philosophical break from the past by rethinkingand restructuring the way they do business. While a few U.S. companies havemade the break from the past, innovative companies like Xerox, Proctor andGamble, Tektronix, General Mills, and Federal Express have implemented newstrategies which emphasize continuous improvement, rapid response to marketneeds, self-directed work teams, and in-plant employee training and develop-ment programs (Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite & Zenger, 1990).

American companies are seeing a continual blurring of job tasks and as-signments which is resulting in a need for more functionally cross-trainedemployees that can blend both academic and vocational/technical skills withnew skills. Companies want employees to possess skills not only in technicalareas, administration, and communications (both oral and written), but alsogroup problem solving and statistics.

According to Workforce 2000 and the National Commission on the Skillsof the American Workforce, until very recently no society has needed morethan 25 percent of its labor pool to possess formalized information handlingskills. But, by the year 2000, 75 percent of all U.S. jobs will require not onlythe three “R's”, but also the four “C's”: communications, computation andcomputer competency (Edwards & Snyder, 1992).

Today, high school and college graduates are exposed to the basic skills(i.e. three “R's” and four “C's”). However, employers indicate that many gradu-ates do have problems with work tasks (Edwards, 1992). While work tasks areoften clear-cut applications of students' basic learning, they are often quite1John C. Dugger is an Associate Professor and Ronald L. Meier is an Assistant Professor in theIndustrial Education & Technology Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

-5-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994complex, densely detailed, and job-specific. The process of how to provide real-world application oriented training in the basic skills has been a well docu-mented research problem since the 1930's, but only recently has it been thefocus of federal legislation.

The 1990 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act pro--vided $1.6 billion in federal funding to improve vocational programs. ThePerkins Act hopes to accomplish this by making vocational funding contingentupon the integration of academics into vocational programs. These programsmust be able to prepare our current and future workforce with the skills neededto function in a technologically advanced society. Some vocational educationprograms are attempting to meet the Perkins guidelines by emphasizing aca-demic concepts in their existing programs.

The academic areas of science and mathematics are being integrated intothe vocational curriculum not only to meet Carl Perkins requirements, but as ameans of providing students with an increased level of computational and com-puter experiences. Physics and mathematics principles are currently the pri-mary content for two model programs which stress interdisciplinary contentareas and their connections to technology. These two programs are Phys-Ma-Tech and Principles of Technology. Both programs offer content exampleswhich draw heavily from the academic subject areas of math and physics.

Traditionally many vocational/technical programs have components inelectricity/electronics, fluid power systems, mechanical systems and occasion-ally thermal energy systems. These components have been delivered in physicsclasses, Principles of Technology classes, as well as within traditional voca-tional/technical education programs. What has been lacking in at least two ofthese delivery vehicles is the development of an integrated system of principlesthat allows students to relate similar concepts and utilize transferability of thescience and math content being taught (Songer & Linn, 1991).

This process of organizing information into broader categories and intomore widely applicable ideas results in knowledge integration. According toSonger and Linn (1991), students develop integrated understanding by:1.

2.Applying pragmatic principles (conceptual) or abstract principles thatsummarize experiments and;Analyzing prototypes (laboratory exercises) that familiarize situations that

illustrate a class of scientific events.

Currently vocational/technical educators have at least three possible meth-ods to integrate physics concepts into the vocational/technical program. Thesethree options include: 1) adding physics content to existing vocational/technicalcourses; 2) requiring vocational/technical students to take existing physics

courses; and 3) creating a new applications oriented physics course, or develop-

-6-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994ing a course that will give students a foundation for continued learning abouttechnology using a delivery system that focuses on lab experiences to reinforcethe course content (Principles of Technology, 1985a). Vocational/technicaleducators choosing option three often use the Principles of Technology Pro-gram.

Principles of Technology utilizes an interdisciplinary approach that com-bines technology, applied physics, and applied mathematics. Upon examiningthe organizational matrix of Principles of Technology (see Figure 1) one cansee the unifying principles that serve as unit organizers in the curriculum

(Principles of Technology Curriculum, 1985b). The interdisciplinary nature ofPrinciples of Technology provides a model for both academic and voca-tional/technical courses.

Figure 1. Fourteen unified technical concepts.

Many times academic courses can be void of any connection to the "real"world, and vocational/technical courses can be lacking the kind of academicmathematics and science content characteristic of broadly applicable curricula.Involvement with the Principles of Technology indicates a commitment to aninterdisciplinary approach that emphasizes physics and mathematics (McCade,1991).

Purpose

The intent of this study was to examine the impacts of the second yearPrinciples of Technology model on achievement regarding basic physics con-cepts. This achievement was then compared to the achievement of students whowere enrolled in high school physics classes during the year of record. Thecomparison was examined in light of the results of the first year study (Dugger& Johnson, 1992).

-7-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Methodology

A nonequivalent groups' pretest/posttest control group design was utilizedwith two treatment groups. The following figure depicts this design.Principles of Technology

Physics

Control

T1 = Pre-

T2 = Post-

X1 = PT Treatment

X = Physics Treatment

Figure 2. Research Design Model.

Population and Sample

The population for this study was all secondary vocational programs inIowa where Principles of Technology was offered. With more than 50 sites ofimplementation, Iowa was a good location for the study. The sites were at vari-ous stages of implementation. Sixteen sites had offered the program for twoyears or more. In order to obtain a better estimate of the effectiveness of theprogram, only sites that had offered the program for at least three years wereutilized. The sample included five Iowa sites.

Of these sites, four programs were being taught by industrial technologyeducation teachers who had participated in one two-week workshop to preparefor teaching the second year of Principles of Technology. The remaining sitewas taught by a certified Iowa high school physics teacher. During the datacollection two programs taught by industrial technology education teachersfailed to complete the study because student attrition did not allow the admini-stration of the posttest. Therefore, the sample for this study consisted of threeIowa high schools where Principles of Technology and physics were taught as apart of the regular curriculum.

Instrument Development

As with the first year study, an item bank was generated by instructors thatattended Principles of Technology workshops which provided an orientation tosecond year Principles of Technology units. This item bank was used as thesource for the unit tests. The unit tests were then administered to each of thesecond year sites and scored and analyzed.

An item analysis of the unit tests enabled the researchers to identify theT1T1T1X1X2T2T2T2

-8-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994best questions based on difficulty, readability, and discrimination index ratings.These questions were then formed into a second year achievement instrumentwhich included 120 items and covered each of the year-two PT objectives.

Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability estimates for both the unit and secondyear tests exceeded .90.

This test was then examined by six physics teachers to assure that all ter-minology and content was consistent with physics content as taught in Iowahigh schools. Even though the content was consistent, certain Principles ofTechnology terms were found to differ from terms taught in physics classes.When this occurred, both Principles of Technology and physics terms were in-cluded for that test item.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data were collected from three sites in Iowa where second year Prin-ciples of Technology and high school physics were being taught. Phase I of thedata collection involved administering the 120 item test at the beginning of theschool year to 75 physics students, 24 Principles of Technology students, and acontrol group that consisted of 61 students who were similar to those enrolledin the principles of technology class. In all cases, the control group was an in-dustrial technology education class with no students enrolled in PT.

The second phase of data collection consisted of posttesting which wascompleted approximately two weeks prior to the end of the school year. Exam-ple questions from the posttest can be found in Figure 3.When a hydraulic cylinder is activated for 4 seconds, the piston applies a forceof 70 newtons to the rod during that time period. The change in linear momen-tum of the fluid moved is:

a.17.5 N_sec

b.28 kg_m/sec

c.175 kg_m/sec

d.280 kg_m/sec

An angular impulse of 15 (N_m) sec is given to an object. What is the change inangular momentum of the object?

a.0.15 kg_m2/sec

b.15 kg_m2/sec

c.150 kg_m2/sec

d.15 (N_m) sec2

Figure 3. Sample questions from posttest.

-9-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

A 160 lb. man dives horizontally from a 640 lb. boat with a speed of 6 ft/sec.What is the recoil velocity of the boat? The man and the boat were initially atrest.

a.0.15 ft/sec in the same direction as the diver

b.15 ft/sec in the opposite direction to the diver

c.150 ft/sec in the same direction as the diver

d.1.5 ft./sec in the opposite direction to the diver

When an empty gas bottle (initially at atmospheric pressure) is filled with car-bon dioxide, a maximum gage pressure of 250 PSI is eventually reached. Theprocess is described by the following equation for absolute pressure:P = 14.7 + 250 PSI (1 - e-t/1 min).

Nearly 63% of the change from 14.7 PSIG to 250 PSIG occurs in the time of_____.

a.1 min.

b.5 min.

c.1.63 min.

d.none of the above

Figure 3 (continued). Sample questions from posttest.

Results

The means for both pretests and posttests are reported in Table 1. StudentsTable 1

Means, Standard Deviation, and T-scores by Group for Pretests and PosttestsPretestPosttestMeanNMeanNT-score

(SD)(SD)PT43.662467.71217.76*

(8.33)(12.34)

Physics43.067551.60404.74*

(8.88)(9.69)

Control34.266137.03381.72

(5.96)(8.49)*p<.01

-10-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994who had completed year-one Principles of Technology had some backgroundand were able to score higher than the control group (43.66 to 34.26). Themean score for students enrolled in physics was similar to that of students whohad completed year-one of Principles of Technology (43.06 to 43.66). The rawscore mean for the control group was significantly lower than the mean of thePrinciples of Technology and physics groups.

Further analysis of the means indicated that there was no significant differ-ence between the control group pretest mean (34.26) and the control groupposttest mean (37.03). This was expected since control groups by definition arenot exposed to content delivered to treatment groups.

The posttest mean for the physics group (51.60) were significantly higherthan the pretest mean (43.06) for the same group. Similarly, the posttest mean(67.71) was significantly higher than the corresponding pretest mean for thePrinciples of Technology group. There was a substantial raw score mean differ-ence (16.11) between the Principles of Technology posttest mean and the phys-ics group posttest mean.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine ifsignificant differences existed between three pretest groups and the three post-test groups. Table 2 addresses the pretest groups.

Table 2

Pretest ANOVA TableSource of variationSSdfMSFBetween treatments pretest3026.8521513.4224.85*Error9562.4615760.91

Total12589.31159*p<.01

There were significant differences between the Principles of Technology,physics, and control group pretest scores. Table 3 provides an analysis of theone-way ANOVA procedure for posttest means. An LSD procedure indicatedthat there was a significant difference between the posttest means for both thecontrol (37.03) and physics (51.60) as well as the physics and Principles ofTechnology (67.71).

Exposure to traditional physics does produce significant achievement gainson a second-year Principles of Technology achievement instrument. Evengreater significant gains occur if these students are exposed to a second yearPrinciples of Technology course.

-11-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Table 3

Posttest ANOVA TableSource of variationSSdfMSFBetween treatments posttest13051.9426527.97133.66*Error9374.729697.65

Total22426.6698*p<.01

Discussion

The results for second year Principles of Technology were similar to thosedetermined by Dugger and Johnson (1992) for year one Principles of Technol-ogy. Students enrolled in second year Principles of Technology demonstrated ahigher level of initial achievement regarding second-year Principles of Tech-nology content. The control group provided a mean score that was closer to thatof random chance on a 120 item pretest.

The posttest results indicated that the control group failed to show any gainwhile both the physics and Principles of Technology students demonstrated asignificant increase in achievement levels regarding Principles of Technologycontent. The raw score mean for Principles of Technology, however, was morethan 16 raw score points higher that the physics posttest mean.

Before discussion continues, two critical questions must be answered. Theyare; Whether Principles of Technology covers basic physics content and if so, isthis content also consistent with the content taught in high school physicsclasses? The titles of the units covered in the Principles of Technology whichconsist of force, work, rate, etc. and the titles of the systems which includemechanical, electrical, fluid, and thermal certainly provide a strong prima faciecase for consistency of content. In addition, six physics teachers have confirmedthat the Principles of Technology content is consistent with the portion of thehigh school physics curriculum in Iowa that covers basic concepts. One mayconclude that Principles of Technology does cover basic physics content andthat high school physics covers both basic and advanced physics content.

It is the belief of the authors that Principles of Technology provides a moredetailed treatment of basic physics content than a typical high school physicsclass. The taxonomy (units and systems) of concepts and provision for applica-tion of each point result in greater achievement regarding these basic concepts.This belief is supported by Songer and Linn (1991) who indicated that studentsdeveloped a better integrated understanding if pragmatic principles are appliedand laboratory exercises analyzed. Considering the three possible methods forintegrating physics concepts into the curriculum, the third alternative of

-12-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994creating a new applications oriented physics course is certainly a viablealternative based on the results of this study. One needs to be cautious,

however, when discussing the relationship of Principles of Technology to highschool physics classes. Even though Principles of Technology content issubsumed by the content taught in these classes, physics is asked to do muchmore.

Future research might investigate whether the repetition of concepts

through each of the four systems (mechanical, thermal, electrical, and fluid)enhances learning or the formal theory presentations followed immediately byapplications oriented laboratory experiences. Both the repetition afforded by thefour systems and the applications based pedagogical approach are present inPrinciples of Technology. Future researchers should also consider replacing orcombining the 120 item PT test with a standardized high school physicsachievement test. These appear to be promising areas for future research andmay yield answers that have implications for a wide range of content areas ordisciplines.

References

Dugger, J. C., & Johnson, D. (1992). A comparison of principles of technology

and high school physics student achievement using a principles of tech-nology achievement test. Journal of Technology Education, 4(1), p. 19-26.Edwards, G. (1992). Bridging school and skills: Preparing basic skills for the

workplace by community-based learning. Paper presented at the meetingof the Iowa International Technology Education Association, Waterloo,IA.

Edwards, G., & Snyder, D, P. (1992). America in the 1990s: An economy in

transition, a society under stress. Paper presented at the meeting of theIowa International Technology Education Association, Waterloo,

IA.McCade, J. (1991). A few things technology educators could learn fromPrinciples of Technology. The Technology Teacher, 51(3), p. 23-26.

Orsburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. H. (1990). Self-directed

work teams: The new American challenge. Homewood, IL: Business OneIrwin.

Principles of technology administrative guide. (1985a). Bloomington, IN:

Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT), & Waco, TX: Center forOccupational Research and Development.

Principles of technology curriculum. (1985a). Bloomington, IN: Agency for

Instructional Technology (AIT), & Waco, TX: Center for OccupationalResearch and Development.

-13-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influ-

ence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(9), p. 761-787.

-14-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Technology Education: AKA Industrial Arts

Patrick N. Foster2

Pullias (1989) identified three viewpoints individuals may take regardingthe implementation of technology education. One, which will be referred to asthe “revolutionary” position here, proposes “to discard the old and begin fresh.”(p. 3-4). Another, perhaps “evolutionary,” view prefers “to keep part of the old,install part of the new, and ‘ease’ into full implementation” (p. 3). The thirdposition “is to disguise what we have been doing for years and try to make itlook like a new curriculum” (p. 3).

These viewpoints can be correlated directly to positions one may take rela-tive to the historical relationship between industrial arts and technology educa-tion. For example, those who hold a revolutionary historical view find fewsimilarities between industrial arts and technology education. Pullias, for

example, argued that “blinders are going to have to be removed and educatorsare going to have to accept the fact that technology education is something

totally new. Technology education is not a remake of industrial arts...” (1992, p.

4).

Those holding the evolutionary point of view also see technology educationas something new. But they point to industrial arts as the progenitor of technol-ogy education. Dugger (1985) suggested a major event as the cause of technol-ogy education when he noted that “industrial arts education has undergone atremendous curriculum thrust that has become identified as technology educa-tion” (p. 2). Echoing Dugger, Waetjen wrote:

The last decade has witnessed a startling change in what was onceIndustrial Arts Education and has now evolved into Technology Educa-tion. The evolution has been more than cosmetic, and far more than asimple change of names (1989, p. 1).

Intrinsically, the terms “startling change” and “tremendous transition” maysuggest revolution, but it bears mention that the evolutionary point of viewregards industrial arts as the foundation for the change, while the revolutionarystance considers the change as the foundation of technology education.2Patrick N. Foster is an Instructor in the Department of Industry & Technology, Ball StateUniversity, Muncie, IN. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Scott Speaker inorganizing early draft of this paper.

