Journal of Technology Education


JTE Editor: Mark Sanders

Volume 2, Number 2
Spring 1991


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

             Technology Teacher Education Curriculum
                             Courses
 
                          Karen F. Zuga
 
               As the shift from industrial arts to
          technology education takes place, there is a
          tendency to merely change the name of a
          course and not to change the course content.
          In order to make the change to a technology
          education curriculum teachers need to be able
          to conceptualize and design new courses.
               One of the intervention strategies for
          increasing the likelihood of renewal and im-
          provement in technology education has been
          through teacher education programs and cur-
          riculum courses for preservice technology
          teachers.  Most preservice teachers study
          curriculum development with respect to indus-
          trial arts/technology education, yet, evi-
          dence of what they study about curriculum is
          lacking.
               Although recent publications in the
          field of curriculum have focused on the vari-
          ety of ways in which educators design curric-
          ulum (Eisner, 1979; Eisner & Vallance, 1974;
          Joyce, 1980; McNeil, 1977; Ornstein &
          Hunkins, 1988; Saylor, Alexander, & Lewis,
          1981; Schubert, 1986; Wiles & Bondi, 1984),
          few have examined the ways in which technol-
          ogy educators design curriculum or teach pre-
          service teachers to design curriculum.  The
          literature of the field reveals few studies
          of what is actually taught to future technol-
          ogy teachers in curriculum planning courses.
          How teachers are taught to plan curriculum
          may very well influence their ability to im-
          plement curriculum change in technology edu-
          cation.
               Informal discussions with practicing
          teachers often reveal difficulties and guilt
          associated with designing curriculum.  The
          difficulties and guilt stem from an inability
          to implement the kind of curriculum design
          process which was taught in the preservice
          program.  Recently, a teacher working with
          this project revealed that during a depart-
          mental meeting his colleagues decided that
          they wrote curriculum with a "backwards" ap-
          proach since their curriculum planning prac-
          tices did not resemble what had been taught
          to them in their preservice courses.  This
          very practical problem, and the lack of know-
          ledge concerning contemporary curriculum
          courses, brings up the question, what is be-
          ing taught to preservice technology education
          teachers about curriculum planning?
 
              OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY
               Based upon the very real problem that
          teachers have with curriculum design I sought
          to identify and describe some of the prac-
          tices and goals of technology teacher educa-
          tion curriculum courses.  Since research can
          be a tool for change I hope that this study
          supports a dialog about the role and respon-
          sibility of teacher educators with respect to
          changing curriculum practices in the field.
          Based on these objectives, the following
          questions guided the study:
 
          1.  What is the context of curriculum courses
              for preservice technology teachers?
          2.  What is the content and practice (as de-
              scribed by teacher educators) of curric-
              ulum courses for preservice technology
              teachers?
          3.  What curriculum course goals do teacher
              educators prefer?
 
                             METHODS
               As a primarily descriptive exercise, I
          employed a survey in order to collect data
          and information about preservice curriculum
          courses in technology teacher education.  The
          survey included a combination of forced-
          choice and open-ended questions.  Although
          the open-ended questions were thought to be
          difficult and did turn out to cause some re-
          sponse problems, open-ended questions were
          chosen in order to avoid researcher bias by
          preliminary categorization of concepts.
               The survey was sent to the population of
          214 department chairpersons identified in the
          1988-1989 INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION DIREC-
          TORY which could have a teacher education
          program in technology education.  The re-
          sponse rate to the survey was 51% or 109 re-
          sponses.  In addition it should be noted that
          23% of the returned surveys were not poten-
          tially useful due to a lack of a technology
          teacher education program at the institution,
          a phenomenon which could have influenced the
          number of returned responses.  The number of
          potentially useful surveys was further re-
          duced by the courses offered within the
          teacher education programs.  Of the 84 sur-
          veys returned with a teacher education pro-
          gram indicated, only 59 (70% of the useful
          surveys) of the programs included curriculum
          courses.  The other programs either included
          a combined methods and curriculum course or
          required no curriculum courses.  The objec-
          tive of the study was to identify curriculum
          practices and beliefs of technology teacher
          educators, therefore, I chose to analyze only
          the surveys from the 59 programs that in-
          cluded a curriculum course.
               Since I was conducting the study for a
          preliminary description of practices in tech-
          nology teacher education curriculum courses
          and to identify as many practices as possi-
          ble, the data are minimally reduced into cat-
          egories in this report.  I decided to limit
          the categorization in order to provide the
          reader with as much evidence as practical so
          that the reader could use the data for the
          purpose of agreeing or disagreeing with in-
          terpretation in this paper and to maintain
          fidelity to the concepts of the respondents.
 
