JTE v3n1 - Perceptions and Practices of Technology Student Association Advisors on Implementation Strategies and Teaching Methods
Volume 3, Number 1
Fall 1991
Perceptions and Practices of Technology Student Association Advisors on
Implementation Strategies and Teaching Methods
V. William DeLuca
William J. Haynie, III
Two of the most significant impacts on
the industrial arts profession since the
1960s have been the gradual evolution of the
technology education movement and the inte-
gration of the co-curricular student
organization: the Technology Student Associ-
ation (TSA). TSA began as the American Indus-
trial Arts Student Association (AIASA) and
has recently changed its name to reflect the
new curricular emphasis on technology. In
1981, less than one-third of one percent of
the students in industrial arts courses actu-
ally joined AIASA (Haynie, 1983). There were
about 7 million industrial arts students, but
only 21,600 were members of the student or-
ganization (Applegate, 1981). Currently there
are about 6 million students in technology
education courses of which 65,000 (about 1%)
are members of TSA. These data indicate that
TSA membership has tripled during the 1980s.
This student organization is becoming an im-
portant facet of the technology education
movement.
Research efforts on extracurricular ac-
tivities have focused on the relationship of
participation with students' emotional and
academic development. Haensly, Lupkowski,
and Edling (1986) studied the role of extra-
curricular activities as they relate to per-
sonal and social development, and to academic
achievement. They concluded that extracur-
ricular activities provide an important con-
text for social, emotional and academic
development. The positive effect of student
organizations on academic performance was
also supported by Camp (1987) who found that
participation in vocational student organiza-
tions produced a positive contribution to
student achievement.
Social and personal development is also
enhanced by participation in extracurricular
activities. Carter & Neason (1984) and
Townsend (1981) found a relationship between
vocational student organization participation
and results on scales of personal develop-
ment. Students who participated in vocational
student organizations often had a higher
socioeconomic status and higher self-esteem
(Collins, 1977). Other research has shown
that school activities are positively related
to enhanced self-concept (Yarworth &
Gauthier, 1978), increased social status
among peers (Spady, 1970), and greater satis-
faction with school (Nover, 1981).
These studies focused on determining the
effect of student organizations on students'
achievement and socialization. They clearly
describe the positive effect of student or-
ganizations in this realm, however, no
studies were found which examined the effect
of student organizations on teacher-student
interaction in a laboratory environment. With
technology education in its infancy, it is
important to determine the effects of co-
curricular and extra-curricular activities
and organizations on the total technology ed-
ucation program. This study sought to iden-
tify characteristics of technology education
programs with a TSA component and the re-
lationship between participation by a teach-
er's classes in co-curricular organizations
and the teaching methods used by technology
teachers.
METHODOLOGY
SAMPLE
The sample for this study consisted of
TSA advisors in attendance at the 1989 Na-
tional Technology Education Student Associ-
ation Leadership Conference in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, June 19 - 25, 1989. Each
school attending the conference was required
to have at least one advisor in attendance.
Though some schools brought more than one ad-
visor, only one was required to complete the
registration process for the entire school.
The survey was conducted during registration
while advisors waited in line. This approach
insured maximum participation and resulted in
the receipt of 102 usable response forms.
INSTRUMENTATION
A 33 item questionnaire was developed by
the researchers for this study. Responses
were recorded on mark-sense answer sheets.
The first 9 items were designed to measure
the characteristics of participant's technol-
ogy education program and the ways in which
they implement their student organization
chapters. Specifically, items asked when and
where TSA functions were conducted and as-
sessed TSA advisors' perceptions of the
change to technology education. Item 9 re-
quired advisors to select the term which best
described the type of lab in which they teach
from 6 choices.
The remaining 24 items were used to
identify frequently used teaching methods and
differences in methodologies as a function of
implementation of the co-curricular approach.
These items used a five point Likert scale:
most frequently (A) to never (E). Missing
responses were ignored in all cases except in
Item 9 which used "no response" to indicate
that the program was housed in an "integrated
general (multipurpose) laboratory".
DATA ANALYSIS
The collected data were analyzed with
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) software.