-15-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Finally, the last position denies that any major revelations have occured inthe field recently. Its adherents contend that the theoretical philosophy andmethodology of technology education are not significantly different from thoseof industrial arts. The notion that technology education is simply another namefor industrial arts may be termed an “alias” theory. That theory will be expli-cated here.

The Alias Theory vs. the Revoltionary and Evolutionary PositionsBoth evolutionists and revolutionists ascribe the characteristic of newnessto technology education. Finely distinguished from another of the qualities en-joyed by technology education, that of being contemporary, the characteristic ofnewness implies invention, as opposed to simple, linear progress.

Arguably, the profession known only a few years ago as “industrial arts”stands to benefit greatly from a public perception of newness. And, rightfullyso, it has appeared to undergo a change in name, change in content organization(and to a certain degree, in content as well) and a change in philosophy.

As Waetjen suggested, more than a change in name will be necessary forthe profession to realize its true mission. As for organizational changes withrespect to content, or modifications in content itself, these are superficially anindication of a substantial transformation. But in light of the evolving nature ofthe industrial arts they are by no means earthshaking – they may simply repre-sent a contemporization of the field. What seems to be required to validate andcomplete this change is a revision of the profession’s philosophy. This, theevolutionists and revolutionists seems to be indicating, has in fact happened.

The objective of this paper is to show that, for practical purposes, technol-ogy education is simply the appropriate renaming of industrial arts. What theprofession defines as “technology education” – in an attempt to distance itphilosophically from “industrial arts” – is essentially the definition suggestedmany times in the past for industrial arts. Furthermore, many of the majorteaching methodologies associated with technology education are not neweither – they have been suggested in literature as directives for industrial artsfor years.

The Philosophy of Technology Education is Not New

Although the most popular and accepted definitions for “industrial arts”and “technology education” may differ in wording, there has been very littledifference in meaning between definitions for the two over the last seventyyears.

-16-

Journal of Technology EducationBonser and MossmanVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Industrial arts is a study of the changes made by man in the forms ofmaterials to increase their values, and of the problems of life related tothese changes (Bonser and Mossman, 1923).

This interpretation of the meaning of “industrial arts” was written seventyyears ago by Frederick Gordon Bonser and Lois Coffey Mossman of Teacher’sCollege at Columbia University. Lux (1981), characterizing this definition as“famous” and “widely accepted,” credited Bonser with leading “a major thrustto redirect industrial arts away from activities and studies based on discretematerials or selected trade skills and toward broader conceptualizations such ashow humankind provides itself with clothing, food, and shelter” (p. 211). Thedefinition has three major elements: education, technology, and society (seeFigure 1). Industry is not mentioned.

This definition was hardly obscure in Bonser and Mossman’s time or

ignored since. Smith (1981) wrote of the definition, “even to this day it has cre-ated much excitement and given much direction to curriculum development inindustrial arts” (p. 188). However, Smith goes on to note, as the definitionoriginally appeared in Industrial Arts for Elementary Schools, “many

practitioners have found it difficult to make the transition and apply... Bonser’sphilosophies to industrial arts programs that have traditionally been establishedin the secondary schools” (p. 188-189). In fact, acceptance of Bonser’s ideasmay have been hampered by his reputation as a “leader in the area ofelementary education” (Luetkemeyer and McPherson, 1975, p. 260-261;emphasis added).

Wilber and Maley

In 1948, shortly after quoting Bonser and Mossman’s definition in his

Industrial Arts in General Education, Wilber defined the industrial arts as “thosephases of general education which deal with industry — its organization,

materials, occupations, processes, and products — and with the problems of liferesulting from the industrial and technological nature of society” (p. 2.) Wilber’sdefinition is constructed similarly to Bonser and Mossman’s, but substitutes theconcept of industry for technology.

Like Bonser and Mossman’s definition, Wilber’s was prominent. Martinand Luetkemeyer (1979) credited Wilber with considerable influence in the

-17-

Journal of Technology Education Vol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

“Industrial Arts”

DefinitioncomponentEducation

Bonser and Moss-man, 1923

“Industrial Arts is astudy

of the changes madeby man in the formsof materials to in-crease their values,

Maley, 1973

(cf. Wilber, 1948)“those phases ofgeneral educationwhich deal withtechnology, its evo-lution, utilization,and significance;

Jackson’s Mill, 1981“a comprehensiveeducational programconcerned with tech-nology, its evolution,utilization, and sig-nificance;

“Technology Education”

AIAA, 1985“A comprehensive,action-based educa-tional programconcerned withtechnical means,their evolution, utili-zation, and signifi-cance;

Wright, Israel, andLauda, 1993

“Technology Educa-tion is an educationalprogram

that helps peopledevelop an under-standing and compe-tence in designing,producing, and usingtechnology productsand systems

Technology

Industry

{none}

Society

and of the problemsof life related tothese changes.”

with industry, itsorganization, mate-rials, occupations,processes, and prod-ucts;

and with the prob-lems and benefitsresulting from thetechnological natureof society ”

with industry, itsorganization, person-nel, systems, tech-niques, resources,and products;

and their social/ cul-tural impact.”with industry, itsorganization, person-nel systems, tech-niques, resources,and products;

and their socio- cul-tural impacts.”

{none}

and in assesing theappropriateness oftechnological ac-tions.”

Figure 1. Prominent definitions of industrial arts and technology education

-18-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994post-World War II era of industrial arts. Calling it the “basic text for profes-sional courses in industrial arts teacher education” and “famous,” they wrote thatIndustrial Arts in General Education was “used by colleges throughout thecountry” (p. 35.)

Maley’s Maryland Plan definition was quite similar to Wilber’s; the maindisparity between the two is Maley’s inclusion of a passage concerning technol-ogy. This definition is closely related to Bonser and Mossman’s as well, and iscomprised of four elements: education, technology, industry, and society. Indus-trial arts, he said, was:

...those phases of general education which deal with technology, itsevolution, utilization, and significance; with industry, its organization,materials, occupations, processes, and products; and with the problemsand benefits resulting from the technological nature of society (1973, p.2).

Jackson’s Mill

The definition of the term “industrial arts” evolved further with the publi-cation of Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory in 1981. As opposedto considering industrial arts “phases of general education,” as Wilber had in1948, and Maley had in 1973, the Jackson’s Mill document began the practice ofcharacterizing the study of industrial arts as a “comprehensive” study. Otherwiseit is very similar to Wilber’s and Maley’s: “Industrial Arts is a comprehensiveeducational program concerned with technology, its evolution, utilization, andsignificance; with industry, its organization, personnel, systems, techniques,resources, and products; and their social/cultural impact” (Snyder and Hales,n.d., p. 1). The Jackson’s Mill definition retains the four-element formula ofeducation, technology, industry, and society.

Definitions of “Technology Education”

Almost ten years after DeVore and Lauda suggested “that the IndustrialArts profession change its name to technology education to reflect culturalreality” (1976, p. 145), the American Industrial Arts Association issued thisdefinition of technology education:

...a comprehensive, action-based educational program concerned withtechnical means, their evolution, utilization, and significance; withindustry, its organization, personnel systems, techniques, resources, andproducts; and their socio-cultural impacts (1985, p. 25).

Whereas in wording, the AIAA definition is nearly identical to the oneadvocated in the Jackson’s Mill document, and whereas it retains the

educational–technological–industrial–societal formula, the striking differencebetween the definitions is that one defines industrial arts and the other defines

-19-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994technology education, while some contend that there are “substantialdifferences” (Hayden, 1991, p. 30) between the the two.

In addition to its close similarity to the Jackson’s Mill definition, the

AIAA’s is a definition that does not vary greatly from Bonser and Mossman’s.In fact, not only do the two essentially emphasize the same points (the maindisparity being the AIAA’s greater preoccupation with concepts related toindustry), they do so in the same order.

Continuing the trend back toward the spirit and design of Bonser andMossman’s 1923 definition is Wright, Israel and Lauda’s 1993 definition fortechnology education, published by the ITEA: “an educational program thathelps people develop an understanding and competence in designing, producing,and using technology products and systems and in assessing the appropriatenessof technological actions” (p. 4). Although its similarities to the AIAA definitionmay outweigh its differences, the phrasing of this definition is highly signifcant,as it revisits Bonser and Mossman’s three-element formula, finally eliminatingthe concept of industry (see Figure 1).

Similarity Of Definition Versus Similarity Of Philosophy

Although these similarities do not authenticate claims that the philosophiessuggested by Bonser in 1923 (industrial arts), and by the AIAA in 1985

(technology education) were the same, it is safe to assume that by virtue of theirdefinitions being quite similar, their philosophies may be related. Directly underthe heading “The Philosophical Dimensions of Education,” Morris and Pai(1976) state that “one way of simplifying (education) is to separate its basicelements and to let those elements define the area of disclosure” (p. 8 emphasisadded).

It seems clear that the “famous” and “widely accepted” definition of indus-trial arts and the profession’s official definition of technology education containthe same basic elements, thereby defining the same area of disclosure. By

extension, then, the “philosophical dimensions” of technology education are notessentially new.

The Strategies of Technology Education Are Not New

If technology education and industrial arts are not significantly disparatephilosophically, then perhaps the difference between them, assuming it to bemore than nominal, is methodological. Kemp and Schwaller, in editing the 1988CTTE yearbook, repeatedly (e.g. p. xiii, 36, 205) divided “approaches that arerecommended as instructional strategies for technology education” into sixcategories (and devote one chapter to each): “the teaching of concepts, using aninterdisciplinary approach, emphasizing social/cultural impacts of technology,developing problem solving skills, being able to integrate the systems of tech-nology, and interpreting industry. It is suggested,” they went on to say, “that

-20-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994the technology teacher incorporate as many as possible into the classroomand/or laboratory.”

Four of those six categories will be used individually to illustrate that, justas the philosophy of technology education is not new, neither are the teachingstrategies associated therewith. The origins of other popular methodologies willbe discussed as well.

Integration, or the “Interdisciplinary Approach”

“Teaching technology education with an interdisciplinary approachhas been explored by determining the nature of disciplines, discussing theuses of an interdisciplinary approach and planning ways in which toimplement an interdisciplinary approach” (Zuga, 1988, p. 71).

An instructional strategy prevalent in technology education is that of

integrating technology with other subject areas taught in the public schools. This“interdisciplinary approach”1 is a recognition in education that subject areas areinherently related and should be taught in such a way so as to suggest this tostudents. This methodology was suggested long ago in industrial education:

In the early nineties the idea began to develop that manual trainingshould not be an isolated special subject. Instead, consideration should begiven to the mutual influences of this subject and the other studies of theschool. Bennett, in 1892, told how manual training, when properly taught,could integrate the other studies of the school (Stombaugh, 1936, p. 148).

Integrating other subjects in problem-solving also has a long history.“Educators know,” Marot wrote 1918, “as we all do, that industrial problemscarry those who participate in their solution into pure and applied science, the(economic) market...” (p. 110). In listing the general objectives of the industrialarts, Sotzin emphasized the aim “to correlate and vitalize other school subjects”(1929, p. 36). In his 1919 book Principles and Methods of Industrial Education,Dooley devotes a chapter each to teaching children science, math, and English“in the shop.”

1The reader may wonder as to the interchangability of the terms “integration” and“interdisciplinary;” Zuga, in discussing her yearbook chapter, wrote: Recognizing and integratingthe knowledge of other disciplines into a technology education course is teaching with aninterdisciplinary approach (p. 58). It would seem safe to generalize that these terms may be usedinterchangeably, and that references in literature using either term may be assumed to refer to thesame general concept.

-21-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Nowhere has the interdisciplinary approach to industrial arts been morecomprehensive than in the elementary school. “In elementary schools, includingthe first six grades, little or no formal work is now carried on in separate

industrial-arts classes. Here the manipulative work is done in close coordinationand integration with the total study program of the school” (Ericson, 1946, p.276). In fact, in 1955, the Nevada Department of Vocational Education stressedthat, in elementary schools in that state, there were no separate industrial artsprograms. “Industrial arts activities are integrated...” (p. 58). In secondaryeducation, historical examples of integration include the “Industrial Prep”

project, a three-year interdisciplinary program operated by the Hackensack, NJschool system for vocational students. In a student’s sophomore year forexample, she or he would enroll in a curriculum integrating biology, English,architechture, and industrial education (Hackensack Public Schools, n.d.). The“Richmond Plan” of the late 1950s integrated English, science, mathematics,drafting, and shop subjects (Smith, 1966; Cogswell Polytechnical College, n.d.).Emphasizing Social/Cultural Impacts of Technology

“One major difference between traditional industrial arts and con-temporary technology education is the inclusion of the social and culturalaspects of technology. This includes how technology influences the socialsystems of a society. Understanding these relationships will contribute tomaking students technologically literate” (Kemp and Schwaller, 1988, p.21).

It is probably true that the inclusion of the social and the cultural did notoften take place in actual industrial arts but would take place in ideal technologyeducation. But certainly it can be demonstrated that the investigation of thesocio-cultural aspects of technology, as well as the impact of technology on thenatural and social environments, was a major component of the theory andphilosophy of the inclusion of industrial arts in general education.

In discussing the place of industries in elementary education ninety yearsago, Dopp wrote:

Whatever activity we consider (for industrial education) of whateverage, if it be a significant one we find that it is because of its relation to thenatural and social environment ... It was not an accident that the mariner’scompass, gunpowder, and the printing press appeared when they did.Neither was it an accident that the pyramids were erected in regionsabounding with limestone and syenite ...the permanent element in all theseis directly related to the natural and social environment of the age and notto that of some other place and time.

-22-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Let us apply this truth to the education of the child (Dopp, 1902, p.100).

“The social and liberal elements in the study of the industrial arts,” Bonsersaid a decade before the publication of his and Mossman’s eminent definition,“are more significant than are the elements involved in the mere manipulation ofmaterials” (Bonser, 1914, p. 28). And just as culture was seen as being an

important part of industrial arts, industrial arts was viewed as an important partof culture. In 1920, Griffith wrote that “an individual whose education andexperience has consisted solely in academic training along some narrow line ifintellectual activity can hardly be considered as broadly appreciative (of cultureas the) people who make their living thru [sic] working with their hands” (p. 57).

Not only industrial arts educators felt that there was a strong associationbetween industrial education and the cultural education of children. An analysisduring the 1920s by another scholar of the industrial arts revealed that “amongthe most frequent claims and recommendations listed for the industrial arts byauthors of text-books in the field of secondary education are the following: a. itis a cultural subject; b. it enriches the curriculum; c. it adds to social

intelligence; d. it gives an insight into social end economic values; e. it trains inproblem solving ...” (Sotzin, 1929, p. 21; emphasis added).

As Ericson said nearly fifty years ago, “industrial-arts teaching can render aservice at this point by assisting in a reinterpretation and enlightenment of theconcept of culture to American youth” (Ericson, 1946, p. 260).

Problem-solving

In technology education, “problem solving is a process of seeking feasiblesolutions to a problem” (Hatch, 1988, p. 91). Although problem-solving mayhistorically have become prominent in industrial arts literature later than otheremphases of industrial arts education, Dopp (1902), Bonser (1914), Marot

(1918), and Griffith (1920) all considered the topic to be a methodology integralto industrial arts in the first two decades of this century. At the end of the nextdecade, Sotzin listed “problem-solving” as being among the “claims andrecommendations” most often made by educators for industrial arts (Sotzin,1929, p. 21).

But claims and recommendations in theory do not always correlate to

results in practice. Browning and Greenwald recently described problem-solvingas “a goal never lived up to in many Industrial Arts programs” (1990, p. 9).

By the end of World War II, the idea of teaching not only problem-solving,but other “minds-on” skills in industrial arts was becoming popular. Wilber, inhis Industrial Arts in General Education, insisted that “the ability to think

-23-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994critically can be developed only through practice in solving problems” (1948, p.

9); two years earlier, one of his contemporaries suggested that:

Many other industrial arts teachers now have caught the vision ...Clear thinking, reasoning, creative thinking, problem solving (call it whatyou may) is a far more important basis of educational objectives in thelives of thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen year-old boys than one centered onskills and information... (Friese, 1946, p. 88).

