Assessing the Effectiveness of the Change to Technology Teacher Education
Daniel L. Householder & Richard A. Boser
Many institutions which formerly pre-
pared teachers of industrial arts are cur-
rently implementing technology teacher
education programs. As these institutions
change to implement technology teacher educa-
tion, it is important to obtain an accurate
assessment of the effectiveness of the inno-
vation. Change in the teacher education cur-
riculum may be assessed in a number of
possible ways, each with several potential
advantages. However, there is no generally
accepted model for assessing the overall ef-
fectiveness of such a major change in tech-
nology teacher education.
To address this problem, a study was
undertaken to develop and verify a set of
measures that could be used to assess the ef-
fectiveness of the move to technology teacher
education. Specifically, the study sought
answers to two research questions: "What
measurements should be used to determine the
effectiveness of the change?" and "How should
surements be validated?"
The literature relevant to the assess-
ment of change and program implementation may
be categorized into three areas: (a) educa-
tional program evaluation; (b) program evalu-
ation in higher education, specifically in
teacher education; and (c) change and program
implementation in teacher education programs.
Studies in each of these areas were reviewed
to establish the research base for the devel-
opment of the formative evaluation system for
technology teacher education programs.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION
In a literature search for an applicable
model for the evaluation of teacher education
programs, Ayers, Gephart, and Clark (1989)
reported "approximately 40 references to
evaluation models" (p. 14). Stufflebeam and
Webster (1980) identified and assessed 13 al-
ternative evaluation approaches in terms of
their adherence to the definition: "an educa-
tional evaluation study is one that is de-
signed and conducted to assist some audience
to judge and improve the worth of some educa-
tional object" (p. 6). Their analysis re-
sulted in three categories of evaluation
studies: (a) politically oriented, or pseudo
evaluations; (b) question oriented, or quasi-
evaluations; and (c) values oriented, or true
evaluations. Stufflebeam and Webster ad-
dressed the strengths and weaknesses inherent
in each evaluation approach in order to pro-
vide evaluators with a variety of frameworks
for conducting evaluation studies.
However, as Popham (1975) noted, compar-
ing evaluation approaches in order to select
the best model is usually a fruitless en-
deavor. Popham stated:
Instead of engaging in a game of "sames
and differents," the educational evalu-
ator should become sufficiently
conversant with the available models of
evaluation to decide which, if any to
employ. Often, a more eclectic ap-
proach will be adopted whereby one se-
lectively draws from the several
available models those procedures or
constructs that appear most helpful.
Cronbach (1982) echoed this need for
eclecticism by noting that "the [evaluation]
design must be chosen afresh in each new
undertaking, and the choices to be made are
almost innumerable" (p. 1). Indeed, an
eclectic approach seemed most appropriate for
the formative evaluation of the change to
technology teacher education.
The review of the evaluation literature
identified two approaches that could be com-
bined to develop appropriate instrumentation
and procedures. These were the Context, In-
put, Process, and Product (CIPP) Model origi-
nated by Stufflebeam et al. (1971), and the
Discrepancy Model proposed by Provus (1971).
These models have many commonalities. Both
1. Were conceptualized and developed in the
late 1960s in response to the need to
evaluate projects funded through the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965.
2. Represented efforts to broaden the view
of educational evaluation to include more
than an assessment of the terminal objec-
3. Emphasized the systems view of the educa-
tion by stressing the relationship be-
tween context, inputs, processes, and
4. Emphasized the importance of collecting
information on key developmental factors
to aid decision-makers in assessing pro-
gram progress at a given point
(Brinkerhoff, Brethower, Hluchyj, and
5. Were concerned with the developmental as-
pects of program design and implementa-
tion, and recommended close collaboration
with program developers.
6. Have been used in a variety of evaluation
environments (Roth, 1978; Provus, 1971;
and Stufflebeam, et al., 1971), though
they are not specifically designed for
the evaluation of teacher education pro-
THE CIPP MODEL. Bjorkquist and
Householder (1990) noted that "programs in
which goals are accomplished are usually con-
sidered to be effective" (p. 69). In an
overview and assessment of evaluation
studies, Stufflebeam and Webster (1980)
stated that the objectives-based view of pro-
gram evaluation "has been the most prevalent
type used in the name of educational evalu-
ation" (p. 8). Indeed, prior to the ESEA,
educational evaluation had focused upon "the
determination of the degree to which an in-
structional program's goals were achieved"
(Popham, 1975, p. 22). However, a group lead
by Stufflebeam proposed an evaluation process
that focused upon program improvement by
evaluating virtually all aspects of the edu-
cational program. Stufflebeam (1983) stated:
Fundamentally, the use of the CIPP
Model is intended to promote growth and
to help the responsible leadership and
staff of an institution systematically
to obtain and use feedback so as to ex-
cel in meeting important needs, or at
least, to do the best they can with the
available resources. (p. 118).
