Journal of Industrial Teacher Education logo

Current Editor: Dr. Robert T. Howell  bhowell@fhsu.edu
Volume 32, Number 1
Fall 1994


DLA Ejournal Home | JITE Home | Table of Contents for this issue | Search JITE and other ejournals

Historical Leaders in Technology Education Philosophy

James J. Kirkwood
Ball State University
Patrick N. Foster
University of Missouri-Columbia
Sue M. Bartow
McGuffey Foundation School

A curriculum is a plan for classroom instruction that integrates philosophy with action. Classroom instruction is relevant only when there is a clear understanding and definition of its purpose. As an emerging educational field, technology education has a philosophy that guides its curriculum development. It is important for technology educators not only to understand the philosophy of technology education, but also to apply it to their educational efforts. This study was an attempt to clarify the development of the philosophy of technology education by examining perceptions about its leaders.

Over the years, the literature in industrial education has indicated chronic problems in curriculum development (Pannabecker, 1984; Petrina, 1994). Critical issues included confusion regarding the definitions, purposes, objectives, and philosophy of industrial arts. The lack of an adequate or meaningful theoretical structure has been described, as has the disparity between the philosophy and curriculum (Bartow, 1983).

During the 1960s and 1970s, many members of the profession (Figurski, 1970; Householder, 1972; Karnes, 1963; Lauda, 1977; McPherson, 1976) called for an examination of every major aspect of curriculum development to arrive at a better understanding of what schoolchildren should know about industry and technology. The literature of this time identified problems partially responsible for the disagreement about philosophy that plagued industrial arts. Philosophical studies revealed many contrasting bases for including industrial arts in the curriculum (Householder & Suess, 1969). Additionally, it was noted that few areas of education have been so lacking in an understanding of their own history (McPherson, 1976). Wright and Barella (1981) stated the problems and the need:

In the late 1800s professionals desiring to introduce a manual element to the school waged a battle with the classical educators and won. It is quite possible that if we do not carefully study our history and unify our goals for the future, the division within the industrial arts profession over which type of industrial arts should prevail may cause the field to lose the war. Each industrial arts educator must develop a clear view of where the field has been, why it was the way it was, and how it changed so that reasoned paths into the future may be blazed. (p. 231)

In 1983, following this period of introspection and analysis, Bartow conducted a study to determine pragmatically the current philosophy of industrial arts. A major component of this study was the determination of the relative contributions to industrial arts philosophy by its more notable leaders.

Bartow's study was conducted at a critical point in the history of the profession, when an abundance of open debate focused on such topics as whether industry or technology should be the field's content base (Ritz, 1981; Wright, 1982), the relationship of vocational education to industrial arts (Good & Good, 1981), and the value in changing the profession's name (Lux, 1983; Starkweather, 1981).

Two years after Bartow's study, the American Industrial Arts Association changed the name of the field from industrial arts to technology education (American Industrial Arts Association, 1985). Now that technology education is a decade old, it is appropriate to make inquiries into the current philosophy. Philosophical positions forged in the heat of curriculum design must be tempered by the flames of application. Has the change in name reflected a new philosophical position?

The philosophy underlying an academic field can be encapsulated in its definition (Morris & Pai, 1976); therefore, a profession's philosophy may be at least partially determined by analyzing the definition of that area of education. Bonser and Mossman defined industrial artsas education about "the changes in the forms of materials made by man to increase their values, and of the problems of life related to those changes" (1923, p. 5). Lux (1981) characterized the Bonser-Mossman definition of industrial arts as "famous" while others have referred to it as widely accepted (Bawden, 1950; Gerbracht & Babcock, 1959; Leutkemeyer & McPherson, 1975; Scobey, 1968; Smith, 1981); no other definition has been referred to in such a manner on any perceptible scale. "Most, if not all, industrial arts definitions are simply a variation of the original" (Brown, 1977, p. 2).

The most recent definition offered by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) considers technology education to be education about technology and its impacts. ITEA's definition states that technology education is

an educational program that helps people develop an understanding and competence in designing, producing, and using technology products and systems, and in assessing the appropriateness of technological actions. (Wright, Israel, & Lauda, 1993, p. 4)

Despite the frequent contention that industrial arts and technology education are significantly different (Hayden, 1991; Pullias, 1992), there is a strong similarity between the definitions of the two, although published 70 years apart. If industrial arts and technology education have essentially the same definition, it would be expected that their philosophies would be similar. It might also be the case that the leaders in the development of industrial arts philosophy are the same leaders who developed the prevailing technology education philosophy.