Calvin M. Street also saw the relation between problem-solving and thescientific method as having a place in the teaching of the industrial arts:

A further element of general education which is appropriate, not onlyto the industrial arts teacher, but to all citizens, is that which may bedescribed as the area of important methods and tools of problem solving.Since the scientific method of problem solving is deemed the most validway that human beings have discovered for solving problems, it becomesobvious that each person should develop...skills in the use of this method”(1956, p. 177).

Interpreting Industry

“Technology in communication, construction, manufacturing, andtransportation will continue to change at a rapid pace... If this is the planof American industry, technology education teachers must plan to makechanges. They must plan to make the curriculum reflect society today”(Bjorklund, 1988, p. 121).

Of all of the approaches to teaching technology education, this may be thebest demonstration for the argument that technology education is simply

renaming of industrial arts. It seems unlikely that veteran industrial arts teacherswill differ with this instructional strategy (defined as such by Kemp andSchwaller, 1988); many may have been trained during the popularity of theAmerican Industry or Industrial Arts Curriculum Project (IACP) movements ofthe 1960s, the latter of which Donald Lux, one of its founders, fifteen years latercalled a “course in industrial technology.” “The fundamental question to beanswered,” he said of the IACP, “was ‘What is industry?’” (Lux, 1979, p. 150).

Decades before the inception of the IACP, the interpretation of industry wasalready considered by some as either the primary purpose, or one of the mostimportant, of industrial arts. Ericson’s third objective for industrial arts was toimpart to students an “understanding of industry and methods of production, andof the influence of industrial products and services upon the pattern of modernsocial and economic life” (Ericson, 1946). Various other objectives involvedindustry as well.

-24-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Wilber’s first objective for industrial arts was “to explore industry andAmerican civilization;” the manifestation in the instruction of students was that“they will read about and interpret industry” (1948, p. 42; emphasis added).Wilber’s definition of industrial arts emphasized the interpretation of industry,not only via its common “organization, materials, occupations,” and the like,but also through “the problems resulting from the industrial and technologicalnature of society” (1948, p. 2).

Martin and Luetkemeyer (1979) enumerated various efforts, some moreinterpretive than others, to include in industrial arts the content of

contemporary industry, as suggested by Bjorklund: “If this is the plan of

American industry, technology education teachers must plan to make changes”(1988, p. 121). These included one in 1942 in which students across thecountry produced nearly a million model aircraft for the military in a “newcurricular approach” sponsored by the United States Office of Education andthe United States Navy.

Other Technology Education Methodologies

These four common strategies are by no means the only teaching

methodologies common in technology education which were also used inindustrial arts; many other strategies which today might be considered novelhave been in use for decades by industrial arts teachers. For example, not longafter Sputnik, Jones (1958) noted that group activity was becoming prevelant inindustrial education. “It is important that pupils learn to work together. Many(industrial arts) instructors,” he said, “devise projects that require such groupaction” (p. 156 emphasis added).

Ten years earlier, Newkirk and Johnson noted that instruction in the

industrial arts imparted to students an adaptability not found in other subjects inthe school. “Industrial Arts Education gives an over-all training in industrialadaptability that is most helpful to those who find it necessary to change theirtype of work from time to time because of the technological developments orchanges in the needs of society” (1948, p.8). And a quarter-century before that,in investigating industrial education in Minnesota, Smith found that the secondmost common objective there for the industrial arts was “to afford informationand experiences that assure a broader view of the industrial world and make forsocial adaptiveness” (1924, p. 119). Smith’s study was published in the yearfollowing the publication of Bonser and Mossman’s aforementioned definitionfor industrial arts.

Years before that publication, Bonser himself emphasized another

educational viewpoint that today many leading technology educators are

advocating: that this area of education has a specific content associated with it.“The industrial arts, rightly interpreted, contain a body of thought and

experience sufficiently vital to human well being to give the subject a place in

-25-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994the elementary and secondary school curriculum on a basis of thorough

respectability and validity” (1914, p. 28). Stone (1934) echoed the need to viewthe industrial arts as a “subject-matter” rather than a “service.”

In Industrial Arts for Elementary Schools, Bonser and Mossman

emphasized that the content of the industrial arts should be an important part ofthe education of all students — another point today recognized but not yetaccomplished by technology educators, and often thought of as new. “Is therenot also a body of experience and knowledge relative to the industrial arts whichis of common value to all, regardless of sex or occupation?” (1923, p. 20).

Similarly, the concept of experiential learning has been well established inindustrial arts for at least a century. In addition to Dewey’s pronouncements onexperience and on experimentalism (e.g. Dewey, 1938), other educators

emphasized the responsibility of industrial or manual school subjects to providea forum of experience and experimentation for students. Dopp, in discussing theplace of industries in industrial education, sees exploration and first-hand

experience as appropriate for industrial education. “In so far as the completionof the situation requires the child to exploit his own environment in the searchfor real or illustrative materials of industrial processes, ... experimentation (findsits) place” (Dopp, 1902). Marot takes a more negative view of the situation:

Educators know there is adventure in industry, but they believe thatthe adventure is the rare property of a few. They believe this so firmly thatthey surrender this great field of experience with its priceless educationalcontent without reserving the right of such experience even for youth ...They are not alone in their lack of courage to admit that limiting thisexperience perverts normal desires and creates false ones” (Marot, 1918).

More recently the importance of experience in industrial arts has been stressedin literature pertaining to teacher training as well (e.g. Jones, 1958).

Among the other distinguishing characteristics of technology educationwhich are ascertainable in the literature of industrial arts are team teaching(Bernucci, et al., 1963) and the prohibition of failure (Friese, 1934), as well asthe “discovery method” and the “inventive method” of learning (Griffith, 1920).Ericson (1946) confirmed that the “discovery, or problem-solving method” wasin “common use” in industrial arts (p. 45).

Conclusion: The Need for Change

Just as the definition and philosophical base for technology education haveexisted for years as the ideals for industrial arts, so have its teaching strategiesand methodologies. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that this philosophy

-26-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994or these strategies have ever been seriously implemented on any large scale orfor any perceptible length of time.

Today the profession appears to be aware of the need for a change fromindustrial arts. That change, however, may not be in philosophy or in strategy;rather, perhaps that change should be away from ignoring the ideal and towardattaining it. Technology education, in this light, can be seen as the final

realization of the promise of the industrial arts — not something foreign to it.

This is not a position held by all. “Technology education must be thought ofsomething new,” Pullias wrote recently. “It has no place in an old industrial arts,or shop paradigm. To say that technology education can exist in the old settingis totally inaccurate.” (1992, p. 3)

The distinction that must be made here is between theory and practice, be-tween the real and the ideal — what Colelli (1989), in the context of industrialeducation, has termed the “theory-practice gap.” Perhaps ideal technologyeducation has no place in the “paradigm” of the way industrial arts has

historically been practiced. But the challenge in interpreting past practice is notto criticize it in an attempt to inflate the value of that perceived as new. It is tolearn from it in an attempt to recognize the value in that established aseminent.

References

American Industrial Arts Association. (1985). Technology education: a per-

spective on implementation. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Bernucci, V., et. al., (1963). Team teaching and large group instruction in in-

dustrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, 56(5), p. 26.

Bjorklund, L. (1988). Interpretation of industry approach. In W. Kemp & A.

Schwaller, (Eds.) Instructional strategies for technology education.

Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe. 110-122.

Bonser, F. & Mossman, L. (1931). Industrial arts for the elementary school.

New York: MacMillan.

Bonser, F. (1914). Fundamental values in industrial education. New York:

Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Browning, R. & Greenwald, M. (1990). Critical thinking and problem solving:

how much did we learn from our old toy trains? The Technology Teacher,49(7), 9-10.

Cogswell Polytechnical College. (n.d.). The Richmond plan: a report of a pre-

technology program for the “average learner.” San Francisco: RosenbergFoundation.

Colelli, L. (1989). Technology education: a primer. Reston, VA: International

Technology Education Association.

-27-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994DeVore, P., & Lauda, D. (1976). Implications for industrial arts. In L. Smalley,

(Ed.), Future alternatives for industrial arts. (p. 137-162). Encino, CA:Glencoe.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dooley, W. (1919). Principles and methods of industrial education. Cambridge,

MA: The Riverside Press.

Dopp, K. (1902). The place of industries in elementary education. Chicago: The

University of Chicago.

Dugger, W. (1985). Introduction. In American Industrial Arts Association,

Technology education: A perspective on implementation. Reston, VA:American Industrial Arts Association.

Ericson, E. (1946). Teaching the industrial arts. Peoria: Manual Arts Press.Friese, J. (1934). Accepted interpretations. In C. Bennett, et. al., (Eds.)

Industrial arts in modern education. (pp. 142-158). Peoria, IL: ManualArts Press.

Friese, J. (1946). Course-making in industrial education. Peoria: Charles A.

Bennett Co., Inc.

Gerbracht, C. & Babcock, R. (1969). Elementary school industrial arts. New

York: Bruce.

Griffith, I. (1920). Teaching manual and industrial arts. Peoria: Manual Arts

Press.

Hackensack (NJ) Public Schools. (n.d.). Industrial prep, volume two, sophomore

year. EDRS ED 063 464 (VT 015 228).

Hatch, L. (1988). Problem solving approach. In W. Kemp & A. Schwaller,

(Eds.) Instructional strategies for technology education. (p. 87-98).

Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe.

Hayden, M. (1991). Implementing technology education. The Technology

Teacher, 51(2), p. 30-31.

Jones, W. (1958). Problems in teaching industrial arts and vocational educa-

tion. New York: Bruce.

Kemp, W. & Schwaller, A. (1988). Introduction to instructional strategies. In W.

Kemp & A. Schwaller, (Eds.) Instructional strategies for technologyeducation. (p. 16-34). Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe.

Luetkemeyer, J. & McPherson, W. (1975). “The ideas, philosophy, and contri-

butions of Frederick Gordon Bonser.” Man/Society/Technology 34(8) p.260-3.

Lux, D. (1979). The development of selected contemporary industrial arts pro-

grams: the Industrial Arts Curriculum Project. In G. Martin, (Ed.), Indus-trial arts education: retrospect, prospect. (p. 132-168). Bloomington, IL:McKnight.

-28-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Lux, D. (1981). Industrial arts redirected. In R. Wright & R. Barella, (Eds.) An

interpretive history of industrial arts. (p. 205-225). Bloomington, IL:McKnight.

Maley, D. (1973). The Maryland Plan. New York: Bruce.

Maley, D. (1979). The development of selected contemporary industrial arts

programs: the Maryland Plan. In G. Martin, (Ed.), Industrial arts educa-tion: retrospect, prospect. (p. 132-168). Bloomington, IL: McKnight.Marot, H. (1918). Creative impulse in industry: a proposition for educators.

New York: E.P. Dutton and Co.

Martin, G. & Luetkemeyer, J. (1979). Movements that lead to contemporary

industrial arts education. In G. Martin, (Ed.), Industrial arts education:retrospect, prospect. (p. 18-42). Bloomington, IL: McKnight.

Morris, V., & Pai, Y. (1976). Philosophy and the American school. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Co.

Nevada Department of Vocational Education. Vocational education serves

Nevada. Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Vocational Education.Newkirk, L. & Johnson, W. (1948). The industrial arts program. New York:

MacMillan.

Olson, D. (1955). Industrial arts for the general shop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall

Pullias, D. (1987). The cost of change in technology education. The Technology

Teacher, 46(8), p. 3-4.

Pullias, D. (1989). Where do we go from here? ATTE Journal, Winter 1989, 3-4.Pullias, D. (1992). What is technology education? The Technology Teacher,

51(4), p. 3-4.

Smith, D. (1981). Industrial arts founded. In R. Wright & R. Barella, (Eds.) An

interpretive history of industrial arts. Bloomington, IL: McKnight.

Smith, G. (1966). The pre-technology program: a descriptive report. San

Francisco: Cogswell Polytechnic College.

Smith, H. (1924). Industrial education in the public schools of Minnesota.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota College of Education.

Snyder, J. & Hales, J. (n.d.). Jackson’s Mill industrial arts curriculum theory.

Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education.

Sotzin, H. (1929). An industrial arts curriculum for grades four to twelve in-

clusive (Abstract of Doctor’s Dissertation), Cincinnati, OH:. University ofCincinnati College of Education.

Stombaugh, R. (1936). A survey of the movements culminating in industrial arts

education in secondary schools. New York: Teacher’s College, ColumbiaUniversity.

-29-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Stone, W. (1934). Recent history and trends. In C. Bennett, et. al., (Eds.) Indus-

trial arts in modern education. (pp. 123-141). Peoria, IL: Manual ArtsPress.

Street, C. (1956). Concepts of general education. In Hutchcroft, (Ed.), Problems

and issues in industrial arts teacher education. (pp. 167-194).

Bloomington, IL: McKnight and McKnight.

Taylor, J. (1914). A handbook of vocational education. New York: MacMillan.Waetjen, W. (1989). Technological problem solving. Reston, VA: International

Technology Education Association.

Wilber, G. (1948). Industrial arts in general education. Scranton, PA: Interna-

tional Textbook Co.

Wright, R. (1992). Building a defensible curriculum base. Journal of Technol-

ogy Education, 3(2), p. 67-72.

Wright, R., Israel, E. & Lauda, D. (1993). A decision-maker’s guide to tech-

nology education. Reston, VA: International Technology Education

Association.

Zuga, K. (1988). Interdisciplinary approach. In W. Kemp & A. Schwaller, (Eds.)

Instructional strategies for technology education. Mission Hills, CA:Glencoe. 56-71.

-30-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

PHYS-MA-TECH:An Integrated Partnership

Jule Dee Scarborough & Conard White1

There is a national movement across the U.S. to reform education, espe-cially for students of average ability and school achievement–the “forgottenmajority”. Curricular integration across disciplines using teacher teams to

broaden learning contexts as well as improving access to academic courses suchas physics and mathematics has been a response to the call for reform (see, forexample, American Chemical Society, 1988; Benson, 1989; Bottoms, 1989;Edgerton, 1990; Grubb, Davis, Lum, Plihal, & Morgaine, 1991).

There is an increasing amount of literature on the subject of integration,especially literature that describes particular programs and curricula such asPrinciples of Technology (Center for Occupational Research and Developmentand the Agency for Instructional Technology, 1986), Tech Prep (Key, 1991),Science-Technology Society (Aiken, 1992), and Project 2061 (Johnson, 1989).However, little research is available regarding the simultaneous integration ofphysics, mathematics, and technology through interdisciplinary teams and theresulting impact that such an approach has on learning physics.

Most integration endeavors have involved either coordinating curricula orhaving teachers working cooperatively to reinforce concepts so that learningtransfers across two or more contexts. These activities are important steps to-wards improving education, but possibly a stronger and more substantial ap-proach would entail activities that actually restructure the organization anddelivery of content across disciplines, including nontraditional teacher assign-ments as well as nontraditional teaching methodology.

The PHYS-MA-TECH project was funded by the National Science Foun-dation, the Illinois State Board of Education, and Northern Illinois University.The goal of the project was to improve high school physics by integratingPhysics/Mathematics/Technology (P/M/T) both in content and delivery of in-struction. It was proposed that average students have an untapped ability inphysics and mathematics. Their potential in these areas cannot be projectedmerely on the basis of past performance. A basic assumption of this study was1Jule Dee Scarborough and Conard L. White are Professors in the Department of Technology,Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.

-31-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994that average students can not only perform at an acceptable level in physics, butalso possibly do better if it is taught in a relevant fashion. In addition, it wasfelt that average students of the “forgotten majority” may not be getting accessto important science and mathematics courses. It also seems that many integra-tion activities have fallen short in addressing the real issues that must be con-sidered before integration can be sustained for any length of time.

The researchers hypothesized that (a) average students who do not takephysics are interested in the subject, (b) they can succeed in physics, and (c)P/M/T integration in content and delivery will provide a better route for suchstudents to learn physics.

The study sought to measure the effectiveness of the PHYS-MA-TECHprogram by seeking answers to the following research questions:

1.Is there any difference in intellectual ability and academic achievement be-

tween average students "who would not normally enroll in physics" andthose enrolled in a regular physics course?