                             RESULTS
               Based on the questions posed for the
          study three categories of information are re-
          ported.  These three categories include in-
          formation about the curriculum courses
          offered, practices in the curriculum courses,
          and teacher educators' attitudes about cur-
          riculum design.
 
          COURSE DESCRIPTION
               Information about the curriculum courses
          offered was obtained in order to briefly de-
          scribe the context of the curriculum courses
          so that some understanding of the partic-
          ipants and programs could be conveyed.
          Therefore, questions about the program name,
          courses offered, length of courses, credits,
          and students in the courses were asked.
               Of the surveyed program areas that of-
          fered curriculum courses for and certified
          technology education teachers, 34% of the
          programs were listed as technology education
          programs.  The remaining programs used a wide
          variety of titles which could be grouped in
          the following categories:  industrial educa-
          tion (20%), industrial technology/education
          (15%), industrial arts/education (15%), in-
          dustrial science/studies/etc. (12%), and
          vocational-technical education (2%).  Further
          condensing of the categories into one that
          includes all programs using the modifier "in-
          dustrial" in the title reveals that 62% of
          the programs are designated as some form of
          industrial study.
               Most of the programs (56%, n=33) offered
          one curriculum course.  Two courses were of-
          fered in 31% (n=18 )of the programs and the
          remaining programs offered three or more
          courses.  Course length was determined by the
          quarter and semester system with 56% (n=33)
          of the programs offered in the semester sys-
          tem.  Most of the courses (70%, n=41) were
          offered as three credits with the remaining
          courses offered in a range of two to six
          credits.  Forty-two percent of the courses
          were taught
 
 
          TABLE 1
          PROGRAM TITLES
          ---------------------------------------------
          Title                           n      %
          ---------------------------------------------
          Technology Education           20     34
          Industrial Education           12     20
          Industrial Technology/Education 9     15
          Industrial Arts/Education       9     15
          Industrial Science/Studies/Etc. 7     12
          Vocational-Technical Education  1      2
          Missing                         1      2
          ---------------------------------------------
 
          within the technology teacher education pro-
          gram area, 34% of the courses were taught
          within the department, two percent of the
          courses were taught within the college, and
          22% of the courses were taught by a combina-
          tion of program, department, and college fac-
          ulty.
 
          TABLE 2
          ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT RESPONSIBLE FOR TEACHING
          CURRICULUM COURSES
          ----------------------------------------------------
          Administrative Unit                         n      %
          ----------------------------------------------------
          Program Area                               25     42
          Department                                 20     34
          Combination (Program Area and Department)  13     22
          College                                     1      2
          ----------------------------------------------------
 
               Student enrollment in the curriculum
          courses by major was a particularly interest-
          ing question which related directly to the
          impetus for the study.  Recent trends of low
          student enrollment in technology education,
          an historical association with vocational ed-
          ucation, and the distribution of responsibil-
          ity for teaching curriculum courses prompted
          a question about the majors of the students
          enrolled in curriculum courses.  A little
          over half of the curriculum courses (56%,
          n=33) were offered exclusively to technology
          education majors.  In the remaining courses a
          combination of vocational education, train-
          ing, and general education students were also
          in the same courses.  Vocational education
          majors were the most frequent students to be
          combined with technology education students
          with 39% (n=23) of the classes enrolling both
          vocational education and technology education
          majors.  Training majors were in 15% (n=9) of
          the courses and only two percent of the
          courses enrolled general education majors.
 