Frequency and percent tables were generated
for each item and correlations were conducted
when there were apparent reasons to investi-
gate relationships. For each item requiring a
Likert response, numeric values from 5 (most
frequently) to 1 (never) were assigned to the
responses and a mean score was determined.
These means were rank ordered for further in-
vestigation.
Two items were used as the basis of a
second analysis to see if those teachers who
had not originally favored the name change or
those who teach in traditional (unit shop)
labs used different methods and strategies
more often than those who did favor name
change or who teach in more contemporary
(conceptually oriented) labs.
FINDINGS
Results of the survey were analyzed to
describe the characteristics of technology
education programs with a TSA component, de-
scribe and classify teaching methods, and de-
termine if there were differences in the
teaching methods used in programs which em-
ployed a co-curricular approach vs. those
which implemented TSA on an extra-curricular
basis.
CHARACTERISTICS OF TE/TSA PROGRAMS
The responses to Items 1 through 8 are
shown in Table 1. All respondents claimed to
have an active TSA chapter--which is also in-
dicated by their attendance at the national
TSA conference.
In Item 2, 72% of the advisors indicated
that meetings and activities were held after
school. Activity periods during the school
day were used by 53% (Item 3), indicating
that some teachers conduct TSA
activities/meetings at both times.
TABLE 1
RESPONSES TO ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes No N A...
Item # Stem # % # % # %
-------------------------------------------------------
1 Active TSA chapter 102 100 0 -- 0 --
2 Chapter meetings 74 72.5 27 26.5 1 1.0
3 Meetings in activity
periods 54 52.9 40 39.2 8 7.9
4 Co-curricular approach
36 35.3 62 60.8 4 3.9
5 State adopted/
approved course names 90 88.2 8 7.8 4 3.9
6 State adopted
curriculum 86 84.3 11 10.8 5 4.9
7 Favored name change
5 years ago 68 66.7 30 29.4 4 3.9
8 Like new name now 92 90.2 7 6.9 3 2.9
---------------------------------------------
NOTE: Percentage values rounded to one decimal place.
Most of the advisors (88%) teach courses
which are named in state adopted curriculum
guides (Item 5). Additionally, 84% indicated
that their curricula closely follow the state
guidelines (Item 6).
Two items (7 and 8) asked about teach-
ers' attitudes toward the name change to
technology education. Item 7 asked if teach-
ers favored the new name five years prior to
the survey and Item 8 asked if they are now
pleased with the change. Only 67% of the
teachers favored the change in 1984, but 90%
of them are currently satisfied that the new
name represents our programs well. Chi-square
testing found a significant difference: X2(5,
N = 102) = 18.04, P < .01. This indicates
that a change in attitudes toward the new
name had occurred over the five year period.
Unit laboratories (woods, metals, draw-
ing, etc.) are still in use by half of the
teachers. Ten percent of the teachers re-
ported they use "manufacturing" labs, and an-
other 12% use "communication" labs. Only 2%
use "construction" labs and 1% use "transpor-
tation" labs. Other than unit labs, the most
often used are multi-purpose labs, which were
reported by 25% of the teachers.
TEACHING METHODS
The remaining items concerned implemen-
tation of various teaching strategies. A
five point Likert scale was used to determine
the relative frequency of use for each tech-
nique. Results on these 24 items appear in
Table 2. The methods and strategies are rank
ordered in the table by their mean scores--
the first items listed were reported by the
most teachers. Results were analyzed to iden-
tify frequently used teaching methods. In
many instances, when implementing technology
education activities,
several teaching methods are used. Therefore,
data were analyzed to identify teaching
method clusters.