In short, the CIPP Model placed a premium on
information that can be used proactively to
improve a program.
DISCREPANCY MODEL. This model was de-
veloped to be put in place as the new pro-
grams were designed and implemented in the
Pittsburgh public schools. A systems ap-
proach was used to determine whether program
performance met accepted program standards.
Provus (1971) conceptualized a three-step
process of program evaluation: (a) defining
program standards, (b) determining whether a
discrepancy exists between some aspect of
program performance and the standards govern-
ing that aspect of the program, and (c) using
discrepancy information either to change per-
formance or to change program standards (p.
183). According to Provus, this operational
definition of program evaluation leads to
four possible alternatives: (a) the program
can be terminated, (b) the program can pro-
ceed unaltered, (c) the performance of the
program can be altered, or (d) the standards
governing the program can be altered (Popham,
The Discrepancy Model has five stages:
(a) design; (b) installation; (c) process;
(d) product; and (e) program comparison.
Provus (1971) noted that, "at each of these
stages a comparison is made between reality
and some standard or standards" (p. 46). The
first four stages are developmental in nature
and designed to evaluate a single program.
The fifth stage, which Provus designated as
optional, provides information for making
comparisons with alternative programs.
MERGING THE EVALUATION MODELS. With the
commonalities of the two models previously
stated and the thoroughness of the CIPP Model
reviewed, one might well ask why the two mod-
els should be merged. The answer lies in the
complementing strengths of the two models.
CIPP, with its use of both quantitative and
qualitative procedures and its emphasis on
proactive evaluation, provides an overarching
evaluation model. Because of its
thoroughness, it is also extremely expensive
and time consuming. As Stufflebeam and
Webster (1980) noted, values-oriented
studies, such as CIPP, aimed at assessing the
overall merit or worth of a program are
overly ambitious "for it is virtually impos-
sible to assess the true worth of any object"
(p. 18). However, the CIPP model provides an
excellent framework for approaching the mul-
titude of possible variables in program eval-
What does the discrepancy evaluation
model add to this customized assessment ap-
proach? Stufflebeam and Webster (1980)
stated that question-oriented studies that
focus on program objectives or standards "are
frequently superior to true evaluation
studies in the efficiency of methodology and
technical adequacy of information employed"
(p. 18). In particular, the discrepancy
model championed by Provus adds three useful
constructs to the evaluation process:
1. The broadening of the evaluation proce-
dure to include the possibility of alter-
ing the standards to conform with
reality. In light of the current empha-
sis on standards external to the program,
such as National Council for Accredi-
tation of Teacher Education (NCATE) cri-
teria, this approach seemed particularly
2. The emphasis upon high-fidelity implemen-
tation addressed major concerns in the
3. The emphasis upon problem solving sol-
utions to program performance alteration
appeared to be consistent with the es-
poused philosophy of technology educa-
Since technology teacher education pro-
grams are still largely in the implementation
stage, assessments of their effectiveness
could most profitably focus on discrepancies
between the performances and standards that
are concerned with the inputs and the proc-
esses of the technology teacher education
programs. Taken together, it seems reason-
able to consider an evaluation approach that
focuses on input and process evaluation com-
ponents as Stufflebeam uses the terms by com-
paring actual performance with defined
PROGRAM EVALUATION IN TEACHER EDUCATION
Few studies have related specific pro-
gram evaluation approaches to the assessment
of teacher education programs. Perhaps the
dearth of references in the literature to
specific evaluation approaches used in
teacher education programs is the result of
the emphasis placed on the accreditation of
those programs. Accreditation procedures re-
quire that teacher education institutions pe-
riodically undertake systematic formative and
summative evaluations. Taking this reality
into consideration, Ayers, Gephart, and Clark
(1989) proposed the Accreditation Plus Model
that integrates the accreditation process and
existing evaluation approaches. While focus-
ing on the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education (1987) standards and
criteria for compliance, the model suggests a
process that is "active, continual, and form-
ative" (p. 16).