Are the historical figures who were viewed as influential in industrial arts philosophy in 1983 viewed today as having as much influence on technology education philosophy? If they are, then technology education can be understood as a modern rendition of industrial arts. If not, technology education could represent a significant departure for the profession. The purpose of this study was to determine whether individuals recognized as leaders in industrial arts philosophy are also recognized as leaders in molding the philosophy of technology education. Additionally, the present study attempted to identify leaders who have emerged from the development of the technology education philosophy.

Method

This study was a replication of a study done by Bartow (1983), which attempted to identify a dominant philosophy of industrial arts. For that study, a jury was chosen for the purpose of determining leaders in the development of industrial arts philosophy. The members of the jury for the 1983 study were industrial arts professionals at the college level who were actively examining industrial arts curriculum and history and had published chapters in the ACIATE yearbooks of 1978, 1979, or 1981--yearbooks concerned with curriculum and history. Bartow sent a questionnaire to the jury asking them to name professionals in the field who had the greatest impact or influence on industrial arts philosophy. A list was provided from which they were directed to identify two individuals from each of three time periods.

The first time period (1900-1925) spanned the approximate beginning of industrial arts. Those professionals who conceived and designed the new program were active predominantly during those years. Because of some overlap of people active in the first and second period, the second period began in 1917 with the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act. The second period ended and the third began with the 1957 launching of Sputnik, an event with far-reaching consequences in American education and, arguably, the beginning of a period of innovative science and technology curriculum development (Shepard & Ragan, 1992). The third time period (1957-1982 in Bartow's 1983 study and 1957-1985 in the present study) continued from the time of rapid curriculum change to the point where industrial arts was replaced by technology education as defined by the national association's name change from AIAA to ITEA. The fourth time period (1985-1993) brought the study to the present.

Panel Selection

The jury for this study was composed of the program leaders or department chairs of all undergraduate programs in technology education approved by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). It was believed that these individuals represented the mainstream of current understanding of technology education. They had been part of the difficult process of ensuring that their programs met the current NCATE standards. There were 24 approved programs when the survey was conducted (Staff, 1992). One of the programs had been discontinued by the university with which it was associated subsequent to certification by NCATE; therefore, the population of program leaders was reduced to 23 individuals.

Instrument Development

The data collection instrument used to determine the perceived impact of various individuals in industrial arts and technology education was adapted from the questionnaire used in Bartow's (1983) study. The individuals named on the 1993 questionnaire for the first three time periods were those identified by Bartow (1983), whether or not they had received votes in that study. The individuals listed for the fourth time period were identified according to the following two criteria:

  1. They had been selected to participate in the drafting of A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education (Savage & Sterry, 1990).
  2. They had published at least five articles in professional journals (e. g., Journal of Technology Education, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, The Technology Teacher, Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau) during the fourth time period.

A cover letter was included with the questionnaire to identify the purpose of the study. The one-page questionnaire asked each panelist to indicate the names of two leaders who they believed contributed most notably to the philosophy of technology education. Two blank lines were also included on the questionnaire to allow the respondents to insert names of leaders who were not listed.

Procedures

Twenty-four questionnaires were prepared and sent to the jury. The questionnaires were sent by FAX to all but one member of the jury who was contacted via surface mail.

The questionnaire contained the return FAX number of the researchers. Most respondents used FAX to return the questionnaire. Twelve questionnaires (52%) were initially returned. A follow-up telephone call was made to each of the non-respondents, and a second copy of the questionnaire was sent to those who requested it. This procedure resulted in a final return of 20 questionnaires (87%). All questionnaires were sent out and returned within four weeks.

The number of votes for each leader was tallied and put into rank order. A tabulation of the rankings was compared to the results of the prior study. In making comparisons between the rankings of 1983 and 1993, it was helpful to know the extent to which the rank orders of 1983 were associated with the rank orders 10 years later. Spearman's rho was used to compute the rank-order correlation coefficient (Champion, 1970).

Results

Time Period 1:1900-1925

There was considerable agreement between the results of the 1983 study and the present study for the time period 1900-1925 (see Table 1). For this time period, 71% of the responses in the current study identified either Dewey or Bonser as the individual having the greatest impact or influence on the philosophy of technology education. This corresponds to 66% of the responses on the 1983 study which identified Dewey or Bonser as having the greatest impact on industrial arts philosophy. An inversion of votes was evident in the case of Woodward, who was identified by 20% of the responses in the 1983 study and only 8% of the responses in the present study, and Mossman, who was not identified by any of the 1983 respondents but received 8% of the responses in the present study.