TABLE 2
RESPONSES TO ITEMS 10 THROUGH 33
------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Responses
Ranking Stem Mean A B C D E NA
(Item #)
------------------------------------------------------------
1 Demonstrations 4.32 42 53 6 0 1
(12) 41.2% 52.0% 5.9 -- 1.0%
2 Lecture- 4.07 29 53 16 3 0 1
(13) demonstrations 28.4% 52.0% 15.7% 2.9% -- 1.0%
3 Individual 4.05 33 42 26 1
(17) instruction 32.4% 41.2% 25.5% 1.0%
4 Individual 3.92 30 41 21 7 1 2
(24) projects 29.4% 40.2% 20.6% 6.9% 1.0% 2.0%
5 Lectures of 10 3.67 21 30 43 4 1 3
(10) to 25 minutes 20.6% 29.4% 42.2% 3.9% 1.0% 3.0%
6 Group projects 3.64 18 42 32 7 3
(22) 17.6% 41.2% 31.4% 6.9% 2.9%
7 Lab experiments3.61 21 35 32 11 2 1
(21) 20.6% 34.3% 31.4%10.8% 2.0% 1.0%
8 Discussion 3.55 16 35 42 7 2
(14) (teacher led) 15.7% 34.3% 41.2% 6.9% 2.0%
9 Student 3.46 15 31 41 13 1 1
(26) designed or selected 14.7% 30.4%40.2 12.7% 1.0% 1.0%
(free choice) project
10 Teacher 3.38 9 40 35 14 3 1
(25) designed or assigned 8.8% 39.2%34.3% 13.7% 2.9% 1.0%
assigned projects
11 Computers used 3.38 23 33 19 9 16 2
(31) by students in lab. 22.5% 32.4%18.6% 8.8% 15.7% 2.0%
12 Computers used 3.32 26 29 14 11 19 3
(32) to prepare materials 25.5% 28.4%13.7 10.8% 18.6% 2.9%
13 Small group 3.21 7 29 47 14 4 1
(18) discussion 6.9% 28.4%46.1% 3.7% 3.9% 1.0%
14 Computers for 3.21 24 21 20 13 18 6
(33) clerical chores 23.5% 20.6%19.6% 12.7% 17.6% 5.9%
15 Group designed 3.19 7 33 35 22 3 2
(27) /selected projects 6.9% 32.4%34.3% 21.6% 2.9% 2.0%
16 Student peer 3.12 6 27 46 19 4
(20) tutors 5.9% 26.5%45.1% 18.6% 3.9%
17 Mass production3.12 9 29 38 17 9
(23) project (Line 8.8% 28.4%37.3% 16.7% 8.8%
production)
18 Traditional 3.10 4 23 55 15 3 2
(16) media 3.9% 22.5%53.9% 14.7% 2.9% 2.0%
19 Computers for 3.08 12 33 22 17 16 2
(29) presenting information11.8% 32.4%21.6% 16.7% 15.7% 2.0%
20 Computers for 3.01 12 31 22 16 19 2
(30) demonstrations 11.8% 30.4%21.6% 15.7% 18.6% 2.0%
21 Discovery 2.93 8 21 37 24 10 2
(28) method 7.8% 20.6%36.3% 23.5% 9.8% 2.0%
22 Lectures of 2.68 6 15 32 38 11
(11) over 30 minutes 5.9% 14.7%31.4% 37.3 10.8%
23 Seminar 2.55 3 13 32 43 11
(15) (student led) 2.9% 12.7%31.4% 42.2% 10.8%
24 Role Playing 2.45 4 11 31 34 20 2
(19) 3.9% 10.8%30.4% 33.3% 19.6% 2.0%
------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstrations are still very popular
methods of teaching as shown by the high per-
centage (93%) of teachers who use them fre-
quently or most frequently.
"Lecture-demonstrations" are also used by 80%
of the teachers. There was a correlation of R
= .38, P < .0001 between Items 12 and 13
(ranked 1st and 2nd).
The third highest ranking was received
by Item 17, which found that individualized
instruction was used frequently or more often
by 74% of the teachers and nearly all of them
(99%) use it at least sometimes. There was a
correlation of R = .32, P < .001, between
Items 20 (student peer tutors) and 17, which
indicates that many of the same teachers who
use individualized instruction also use peer
tutors.
Items 10 and 11 (ranked 5th and 22nd)
show that lectures, when used, tend to be
short in length. In Item 14, most teachers
reported that they use "discussion (teacher
led, class participatory)" to some extent.
The ranking for this item was 8th and it
found that only 16% use discussion "most fre-
quently," but a total of 91% use it at least
"sometimes".