The Accreditation Plus Model seems to be
a logical extension of an already required
practice. While this model was designed to
be used for the evaluation of professional
educational units, the process seems adapt-
able to the more specific evaluation concerns
of technology teacher education programs.
CHANGE AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Gee and Tyler (1976) suggested that
"reasonable people will assume moderate risk
for great benefits, small risks for moderate
benefits, and no risk for no benefit" (p. 2).
While this statement makes explicit the per-
sonal nature of the change process, organiza-
tional characteristics are also important
factors in facilitating change. Hopkins
(1984) argued that the nature of the educa-
tional organization itself is a major imped-
iment to change. He noted that in spite of
considerable external pressure for change in
teacher education, there were few observable
differences in the routines of professors and
students. Hopkins made the provocative sug-
gestion that "teacher training institutions
as organizations appear unable effectively to
manage self-initiated change" (p. 37).
Giacquinta (1980), even less charitable, sug-
gested that schools of education find that
"change is a necessary, often bitter pill
taken for the sake of survival" (Hopkins,
1984, p. 43). These opinions seem to be
shared by several state legislatures which
have recently mandated changes in teacher ed-
ucation requirements and practices.
A MODEL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
A model of the innovation-decision proc-
ess in an organization, developed by Rogers
(1983), focuses on the process of adoption,
implementation, and the incorporation of the
innovation into the organization. The five
steps in the model are divided into two
stages: initiation and implementation.
INITIATION STAGE. During this stage,
organizational activities center around the
information-gathering, conceptualizing, and
planning that is required to make the deci-
sion to change. The two steps included at
this stage are: (a) agenda setting, where the
initial idea search occurs and the motivation
to change is generated; and (b) matching,
where organizational problems and possible
solutions are analyzed for compatibility.
The initiation stage is essentially a
problem solving exercise. As the organiza-
tion becomes cognizant of a performance
shortfall, it initiates a search of the envi-
ronment for possible solutions to the prob-
lem. For example, industrial arts programs
were generally faced with declining enroll-
ments. At the same time, many studies cited
the need for students to possess increased
scientific and technological literacy. In
response, the field started to focus on tech-
nology education as an emergent solution to
IMPLEMENTATION STAGE. The second stage,
implementation, begins after the decision to
make the change has been made by the organ-
ization. This stage includes the decisions,
actions, and procedures involved in putting
an innovation into regular use. The imple-
mentation stage includes three steps: (a)
redefining/restructuring the innovation and
the organization to accommodate the change;
(b) clarifying the innovation as it is put
into regular use; and ultimately (c)
routinizing or institutionalizing the change
as an integral part of the ongoing activities
of the organization.
According to Rogers (1983) each step is
"characterized by a particular range of
events, actions, and decisions" (p. 362).
Further, the latter steps cannot occur until
the issues in the earlier steps have been re-
solved. Citing the work of Pelz (1981) as a
source of support for the model, Rogers noted
that innovations imported into an organiza-
tion "usually occur in the time-order se-
quence" (p. 366). However, innovations that
originated within an organization are not
characterized by a similarly clear pattern of
adoption. Since technology teacher education
programs are currently changing in an attempt
to meet largely external innovations (NCATE
accreditation standards and state certif-
ication requirements), it appears that the
time-order sequence is expected to apply.
The linear nature of the innovation-decision
model highlights the need to nurture the
change to technology teacher education
throughout the stages of the entire change
In light of the review of literature and
the specific goals of this research effort,
the decision was made to develop an evalu-
ation design incorporating an eclectic mix of
program evaluation approaches, the NCATE ac-
creditation process, and descriptions of the
process of change as that process may be ex-
pected to occur in teacher education organ-
izations. Stufflebeam's CIPP Model provided
an overall framework from which to assess the
effectiveness of change to technology teacher
education. Provus's Discrepancy Model added
the possibility of adjusting the measurement
standards to conform to program performance
reality. And, because accreditation is an
overarching evaluation concern for teacher
education, the Accreditation Plus Model sug-
gested a way of integrating program evalu-
ation and accreditation. Further, because
technology teacher education programs are
presently in the early implementation stage,
measures that reflect the process of change
seemed to be appropriate for inclusion.
