JTE v1n2 - Personal and Professional Needs of Technology Teachers
Volume 1, Number 2
Spring 1990
Personal and Professional Needs of Technology Teachers
Jule Dee Scarborough(1)
INTRODUCTION
In 1987, the Research Committee of the
International Technology Education Associ-
ation (ITEA) initiated a study of the per-
sonal and professional needs of technology
teachers. The Committee felt that the plan-
ning of educational programs for preservice
and inservice technology teachers should be
based on their needs, both personal and pro-
fessional. Their rationale was that if
teachers' needs were not met, teacher per-
formance and educational effectiveness would
suffer. Some needs can be addressed with ed-
ucational solutions, others with changes in
management, and still others by looking at
factors of the teachers' lives that lie out-
side the professional arena. This needs as-
sessment was organized on the basis of
extrinsic and intrinsic factors in the
workplace of the technology teacher.
After reviewing the survey responses
from the technology teachers, the Committee
decided to sample secondary school English,
mathematics, and science teachers as well and
compare the responses across fields. The
Committee hypothesized that the needs of tra-
ditional academic teachers, technology teach-
ers, and laboratory and nonlaboratory-setting
teachers might differ. Unfortunately, the
response to this second survey was insuffi-
cient to warrant such comparisons.
BACKGROUND
Existing literature identifies several
major reasons for professional dissatisfac-
tion on the part of educators. Liebes (1983)
and Kreis and Milstein (1985) mention low en-
rollments, economic difficulties in educa-
tion, and lack of sufficient professional
opportunities for teachers as reasons for
teachers' dissatisfaction in the profession
and as affecting factors regarding ways in
which their needs are not being met. In dis-
cussing the teachers' needs, these authors
relate self-perception to needs fulfillment
through work.
The Kreis and Milstein (1985) study fo-
cused on teacher job satisfaction using
Maslow's hierarchical concepts. Their re-
sults indicated that teachers' needs fulfill-
ment is not totally consistent with the
hierarchical arrangement described by re-
searchers such as: Maslow (1954); Porter
(1963); Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman
(1966, 1967); Argyris (1971); Hinrichs
(1974); and Sergiovanni and Carver (1975).
The Kreis and Milstein study results indi-
cated there was a significant relationship
between job satisfaction and needs fulfill-
ment. However, the conclusion that job sat-
isfaction is related to a hierarchical
arrangement of needs was not supported.
Their results suggested teachers seek to sat-
isfy some of their needs outside of the
school setting, and that job satisfaction oc-
curs when teachers perceive that what they
are getting from the job matches what they
perceive as being needed from the job.
Kreis and Milstein also discussed major
changes in society and teaching as reasons
why the study outcomes differed from the
findings of earlier research. They identify
teacher activities such as disciplinary
tasks, nonparticipative bureaucratic struc-
tures, changes in working conditions, differ-
ences in the personal characteristics of
teachers, older work force, and little in-
fusion of younger teachers as possible rea-
sons for the perceived needs of teachers not
being met in their professional lives.
Teachers spend a great deal of their
time on nonteaching- related activities.
Kreis and Milstein suggested that if the per-
formance of schools is to improve, the needs
of teachers must be addressed and satisfied
within the professional arena of their lives.
They concluded there should be diagnostic ef-
forts to establish the needs of teachers as
individuals followed by programs that address
those needs.
Liebes' (1983) study suggested that
teachers with experience undergo mid-life
crises. She believes that the determining
factor is the number of years of teaching ex-
perience rather than the age of the teacher.
She also believes that if schools want to
maintain quality educational programs, they
must respond to these predictable crises by
instituting active programs designed to ad-
dress (on individual bases) stress and other
career-related crises on the job. She sug-
gested short-term career counseling and an
ongoing participative staff development
model. This model prescribes individual con-
ferences with administrators and teachers, a
job-environment match analysis, and a school-
based staff development model in which team
building, faculty needs assessments,
participative design of staff development by
teachers, and program evaluation are ad-
dressed. She believes that this kind of
total program will provide strategies that
will address large numbers of experienced
teachers who are dissatisfied.
In yet another school of thought,
Cardinelli (1980) indicated that teacher dis-
satisfaction is no different from any other
professional dissatisfaction. The mid-life
crisis syndrome is a normal, developmental,
and generally predictable stage in adult life
that occurs between roughly 30 and 50 years
of age. He maintains that "burn-out" is not
abnormal, and that the best way to combat it
is to recognize it, plan for it, and imple-
ment strategies to help deal with it.