There was a strong correlation between the rankings of leaders in the 1900-1925 time period in the 1983 and 1993 studies (rs = .617, p < .05). This was due mainly to the consensus for Dewey and Bonser and despite the changes in Woodward's and Mossman's votes.

Time Period 2:1917-1957

While Warner maintained a nearly identical percentage of votes between the 1983 and 1993 studies for the second time period, support for Bennett and Fryklund underwent a considerable inversion (see Table 2). Fryklund fell from second place to fifth place due to a large change in percentage of votes. Although the percentage of votes doubled for Bennett, he moved up only one place in the rankings.

Table 1
Results of First Time Period, 1900 - 1925

Name Number of votes (%) rank D D2
1983 1993 1983 1993

Dewey 7 (35) 14 (36) 1 1.5 .5 .25
Bonser 6 (30) 14 (36) 2 1.5 .5 .25
Woodward 4 (20) 3 (8) 3 3.5 .5 .25
Ericson 1 (5) 1 (2.5) 5 6.5 1.5 2.25
Richards 1 (5) 1 (2.5) 5 6.5 1.5 2.25
Griffith 1 (5) 0 5 9.0 4.0 16.00
Mossman - 3 (8) 8 3.5 4.5 20.25
Kilpatrick - 1 (2.5) 8 6.5 1.5 2.25
Russell - 2 (5) 8 6.5 1.5 2.25

Total votes: 20 39  

Note: Percentages are based on the total number of votes cast.


Table 2
Results of Second Time Period, 1917 - 1957

Name Number of votes (%) rank D D2
1983 1993 1983 1993

Warner 8 (40) 14 (39.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.00
Fryklund 5 (25) 2 (5.0) 2.0 5.0 3.0 9.00
Bennett 3 (15) 12 (31.5) 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.00
Selvidge 2 (10) 3 (8.0) 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.00
Prosser 1 (5) 4 (10.5) 5.5 3.0 1.5 2.25
Roberts 1 (5) 1 (2.5) 5.5 6.5 1.0 1.00
Mays - 1 (2.5) 7.0 6.5 .5 .25

No. of votes: 20 37  

Note: Percentages are based on the total number of votes cast.


Table 3
Results of Third Time Period, 1957 - 1985

Name Number of votes (%) rank D D2
1983 1993 1983 1993

Maley 6 (30) 12 (31.0) 1 2 1 1
Ray 5 (25) 2.5 (6.5)b 2 5 3 9
Lux 3 (15) 3.5 (9.0)b 3 4 1 1
DeVore 2 (10) 16 (41.0) 5 1 4 16
Silvius 2 (10) 1 (2.5) 5 6 1 1
Wilber 2 (10) - 5 7 2 4
Olson - 4 (10.0) 7 3 4 16

Total votes: 20 39a  

Note:
a Percentages are based on the total number of votes cast.
b One person split a vote between two leaders.

There was also a strong correlation in the ranking of leaders in the time period 1917-1957 between the 1983 and 1993 studies (rs = .759, p < .05), despite the inversion of votes for Fryklund and Bennett.

Time Period 3: 1957-1985

There were considerable differences in perceptions for the period 1957-1985 between the present and previous studies (see Table 3). The only consistency was the similar percentage regarding Maley's contribution to the philosophy. Maley, Silvius, Wilber, and Lux each changed one rank between 1983 and 1993. DeVore rose from fifth place in 1983 to first in 1993. Olson received no votes in the 1983 study but received 10% of the votes in 1993.

There was a small, nonsignificant correlation of the perceptions about leaders for the time period 1957-1985 between the 1983 and 1993 studies, with no individual remaining in the same rank (rs = .143).

First Three Time Periods: 1900-1983

Table 4 provides an overall view of the time periods under examination in both the 1983 study and the present study. When all individuals are considered together, there was a significant correlation between the rankings from the two studies (rs = .545; p < .01). There was strong agreement in rankings among the top four individuals and a lack of agreement about the contributions of the remaining individuals.