          COURSE PRACTICES
               Analysis of the practices within curric-
          ulum courses focused on the assigned texts
          and materials, course goals, course topics,
          and student assignments.  All of this infor-
          mation was elicited with open-ended
          questions.
               COURSE TEXTS AND MATERIALS.  Table 3
          presents an overview of the types of materi-
          als and texts used in technology teacher edu-
          cation curriculum courses.
 
          TABLE 3
          FORMAT OF COURSE MATERIALS
          ---------------------------------------------
          Material                        n      %
          ---------------------------------------------
          Textbooks                      55     93
          Selected Readings and Handouts 20     34
          Curriculum Guides              14     24
          Vendors' Catalogs              01     01
          No Response                    01     01
          ---------------------------------------------
          * Columns will not total to 59 or 100% due to
          the use of several formats in one course
 
          The most frequently used materials were
          texts.  Selected readings and national,
          state, and local curriculum guides followed
          in frequency of use.  Because texts can play
          an important role in defining a curriculum
          perspective, the titles and content of the
          texts were analyzed in order to identify the
          primary audience for the book.  The majority
          of the texts were written for industrial edu-
          cation audiences and included information
          about curriculum development for vocational
          educators and industrial trainers.  Represen-
          tative texts in each category, with the fre-
          quency of use included, are shown in Table
          3A.
 
          TABLE 3A
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF TEXTBOOK USED IN CURRICULUM COURSES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textbook                                                                    n
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION
Giachino, J. W., & Gallington, R. O. (1961).  COURSE CONSTRUCTION IN        6
     INDUSTRIAL ARTS AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.  Chicago:  American 
     Technical Society.
Miller, W. R., & Rose, H. C. (1975).  INSTRUCTORS AND THEIR JOBS.           5
     Chicago:  American Technical Society.
Bartel, C. R. (1976).  INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT.    4              
     Chicago: American Technical Society.
Andrews, R. C., & Ericson, E. E. (1976).  TEACHING INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION:    3
     PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES.  Peoria, IL:  C. A. Bennett.
Finch, C. R., & Crunkilton, J. R. (1979).  CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN        3
     VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION:  PLANNING, CONTENT, AND 
     IMPLEMENTATION.  Boston:  Allyn & Bacon.
Paulter, A. (1978).  TEACHING TECHNICAL SUBJECTS IN EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY. 2
Silvius, G. H., & Bohn, R. C. (1976).  PLANNING AND ORGANIZING INSTRUCTION. 2
     Bloomington, IL:  McKnight.
Bott, P. A. (1987).  TEACHING YOUR OCCUPATION TO OTHERS: A GUIDE TO         2
     SURVIVING YOUR FIRST YEAR.  Elmsford, NY: National.
Baird, R. J. (1972).  CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIAL TEACHING: SOLVING EVERYDAY    1
     PROBLEMS.  South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Willcox.  
Center on Education and Training (1989).  PERFORMANCE BASED TEACHER         1
     EDUCATION MODULE SERIES.  Athens, GA: American Association for 
     Training and Employment.  
Bollinger, E. W., & Weaver, G. G. (1955).  TRADE ANALYSIS AND COURSE        1
     ORGANIZATION FOR SHOP TEACHERS.  New York: Pitman.
Fryklund, V. C. (1965).  ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR INSTRUCTORS.  Milwaukee,   1
     WI:  Bruce.
Mager, R. F., & Beach, K. M. (1967).  DEVELOPING VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTION.    1
     Fearon.      
McMahon, G. G. (1972).  CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL      1
     AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.  Columbus, OH:  Merrill.
 