Is there any difference in gain in physics achievement between studentsenrolled in the PHYS-MA-TECH course and those enrolled in a regularphysics course?2.

Procedure

Letters were sent to fifty school superintendents in northern Illinois de-scribing the project and inviting them to participate. Twelve school districts re-sponded with definite interest and six additional districts were interested inexploring the possibility further.

After an orientation meeting with the superintendents, five schools wereidentified to participate in the study. These schools represented a broad range ofsocioeconomic communities, student population (ability, race, ethnicity), andgeographic location (rural/suburban/urban).

A team of three teachers (one physics, one mathematics, and one technol-ogy teacher) was established at each participating school. After going through arigorous process of inservice activities, the teachers worked as a group to estab-lish acceptable content for a one-year, standard, high school physics course. Thecourse was analyzed for prerequisite mathematics and a potential technologicalframework within which physics could be taught. The teams then developed anintegrated PHYS-MA-TECH curriculum which included 45 modules.

Each school selected a sample of modules to field test. Each module wasfield tested by two or more schools. The modules were then revised based uponfield-test results and used for the study. They are now available to teachersunder the name PHYS-MA-TECH.

-32-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Subjects

The study sought to insure that the students chosen to participate were“average” high school students rather than advanced placement or “highachievers.” Each of the schools identified one or more classes of students toenroll in the PHYS-MA-TECH course and were defined as the experimentalgroup. The students were selected by teachers and counselors on the basis ofthose who “would not have taken physics.” At least one section of regularplacement physics was selected in each school to serve as a control group.

General intelligence scores and overall grade point averages were collectedfor each student in the sample. As each school did not use the same test of gen-eral intelligence, percentile scores were employed in the data analysis. Table 1reports IQ percentile scores for the experimental and control groups. A t testindicated that no significant difference existed.

Table 1

IQ Percentile Scores by Treatment GroupnMeanSDdftpExperimental Group4365.2822.12

Control Group7572.0118.65116-1.760.081Table 2 reports the mean grade point averages (4-point scale) between theexperimental and control groups. Examination of the t test results indicated thatstudents in the control group had a significantly higher grade point average thanthose in the experimental group

Table 2

Overall Grade Point Average by Treatment GroupnMeanSDdftpExperimental Group43 2.40 0.59

Control Group75 2.86 0.61116-4.03<.01Since the subjects in the control group had higher grade averages, butequal IQ percentiles, one might conclude that students “who do not normallyenroll in physics” are of equal ability but do not perform as well in school asthose who do.

-33-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Development of the Instrument

During the developmental phase of the program, project teachers adopted acourse outline for a typical high school level physics course from one developedby the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) and the NationalScience Teachers Association (NSTA). This outline was used as a guide in thedevelopment of the PHYS-MA-TECH modules, (experimental), and the regularphysics course, (control). To assess achievement in the experimental and controlgroups, the Physics Achievement Test was developed.

The major portion of the Physics Achievement Test was extracted from anachievement test developed by the AAPT/NSTA in conjunction with the courseoutline described above. Since the achievement test was developed from thecourse outline, this helped to assure that each of the content areas in the outlinewould be assessed. Additional test items were developed by the project teachersto assess the additional mathematics and technology concepts included inPHYS-MA-TECH modules.

The Physics Achievement Test consisted of 95 multiple-choice items, eachof which had either four or five responses. The test was divided into five unittests, each coordinated with one of the five major units of instruction. The unittests were: (a) Mechanics, 34 items; (b) Heat and Kinetic Theory, 17 items; (c)Electricity and Magnetism, 22 items; (d) Waves, Optics, and Sound, 17 items;and (e) Modern Physics, 5 items. The number of items in each unit reflected theproportion of instructional time allotted to them.

Since a large portion of the Physics Achievement Test was developed fromthe adopted course outline by the AAPT/NSTA, it was assumed that the testwould be valid for measuring each of the content areas in the course outline. Toaugment test validity, a copy of the course outline and each of the test itemsarranged in a random order was analyzed by a group of five high school physicsteachers. They were asked to: (a) select the appropriate content area from thecourse outline which the item measured, (b) point out any items which wereambiguous, and (c) choose the correct answer for the item. Upon completion ofthese activities, the instrument was finalized and printed.

The study was conducted during the 1990-91 school year. During the firsttwo weeks of the school year, the unit test for the first unit of instruction(Mechanics) was administered. As each of the five major units of instructionwas completed, the physics subtest for the unit just completed was administeredas a posttest and the subtest for the unit which was about to begin was adminis-tered as a pretest. The tests were administered by project staff and were not seenby the participating teachers to insure that classroom instruction was not“geared” specifically to test items.

-34-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Results

Table 3 displays the overall test results of the Physics Achievement Test bytreatment group. The number of items correct is displayed in each cell. The rawgain cells depict the mean differences between individual pretest and posttestscores. Residual gain scores were calculated to serve as a dependent variable toindicate an increase in learning from the pretest to the posttest. A regressionanalysis was completed using the pretest score on each unit test as a predictor ofthe unit posttest score. Each of the correlations between pretest and posttest wasfound to be highly significant. The regression weights were then used tocalculate a predicted posttest score from the pretest score. The difference be-tween this predicted score and the student's actual posttest score is the residualgain.

Table 3

Physics Achievement Test Scores: Pretest, Posttest, and Gain Scores byTreatment GroupUnit Test

ModernTotal

GroupMech.HeatElect.WavesPhysicsScoresExperimental

n = 43

Pretest9.335.266.844.141.7227.28Posttest11.866.448.144.671.8833.00Raw Gain 2.531.19 1.30 0.530.165.72Residual Gain-0.34 -0.41+0.00 -0.42 -0.08-1.25Control

n = 75

Pretest10.526.807.554.001.7230.59Posttest13.087.808.415.282.0136.59Raw Gain 2.561.000.871.280.296.00Residual Gain+0.19 +0.24-0.00+0.24+0.05+0.72To serve as a basis for comparison between treatment groups, a two-waymultivariate analysis of covariance was utilized to test for differences in meanpretest scores. Student scores on the five physics subtest scores were used asdependent variables. The independent variable was treatment group. IQ per-centile score and student grade point average were used as covariates to controlfor student ability and previous performance in school.

-35-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Table 4 reports the results of the multivariate analysis on the pretest data.The value for Pilliai's Trace, a multivariate statistical treatment, has been trans-formed to a statistic which has an approximate F distribution. The significancelevel for this F is shown in the table.

Table 4

Multivariate Analysis of Variance Table for Physics Pretest Scores by TreatmentGroupMultivariate Tests of Significance

EffectPilliai'sApprox.Error

TraceFdfdfProb.Within Cells0.344.55102220.000Treatment Group0.061.44 51100.217Constant0.184.73 51100.001The Within Cells effect indicates that the covariates, IQ and GPA, are sig-nificantly related to the dependent variables. This covariate effect is removedprior to testing for the remaining effects, thus controlling for IQ and GPA.

The Treatment Group main factor was not significant. This indicates thatthere was no significant difference in mean pretest scores between the experi-mental and control groups. Table 3 shows that the control group had an overallmean of 30.59 correct items as compared with 27.28 for the experimental group.

The Constant effect indicates that the grand mean of 29.38 correct itemswas significantly different from zero.

Gain in Physics Achievement

A multivariate analysis of covariance was also utilized to test for a signifi-cant difference in mean residual gain between treatment group. The meanresidual gain score between pretest and posttest administrations of the physicsachievement was used as the dependent variable. These data are reported inTable 3.

Table 5 contains the multivariate analysis of variance for residual gain ofthe five unit tests between treatment groups. As with the previous analysis, IQand student grade point average were used as covariates.

The Within Cells effect was significant, thus indicating that the covariates,IQ and GPA, were related to the residual gain. This effect was removed beforethe other factors were taken into consideration. As can be seen from Table 5,

-36-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Table 5

Multivariate Analysis of Variance Table for Physics Residual Gain Scores byTreatment GroupMultivariate Tests of Significance

EffectPilliai'sApprox.Error

TraceFdfdfProb.Within Cells0.222.71102220.004Treatment Group0.020.44 51100.822Constant0.153.79 51100.003the Treatment Group main factor effect indicates that there was no significantdifference in mean residual gain between the experimental and control groups.Discussion

This project seems to be one of the first involving technology educatorsfunded by the National Science Foundation. Because the goal of the projectfocused on improving physics, some have questioned its implications fortechnology and vocational education. Rather than question the value or

relationship of this project to our fields, perhaps focus should be placed on thepositive outcomes.

Students selected for this study would not have enrolled in a physics classon their own volition. Although they displayed intellectual abilities equal tothose who normally enroll in physics, their achievement levels were found to lagbehind. When physics was taught using an integrated approach, these studentsexhibited a similar gain in achievement as those enrolled in a regular physicsclass. This suggests that the integration of physics, mathematics, and

technological content provides a valuable teaching tool for helping studentsgrasp subject matter which they might have previously felt was either beyondtheir reach or was uninteresting.

In addition to the outcomes supported by research data that serve to stimu-late repositioning of technology education, or perhaps vocational education, inrelationship to physics education, the reader should consider the related out-comes as well. Five schools, after participating in this project, have committedto long-term integration of P/M/T in both content and delivery. Four of theseschools have sustained the models and have gone well beyond the integratedcourse(s) that resulted from the project development and field testing. Oneschool is planning to develop four years of integrated science, mathematics andtechnology, one course for each grade level. Another school has added a secondclass of integrated P/M/T and began other integration initiatives while a thirdschool has developed a capstone engineering course using the P/M/T approach.

-37-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994This school also has an integrated physical science course for ninth-gradestudents taught collaboratively by science and technology teachers.

Finally, another school is utilizing a technological approach for acceleratedphysics and has introduced an integrated ninth-grade physical science course.Three schools have reported that enrollments in physics and technology haveincreased. They indicated that because more students were exposed to technol-ogy and physics content, student interest and enrollment increased in both areas.This question of relevance to technology, therefore, seems insignificant whenconsidering the definite and positive impact this project has had on

strengthening the position of technology and vocational education in these highschools.

The outcomes have played a major role in stimulating integration that goesbeyond integrated curriculum and coordinated teaching. They have set the stageto question traditional delivery systems. The project has designed models and acurriculum that will work in almost any school. Most importantly, however, isthe change in relationships that occurred in the schools among the teachers.Without exception, feedback from teachers documents strong perceptual

changes. Technology/vocational teachers were seen more as academic contribu-tors as the project progressed. It seems, then, that this project has provideddirection which strengthens the interrelationship between technology and voca-tional education with its mathematics and physics counterparts.

References

Aiken, G. (1992). The integration of STS into science education, 32(1), p. 27-34.American Chemical Society. (1988). ChemCom: Chemistry in the community.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Benson, C. (1989, July 27). On integrating academic and vocational education

(Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts and

Humanities). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bottoms, J. E. (1989). Closing the gap between vocational and academic edu-

cation. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Vocational Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 516)

Center for Occupational Research and Development [CORD] and the Agency

for Instructional Technology [AIT]. (1986). Principles of Technology.Waco, TX: Author.

Edgerton, R. T. (1990). Survey feedback from secondary school teachers that

are finishing their first year teaching from an integrated mathematicscurriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 419)Grubb, W. N., Davis, G., Lum, J., Plihal, J., & Morgaine, C. (1991, January).

The cunning hand, the cultured mind: Models for integrating vocationaland academic education. Berkeley, CA: University of California, NationalCenter for Research in Vocational Education.

-38-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Johnson, J. R. (1989). Technology: Report of the Project 2061 Phase 1 Tech-

nology Panel. Waldorf, MD: American Association for the Advancementof Science.

Key, C. (1991). Visualizing tech prep systems geared for the the next century--A

research based analysis of Part E, Tech Prep Education of the Carl D.Perkins Vocational/Applied Technology Education Act. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.

-39-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Operative Computer Learning withCooperative Task and Reward Structures

Susan R. Seymour1

Introduction

America is in a recession that is strangling budgets and challenging edu-cational administrators to stretch existing resources. Compounding this chal-lenge is the ever changing field of computer technology and the dire need toeducate a technically competent work force. Currently, the United States is

falling behind technological leaders such as Japan and Britain in our attempts toeducate a technological work force. Although the reasons for this lack of successin teaching technology are diverse, the most common barriers are financial.These financial barriers are most noticeable in the regional inequities betweensuburban and rural schools and are manifested in the lack of computer

equipment in schools, or outdated equipment not being replaced. (Mruk, 1987)Therefore, the teaching of computer technology is faced with a distinct educa-tional problem: how can we educate more students using limited computerresources without sacrificing student aptitude or enjoyment of the learningevent? Cooperative learning provides a plausible solution.

Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy that encourages student successby alleviating overt competitiveness and substituting group encouragement. Incooperative learning, individuals work with their peers to achieve a commongoal rather than competing against their peers or working separately from them.Research on the benefits of cooperative learning has shown an increase in

academic achievement, positive attitudes towards learning and increased studentsatisfaction.

Review of the Related Literature

Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement

The effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement has been welldocumented and research suggests that cooperative learning produces greaterstudent achievement than traditional learning methodologies. In fact, a reviewcompleted by Slavin in 1984, found that 63% of all cooperative learning studies1Susan Seymour is a Doctoral Student, University of British Columbia, Department ofAdministrative, Adult and Higher Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

-40-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994analyzed showed increases in academic achievement. Slavin's review isolatedthe prominent characteristics responsible for increased achievement scores anddiscovered that cooperative task structures and cooperative reward structureswere the two determining factors in the success of cooperative learning. Thisdata is supported again in Slavin's 1990 meta-analysis when he concludes thatmethods emphasizing group goals and individual accountability are consistentlymore effective in increasing student achievement than other forms of co-operative learning. Although this holds true for the majority of research, astudy completed by Okebukola (1985) included individual accountability andgroup goals and showed no significant positive effects on achievement. Inaddition, research conducted by Rich, Amir, and Slavin (1986) incorporatedindividual accountability and group goals but showed negative effects onachievement.

Cooperative Learning Effects Other Than Achievement

Cooperative learning models have shown effects other than academicachievement that contribute to the overall satisfaction of course participants(Salend & Sonnenschein, 1989). A wide variety of social benefits have beendocumented. Such benefits include: promotion of positive attitudes towardschooling (Johnson & Johnson, 1978), promotion of group socialization andcohesiveness (Slavin, 1990), decreased prejudicial attitudes (Johnson & John-son, 1978; Slavin, 1990), encouragement of risk taking (Johnson & Johnson,1975), fostering of self esteem (Slavin, 1990) and increased ability to seeanother's perspective (Slavin, 1990).

Cooperative Learning and the Computer

In almost all schools the number of students far exceeds the number ofcomputers, however, individualistic education has dominated the use of com-puters (Dickson & Vereen, 1983). One student per computer is the tradition andfew have challenged this in the research arena, although understanding the

effects of cooperation at the computer could have economic as well as academicbenefits. One untapped resource for education of computers is peer tutoring.Peer tutoring is the cooperation between two or more students in which onestudent actively takes on the teaching role. It has been an effective cooperativebehavior in fostering intellectual and social growth (Hill & Helburn, 1981). In arecent study by Teer, Teer & McKnight (1988), students using peer tutoringgained greater computer and relational skills than students working

independently. Mehan (1985) suggests a natural tendency for students to col-laborate at the computer regardless of adult supervision. Mehan states thatwhen students are placed at a computer and “left to their own devices....(they)work out the details of task completion themselves, resulting in voluntary

-41-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994instead of compulsory forms of instructional activity”. This tendency forstudents to rely on each other to work out problems is at the heart of

cooperative learning.

Research directly relating cooperative learning with computers is limited,but some excellent studies have been completed by Webb (1984) and Oh (1988).Webb's study evaluated group effectiveness in the teaching of computerprogramming to 30 students ranging in age from 11 to 14. The study dealt

extensively with group planning and processing involved in the breakdown anddissemination of knowledge. Webb also looked at the relationship of

cooperative groups to increased academic achievement and found that coopera-tive group learning was positively related to academic performance for studentslearning BASIC (a computer programming language).