Table 4
Overall Rankings for First Three Time Periods, 1900 P 1985

Name Number of votes (%)
in respective period
rank D D2
1983 1993 1983 1993

Warner 8 (40) 14 (39.5) 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.00
Dewey 7 (35) 14 (36.0) 2.0 3.5 1.5 2.25
Bonser 6 (30) 14 (36.0) 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.00
Maley 6 (30) 12 (31.0) 3.5 6.0 2.5 6.25
Ray 5 (25) 2.5 (6.5) 5.5 13.0 7.5 56.25
Fryklund 5 (25) 2 (5.0) 5.5 14.5 9.0 81.00
Woodward 4 (20) 3 (8.0) 7.0 11.0 4.0 16.00
Bennett 3 (15) 12 (31.5) 8.5 5.0 3.5 12.25
Lux 3 (15) 3.5 (9.0) 8.5 9.0 .5 .25
DeVore 2 (10) 16 (41.0) 11.5 1.0 10.5 110.25
Selvidge 2 (10) 3 (8.0) 11.5 11.0 .5 .25
Silvius 2 (10) 1 (2.5) 11.5 18.5 7.0 49.00
Wilber 2 (10) 0 11.5 22.5 11.0 121.00
Prosser 1 (5) 4 (10.5) 16.0 7.0 9.0 81.00
Ericson 1 (5) 1 (2.5) 16.0 18.5 2.5 6.25
Richards 1 (5) 1 (2.5) 16.0 18.5 2.5 6.25
Roberts 1 (5) 1 (2.5) 16.0 18.5 2.5 6.25
Griffith 1 (5) 0 16.0 22.5 6.5 42.25
Olson 0 4 (10.0) 21.0 8.0 13.0 169.00
Mossman 0 3 (8.0) 21.0 11.0 10.0 100.00
Russell 0 2 (5.0) 21.0 14.5 6.5 42.25
Kilpatrick 0 1 (2.5) 21.0 18.5 2.5 6.25
Mays 0 1 (2.5) 21.0 18.5 2.5 6.25

Total votes: 60 115  

Time Period 4: 1985-1993

The perceived impact of various individuals on technology education philosophy for the time period 1985-1993 was also examined in this study. Using the criteria described earlier, contemporary leaders in technology education were listed on the questionnaire.

Table 5
Results of Fourth Time Period, 1985 P 1993

Name Number of votes (%) rank

Lauda 8 (20.0) 1.0
Dugger 7 (17.5) 2.0
T. Wright 6 (15.0) 3.0
Bensen 4 (10.0) 5.0
Starkweather 4 (10.0) 5.0
W>tjen 4 (10.0) 5.0
Savage 3 (7.5) 7.0
Todd 2 (5.0) 8.0
J. Hutchinson 1 (2.5) 9.5
Loepp 1 (2.5) 9.5

Total votes: 38  

The perceived impact of technology education leaders is shown in Table 5. No single individual stood out; although, there was a gradual increase of percentages from low to high. Since Bartow's (1983) study did not consider this time period, no comparisons are possible. However, it is hoped that this information will be useful to researchers in future studies.

Discussion

Several of the most prominent leaders of Industrial Arts identified in Bartow's 1983 study were also identified as leaders in Technology Education in the present study. Within each time period, there was agreement between the panels of 1983 and 1993. The greatest agreement fell in the earliest two time groups, the least in the later time group of 1957-1985--attesting not only to the static perspective lent by historical distance, but also to an agreement between the panels that the early antecedents of industrial arts and technology education are similar. There was a definite agreement between the two panels on the contributions to the development of both fields by four individuals (i. e., Bonser, Dewey, Maley, and Warner, whose participation spans the three time periods. Several of the leaders of industrial arts (i. e., Fryklund, Silvius, Wilber, and Woodward) were not considered to have been as influential in the development of the philosophy of technology education as they were in the development of the philosophy of industrial arts.

The Early Leaders

In the time period 1900-1925, the results of the present study closely approximated the results of Bartow's 1983 study. In that time period, John Dewey (1859-1952) and Frederick Gordon Bonser (1875-1931) were clearly the most prominent. Bonser, who taught at Columbia University's Teachers College in the first quarter of the century, ranked second in the previous study, but in receiving 36% of the votes in the present study, tied with Dewey for the most votes. Together, Bonser and Dewey accounted for nearly three-quarters of all votes. Mossman (1931) noted that Bonser was "an ardent advocate of the philosophy of Professor John Dewey" (p. 5).

Bonser and Lois Coffey Mossman (1878-1944) wrote the very influential Industrial Arts for Elementary Schools in 1923, a book that secured their places in the history of the field. This book contained the definition for industrial arts, and was the foundation for the general-education conception of industrial arts, as well as the general shop theory later popularized by Warner (Gemmil, 1979). Bonser, with James Earl Russell, longtime Dean of Teachers College, established the industrial-social theory of industrial arts (McPherson, 1972).