INDUSTRIAL ARTS/TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
Unspecified ACIATE/CTTE Yearbooks                                           5
Technical Foundation of America.  (undated).  INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY       3
     EDUCATION:  A GUIDE FOR CURRICULUM DESIGNERS, IMPLEMENTORS, AND 
     TEACHERS.
American Industrial Arts Association (1985). STANDARDS FOR TECHNOLOGY       1
     EDUCATION PROGRAMS.  South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Willcox.
Kemp, W. H., & Schwaller, A. E. (Eds.) (1988).  INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES    1
     FOR TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.  Bloomington, IL:  McKnight.
Maley,  D. (1973).  THE MARYLAND PLAN.  New York: Bruce.                    1
Maley, D. (1978).  THE INDUSTRIAL ARTS TEACHER'S HANDBOOK: TECHNIQUES,      1
     PRINCIPLES, AND METHODS.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Martin, G. E. (1979).  INDUSTRIAL ARTS EDUCATION:  RETROSPECT, PROSPECT.    1
     Bloomington, IL: McKnight.
Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A.  (1981).  JACKSON'S MILL INDUSTRIAL ARTS      1
     CURRICULUM THEORY.  Charleston, WV:  West Virginia State Department
     of Education.
 
GENERAL EDUCATION
Mager, R. F.  (1984).  PREPARING INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES.  Belmont, CA:    3
     Lake Management & Training.
Kim, E. C., & Kellough, R. D.  (1983).  A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR SECONDARY      1
     SCHOOL TEACHING: PLANNING FOR COMPETENCE.  New York:  Macmillan.
Oliva, P. F. (1982).  DEVELOPING THE CURRICULUM.  Boston: Little, Brown.    1           
Orlich, D. C. et al.  (1985).  TEACHING STRATEGIES: A GUIDE TO BETTER       1
     INSTRUCTION.  Lexington, MA: Heath.
Wulf, K., & Schave, B. (1984).  CURRICULUM DESIGN:  A HANDBOOK FOR 
     EDUCATORS.  Glenview, IL:  Scott, Foresman.
State of Ohio.  COURSE OF STUDY DEVELOPMENT:  A PROCESS MODEL.  Columbus,   1
     OH:  Ohio Department of Education.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
          Of the technology education texts listed, few
          could be classified as curriculum textbooks
          as contrasted with either industrial educa-
          tion or general education texts.  This may be
          due to the lack of curriculum textbooks for
          the small technology teacher education mar-
          ket.  The use of the ACIATE/CTTE yearbook se-
          ries appears to attempt to remedy this.
 
          TABLE 4
CURRICULUM COURSE GOALS
---------------------------------------------
Goal                                            n*     %*
---------------------------------------------------------
 
Develop a course of study, course materials     37     63
sequence of content
Know the procedures of content selection or     30     51 
analysis of subject matter
Know the relationship of philosophy to          21     36
objectives
Formulate objectives or outcomes                10     17
Determine the needs of students                  7     12
Evaluate courses                                 6     10
Present materials                                4      7
Analyze materials                                3      5
Prepare for first year of teaching               2      3
Reconstruct and improve a way of life            2      3
Integrate subject matter                         2      3
Understand taxonomies                            2      3
Transmit the cultural heritage                   1      2
Describe difficulties of curriculum change       1      2
Use problem solving and inquiry                  1      2
Promote leadership and professionalism           1      2
Know state requirements                          1      2
Plan facilities                                  1      2
---------------------------------------------------------
* Columns will not total to 59 or 100% due to
use of several types of goals in each course
 
               COURSE GOALS.  Respondents were asked to
          list the three most important curriculum
          course goals.  A varying number of goals were
          reported by each respondent.  Seven of the
          surveys did not have this information.  The
          primary goals found in technology teacher ed-
          ucation curriculum courses as reported in Ta-
          ble 4 are to select content and to develop
          courses.
               COURSE TOPICS.  Course topics are re-
          ported here in Table 5 as a frequency list
          that is rank ordered.  The topics in technol-
          ogy teacher education curriculum courses fo-
          cus on analyzing and selecting course content
          and appear to be related to the course goals.
 