Miller, Taylor, and Walker (1982) support
this notion with their in-depth study of the
aging teaching force.
PROCEDURES
A random sample of 1,000 secondary-level
technology teachers was selected from the
ITEA membership list. A questionnaire was
designed, approved by the ITEA Board of Di-
rectors, and mailed to the teachers identi-
fied. A single follow-up questionnaire was
sent to nonrespondents. Due to lack of fund-
ing, additional follow-up procedures were not
possible.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The two mailings to the technology
teachers resulted in the return of 357 usable
questionnaires (36%). The number of usable
responses to each question, however, varied.
The findings are detailed in Tables 1 and 2
and are described below.
DEMOGRAPHICS
The largest category of respondents
(32.2%) were senior high school teachers.
About one-fifth (22.4%) indicated that they
were junior high teachers. Another fifth
(18.8%) indicated that they had a dual as-
signment at both junior and senior high
school level. See Table 1.
The respondents were asked to specify
their primary areas of teaching. The major-
ity of respondents taught two or more of the
areas listed -- communications, energy, pro-
duction, transportation. Seventeen percent
indicated "other" and wrote in specific
areas. The areas most often mentioned in the
category were professional (university),
drafting, electronics, manufacturing, com-
puter, and construction.
Nearly three-fourths (72.6%) of the re-
spondents were from urban/suburban areas.
Nearly sixty-three percent call their program
"industrial arts," and 29.2% call their pro-
grams "technology education." A majority of
the respondents (64.4%) indicated that they
teach in unit shops; the most frequently
named were woods, drafting, metals, and
graphic arts. The remaining respondents
teach in general shops or clusters.
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category n %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teaching Level (n=357)
Senior High 115 32.2
Junior High 80 22.4
Junior/Senior High 67 18.8
Post-Secondary 4 1.1
Teacher Education (University) 54 15.1
Industrial technology (University) 12 3.4
Other (e.g., administrators, etc.) 25 7.0
Areas of Teaching (n=376)
Communications 74 19.7
Energy 18 4.8
Production 66 17.6
Transportation 16 4.3
Several of the above 137 36.4
Other (e.g., drafting, mechanical drawing, 65 17.3
administration, construction, hot metal,
computer, power tech., photography,
cabinet making)
School Location (n=354)
Urban/Metropolitan 118 33.3
Suburban 139 39.3
Rural 97 27.4
Program Type (n=353)
Industrial Arts 221 62.6
Vocational 29 8.2
Technology Education 103 29.2
Program Classroom Type (n=345)
Unit Shop 222 64.4
General Shop 75 21.7
Cluster 48 13.9
Age (n=356)
35 or under 87 24.5
36 - 45 125 35.1
46 - 55 107 30.1
56 to over 65 37 10.3
Sex (n=356)
Female 13 3.7
Male 343 96.4
Number of Years Teaching (n=354)
0 - 10 84 23.7
11 - 23 166 46.9
14 - 35 99 28.0
Over 35 5 1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The category of teaching experience indicated
by the largest proportion of respondents was
"11 - 23 years." Fewer than four percent of
the respondents were female.
JOB ENVIRONMENT
In general, the respondents were posi-
tive about their job environments. Two-
thirds or more of the respondents indicated
that the following job environment factors
were "good" or "very good": Safety (80.0%),
Job Security (74.1%), Working Hours (72.8%),
Vacation/Leisure time (72.0)%, and Job Sta-
bility (70.4%). On the other hand, more than
one-third of the respondents felt that two
items were "poor" or "very poor": Incentives
(38.4%) and Promotion (36.1%). See Table 2.
PROFESSIONAL IMAGE AND DEVELOPMENT
A large majority (85.4%) of the respond-
ents rated their professional self-confidence
"good" or "very good;" over three-fourths
(78.4%) rated their self-esteem in these two
categories. Though only 13.4% of the re-
spondents indicated that their professional
development was "poor" or "very poor," a sub-
stantial number felt that the funding for
professional creativity (45.4%) and the fund-
ing for professional development (46.2%) was
"poor" or "very poor."