Mossman, Russell, and Kilpatrick, none of whom received votes in the earlier study, garnered ranks of 3.5, 6.5, and 6.5, respectively, in the present study. All were prominent faculty members of Columbia's Teachers College. Just as Bonser claimed influence from Dewey, Bonser and Mossman credited Russell for providing "much of the underlying philosophy" in their work (Bonser & Mossman, 1923, p. viii), and Mossman repeatedly noted her "indebtedness" to Kilpatrick (Mossman 1924; 1938). In fact, those responsible for what Towers, Lux, and Ray (1966) called the "Dewey-Richards-Bonser thought" (p. 166) accounted for 90% of the 1993 votes.

Among those losing influence in this time period were Griffith and Woodward. Ira Samuel Griffith's (1874-1924) first job in education was as a grade-school teacher; his second was a three-year stint as a college mathematics instructor. After reading about Bennett's work at the Bradley Polytechnic Institute, Griffith decided to prepare himself to be a teacher of manual arts. He taught shopwork and drawing to 7th and 8th grade boys in Oak Park, Illinois from 1903 to 1912 (Bawden, 1950). Later, he was the head of university industrial education departments at the University of Missouri at Columbia, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. His prominence increased considerably when, in 1908, he published a textbook which described the system he had perfected while at Oak Park for teaching woodwork. He later became a leading authority in manual arts teacher preparation, publishing an influential text and developing the curricula of the university departments he administered (Bawden, 1950; Miller & Smalley, 1963).

Griffith's decline in the rankings may be due to several factors. Manual arts has been considered the direct antecedent of industrial arts (Gerbracht & Babcock, 1969), and clearly Griffith was a leader in manual arts education at the time industrial arts was conceived. He died in 1924, only a year after Bonser and Mossman published Industrial Arts for Elementary Schools, which presented a theory of industrial arts that differed from Griffith's. It was Bonser and Mossman's conceptualization of industrial arts that survived to become technology education.

The decline in the ranking of Calvin Milton Woodward (1837-1914) may be more easily explained. Known as "the father of manual training" (Miller & Smalley, 1963), Woodward is often associated, perhaps unfairly, with outdated and unnecessary components of industrial education. He expected that a primary value of manual training was that it "keeps boys longer at school" (Woodward, 1890, p. 125). Like Griffith, he was initially a teacher of mathematics. Later he became dean of engineering and architecture at Washington University in St. Louis (Miller & Smalley, 1963).

Woodward is probably best known as the educator who observed the Russian manual training exhibit at the U.S. Centennial Exposition in 1876 in Philadelphia and implemented many of its ideas in a program in Missouri (Sredl, 1964; cf. Barlow, 1967). He received considerable mention in the written histories of Bennett (1937), Bawden (1950), and Wright and Barella (1981) but has often been left out of discussions of the beginnings of technology education. Like Griffith, Woodward had a system--his brand of manual training--which ultimately had limited impact on industrial education in the United States.

Leaders During the Formative Period

The first doctorate in industrial arts was awarded at Teachers College, to William E. Warner (1897-1971), under the direction of Bonser (Volk, 1993). "If [this doctoral dissertation] has any merit," Warner (1928) wrote, "it is due to the philosophy of industrial arts held by Dr. Frederick G. Bonser" (p. xii). In the time period 1917-1957, Warner was selected as the noted leader for technology education in both the 1983 and 1993 studies, receiving nearly the same percentage of votes (40%) in each. Warner founded the honorary fraternity Epsilon Pi Tau in 1929 and the American Industrial arts Association (now the ITEA) in 1939. Although it is questionable that he actually furthered the Bonser-Mossman conception of industrial arts, as has been suggested (Sredl, 1964; Towers, Lux & Ray, 1966; cf. Petrina & Volk, in press), written histories cite Warner as almost without peer in influence in the industrial arts of this period. In spite of these achievements, many of Warner's ideas met with strong opposition (Speaker, 1992), often due to his inflexibility, and during his period of influence he gained many adversaries as well as adherents.