          TABLE 5
COURSE TOPICS
----------------------------------------------------------
Topic                                            n*     %*
----------------------------------------------------------
Selecting and organizing content, knowledge,     53     90
learning, etc.
Philosophy and goals                             36     61
Structure of knowledge                           36     61
Program and student evaluation                   23     39
Formulating objectives                           22     37
Procedures, such as teaching methods,            19     32
discipline, text selection, etc.
Organization, management, and supervision        10     15
Social foundations                                7     12
Occupational/task analysis                        5      8
Professionalism                                   4      7
Resources                                         4      7
Research                                          2      5
Change                                            2      5
Teacher certification testing                     2      5
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Columns will not total 59 or 100% due to
use of several topics in each course
 
               STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS.  To complete the
          description of the activities within the
          courses as reported by the respondents, types
          of student assignments with the frequency of
          use are listed in Table 6.
               Course goals, topics, and student as-
          signment lists and frequencies appear to be
          related, demonstrating some unity of purpose
          and execution.
 
                  TEACHER EDUCATORS' ATTITUDES
 
               Two questions which assessed teacher ed-
          ucators' attitudes about curriculum courses
          were asked.  The definition of curriculum
          used in the course was requested as a means
          of identifying beliefs about curriculum and a
          rating scale was used to indicate what topics
          would be important in a curriculum course.
               CURRICULUM DEFINITIONS.  Respondents
          were asked to list the definition of curric-
          ulum that was used in the course.  Of the
          surveys returned, 48 respondents answered
          this question.  Each definition was categor-
          ized to fit into one of five major views of
          curriculum.  A few respondents included more
          than one definition which they used for the
          purpose of comparison.  The major emphases of
          definitions are reported in Table 7
 
          TABLE 6
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT
-----------------------------------------------------
Assignment                                  n*     %*
-----------------------------------------------------
Develop a course                            34     58
Develop lesson plans and instructional      25     42
materials
Write performance objectives                18     31
Study foundations, philosophy, etc.         12     20
Create an evaluation plan                    8     14
Evaluate a course                            7     12
Perform a task analysis                      7     12
Reading and research                         6     10
Perform a needs assessment                   2      3
Teach                                        2      3
Develop a program for a school               2      3
Create a concept map                         1      2
Define curriculum                            1      2
Study methods                                1      2
Write a career intent paper                  1      2
Plan for an advisory committee               1      2
Create a planning guide for a unit           1      2
Take field trips to school laboratories      1      2
Select equipment and materials               1      2
------------------------------------------------------
* Columns will not total 59 or 100% due to
use of several types of assignments
 
TABLE 7
COMPOSITE CURRICULUM DEFINITIONS USED
----------------------------------------------------------
Definition                                       n      %
----------------------------------------------------------
The process of arranging content for the         21     36
purpose of teaching
A course of study involving arrangement          18     31
subject matter
All of the activities of the school in which      4      7
students are engaged
There are several definitions used for the        3      5
purpose of comparison
Analysis of community needs, subject matter,      2      3
and the environment
Missing                                          11     17
----------------------------------------------------------
 
          The definitions of curriculum used in the
          technology teacher education curriculum
          courses reflect the pattern which evolved in
          the lists of course goals, topics, and stu-
          dent assignment.
               CONTENT FOCUS.  The respondents were
          asked to indicate, on a simple rating scale,
          agreement or disagreement with several state-
          ments about the focus of curriculum courses
          for technology education majors.  A four-
          point scale was used with a rating of one re-
          presenting the greatest amount of agreement.
          The content foci of curriculum courses, rank
          ordered by mean rating of agreement, are pre-
          sented in Table 8.
 
          TABLE 8
TEACHER EDUCATORS' ATTITUDES ABOUT CONTENT
FOCI FOR CURRICULUM COURSES
------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus                                                  mean    sd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan activities based upon critical thinking and       1.10    .42
   problem solving skills
Identify and organize subject matter concepts for      1.14    .54
   course outlines and lessons
Write performance objectives                           1.37    .72
Plan activities which engage learners in socially      1.54    .77
   relevant projects
Perform systems analysis                               1.65    .81
Work with each learner in order to identify and        1.73    .82
   integrate personal interests
Create taxonomies of subject mattter                   1.97   1.11
Perform job and task analysis                          2.11   1.20
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
          Some variation in the pattern of identifying
          and organizing subject matter as the major
          emphasis in curriculum courses appears in the
          survey of teacher education attitudes.  For
          example, planning activities based upon crit-
          ical thinking and problem solving skills did
          not appear as the major emphasis in previous
          tables.
 