A modified Delphi design was used in
this study. Nominations of leading practi-
tioners and advocates in technology education
who might serve as Delphi panelists were so-
licited from officers of the Council on Tech-
nology Teacher Education and the
International Technology Education Associ-
ation. This process resulted in the se-
lection of a panel comprised of the 22
individuals who were recommended by at least
two of the CTTE or ITEA officers.
On an open-ended questionnaire, panel-
ists were asked to suggest criteria and pro-
cedures for evaluating the effectiveness of
the change from industrial arts teacher edu-
cation to technology teacher education pro-
grams. Fourteen panelists returned the first
round questionnaire. The reponses were tabu-
lated, duplications were eliminated, and sim-
ilar suggestions were combined. This process
resulted in a list of 58 criteria and 33 pro-
cedures for evaluating the effectiveness of
the change to technology teacher education.
The criteria were sorted into four catego-
ries: (a) the technology teacher education
program, (b) faculty members, (c) student
skills, and (d) capabilities of graduates.
The second round questionnaire asked the
22 panelists to rate the importance of the 58
criteria and 33 procedures on a scale which
ranged from 0 to 10. The instructions de-
fined a rating of 0 as a recommendation that
the criterion or procedure be dropped. A
rating of 10 meant that the criterion or pro-
cedure was considered to be absolutely vital
to the assessment of the effectiveness of the
change to technology teacher education. Pan-
elists were asked to offer editorial sug-
gestions on the statements of criteria and
procedures and also to suggest additional
criteria and procedures (and to rate any ad-
Eighteen of the 22 second round ques-
tionnaires were returned promptly. The re-
sponses were tabulated and the mean rating of
importance for each item was calculated. The
statements of criteria and procedures were
then listed in order of their mean rating of
importance. The ranked listings for each
criterion with a mean value greater than 9.0
on the 10 point scale are included in Table
HIGHLY RANKED CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES SORTED
Mean Criteria and Procedures
TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM ...
9.55 Laboratory instruction provides op-
portunities for students to
reinforce abstract concepts with
9.50 Instructional strategies emphasize
conceptual understanding and problem solving.
9.23 Professional studies component emphasizes
the study of technology, including social-
9.22 Laboratories facilitate the learning
of broad based technological concepts.
9.22 Instruction incorporates current
9.17 Philosophy, mission statement, goals
and curriculum emphasize technological
skills rather than technical skills.
9.17 Social-cultural impacts of technology
9.12 Field experiences are technology cen-
9.05 Problem solving and decision making
abilities are emphasized.
9.00 Curricula are based on recent re-
FACULTY MEMBERS ...
9.50 Display a positive attitude toward
the technology teacher education
9.22 Participate in planned professional
development activities to
update their knowledge and skills.
9.05 Communicate their understanding of
the meaning and implications of
technology education both within and
outside the classroom.
STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO ...
9.78 Be people oriented.
9.44 Be future oriented.
9.39 Demonstrate the ability to teach
problem solving techniques.
9.33 Effectively plan and implement tech-
nology education in grades 5-12.
9.28 Develop and implement curriculum ma-
terial that reflect a broad
technological system area.
9.28 Demonstrate an awareness of society's
reliance on technological systems.
9.22 Plan and implement teaching-learning
9.17 Use a vocabulary that reflects the
concepts of technology education.
9.11 Apply current instructional theory.
9.06 Formulate appropriate objectives.
9.05 Be open to change and willing to ini-
9.05 Consider global perspectives in tech-
9.00 Demonstrate a basic understanding of
tools, machines and process and their
applications in manufacturing,
construction, communication, and
GRADUATES OF THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION
9.78 Employ a philosophy which reflects a
9.61 Teach concepts and use teaching tech-
niques that are technology based.
PROCEDURE STATEMENTS ...
9.50 Examine the curriculum to determine
if the philosophy, definition, mission
statement, goals and objectives, course
content, and learning experience
reflect technology education.
9.22 Analyze the courses required in the
program, the content contained in each
of the courses, teaching strategies and
methods, assignments, tests, and
student field experience to determine if
they reflect technology education.