A study conducted at Illinois State University by doctoral student Hyun-anOh (1988), looked at the effects of both cooperative and individualistic incentiveand task structures on achievement in computer programming. His study ran forseven weeks during which he compared the performance of 114 university

students enrolled in a introductory microcomputer course under three treatments.The treatments were variations of cooperative task, cooperative incentive,individualistic task and individualistic incentive. Oh's findings indicated thatthere were no differences in achievement between cooperative learning withcomputers and individualistic learning with computers. He also concluded thatincentive made no difference in student achievement for either cooperativestructures or individualistic structures. This conclusion was drawn from the factthat students who had no incentive performed as well as students with incentivein both cooperative and individualistic treatments.

Purpose of the Study

In keeping with the concept of optimizing computer resources by pairingstudents at one computer, it is necessary to know if cooperative learning struc-tures affect the academic achievement and satisfaction of students learning aboutcomputers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the difference inachievement and satisfaction between three groups of post secondary studentslearning computer aided drafting under three different learning treatments:cooperative task and reward, individualistic task and reward and a combinationof cooperative and individualistic tasks and rewards. By manipulating the

independent variables (cooperative task, cooperative reward, individualistic taskand individualistic reward) significant differences in two dependent variables(student achievement and student satisfaction) were tested.

Research Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were proposed for this study of cooperativelearning structures on post secondary, computer aided design students:

-42-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

1.There is no significant difference in achievement levels between coopera-

tive learning structures and individualistic structures.

2.There is no significant difference in student satisfaction levels between co-

operative learning structures and individualistic structures.

3.There is no significant difference in achievement levels between coopera-

tive learning structures combined with individualistic structures and

individualistic structures alone.

4.There is no significant difference in satisfaction levels between cooperative

learning structures combined with individualistic structures and individual-istic structures alone.

The scope of this study was limited in that it encompassed 57 students en-rolled in an Introduction to Computer Graphics course at Colorado State

University. It was assumed that the time allotted for this study (15 weeks) wasappropriate in determining the effects of cooperative learning on studentachievement and satisfaction, and that students completed evaluative instru-ments honestly.

Methodology

The cooperative model studied was based on Slavin's Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (Slavin 1986, 1990). This method of cooperative

learning clusters students in four-member learning teams that are mixed in per-formance level. Performance levels of students were determined by pretestscores and grade point averages, and then students were randomly assigned to agroup.

Three sections of an Introduction to Computer Aided Drafting course,

consisting of 14, 21, and 22 students, were involved in the study and each groupparticipated in three treatments (cooperative task and reward, individualistic taskand reward and a combination of cooperative and individualistic task andreward). The course was divided into nine progressive units designed to

introduce new concepts, practice application, and test understanding. A post test,an attitude survey, three quizzes and three drawing assignments were used todetermine the level of achievement for each treatment. The post test was acomprehensive test covering information presented during each five weeksession and which students took at the end of each session. The same attitudesurvey was used for each of the treatments and was given to students at the endof each five week session. Students were also responsible for completing ninedrawings and taking nine quizzes during the course of the semester (three pertreatment). All instruments were consistent across teams and course sections.

The population for this study was post secondary students enrolled in anintroductory course in computer aided drafting. The research was conducted on

-43-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994a purposive sample which was established through the Colorado StateUniversity enrollment system.

Procedures

At the beginning of each unit the instructor presented new material by

talking the students through new commands while they worked at the computer.The same presentation was given to all three treatments, but during thecombined and cooperative treatments, students were paired while workingthrough the software's commands. Students in the individualistic treatmentworked alone at the computer during the presentation of new commands.

Upon completion of the lecture, drawing assignments were given and stu-dents in the cooperative and combined treatments were assigned a partner.Drawing partners were rotated each week to give students the opportunity towork with each member of their team during each treatment. In addition,

members within a team were responsible for 1 of 4 drawings. This insured thatteam members would complete their own drawings rather than submit a teammember's drawing as their own.

During lab time, students in the cooperative and combined treatments tookturns at the computer to complete their drawings. Obviously, while one studentwas busy working at the computer, the other was passive. However, because thisstudent had a vested interest in the success of their partner (the grades of theteammates were averaged) the drawing became a cooperative task experiencedby both members. In other words, while one student was working at the

drawing, the other student acted as a coach, making sure the drawing was beingdone correctly and helping out if mistakes were made. This behavior was en-couraged and monitored by the instructor during the cooperative and combinedtreatments. When students were in the individualistic treatment, they completedtheir drawings on their own, sitting and working by themselves at the computer.This behavior was also encouraged and monitored by the instructor.

A quiz was given at the end of each unit which covered information

presented in lecture, outlined in the reading and practiced in the drawing exer-cises. Prior to each quiz, students were given ten minutes to review their notes.Students in the cooperative section were encouraged to use this time to studywith their team mates to ensure that their team mates were prepared, because thequiz grade awarded would be the average of their team members' grades. Theindividualistic and combined treatments did not average quiz grades so theywere given ten minutes to prepare for the quiz but were not allowed to studytogether (see Figure 1).

-44-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

IndivualisticTreatment (3 units)CombinedTreatment (3 units)CooperativeTreatment (3 units)

Individualistic Task

Quiz PreparationDrawing Com-pletion

Quiz PreparationIndivualistic RewardQuiz GradeDrawingGrade

Quiz Grade

Cooperative TaskCooperative Reward

Drawing Com-pletion

Quiz PreparationDrawing Com-pletion

DrawingGrade*Quiz Grade*DrawingGrade*

*grades are based on the average of the teams' grades

Figure 1. Task and reward structures used in each treatment.

Results

The statistical design chosen for this study was a counterbalanced design.This design is ideal for eliminating threats to internal validity when randomassignment of subjects is not possible. Each group receives each treatment, thuseliminating the possibility that non randomized groups might not be equivalentand differences construed as an effect of the independent variable. The counterbalance design diminishes potential differences by exposing all groups to thevariations of the independent variable, while at the same time ruling out order-of-presentation effects (Isaac & Michael, 1990).

In the counterbalanced design, each group of students was exposed to eachvariation of the independent variable at different times during the experiment(see Figure 2). After each treatment, the column mean for each variation of theindependent variable was computed. These mean scores were then comparedusing an ANOVA to check for initial differences and sequencing differences inthe dependent variables: student achievement and student satisfaction.

Analysis of Student Achievement

Three dependent measures were evaluated to determine levels of signifi-cance between and among treatment groups: post test scores, drawing scores,and quiz scores. The maximum score for the post test is 30 and the maximum forboth the drawing and quiz scores is 10. Table 1 shows the statistical means ofthe treatment groups for each of the dependent measures.

-45-

Journal of Technology EducationTreatment Variation

Weeks1-5

Section 1ASection 2BSection 3C

Vol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Weeks

5-10BCAWeeks10-15CAB

A = Individualistic TreatmentB = Combined TreatmentC = Cooperative Treatment

Figure 2. Counter balanced design as utilized in the treatment schedule.Table 1

Mean of Dependent Variables by Treatment Group

Post Test ScoresDrawing ScoresQuiz Scores

TreatmentMean SDMean SDMean SDIndividualistic22.75883.56139.7661.31478.1520 .8798CombinedCooperative

21.526322.4649

4.96233.8352

9.80129.8538

.2263.2978

7.88898.2378

1.2477 .5592

The statistical means show little difference in achievement between thetreatment groups. For both the quiz and drawing means there is a slightly higherscore for the cooperative groups than the individualistic and combined groups.However, the scores for post tests indicate higher achievement in theindividualistic groups than in either the cooperative or combined groups.Comparing combined scores to the individualistic and cooperative scores, wefind that for both the post test and quiz scores, the combined scores were thelowest. Only in the drawing scores did the combined treatment show slightlyhigher achievement scores than the individualistic group.

The statistical means of achievement scores show little or no difference be-tween the treatment groups in promoting achievement. However, it is helpful toanalyze the standard deviations for each dependent measure to determine thespread of the scores. One-way ANOVAs were run on each of the achievementmeasures to determine variance between scores for each treatment. This analysisis depicted in Table 2.

The analyses of variance for both the post test scores and the drawing scoresshow an F ratio less than 1.96 and an F probability higher than 5 percent. It istherefore concluded that neither of these show significant differences within orbetween the treatment groups.

Due to the lack of significant difference in achievement scores betweencooperative, combined and individualistic treatments, the following hypotheses

-46-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994are accepted for this study of cooperative learning structures on post secondary,computer aided design students:

1.There is no significant difference in achievement levels between coopera-

tive learning structures and individualistic structures.

2.There is no significant difference in achievement levels between coopera-

tive learning structures combined with individualistic structures and indi-vidualistic structures alone.

Table 2

Analysis of Variance for Achievement Scores by TreatmentAnalysis of Variance of Post Test by TreatmentSum ofMeanFF

SourcedfSquaresSquaresRatioProb.Between Groups247.239023.61951.3623.2589Within Groups1682912.886017.3386

Total1702960.1250Analysis of Variance of Drawing Scores by TreatmentSum ofMeanFF

SourcedfSquaresSquaresRatioProb.Between Groups2.2222.11111.3950.2507Within Groups16813.3816.0797

Total17013.6038Analysis of Variance of Quiz Scores by TreatmentSum ofMeanFF

SourcedfSquaresSquaresRatioProb.Between Groups23.80121.90062.1568.1189Within Groups168148.0443.8812

Total170151.845Analysis of Student Attitude

Student attitude was tested at the end of each treatment. The attitude surveyconsisted of twelve questions used to determine the level of student

understanding and enjoyment of the course.

-47-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

In order to determine differences between treatment groups in their re-sponses to the attitude survey, student responses were converted to an attitudescore. The scores were based on positive responses to course enjoyment andstudent understanding. If students responded strongly positive (either with astrongly agree or strongly disagree – they received four points. Positive

responses (either agree or disagree) received three points. Two points and onepoint were rewarded for negative and strongly negative responses respectively.Once the scores were determined, statistical means were calculated for eachgroup (Table 3) and an Analysis of Variance was performed (Table 4) todetermine if there was significance between group satisfaction.

Table 3

Means of Attitude Scores by TreatmentMeanSDCasesIndividualistic40.40353.509557

Combined40.45613.850257

Cooperative40.12283.864157Table 4

Analysis of Variance of Attitude Scores by TreatmentSum ofMeanFF

SourcedfSquaresSquaresRatioProb.Between Groups23.66081.8304.1305.8777Within Groups1682356.000014.0238

Total1702359.6608Due to the low F ratio and extremely high F probability, it is concludedfrom this analysis that there is no significant differences in attitude score be-tween the treatment groups. Therefore the following hypotheses are accepted forthis study of cooperative learning structures on post secondary, computer aideddesign students:

1.There is no significant difference in student satisfaction levels between co-

operative learning structures and those individualistic structures.

2.There is no significant difference in satisfaction levels between cooperative

learning structures combined with individualistic structures and individual-istic structures alone.

-48-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Observations and Recommendations

One of the immediate benefits of cooperative learning structures over in-dividualistic learning structures in the teaching of computer applications, is thatstudents work two to a computer. This allows twice the number of students touse equipment. Such an obvious benefit would allow lab and course coordi-nators to enroll twice as many students into microcomputer classes. Observationshowed no detriment to students working together at the computer. In fact, thosestudents allowed to complete drawings independently would often leave classearly and finish drawings during open laboratory hours. Students workingindependently also experienced more absences and asked more questions di-rectly of the instructor than did their collaborative counterparts.

Cooperative learning sparked camaraderie throughout the semester and itappeared that most students enjoyed working together. There were many timesduring individualistic sessions that the instructor had to ask students to stopworking together. They seemed hesitant to work at the computer alone and pre-ferred working with a partner. However, the reverse was true as well. Somestudents balked at working with their team members during the combined andcooperative sessions. There seemed to be a pattern indicating that if studentsworked together at the first of the semester, as was the case in the combined andcooperative sessions, they wanted to continue working together. Those studentswho started the semester independently, struggled to get acquainted with theirpartners once the semester was underway.

With the indication that students liked to work together, the question arises“Why didn't the cooperative and combined treatments produce higher achieve-ment and student satisfaction?”. Obviously there may be a number of confound-ing variables not controlled for by this study, but observations were made whichmay effect research design considerations of future studies. Most of the studentsparticipating in this study seemed to be extremely grade motivated. Regardlessof the treatment in which they participated, they appeared more concerned withquiz grades than with understanding how the computer or software worked. Itmay be suggested that any student highly motivated by grades will consistentlyperform for the sake of maintaining a grade point average. Conversely, studentswho appeared apathetic early in the semester regardless of the treatment did notappear motivated to work within their groups. Group members who were goodstudents no doubt felt stress over a team mate not performing well, but thosedisinclined students seemed unmoved by the fact that they were pulling theirteammates down. In fact, a few such students did not show up during quizzes inwhich their team mates were dependent on group participation.

The counterbalanced design was used for this study because it eliminatedmost threats to internal validity. However, one aspect of this design may havenegatively effected the outcome of the study. One of the assumptions for this

-49-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994research was that five weeks was enough time to test the effectiveness of thetreatments, but treatment overlap was not considered during the planningstages of this investigation. Because each student went from one treatment di-rectly into another, most participants experienced a period of confusion andreadjustment. Students were perplexed as to how they were being graded andwhether or not they should be working with someone else. This added to thealready difficult task of getting students to work together who chose to be inde-pendent and getting students to work alone who relied too heavily on theirpartners.

Because of the unique motivations that apply to college and university stu-dents, it would be interesting to look at similar research conducted with popu-lations that may be differently motivated. An example of this would be to usecooperative models in a job retraining program for adults over age 30 who arelearning a CAD system. Because this population is motivated by getting orkeeping a job rather than grades, cooperative learning might affect them differ-ently than those motivated by grades. Another motivation that should beconsidered is intrinsic motivation. For example, do individuals studying asubject strictly for pleasure and self improvement benefit from cooperativeeducation?

Although statistics in this study show no positive correlation betweencooperative learning and increased satisfaction of the learning event, it is

possible that students may have enjoyed the cooperative sessions more than theindividualistic session. More extensive research which analyzes student'sfeelings about working together could be helpful in determining the

effectiveness of cooperative learning in a university microcomputer class.Qualitative analysis could be helpful in exploring student feelings because itwould allow the researcher to focus on the dynamics of the instructional settingrather than achievement scores. Because this area of analysis is virtuallyunexplored at the post secondary and adult levels, any information gained inthe area of student comfort with a computer or opinions about sharingequipment could greatly benefit the field of technology education. Astechnology continues to grow exponentially, it is essential that researchuncovers effective methods to disseminate technological information.Cooperative learning should be extolled as one of these effective methods.

References

Dickson, W.P., & Vereen, M.A. (1983). Two students at one computer. Theory

into Practice, 22(1), p. 296-300.

Hill, A.D., & Helburn, N. (1981). Two modes of peer teaching in introductory

college geography. Journal of Geographical Higher Education, 5(145), p.221-226.

-50-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Isaac, S., & Michael, M. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation. 2nd ed.

San Diego, CA: Edits.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Coop-

erative competition and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1978). Student cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic attitudes towards schooling. Journal of Educational Psy-chology 100, 183-199.

Mehan, H. (1985). Microcomputers and classroom organization. o f

the American Anthropological Association, 12, 16-20.

Mruk, C.J. (1987). Teaching adult learners basic computer skills: A new look at

age, sex, and motivational factors. Collegiate Microcomputer, 5(3), p. 294-300.

Oh, H. (1988). The effects of individualistic, cooperative task, and cooperative

incentive structures on college student achievement in computer pro-gramming in basic (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1987).Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1688.

Okebukola, P.A., (1985). The relative effectiveness of cooperative and com-

petitive interaction techniques in strengthening students' performance inscience classes. Science Education, 69, 501-509.

Rich, Y., Amir, Y., & Slavin, R.E. (1986). Instructional strategies for improving

children's cross-ethnic relations. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University,Institute for the Advancement of Social Integration in the Schools.

Salend, S.J., & Sonnenschein, P. (1989). Validating the effectiveness of a coop-

erative learning strategy through direct observation. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 27(1), p. 47-58.

Slavin, R.E. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: How has it been used?. Educa-

tional Researcher, 13(8), p. 6-27.