In the present study, new attitudes about the contributions of others during this time period emerged. Bennett's percentage of nominations doubled, rivaling Warner's, while Fryklund lost prominence. In the 1983 study, Fryklund received 25% of all the votes cast for his time period but only slightly more than 5% in the current study. Verne C. Fryklund (1896-1980), president of Stout State College from 1945-1961, is most closely associated with Robert Selvidge (1872-1941), who also lost prominence in the most recent study. Fryklund and Selvidge coauthored several well-known teacher preparation texts, one of which was eventually translated into six languages in the 1950s and 1960s (Silvius, 1970). Fryklund's most prominent work, especially in association with Selvidge, was in the area of trade and industrial education. Despite his emphases on the application of scientific principles, reasoning and planning, and problem solving in industrial arts (Sredl, 1964), Fryklund's connection to trade and industrial education seems likely to have cost him votes in the second time period. The misapplication of his "job plan" instructional strategies became "one of the controversial points in the industrial arts program" of the 1930s (Sredl, 1964, p. 122).

Taking Fryklund's place as the second-most influential individual during the second time period was Charles Alpheus Bennett (1864-1942). Although he organized the first Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Education Conference, Bennett is probably best remembered for publishing Industrial Education Magazine (originally the Manual Training Magazine) and two books on the history of industrial education. Another of his notable contributions to the field was his plan for integrating drawing and design with constructive activities in the elementary school (Smith, 1981).

Bennett's retirement from publishing in 1938 was considered "one of [industrial arts'] greatest losses during this period" (Sredl, 1964, p. 153). Histories of industrial education, including those written by Bennett himself, do little to suggest why his influence might be considered greater in 1993 than in 1983, or why he might be considered more influential to the philosophy of technology education than to the philosophy of industrial arts. The subject-matter classification system touted by Bennett was not particularly influential when it appeared in 1908 (Smith, 1981) and has not been since; his histories have been replaced by more recent works; and his magazine was discontinued well over fifty years ago. It seems probable that Bennett, rather than gaining adherents since 1983, has perhaps remained consistently regarded, while some of his contemporaries, such as Selvidge and Fryklund, have lost prominence.

Leaders During the Transition

In Bartow's study, the time period 1957-1985 was marked by a diffusion of votes among the top leaders, while in the present study opinions had coalesced, resulting in a shorter list. Paul W. DeVore (1926- ) and Donald Maley (1918-1993) captured nearly three-quarters of all nominations, with DeVore moving from 10% in Bartow's study of industrial arts philosophy to over 40% in the present study of technology education philosophy.

DeVore's change in rank from 1983 to 1993 was the most dramatic of any time period, and he received a higher percentage of votes in the third time period than any other individual received in any time period. DeVore has been lauded as a champion of technology education whose "consistent call for an understanding of technology [in industrial arts] has laid the groundwork for programs at all levels" (Lauda & McCrory, 1986, p. 28).

DeVore began teaching in the public schools in 1950, after which he began a 40-year career in higher education, teaching in colleges and universities in Ohio, New York, and West Virginia. He was appointed to the industrial arts faculty at West Virginia University in Morgantown during its conversion to technology education. The department's name change occurred more than 15 years before most of the rest of the profession (Pollock & Bunten, 1969; Foster, 1992).

DeVore devised a model which divided the content of technology into the human activities of production, communication, and transportation. He viewed technology education as a necessary part of the education of all citizens. In fact, he often expressed the opinion that without a citizenry educated about technology, a modern society could be neither free nor democratic (DeVore, 1976). His influence on the field is evident in the degree to which technology has been adopted as a content base.

Whereas DeVore's votes increased dramatically between 1983 and 1993, Maley's remained essentially the same. Together they accounted for more than 70% of the 1993 vote. Maley, a contemporary of DeVore, began teaching at the University of Maryland at College Park in 1946 and soon became known as an innovator in junior high school industrial arts (Sredl, 1964). Eventually, he became the head of the department at Maryland, a position he occupied until his retirement in 1986. He continued to teach at the university for several years thereafter. During his tenure, Maryland's industrial arts department became one of the most highly regarded in the field, sharing that status with DeVore's program in West Virginia. Between them, the two departments produced many of the leaders in the field today.

Maley's best-known work was the Maryland Plan, a junior high school industrial arts program he developed in the 1950s and enhanced over the next 20 years. He was also closely associated with a student-centered conception of industrial arts education (Starkweather, 1993).