DEVELOPING THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION
An initial review of the listing of cri-
teria and procedures identified by the panel-
ists in this research suggested many
parallels to the NCATE approved curriculum
guidelines as specified in the BASIC PROGRAM
IN TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (1987). The intent
of this investigation was not to duplicate
the NCATE assessment process, but to identify
essential elements in the implementation of
technology teacher education that would serve
as key indicators of the effectiveness of the
change from industrial arts teacher educa-
tion. In order to concentrate the assessment
effort, therefore, criteria were selected for
inclusion in the measurement instrument if
1. Highly ranked within their criteria cate-
gory but not addressed by NCATE curric-
2. Correlated to NCATE curriculum guidelines
for technology teacher education and dis-
tinctly different from usual practices in
industrial arts teacher education; or
3. Considered to be essential to support the
process of organizational change.
Other suggested items were not included
in the TTEC because they were measurements of
program outcome, such as performance of pro-
gram graduates. These items were excluded
from the measurement instrument since tech-
nology teacher education is in the implemen-
tation phase, a stage when Hall and Hord
(1987) noted that "interpreting any outcome
data is extremely risky" (p. 343).
Further, the procedures proposed for
this formative evaluation design were pur-
posely limited by the following criteria:
1. The time required for on-site data col-
lection by the external evaluator(s)
should not exceed two observer-days.
2. With the exception of interviews and
classroom and laboratory observation ses-
sions, the data gathering should not re-
quire additional faculty time.
3. Existing data should be used whenever
4. Data gathering should not seriously dis-
rupt on-going instructional activities.
In this way, the evaluation may be conducted
in a reasonable time with a minimum of dis-
ruption to departmental activities.
VERIFICATION OF THE TTEC
In order to verify the measures selected
for inclusion in the checklist, a draft of
the TTEC was sent to the panel for editorial
suggestions and additional comments. Sixteen
of the twenty-two panelists responded. Most
respondents suggested editorial revisions or
made other comments. Careful consideration
was given to these suggestions as revisions
were made in the TTEC. The TTEC, revised to
incorporate suggestions from panelists, is
TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION CHECKLIST
1. Examine the catalog, a sample of curric-
ulum documents, and a sample of course
syllabi to verify the degree to which:
a. The philosophy, mission statement,
and goals and objectives of the pro-
gram reflect the definition(s) of
technology education suggested by
ITEA, CTTE, and relevant groups in
b. Study is required in technological
systems such as communication, pro-
duction (construction and manufactur-
ing), transportation, and
c. Courses in mathematics, science, and
computing science are required.
d. Required full-time student teaching
and early field experiences are con-
ducted in an exemplary technology ed-
e. Required reading lists provide com-
prehensive coverage of technology and
f. Learning activities and experiences
are representative of technology edu-
2. Interview the department head with regard
to the change to technology teacher edu-
cation to discern the degree to which:
a. Funding is adequate to support the
current technology teacher education
program and plans are in place for
periodic replacement and upgrading of
facilities and equipment.
b. Faculty and staff allocations are ad-
equate to serve student enrollments
in technology teacher education.
c. The written departmental plan for
faculty professional development and
technological updating is adequate to
prepare faculty members for contempo-
rary technology teacher education.
d. Enrollments in the major are ade-
quate, stable, or increasing.
e. The written departmental implementa-
tion plan for technology teacher edu-
cation addresses the process of
f. Faculty are committed to the philoso-
phy and objectives of technology edu-
3. Interview faculty members and review re-
cent annual reports, biodata information,
faculty publications, copies of presenta-
tions, and manuscripts being considered
for publication to verify whether:
a. Faculty are writing scholarly papers,
developing instructional materials,
and giving presentations about tech-
b. Current faculty research and service
activities are directed toward topics
and issues in technology education.
c. Faculty are actively involved in pro-
fessional organizations in technology
4. Observe professional and technical
classes to discern the degree to which:
a. Instructional methods emphasize tech-
nological problem solving and
b. Instructional materials reflect con-
c. Major elements of technology educa-
tion (e.g., systems, environmental
and social impacts, and the applica-
tions of technological devices) are
emphasized in the course activities.
5. Inspect laboratory facilities to ascer-
tain the degree to which:
a. Laboratories are adequate for effec-
b. Equipment and space provide students
adequate opportunities for experi-
ences in state-of-the-art applica-
tions of technology (e.g., CAD/CAM,
CIM, robotics, desk-top publishing,
lasers, table-top technology,
6. Interview students, and examine student
logs and required student work to discern
a. The elements of technology education
are understood and integrated into
their total philosophy of education.
b. They are active in a TECA chapter.
c. The problem solving process and
decision-making rationale are incor-
porated into grading.
d. Environmental consequences and
social-cultural effects of technology
are reflected in student activities.