Slavin, R.E. (1986a). Using Student Team Learning. (3rd ed.). Baltimore: John

Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle

Schools.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative Learning - Theory, Research, and Practice.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Teer, H.B, Teer, F., & McKnight, R. (1988). Peer taught microcomputer skills:

An untapped resource for stretching the budget. Computer & Education,12, 2, p. 355-357.

Webb, N.M. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive re-

quirements and group processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,1076-1088.

-51-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Materials Science and Technology:What do the Students Say?

Guy Whittaker1

Introduction

Materials Science and Technology (MST) is a multidisciplinary course de-veloped to replace much of the dreary, tedious atmosphere of many traditionalscience classrooms with a stimulating environment conducive to learning. Thecourse uses problem solving as the foundation of its approach to studying sci-ence and technology. Students learn problem-solving skills as scientists andtechnologists do through hands-on experimenting, creating, designing, andbuilding. What are student perceptions of this course? This qualitative studyexamines the perspectives of students in three Materials Science and Technol-ogy classes at Desert High, a fictitious name for a large public high school incentral Washington State. Like many high schools, Desert High is concernedwith curriculum, student interest, parent expectations, and other problems thathigh schools face daily. The local community supports a university extensioncampus, many industries related to science, technology, scientific research, andagriculture.

The Status of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education

As we frequently read, science, mathematics, and technology education arein trouble. The number of students taking these courses beyond the minimumrequired by state statutes is declining yearly. The National Center for ImprovingScience Education (NCISE) reports that “at least two-thirds of the nation's highschool students typically do not elect science courses or achieve well in thosecourses they are required to complete” (NCISE 1991, p. 1). NCISE also saysthat these students are disproportionately women and minorities.

In Washington State alone, Nelson and Hays (1992) report that even in thecontext of the state's modest expectations in mathematics, science, and technol-ogy, students are not succeeding. They say that “although there are pockets ofexcellence, most science, mathematics, and technology education programs fallshort of producing citizens prepared for the 21st Century” (p. 29).

Guy Whittaker is a PreCollege Faculty Fellow sponsored by the Science Education Center of PacificNorthwest Laboratory (PNL), a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory and is currentlyfinishing hs doctoral program in Curriculum Development, Washington State University, Pullman,WA.

-52-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

In light of these findings, Tobias (1991), Roy (1992), Krieger (1992), Hays(1992), and Nelson and Hays (1992) have reemphasized the need for reform inmathematics, science, and technology education. We have a science and tech-nology illiterate society. Americans do not understand enough science ortechnology to make the political decisions required of them (Haggin 1992).What is the problem?

Johns Hopkins University biology professor James D. Ebert summarizeswell a myriad of descriptions offered by many experts in the field of science:

In today's schools, science instruction during the elementary schoolyears is infrequent and inconsistent. During the middle school years, astudent's window to the natural world is typically a textbook accompaniedby dreary worksheets. As a result, students enter high school thoroughlybored by science and give no thought to the subject beyond the requiredcourses, which more often than not affirm their expectations of anunrewarding experience (in Krieger 1992, p. 27).

Methods of instruction appear and reappear as the single most importantfactor cited in research as the cause of student boredom. Courses generally donot provide hands-on opportunities for students to experience live science.Rather, “the high school curriculum is characterized by strict disciplinary ap-proaches that are limited to the body of knowledge with little attention to howthat body of knowledge develops or how it makes an impact on culture andsociety” (NCISE, 1991, p. 1).

According to Tobias (1991), “what makes science hard may not be the sci-ence itself or the unpreparedness or prior alienation of high school and college-level students, but rather how science is packaged and purveyed--something wecan all do a great deal to change” (p. 379). If this assumption is correct, a validconclusion would be that the problem is not studying science, mathematics, ortechnology, but how these disciplines are being taught.

Therefore, a new curriculum using the active, hands-on learning strategiesdescribed below may help alleviate the problem and improve science, mathe-matics, and technology education:

?

?

?manipulation of equipment and materials (Tobin 1990)hands-on work to make connections to real life (Leonard, Cavana andLowery, 1981; Johnson and Johnson, 1985; Tobin, 1986; Farrell, 1991;and Louden 1991)real life connections and student involvement in decision making

(Cothern and Collins, 1992; Tobin, 1990; Carey, 1986; Hogarth and

Einhorn, 1992; Archenhold, Cooke, and Sang, 1987; Farrell, 1991;

Johnson and Johnson, 1985; Leonard, Cavana, and Lowery, 1981)

-53-

Journal of Technology Education?

?

?Vol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994incremental exposure to new material (Hogarth and Einhorn, 1992)use of writing to help students develop understanding (Cothern andCollins, 1992; Kalonji, 1992; Louden, 1991; Fennell, 1991)cooperative learning for exchange of ideas and peer teaching (Farivar,

1992; Blosser, 1993; Starr, 1991).

The MST Course

The MST course offered at Desert High, and at more than a dozen othersites around the country, was designed based on some of the strategies de--scribed above. The course uses materials--broadly defined as the “stuff” thatmakes modern life possible--to bridge school science and technology and “reallife.”

The course was developed by Northwest teachers and staff of Pacific

Northwest Laboratory (PNL), which is operated by Battelle Memorial Institutefor the U.S. Department of Energy. The philosophy/rationale of the course isdescribed as follows:

The philosophy that underlies this introductory Materials Science andTechnology (MST) curriculum has as much to do with how things aretaught as with what is taught. The instructional approach is based on theidea that students cannot learn through talk or textbooks alone. To under-stand materials, they must experiment with them, work with their hands todiscover their nature and properties, and apply the scientific concepts theylearn by ‘doing’ to designing and creating products of their ownchoosing...Students get a chance to use and build their mechanical skills aswell as mind skills. We call this approach hands-on/minds-onlearning...Students ponder, plan, experiment, goof up, correct, discover,and learn in a laboratory setting. (Pacific Northwest Laboratory 1993, pp.17-19)

The course focuses on four major units of study--metals, ceramics/glass,polymers, and composites. Table 1 briefly outlines one example of the contentof the course related to these units. Table 2 provides student learning objectivesrelated to the example content.

Using a multi-instructional approach that includes elements to appeal tomany learning styles, the course is designed to be taught to a wide range of stu-dents. Each unit typically focuses on (1) student experiments, individually andin groups, and (2) student projects, where students design, research, create andbuild individual or group projects. Designing and creating projects is oftenwhat draws students to enroll in the MST course, partly because they are at-tracted to the idea of building and studying something that is current and rele-vant to them.

-54-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Table 1

Outline of Course ContentI.Introduction

A.Materials - The basic nature and properties of materials

B.Solid State - Materials divided into two categories: crystalline and

amorphous

II.Body of Course

A.The Nature of Metals - Properties and characteristics of metals

B.The Nature of Ceramics - Properties and characteristics of ceramics

C.The Nature of Glasses - Properties and characteristics of glass

D.The Nature of Polymers - Properties and characteristics of polymersE.The Nature of Composites - Properties and characteristics of

composites

III.Topics to be Integrated

A.Physical Properties

1.Thermal properties of materials

2.Electrical properties of materials

3.Strength of materials

4.Optical properties of materials

B.Chemical Properties

C.Periodic Table of the Elements

D.Methods of scientific inquiry

E.Significant developments in the history of materials

F.Application of Materials

G.Systems of technology developmentBeyond MST's basic problem-solving approach through experimenting andcreating projects, other fundamental elements of the course include fosteringstudent creativity, developing handiness and journal writing skills, working inteams, and using community resources.

Table 2

Student Learning Objectives (overview)On completing the course, the student will be able to:

1.Identify materials specific to our environment

2.Classify materials as metallic or non-metallic

3.Classify materials as crystalline or amorphous

-55-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Table 2 (continued)4.Understand the basic properties of materials: mechanical, thermal, chemical,

optical, and magnetic

5.Understand that the properties of a material are governed by chemical

bonding and crystal structure

6.Understand that the properties of materials can be altered by changing their

chemical makeup or physical makeup by treating them in various ways

7.Be able to use particular terms specific to materials science and technology

8.Apply the powers of observation, measurement, and comparison to analyze

materials, their properties and applications

9.Understand the basic processes of extracting, preparing, and producing

materials used in the course

10.Select materials for specific uses based on the properties, characteristics,

and service of the materials

11.Flourish in an environment of creativity

12.Think critically to solve problems in manipulating and controlling the

materials used in the course

13.Use writing to record observations, procedures and experiments and as a

tool for thinking, studying and learning the subject matter

14.Demonstrate in writing and discussion an appreciation and understanding of

significant developments in the history of materials

15.Select, design, and build a project or projects demonstrating the creative and

innovative application of materials

16.Work in a cooperative group setting for problem solving.Fusing Science and Technology Education

An important aspect of the MST course is how it illustrates the natural“fusion” of science and technology education. Hays (Pacific Northwest Labora-tory, 1993) says:

In the MST classroom, the boundaries are blurred between scienceand technology. It is not easy to know when one ends and the other begins.In this way, the learning environment of MST reflects the scientific andtechnical enterprise where scientists, engineers, and technologists worktogether to uncover knowledge and solve problems. In the schoolenvironment these overlapping and complementary roles of science andtechnology are found most often in courses called “technology education”(p. 2.2).

She goes on to say that “taken together, science and technology in the MSTclassroom are combined to prepare students who not only create, design,

-56-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994and build, but understand the nature and behavior of the materials used in thebuilding. They have the ‘know-why (science)’ and ‘know-how (technology)’that lead to creativity, ingenuity, and innovation” (p. 2.3)

.

Methodology

Using observations of classroom and laboratory work, taped student inter-views, and student journals, this study describes student perceptions of an MSTcourse. The study took place over an eleven-week period starting in Septemberand ending in November 1992. Classroom visits were conducted two days aweek for ten weeks. Three separate classes were observed during each visit.Pseudonyms were used for the teacher and students involved in the study.Observations

On Thursday, September 24, 11:30 a.m., at the end of the students' lunchperiod, Desert High is a different place than it was during my first visit. Thequiet halls are transformed by the boisterous mix of teenage camaraderie. Mr.Mathews's classroom is a typical educational cubicle. Thirty student desks arecrammed into a room built for twenty-four. A ten-foot long table with six chairsaround sits in front of the room. Mr. Mathews's desk is wedged into the front leftcorner. Numerous posters cover the walls. Many are examples of different typesand uses of materials. A dozen posters state themes on success or providethinking prompts: “It's OK to Err”; “What did you do today?”; “Errors are ourteacher: I hope you're running fast enough to make some”; “How did it go to-day? Good or Bad and Why”; and “Success means getting up one more timethan you fall down.” A large periodic chart hangs on the wall. Book shelves arestacked with books and magazines students use as reference sources. At 11:35,the bell sounds beginning class. Roll is taken by one student as others busilychat.

During roll, Mr. Mathews enters and engages in friendly banter with severalstudents as he passes back assignments, commenting on the work as he goes,“Nice job, Jim,” or “This is excellent, Sally.” He then proceeds to the back ofthe room and picks up a student journal. All students are required to keep a

journal for the MST class. He spends about six minutes going over various partsof the journal, showing examples of what a journal could look like. He stressesthe importance of putting sketches, notes, assignments and projects in the

journal. He adds emphasis in saying, “It might be a good idea not to throw yourhomework in the circular file since that stuff was good stuff. It might be usedagain on a test, and if you have it in your journal, then it could be a neat

reference.” He introduces me as “a former chemistry and physics teacher fromthe other side of the state working at Innovations Inc., and working on an ad-vanced education degree.” He tells students I will be observing them for thenext couple of months and that I have taught the MST course, though not in the

-57-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994same way. He concludes his introduction and dismisses them to the laboratoryacross the hall to work on experiments and projects they have selected.

This is the manner in which most classes begin. Mr. Mathews is there at thebell. He introduces the topic for the day, goes over any necessary details, andthen dismisses students to the laboratory, if that is what is scheduled, or

continues with the classroom activity he has planned. The banter with students isexpected, and students respond to Mr. Mathews's ribbing in a manner dem-onstrating their comfort with him. Comments made in the student interviewsreflect this comfort.

The laboratory, a former industrial arts/technology laboratory about 30 feetwide and 50 feet long, is where students conduct almost all their hands-onactivities. Storage cupboards rim the outside perimeter with work space oftenholding bench top pieces of equipment. A table saw, band saw, wood lathe, andother wood-working equipment are located on the far side of the laboratory. Inan alcove at the rear of the laboratory are glass working materials and equip-ment. An acetylene torch is in the front of the room, away from the door. Fourfurnaces for melting and a burn-out oven are in the center of the room. In frontof the room, equipment for working on metal projects and jewelry is set up onlarge work tables. Thematic posters are mounted on the walls as well as anotherperiodic chart, this one with a materials emphasis.

As I enter the laboratory, I am surprised at how quickly the students havedispersed to different areas of the laboratory and begin working. They areworking in the glass area, in the woods area, and at work tables with a claycalled “FIMO” and on wax molds for metals projects. Students love to be inhere, and since they are working on projects that they have chosen, they have anintense interest in them.

Moving around the laboratory I notice many students are writing in theirjournals describing the processes they follow, what works, what doesn't, andasking why. As I circulate from place to place, students look up, sometimes stopworking, sometimes continue; occasionally, if they need help, they ask me aquestion. From the first day, the students are very open. If they have a question,they do not hesitate to ask. Often, if Mr. Mathews is busy, they seek me out toclarify a technique. Beforehand, I learned that Mr. Mathews likes students to dotheir own research first, so I am careful to determine if they have sought

information from someplace or someone before they ask me. Guiding studentsto help them solve problems themselves is an important part of the MST course.Interviews

Students from all three MST classes were interviewed. From each class, Mr.Mathews identified an honors student and an educationally disadvantagedstudent, and I picked four additional students at random, giving me an 18-stu

-58-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994dent sample population. The interviewees consisted of eleven seniors, threejuniors, and four sophomores. Seniors predominated because they have prefer-ential enrollment in the course. Older students were the most verbal, but as

always, exceptions existed. Students were candid, open, and often surprised andpleased that I would interview them instead of a “smart kid.” What they had tosay was informative, insightful, and entertaining.

Examining student perceptions from the foundational works of John Dewey(1938), Jurgen Habermas (1971), and Edwin Farrell (1991) I strongly believewhat students say reinforces theoretical assertions. Student responses revealedsome wonderful connections.

Findings

The Learning Environment

Teachers often hear, “Why do we have to know this stuff?” This suggeststhat the lesson is not making any connections for students. To the contrary, stu-dents in MST, describe a stimulating class, a place of adventure, or as Mark, asenior, says, “The material in here is complex, but the way it's presented it

doesn't even seem like you're really messing around with the stuff you're doing...You just kind of pick it up, and before long you're using big words like

vitrification, ionic and covalent bonding, and VanderWall forces...I mean, atfirst you don't understand it. But you're just kind of picking it up just throughusing it...It's different than just reading it in the textbook or learning a principlein chemistry. It really opens your learning to the world. You're doing practicalstuff, but you're learning big concepts. It really kind of turned me on to scienceagain.”

Analyzing Mark's comments you begin to appreciate the learning he hasdone. Experiences have built on one another. The big concepts have taken shapeover time by experiencing them, not by reading about them in a textbook. Ratherthan simply learning the definition for vitrification, Mark followed the process ascientist would. He mixed ceramic materials and tested the results. He nowunderstands the changes that take place when a material vitrifies. The samething happened with ionic and covalent bonding, terms commonly used inscience. Mark understands them because he has seen the results of their influ-ence on crystal structure, metallic bounding, alloying, grain boundaries, andphase changes. The all-important connections between what is to be learned andthe experience have occurred.

One of the unique aspects of the MST course is the use of other students asa reference. This gives students who know how to do something a chance toexplain and enhance their understanding of an area while allowing receivingstudents a chance to learn the material from peers.

Often one student helps others, as in the glass working area where I ob-served one student demonstrating a particular glass cutting method to another.

-59-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Student A: “How did you cut that curved piece? Mine keeps breaking.” StudentB: “Like this, see.” Student B demonstrates the technique from cutting to tap-ping to breaking the glass. Student B: “Be sure you tap it with this end to get itto crack. Then use these (holds a pair of nipping pliers) to break the glass.”Student A: “Oh, that looks easy.” Student A then does his piece and Student Bwatches as he follows her instructions.