JOB SATISFACTION, PROMOTION, AND SALARY
Over two-thirds of the respondents
(69.4%) rated their job as "good" or "very
good." However, only about a third rated the
Industrial Arts/Technology Education profes-
sion in these two positive categories.
Nearly two-thirds (63.6%) felt that promo-
tional opportunities were "poor" or "very
poor." Roughly one-third (33.4%) of the re-
spondents felt that their salary was "good"
or "very good" while another third (34.0%)
felt their salary was "poor" or "very poor."
Over one-third (37.8%) had taken some action
toward finding another job within the past
two years.
TABLE 2
JOB ENVIRONMENT FACTORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent by Category
----------------------
Very Very
Descriptor Poor Poor Okay Good Good
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Job Environment
Atmosphere (n=349) 1.7 7.4 22.9 39.8 28.1
Working hours (n=349) 1.1 2.3 23.8 44.1 28.7
Personal Safety (n=350) 0.0 4.9 15.1 35.7 44.3
Job security (n=348) 2.3 6.6 17.0 35.3 38.8
Job stability (n=354) 2.3 7.6 19.7 34.5 35.9
Salary (n=355) 3.9 16.1 33.8 33.8 12.4
Promotion (n=343) 13.4 22.7 30.3 22.7 10.8
Incentives (n=344) 12.8 25.6 36.3 18.3 7.0
Benefits (n=350) 2.3 11.1 27.1 45.2 14.3
Vacation/leisure time (n=347) 2.0 4.6 21.3 42.9 29.1
Facilities and equipment (n=354) 2.5 10.7 33.9 37.6 15.3
School-wide discipline (n=341) 2.1 12.6 23.5 43.1 18.7
Students' academic capabilities (n=342) 1.2 9.7 37.4 44.7 7.0
Stress level (n=337) 4.5 15.4 47.8 25.2 7.1
Boredom level (n=318) 6.6 13.2 44.0 26.1 10.1
Co-worker cooperation
and support (n=348) 1.4 7.8 25.3 40.2 25.3
Administrative cooperation
and support (n=349) 5.7 10.3 27.8 36.7 19.5
Guidance counselor support (n=324) 8.3 20.1 40.7 21.9 9.0
Community/parental support (n=325) 1.8 15.4 40.6 32.0 10.2
State Department
of Education support (n=334) 10.5 20.4 29.6 26.6 12.9
Professional
Prestige from the profession(n=354) 1.4 11.6 27.1 40.7 19.2
Professional self-esteem (n=351) 0.6 3.4 17.4 48.7 29.9
Professional self-confidence (n=350) 0.0 1.4 13.1 49.4 36.0
Familiarity with new
national standards (n=350) 1.7 13.6 29.7 35.7 19.3
Professional Development
Professional development support(n=340) 4.8 18.6 34.3 29.4 12.9
Opportunities for professional
development (n=344) 2.9 17.4 31.1 32.3 16.3
Funding for professional
development (n=344) 16.0 30.2 24.8 14.0 15.1
Opportunities for professional
recognition (n=345) 4.0 21.2 40.3 23.8 10.7
Opportunities for professional
creativity (n=344) 1.7 11.4 28.5 37.8 20.6
Funding for professional
creativity (n=344) 16.2 39.2 26.8 14.5 3.3
Job Satisfaction Factors
Tried to find another job
in past 2 years (n=349) Yes 37.8 No 62.2
Rating of job at present time (n=346) 1.2 4.3 25.1 46.3 23.1
Rating of the I.A./Tech. Ed.
profession (n=344) 0.9 18.6 45.9 31.7 2.9
Promotion and Salary
Possibilities for promotion (n=339) 32.7 30.9 18.6 14.2 3.6
Possibilities for salary 11.5 22.5 32.6 24.5 8.9
increases (n=347)
Acceptability of Alternatives to Promotion
Professional travel (n=324) 31.9 6.2 14.8 37.0 40.1
Summer pay for curriculum
development (n=320) 2.8 5.3 11.9 39.3 40.7
Computers in lab (n=307) 3.9 6.2 17.9 28.7 43.3
Leadership opportunities (n=301) 0.3 4.7 23.9 35.2 35.9
Acceptability of Alternatives to Salary Increases
Professional travel (n=276) 7.6 10.5 17.8 27.9 36.2
Summer pay for curriculum
Development (n=270) 6.3 6.3 17.4 33.3 36.7
Computers in lab (n=261) 7.3 8.0 21.9 29.9 32.9
Leadership opportunities (n=264) 5.7 12.1 21.6 33.7 26.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents who felt that they had
reached their limit in promotional opportu-
nities or salary increases were asked to rate
the acceptability of alternatives. As an al-
ternative to promotion, over 70% of these re-
spondents rated travel to professional
meetings, summer pay for curriculum develop-
ment, computers in the laboratory, and lead-
ership opportunities as "good" or "very good"
alternatives. Summer pay for curriculum de-
velopment was rated as the most acceptable
alternative of the four. Eighty percent
rated it in one or the other of the top two
categories.