7. Interview chairs of related departments
and administrators (dean, provost, or
president) to ascertain the degree of
philosophical support that is provided
for technology education.
8. Listen to conversations and discussions
and observe student activity to discern
the degree to which:
a. The terminology used by faculty and
students reflects technology and
b. Faculty and students appear to be en-
thusiastic about technology educa-
9. Interview principals who have experience
with student teachers and graduates of
the technology education program to dis-
cern whether the program prepares profes-
a. Plan and implement technology educa-
b. Use problem solving strategies.
c. Apply current instructional theory.
USING THE INSTRUMENT
Jordan (1989) began a discussion of
evaluation and change by reminding practi-
One of the axioms of measurement is
that assessment is not an end in it-
self. We evaluate because we wish to
know the current state of affairs, but
we wish to do that in order to make im-
provements. Exactly how we wish to im-
prove depends on what we discover. In
theory, the process is circular and un-
ending. That is, we should assess and
make improvements and then assess the
improvements. (p. 147)
With this interaction between evaluation and
change in mind, there are several possible
ways of using the instrument developed
through this research. Perhaps the simplest
use would be for an internal or external
evaluator to use the instrument as a check-
list of what has been accomplished and what
is in progress (or still to be initiated).
Two more complex uses may include determining
if the innovation is in place and using force
field analysis to determine sources of re-
DETERMINING IF THE INNOVATION IS IN-PLACE
Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and
Hall (1987) proposed that before assessing
program outcomes it is first necessary to de-
termine that the innovation is in fact in
place. They indicated two ways of making
that determination: (a) first, the level of
fidelity of the actual implementation of the
innovation can be compared with the intended
innovation, and (b) second, the actual levels
of use can be determined. Hord et al. pro-
posed that each innovation has essential and
related components. The essential components
cannot be changed without undermining the na-
ture of the innovation itself. The related
concepts allow for local flexibility and,
while varied, are still faithful to the inno-
vation design. Hord et al. suggested that
assessment of fidelity can be made by devel-
oping a checklist that outlines ideal, ac-
ceptable, and unacceptable variations of the
innovation. In technology teacher education
programs, many of the criteria identified
through this research may serve as the "es-
The second measure proposed by Hord et
al. (1987) to determine whether or not the
innovation is actually in place is an assess-
ment of the six levels of use. These levels
range from Level of Use 0 (nonuse) to Level
of Use VI (renewal) where the "user reevalu-
ates the quality of use of the innovation,
seeks major modifications of or alternatives
to, present innovation to achieve increased
impact on clients, examines new developments
in the field, and explores new goals for self
and the organization" (p. 55). By using the
TTEC to identify the essential components of
the change to technology teacher education,
an assessment of levels of use from the per-
spective of the faculty may be an important
step in measuring the effectiveness of the
change and planning further intervention
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
Lewin (1951), the originator of field
psychology, proposed that change is the re-
sult of competition between driving and re-
sisting forces. Lewin's conceptualization
has been adapted to describe the dynamics of
a number of management situations in organiza-
tional change. Daft (1988) stated that:
To implement a change, management
should analyze the change forces. By
selectively removing forces that re-
strain change the driving forces will
be strong enough to enable implementa-
tion. . . . As restraining forces are
reduced or removed, behavior will shift
to incorporate the desired changes. (p.
Miller (1987) suggested that force field
analysis could be used to nurture a climate
receptive to innovation and creativity.
The primary function of the force field
in idea generation is to present three
different stimuli for thinking of new
options or solutions. Because the
field represents a kind of tug-of-war,
there are three ways to move the center
line in the direction of the more de-
1. Strengthen an already present posi-
2. Weaken an already present negative
3. Add a new positive force. (p. 73)
If these two ideas are taken together, a
picture emerges of how force field analysis
and the instrument designed through this re-
search could be applied to the transition
from industrial arts teacher education to
technology teacher education. First, each
criterion could be assessed to determine its
relative strength as a driving force for
change. Additionally, forces unique to the
particular implementation may be identified
and dealt with. Second, the information gen-
erated through the assessment could be used
to strengthen the implementation procedures.