A tremendous amount of activity is going on in the laboratory. If the stu-dents did not help one another, Mr. Mathews would not be able to allow somany diverse activities to occur simultaneously. Peg, a senior, confirms thissaying “You can actually see what they're talking about, and relate that. It'seasier to understand if you can see it. It's not just a bunch of diagrams ofcircles.”

Real-World Connections

Learning in MST also means making connections in other ways. Farrell(1991) suggested that students need to make connections between school andjobs or future careers. Andy, a junior, sees just such a relationship between theMST course and the world of work, “This class interests me, it kind of lets youuse your imagination. The way I see it, the more we learn about it now then we'llbe able to use it more. Like if we want a career.” Margo, a senior, suggests thesame connection saying, “It gets you your seat of experience. You do stuff hereand you can take it out. First of all, you learn responsibility...You get experiencewith equipment that might get you a job sometime later...It's all up to you.”

Real-world connections, understanding from the student's view of theworld, is clearly seen in Ken's statement, “Well, I think it's a class where youcome and learn about the materials of the world and learn how to apply them toeveryday living and how we use them in our everyday lives.”

These students have been able to make a connection between what they arelearning, future goals, and jobs. For them, the MST course is a significant placewhere meaningful experiences occur. They are not likely to become drop-outs.Working in Teams

Research suggests that students also need social connections in their work.Team work is one social connection that often helps students to understand ma-terial. Robin, a senior, identifies the importance for her, stating, “The fact thatyou don't have to sit in a chair all day and just listen to a teacher say do this anddo that. You get to pick out what you want to do and when you want to do it. Ithelps you too, you can team up with someone.” This student is verifying severalimportant concepts: being actively involved in the material being studied, par-ticipating in the decisions on what is to be learned, and working cooperatively.All three are goals of the MST course.

-60-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Hands-on Approach

Dewey (1938) stressed the importance of students making an “organicconnection between education and personal experience” (p. 12). He further ex-pounded, “education is a development within, by and for the experiences”(p.17). Applied to the MST course, Margo says it this way, “It provides anatmosphere of hands-on, and for me that's something very different. It's notalways an atmosphere that's provided in the schoolroom, and it helps me tolearn. To be able to touch it, to feel it, to work with it and to be able to

experiment with it. I don't always learn everything I'd like to be able to learnfrom a book or maybe be able to learn as well from a book.”

Sam reinforces the hands-on approach, “Actually,” he says, “being able todo something, hands-on, the hands-on part, that's what I like. I seem to learn,learn things better, I guess, being able to actually do it instead of learning it outof the textbook--actually doing it.” Karen, likewise, sees MST's hands-on

approach as important saying, “I took this so I could use what I do learn insteadof just knowing it and taking tests.”

As can be readily seen from student comments, the MST course offers theconnections, relevance, and hands-on activities that help make science, mathe-matics, and technology education viable. From student studies of phase dia-grams of alloys to applying the concepts of density to actual applications inmaking alloys, they appreciate the connections to situations where they can usethe principles being taught.

Journals and Student Projects

When asked about the use of journals, another important connection be-tween learning and understanding, students interviewed were able to affirm

relevance. Each student found writing has a purpose. It gives them a reference, afocus for problem solving, and a way to think. It is significant that journals arenot separate from learning in class. Students use their journals as a tool. Journalshelp develop Dewey's sensitivity, careful and diligent attitudes, and gathering,integrated, centering habits.

Bob says, “I like it because you can look back and see where you havebeen, you can see it in case you're lost. I like them because they keep you up todate.” Chuck puts journal use in the MST course this way, “You can look overwhat you've done, and you can see where you've made mistakes and what to doto improve those.” Robin says, “If you messed up on something, you can lookback, see where you went wrong and figure it out.”

Even though students stated during interviews that they did not like writingin the journal, their journals gave engaging insights into their understanding ofscience and how they learn best. What do students actually write in their

-61-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994journals? Are journals the tool students claim them to be? Examining journals,I found that indeed they are just that, a tool.

The examples that follow are representative of student writing. Samplejournal entries from interviewed students represent one of the better students, anaverage student, and a student Mr. Mathews indicated was a poor writer. In thefirst example we follow Ken, a sophomore, as he begins a project.

Ken (9/23): Today I outlined the shape of my key chain on my sheet-wax. I also drew the letter “R” (drawn in his journal) and traced it ontoanother sheet of paper and then cut it out. I plan to engrave the letter intomy wax model on both sides using the paper diagram as a guide. I willthen trim my model down to size. After I complete my model, I plan tomake a mold in the burnout oven. I will then centrifugally cast sterlingsilver into the mold and come out with a finished product.(9/24): Today I proceeded to trim the sheet-wax surrounding mymodel down before I actually cut the model out. However, when I wastrimming the remaining excess wax from the model, the model crackedand one of the corners broke off...I'm going to try and fuse the wax backtogether tomorrow. If the process doesn't work I will have to make anentirely new model.(9/30): I continued to shape and engrave my wax model today. Un-fortunately it broke. Mr. Mathews wants me to make a new model usingpieces of thin sheet-wax stacked on top of each other. (Diagrams aredrawn in journal to show this new approach.)(10/6): I began work on my new model...I hope to finish my modeltomorrow.

Ken begins, develops a problem, tries a solution, and finally changes strategies.Everything goes smoothly for Ken as he invests his model and prepares to makethe sterling key chain. We rejoin Ken's journal with an entry for calculating theamount of metal needed for his project.

(10/21): Calculating metal density for modelweight of wax1.7 gplus 40%gtotal weight(does calculations for silver and copper) and enters the following: need 1.9g of Cu and 23.1 g of Ag.

This entry shows how Ken makes a connection between what density is and howit can be used. He knows the density of his wax is about 1 g/ml and where tolook up the density of sterling silver, which he found has a density of about 10.8g/ml. Using this information, Ken easily determined the amount of silver andcopper needed for his project. The concept of density has a useful connection. Itis not just a fact to memorize.

This same process gave several other students a lesson in economics. Theywanted to make a sterling silver belt buckle. When they had their wax modelfinished, completed the calculations for the amount of silver needed, and found

-62-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994the cost, they decided another alloy might be better. Rather than scrap all theirhard work, they used another material. They made brass belt buckles.

Ken continues his work and descriptions, developing a new problem.(10/22): Today Mr. Mathews helped me in my casting process...Mykey chain came out quite nicely. I plan to file down the engraved side overthe weekend.(10/27): I plan to fill the engraved "R" with a clear green ceramicmaterial because I can't get the engraved surface flat (a drawing shows theproblem area).(11/12): I have begun pouring the ceramic mixture into the engravedportion of my key chain ornament. All has gone well except that theceramic leaked out of the designated area and became attached to the re-verse side of the ornament. I will attempt to sand off the residue tomor-row.

On November 19, I talked to Ken. He said that the previous day he fired theornament and the ceramic shrank and cracked in the process. He had anotherproblem to solve. As Ken's problem developed, he was exposed to both the

physical conditions of the materials and the results of materials interactions. Theexpansion and contraction rates of dissimilar materials allowed him to see theresults on his project. He developed an understanding of hardness as he began toremove the ceramic from the back of the silver piece. Science terms becamescience realities with meaning.

Looking at student journals you can clearly see that they are always work-ing, learning and thinking--problems arise, and they have to adjust to them. Ifjournals were not used, mistakes made could occur again. Because students keepa record, though, they seldom repeat errors. As they reflect on the materials anduse the correct technical terms in their explanations, they attach meaning andunderstanding to the terms.

Students Teaching Students

Another student, Ory, enters this in his journal:

(11/19): Today I finally cast strange-little man. I had strange-littleman cooked at 900o, I think. Then I put him in the rotating machine. Inthis I melted my Ag + Cu. (has a drawing here with arrow to help) Andcast my medallion. From there I broke out the medallion and kept him.Next I have to sand and polish.(11/23): Today I helped three people invest their rings. I feel like aMaterials Science genius!

This entry is especially important. It shows the impact that one student teachinganother has on the student doing the teaching. “Today I feel like a Materials

-63-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Science genius!” He went through the process and was able to show someoneelse how to do it--an excellent example of connecting to his real world.

Peg solves her problems in this excerpt:

(9/16-18): In the lab I am in the process of designing a ring. It will bea gold lion's head clasping an emerald or a green stone. I took a block ofpurple wax (square) and sawed off the chunk I needed.(9/23-25): Dan and Margo helped me drill a hole into the wax, but itended up too small. I tried to file it, but it was still way too small. I cut theblock into 2 sections - to get the size I wanted. Taking my pencil, Ioutlined what I would carve onto the side of the wax.(9/30-10/2): At this point Mr. Mathews showed me how to wrap waxaround and melt it together (a drawing clarifies this). Right now I'm in theprocess of building up enough wax to form my lion's head.(10/7): Today I will be using inlay wax to shape the finer details ofmy lion's face. I will be using 4 different tools (drawings of tools areincluded). In this hour I completed most of the fine details. One problemI've always had is I'll get one side perfect and the other side won't cooper-ate.

Peg continues with descriptions of the project on which she is working. One lastentry shows how ownership in the project affects the student.

(10/27): Today I added more hair to my lion. I also gave it a beard.Dan said it doesn't look like a lion anymore. That comment didn't botherme because I'm secure with my decision. The hair broke off the left side.Tomorrow I will fix it and start working on putting a jewel in the mouth.

Students do use their journals, and they use them consistently. Their journalentries give you a glimpse of the hands-on and minds-on understanding and

learning taking place as the students proceed with their projects--concurrent withthe findings of Kalonji (1992). Even though this study does not examine studentoutcomes, journal entries give a strong indication of active student learning.

Conclusions

Clearly, students respond with enthusiasm to the MST course at DesertHigh. Their reflections indicate that connections are being made between reallife and school. Student choices, cooperative learning, daily journals, and hands-on activities make this class highly student recommended. Judging from twentyyears of teaching experience in two states and in five different districts, I do notsee the students of Desert High to be significantly different from students atmany high schools. They have classes they don't like. Some are bound forcollege, others are not. One significant difference I did notice was that theseMST classes had few discipline problems because students are actively engagedin learning. Neither gender, ethnicity, nor academic predisposition affected

-64-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994student performance or enthusiasm in this class. Because of the limited scope ofthis preliminary study, I was not able to observe the students in other classes, soI cannot say that these students were as industrious in all their classes. In fact,several indicated that indeed they were not.

Many questions can be raised from this study about student achievement.Does this class truly allow students to better learn science, mathematics andtechnology as a result of their participation in the MST class? This study cannotanswer that question because its focus was on student attitudes toward science,not outcomes. Students' responses confirm they enjoy science; for many, MSTrevived positive attitudes toward science. In Mark's words, “It's really

interesting...It really brought me back toward the science fields.” While few stu-dents interviewed will likely pursue science as a major, the majority do feelgood about science and appreciate their experiences. This, in itself, is a majorstep toward developing a science literate society.

This pilot study demonstrates ways that students are learning how science,mathematics and technology and the strategies used--writing, experimenting,designing and building--can help them relate science and technology to theirlives. The problem-solving approach, with students making projects of their ownchoosing, using a hands-on/minds-on strategy, gives all the students a measureof success. Focused through the connections that they have established throughownership, working, and writing, the students talk to each other, help oneanother, and begin to enjoy learning. Science, mathematics, and technologymove from the piecemeal, tedious atmosphere of a text-driven classroom to anadventure, a place to come, explore, and learn. Individual student interests es-tablish projects. Laboratory activities develop concepts. These activities,

coupled with group work, and writing, not working in isolation, allow studentsto share successes and learn from their errors. As they learn, they share, teachingand explaining to one another. Unanticipated results are learning experiences,not something to hide.

MST students are not just learning vocabulary and concepts; they use theterms and ideas to develop understanding. For example, the periodic chartbecomes a reference. Bonding is used in relationship to crystalline and amor-phous materials. They use the mole concept to calculate the amount of materialthey need to make a particular type of glass. Ductility, grain boundaries, workhardening, and slip plains develop significance as they draw wire. Phase dia-grams and melting points for alloys have applications to the solder they makeand use. Students see real life connections between their learning and percep-tions, and the jobs that they read about, talk about, hear about, and eventuallypursue.

Guest speakers share their experiences and discuss such topics as teamwork, problem solving, and networking. Students understand the team approachbecause they have worked together. They realize that there is more than

-65-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994one way to attack a problem, since they have shared their solutions to problemswith one another. They know that each person brings to the team an area ofexpertise. Some are better with their hands and others with ideas. Some candraw and represent ideas graphically and others in words. Each person can be,and is, a contributor to success.

Dewey's experiences, Farrell's self-as-my-work, and Habermas's particularinterests are all reflected in the words, work, and actions of the students inthese three Materials Science and Technology classes. The learning theories oftoday are being applied in the class and the students are clearly responsive asMargo illustrates, stating, “I'm into art, I'm not into math or anything like that.But, I can apply what I've learned here, as far as all the different chemical

make ups and nature of materials because they're studying the Stradivarius vio-lin and the finish that they put on the violin and the wood that they used, andnow they're trying to replicate that using chemicals and trying to come up withthe rich sound and tone. So even in the realm of music you can use it.” Bylistening to what students say, we as educators, using the strategies andconcepts of MST, are taking a giant step toward our goal of developing ascience literate society.

References

Archenhold, W.F., Cooke, B.J., & Sang, D. (1987). Physics of materials: A

technological component for A-level physics course. Physics Education,22(2), p. 73-76.

Blosser, P.E. (1993). Using cooperative learning in science education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351207).

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. Americansycholo-

gist, 41, 1123-1130.

Cothern, N. & Collins, M. (1992). An exploration: Attitude acquisition and

reading instruction. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(2), p. 84-97.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.

Farivar, S. (1992). Middle school math students' reactions to heterogeneous

small group work: They like it. Paper at annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association (San Francisco, CA April 20-24, 1992.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352366).

Farrell, E. (1991). Hanging in and dropping out: Voices of at-risk high school

students. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fennell, F. (1991). Diagnostic teaching, writing and mathematics. Focus on

Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13(3), p. 39-50.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human understanding. Boston: Beacon

Press.

Haggin, J. (1992). Efforts to promote public understanding of science continue.

Chemical and Engineering News, 70(16), p. 31-32.

-66-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Hays, I. (1992). Materials science and Technology: A model for achieving na-

tional education goals. MRS Bulletin, 17(9), p. 27-31.

Hogarth, R.M. & Einhorn, H.J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The

belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), p. 1-55.

Johnson, R.T. & Johnson, D.W. (1985). Student-student interaction: Ignored but

powerful. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), p. 22-26.

Kalonji, G. (1992). Alternative assessment in engineering education: The use of

journals in a core materials science subject. (In Engineering Education:Curriculum Innovation and Integration, p. 215, proceedings of the

Engineering Foundation Conference, Santa Barbara, Jan. 1992.)

Krieger, J. (1992). Push to restructure precollege science education gets more

emphasis. Chemical and Engineering News, 70(17), p. 27-30.

Leonard, W.H., Cavana, G.R. & Lowery, L.F. (1981). An experimental test of

an extended discretion approach for high school biology laboratory inves-tigations. Journal of Research in Science Education, 18, 497-504.

Louden, W. (1991). Understanding teaching: Continuity and change in teach-

ers' knowledge. New York: Teacher College Press.

National Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE). (1991). The high

stakes of high school science. Andover, MA: Network.

Nelson, G., & Hays, I.D. (1992). Washington Systemic Initiative in Mathemat-

ics, Science and Technology Education. Seattle, WA: University of

Washington.

Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). (1993). Materials science and technology

handbook--1993. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Laboratory.

Roy, R. (1992). The relationship of technology to science and the teaching of

technology. MRS Bulletin, 17(3), p. 5-9.

Starr, E.M. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Effects on geology achievement and

science attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. (Doctoral dissertation,Washington State University, Pullman, WA.)

Tobias, S. (1991). What makes science hard? American Journal of Pharmaceu-

tical Education, 55, 378-382.