Small group discussions (Item 18) were
used sometimes or more frequently by 82% of
the teachers and ranked 13th. Role playing is
used frequently by only 15% of the teachers,
but an additional 30% use it sometimes (Item
19--ranked last at 24th). A correlation of R
= .52, P < .0001, was found between Items 18
and 19, so many of the same teachers use both
small group discussions and role playing ac-
tivities.
Individual projects (Item 24) are still
used frequently by 70% of the teachers and at
least sometimes by 91%. In fact, 30% of the
teachers use individual projects most fre-
quently, so their popularity overall has
waned little, if any. Individual projects
ranked 4th in this survey; however, there
were negative correlations between this item
and two others: Item 23, mass production
projects (R = -.26, P < .009), and Item 15,
seminar (R = -.31, P < .0015). The highest
positive correlation between this item and
any others on the survey was a correlation of
R = .30, P < .002 with Item 2 (teacher
designed/assigned projects). Of those teach-
ers whose programs are housed in unit labs,
41% use individual projects most frequently,
but only 19% of the teachers in conceptually
oriented labs choose this approach most fre-
quently.
Group projects, promoted by most new
curriculum efforts, have been used by many
teachers as shown by their 6th place ranking
(Item 22). A total of 90% of the teachers
reported using group projects at least some-
times; 59% use them frequently. This item
correlated positively with Item 23, mass pro-
duction projects (R = .59, P < .0001); and
Item 27, group designed/selected projects (R
= .32, P < .0009).
Laboratory experiments (Item 21) ranked
7th and were used frequently by over half of
the teachers. There were positive corre-
lations between this item and first ranked
Item 12, demonstrations (R = .33, P < .0008);
Item 13 (ranked 2nd), lecture-demonstrations
(R = .35, P < .0003); and Item 28 (ranked
21), discovery method (R = .33, P < .0008).
Small group discussions and class discussions
were also found to have a slight positive
correlation with laboratory experiments.
Item 25 (ranked 10th) found that about
half of the teachers (49%) use teacher
designed/assigned projects frequently and a
total of 83% use them sometimes. Student
designed/selected (free choice) projects were
reported to be used frequently by 45% of the
teachers and ranked 9th in the survey (Item
26). In Item 27, 39% of the teachers reported
that they use group designed/selected
projects frequently to yield a ranking of
15th. There was a positive correlation of R =
.47, P < .0001 between Items 26 and 27. Item
27 also correlated with Item 23, mass pro-
duction (R = .38, P < .0001), and Item 22,
group projects (R = .32, P < .0009).
Mass production (line production)
projects (Item 23--ranked 17th) are used fre-
quently by 37% of teachers and at least some-
times by 74%. Positive correlations were
found between this item and five others: Item
14, discussion (R = .34, P < .0005); Item 18,
small group discussions (R = .39, P < .0001);
Item 19, role playing (R = .44, P < .0001);
Item 22, group projects (see above); and Item
27, group designed/selected projects (R =
.38, P < .0001). There was also a slight neg-
ative correlation between this item and Item
24, individual projects (R = -.26, P < .009),
which indicates that teachers who have
adopted this learning activity are somewhat
turning their backs on the traditionally pop-
ular individual project.
The discovery method (Item 28--ranked
21st) was used frequently by 28% of teachers
and sometimes by a total of 65%. The highest
correlation found with this item was with
Item 21, lab experiments (R = .33, P <
.0008).
TABLE 3
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ITEMS 29 THROUGH 33
----------------------------------------------------------
Item
No. Stem (abbreviated) 29 30 31 32 33
----------------------------------------------------------
29 Computers for presenting info -- .91 .81 .73 .60
30 Computers for demonstrations -- .85 .78 .61
31 Computers by students -- .84 .56
32 Computers to prepare materials -- .77
33 Computers for clerical chores --
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTES: All values rounded to two decimal places. All
values significant beyond the .0001 level.
The last five items on the questionnaire
concerned uses of computers in technology ed-
ucation. In Item 29 (ranked 19th), 44% of
teachers claimed to use computers frequently
for presenting information. In Item 30, 42%
used computers frequently for demonstrations
(rank = 20). Computers were used frequently
by students for lab activities in the classes
of 55% of the teachers (Item 31--ranked 11).