In this way, the instrument may serve as a
game plan for implementation and continued
assessment of the change.
The Technology Teacher Education Check-
list, which was the primary outcome of this
research, should be useful to the faculty of
a technology teacher education program or to
an external evaluator in conducting formative
or summative assessments of the change to
technology education. While its use requires
minimal duplication of the NCATE approval
procedures, the items in TTEC focus upon key
indicators of effective change to technology
teacher education. The TTEC might be espe-
cially useful in a review of a technology
teacher education program, a year or two in
advance of the preparation of a curriculum
folio to be submitted for consideration for
Daniel L. Householder is Professor and
Richard A. Boser is a Graduate Assistant in
the Department of Industrial, Vocational and
Technical Education, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas.
Ayers, J. B., Gephart, W. J., & Clark, P. A.
(1989). The accreditation plus model. In
J. B. Ayers & M. F. Berney (Eds.), A PRAC-
TICAL GUIDE TO TEACHER EDUCATION EVALU-
ATION (pp. 13-22). Boston:
Bjorkquist, D. C., & Householder, D. L.
(1990). Reaction to reform: Research im-
plications for industrial teacher educa-
tion. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEACHER
EDUCATION, 27(2), 61-74.
Brinkerhoff, R. O., Brethower, D. M.,
Hluchyj, T., & Nowakowski, J. R. (1983).
PROGRAM EVALUATION: A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE
FOR TRAINERS AND EDUCATORS. Boston:
Cronbach, L. J. (1982). DESIGNING EVALUATIONS
OF EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS. San
Daft, R. L. (1988). MANAGEMENT. New York:
Gee, E. A., & Tyler, C. (1976). MANAGING
INNOVATION. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Giacquinta, J. B. (1980). Organizational
change in schools of education: A review
of several models and an agenda of re-
search. In D. E. Griffiths & D. J.
McCarthy (Eds.), THE DILEMMA OF THE
DEANSHIP. Danville, IL: Interstate.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). CHANGE IN
SCHOOLS: FACILITATING THE PROCESS.
Albany: State University of New York
Hopkins, D. (1984). Change and the
organisational character of teacher educa-
tion. STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 9(1),
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-
Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). TAKING
CHARGE OF CHANGE. Alexandria, VA: Asso-
ciation for Supervision and Curriculum De-
International Technology Education
Association/Council on Technology Teacher
Education. (1987). NCATE-APPROVED CURRIC-
ULUM GUIDELINES: BASIC PROGRAM IN TECHNOL-
OGY EDUCATION. Reston, VA: Author.
Jordan, T. E. (1989). MEASUREMENT AND EVAL-
UATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: ISSUES AND IL-
LUSTRATIONS. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). FIELD THEORY IN SOCIAL SCI-
ENCE. New York: Harper.
Miller, W. C. (1987). THE CREATIVE EDGE:
FOSTERING INNOVATION WHERE YOU WORK.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education. (1987). STANDARDS, PROCE-
DURES, AND POLICIES FOR THE ACCREDITATION
OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNITS.
Washington, DC: Author.
Pelz, D. C. (1981). 'STAGING' EFFECTS IN
ADOPTION OF URBAN INNOVATIONS. Paper pre-
sented at the Evaluation Research Society,
Popham, W. J. (1975). EDUCATIONAL EVALU-
ATION. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Provus, M. (1971). DISCREPANCY EVALUATION
FOR EDUCATION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND AS-
SESSMENT. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). DIFFUSION OF INNO-
VATION. New York: Free Press.
Roth, R. A. (1978). HANDBOOK FOR EVALUATION
OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS: TEACHER EDUCATION AS
A MODEL. Washington, DC: University Press
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP Model
for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus,
M. S. Scriven & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.),
EVALUATION MODELS: VIEWPOINTS ON EDUCA-
TIONAL AND HUMAN SERVICE EVALUATION
(pp.117-142). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Webster, W. J. (1980).
An analysis of alternative approaches to
evaluation. EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND
POLICY ANALYSIS, 2(3), 5-19.
Stufflebeam, D. L, Foley, W. J., Gephart, W.
J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman,
H. O., & Provus, M. M. (1971). EDUCA-
TIONAL EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING.
Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Permission is given to copy any
article or graphic provided credit is given and
the copies are not intended for sale.
Journal of Technology Education Volume 2, Number 2 Spring 1991