                           DISCUSSION
               As an initial survey of technology
          teacher education curriculum course practices
          the data presented here can initiate a dis-
          cussion about the process of preparing teach-
          ers.  Certainly, the information could be
          useful for the planning of curriculum courses
          for preservice technology teachers.
               At present, it appears as though the ma-
          jority of the respondents teach with similar
          goals, topics, and student assignments.  In
          the majority of the cases these goals, top-
          ics, and student assignments form a pattern
          of content which focuses on selection of con-
          tent and course development.  Due to this fo-
          cus, the majority of the courses appear to be
          very technical in nature.  By technical I
          mean that the processes of analyzing, select-
          ing, and organizing content take precedence
          over the broad philosophical questions about
          what knowledge is of most value
          (Cherryholmes, 1988).  In addition, goals
          such as integrating subject matter, under-
          standing taxonomies, and reconstructing and
          improving a way of life (which may relate to
          addressing the general education nature of
          technology education and topics such as
          studying foundations, reading, and research),
          and creating a concept map (which may enable
          technology teachers to design curriculum for
          general education purposes) are not listed as
          frequently as the technical activities per-
          taining to course development.
               There are other disturbing trends in the
          information about the context of the courses
          and the materials and textbooks which are
          used.  Over 54% of the textbooks used are de-
          signed primarily for industrial education and
          44% of the courses were offered for a combi-
          nation of technology, vocational, and train-
          ing majors.  Vocational educators and
          trainers have a clear mission of identifying
          the essential tasks of a job or trade, organ-
          izing those tasks for instruction, and doing
          their best to prepare their students to be
          competent on a job.  Given that task, voca-
          tional educators and trainers have developed
          some of the most sophisticated systems for
          creating curriculum, and their curriculum
          planning processes are effective for their
          purposes.  One has to question, however, if
          these same systems are effective for technol-
          ogy education (Lux, 1979).  Why would a tech-
          nology educator who wishes to deal with a
          broad array of general education goals want
          to use a curriculum planning process that is
          designed to effectively and efficiently iden-
          tify course content aimed at preparing stu-
          dents to meet occupational requirements?
          Over half of the textbooks listed on the sur-
          vey are designed for industrial education and
          include curriculum planning processes for vo-
          cational educators and trainers.
               Moreover, the age of the industrial edu-
          cation texts is questionable.  The publica-
          tion dates on texts used and reported by
          respondents range from 1955 to 1979.  One
          might say that the process of identifying ap-
          propriate curriculum was as valid in 1955 as
          it is today, but current literature about
          curriculum, especially curriculum for general
          education, cannot be included in texts from
          the 1950s.
               Those who do not use texts designed for
          industrial education have chosen to use ei-
          ther general educational texts or a range of
          books which provide examples for technology
          education or deal with technology education
          issues.  The very real problem is that there
          is a lack of books about technology teacher
          education topics such as curriculum design.
          The response by a few teacher educators may
          have been to forgo the vocational oriented
          texts in favor of selected reading, teacher
          made materials, and state department docu-
          ments.
               Adding to the frustration of not having
          adequate texts, is the very real financial
          exigency that forces teacher education pro-
          grams to place both technology education ma-
          jors with trade and industry majors and
          training majors in curriculum development
          courses.  Each target population has differ-
          ent curriculum design concerns starting with
          the fact that they deal with different stu-
          dent populations in their respective schools
          and organizations and have different purposes
          when teaching those students.  A potential
          outcome of this practice is confusion and
          dissatisfaction for the prospective teacher.
          A course taught with an even allocation of
          information for each group may result in a
          loss of time devoted to the teacher education
          majors' primary interests and in hearing much
          useless or confusing information which is not
          relevant to future teaching practice.
               In addition to the need to question cur-
          riculum course practices and texts is the
          discrepancy in teacher educators attitudes
          about the content focus of curriculum
          courses.  While the majority of teacher edu-
          cators responding to the survey indicated
          that the processes of arranging content and a
          course of study were the definition of cur-
          riculum that they used, the content focus for
          curriculum courses which had the most agree-
          ment among respondents was planning activ-
          ities based upon critical thinking and
          problem solving skills.  The majority of
          goals, topics, and student activities listed
          in the survey did not relate to this focus.
          In a sense, the focus on planning activities
          validates the "backwards" approach that con-
          cerned the teacher who assisted in the
          project.  Perhaps, technology teacher educa-
          tors are providing mixed messages to preser-
          vice teachers through their attitudes.
 