Of those who felt that they had reached
the top of their potential for salary, a
lesser proportion found the alternatives to
be acceptable. Nonetheless, the alternatives
were found to be "good" or "very good" by
more than 60% of the respondents. Again,
summer pay for curriculum development was
most acceptable with 70% rating this alterna-
tive to salary increases in one of the top
two categories.
CONCLUSIONS
This survey presents information that
indicates that technology teachers feel much
more positively about themselves and their
profession than is perceived through inter-
action, media, and professional meetings.
The results of this study provide some evi-
dence that teachers are positive about their
field, professional image, working condi-
tions, and that they are generally satisfied
with their jobs. The respondents also seem
to be open to nontraditional alternatives to
salary increases and promotion if they have
reached their perceived limit in these two
areas.
Administrators should consider innova-
tive alternatives for compensation, pro-
motion, and recognition. They should also
consider nontraditional practices to provide
for the professional development and in-
creased creativity of teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings several recommen-
dations are offered for consideration.
First, administrators should assess the per-
sonal and professional needs of local teach-
ers. There is reason to believe that these
needs may differ by discipline. Second,
teachers and administrators should work
cooperatively to provide resources to develop
an ongoing program of professional develop-
ment for teachers and and the programs they
serve. Third, this study should be repli-
cated using a sample that represents the
total profession of technology teachers
rather than only members of a professional
association. It is quite likely that members
of ITEA would differ significantly in their
responses compared to the profession at
large. Last, resources must be allocated to
assure that adequate follow-up precedures can
be implemented to assure representativeness.
None of these recommendations are sufficient
or complete in and of themselves, but in com-
bination they may be enough to make a sub-
stantial difference in more effectively
actualizing the personal/professional needs
of technology teachers, which in turn should
improve and enhance academic programs.
----------------
1 Jule Dee Scarborough is Associate Professor, Northern
Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois. The author is
indebted to David Bjorkquist, Jay Smink, Ernest Savage,
Ed Pytlik, Fred Illott, and Andrew Schultz who also
worked on this project.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1971). We must make work
worthwhile. In G. Gariglio & D. Raye
(Eds.). SOCIETY AS IT IS. New York:
Macmillan Company.
Cardinelli, C. F. (1980). Teacher burnout:
An analysis. ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION,
4(2), 9-15.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, G., & Snyderman, B. B.
(1966). WORK AND THE NATURE OF MAN.
Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, G., & Snyderman, B. B.
(1967). THE MOTIVATION TO WORK (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hinrichs, J. (1974). THE MOTIVATIONAL CRI-
SIS: WINDING DOWN AND TURNING OFF. New
York: AMACOM.
Kreis, K., & Milstein, M. (1985). SATISFY-
ING TEACHERS' NEEDS. The Clearing House,
59, 75-77.
Liebes, S. (1983, April 3-9). An aging
teacher corps: How should school systems
respond? Paper presented at the 61st An-
nual Meeting of The Council for Excep-
tional Children, Chicago, IL.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). MOTIVATION AND PER-
SONALITY. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Miller, J., Taylor, G., & Walker, K. (1982).
TEACHERS IN TRANSITION: STUDY OF AN AGING
TEACHING FORCE (INFORMAL SERIES 144).
Toronto, ONT: OISE Press/The Ontario.
Institute for Studies in Education.
Porter, L. (1963). Job attitudes in manage-
ment: IV, Perceived deficiencies in need
fulfillment as a function of size of com-
pany. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 47,
141-148.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Carver, F. D. (1975).
THE NEW SCHOOL EXECUTIVE. New York;
Dodd, Mead & Company.
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 1, Number 2 Spring 1990