Item 32 found that 54% of the teachers use
computers frequently to prepare materials
(rank = 12). In Item 33, nearly half of the
teachers (44%) said they use computers for
clerical chores, resulting in a ranking of
14th. There were several high positive corre-
lations among this set of related items, and
these are presented in Table 3. These
findings indicate that roughly half of the
technology education teachers have become
very involved with computers, those who use
computers employ them for multiple uses, and
the rest of the teachers are generally not
using computers for any of the applications
studied here. No significant correlations
were found between any form of computer
utilization and any other factor or teaching
strategies on this questionnaire.
CO-CURRICULAR DIFFERENCES
Item 4 asked teachers if they used a co-
curricular approach to implement their TSA
organization. The co-curricular (in-class)
approach was employed by only 35% of the re-
spondents overall. Thus, the remaining 65%
employ TSA on an extra-curricular (after
school or activity period) basis only. This
item showed some difference on the two de-
rived subsets: among those who taught in mod-
ern labs, 41% used the co-curricular
approach, but only 29% of those in tradi-
tional unit labs did. Of those who favored
the name change 5 years prior to the survey
42% used this approach, but only 21% of those
who opposed the name change use the co-
curricular approach.
The answers to this item were also used
to identify subgroups for comparison of
teaching methods used by teachers incorporat-
ing the co-curricular approach and those that
did not. Teachers who used the co-curricular
approach showed differences on the use of six
teaching methods. The co-curricular group
used the short lecture (10 to 25 min.) more
frequently than the extra curricular group
X2(8, N 105) = 22.46, P < .013, and they used
individual projects less frequently X2(8, N =
105) = 21.89, P < .016. Seminar X2(8, N =
105) = 16.02, P < .042; Role play X2(8, N =
105) = 17.34, P < .027; and Lab experiments
X2(8, N = 105) = 17.72, P < .01 all showed a
significant increase in frequency with teach-
ers who employed the co-curricular approach.
DISCUSSION
The characteristics of technology educa-
tion programs reflect the curricular transi-
tion of our profession. Although about
one-third of the teachers had opposed chang-
ing the name of industrial arts to technology
education, currently 90% are pleased with the
new name. The significant Chi-square value
found indicates there has been a shift in at-
titudes since 1984. Half of the teachers re-
ported their programs are housed in
traditional unit labs (woods, metals, draft-
ing, etc.). These labs are not as effective
for implementation of technology based cur-
ricula as multipurpose and conceptually de-
fined labs (manufacturing, communications,
etc.). However, the most often reported con-
ceptually defined labs were communications
labs, which were only claimed by 12% of the
teachers, and manufacturing labs used by less
than 10%. Where they exist, construction and
transportation courses must currently be
housed in general purpose labs or force-fit
into other sorts of labs because special con-
struction and transportation labs were re-
ported by only 2% and 1% of the teachers
respectively. It is possible that the lack of
appropriate facilities is making the curric-
ular shift toward technology difficult. Even
so, over 80% of the teachers reported that
they teach courses named in state adopted
curriculum guides and that their curricula
closely follow those guides. So, despite fa-
cilities which may be inadequate in some
ways, many teachers are trying to implement
technology education in some fashion.
Typical teaching methods include demon-
strations, lecture-demonstrations, and dis-
cussion. Individualized instruction is used
frequently by over 74% of the teachers and
sometimes by nearly all of them. Information
is frequently presented via computers by al-
most half of the teachers (44%).
Student laboratory activities frequently
employed include individual projects (70%),
group projects (58%), lab experiments (55%),
computer use by students (55%), and mass pro-
duction projects (37%).
Though other vocational student organ-
izations (i.e., FFA, VICA, and others) gener-
ally use the co-curricular (in class)
approach, it is not universally accepted in
technology education classes for TSA. There
was evidence that teachers in unit labs and
those who initially opposed the name change
to technology education were less likely than
their peers to use this technique. Even among
the group of teachers who have seen the ad-
vantages of TSA for their students, and who
advise active TSA chapters, only a little
over a third use the co-curricular approach
that has been so successful for other student
organizations.
The results showed that the co-
curricular approach altered the character-
istics of the program over a number of items.