                             SUMMARY
               While a coherent pattern of goals, top-
          ics, and student assignments appear to exist
          in technology teacher education courses this
          pattern reveals a technical orientation to
          developing curriculum.  Combined with the
          persistent influence of vocational purpose
          through texts and the practice of grouping
          industrial education students majoring in
          technology education, vocational education,
          and training into curriculum courses, preser-
          vice technology teachers may be getting a
          confusing message, at best, about appropriate
          curriculum design processes for technology
          education.
               This study of technology teacher educa-
          tion curriculum courses reveals the following
          points:
 
          1.  Curriculum instruction in technology
              teacher education has a limited (and of-
              ten no) number of goals for the study of
              curriculum.
          2.  The age of the curriculum texts in use
              (as reported by the respondents) dates
              the information.
          3.  Industrial education books which are
              based in vocational education curriculum
              planning methods are predominant.
          4.  The practice of combining technology edu-
              cation majors with industrial education
              majors predominates.
 
               Due to the low return of the survey rec-
          ommendations for action would be question-
          able; further study is needed.  However, the
          preliminary results need not stop those who
          are providing technology teacher certif-
          ication programs from examining their own
          practices.  They should consider the long
          term effects on technology education reform
          of combining dissimilar majors, the quality
          and recency of the texts, and their own cur-
          riculum knowledge base.  In order to revise
          technology education, technology teachers
          must have the best possible information.
 
 
          ----------------
          Karen Zuga is Assistant Professor, Industrial
          Technology Education Department, The Ohio
          State University, Columbus, Ohio.  This
          project was the result of a grant from the
          Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.
          S. Department of Education.  However, the
          opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
          reflect the position or policy of the U. S.
          Department of Education, and no official
          endorsement by the U. S. Department of Educa-
          tion should be inferred.
 
                           REFERENCES
          Cherryholmes, C. H.  (1988).  POWER AND CRIT-
             ICISM:  POSTSTRUCTURAL INVESTIGATIONS IN
             EDUCATION.  New York:  Teachers' College.
          Eisner, E. W.  (1979).  THE EDUCATIONAL IMAG-
             INATION.  New York:  Macmillan.
          Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E.  (1974).  CON-
             FLICTING CONCEPTIONS OF CURRICULUM.
             Berkeley, CA:  McCutchan.
          Joyce, B. R.  (1980).  Learning how to learn.
             THEORY AND PRACTICE, 19(1), 15-27.
          Lux, D. G.  (1979).  Trade and job analy-
             sis--- The scourge of i.a.  SCHOOL SHOP,
             38(7), 2.
          McNeil, J. D.  (1977).  CURRICULUM:  A COM-
             PREHENSIVE INTRODUCTION.  Boston:  Little-
             Brown.
          Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P.  (1988).
             CURRICULUM: FOUNDATIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND
             ISSUES.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-
             Hall.
          Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A.
             J.  (1981).  CURRICULUM PLANNING:  FOR
             BETTER TEACHING AND LEARNING.  New York:
             Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
          Schubert, W. H.  (1986).  CURRICULUM:  PER-
             SPECTIVE, PARADIGM, AND POSSIBILITY.  New
             York:  Macmillan.
          Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. C.  (1984).  CURRIC-
             ULUM DEVELOPMENT:  A GUIDE TO PRACTICE.
             Columbus, OH:  Bell & Howell.


          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

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