Wright (1992) suggested that in this time period, there were three major factions in industrial arts education: (a) those in favor of technology as the basis for industrial arts, such as DeVore; (b) a child-centered group, exemplified by Maley; and (c) those interested in maintaining industry as a content base, such as the IACP staff at the Ohio State University. In both studies, these three groups accounted for a considerable majority of the votes. In 1983, Donald G. Lux (1924- ) and Willis Eugene Ray (1929- ) of the Ohio State IACP staff together received 40 percent of the votes; Maley received 30 percent, and DeVore received 10 percent. In 1993 DeVore's percentage had quadrupled, while Lux and Ray's combined percentage was reduced by more than half. Maley's percentage remained essentially the same.

In the early 1980s, it became obvious that the content base of industrial arts was no longer clearly defined. Some leaders, like Lux and Ray, favored industry as the content base, while others, such as DeVore, favored technology. The Jackson's Mill curriculum effort of 1981 (Snyder & Hales, 1981) was touted as having settled the matter by compromise, but acceptance was difficult to achieve (Ritz, 1981; Wright, 1982). When Bartow's study was completed, it was not clear which content base would take hold. Within a few years, however, DeVore's conception of industrial arts clearly came into more favor, at least at the university level. In 1985, the American Industrial Arts Association instigated a nationwide name change by renaming itself the International Technology Education Association.

Current Leaders in Technology Education

Just as the most recent time period in Bartow's study showed a diffusion of votes among a number of individuals, the fourth time period, 1985 to 1993 in the current study, showed diversity in the perceptions of technology education leaders. In Bartow's study, no single individual stood out. In the current study, ten individuals received votes; again, no single individual stood out.

Final Thoughts

The jury consisted of a unique coterie of technology educators. They are identifiable as people who have risen within the ranks of professionals who have embraced the development of technology education. They are responsible for the day-to-day administration of NCATE-approved programs of technology education.

Especially regarding the earlier time periods in this study, the jury identified leaders in technology education philosophy who had been identified previously as leaders in industrial arts philosophy. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that Dewey, Bonser, Warner, and Maley have contributed to the development of technology education philosophy and that the philosophy they have espoused is still the basis for making curriculum decisions in technology education.

Finally, this study shed doubt on the theories of the historical development of technology education, identified by Foster (1994), which regard technology education either as entirely different, or as a significant departure from industrial arts (see also Hayden, 1991; Pullias, 1992; White, 1990). The strength of the agreement between the panels considering the histories and philosophies of industrial arts and technology education provides evidence that those histories are connected.

References

American Industrial Arts Association (1985). Technology education: A perspective on implementation. Reston, VA: Author.

Barlow, M. (1967). History of industrial education in the United States. Peoria, IL: Charles A. Bennett.

Bartow, S. (1983). Identification and synthesis of the range of industrial arts philosophy and a comparison of philosophy with actual classroom practices. Unpublished master's thesis, Miami University, Oxford, OH.

Bawden, W. (1950). Leaders in industrial education. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce.

Bennett, C. (1937). History of manual and industrial education 1870-1917. Peoria, IL: Manual Arts Press.

Bonser, F., & Mossman, L. (1923). Industrial arts for elementary schools. New York: MacMillan.

Brown, K. (1977). Model of a theoretical base for industrial arts education. Washington, DC: American Industrial arts Association.

Champion, D. (1970). Basic Statistics for Social Research. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

DeVore, P. (1976). Technology and the new liberal arts. (SO 009 637). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 133 260)

Figurski, J. (1970). Is industrial ecology the name of the game? Industrial arts and Vocational Education, 59(6), 18.

Foster, P. (1992). The democracy and philosophy of Paul W. DeVore. Unpublished manuscript, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

Foster, P. (1994). Technology education: AKA industrial arts. Journal of Technology Education , 5(2), 15-30.

Gemmil, P. (1979). Industrial arts laboratory facilities--Past, present, and future. In G. Martin (Ed.), Industrial arts education: Retrospect, prospect. (pp. 86-112). Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

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

Gerbracht, C., & Babcock, R. (1959). Industrial arts for grades K-6. New York: Bruce.

Good, J., & Good, M. (1981). Industrial arts education: Should it be vocationally oriented? Man/Society/Technology, 41(2), 2-3.

Hayden, M. (1991). Implementing technology education. The Technology Teacher, 51(2), 30-31.