Tobin, K. (1986). Student task involvement and achievement in process-oriented

science activities. Science Education, 70, 61-72.

Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better

questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathe-matics, 90, 403-418.

-67-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Book Reviews

David H. Hopper. (1991). Technology, Theology, and the Idea of Progress.Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press:$14.99, (paperback), 153 pp.(ISBN 0-664-25203-6)

Reviewed by Richard A. Deitrich1

Technology, Theology, and the Idea of Progress explores the notion that theidea of progress has itself “progressed.” Until the Reformation, the idea ofprogress was primarily spiritual, otherworldly and theological; now, it is pre-dominantly material, this-worldly, and technological in content.

By referencing an expressive assortment of scholarly works, this book hassix strongly framed chapters, each of about 20 pages. The chapter headings areas follows: Has Technology Become Our History?, Technology and the Idea ofProgress, Disillusion and Power, Technology and Values, Technology andTheology, Summation and Theological Postscript.

In Chapter 1, Hopper asks “Has technology come to embody our chiefvalues – the things we most want out of life? Does it not, in fact, represent ourbasic commitment?” He is not questioning America only, but all of WesternCivilization.

To gain our affirmation the author cogently discusses several technologicalevents such as the Moon landing, the Challenger and the Chernobyl disasters aswell as the critique of public education in the A Nation At Risk report of 1972.His conclusion is that the idea of public education for cultural progress champi-oned by people like Jefferson, Mann and Webster (i.e., education for bothprivate virtue and public citizenship) has been supplanted by the idea of publiceducation for technological progress.

Hopper next discusses the cultural idea of progress in Chapter 2. Early onhe states his chapter theme:

Technology did not give rise to the idea of Progress any more than itestablished the American republic. It certainly helped to broaden supportfor the idea of providing an abundance of material goods in the nineteenthcentury, but the formulation of the idea itself was another matter. (p. 33)

1Richard A. Dietrich is an Assistant Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

-68-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

True to his word, Hopper examines the idea of Progress without allowingtechnology a casual role. He does this by drawing upon what he calls “the pio-neering work” of J.B. Bury in The Idea of Progress, published in 1920. In anengaging tour through Bury's work, we are led to the conclusion that it was theEuropean Enlightenment – through men like Fontenelle, Condorcet, and Comte– which bore the idea of cultural progress.

However, we are awakened from nodding approbation to Bury's thesis byconfrontation with the thesis of Robert Nisbet in his History of the Idea of Pro-gress, published in 1980. This sword-crossing sparks delightful and importantanalysis as Bury's claim of an Enlightenment birth for the idea is challenged byNisbet's thesis that the idea of progress is even older than classical antiquity.

To resolve this confrontation Hopper refers to an article by George G.Iggers titled “The Idea of Progress in Historiography and Social Thought Sincethe Enlightenment.” Iggers reaffirms the Enlightenment nativity of the idea ofProgress, but criticizes Bury's study as lacking sufficient account of the socialand historical factors.

The replacement of the Enlightenment idea of cultural Progress by the con-temporary idea of technological Progress is the focus of Chapter 3, Disillusionand Power. Most of the chapter is spent discussing this replacement throughexamining the thought of Carl L. Becker concerning Progress and the Enlight-enment.

At this point Hopper inserts the theme that disillusionment from World WarI and the emergence of science-based technology combined to shift the meaningand spirit of the idea of Progress.

The remaining several pages of this chapter are spent elaborating this themein a stimulating discussion of works by B.F. Skinner, Marshall McLuhan,Seymour Papert, Sherry Turkle, Langdon Winner, Jacques Ellul, and LewisMumford, among others. The author closes Chapter 3 with these questionswhich serve as heuristics for the last three chapters: “What then has become ofProgress when the only form in which we have it is technology?” and, “Whitherdoes the pursuit of power lead when it is no longer centered in a stated socialgoal?”

Hopper prepares us for addressing the above questions by dealing with val-ues in Chapter 4. We begin by examining Jacob Bronowski's argument that thepractice of science (which for him includes technology) establishes the “primevalues” of civilization. Next, Lyman White, Jr., contra Bronowski, argues thatreligious values nurtured the growth and spread of science and technology in theMiddle Ages; but White is not clear whether religion sustained them into ourpresent century.

From here, Hopper's examination of technology and values continues withDaniel J. Boorstin's notion of technology-fostered republican values, then to

-69-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994John Kasson's caution concerning the American difficulty with “civilizing themachine.” The final note on technology and democratic values is sounded byLewis Mumford who warns that the end of modern technology is “to transferthe attributes of life to the machine and the mechanical collective.”

Finally, this initially unfocused but tightly argued chapter closes with apowerful application of Martin Buber's far-reaching fundamental thesis con-cerning I-Thou and I-It relationships. Hopper uses Buber's insights to establisha reference point within democratic values with which to critique technology.

Chapter 5 addresses one of the questions which ended the third chapter:“What then has become of Progress when the only form in which we have it istechnology?” In his first sentence, Hopper confronts us with White's well-knownthesis of Judeo-Christian blame for Western society's “exploitative and abusiveattitude toward nature.” We then encounter Thomas S. Derr and Lewis Mumfordwho attempt to counter White's thesis.

After this opening volley, the central player, Paul Tillich, is introduced. Theidea of technological Progress is analyzed by Tillich's penetrating notion that"meaninglessness” is the prime malaise of modernity. He sees technological“progress” as in many ways threatening to human freedom, dignity, andmeaning.

The author next compares Tillich's insights, with Moltmann's thought. ForMoltmann, an important counterpoint to technological “progress” comes fromfuture potentials which constantly transform present and past social realities into“new beginnings.”

Hopper concludes this chapter by offering his own reading of the situationby asserting:

The challenge to theology of technology's coming-of-age is for theol-ogy to affirm its own proper counterproject of life-in-community...it mustspeak from an isness and not – as Tillich would have it – from an idealistic“valuating sense of essence” or – with Moltmann – from the perspective ofsome “final hope” (p. 113).

Chapter 6 develops the theme of life-in-community in the author's

Summation and Theological Postscript. Hopper begins by voicing strong

convictions about his two thematic questions of Chapter 3 (What has become ofProgress? and Where does the pursuit of power lead?).

In answer to the question concerning Progress, Hopper's ironic conclusion isthis: when the idea of cultural Progress has been sufficiently replaced by theidea of technological Progress, then a point is reached where there is socialregress in the face of naked technological power.

In answer to the question regarding the pursuit of power, Hopper pens apowerful theological postscript. Where does the pursuit of power lead when it isno longer centered in a stated social goal? With prophetic rhetoric he warns:

-70-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

“Progress” once had a goal in human community; but technology hasnow claimed "progress" for itself and is leading the community ever closerto global death... Meanwhile, the corporate-technological complex moveson to introduce ever new innovations in pursuit of economic advantagesand power (p. 126).

This constructive and thoughtful eleven page postscript is the book's tour deforce. In it, Hopper exploits a weakness in the idea of technological “progress”and breaches the wall with Calvin and Barth as field commanders.

The above postscript as well as the copious inclusion of well-integratedmaterials from within the philosophy of technology genre make this book im-portant reading for technology education.

-71-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Womack, James, Jones, Daniel, & Roos, Daniel. (1991). The machine thatchanged the world. New York: Harper-Collins: $12.00, (softcover), 323 pp.(ISBN 0-06-097417-6)

Reviewed by Harvey Fred Walker1

The automobile industry may appropriately be characterized as havingproduced machines “that changed the world.” While some changes have beenpositive and some negative, the impact has been truly global in nature. JamesWomack, Daniel Jones, Daniel Roos, and others at the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT) formed the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP)and engaged in a five-year, five-million dollar research project directed atidentifying production factors leading to success in the global automobile

manufacturing industry. The goal sought by the IMVP was to synthesize successfactors, document their effect on organizational operations, and to develop astrategy guiding production of this machine more efficiently. Previous work bythe IMVP toward this goal produced, The Future of the Automobile (1984), abook devoted to summarizing research on evolving trends and practices in theautomobile industry.

The Machine That Changed the World is a well-written book that highlightscomparisons and contrasts among automobile manufacturers. The book is

written for a general audience interested in the topic of automobile production.Of particular relevance to the technology educator however, is the time frameand scope of the book. A chronological history of global automotive

development and manufacture, from the industrial revolution to the present,provides many useful insights to the technology educator. Among the mostimportant of these insights are discussions of the origins and future ofmanufacturing technology. In addition to high-school, undergraduate, and

graduate educational relevance, technology educators would personally benefitfrom reviewing this material.

The book identifies “lean production” as a technology that is reshapingautomobile manufacturing. While lean production may have originated in Japanunder the concept of shared destiny, the authors emphasize that it is no longerconfined to Japan.

1Harvey Fred Walker is a doctoral student in the Department of Industrial Education andTechnology at Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

-72-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Lean production, as an emerging technology, is being adopted at varyingrates by automobile and other manufacturers of the world. The driving forcebehind adoption is the need to provide more product variety at less cost withshorter development cycles. The adoption rate of lean techniques, however,differs from organization to organization and from country to country. Par-ticularly noteworthy is that no one country, Japan included, may be charac-terized as being totally lean.

Lean production strategy synthesized managerial and manufacturingtheories used in industry and academia. Primarily, lean production integratedproduct design, supply, distribution, manufacturing, accounting, marketing, andmanagement under an umbrella of concurrency. Other related topics wereidentified and discussed in the book, including political, legal, and socialconcerns. Ironically, many of the theories comprising lean production arecurrently a part of technology curricula and technology-teacher preparation.

The book suggests that an ideal lean production system consists of allmembers within the system sharing information and resources in a team-oriented, multi-functional environment. The skills and abilities to share andwork in multi-functional teams are key underpinnings and goals of currenttechnology education. The authors discuss how an organization may begin thelengthy process of achieving leanness. The process of achieving leanness couldbe modeled in technology curricula to increase the effectiveness of studentpreparation for the realities awaiting them in industry.

In retrospect, The Machine That Changed the World provides usefulinsights into integrated product design, supply, distribution, manufacturing,accounting, marketing, management, and concurrency. The insights are

particularly relevant to the technology educator when considering their political,legal, and social ramifications. Technology educators, particularly those

responsible for teaching manufacturing concepts, will find this book most usefulin updating their understanding of current manufacturing technologies.

-73-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994

Miscellany

Scope of the JTE

The Journal of Technology Education provides a forum for scholarly dis-cussion on topics relating to technology education. Manuscripts should focus ontechnology education research, philosophy, theory, or practice. In addition, theJournal publishes book reviews, editorials, guest articles, comprehensive litera-ture reviews, and reactions to previously published articles.

Editorial/Review Process

Manuscripts that appear in the Articles section have been subjected to ablind review by three or more members of the editorial board. This processgenerally takes from six to eight weeks, at which time authors are promptly no-tified of the status of their manuscript. Book reviews, editorials, and re- actionsare reviewed "in house," which generally takes about two weeks.

Manuscript Submission Guidelines

Five copies of each manuscript should be submitted to: Mark Sanders, JTEEditor, 144 Smyth Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0432(703)231-8173. Bitnet: msanders @ vtvm1. Internet: msanders @ vt.edu.All manuscripts must be double-spaced and must adhere strictly to theguidelines published in Publication Guidelines of the American Psycho-logical Association (3rd Edition).

Manuscripts that are accepted for publication must be resubmitted

(following any necessary revisions) both in hard copy and on a floppy disk(either MS-DOS or Macintosh format). Moreover, the floppy disk versionmust be in both the native word processor format (such as WordPerfect orMS Word) and in ASCII format.

Manuscripts for articles should generally be 15-20 (22,000-30,000 charac-ters) pages in length (25 pages is an absolute maximum). Book reviews,editorials, and reactions should be three to eight manuscript pages.

Tables should be used only when data cannot be incorporated into the bodyof the text.1.2.3.4.5.

-74-

Journal of Technology Education6.Vol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994All figures and artwork must scale to fit on the JTE pages, and be submitted

in camera-ready form.

Subscription Information

The Journal of Technology Education will be published twice annually(Fall and Spring issues). New subscribers should copy and mail the form below:Make checks payable to: Journal of Technology Education.

Regular (USA): $8

Regular (Canada/Overseas): $12

Library (USA): $15

Library (Canada/Overseas): $18

Return check and this form to:

Mark Sanders, JTE Editor

144 Smyth Hall

Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0432

JTE Co-sponsors

The International Technology Education Association (ITEA) is a non-profiteducational association concerned with advancing technological literacy. TheAssociation functions at many levels – from international to local – in re-

sponding to member concerns. The Council on Technology Teacher Education(CTTE), affiliated with the ITEA, is concerned primarily with technology

teacher education issues and activities. For more information on either associa-tion, contact: ITEA, 1914 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091 (703)860-2100.

Electronic Access to the JTE

All issues of the Journal of Technology Education may be accessed elec-tronically by anyone who has bitnet or internet access. There is no "subscriptionfee" for electronic access. Text is be available in ASCII format, and graphics areincluded as separate postscript files. You will need a postscript printer to outputthe postscript graphics, but any printer will work for the ASCII text files.

There are a variety of ways to access the JTE electronically, includinglistserv, ftp, gopher, WAIS, and World Wide Web/Mosaic.

-75-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Listserv Access

To become an electronic subscriber of the JTE, send the following e-mailmessage to LISTSERV @ VTVM1 (for bitnet users) or to LISTSERV @

VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (for internet users): SUBSCRIBE JTE-L First Name LastName.

To remove your name from the electronic subscription list, send the follow-ing e-mail message to LISTSERV @ VTVM1: UNSUBSCRIBE JTE-L.

After becoming an electronic subscriber, you may see what files (articles)are available by sending the following e-mail message to LISTSERV @VTVM1: INDEX JTE-L.

To retrieve a file (article), send the following e-mail message to LISTSERV@ VTVM1: GET File name File type.

To retrieve a Table of Contents for a particular issue of the JTE, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV @ VTVM1 like the following example: GETCONTENTS V3N2. In this message, V3 refers to Volume 3 and N2 refers toissue number 2.

If there are graphics files associated with the document, they will be listedas FIGURE1 JTE-V3N2. These files are in PostScript. DOS users who are con-nected to a PostScript printer may download these to their PC and copy each fileto the printer: COPY FIGURE1.JTE LPT1. Users with various brands of UNIXworkstations supporting display PostScript should be able to view these online.Macintosh users should be able to download and print these files.

More information on LISTSERV commands can be found in the “GeneralIntroduction Guide”, which you can retrieve by sending an “INFO GENINTRO”command to LISTSERV@VTVM1.

FTP Access

Both ASCII and complete Postscript versions of ALL current and back is-sues of the JTE are available via FTP.

To access either the ASCII or Postscript version of the JTE from the FTPsite, enter the following:

ftp borg.lib.vt.edu

“anonymous” when you are asked to identify yourself

your userid when a password is requested

cd /pub/JTE

cd ascii (for ascii files) OR cd postscript (for postscript files)

dir

cd v3n2 (or whichever volume/issue you want)

dir

get editor.jte-v3n2 (or whatever filename you want)

when ‘transfer complete’ message is received, look in your file list for thefile you ‘got.’

-76-

Journal of Technology EducationVol. 5 No. 2, Spring 1994Other Electronic Access Options

The JTE is available through gopher at borg.lib.vt.edu. It is available

through the World Wide Web at http://borg.lib.vt.edu/. The JTE archives may besearched at both sites using a link to WAIS.

Note: Adhere strictly to the upper and lower cases and spaces noted above.PostScript versions are available only from the FTP site.

-77-

Colophon All manuscripts for the JTE were received in

digital format and translated into MicrosoftWordusing the MacLink Plus (Data Viz, Inc.)translators. The manuscripts were then format-ted in 12 point Times. Page galleys were outputto an Apple LaserWriter 16/600PS. The JTEwas printed at the Virginia Tech Printing

Center. Concurrently, the electronic versions ofthe files were formatted for electronic distribu-tion via the World Wide Web, and may be foundat http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/

jte.html. All back issues of the JTE are archivedelectronically at this URL.

Published by:

Technology Education Program

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Co-sponsored by:

International Technology Education Association

Council on Technology Teacher Education

The JTE is printed on recycled paper