JTE v2n2 - Technology Teacher Education Curriculum Courses
Volume 2, Number 2
Spring 1991
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