Householder, D., & Suess, A. (1969). Review and synthesis of research in industrial arts education. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Householder, D. (1972). Review and Evaluation of Curriculum Development in Industrial arts Education. Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Karnes, W. (1963). Improving industrial arts education. In R. Miller & L. Smalley (Eds.), Selected Readings for Industrial arts. (pp. 318-326). Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Lauda, D., & McCrory, D. (1986). A Rationale for technology education. In J. Wright & R. Jones (Eds.), Implementing technology education. (pp. 15-46). Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Lauda, D. (1977). Industrial arts in the world of the future. In G. Martin (Ed). Future alternatives for industrial arts: Selected addresses of the Ohio Industrial Arts Association's 35th conference (pp. 10-18). Columbus, OH: Ohio Industrial arts Association.

Leutkemeyer, J., & McPherson, W. (1975). The ideas, philosophy, and contributions of Frederick Gordon Bonser. Man/Society/Technology, 34(8), 260-263.

Lux, D. (1981). Industrial arts redirected. In R. Barella & R. Wright (Eds.), An interpretive history of industrial arts. (pp. 205-225). Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Lux, D. (1983). Is it the name that needs changing? Man/Society/Technology, 43(3), 2.

McPherson, W. (1972). An interpretation of the ideas, philosophy, and contributions of Frederick Gordon Bonser. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

McPherson, W. (1976). Industrial arts education identity crisis. Man/Society/Technology, 35(1), 12-13, 25.

Miller, R., & Smalley, L. (1963). Selected readings in industrial arts. Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

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

Mossman, L. (1924). Changing conceptions relative to the planning of lessons. New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

Mossman, L. (1931). Frederick Gordon Bonser. Teachers College Record, 33, 1-8.

Mossman, L. (1938). The activity concept: An interpretation. New York: Macmillan.

Pannabecker, J. (1984). A structural analysis of industrial arts curriculum. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 21(4), 4-16.

Petrina, S. (1994). Curriculum organization in technology education: A critique of six trends. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 31(2), 44-69.

Petrina, S., & Volk, K. (in press). Time to stop putting old wine into new bottles: The recovery of the industrial arts movement's history, vision, ideals. Journal of Technological Studies.

Pollock, J. & Bunten, C. (Eds.) (1969). Who's who in industrial arts teacher education. Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Pulias, D. (1992). What is technology education? The Technology Teacher, 51(4), 3-4.

Ritz, J. (1981). Technology as the content base for industrial arts. Man/Society/Technology, 41(1), 2-4.

Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (Eds.) (1990). A conceptual framework for technology education. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Scobey, M. (1968). Teaching children about technology. Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Shepard, G. D., & Ragan W. B. (1992). Modern elementary curriculum. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt.

Silvius, H. (1970). Verne C. Fryklund. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 7(3), 36-38.

Smith, D. (1981). Industrial arts founded. In R. Barella & R. Wright (Eds.), An interpretive history of industrial arts (pp. 165-204). Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.

Snyder, J., & Hales, J. (1986). Jackson's Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. Charleston, WV: West Virginia University of Education.

Speaker, S. (1992). William E. Warner: Creative energizer for industrial arts education. Unpublished manuscript. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

Sredl, H. (1964). A history of industrial arts from 1920 to 1964. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Staff. (1992). The 24 technology teacher education programs approved by ITEA/CTTE/NCATE. CTTE Newsletter, 24(1), p. 6.

Starkweather, K. (1981). Should there be a name change for industrial arts? Man/Society/Technology, 40(8), 10-13.

Starkweather, K. (1993). Donald Maley 1918-1993: The end of an era. The Technology Teacher, 52(7), 35.

Towers, E., Lux, D., & Ray, W. (1966). A rationale and structure for industrial arts subject matter. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Volk, K. (1993). The lineage of research and teaching. The Technology Teacher, 53(3), 27-28.

Warner, W. (1928). Policies in industrial arts education: Their application to a program for preparing teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

White, B. (1990). Technology education: Industrial arts in transition. Honolulu: Office of the State Director for Vocational Education. ED 315 635 (CE 054 205).

Woodward, C. (1890). Manual training in education. New York: Scribners & Welford.

Wright, R. (1982). Industry as the content base for industrial arts. Man/Society/Technology, 41(4), 2-4.

Wright, R. (1992). Building a defensible curriculum base. Journal of Technology education, 3(2), 67-72.

Wright, R., Israel, E., & Lauda, D. (1993). Technology education -- A teacher's guide. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Wright, R., & Barella, R. (1981). Summary and reflections. In R. Barella, & R. Wright (Eds.), An interpretive history of industrial arts: The interrelationship of society, education, and industrial arts. (pp. 227-231). Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight.


DLA Ejournal Home | JITE Home | Table of Contents for this issue | Search JITE and other ejournals