Forty-one percent of the programs were housed
in modern labs. Teachers implementing the co-
curricular approach used short lectures more
frequently and incorporated seminar, role
play and lab experiments more frequently.
Correlation analysis showed that these items
were associated with small group discussion,
class discussion, and discovery method among
others.
The function of this difference is a
change in the learning environment. Methods
such as role play and seminar shift the em-
phasis of discourse from teacher-to-student
to student-to-student interaction. According
to Sternberg & Martin (1988, p. 569) student
interaction is a necessary transition for de-
veloping problem solving skill. Costa (1984)
associates methods such as seminar and role
play with techniques that promote the devel-
opment of thinking skills.
As facilities and curricula evolve in
the 1990s, there will be many forces that
will mold technology education. TSA organiza-
tions will certainly be one of those forces.
This study characterized technology education
programs with a TSA component and showed the
effect of co-curricular organizations on the
classroom environment. The influence that
student organizations have on curricula and
teaching methods should not be overlooked.
When co-curricular TSA organizations are im-
plemented, the organization becomes part of
the education system and has the potential to
alter the learning environment.
The relationship demonstrated here em-
phasizes the importance of developing a re-
search paradigm to study the effect of TSA on
technology education programs. Specifically,
norms that define the characteristics of
technology education programs with a TSA com-
ponent should be established using this study
as a base. Then, TSA variables (i.e. goals,
activities, competitive events) should be an-
alyzed to determine their effect on normed
characteristics.
----------------
V. William DeLuca and William J. Haynie are
Assistant Professors, Technology Education,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
REFERENCES
Applegate, R. (1981). American Industrial
Arts Student Association, National Office,
Washington, D.C. Telephone conversation,
September 15, 1981.
Camp, W. G. (1987, December). STUDENT PAR-
TICIPATION IN VOCATIONAL STUDENT ORGANIZA-
TIONS AND GRADES FOR THE SOPHOMORE CLASS
OF 1980 IN AMERICA. A paper presented at
the American Vocational Association Con-
vention, Las Vegas, NV. (ERIC Document Re-
production Service No. 290 040)
Carter, R. & Neason, A. (1984). Partic-
ipation in FFA and self-perceptions of
personal development. JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATORS
IN AGRICULTURE, 25(3), 39-44.
Collins, D. R. (1977). AN ASSESSMENT OF THE
BENEFITS DERIVED FROM MEMBERSHIP IN A VO-
CATIONAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION IN VOCA-
TIONAL, TECHNICAL, AND ADULT EDUCATION.
(Project No. 19-017-151-226E). Center for
Vocational and Adult Education, Menomonie,
WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 145 234)
Costa, A. L. (1984). Mediating the
metacognitive. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP,
42(3), 57-62.
Haensly, P. A., Lupkowski, A. E., & Edling,
E. P. (1986). The role of extracurric-
ular activities in education. THE HIGH
SCHOOL JOURNAL, 69(2), 110-119.
Haynie, W. J. (1983). Home projects: A new
way to involve the community in AIASA.
MAN/SOCIETY/TECHNOLOGY, 42(4), 12-13.
Jeffreys, B. J. & Camp W. G. (1988). Fac-
tors associated with participation in vo-
cational student organizations. JOURNAL
OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, 13(2),
53-68.
Nover, M. L. (1981). STUDENT INVOLVEMENT
AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE
HIGH SCHOOL. A paper presented at the An-
nual Convention of the American Psycholog-
ical Association, Los Angeles. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. 210
613)
Spady, W. G. (1970). Lament for the
letterman: Effects of peer status and ex-
tracurricular activities on goals and
achievement. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOL-
OGY, 75, 680-701
Sternberg, R., & Martin, M. (1988). When
teaching thinking does not work, what goes
wrong? TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD 89(4),
555-578.
Townsend, C. D. (1981). FFA participation
and personal development as perceived by
Iowa vocational agriculture seniors. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International. 42,
1444a.
Yarworth, J. S., & Gauthier, W. J. (1978).
Relationship of student self-concept and
selected personal variables to partic-
ipation in school activities. JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 70(3), 335-344.
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 3, Number 1 Fall 1991